Jump to content

Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casualty figures wrong

[edit]

The 223 reported killed by the human rights organization surreptitiously matches the number injured Hamas themselves reported, who themselves are unreliable. The article should be updated to estimate the actual number of casualties in neutral language from neutral sources.

https://apnews.com/article/62065d10794d4469a02c4b9d095174eb

Combuchan (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your own citation says 223. The rest of your comment is opinion. If you have reliable sources that provide different numbers then you should provide them. 2600:8802:5913:1700:5875:474C:BE3D:2176 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera quote

[edit]

@W1tchkr4ft 00: This is the interview referenced; as you can see, it was on Al Jazeera Arabic, and translated by MEMRI TV. Further, MEMRI isn't an unreliable source; see WP:RSP, where it is classified as "no consensus" - the same level as other sources used in this article like Mondoweiss. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its a quote taken completely out of context, he is talking about Hamas not agreeing with Fatah on only adopting peaceful resistance, not on the border protests not being peaceful, which isnt something that Hamas even organized. And the "we" he is talking about is not Hamas, it is the news broadcaster. He is saying when you say Hamas is only for peaceful resistance you are not acknowledging that it was force of arms that withstood the occupation in the wars of years past. nableezy - 03:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons MEMRI is such a shit source, you can never trust them on what they portray as the context of what is being translated. And sometimes, you cant trust their translations either. nableezy - 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to leave it out, in that case - the original reason for omission didn't make much sense, but yours does. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting the only reason the way it is cited (citation does not make the claim in the passage) is to avoid citing MEMRI directly, as normal people see that and know it is a dodgy source. At the end of the day you would never ever ever use MEMRI in Academia or in non-partisan press because EVERYONE knows what they do. Think this is worth putting on the record...
Aside form that though not really worth arguing with pro-MEMRI people, they know what the group does, that this is their reason-to-exist and eventually, as always the conversation ends in MEMRI people saying an iteration of their favorite fall back; 'well arabs are like that what do you expect'. Not to be flippant but i have encountered conversed and argued with these people more times than i could count in my life and it rarely if ever deviates from a certain pattern. SP00KYtalk 18:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title.

[edit]

Should we not change the title to 'The (Great) March of Return' because that's..... you know... what literally everybody in the world knows it as..

Current seems like a bizarre choice, to call it by it's common names at least makes it instantly identifiable to most, as opposed to '2018-2019 gaza boarder protests', which does not exactly 'roll of the tongue' so to speak. SP00KYtalk 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent quote

[edit]

In the “Palestinian tactics” section, the following is included:

“In an interview with NPR, one young Palestinian preparing to launch an incendiary kite emblazoned with a swastika explained that they used the symbolism and embraced antisemitism and Nazism so that the Israeli's would know "that we want to burn them".”

When I checked the source, it was a Business Insider article (not NPR) which cites an NPR article, but when I clicked that link to the NPR article, this anecdote is nowhere in it. Therefore the above part should be removed.

I don’t have authority to edit so if someone can do so that would be helpful. 98.14.224.109 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve provided a link to the interview. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this as undue weight on a random Palestinian. If sources say such things were a notable aspect of the protests then sure, but one Palestinian with Nazi sympathies isnt exactly representative of protests that saw tens of thousands of Palestinians join. nableezy - 00:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of swastikas and nazi symbols were widely reported (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc).
Given the wide coverage, it is appropriate to include the comments made by one of the individuals involved - and I note there is much more coverage of this than some of the other content in our article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those all say a single instance of such a thing was seen. A handful of news articles is not wide coverage. This is the definition of undue weight, taking some minor aspect that as proportion of coverage of the topic is infinitesimally small and giving it attention it does not merit. In the universe of sources about the border protests this has approximately 0 weight. nableezy - 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s more coverage than most of the aspects in this article have received. If this is UNDUE, then so is most of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact let’s look at your NYT article. It is focused on the killing of a fifteen year old child by Israeli snipers. And it includes that the Israeli military distributed an image of a kite with a swastika. You give that single sentence a full sentence in the article, but we don’t mention the killing of the 15 year old child that the UN Special Coordinator for the peace process condemned. You take a single sentence out of an article focused on Israel killing a child and then give the weight to that single sentence. nableezy - 01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we don’t mention the killing of the 15 year old child that the UN Special Coordinator for the peace process condemned. Yes, we do; 2018–2019 Gaza border protests#20 April
Does that, combined with the fact that the NYT article is just one of several that I've provided, address your concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it’s mentioned, but no that does not. The NYT devotes an entire article to that event and within it a single sentence to the IDF releasing a photo of a single kite. No, those should not be given the same weight. If anything the 15 year old kid should be given something like 10x the weight as this, which would make this worth, again, about 0 weight. nableezy - 09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We give five sentences to the boy, we can afford one for this, particularly most content in the article is far less significant as the boy; for example, we include a quote from Sir Stephen Sedley, but as far as I can tell there is no coverage of it in independent, reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this lone Palestinian with a kite emblazoned with a swastika merits inclusion and I do not think the sourcing for it shows it has weight. If other things lack weight to include they can also be removed. But this is a straightforward attempt at emphasizing a minor aspect that has close to 0% coverage in sources about this topic as a whole. We have reached the point where scholarly works are written about the Great March of Return, and how much weight do any of them give this? Health and Human Rights Journal, never mentioned for example. You are taking a set of news articles, for which there are thousands and thousands about this topic, and emphasizing a handful about a single Palestinian. One of them is an interview, which doesn’t show any weight, another gives one sentence to an IDF piece of propaganda, and the others regurgitate each other. nableezy - 09:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let’s look at the France24 article. It says The kites are part of a new tactic aimed at setting fields on the Israeli side on fire. Most kites showed the colors of the Palestinian flag. One white kite bore a Nazi swastika. In an article again focused on Palestinians being killed. But you are claiming that this single kite that it devotes a single sentence to should be included here? nableezy - 09:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC
Considering everything else we include in our article, yes; it would be a WP:BALASP violation given that most of the content of this article is less significant, has received less coverage. If you want to gut this article of everything that is of equal or lower significance than the use of these kites, go ahead - but until then, this content needs to be included.
Note that Swastika kites in relation to this protest were also used in Europe
In addition, it wasn't a lone Palestinian with a single kite; according to our sources (including Mondoweiss) there have been multiple examples of this, in addition to the use of Nazi symbolism in formats outside of kites. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a BALASP violation to give attention to this minor detail that even contemporary news articles treat as a minor detail. I also fail to see the relevance of a protest in Europe to an article on protests in Gaza. nableezy - 10:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it; we obviously aren't going to agree - if you want to remove it, please open an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One swallow doesn't make a spring. In a series of demonstrations that lasted well over a year, where upwards of 220 unarmed protesters were gunned down by safely ensconced snipers, and hundreds of incendiary kites were launched, rare examples of the emblazoning of a Nazi symbol on a few of them mean little in the overall context. I would suggest that this minor devil in the minutiae of details be given a footnote. It is certainly not appropriate to the overall narrative, which tries, rather inefficiently, to address the core facts of those demonstrations. Trying to tar them with an antisemitic brush by innuendo is cheap.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The core facts include that antisemitic imagery were used by some protestors - and I note that the protests were endorsed and heavily supported by an antisemitic organization. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note what you like, but this is undue weight and I’ve removed it per NPOV. nableezy - 10:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as your status quo claim, you added this some 50 edits ago. That it was not noticed at the time doesnt give your addition consensus for inclusion, and unless you can point to some explicit consensus for it on this talk page WP:ONUS still requires consensus for challenged material. nableezy - 16:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

[edit]

This entire excerpt at the end of the 5th paragraph might be false or made up (it is missing a citation so it's hard to tell) :

"In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of the 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analyzed, only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces. The commission deemed the rest of the cases illegal, and concluded with a recommendation calling on Israel to examine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity had been committed, and if so, to bring those responsible to trial. "

I looked at the UN reports and the press releases, and none of them mention anything regarding "489" cases, or the 2 justified ones. Here are the reports from the UN : https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-iopt/report2018-opt Here are the direct PDFs to the 2 reports : 1. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoIOPT/A_HRC_40_74.pdf 2. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf

I tried googling the 489 number that I saw, and the 2 justified killing number but I couldn't find anything. All of the mentions of the 489 number cite Wikipedia as the source of the claim. I suggest you guys look into this one. Thanks! Borlock (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by Nishidani in February 2019. Nishindani, do you remember what the source of that number is? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No response -  Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: @Nishidani: I have found the source so this can be restored. [1]
"The commission investigated all 189 fatalities and tracked more than 300 injuries caused by the Israeli security forces at the demonstration sites and during the demonstrations. With the exception of one incident in North Gaza on 14 May that may have amounted to “direct participation in hostilities” and one incident in Central Gaza on 12 October that may have constituted an “imminent threat to life or serious injury” to the Israeli security forces, the commission found reasonable grounds to believe that, in all other cases, the use of live ammunition by Israeli security forces against demonstrators was unlawful." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Get well soon! Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it back with that source. You know more about this area than I do - I'm just the grunt doing the work of responding to long-stale edit requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I see it already has been - no objection. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No consensus on whether either of the titles is the WP:COMMONNAME or which one is more neutral. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – In this requested move discussion, I am adding even more RS to the overwhelming majority that have already been provided in the last one on 12 October 2023.

Per WP:POVNAME guideline:

Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results, including overwhelming majority of RS!

Sources provided earlier: The Guardian, BBC, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, a human rights journal, United Nations, and many scholarly works [2], [3].

New sources since then: Vice, The Lancet , The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Sage Journals, Middle East Eye, Reporters Without Borders, Carnegie, Democracy Now, Btselem, Dawn media.

More sources since beginning of discussion: Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post.

Precedent: Only a minority of these RS say Great March of Return in quotes; my response to that counter argument is The Troubles example: they are still being referred to in quotes even 25 years later by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Also Kristallnacht [4]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing these sources, I'm not seeing Only a minority of these RS [saying] Great March of Return in quotes. Can you link the ones you believe are using the phrase in their own voice?
Also, in regards to your google search evidence, a couple of points:
  1. Gaza border protests is a descriptive title; we don't need or expect a significant number of results
  2. The vast majority of sources that come from a standard google search are unreliable
  3. WP:GOOGLELIMITS means the result count is often widely inaccurate and can't be relied on
BilledMammal (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, RS don't have to use the phrase in their own voice to be counted as a WP:COMMONNAME, which is the relevant Wikipedia naming guideline; and as evidenced by The Troubles example, which is still referred to in quotes in coverage 25 years later. Overwhelming majority of the sources mentioned above citing Great March of Return are reliable, and according to WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, RS don't have to use the phrase in their own voice to be counted as a WP:COMMONNAME

For it to meet WP:POVNAME it does - see Use-mention distinction. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite incorrect, WP:POVNAME guideline doesn't say anything of the sort; and this argument is also refuted by The Troubles and Kristallnacht articles, which are still referred to in quotes by modern RS. [5] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name Great March of Return is used in a significant majority of English-language sources, as meticulously demonstrated above; also exactly like The Troubles and Kristallnacht. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned, not used. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a correct interpretation of the guideline as evidenced by the Troubles and Kristallnacht. This hairsplitting doesn't negate the overwhelming majority of RS presented above. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent - and I'm not convinced that in the case of the Troubles and Kristallnacht a significant majority of English-language sources do not use those names - discussions on those articles talk pages suggest they do. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a strawman argument, as nobody said WP operates on precedent. The guideline does not make this distinction, nor it has ever been interpreted this way on WP. I am not convinced that these are valid reasons to oppose; I would have expected greater respect for WP guidelines, especially given the growing usage of this name in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the above; even in the sample presented here it is not used in a significant majority of English-language sources, and use is even lower in a general sample of reliable sources on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it has usage right? Which is one thing we can't really say with confidence for the current title. This is not an argument in defense of the status quo. What's the sample of reliable sources? The proposed title seems highly prevalent in scholarly literature (see my main comment below). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In less than half of the presented sources, when WP:POVNAME requires a significant majority. The current title is a neutral descriptive title; I don’t see any justification here to move from it to a non-neutral title.BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the nominator may think that guideline is relevant, I am not convinced that it has been established that this is a POVNAME, not least given it's widespread usage without caveats in diverse news and scholarly sources. I can't see anyone quoting a source establishing that this name is especially problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that a majority of the presented sources do use it with caveats, I think it’s pretty evident that it’s not an uncontroversial name - to put it another way, we can’t use it in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of which sources? This isn't a pattern obvious in the scholarly sources. If you are referring to news sources from 2018 and 2019, well those are getting pretty dated by now in comparison to the scholarly rights ups, which we should at this point be deferring to. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is simply not used universally enough to justify it as a common name. Many reliable sources continue to primarily use other terms (see below). It might one day become such a common name, like your example The Troubles, and then we should revise the title. For now, I don't see the evidence for it. And to delve a little into Makeandtoss's arguments:
    • Comparing the numbers of Google hits is fraught. There are many variations of "Gaza border protests," while "March of Return" is usually used verbatim. Of course it's going to have more Google results. Googling a more general phrase, "2018 Gaza protests" (without quotes), comes up with lots of sources that don't use the term other than to note that's what organizers were calling it.
    • About half of your sources – Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, "a human rights journal," United Nations, Reporters Without Borders, Democracy Now, Btselem – are not reliable, independent sources as Wikipedia considers the term. Some of them are even listed as controversial at Perennial Sources. It does not detract from the important work of human rights organizations to admit that they're unlikely to be neutral in a conflict as one-sided as the one described by this page.
    • Independent of that, as others have pointed out, a lot of the cited sources do use "March of return" in quotations. --Tserton (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tserton: While I disagree that the world's leading human rights groups are biased (Amnesty International is reliable per WP [6]); and that using the name in quotations makes a difference (as noted in coverage about the Troubles); I will nevertheless respond to your arguments. The following non-human rights affiliated groups do not use Great March of Return in quotations and are all high quality reliable sources: CNN, Vice, BBC, France24, The Independent, The Time, The Nation, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Science Direct paper, Research Gate article, NIH paper, The Lancet paper, SageJournals paper. This shows how widespread the usage of the name in overwhelming majority of sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not putting it in quotations isn't the same thing as using it in its own voice; for example called the March of Return, named The Great March of Return, and dubbed the Great March of Return - most of your sources are mentions, not uses. BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline is clear regarding usage, not usage in their own voice. Newspapers and mass media's role is to report not to give their opinions and name designations. This is not required by the guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's very easy to find examples from all of those sources that don't use the term at all. CNN, Vice, BBC, France24, The Independent...I won't go through all the ones you mentioned, but perhaps you get my point? If this were truly a common name, it would not be so easy to find articles from every major source that don't use it without qualifications. (And to your point about Amnesty International, its reliability is explicitly mentioned for facts on the ground, which are not in dispute here.) Tserton (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tserton: Please note that the CNN article you provided is not about the 2018 protests; the Vice link is misinserted it seems; BBC, France24 and the Independent articles you cited are all in 2018, while the sources I provided are from 2019, showing that this name became more common after the protests. This actually reinforces the argument for moving the page rather than negate it since the WP:POVNAME guideline excludes: "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". As for Amnesty, it is a fact on the ground what the common name of these protests was. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tserton: Amnesty is GREL at WP:RSP – what do you mean by stating that it is not reliable and independent? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read the consensus at RSP (Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.) is that Amnesty International is safe to use for hard facts – for instance, the number of casualties in a conflict or the details of a certain event. But we should be more careful about adopting its precise wording (as in this case with the name of this protest). Tserton (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per @BilledMammal. This is a perennial request by the same editor. Nothing has changed since the last RM (less than 6 months ago). estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how 11 new reliable sources is "nothing" changed, but okay. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the news. This has moved into scholarly literature now, where the term has widespread currency without any parentheses or caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: What we have here is an extremely prevalent title (to the point of being borderline common name) versus a Wikipedia-specific, design-by-committee descriptive title that has little real world currency. Does anyone call it "2018–2019 Gaza border protests"? Barely, not least because double-barreled dates are awful. Even the Jewish Virtual Library calls it the "Great March of Return" [7] ... as do journals: the Journal of Palestinian Studies, the medical journal Health and Human Rights (a MEDRS source), the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (Elsevier), etc. (dozens) It appears in titular form in many of these, as well as in the body. By contrast, the current descriptive title has about two trivial uses in scholarly sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the statements made above, the name is primarily used not in their own voice or by biased sources, and most importantly, there is no significant change that justifies this request since the last one. FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: You posted this comment immediately after I noted the widespread and diverse usage in scholarly outlets (and the Jewish Virtual Library). Please could you explain how these instances are not in their own voice or by biased sources, because I see this supposition as plainly in violation of the evidence before the jury. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JVL is not considered RS, as far as I know.
Of the top 4 by citation, the first one is from an organisers perspective, the second one refers to mass resistance, and third one is primarily from researchers associated with the Hamas-linked Islamic University of Gaza or the Hamas-linked Gaza Health Ministry which are very likely to biased (not necessarily unreliable), and the fourth one is from Rosalux.
Another one calls it anti-colonial violence, which I wouldn’t refer to as neutral either. FortunateSons (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: Please don't cast aspersions on institutions of higher learning using the tawdry language of the tabloids. If you think you have a valid source complaint, take it to RSN. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not arguing (here) that they are per se and always unreliable. That being said, there is a clear bias from the source that is hard to dispute IMO, and the links of both at least with the political part seem to be pretty clear. FortunateSons (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, also, what does the phrase "mass resistance" have to do with anything? You're referring to the MEDRS publication co-written by an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying it’s unreliable, I am pointing to another instance of clear POV language FortunateSons (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is "mass resistance" POV? Right to resist = Int. law Iskandar323 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resistance and Terrorism in regards to actions are often POV terms, protest is neutral. FortunateSons (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean freedom fighting and terrorism? Resistance isn't a synonym for political violence; it's a term that includes both peaceful and violent resistance, and has long been elucidated in resistance theory within political theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom fighting is a more explicit issue, but groups consider themselves resistance groups while being considered terrorist groups by others, example: [1]
The practical distinction is generally on legitimacy (while at least sometimes considered to be able to coexist in academic sources [1]) at least in common/colloquial use, such as [1][2][3]
The issue with resistance is the implied legitimacy, which is a generally unproblematic position for much (though not all) of the protests (depending on your assessment and reading of the highly complex legal and moral situation) FortunateSons (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism is used as a POV term for resistance that is deemed to be less legitimate as opposed to "legitimate resistance" – resistance is the category of political behaviour, and "terrorism" is the POV colouring of it as illegitimate, just as "freedom fighting" is the POV colouring of it as righteous. MOS:TERRORIST contains these POV colourings, but nowhere "resistance fighter". Those that specifically want to frame actions as "legitimate resistance" do so by using those exact words, not by using the naked word "resistance" as a proxy for "legitimate resistance". Attempting to characterise a source as bias or POV merely for using the term "mass resistance" is a nonsensical position to take. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked ADL source clearly lists examples where resistance is used without the word legitimate to legitimise “terrorist” actions, and the first source at least indicated that common usage considers resistance to be a term that excludes the category of terrorist.
There are neutral terms and resistance is not one of them. That being said, we are both moving to far off topic, and it’s unlikely to be productive beyond this point, so I will likely disengage from this facet of the discussion to keep it on topic. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at WP:RS (aside from the obvious fact of the ADL being a loathsome lobby group disguised as a group giving the faintest shit about civil rights): "Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." Frankly, it's an aberration that it is even considered tentatively GREL with attribution and caution. But more broadly, if the ADL is the best source you have something, you don't have a good source for that something at all. The last thing the ADL should ever be is a standalone go-to source. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you might need a translation for some, but here are some others
FortunateSons (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine there was a need to resort to German sources for a reason - Germany being a country with a well-known as particularly odd and warped take on this conflict. Better to listen to B'Tselem itself, which is one of the most impressive and serious civil rights groups in Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s my native language, I’m unfortunately unable to provide you with sources in languages in which I am not fluid (unless you are going for Russian or my limited skills in some other languages, non of which are useful here). Considering B’Tselem is having internal issues including over the use of the language at hand and you considering it to be “ one of the most impressive and serious civil rights groups in Israel.”, I would consider the use to be non-neutral. FortunateSons (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the way in which I consider the group factor into the way in which you perceive it exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that may be a phrasing issue on my end: if we both consider the group respectable and the group is divided over the use, it therefore follows that at least one respectable group found the word resistance to be divisive. FortunateSons (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this means you also think The Lancet is inadmissible? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem in theory, better language use, so I’m more agnostic on them compared to some of the others. They refer to them as Great March of Return (GMR) Gaza Strip border protests in 2018–19., so one could count them as at least a partial vote for your side, though someone may reasonably disagree based on the links to the same institutions. FortunateSons (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would someone please do a source analysis, since just searching does not really clarify things much.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - given the number of sources that explicitly say that this is what this event is known as, we do not need to engage in the bit of OR that is widely used on WP, that of trying to determine the supposed common name. When we have sources that explicitly say "this is what this event is known as" we take them at their word, and a Wikipedia editor arguing with those sources would be laughed out of the room for any other discussion, and the same should hold here. When the BBC says the event is dubbed the Great March of Return, and no sources are presented that directly contradict that, then we can accept that this is the name of the event. nableezy - 15:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The title must reflect the essence of the article as clearly as possible, be the most understandable, recognizable and least ambiguous for most readers, and all this must be confirmed by reliable sources.
When we read the first line in the preamble we may see: “a series of demonstrations held each Friday in the Gaza Strip near the Gaza-Israel border from 30 March 2018 until 27 December 2019, in which Israeli forces killed a total of 223 Palestinians”. There is nothing about any description of a marching activity. When I first learned the term “Great March of Return” from this article and after reading it, I honestly had associations with the movie about the penguins. How the anti-Israel protests of Palestinians on the Israeli border are a march of return is not entirely clear to those who are not in the know. Hamas did not return anywhere, and as can be seen from the article, it tried to attack a neighboring state with casualties on both sides. Here the name with the march is inevitably misleading.
We need to choose a name in such a way that we try to stay as neutral as possible while at the same time following the RS.
Analysis of the sources showed that the name with the march is present does not prevail. It is unfamiliar, incorrectly covers the topic and is too pompous and adventurous for reality and non-neutral for Wikipedia.
The fact that there is no “march” as part of the actual article name in both Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia is also an argument in honor of the fact that if we will rename to the “march” we would get an original name, which, although found in the sources, does not predominate in them at all. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like reading Pig War (1859) and thinking it was a fight between armed pigs. This has nothing to do with the fact, as demonstrated above, the Great March of Return is a common name in majority of RS, and in compliance with the relevant WP guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The suggested name is not the most common name used by English-language WP:RS and certainly not used by a significant majority of English-language sources as required in order to overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Marokwitz (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per BilledMammal, Oleg Y., and Marokwitz. GidiD (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would still like to see a full source analysis but it seems not to be necessary when we have sources (besides all those already presented) such as:
CNN, "The latest confrontations came after weeks of Palestinian protests, known as the Great March of Return,.."
Wiley, Drawing from an analysis of the Great March of Return, a series of mass demonstrations in the Gaza Strip in 2018 and 2019,.
The Great March of Return, a mass resistance movement begun in March 2018, initially provided a positive impact on community mental health via a sense of agency, hope, and unprecedented community mobilization.
So that's a couple journals and a topdrawer newsorg, without trying too hard, it's difficult to avoid the impression that the !votes are Israeli POV determined. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ADL calls it the Great March of Return, so even Israeli POV isn't opposing to this naturally common name. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the initial protests, when this page was created, that's how they were referred to, the Gaza protests. Then in 2019, the Chair of the UN investigation report on the protests said "The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law" which was picked up by RS and has been used frequently, including in scholarly sources, ever since. It is also sometimes referred to by its full title, Later, during the 2018 civilian protests, known as the Great March of Return and the Breaking of the Siege. There is no dispute over the usage itself as it is already an aka, just a question of which is prevalent and it seems to me that GMoR carries the day. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—*Update: New sources on almost a daily basis since this discussion has been reopened; Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post! Some editors are clearly continuing to oppose this move without basing any of their argument on WP guidelines; or providing conflicting sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely not trying to be confrontational here. I understand this is an extremely loaded issue that triggers strong emotions. But it is possible for people on both sides of it to hold sincere, well reasoned opinions on the matter. The question at hand is just genuinely very complicated. From most of the reliable sources you've listed below (and you have to admit that not all of them are reliable for the question at hand), there are articles that support the opposite point of view (you and I had just such an exchange above that quickly became a back-and-forth about minutiae). I'm not accusing you of deliberately cherry-picking your sources – it's easy to find articles that use the proposed name without quotes. But it's also easy to find articles – recent ones, too – that don't use it at all, or only with quotes. Tserton (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Makeandtoss
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Vice: “another project: weekly Great March of Return protests” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
The Nation: “organized the unarmed Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Foreign Affairs: “dubbed the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
BBC: “known as the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
Middle East Eye: “began the Great March of Return protest movement” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Al Jazeera: “mass protests dubbed the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
The Guardian: "echoes the “Great March of Return” protests" Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
Human Rights Watch: “amid the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Amnesty International: “launched the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Makeandtoss
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Médecins Sans Frontières: “injured in the Great March of Return protests” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
United Nations: “became known as The Great March of Return (GMR)” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
Reporters Without Borders: “while they were covering the March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Carnegie: “during the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Democracy Now: “covering Gaza’s peaceful Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Btselem: “Investigations of the Great March of Return Protests” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Dawn Media: “known as the Great March of Return.” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
Forensic Architecture: “known as the Great March of Return.” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
Stanford published book: “known as the Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the common name Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Makeandtoss
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Bloomsbury published book: “Great March of Return began on” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Science Direct: “injured during the Great March of Return (GMR)” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Sage Journal: “the case of Gaza’s Great March of Return” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
NIH published journal: “The Great March of Return, a mass resistance movement” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
The Lancet: “patients after the Great March of Return demonstrations” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
BMC Psychology journal: “2023 the Great March of Return demonstrations” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Journal of Palestine Studies: “The Great March of Return: An Organizer's Perspective” Yes Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✔ Yes
Jewish Virtual Library: “The Great March of Return” Yes ? uses the common name as the topic name Yes ? Unknown
Jerusalem Post: “the 6th anniversary of the March of Return riots.” Yes ? uses the name in its own voice; albeit with a POV; “riots” Yes ? Unknown
March of Return: “March of Return” Yes ? uses the common name as the topic name Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Makeandtoss
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs “the organizers of the March of Return announced” No Yes uses the name in its own voice Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Summary: 20 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return in its own voice; 10 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return as the common name; 2 Israeli sources uses the common name as the topic name; and eventually and most importantly the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself uses the name in its own voice! The evidence is overwhelming and the WP:COMMONNAME guideline is fulfilled. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was your methodology for producing this table? Did you merely look for sources that include the term "Great March of Return", or did you attempt to identify articles that discuss this topic and then determine whether they use the term? I suspect the former, given you didn't find any that didn't mention the term despite us knowing many such sources to exist, making this source analysis not particularly useful for determining whether the name is used - it's just cherry picking.
In other words, I could produce a similar table of sources that don't use the term, but it wouldn't prove anything more than your table has. What you need to do is use a neutral methodology to find relevant sources, and assess what they call this event - I did a brief search looking for the border protests, and a majority of the sources I found did not use the proposed name, although a more in depth search may find a different result. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 20 RS, including numerous journals, alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Jewish Virtual Library are an abundant selection. I'm sure the term was searched for, but the point here was to demonstrate widespread neutral usage, which it does. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could produce a similar table We'll wait for that then. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don’t think it would be any more useful than the table that Makeandtoss produced, but if it would be sufficient to convince you that your !vote is wrong, I’m happy to produce it - let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Israeli ministry of propaganda affairs uses the term – wow! That's a remarkable revelation. Pretty much a slam dunk in establishing highly universal and extremely NPOV usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source-assess template was designed for establishing notability of a subject during deletion debates, where the existence of even a few reliable sources with significant coverage is enough to establish notability. I'm not trying to dismiss the work you've clearly put into it, and I appreciate that you're trying to root this discussion in sources, but the approach isn't well suited for establishing a common name, since it's easy to find instances from most of these sources supporting the exact opposite. I've gathered examples from the first nine solidly reliable sources from your list here. (Skipping the governmental websites and human rights organizations, which, let's be honest, are probably going to find it difficult to be neutral on a topic like this – although a couple that I cursorily checked did have some articles not using "March of Return"). My table doesn't prove that "2018 March of Return" isn't a common name – I'm just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of digging up individual sources and then claiming a "preponderance" of sources. --Tserton (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add (WP:NOTAFORUM and all that, but bear with me): it's difficult to read these articles and not be affected by them. The protests were mostly peaceful and largely righteous, and most people would agree that Israel's response to the violence that did happen was, at the very least, disproportionate. It is possible to believe all of these things and still be convinced that, on the narrow and technical matter of Wikipedia's choice of name for the protests, the name proposed here isn't widely enough used to override POV concerns. Tserton (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are important WP:AGEMATTERS considerations here. The proposed name is less frequently used or more commonly bracketed in quotation marks in 2018-2019 sources, i.e. initial reporting when the name had not become established. In 2023, it is far more common for sources to either directly use the proposed title or use s "commonly known as/dubbed" formula, precisely because at this point the name has become established. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 @Tserton: This point has already been discussed and it was pointed out that this just further strengthens the move request rather than weaken it because the sources mentioning the common name are newer. This is perfectly in line with WP:NPOVNAME which gives an exception for: "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". This is clearly not the case; the name is being increasingly remembered and connected with the issue years later, including in journals and news articles. Given your comment was clearly made in good faith, I am now certain that you will be ready to support this move given the overwhelming usage of this name by majority of high quality reliable sources (as well as less reliable Israeli ones), and the fact that this move in completely in line with Wikipedia guideline of NPOVNAME. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 again. The attempt to rubbish the source table is pretty dismal and the argument the name proposed here isn't widely enough used to override POV concerns fallacious. Selfstudier (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Tserton
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Vice Yes No Does not mention "March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
The Nation Yes No Does not mention "March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
Foreign Affairs Yes No Uses "March of Return" only in quotes not applicable ✘ No
BBC Yes No Uses "March of Return" only in quotes not applicable ✘ No
Middle East Eye Yes No Does not mention "Great March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
Al-Jazeera Yes No Does not mention "March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
The Guardian Yes No Does not mention "Great March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
Reporters Without Borders Yes No Mentions "Great March of Return" only in quotes not applicable ✘ No
Carnegie Endowment Yes No Does not mention "Great March of Return" not applicable ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source UN report

[edit]

Unless I'm mistaken we use a very abbreviated version (a summary that is a 10th of the original) of the Report of the detailed findings of the independent international Commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory A/HRC/40/CRP.2 Human Rights Council 18 March 2019. The latter is the proper source, and, using it, much of the newspaper sourcing used here could be dispensed with. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit request for the section "7-8 august"

[edit]

"reported than 180 rockets" should be "reported more than 180 rockets" Chairibum (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

[edit]

In the beginning of the “tactics” section under the subsection “Palestinian Tactics” is says that the International Rescue Committee reported that the protests where largely peaceful. However the source to the statement is from Nathan Thrall at the International Crisis Group and not from the International Rescue Committee.

I would like to suggest the text to be changed so that the text states that the International Crisis Groups reported that the protest were mostly peaceful and not the International Rescue Committee since that is in line with the source. Jjoonnii (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for catching this! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
Nathan Thrall apparently has a wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Thrall. Since it is not clear from the source if the international crisis group had observers on the ground maybe “Nathan Thrall from the International Crisis Group” would be a better wording. With a hyperlink to Nathan Thralls wikipedia page.(I am new to wikipedia so i don’t know how to do hyperlinks) Jjoonnii (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamas struggled to" ??? in Background section

[edit]

There is a word missing in the sentence "Hamas struggled to Gaza, and the new leadership under Yahya Sinwar ..." in the Background section. This should be changed to something like: a) "Hamas struggled to rule Gaza, and the new leadership etc" or perhaps b) "Hamas struggled in Gaza, and the new leadership etc" PJQ33 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests&oldid=1261383750"