Jump to content

Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Durdyfiv1 (talk | contribs)
85 edits
→Small edits: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1,110: Line 1,110:


Editors are making a meal out of avoid bold for the opening sentence. Although I agree that a strictly descriptive name probably ought not to be bolded, it does seem that this is being used as an excuse to rephrase and make other adjustments to the lead sentence.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Editors are making a meal out of avoid bold for the opening sentence. Although I agree that a strictly descriptive name probably ought not to be bolded, it does seem that this is being used as an excuse to rephrase and make other adjustments to the lead sentence.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

== Small edits ==

Second paragraph should read 'right-wing' as opposed to 'Far-Right' Jewish nationalists - it is a large march which encompasses Jews from various levels on the spectrum. Does source specifically say 'far-right'?

First sentence of third paragraph reads as if Israel should have been expected to accept the ultimatum issued, perhaps consider restructuring the sentence.

Finally please change 'airstrikes on Gaza' to 'on targets in Gaza'. Israel didn't 'strike Gaza', that surely breaches impartiality guidelines. [[User:Durdyfiv1|Durdyfiv1]] ([[User talk:Durdyfiv1|talk]]) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:43, 19 May 2021

In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2021.


Requested move 13 May 2021

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis → 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict – Articles say it escalated into a conflict, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/israel-palestine-conflict-live-updates-a-scary-night-for-all-as-gaza-and-israel-strikes-escalate-9277851.htm/amp, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-sending-official-to-tamp-down-soaring-israel-palestine-conflict/2239163, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091852 Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a crisis suggests decision and resolution. This situation has been tolerated to smolder or occasionally to flame since 1948. To mark the situation as a crisis is wishful thinking, at best proven in time to be a lucky guess. 77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is spread throughout Gaza, Israel and east jerusalem so 2021 Gaza conflict doesn’t sound preferable if we’re going to use that name. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sustained campaign of bombardment by both sides that has lasted for several days, it is not intermittent skirmishing but now a full blown armed conflict between the parties. See also my comments below, the use of the proposed title is the normal manner in which these sorts of articles are titled until they are given more formal names by sources outside wikipedia. For examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict pages.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If sources begin referring to these events in some consistent way, I would be happy to follow them. Meanwhile, what is the hurry? It's been a week.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the requested move discussions you referenced resulted in the current title that the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has and the resulted in labeling the 2020 conflict there as a war. So that "direction" is a perfect example. I know, because I too was involved in both move discussions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Holmes, Oliver. "Israel ground troops begin attack on Gaza Strip, military says". Microsoft News. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
​ You can only !vote once. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbpia, non ec editors may not participate in formal discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note if anyone wants to know the number of people opposing this article name being changed and the number of people supporting the name being changed, its 16 supporting and 12 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

  • Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is clearly more than just a crisis, conflict would better describe the situation. User3749 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as this is more than simply a crisis and it appears to be an active military conflict. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To extent this a little bit, I'm increasingly seeing a WP:COMMONNAME argument develop based off of reporting on the issue. International media appears to widely be terming this a conflict (NYT WaPo, NBC, CNN, WSJ, BBC, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, DW, France 24, etc). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • Ground forces have not crossed the border
      • The element of internal riots and such holds ambiguity, as in some cases it involves exchanges of gun fire, on other cases it is merely protests and clashes with police.
        • The whole event is composed of very different sub-events, such as the Mosque police clash, disorder in towns such as Lod, et cetera, and also the Gaza hostilities - which are of a different vain and more describable as a conflict rather than crisis. The fact that this event composes these different elements is a good argument for keeping the title as crisis. --Ester9001 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC) This editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too early to decide. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Multiple reliable sources have begun calling it a conflict or something similar, facing criticism since "clashes" and similar terms have been deemed too neutral. For people saying it is too early or too soon, I point to this: multiple sources already say this conflict is worse than 2014. And what is the 2014 conflict article called? It's called 2014 Gaza War. With thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, dozens of Palestinians dead, Israel using chemical weapons, and a ground invasion of Gaza looking not too fictitious, I feel like this is worthy of being called a conflict, and fear it escalating into something much worse. In addition, crisis refers to something that has the potential of escalating into something much more dangerous, and, in this case, the content being covered seems to be a crisis of the second degree. (Al-Aqsa storming + Sheikh Jarrah eviction/protests being the crisis -> The current situation being a conflict/second-degree crisis signalling a war -> A potential war similar to that of 2014). I believe we have entered the "conflict" stage, and support this move. My only misgiving is the potential confusion with Israeli–Palestinian conflict. AccordingClass (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is turning out to be a war. Its more than a conflict or a crisis. At the worst its a civil war. I mean, they're launching rockets and missile and each other! UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is going to escalate into a war very soon. It is likely to be called the Israel-Palestine war soon. The military intervention of Lebanon and Syria exacerbates all this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/14/israel-says-rocket-attacks-from-syria-in-the-north-amid-gaza-fighting-in-south/?sh=3c909c645c2d --AmazonBooker (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — AmazonBooker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, the editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested moves per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)<[reply]
  • Support - Far beyond a crisis at this point. Temeku (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while there is now extreme armed conflict, the article describes numerous things besides just military conflict including the assaults on palestinians and the protests and police suppression. Crisis is a better term for now and we should bide our time to change that. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_RandomCanadian for why the above should be allowed to stand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am counting 17 yea and 13 nay. This is good to change. Some recent opposes are now calling it a war, which is the next step after crisis->conflict->war. Albertaont (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Formal discussions are not decided solely on the basis of a votecount, I suggest we just wait for a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still too early for that. If I was pressed for a close at this point the only thing I could do was say "no consensus" because all of the above !votes are statements of personal preference and there's very little external sources or Wikipedia policy (which is available at WP:CRITERIA) used to show the alleged change in usage (the few sources presented are unclear whether they refer to "conflict" as in the current situation or as in the already existing situation - one can just as easily find sources which use "crisis" Beebs or which don't use either term Grauniad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It is more fitting to say this is a crisis or standoff phase that is obviously a part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With context, you can't really have an Israeli–Palestinian conflict within an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The way I see this title changing in the future is if this series of events eventually spirals into what can officially be called a Third Intifada or, more likely, something like the 2014 Gaza War, which saw a similar environment of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. With the way things are going between Hamas and the IDF, I'm expecting this crisis to be dubbed as a full-scale war. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seeing the footage of missiles and air strikes, as well as civilian casualties, it seems more of a conflict than a crisis to be honest. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support definitely not a crisis anymore, I've seen more and more sources describing it as a conflict. However, this might become a war so we should still wait to change the title in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count Update : The current number of people supporting the article name being changed is 18 and the current number of people who do not want the article name changed is 14. BigRed606 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict began the morning of January 1st 2021, but this article is only about more recent events. I would wait for sources to give this a name or change to something more appropriate like 2021 War on Palestinians, although that is a bit risky as sources may be scared of being bombed if they don't give a pro-Israeli name to the violence. Of 19 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it does down, it may be seen in hindsight as being less than a crisis, if it regatta further (I hope not!) it will end up being teenaged war. I day wait and see and don't be too hasty and to discussed about selecting the perfect name. Dovid (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has its own article; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades. When there are notable escalations, they receive their own article titles that clearly distinguish them as a more notable period of escalation within the overarching, elongated conflict. Calling this article "the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict", then, implies a disconnect between the other article and this article - as if this is a new conflict when in fact, this is an escalation of a conflict which was ongoing prior to this and likely will be ongoing after this escalation has ended. For this reason, the proposed title is misleading, and "crisis" is much better suited. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Count Update: Support:- 18, Oppose:-17 Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

War between two countries is one thing. Here we have a combination of (a) a civil uprising against the occupying power in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; (b) internecine riots between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities in Israel, and (c) a war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In previous cases, when (c) broke out we rightly called it a war (2008/9) 2014 etc. In this case, we are placing (a) and (b) as aspects of a larger state of war. War refers to a situation where both sides, with their respective armies and militias, are engaged in exchanges of deadly firepower, which is not the case in (a) and (b) The support votes are inadvertently making a category error by confounding three different types of conflict, which are handled differently. Israel is not bombing the West Bank or East Jerusalem, nor is the disarmed population there or its 'leadership' in Ramallah countering with mortars and the use of its military to fight back. Idem for the internal situation in Israel. To conflate the three under one rubric is to characterize (a) and (b) as wars, which civil disturbances put down by police forces (Palestinian and Israeli) are not, technically. Indeed, according to Nathan Thrall, the PLO security forces are actively engaged in repressing the upsurge in protests in the West Bank, wherever they have some measure of jurisdiction.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

  • Comment: REMINDER
Please make sure your account is extended-confirmed (30/500) at WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED before expressing your approval/disapproval of the request. Click the aforementioned link and check if the blurb says "Your account is extended confirmed." A registered editor becomes extended-confirmed automatically when the account is both at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits (including deleted edits). In addition, please refrain from posting "Count Updates" and the like, since Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for consensus. Finally, editors who have already expressed their opinions regarding the request are encouraged to engage in conversations with other users, since consensus is built and not expressed. AccordingClass (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I believe it has at least escalated into one. Mynamz (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might now be worth assembling a section of say 10 top sources and see what they are calling it on a day to day basis, not in the headline but in the body of the source. Ideally we want more analysis type articles rather than the short news cycle type (latest atrocity, etc).Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It has evolved into a conflict, and it could become even worse. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong oppose Since I feel too involved, let's at least give my 2 cents. WP:CRITERIA tells us that titles need to be recognisable, unambiguous, concise and consistent. As far as precision and recognisability are concerned, I'm not convinced by any of the statements of personal opinion that "this has evolved into a conflict". If anything, this is a flare-up of a pre-existing conflict. Sources seem to be ambiguous on this, using both "crisis" and "conflict" [10][11]. I note that many sources, beyond the headline, don't seem to mention either term (for ex. the Grauniad uses "hostilities"). This brings us to our internal policies regarding concision and consistency. Neither of the proposed variants is more concise than the other so that's that. It leaves us with consistency. Noting that the existing articles on the broader dispute are already at Israel–Palestine conflict and Gaza–Israel conflict, using 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict for this would be misleading (implying there are two different "conflicts" when in fact one is just an episode of the other) and inconsistent (note that articles on previous outbreaks of this tend not to use either "conflict" or "crisis"). Therefore, the proposed title is not an improvement. I'd strongly support a move-moratorium until the dust settles and reliable sources have had more time to write, with calmer heads, on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reliable sources name this as a conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (4)

Add clarifying information in the lead as to why Israel targeted "multiple apartment buildings."

It seems somewhat disingenuous to state, "Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings" without mentioning the context that is provided in the very source being cited:

"Israel has said it's targeting buildings where Hamas — the militant group that controls Gaza — stores weapons or has offices. Civilians were warned to evacuate before the strikes, the Israeli military said on Wednesday."

https://www.businessinsider.com/videos-show-israeli-airstrikes-leveling-gaza-apartment-buildings-2021-5


My point is that this feels like an intentional omission.

I recommend including the full context, or removing the "apartment" from "apartment building." Srirachachacha (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full context should include what both sides said, shouldn't it? Or we could describe the buildings that were hit, look at the CNN source for information.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One should be extremely war of words like response. In the cycle of violence each side responds to what the other did. The usual mainstream view is that Hamas provokes: Israel responds, as the primary victim.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is blatantly a crock of horseshit given what Israel has been doing to Palestinians this past week: actively genociding them. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have news or statement from organisations that claims as such, please refrain using the Wikipedia talk page as a place to criticise either Israel or Palestine as per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, a few things. If that info is included, it should be a claim attributed to the IDF; it’s not Wiki’s job to uncritically publish press releases from governments, militaries, police departments, etc. as fact. Second, stating that the buildings were used as offices by Hamas (which again, needs to be attributed) implies that they were former apartment buildings now used exclusively as Hamas offices, which is not true. Thousands of people lived in those buildings that are now destroyed. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 22:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, the large building (al-Jawahera) housed "media network companies and other offices". And you are absolutely right, statements from either side need attribution (if we include them at all).Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Hamas, like it or not, came to power via a democratic election under international observation, and has run the Gaza Strip and administered 2,000,000 people for 16 years, That it has offices is obvious. That in itself means nothing. All governments have offices. Of course, if Israel chooses like a few other powers to designate it as a terrorist organization, then even custodians and janitors of a school or building recruited from the lower echelons of Hamas, are thereby 'terrorists' and fair game. This is unfortunately part of the nonsense of western reportage, the mindless reductive use of Hamas as a synonym for a terrorist group when, whatever terror it engages in, like so many governments, it also runs a civil bureaucracy etc., that has nothing to do with threatening anybody (outside Gaza).Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Where in Selfstudier's comment did he call Hamas a terrorist organization? The fact that you see a comment supporting adding info from a press release by the IDF and immediately jump to the conclusion that this person is against Hamas and then begin ranting about how Hamas is being unfairly framed by the west as a terrorist group makes me doubt your ability to add to this article or any other article surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict without biasing the info in support of Palestine. Please, just stick to the facts, your opinion on the conflict isn't needed.
EDIT: I just looked at your user page, and it is clear you have strong opinions in this area that hinder your ability to edit neutrally on this topic. I would suggest leaving the editing of this article to people able to look objectively at the facts. I myself am heavily opinionated on this subject, so I stay out of this and only point out obvious cases of bias here in the talk page. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really should apologize, attacking other editors and jumping to accusations of bad faith (particularly against an editor who spends much time finding and analyzing sources in order to contribute high-quality edits) is not appropriate behaviour. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ööööhmmm, no, Aknell4 is absolutely right, no need for any apology. 94.219.52.95 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passion in an editor is a good thing and they clearly just want an even handed approach. I’m sure if those of us passionate about the topic were actually soap boxing and POV pushing this article would be very different. Namely it would not be labeled as a “crisis” as if this is anything but a largely one sided genocide by a settler-colonialist apartheid state. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about "even handed approach" while immorally making a false one-sided accusation against Israel as a "largely one-side genocide", note your oxymoron of "LARGELY" vs. "one sided". We could agree and accept discussion about legislative and equal rights to Palestinians, but as for genocide; not only no such actions nor attempts, but rather and even RESTRAINED retaliation to the genocide attempts from Gaza - shooting rockets on Israeli civilians, with IDF still then trying to bomb only Hamas and ammunition buildings and warn other civilians living there to evacuate beforehand. So, indeed, passion in an editor is a good thing as long as it's to actually contribute in neutral manner for the Encyclopedia, but not your "passion" to provoke and blatantly falsify and flipping facts or playing ignorant including on the expense of people contributing here who some of them might read your immoral defective comment right after or while rockets from Gaza hover right over their heads or bomb their homes in Israel, which include both Israeli-Jews and Israeli-Arabs, which again goes to show the worth of your "largely one sided opinion and bias" and your passion to disrupt the process of building this article as well as anger and disrespect editors here.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War?

Isn't this technically a war? This is certainly more than a conflict if they are launching rockets at each other.

Considering there has been no formal declaration of war, no. The broader Arab–Israeli conflict was punctuated by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Suez Crisis, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and so on. Until there is an official declaration of war (or equivalent authorization of a "policing action" or somesuch) this should remain a "conflict". Alternatively, when WP:RS start calling it a war, so will we. The current name of "crisis" I think will serve until such time, as this is a flashpoint of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well what's the difference between crisis and war? A declaration? They're launching rockets. This is clearly more than a simple crisis, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there many sources calling it a war? I'm guessing not. Considering this conflict is (so far) less intsense than many previous ones that aren't considered wars, this one is not a war (yet). “WarKosign” 07:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking there cannot be a "war" between occupier and occupied because occupation is the result of war, there can only be "resistance" to occupation which is the case here and not only in Gaza. That is also a reason why we also refer to the IP conflict as a conflict even though it has gone on for so long, it is not technically a war because there is an occupation. The only annexed part, East Jerusalem and a part of the rest of the WB, is not legally recognized outside of Israel so that is also an occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of occupation are actually irrelevant. Definition of war is "a state of armed conflict between *different nations or states* or different groups within a nation or state". Since this conflict is between a state and a terrorist organization, it cannot be called a war. “WarKosign” 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "claim" of occupation, it is an established fact. The state of occupation negates it being a war without the need for any further explanation, discussions about declarations or anything else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating how people make this claim. It's a pointless discussion, we agree that this article shouldn't have "war" in the title and the reason is less important. “WarKosign” 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"diferent Groups within a nation of state". Arabs vs jews? Israel (country) vs Palestine (Territory)? Now that there is ground troops going in gaza, Im surprised they haven't declared it yet! UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't ground troops in Gaza: [12]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Wars have a formal declaration, it was more of a 17th C to 20th C thing, most 21st Century wars like Tigray War are happening without formal declaration as did past wars such as Hundred Years' War of the 14th-15th C. With that says this should only be classified as a war like the 2014 Gaza War was when WP:RS started calling it a war. Opinions of Wikipedia editors is irrelevant in this regard, if WP:RS starts calling the 2021 conflict a war like the 2014 war, the 2021 conflict should also be called a war. it fits the definitions of wars, but we have to wait for WP:RS to call it here, after a possible WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is nonetheless of interest that a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considered as a "war" but that the entire thing is a "conflict". The press seem at 6's and 7's when it comes to describing what is happening now because the events are not restricted to Gaza.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So because Israel, Palestine, and wikipedia doesn't call it a war, neither should we? Hmm. Alright when IS it a war then? Is this a major conflict because it does not seem like a crisis. Its a crisis for the people.
It seems AP has begun to refer to the conflict as a war [13]; "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled the fourth war with Gaza’s Hamas rulers would rage on."

I think you misunderstand me, the Gaza War I recently voted to change it to that from conflict. I didn't have any choice because so many RS were describing it like that. However, logically speaking it makes no sense to call the larger problem a conflict while describing an interim event as a war.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Now that its escalating its more than a crisis by all accounts and almost into a war. A lot of people are speculating that its going to turn into a war and I already assumed it was and they just never said. Oh, and there is ground troops in Gaza or at least they're going to. I've seen a lot of videos saying that. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We will DEFINITELY call it War after WP:RS calls it war, but as of now there are no WP:RS calling it war, before editing please learn WP:RS policy, opinions of editors are irrelevant, it will definitely however be called a war ONLY AFTER WP:RS starts calling it a war, as was the case with 2014 Gaza War. It definitely reached the point of a war, but KEEP IN MIND, Original Research is not allowed here and you can change the title to 2021 Isreael-Palestine War only when WP:RS calls it war. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that I can't use my opinion to edit wikipedia, it might be a while before that will happen as currently we have no idea what the status of the conflict will be like going forward. It's only a matter of time before something happens. But if its not a war yet, its really not a crisis or a conflict so I don't know what to call it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did think violence was OK (and it is supported by some sources as well) but it was not to be.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If violence is the answer to this problem, so be it. I think they should go to war without nukes. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My above point wasn't solely directed at you UB Blacephalon , but all editors who wan't to call it war, sure enough, it will be much like the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War when Wp:RS starts calling it as a war, we just have to wait till WP:RS says it is a war, and if they do, indeed we should name it as a war. Wikipedia's guidelines are the real deal, and we will call the event a war when WP:RS starts doing it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case why don't people trust Wikipedia if were THIS strict? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of changing "minors" to "children".

The word "minors" from the cited source was changed to "children" in the casualties section.

It currently says, "As of 14 May, at least 126 people have been killed in Gaza, including 31 children, and more than 950 others wounded; eight deaths in Israel were reported." The source cited says, "Thirty-one of those killed were minors".

I don't think that's a neutral change. Children usually implies a younger age while minor usually means under 18 years old.

Update, 17 May: So someone removed the source that said "minors" and replaced it with sources that say "children". I don't think that fixes the issue. It's still referring to the number of deaths of people under 18, and child usually implies someone under 13. "Minors" is a more neutral term, while "children" is emotionally charged. Al Jazeera lists the names and ages of some of the minors killed, and everyone listed is 13-17 years old, so I think the term "minors" applies better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.109.10 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

173.177.109.10 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve fixed the issue. X-Editor (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this change. If you're not an adult, you're a child. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, many of Hamas militants are technically minors (16-17 years old). I wouldn't call them children. “WarKosign” 07:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minors is correct. The last comment is frankly repellant, a piece of nonsense funneled straight out of the Israeli defense industry's hasbara machine, with its endless insistence that despite the large number of children its operations regularly kill in Gaza, Hamas or the minors' family are to blame for putting them in the 'pinpoint', ethically observant line of fire, the 'line' of fire being ordnance that can create 8,500 degree Fahrenheit fireballs in densely populated zones, stuff like GNU31/MK-84s. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you 'retired' from? You are an active editor. Change your home page.
Learn to read, dear Anon. I'm re-tyred.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“WarKosign” It doesn't matter what "wikipedia editors" think, add what WP:RS says, we must not violate WP:NOR using personally prefered terminologies. If WP:RS says children its children, if it says minors, then its minors, saying things like " I wouldn't call them children" is violation of Wikipedia policy. With that said there are WP:RS that uses minor, so let it stay as minors, but be sure to clarify your statements go at par with Wikipedia policy and not personal views. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilbaggg: As long as we are not quoting but paraphrasing sources, we do need to decide which words to use. Of course this decision cannot contradict the meaning of the source, but since the terms minors and children are largely interchangeable, the decision is in our hands, and I explained why in my opinion "minors" is a more accurate choice. “WarKosign” 11:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely not a valid argument, since applying it in this specific context, to the specific numbers, is speculative or WP:OR at best. If you want to assert that the death totals for children include militants, you need to cite a source stating such. And if you feel that "children" implies otherwise, then you have to confront the fact that there are vast number of sources that use "children", which would seem to disprove your speculation. As it is, a quick search for "58 children" vs" 58 minors" makes it completely clear that the sources overwhelmingly use "children"; since you've stated your opinion that the terms minors and children are largely interchangeable, there is no reason not to simply go with what the sources say. (On the other hand, if you want to change your opinion and argue that they are not interchangeable, it only becomes more important to do what the sources say.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no picture of the destruction caused by israeli air strikes

Why there are no pictures of the complete destruction of the buildings caused by the Israeli air strikes on Gaza, as it is clearer and more destructive than the impact left by the Hamas rockets? Moudinho1996 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find and upload free images to wikipedia, then perhaps they can be used. Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel. “WarKosign” 12:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures of damage in Gaza would be helpful. It's often difficult to get freely licensed images early on in current events. We can't use agency/commercial images, and they don't fall under WP:NFCC, which tends to limit what can be displayed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's unlikely we'll get photos inside Gaza for a bit. Maybe a news agency would be willing to release an image via OTRS but I doubt it. Guess we wait. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Moudinho1996: Copyright. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel." That makes little sense, since Israel's airstrikes causes proportionally many times more death and destruction than Hamas rockets do. And now that Israel is purposely targetting outside media offices in Gaza, you can say goodbye to any neutral covering or free photos from the Palestinian side. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I think in 2014 the war produced 18,000 buildings/houses destroyed by Israel as opposed to one Israeli home destroyed. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will be noted that the reason for this is the Israeli Iron-Dome defence system, and there is a great deal of shrapnel and such causing injuries and smaller scale damage across Israel, which should be covered in equal extent to the Gaza destruction. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, that would mean we should show less images of destruction in Israel, simply because there is proportionally less. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Dome has nothing to do with it. Compare the strike damage (explosive power) of those Hamas rockets that struck Israeli buildings, with the strike damage of Israel's ordnance on Gaza's buildings, Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True that the explosive damage seems to be greater for the air strikes, however my point was that even though it is much smaller scale, the incidents of damage, even if the damage is minor is still roughly the same in number on both sides, compare for example a building demolished in Gaza to a piece of shrapnel killing a man in israel, or littering towns with debris, and breaking windows in the shockwave. Even though the damage is lesser on the Israeli side, there are still just as many examples and photographs. You would not leave with a false impression, as you would see that the damage is worse on the Gaza side even when there is an equal number of images for each. --Ester9001 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats not what NPOV says as far as proportion of images. Will look for usable images, al-jazeera in the past offered up some under a cc license. nableezy - 01:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say that, quote from the NPOV page please. --Ester9001 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to give you some pictures uploaded by the IDF showing the destruction. Note I am an Israeli, and I do not want to display any political opinion here on wikipedia. Nookscoot (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation of Palestinian elections as cause

I have reverted this for input from editors as to whether the material and sources given in the article constitute evidence of causation. It is not clear to me that they do. The discussion above refersSelfstudier (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this CNN analysis mentions elections failure both in Palestine and Israel but only as unhelpful factors at the end of the article. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html

There is an entire quasi-paragraph of eight sources, of which only one, the spectator article attempts any sort of link (however remote) between the start of the clashes to the election. The Spectator quote "There has been a feeling in Israel lately that Hamas had put violence on the back burner in favour of courting international legitimacy. The cancellation of the Palestinian elections this month – as well as the need to show a newly emboldened Iran that funding terror in Gaza would produce value for money – put paid to that, causing Hamas to reach for devastating Plan B." has been magically synthesized into "A piece in The Spectator argued that the cancellation of Palestinian elections contributed towards Hamas's use of military confrontation rather than diplomatic tactics." Reverting entire paragraph until it can be re-written to remove OR and Synth. Albertaont (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not synthesis, it's what the source says... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times: Besides the tensions in Jerusalem, the analysts said the internal Palestinian political rivalry was also fueling the current conflict, and in particular the decision by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to postpone elections that had been scheduled for later this month.
The Spectator: There has been a feeling in Israel lately that Hamas had put violence on the back burner in favour of courting international legitimacy. The cancellation of the Palestinian elections this month – as well as the need to show a newly emboldened Iran that funding terror in Gaza would produce value for money – put paid to that, causing Hamas to reach for devastating Plan B.
NBC News: But a more fundamental reason the world’s holiest city is once again a flashpoint for conflict is because of a power vacuum in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in which the former has been distracted during back-to-back-to-back-to-back inconclusive elections and the latter refuses to hold elections at all.
The Wall Street Journal: The 85-year-old Mr. Abbas, who has headed the Palestinian Authority since 2005 without standing for re-election, may want to turn up the temperature to compensate for falling public confidence in his rule. He’s in competition with Hamas and even more extreme groups, which he shut out of power in the West Bank last month by postponing elections yet again. Hamas, which promises the destruction of Israel, one-upped Mr. Abbas’s riots by reigniting its military confrontation.
Foreign Policy: For Hamas, the rocket fire is a chance to underline its legitimacy as a defender of Palestinians, especially since Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah party, postponed long-delayed elections.
The Guardian: A decision by Mahmoud Abbas, the 85-year-old leader of the unpopular semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority, to postpone planned elections has added frustration for Palestinians, whose last parliamentary ballot was in 2006.
So I trust you will reinstate the paragraph in the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this is closed. This is the most covered topic in global news, should be able to find R/S source that clearly states "x was a cause of y". All other causes did not have to rely on opinion pieces, neither should this. Albertaont (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is not an opinion piece and clearly says: Besides the tensions in Jerusalem, the analysts said the internal Palestinian political rivalry was also fueling the current conflict, and in particular the decision by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to postpone elections that had been scheduled for later this month. The content is clearly well sourced. Even the editorial pieces are DUE for inclusion per WP:RSEDITORIAL. No policy supports your removal the content completely from the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that another editor put a sentence (one) back in to the article, not as a section. Maybe we should just leave it at that for now.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On April 29, the 2021 Palestinian legislative election for the Palestinian Legislative Council, originally scheduled for 22 May 2021, was indefinitely postponed by President Mahmoud Abbas. is inadequate IMO, in part because it does not explain why RS' believe this to be significant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And since it looks like my daily revert is freed up, I've restored it. If Albert wishes to remove it again, I trust he can explain to me why NYT et al are not RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See CNN source I provided. Similar to NYT but includes Israeli elections as well (do read it). We can't just get stuck only on one possible contributory factor and there is not really any support for it being a primary cause. I don't mind adding more material but I don't think that this deserves its own section any more than cutting off loudspeakers, Tik Tok and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose inclusion of Israeli elections, and if sources are covering that it should be included as well. I just haven't had time to research and write something up, but if you can do that then that'd be nice. I have no fondness of the section title and am fine with someone refactoring, but the whole content can't be removed completely when so many RS' discuss it. Maybe it can be renamed to "Political instability" as contributing factors, or similar? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, it is now duplicated with the other edit I mentioned. Frankly, I don't think your edit was very helpful in the middle of this discussion and I would like you to self revert, not because I want it out but because we are still discussing what it ought to look like.Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My experience editing, here and in general, and especially on current events, is that specifics of content are best hashed out in the article form as WP:WIP & WP:IMPERFECT. Seldom does trying to create prose on talk pages work well or better. Especially as one editor seems to think NYT is an opinion piece or not RS, I don't see talk page debate as being helpful at this time. I agree it can do with improvements (as it already has one maintenance tag), but think they're better done in the article itself, and hope you (and others) can make them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I conclude that I should engage with you via edit summary from now on. OK, fine.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I am not objecting to the inclusion of material about the Palestinian elections in the article although I think there should be material about the equally failed Israeli elections (therefore change the section title) as well per the CNN source above. I am only wondering about causality, it still seems to me that the sources in general are attributing proximate causality to Sheikh Jarrah -> Al-Aqsa even if there might be a 101 additional minor contributory factors, shutting off speakers, Tik Tok, etc etc.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

militant killed

where do you find 75 per Israel???

The Israeli military has put the number of militants killed so far in the Israeli attacks at between 80 and 90. https://news.yahoo.com/israel-fires-artillery-gaza-amid-221914279.html/

I can't find another number, please correct the wrong numbers. thanks --Sandtransman (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the figure of 75 dead per Israel is cited right next to it [14]. Quote - "Israel says its attacks have killed more than 75 militants...". The other 80-90 per Israel cited by Reuters (which I myself added before) is from May 14th, while the 75 dead WSJ report is from May 15th, which makes the figure reported the day earlier outdated. As per Wiki guidelines, we use the newer, more up-to-date figure. EkoGraf (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the answer, I guess the reason is the wsj data was an error. I don't see a reason to lower the estimation while today some more were killed. --Sandtransman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the general point I was under the assumption we're using highest figures unless source corrects or is contradicted by multiple others. For example, Reuters 11 minutes ago wrote 11 Palestinians died on Friday. Our article says 12. I'm not going to go change that, as I have no reason to think the 12 figure is incorrect. Different sources are going to differ on data. No opinion on this specific dispute tho. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nvm, I am going to change it, because apparently the 12 is no longer verifiable. 11 killed on Friday, and 13 total, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything new about the data validity? We got many refs for 80_90 and only one apparently for 75... --Sandtransman (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait for new information and an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (3)

Add to the section on Al-Jalaa media building that Israel informed the US of the strike in advance, providing evidence that Hamas used the building. Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israel-showed-us-smoking-gun-on-hamas-in-ap-office-tower-officials-say-668303 102.182.123.220 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is meaningless. Yes the US is regularly informed. The quality of the 'intelligence' shared is unknown. We don't know what 'used the building' means concretely. Has it significant military facilities inside that pose a threat to Israel? Or did some branch of its administration, sanitary services, garbage collection, building permits, have an office to that end? Israel doesn't make this distinction (which is obligatory in international law, i.e., to distinguish between civilian and military functions), unlike several of Western nations that distinguish its governmental branch from its military wing (they have a certain autonomy apparently) and deem only the latter 'terroristic'. The major point is that we are dealing with a 15 storey structure with, presumably, scores of distinct offices and functions, and it is a tad improbable that Hamas, fully aware that its structures are regularly bombed, would concentrate its military functions to any significant extent there. (Of course, a 'pro-Israeli eye might say: oh yes they would, human shields etc., a dead meme). The problem with that is that the building was crammed with foreign media offices and reporters, who would not be comfortable working there, if Hamas's military wing had any significant presence. They too calculate the risks.) So, we know zilch; in the fog of wars instrumental disinformation (i.e. the invasion) is commonplace, and the only reliable element in the report is that the US was informed. Of course, the US is a major supporter and funder of the destruction of Palestinian society, if we are to believe the most reputable analyst around, Nathan Thrall. At best the addition would have to use 'reportedly'. 'providing evidence reportedly supporting their view that Hamas used the building'. That's no big gain. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise this is probably an emotional time for many people, but could we please try to stay focused and limit discussion to what is necessary to change article prose? We don't need to start splitting people up into pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli and making political arguments here. It causes more threads to devolve into divisive arguments, as seen in several sections above, and is generally unhelpful. There exist better forums for debate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all an emotional thing for me. I've seen and edited through incidents of this kind for 13 years. What is repeatedly déjà vu, the events and the comments justifying or criticizing them, can't make one emotional - just somewhat bored. What I did above was fill in what experienced area readers know. Most editors mightn't share that background. I've noticed many requests for the addition of information placed here which clearly indicate a scarce acquaintanceship with the topic but shoot for some specific detail about some specific episode, the editor(s) feel has been crucially neglected. But it is important that a minimal awareness of the need for detachment in reading our sources: disinformation circulates, in order to be wary. I don't trust for example the statistics from Gaza anymore than I do those from official Israeli sources. I wait until B'tselem which goes out an interviews widely afterwards each victim and witnesses, and assesses the reliability of their memories, makes a call and writes a clinical retrospect. I cited Nathan Thrall because he is thoroughly mainstream, publishes on the NYRB, was an analyst for the International Crisis Center, and an author with a widely praised survey of the quagmire's fundamental problems. 12 minutes listening to some background by an expert, is useful for grasping the perplexing fact, that puzzles so many, as to why a simple eviction notice should lead to a firestorm of missiles smashing up Gaza and Israeli towns and cities. It is needed because many of our sources, mainstream newspapers, never address it, and just spin the events descriptively as 'it's just them again. The ME is like that. What a pity. Let's move on.' So I had no intention of debating. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. Some think I am foruming in comments like the above. No. From all the previous wars I know that much of the 'information' officially put out is reliably sourced but unreliable, serving a persuasive function in the media. It now emerges that indeed my opening comment was borne out by developments. ('However, the U.S. Secretary of State contradicted that assertion and said he had not seen any Israeli evidence that Hamas was operating out of the tower, and that he had asked Israel for a justification for the airstrike.' If this statement is correct, it would imply that the original Israeli communication was a trust test with its ally, expecting that the US would not go public contradicting the claim, though aware of its untruth. Quite interesting. Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (4)

Please edit the way the event at Al-Aqsa is described. The police didn't just storm the Temple Mount out of rage and as an attack. It was in defense. In the build-up of tension around Israel's Jerusalem day, many Muslims had brought rocks with them to the Temple Mount to use for attacks. The police went to the Temple Mount to prevent such attacks from occuring. Then Muslims began throwing stones at police forces while the police fired stun grenades and rubber bullets at the Muslims.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/riots-break-out-at-temple-mount-667550 147.161.8.12 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here This was discussed already and we should go by what high quality rs are saying.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "violent riots broke out at the Temple Mount, during which hundreds of suspects started throwing rocks, bottles and other items toward our forces", but whom exactly were the rioters throughing rocks at before the police arrived at the scene? Even if the police statement quoted is absolutely truthful (and a lot of editors would not trust a statement by Israel police, unless supported by additional, independent sources) something is clearly missing in the sequence of events. Also, the source does not say that the rioters brought the stones at advance. It is concievable that they picked them up at Temple Mount in a reaction to (real or percieved) aggresion by the police. We need clearer (and ideally, more neutral) sources. “WarKosign” 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ I have some sources for that:

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/07/994940939/israeli-palestinian-clashes-escalate-in-ramadan-night-violence-at-al-aqsa-mosque

https://www.timesofisrael.com/some-280-palestinians-9-cops-hurt-in-latest-heavy-clashes-in-jerusalem/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57034237

All say the Palestinians threw stones, chairs, et cetera. The times of Israel source says explicitily that the police used rubber bullets and stun grenades in retaliation to the throwing, the necessity for or number of poilice present is not reported by any source. I do not know if there is a video source of the event, anyone know? --Ester9001 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a video exists, we can't use it to decide and describe what happened, some other source should do it for us and then we can use it. From the 3 sources above, only ToI seems to give some usable description of event that lead to the storming: "Police entered the Temple Mount compound in the morning after thousands of Palestinians gathered in the compound overnight, having collected numerous rocks and other makeshift weapons. Police said dozens of rioters attacked a police post and started hurling rocks from the Temple Mount toward a road south of the compound, blocking the road but causing no injuries or damage." From this quote I can't undertand what actually happened - was it a manned post with police officers being endangered or just an empty shed? Unless we quote it directly, we need to parapharse it, and to do that we need to understand what this segment says, exactly. I prefer to wait until there is more and better coverage, with more detailed description of the events leading to the "storming". “WarKosign” 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to change "The following day, the major Islamic holy site and the holiest to Judaism, known as al-Aqsa Mosque compound or Temple Mount, was stormed[21] by the Israeli police with explosives fire exchange, rubber bullets, and stones throwing." Ideally it should be reverted to "The following day, Israeli police stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, a major Islamic holy site." pending further discussion. In addition to the grammar mess, the use of the passive voice is not appropriate in this case. As well, the religious significance and specific events can be described further down. The lede should be concise and to the point. Of course the Temple Mount is significant in Judaism, but the relevance to this article is that they stormed al-Aqsa during Ramadan. This is not an article about the Israel-Palestine conflict generally. WillowCity (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think tanks

@Nishidani: I'm not sure this edit with the opinion of a vice president of a think tank in opinion pieces is DUE for inclusion. If we're going to start including think tank commentary we're going to be here all day. The rest of the section is statements from government officials. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate query. I've always objected, without doing anything about it, to the rote roster of political quotes, which says nada, because the 'positions' are utterly predictable. This, as opposed to what informed people, who influence policy, and appear all over the place (you know, wiki cites that research think tank. No one objects. I mulled using it for a few hours, and decided that it does capture what you never get coming across (but is vigorously remarked on in Israeli newspapers) a certain dirigiste mindset, one that certainly is shared by a large number of the IDF people who carry out, repeatedly, these +à la Barry Goldwater, 'bomb'em back to the stone age' operations. I can understand it in Israeli terms. As a Westerner, for a decade and a half, that kind of language astounds me. It would never be permitted in a modern democracy. Yet guys like that junket round the conference circuit, and trot out the logic in that statement (shorn of course abroad of its colourful metaphors). It strikes me as a very significant statement which helps outsiders understand attitudes, just as on the Hamas article we cite outrageous statements spouted by their leaders and influential members.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but think tanks are literally advocacy organisations. It's unsurprising to see them take a certain (non-bland) position, but said position cannot be said to speak on behalf of any government. I think the ideology behind each side's position should probably covered be in Israeli-Palestine conflict or some other article, as really it's no different here than in general. If someone's looking for that kind of analysis, that's probably where they should look. I just think think tank opinions are out of place in a section about government responses, and if we start including them then it's a real slippery slope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who made those edits was briefly topic banned from Israel-Palestine articles and now contributes to these sorts of articles in, as I see it, the same opinionated tone as before. I would agree with you that including it isn't necessary or beneficial in any way. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to me? Virtually everyone who has edited I/P articles consistently has been topic-banned. I was permabanned a decade ago for making 8 reverts in 45 days on several pages,- in those days, unimaginable severity existed- and then invited to return to edit this area, by a joint request by an Arab and Israeli editor to Arbcom. Many think tanks do not see themselves at least as advocacy organisations, but rather institutions providing indepth analyses of problems for the decision-makers in politics. As I said, government responses are predictable. Every time there is a breakout or incident, we have the usual soundbite. What encyclopedic function does rostering trite statements have. They are skewed to a political audience, and function to justify actions, or criticize them mechanically (Abu Mazen? What's interesting in that. Nothing). Why should political statements hog the limelight? I only think they are relevant if they have impact, as did Gvir Itamar's remarks.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But more importantly, I would expect a rationale for excising a quote regarding the standard IDF term for massive bombing of Gaza, 'mowing the lawn'. Its use is hotly debated in newspapers, for nearly 8 years, and every time evokes comment. That should be there. It does illustrate how the IDF conducting the raids view their purpose.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the think tanks don't see themselves as advocacy groups. They are, by definition, advocacy groups. The reason we're including statements by government officials is because they speak on behalf of their governments. Remember, the section is for Israeli and Palestinian reactions, so it makes sense for the section to be populated by reactions from people speaking on behalf of their respective governments. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And official statements tell one nothing about anything. They rarely reflect the cabinet/inner deliberations and calculations that determine actions taken. In fact historical works don't use that newspaper chat often, preferring memoirs and archives. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for showcasing formal statements for public consumption. But the gravamen of my argument for retention hasn't been answered. I gave 3 sources for the use of 'mowing the lawn' to describe both the political and defense community's approach to this operation. That one of those happens to speak from an extremely well-connected think tank staffed by high members of the defense elite is immaterial. The other two come from (a) a Knesset opposition figure and (b) a Washington Post overview of this, and the strategy behind it. All three reflect or react to IDF/Israeli political thinking about why it is necessary to bomb civilian centers intensely, the cause of (it looks like) half the deaths, and therefore is crucial to this article. Please respond to that. Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't seem to say the person has consulted with people inside the IDF before writing that article? Re the standard IDF term for massive bombing of Gaza, 'mowing the lawn' according to LSE the quote is termed by two other people from think tanks, one from the same think tank (JISS): Examining Israeli military strategy, in particular what Efraim Inbar and Eitan Shamir have termed ‘Mowing the Grass‘. (confirmed by Foreign Policy). I'm not even sure your definition of mowing the grass is correct; according to FP it's the idea is that Hamas’s leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak (seemingly matching with the original JPost article). It seems to be coined by people at think tanks, not the Israeli military? (WAPO seems to say the same, although they call them "analysts"). I think overall my concern is DUE and now verifiability, to some degree. ProcSock (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can try "cutting the grass" as well.Julie Peteet (15 January 2017). Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1.Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usage today by NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/17/world/israel-gaza-updates, "Israeli experts often describe periodic campaigns as "mowing the grass," with the aim of curbing rocket fire, destroying as much of the militant groups’ infrastructure as possible and restoring deterrence. Critics say the use of such terminology is dehumanizing to Palestinians and tends to minimize the toll on civilians as well as militants." Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different counting of Israeli and Palestinian injured causing unacceptable bias

Any honest, neutral, non-racist editor, would have to agree that the criteria for listing someone as wounded should not depend upon their ethnicity. We can not keep including Israelis "injured running to bomb shelters" or "suffering from anxiety" among the count of wounded Israelis unless we also begin to include all the Palestinians equally "suffering from anxiety" and "injured while running". As we do not have a source for the latter, and it would likely look silly if included as it could be in the millions, we should treat both groups equally the only way we can which is to only count those who actual wounds. Does anyone know of a source we could use for Israeli wounded that uses the same criteria used for Palestinian wounded? We can not use sources like Jerusalem post as they are well known for dishonestly inflating numbers to push their agenda. Of 19 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to decide on using a single source for all figures for some appearance of 'fairness'. We are a tertiary source, we summarise the sources and readers then make up their own minds. As for "anxiety", there are sources talking about the fear caused to both sides as a result,[15] and so it must be included, as it is verifiable and DUE. ProcSock (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep the apples and oranges numbers, we need to be very clear that they are incomparable. Otherwise we are being misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the MDA[16] the Israeli stats include:
  • 204 people who felt stress
  • 171 people who tripped on their way to shelters
  • 189 people injured in the riots
The first two categories are clearly not included in the Palestinian statistics.
The latter category is likely including both Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel, who have been fighting each other in groups. It is clearly misleading to include the Palestinian citizens of Israel who are injured in riots with Jewish ultra-nationalist mobs under the casualties for just "one side" of this conflict.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we are (being misleading, that is). We should report what HQRS say. I don't think the data is 'comparable' in any meaningful sense anyway, given that (according to NYT) the Gaza figures are not independently verifiable.[17] We should give the latest data with attribution and then it's up to readers to make of it what they want. No objection to explicitly breaking down the figures in body by cause of injury, but not a fan of editors second guessing RS and altering the numbers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, what do you think we should do with the injuries to Palestinian citizens of Israel caused by Jewish citizens of Israel in the riots? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know from sources anything about Palestinian stress and anxiety and tripping over while running. Israel alone documents that and adds it to casualty lists. There is, on the other hand an extensive literature on stress under bombing and the open-air prison that is Gaza and the generalized stress level is infinitely higher, a notable percentage of the population.Therefore presenting people with anxiety as casualties is extremely deceptive, and certainly not neutral, since we know that hospitalization registers in Gaza only record people who need treatment for physical injuries sustained through bombings.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology of jurisdictions obviously varies. It's the same as with COVID cases, whereas it's widely documented by sources that India's numbers are significantly lower than actual. We still give India's count per the sources, and then also say what sources say about the issues with the count. Similarly, if you can get an RS that takes issue with Israel's methodology in counting, or the discrepancies, then it can and should be noted, and otherwise not. We can't note it based on a Tweet and some editors' interpretations on what fair comparison looks like.
Onceinawhile's concern about Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel is a good one though. I'm not sure. If they're included in Israel's figures, IMO ideally either find a source that gives them separately, or I guess we'll have to wait until this stops being a current event and sources decide to do a more in depth analysis with more broken down figures. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by "Palestinian citizens of Israel" you mean Israeli Arabs - there are reports of two killed so far. I don't see a reason to list them separately, though, and most (all?) sources don't. “WarKosign” 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was their any point in stating the name that Palestinian citizens of Israel prefer not to use? It appears to be a dog whistle, but why do it? There is simply no way you didn't understand whom he was referring to. Of 19 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In previous discussions, I think we settled on the formula Arab citizens that identify as Palestinian. That this is even an issue is a good pointer for the intercommunal conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, on the LHS we have "Jewish Israeli protesters" and on the RHS we have "Arab Israeli protesters". Accordingly, IMO, it doesn't make sense to include dead Arabs - regardless of citizenship - on the other side to which they're apparently a party. ProcSock (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just about Israeli statistics including people hospitalized with anxiety. In 2014 350,000 children in the Gaza Strip were calculated to be suffering from war trauma. That alone should make one very wary of unilaterally registering among Israeli 'wounded' people who suffer with (undoubtedly real) anxiety. There is simply no comparison given the scale of the former. Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass move request for timelines of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

I proposed to rename pages from "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, YYYY" to "YYYY in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Discussion is at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020#Requested move 15 May 2021. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal that would ban any non-administrators from moving a specific Arab-Israeli conflict that received high visible page without consensus. I believe much of page moves like this will be distruptive so i rather agree to move protected a specific Arab-Israeli conflict page that received highly visible page and let only administrator that can have a rights to move the page that must have a consensus from Wikipedia community. Yet having this proposal will be excessive IMO and will be impossible to reached unless IP users also participated and agreed to do it. 180.243.211.58 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to this proposal? The easiest way for IP users to participate in formal discussions under the existing rules is to register and do the 30/500.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations don't support text - 29/30/31.

All the citations given for Hamas firing rockets first, say that Hamas rockets were fired in retaliation for Israeli strikes.

I don't believe this point is disputed, but the citations should support the text.

Hamas said they supported actions by Al Qassam Brigade on the 10th, but give no specifics as to what those actions were.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210512034923/https://hamas.ps/en/post/3405/Hamas-hails-retaliation-of-Palestinian-resistance-to-Israeli-aggression-in-Jerusalem

It is tricky as there is various Israeli disinformation allegations around:

https://twitter.com/razhael/status/1393915533720961029?s=20 https://twitter.com/TweetForTheMany/status/1393907114364608520?s=20 SimonWaters (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (5): Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists

NOT DONE
"(Press release). Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit" seems to be a succinct way to highlight the gist of most concerns about the suggested changes. There is a strong consensus here and in WP policy in general that, in terms of factual accuracy and NPOV, secondary sources are preferred, especially when the alternative is primary sources from the involved parties... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Hello. The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening:

On 10 May, two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school.(...) Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building.

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel's civilian areas from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school.(...) Israel launched airstrikes against terrorist targets in Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings housing apartments of Hamas terrorists and a building which housed millitary intelligence offices of Hamas and news offices of AP. According to the IDF Spokesperson Unit, "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". (Here go references to the four named citations (Template:Cite press release) I've gathered.)

This is per the NPOV policy and the guideline for being bold. If this is not enough, further sources can be added, or the text may be better rephrased to fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, etc. I've gathered complete citations from the press release of the IDF. These should go in a "sources" section. They're named references, so they should be added above at the place I've marked. Complete citations to add:

"IDF strikes multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to Hamas military intelligence" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck a multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization. The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site.

"Evidence of Hamas' Abuse of Civilian Infrastructure" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. Fighting a terrorist organization that operates within civilian areas isn't easy. Watch as IDF pilots call off a strike because children were there: Hamas deliberately and systematically places military targets within the civilian population, exposing their citizens to danger. In contending with this, the IDF, and the Air Force in particular, attach paramount importance to accuracy and reducing harm to civilians. When planning a target, the IDF devotes significant time and resources to preparing the attack and where feasible, uses various tools, including advance warnings, roof knocking, street knocking, target clearing operations and a variety of professional calculations carried out by the Operations Analysis Directorate and the Planning Directorate. The use of these means varies depending on, among other factors, the type of target, the expected collateral damage, and the resources available at the time. Despite Hamas' aims to endanger its own civilians, the IDF will continue to make efforts to minimize harm to civilians while continuing to attack Hamas terror targets.

"Context is everything: What You Need to Know About IDF Strikes in Gaza" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. What you need to know about IDF strikes in Gaza. Introducing: Context—Here's some important context to the headlines you're seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip—Hamas has turned residential areas in Gaza into military strongholds. Let's take a closer look at... (1) Hamas' rocket launchers; (2) Hamas' tunnel systems; (3) Hamas' military buildings.—Hamas fires rockets at Israel from densely-populated neighborhoods in Gaza like these. (In the background is a photo of a rocket launch from Gaza showing many civilian buildings around the launch site.) The IDF must strike these rocket launchers in order to prevent Hamas from firing more rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, over 360 of Hamas' rockets have already misfired and landed short in these same civilian neighborhoods.—Hamas has an expansive network of underground tunnels: (A) Tunnels that Hamas digs under the border to try to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap Israelis; (B) Tunnels that Hamas operatives use to maneuver around Gaza. This is an expansive network that Hamas uses to store its weapons, conceal its militants, and move freely around under civilian areas in order to carry out their military activity. With one being being (sic) a danger to Israeli civilians, and the other being a hiding spot for dangerous terrorists, both are legitimate military targets.—(A photo with the following writing added on top: "This is the entrace to a tunnel in Gaza (...) and one block over is a kindergarten and a mosque".)—Hamas uses multi-story buildings all over Gaza for multiple military purposes, including: * intelligence gathering; * planning attacks; * command and control; * communications. Unfortunately, other units in the buildings are often used by civilians who may or may not know what's going on down the hall. But when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, the building becomes a lawful military target.—The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings recently, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed. Whenever possible, * We called the buildings' residents and warned them to evacuate. * We sent SMS messages. * We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. * We gave civilians enough time to evacuate.—Again, when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law. All the buildings targeted by the IDF were used for military purposes. The fact that they're located in civilian areas is a Hamas tactic to hide from the IDF and maximize the damage when the IDF strikes them. For Hamas, an Israeli death is more valuable than a Palestinian life. The IDF will continue to take as many precautions as possible to avoid civilian casualties in the fight against Hamas terrorism.

"מוסתרים בין משרדי תקשורת אזרחיים: מטוסי קרב תקפו יעדי מודיעין של חמאס - צפו בתיעוד" [Hidden Among Civilian Media Offices: Fighter Jets Attacked Intelligence Targets of Hamas - Watch the Recording] (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. מטוסי קרב של צה"ל תקפו מבנה רב-קומות הכולל נכסים צבאיים השייכים למודיעין הצבאי של ארגון הטרור חמאס. בבניין אלג׳אא פועל המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס, וכן משרדים המשמשים את חמאס ואת גא״פ. בבניין יושבת יחידת המחקר והפיתוח של המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס האחראית בין היתר למספר פעולות חבלניות שבוצעו נגד ישראל. היחידה מורכבת ממוקדי ידע שמהווים נכס ייחודי לארגון הטרור, העושים שימוש בציוד טכנולוגי ערכי ביותר של חמאס נגד ישראל. היחידה השתמשה ביכולות אלו נגד ישראל במספר אירועים, בכדי לנסות לחבל ולשבש את פעולות צה״ל והאזרחים שבמרחב הסמוך לעזה. בבניין קיימים משרדים של כלי תקשורת אזרחיים, אשר ארגון הטרור חמאס מסתתר מאחוריהם ומשתמש בהם כמגנים אנושיים. ארגון הטרור חמאס ממקם במכוון את נכסיו הצבאיים בלב האוכלוסייה האזרחית ברצועת עזה. טרם התקיפה, צה"ל הזהיר את האזרחים ששהו בבניין ונתן להם שהות מספקת להתפנות מהמבנה.

Thanks. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated use of "terrorist" and the unilateral assertion that these were military targets, which is what your proposed edit implies, also go against WP:NPOV. The term "terrorist" in reference to Hamas is very politically loaded, "militant" is a much more neutral term, and the claim that these were wholly military targets is disputed by several organizations. I'm not entirely opposed to including the quote from the IDF, though quotes in the lead like that are often unwarranted as the lead is supposed to serve as an outline of the articles content. Personally, the text you quoted seems to cover the events in neutral language, and as far I can tell is perfectly within NPOV. Could you specify what specifically you find objectionable? BSMRD (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would clarify. First of all, thank you for listening. I don't want the entire text of the press release to appear in the lead section, I just don't know how to create a citation that expands upon hovering over it with the mouse. The IDF is the principal primary source for, well, the IDF, and thus I think it should be cited. Of course, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that needs reliable sources, I don't think these should be the only sources, but they're a good start. I don't think the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization breaches WP:NPOV, since their firings on Israeli civilians for political purposes fall under the definition of terrorism in the Wikipedia article. According to this article, they're also classified as a terrorist group by the US, EU, Canada, and Japan. I don't think my description of Hamas as terrorists is politically loaded - it fits with these two other Wikipedia articles, and it describes their actions. I'm not furthering claims that this was a building used entirely and solely for terrorist (or militant) operations, I just want to add the IDF's own position regarding the situation, which doesn't deny it was used by a news organization, but rather acknowledges this fact. What I find objectionable per WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia currently portrays both sides as firing at each other and harming civilians, without giving the context. Further, the current text describes Hamas' firings as "hitting" civilians, and Israel's firings as "targeting" buildings - that's true, but it could easily give the reader a non-neutral image where Hamas accidentally hits Israeli civilians where Israel actually targets Gaza civilians; nothing could be farther from the truth, as Hamas fires rockets at us in order to kill Israeli civilians and cause harm, while the IDF tries to do the utmost to prevent harm to Gaza civilians while destroying the operations of Hamas. A more neutral description would acknowledge that Hamas targets Israelis (although they don't have a specific target, they just fire everywhere they can, and thus the use of the word "hitting" is not a problem itself), while detailing the measures the IDF takes to alert civilians in the building of the planned striking and the measures it takes to strike the building without causing harm to the nearby surroundings or to Gaza civilians. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot to add: "while the IDF tries to do the utmost to prevent harm to Gaza civilians while destroying the operations of Hamas" because Hamas is using Gaza civilians as human shields and operates from civilized areas. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's extremely hard to discern whether a source is accurate or not with this conflict. I would agree with you here though as you make a strong neutral argument. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire proposal seems to be that we should be a mouthpiece for the IDF. Not happening, we'll stick with organizations that don't put out false information in favour of either side. Of 19 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2021 (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.

Title: Gaza-Israel?

While the discussion over the title's use of 'crisis' is not resolved, should the Israel-Palestine part of the title also come into question? Sources such as the AP and Reuters are emphasizing that this is a conflict between Gaza/Hamas and Israel, not Palestine/Palestinian Authority and Israel, as the fighting is centralized in the Gaza Strip. This would bring it under the Gaza-Israel conflict and in line with the many Gaza-Israel clashes pages such as the Gaza War pages and articles such as these. Not trying to open another title rename discussion right now just wanted another opinion.Yeoutie (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intense fighting (exchange of rockets and bombing) is indeed between Israel and Gazan militant organizations. The current crisis reportedly began, however, with of a decision of Israel court regarding lands located in East Jerusalem and clashes between Israel police and East Jerusalem residents during prayer on the Temple Mount. These incidents did not involve Gaza. Perhaps the article should be split and renamed accordingly, but while it's a combined article - the current name makes sense. “WarKosign” 06:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the 2014 Gaza War article also has the context of the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens and anti-Arab riots etc, which led to a Hamas escalation etc. So I would suggest it gets called 2021 Gaza War or something similar.Vhstef (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. The name of the article typically follows the most common term used by the media, it will take a while to see what it will be. Is there any urgent reason to rename this article right now? “WarKosign” 09:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just over a week and we had three titles already and a 4th in discussion. While a press article here or there may describe only the Gaza element (particularly in the headline) as part of the 24hr news cycle, there are a plenty producing analyses of the whole thing, communal, WB, Jerusalem and so on. This situation is qualitatively distinct from prior upheavals. This is not to say that if rs stop talking about everything else and begin talking only about the Gaza aspect then that could be spun out into its own article. Of course, you should record your view in the current RM so that the closer may take it into account.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I see no point to !vote. “WarKosign” 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I indented that wrong, I meant it as a reply to Vhstef, fixed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well that's not entirely correct, indeed most of the fighting is in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority is not part of it, there are disorders in many cities in Israel caused (most, but not only) by palestinians, well, whoever consider themselves as one. Nookscoot (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will just follow the RS.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gaza is a part of Palestine I think, even though it has an entirely separate government due to being geographically separated from West-bank. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of confusion over this, it is very easy to get the idea that Gaza is somehow entirely separate. Governance wise, following the 2005/6 elections and subsequent brouhaha, it is and then, insofar as the Oslo Accords amount to anything very much, there is the Palestinian Authority. Finally there is the de jure State of Palestine (better to say it like this than just saying Palestine in this context) which claims the occupied territories, including Gaza and East Jerusalem, so yes, Gaza is a part of (the State of) Palestine in that sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of-course it could be called Israel-Gaza Conflict, or even Israel-Hamas Conflict, but as there is at least somewhat significant disorder at the border in Jerusalem, calling it the Israel-Palestine Crisis, note 'Crisis' not Conflict, is appropriate. Of-course the state of Palestine, a UN observer state, is not really responsible for (or capable or doing anything about) the actions of Hamas gov in Gaza. Ester9001 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Please change “The area had been annexed by Israel but the annexation continues to be disputed.” to “The area in question, effectively annexed by Israel, remains under international law a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation.” This was discussed earlier on multiple occasions, it keeps being changed without approval. “Belligerent occupation” is a neutral legal term and international law is incontrovertible, people need to stop making this edit.

Also, please revert “The following day, the major Islamic holy site and the holiest to Judaism, known as al-Aqsa Mosque compound or Temple Mount, was stormed by the Israeli police using tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades against firecrackers and stone-throwing Palestinians.” to “The following day, Israeli police stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, a major Islamic holy site." I made this request further up the page but I don’t think it was noticed. The sentence as it exists now is unwieldy, full of irrelevant information, and not grammatically strong. They used stun grenades against firecrackers? No, they used them against Palestinians. Also, the reference to “stone-throwing Palestinians” feels racially loaded. They are Palestinians first. The language is not encyclopedic in its current state. The fact that these edits are constantly being made without discussion or approval leads me to believe that the editors know they are not legitimate or useful edits. WillowCity (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing firecrackers in any of the sources, I will look again. Pretty sure “stone-throwing Palestinians” is used by the source, I'll check. I don't find that racially loaded personally but that's just me. The two names for the same place is a nuisance but what can you do? I just made a change to the occupation business in order to clarify inaccurate prior edit, as long as occupation is mentioned I am not that bothered by the missing "belligerent", although I think people are making too much fuss about that, given that it is a neutral term.Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which source, ToI? Per WP:RS the reliability of that source is not established, and I would strongly argue that they have an editorial bias. I don't think we should be quoting them in the lede without serious qualification. Currently, I don't think the language of the lede complies with WP:NPOV, there's definitely a false balance in equating the opinion of some Israeli judges with the consensus of the international legal community. WillowCity (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed firecrackers, can't find that in the sources and as you say it is grammatically in error.Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT "The police fired rubber-tipped bullets and stun grenades at stone-throwing Palestinians." so not ToI.Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The default state of an established WP:NEWSORG is that it's generally reliable. It does not need to be on WP:RSP for that classification. ProcSock (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not equating Israeli judges/Israeli law with international consensus, rather the contrary, it is emphasizing that it is an Israeli position held by no-one else except Israel. As for ToI, we may not just exclude them in general, bias or not.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP also says that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Also, that NYT paywall is unfortunate. Still, I do not think that phrasing is encyclopedic or that we need to repeat it verbatim simply because it is in a source. Perhaps "at Palestinians armed with stones"? Without being too sensitive, the current language seems to play into dominant media narratives of Palestinians as "unruly" and Israeli forces as keeping order. And I don't particularly agree that the current language depicts the Israeli position as isolated, it seems to imply a parity of positions.WillowCity (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to sign. OK, let's see what others think? And yes, you can go to RSN and ask whether source X is good for statement Y and get an opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stone-throwing is an ancient tradition in that area, predominantly by the powerless. I've linked the phrase to the detailed article we have on the phenomenon, which should explain its complexities.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Willow City 's request is legitimate. The original phrasing should be restored because it was discussed, as noted, and is being repeatedly removed by passing editors without comment. Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I didn't put it back because I would rather avoid reverting if possible. I decided instead to simply clarify the deficiencies of the edit prior.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Selfstudier's edit improves the grammar of the sentence. We could, per RS, include additional details of 'weapons' used by the Palestinians (eg Al Jazeera says mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds), but it makes the phrasing of the sentence awkward as is. If the order is flipped so that stone-throwing isn't used as a modifier (i.e. your suggestion of "at Palestinians armed with...") then the detail could be included more grammatically. But it doesn't make grammatical sense to add additional compounds to the current revision. ProcSock (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, (I started writing this before seeing all other comments, took breaks, and need to express) please assume good faith WillowCity, just as I understand where you come from and also want to improve the article, even though I view your proposed sentence to the mosque as resulting in non-coherent (and from that still not-neutral). Also, I appreciate you now explained what is grammatically incorrect rather then the former dismissive "grammatical mess" as per your upper comment, and as something I worked for hours on thinking how to contribute to my best ability considering an already complex sentence opening (and I didn't wanna override "storming" discussion).
As for the Temple Mount / violent actions - That the mount/compound is majorly sacred for both religions gives the understanding of the area's sensitivity and general clashes between 2 entities including at this instance (which I also wrote quite deeply on that edit summary), as well clarifies why there's tight force of Israeli police around this area. Further - the police also guards and handles Jews going to the mount itself to pray as it's open to Jews during specific times. So at this 7th May instance it became such a clash focal to the violence escalation all over Israel and Gaza.
I do understand what you mean by connects at this instance to Ramadan and surrounding the mosque itself and Palestinians, and also thought about this which is why I kept the "holy to Islam" first, then pointed Judaism, and the same with the area's Muslim "compound" then Jewish "mount" name, even though its Wikipedia article titled under the later. I also understand your comment to my previous passive phrasing for the weapons uses as sounding not-appropriate; that was just yet another attempt of mine to describe the violent actions themselves and shorten for lead, rather than pointing "Palestinians" and who fired and who threw what weapons. Even though it then resulted in only pointing the Israeli Police. So I was actually satisfied to see Selfstudier who eventually clarified both sides with further detailing the actions and weapons and by that he also fixed your concern of passive presentation. And while I'm an Israeli Jewish myself and suffer from rocket bombings for the past two weeks. So with my explanations to my edits, I hope all that clarifies I'm trying to be neutral as possible and improving the article.
The former sentence you want to revert to (which was also just contributed, without special discussion) was also challenged by other editors opining it should be fuller - at least as for the actions. For the first religions part of the sentence - I can even agree with mentioning only Ramadan while then omitting any further mention to either religion. That's also per your view above that it's not relevant to mention the holiness to Judaism as a general status (by the by pointing it now surrounded Ramadan), so then it's also comes out as due-weight to keep the general "major holy site to Islam". It's further exaggerated when followed by "mosque" description (so already clarifies holy to Islam), as well as using the alternate name for the area by adding "compound" (to the mosque's name) while ignoring the synonym "Temple Mount". As for actions, also omitting this seems as if the police just stormed for no specific-local reason, ignores the parallel-following mutual violence which took place there, looking as though the mosque could had been empty and they just captured it or that they just suddenly stormed on quietly praying Palestinians; so both omitting any Israeli-Jewish mention while keeping Islam titles and omitting both-sides violence then looks completely partial and non-encyclopedic.
With regards to the religions, I can agree to a shortened description going something like this: "the following day and during Ramadan, the al-Aqsa Mosque (without "compound") was stormed by the Israeli police... Or what I still prefer as to mention both religions for the area's overall sensitivity, but also shorter: The following day, the al-Aqsa Mosque within an area with major holy significance to both Islam and Judaism, was stormed....
Again, I apologize as I started writing this comment before all other comments and didn't have the energy to dramatically modify it now, and still wanted to detail my own view for keeping the violent actions as well. Also as most comments above discuss the violent actions and the other international law situation, hope my suggestions for how to include (or not) the religions surrounding the mosque area can be beneficial as well.
Selfstudier thank you for your gentle reworks on this sentence while still taking consideration of my former additions. Just to explain that by source for "firecrackers" I meant those at the specific mosque section at the article's body (I wrote on the edit summary) and as the lead is eventually based on the detailed sections. But I do understand now in regards to grammar; I thought it's considered to relate as "firecrackers-throwing" when appearing before "stones-throwing" sorry. I also agree to the proposes above for "armed with" and more detailing for weapons, if we already detailed weapons and as I still think the Palestinians' weapons should also be further detailed beyond just "stones" and to balance the detail of Israel police weapons.
And please I just ask again in general to assume good faith and I try my best in this and in neutral editing and want to feel safe and calm contributing and discuss here. אומנות (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks contradict one of the sources we use from a specialst at Soas in Israeli studies, Yair Wallach (and what he says is well documented also in several wiki articles). Not the Al-Aqsa mosque but the whole Haram al Sharif is as it is, the one remaining piece of Palestine not in Israel's hands, because Muslims cleared the rubble left there by Christians hostile to Judaism (allowing Jews back then to return to Jerusalem and pray there), and built the site into the splendor it now is, and it has been the centre of local Islamic worship in the land continuously for 1,300 years. Wallach states that the obsession by rightwing groups to, dunam by dunam, wrest control of it or assert 'equal rights' is new: Judaism's core is centered on the Herodian wall below, not on the Temple and only in modern times has Zionism been inflected with the desire to assert possession over the Arab sanctuary - something that everyone knows would be tantamount to a declaration of war with the Muslim world. For that reason, your reading and the proposals that follow it, are inaccurate and can't be acted on. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your selective points in time are irrelevant as we're talking about what's happening now while still precisely based also on what preceded the Romans which frames both the very beginning of the Mount/Compound monotheistic-sanctity and part of it's present as a sanctity for two monotheistic religions, and my proposals are already acted on even more broadly as describing this fact for both, also explained further under section, and when my proposals now further try to collaborate to minimize this lead reference to simply state something even still (I add now) with compound for mentioning both religions as "stormed the mosque compound, sacred to both Islam and Judaism" or "stormed the mosque area during Ramadan". So I don't see what in describing present circumstances and clash is inaccurate and what can't be acted here.
To refer to some inaccurate and/or non-presented historical claims you made, going down the history route the mosques were precisely build there as based on a stone associated around the Foundation Stone as Jewish highest sanctity place which corresponds to the Jewish temple Holy of Hollies, and believed by Muslims too as a sacred stone (as well as Islam having some similar rules and same figures as in the Bible) and based on a later Roman temple, with also archaeological evidences for the 2nd temple - including the lower stones within the Herodian Wall you pointed (among other ancient Jewish streets and monuments before they turned to rubble); And Jews always referred to it as the temple's Western Wall with praying on it facing east to the Temple's holly of Hollies positioned on today's TEMPLE Mount; showing their connection to the mount, and prayed like this throughout history and desired to enter the mount also on different periods in history, that's putting aside of course times they were banished from Jerusalem, slaughtered or pogrom by Christians and Muslims (which you only pointed for when "allowing" them to return to Jerusalem), bringing us back to 2021, with Jews nowadays entering the mount to pray closer to the Holy of Hollies and the general Israel police guarding. And therefore shows that Judaism core is the Holly of Hollies, even though later historical circumstances limited the physical gathering to the Western Wall as the closest available place - to the core of the temple.
Also, there were branches of secular and religious Zionism. And just to point there are also Jews who just want to have the ability to pray there as for their Temple Mount sanctuary, so not everyone seek to reclaim it just for Judaism or Israel but can jointly pray there side by side even if still remains controlled by Palestinians. And anyway your point for Zionism wanting to assert possession in modern times again and further shows and explains also the 7th May 2021 situation.
If Yair Wallach expresses himself in a passionate opinionated manner, citing him shouldn't be acted upon if there are other more moderated sources to use, as reliable newspapers describing police "storm". In any case, the previous sentence only points violence (and unclear for what) as for "Israel storming" while only pointing holiness for "Islam sanctuary-compound" which can't be followed in a manner that won't destroy neutrality and encyclopedic info in the lead, and my suggestions serve shortened focus with neutrality as corresponding to the then detailing both religions and "Temple Mount" under the specific chapter, also a case in point as acceptable and more deeply explained there. אומנות (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now can someone close this? A clear case of foruming.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your claims with utmost respect even though it's clear - and further clear by your evading response now - that you are here to bait and then ignore and try to upset other editors and disrupt, talking about accusing me of forum. Not only that you try determining what will be acted upon in the article, now you also try to censor my tries to communicate with you and others here... Lovely... And when I presented 2 very collaborative and simple solutions and also my history, Zionism and Yair Wallach views were in connection to share further in regards to the article phrasing and sources editing. If someone wants to look at my 2 alternative phrasing proposals and pleasantly share what they think, I would love to. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the relevant articles on the site on the English Wikipedia. What you are reciting is a meme whose simplicities are undermined by scholarship, some bits of which are duly noted on those articles. It would be easy to show how flawed the vast generalization you make are, but that too would be foruming. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to spend further time reading external material for you as you clearly disrespect me and my time and say yourself it has to do (or your future comments) with generalization unrelated to my comments about the article but rather foruming. That Jews pray facing the Holy of Holies and nowadays enter the mount is a fact, which is what I referred to via history showing your flawed 1300 time-span and physical-gathering focus generalization, and out of intention to keep the lead explanation brief yet coherent and neutral as possible as I view. So again, I have 2 very simple proposals and would love for anyone to pleasantly share thoughts or more proposals. אומנות (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Motti Inbar is one of the world's leading scholars on the Temple's conflicted modern history, not 'external material'. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian losses to be added:

As well, on the Palestinian side -towers were destroyed -houses and commanding centers of Jihad and Hamas's executives -underground terror tunnles, used as bunkers and attacking tunnles -rocket supplies -rockets, anti tank and mortar launchers were destroyed and unmanned aircrafts launched fromnthe strip were shot down and neutralized. Nookscoot (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for changes in the form X -> Y and provide sources. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of Israeli civilian injury count in infobox are not sourced

At least not sourced with the associated citation. The number should be updated with a valid citation.

Deception Mortality count out of date

  • The number of militant killed is not official and outdated. Please take it off

So here the envoy Wennesland you cite later claim : "These strikes have killed over 100 operatives, including senior commanders, according to the IDF" This is already in contradiction with the Wikipedia selective figures.

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/tor-wennesland-special-coordinator-middle-east-peace-process-2

Here the complete quote of the envoy ( an envoy isn't providing official figures, he gives an assessment, so keep scrutiny ) "As a result of the military operations, seven factories, 40 schools and at least four hospitals sustained complete or partial damage. At least 18 buildings, including four high-rise towers, including one hosting international media outlets, have been destroyed and over 350 buildings damaged. According to the IDF, these buildings contained Hamas military installations."

  • The claim of schools and hospitals destroyed in the introduction is misleading as it is actually a quotation of Wennesland in The Guardian " Wennesland said 40 schools and four hospitals were completely or partially destroyed ". First the text doesn't cite Wennesland, secondly only the guardian cite it, and the ambiguity hasn't been honestly reported.

--Azepap129 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Wennesland is the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and as authoritative as you get. All the relevant data is collected by the office he presides over, and is regularly quoted by the press. He is not giving his personal opinion. I'll add 'completely or partially .'Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the role of the press isn't to provide official data. So keep scrutiny. Faithfully.--Azepap129 (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can get TW's reports here https://unsco.unmissions.org/documents All the details are in that 16 May one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided in my first ref. I don't cite from my imagination. What about the issue I addressed?--Azepap129 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His reports are very useful but primary so usually we are stuck with waiting for secondary sources and they frequently are superficial if they come at all.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here he is quoted from the Guardian, so there is no problem in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new BBC reference is again not correctly cited. In the reference " MORE than 130", and on Wikipedia we get "130" --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway the number is already out of date, now it's "150+"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Third Intifada?

Some of the news source like Slate and Al Jazeera start calling this event the Third Intifada.

Example of it: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/israel-palestine-third-intifada.html CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is speculation by some that the events could lead to that. But that's all it is at the moment, speculation. It's a good headline to hang an analysis on.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right then we will wait till there is more to this recent event. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See 2014 Jerusalem unrest, some sources refered to it as "Third Intifada". Does it make current events the fourth intifada? “WarKosign” 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intifadas are a prolonged period of conflicts, and Palestine is nowhere near what it was when Arafat was alive, the last Intifada lasted for half a decade in the early 2000s and since its end in 2005, every year since 2006 there have been claims whenever there were such tensions that a 3rd Intifada could arise. Palestine no longer has the capacity for that and I am sure a ceasefire will be in effect in days or even months at most, however it can be classified as a small duration war like the 2014 Gaza War, but that is ONLY WHEN there are sufficient WP:RS stating it as such. However it is true there are numerous WP:RS besides the slate source you mentioned that claims this could possibly trigger a "3rd Intifada", and tensions are indeed highest since 2005. So I will just mention that "some have feared that this could trigger one", whether it actually does or not would take years to determine, my views are irrelevant, its what WP:RS says that goes, however if senior editors wish to remove that addition, I will not add it back either simply because its too early, though the fact that some feared the crisis could lead to one per WP:RS can be mentioned I think. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whole last paragraph is UNDUE for the lead, it's also not in the article body. Btw, sputnik is a deprecated source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier All right feel free to remove it then, I agree its too early, to term it as Intifadas we should wait for years or at least till WP:RS mentions it confirmatory rather than just as a possibility. Now all of them just says it could trigger one as opposed to actulayy triggering one, WP:Too Soon applies too besie UNDUE, I approve your removal. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to revert things if I can avoid it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of events in 2015 were claimed as 'the third intifada'. That never caught on, though the time span was far longer. One can only speak of a 'third intifada' retrospectively, if sources concur after the event, which means it is far too early.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source is speculative (Is This the Third Intifada?); it doesn't state that it is, it says that it might become it, and specifically lists some reasons why it might not. Definitely not enough to call it that in the article voice yet, and clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead as long as it's just speculative. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is Qatari state news, and Qatar is involved first as the Hamas activities are commanded from Doha. And Doha provided safeheaven for Hamas operations and operatives. Obviously Al Jazeera should be taken as the least serious source of information. https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/15/05/2021/Foreign-Minister-meets-head-of-Hamas-Political-Bureau-in-Doha --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my request that the text citing the view 'The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s' be removed was closed immediately as foruming. It wasn't. The rationale was obvious: anyone looking at the 2014 Gaza War's length and casualties knows that.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we judge a conflict by his casualties though.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (2)

Syria should be added to combatants since rockets have been fired from Syria and hit the Golan Heights. GeorgeMemeulous (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the Golan Heights? Technically, in international law, it is in Syria. Secondly Syria the government or the lawless territory where all sorts of militant groups exist? To attribute to the former and make it an actor in the 'warring' whatever is shot towards Israel would be pointy, unless RS identify the agent as part of the Syrian army under Aasad's control.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have good sources for that, it seems there is not much info about it? Of course, the Golan is not Israeli so is there evidence that the targets were Israeli?Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one source. Regardless of the legal status of the territory where the rocket fell, the target was obviously Israel and this is what the source says. The source explicitly says that there is no proof the attack is connected to the conflict in Gaza, nor it is known who fired the rockets. “WarKosign” 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My convince-o-meter is not rising very much with that:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, adding Syria would mean the Syrian government is involved. We would need a source stating that unambiguously - just because someone is firing out of Syria's territory doesn't automatically make them a party to the conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: As per consensus above Run n Fly (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Syria militants targeted Israeli targets firing rockets that fell in the Golan heights". --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

I only read of one Lebanese dying in the protests at the border with Israel. I believe the protestor himself was a Hezbollah member. I think it should be changed to reflect that, "One Lebanese protestor" perhaps or something else. And I may add that Hezbollah is NOT part of the conflict, they fired no missiles at Israel, and one member protesting at the border does not count as involvement, that is farcical. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1D2:DEEE:5BB6:814A (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News are selectively choosen to reflect a certain point of view of the events. Objectively, the "protester" was shot while crossing the border, entering a military zone and destroying a security to create a breach for facilitating infiltration of Militants. But on Wikipedia it's a protester. There is an agenda. --Rectangular dome (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an objective fact, surely you could provide some RS saying so, and we can update the article accordingly. BSMRD (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are "Hezbollah infiltrations" at least every 6 months and the IDF always spots it and prevents it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The IDF identified a group of protesters who left objects near the border that they suspected were explosive devices. Three suspects cut the border fence and crossed into Israel where they were joined by another four suspects; they then started a fire inside Israeli territory, which spread to Lebanese territory."

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/jordanian-protestors-passed-police-barrier-on-way-to-israel-border-668187/amp

You can watch the video when they enter Israel after creating a breach in the fence.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/B1OkCQau00

Maybe selfstuduer can share his Hezbollah data? What do you mean every 6 month? You mean it's a normal practice? --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of humor.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "Lebanese protest" to "Lebanese", as described the actions do not amount to a protest, rather inflitration inside Israel and into a military area, destruction of security barrier for more infiltration and militancy. Comparing those belligerent acts to protests is unacceptable and misleading.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You all have missed the point, I don't care what you label the death as. My point is there was only 1 death that day, none other. so there should be one death in the infobox. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1979:4F48:D228:F4C7 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

killed by protest

An Israeli man has died of "protest", citing Wikipedia (not disrespecting victims).

You can update the death count on Israel. insha'Allah https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-seriously-hurt-in-lod-violence-dies-of-wounds/

--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'protestors' thing is wikipedia trying hard to remain neutral , there was a discussion earlier about when to refer to things as a protest, riot, et cetera. No conclusion could be made because editors were too catuious about the necessity to refer to each side in an unbiased manner. Obviously if this death is to be written about in descript, it should refer to them as a violent mob not protestors! --Ester9001 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, Hamas is a militant group, that's just one picture about your bias. Using the pretext of neutrality is indeed very convenient. This isn't linked to neutrality, it's liked to a bias accepted by few contributors ( with a majority of Arab militancy here). So according to your views if it's Palestinians they are innocent if not proven otherwise, and so a protester becomes a rioter when he kill, but when the victim do not die from his injury it's called a violent protest. I see a double standard, when you are at the same time easy to use Hamas provided data against the Israeli army whitout double checking or nuancing ( because there is no nuances when it comes to one part :-). Neutrality is describing objects based on their properties, not comforting views or newspaper terminology. Someone engaged in warfare isn't a protester, and using it everywhere show how deep the bias has become. There is no scrutiny, only one side is presented. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (3)

In the image caption that goes "OCHAoPT map of Palestinian communities under threat of eviction in East Jerusalem, as at 2016", change the underlined word to "of". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) : Done Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Correction, not done, I did it and someone change it back again.Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selfstudier, you changed the file name, not the caption, so another editor undid your change. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. Back to training school.Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small mistake

hey, I don't have autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia, this is why I'm telling this on the talk page. I found a small mistake in the article, Roni Alsheikh isn't suppose to be included in the Lead figures parameter of the Infobox, He quit from the police and now he doesn't work at public office, He is just a normal citizen. (sorry about my bad English). Benbaruch (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section

This speculation seems UNDUE to me. The sources include Sputnik (RSP entry) (a deprecated source) and a BBC news video (not even an article) from 2015![18]... ProcSock (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to 2nd intifada

Opinions are WP:ARSEHOLES, but this is still WP:NOTFORUM so no point keeping it open, given this just seems to be venting and no concrete actions regarding the article are proposed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s

Really. What donkey brayed that? Suffice it to read the 2014 Gaza War to realize the inanity of that statement. Opinions on history, if patently silly, should be ignored, except if they are made by the political actors directly involved.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (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.

Property law

@Nishidani: which Israeli law is this? The one the article says is used to reclaim properties and only Jews can utilise? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, PR. 'morning comes to consciousness with faint stale smells of beer' etc., (meaning I don't at this hour twig to the precise edit content (or my connection to it) referred to in your request. IF you could help me focus and lever me out of the fog of dullness I experience at this early hour by zeroing in on the crux, I'll attend to it.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing that needs changing, I just wanted to know what the laws mentioned in the first para of the "Historic dispute" section were called to do some background reading, and figured you'd know. (I found it out so doesn't matter now; Absentees' Property Laws). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be late on this. Funeral. If you are interested there are several important books, but numerous articles exist (I can pass on the pdfs if needed). Of them, the following a relatively quick overviews:
Benvenisti's is the best of these. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021: Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists

Hello. This is my second attempt to submit an edit request, after the discussion of the previous attempt was closed because of lack of non-primary sources. In this request, I will repeat anything that's in need of repeating, for the sake of completeness. Please excuse me if this is too cluttered or long.

The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...)

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets from the Gaza Strip targeted at Israeli cities and civilized areas, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against targets in Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...) The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. Gaza casualties being higher than Israeli casualties could be explained by the air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system operated by the IDF. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens and aerial defense systems. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate.

I'm saddened to see the entire world going against us without understanding the complexity of the situation and without knowing the context, and without understanding the measures the IDF takes to avoid casualties while Hamas and other terrorists fire rockets at Israeli civilians in order to kill them. Even if there are Gazan casualties, it still doesn't negate the efforts of the IDF. There's no political reason that can ever justify firing rockets with the aim of killing innocent civilians.

This is per the NPOV policy. I welcome suggestions to rephrase or better portray the message, although I would probably not be able to respond in the coming days. I've gathered complete citations from the press release of the IDF. These should go in a "sources" section, and linked to/referenced in the lead section (they're named references). Because of the failure of my previous edit request, I've gathered secondary sources. I've tried to stick to sources considered as generally reliable as much as I could have.

The sources below aim to back the following information: (*) Hamas aims at Israeli civilians. (*) The IDF aims at terrorists, not civilians. (*) The IDF takes measures to prevent harm to Gaza civilians.

Extended content

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/12/996180921/its-against-all-of-us-israel-hamas-violence-as-seen-from-the-ground

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-gaza-hamas-idf-rockets/2021/05/12/7989b49c-b28e-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-jerusalem-076a9ec7e2bd9c065882c64a4ab820a1

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/05/10/jerusalem-conflict-between-israel-palestinians-escalates-mosque/5019405001/

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-rockets-israel-jerusalem-unrest

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57094737

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-palestine-conflict-live-2021-b1848314.html

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000007764612/gaza-israeli-airstrike-news-building-associated-press.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/israel-pm-netanyahu-vows-to-continue-gaza-attacks-for-as-long-as-necessary

The following sources aim to back or exemplify the following claim: Israel has lower casualties because of the anti-missile system Iron Dome.

Extended content

The sources below aim to back the following information: (A) Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit, a soldier. (B) Hamas official praising kidnapping of three teenagers in 2014 as a "heroic operation". (C) Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and operates from dense civilized areas deliberately. (D) IDF alerts civilians before striking. (E) Roof knocker bombs.

Extended content

Point A:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/world/middleeast/hamas-gaza-strip-tunnels-led-to-israels-invasion.html

https://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Hamas-terrorists-caught-killed-attempting-to-infiltrate-Kibbutz-Nir-Am-through-tunnel-364148

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-soldier-feared-captured-tunnel-attack-militants-9642469.html


Point B:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigades

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-official-admits-group-abducted-killed-israeli-teens

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/In-first-Hamas-official-takes-credit-for-kidnap-and-murder-of-Israeli-teens-371703

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4561387,00.html


Point C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Human_shields

(Hamas is also considered a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, Canada, and Japan.)


Point D:

https://apnews.com/article/israel-west-bank-gaza-middle-east-israel-palestinian-conflict-7974cc0c03897b8b21e5fc2f8c7d8a79

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/16/israels-doctrine-humane-bombing-and-benevolent-occupation

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-bombs-hamas-gaza-chiefs-home-fighting-enters-seventh-day-2021-05-15/


Point E:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-story-of-idfs-innovative-tactic-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-663170

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/09/roof-knocking-the-israeli-mjilitarys-tactic-of-phoning-palestinians-it-is-about-to-bomb/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/27/israels-controversial-roof-knocking-tactic-appears-in-iraq-and-this-time-its-the-u-s-doing-it/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-conflict-israeli-knock-roof-missile-warning-technique-revealed-stunning-video-9603179.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-knock-on-roof.html

IDF press release:

Extended content

"Operation Guardian of the Walls—Here's Everything You Need to Know About What's Happening:" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 17, 2021. What's going on in Israel and Gaza?—Last week, violent clashes erupted in East Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. This week the violence escalated, with Palestinian terror organizations launching rockets from Gaza into Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired over 1,750 rockets toward Israel. These rockets have killed 7 Israeli civilians & injured over 523, and hit a school, hospital, bus, and multiple homes. In response, the IDF has struck over 650 terror targets in Gaza, including rocket launch sites, 10 attack tunnels, and killed over 100 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives.—Why are there more casualties in Gaza than in Israel? Of the 1,750+ rockets that they have fired since Monday, 300 misfired and exploded inside Gaza, killing and injuring innocent Gazans in the vicinity. This is because Hamas and Islamic Jihad deliberately place rocket launchers and military sites within densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. In addition, when the IDF warns Gazan civilians to evacuate, Hamas and Islamic Jihad encourage civilians to stay instead. But in Israel, the IDF does everything it can to protect Israeli civilians, and the Iron Dome Aerial Defense System has successfully intercepted over 90% of rockets fired at Israel.—What's unusual about this week's attacks? Jerusalem, Israel's capital, came under rocket fire for the first time since 2014. Hamas and Islamic Jihad also launched hundreds of rockets at Tel Aviv and the surrounding cities in central Israel, sending millions of people running for cover. Additionally, Anti-Tank Missiles have been repeatedly launched from Gaza at Israel, killing an IDF soldier, Staff Sgt. Omer Tabib.—In response to the ongoing attacks, the IDF has taken action to eliminate these sources of terror: (1) ROCKET LAUNCH SITES. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have placed rocket launchers throughout Gaza. And when they fire rockets at Israel, they are doing so in close vicinity to Gazan civilians. The way to eliminate the launch sites - and prevent the terrorist organizations from firing rockets at Israel - is through military air strikes.—(2) TERRORIST OPERATIVES. The IDF targeted and neutralized dozens of top Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and terrorists. Among them were: Bassem Issa: As the Gaza City Brigade Commander, he held senior positions in Hamas' weapons production system & was involved in many attacks on IDF soldiers. Khazem Khatib: He was the Head of Research & Development of Hamas' Production Division. Juma Tahla: He was a senior Hamas research & development official, and had advanced knowledge of surface-to-surface missiles. Wail Issa: He was the head of the counter-espionage department in the Hamas Military Intelligence. Hassan Kaogi: He was the Head of the Hamas Military Intelligence Security Department. Samech Mamluch: He was the head of Islamic Jihad's rocket unit.—(3) TERROR TUNNELS. Hamas terrorists have dug tunnels from Gaza into Israel. The IDF has been exposing Hamas tunnels since 2014, and has already exposed and targeted 10 new ones this week. If these tunnels were not neutralized, Hamas would be able to carry out one of its goals of infiltrating into Israel and kidnapping Israelis.—The fact that there aren't more casualties in Israel does not mean that Hamas isn't trying to kill Israeli civilians. It simply means that the IDF is preventing them from doing so at an incredible level. The Iron Dome Aerial Defense System and easily-accessible bomb shelters all over Israel have saved thousands of lives. IDF troops will continue to work 24/7 to defend Israeli civilians at the highest level possible and minimize Gazan casualties wherever possible.

"IDF strikes multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to Hamas military intelligence" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck a multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization. The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site.

"Evidence of Hamas' Abuse of Civilian Infrastructure" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. Fighting a terrorist organization that operates within civilian areas isn't easy. Watch as IDF pilots call off a strike because children were there: Hamas deliberately and systematically places military targets within the civilian population, exposing their citizens to danger. In contending with this, the IDF, and the Air Force in particular, attach paramount importance to accuracy and reducing harm to civilians. When planning a target, the IDF devotes significant time and resources to preparing the attack and where feasible, uses various tools, including advance warnings, roof knocking, street knocking, target clearing operations and a variety of professional calculations carried out by the Operations Analysis Directorate and the Planning Directorate. The use of these means varies depending on, among other factors, the type of target, the expected collateral damage, and the resources available at the time. Despite Hamas' aims to endanger its own civilians, the IDF will continue to make efforts to minimize harm to civilians while continuing to attack Hamas terror targets.

"Context is everything: What You Need to Know About IDF Strikes in Gaza" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. What you need to know about IDF strikes in Gaza. Introducing: Context—Here's some important context to the headlines you're seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip—Hamas has turned residential areas in Gaza into military strongholds. Let's take a closer look at... (1) Hamas' rocket launchers; (2) Hamas' tunnel systems; (3) Hamas' military buildings.—Hamas fires rockets at Israel from densely-populated neighborhoods in Gaza like these. (In the background is a photo of a rocket launch from Gaza showing many civilian buildings around the launch site.) The IDF must strike these rocket launchers in order to prevent Hamas from firing more rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, over 360 of Hamas' rockets have already misfired and landed short in these same civilian neighborhoods.—Hamas has an expansive network of underground tunnels: (A) Tunnels that Hamas digs under the border to try to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap Israelis; (B) Tunnels that Hamas operatives use to maneuver around Gaza. This is an expansive network that Hamas uses to store its weapons, conceal its militants, and move freely around under civilian areas in order to carry out their military activity. With one being being (sic) a danger to Israeli civilians, and the other being a hiding spot for dangerous terrorists, both are legitimate military targets.—(A photo with the following writing added on top: "This is the entrace to a tunnel in Gaza (...) and one block over is a kindergarten and a mosque".)—Hamas uses multi-story buildings all over Gaza for multiple military purposes, including: * intelligence gathering; * planning attacks; * command and control; * communications. Unfortunately, other units in the buildings are often used by civilians who may or may not know what's going on down the hall. But when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, the building becomes a lawful military target.—The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings recently, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed. Whenever possible, * We called the buildings' residents and warned them to evacuate. * We sent SMS messages. * We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. * We gave civilians enough time to evacuate.—Again, when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law. All the buildings targeted by the IDF were used for military purposes. The fact that they're located in civilian areas is a Hamas tactic to hide from the IDF and maximize the damage when the IDF strikes them. For Hamas, an Israeli death is more valuable than a Palestinian life. The IDF will continue to take as many precautions as possible to avoid civilian casualties in the fight against Hamas terrorism.

"מוסתרים בין משרדי תקשורת אזרחיים: מטוסי קרב תקפו יעדי מודיעין של חמאס - צפו בתיעוד" [Hidden Among Civilian Media Offices: Fighter Jets Attacked Intelligence Targets of Hamas - Watch the Recording] (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. מטוסי קרב של צה"ל תקפו מבנה רב-קומות הכולל נכסים צבאיים השייכים למודיעין הצבאי של ארגון הטרור חמאס. בבניין אלג׳אא פועל המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס, וכן משרדים המשמשים את חמאס ואת גא״פ. בבניין יושבת יחידת המחקר והפיתוח של המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס האחראית בין היתר למספר פעולות חבלניות שבוצעו נגד ישראל. היחידה מורכבת ממוקדי ידע שמהווים נכס ייחודי לארגון הטרור, העושים שימוש בציוד טכנולוגי ערכי ביותר של חמאס נגד ישראל. היחידה השתמשה ביכולות אלו נגד ישראל במספר אירועים, בכדי לנסות לחבל ולשבש את פעולות צה״ל והאזרחים שבמרחב הסמוך לעזה. בבניין קיימים משרדים של כלי תקשורת אזרחיים, אשר ארגון הטרור חמאס מסתתר מאחוריהם ומשתמש בהם כמגנים אנושיים. ארגון הטרור חמאס ממקם במכוון את נכסיו הצבאיים בלב האוכלוסייה האזרחית ברצועת עזה. טרם התקיפה, צה"ל הזהיר את האזרחים ששהו בבניין ונתן להם שהות מספקת להתפנות מהמבנה.

Other miscellaneous sources I've gathered, listed here for reference (but I've not had the time to examine them):

Extended content

https://www.jns.org/us-state-department-israel-has-right-to-self-defense-loss-of-life-lamentable/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israels-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/german-fm-says-israel-has-absolute-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-wants-several-more-days-of-fighting-despite-ceasefire-proposals-report/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-assures-biden-that-israel-is-seeking-to-limit-gaza-civilian-casualties/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-us-europe-allies-supportive-on-gaza-conflict-not-so-the-arab-world/

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/15/biden-speaks-to-israeli-palestinian-leaders-as-violence-escalates.html

https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/05/13/us-reiterates-ironclad-support-for-israels-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Undermining-Israels-right-to-self-defense-The-UN-pathology-362859

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians-conflict-rockets-second-week/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-violence-palestinians-wounded-2021-05-10/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/israeli-police-change-route-contentious-jerusalem-march-77600402

https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-israelis-wounded-as-hamas-launches-massive-rocket-barrage-on-ashkelon/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-and-israel-exchange-rocket-fire-following-contentious-e2-80-98jerusalem-day-e2-80-99-clashes/ar-BB1gAn0t

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/hamas-rockets-and-iranian-drones-a-war-of-economic-attrition-against-israel/

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/its-time-to-stand-with-israel-against-hamas-rockets-editorial-667885

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/idf-launches-massive-strike-against-gaza-bombs-hamas-chiefs-home-668286

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-middle-east-news-2021-05-11/

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-fires-artillery-into-gaza-palestinian-rocket-attacks-persist-2441388

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-tells-russia-were-ready-for-ceasefire-with-israel/

https://honestreporting.com/unreported-idf-saving-lives-as-hamas-aims-to-maximize-casualties/

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-story-of-idfs-innovative-tactic-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-663170

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182741

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/gaza-hamas-fighters-military-bases-guerrilla-war-civilians-israel-idf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/israeli-strike-un-school-gaza-kills-women-children

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/jul/24/gaza-crisis-palestinian-death-toll-passes-700-live-updates

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/israel-palestinian-territories

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/thousands-flee-gaza-israel-bombing

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/israel-resumes-air-strikes-hamas-rejects-ceasefire

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/20/israelis-die-defend-british-media

I would like to thank anyone who dedicates time to read this. Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely original research, with a solid helping of low quality sources. This article is not going to parrot IDF talking points. You can keep asking, but the answer is going to continue to be no. nableezy - 02:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not original research. The sources directly support the information that I've added. Even if the current Wikipedia article just states facts about numbers, the policies and actions of the IDF and Hamas, both prominent figures in this "crisis" or "war" or whatever, are important and relevant information that cannot be disregarded. It's quite relevant to describe the context of the actions, and not just state numbers (especially when one side has many more casualties), because that's irresponsible on Wikipedia editors' behalf and breaches the WP:NPOV policy. Not low-quality sources: I've mentioned the quality of the sources above. I've actually consulted Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list and based the added information on sources which are regarded as high quality. I took a lot of my free time to find high-quality sources, and adapted my text to the new text in the lead section (as it has changed in the meantime). I don't accept this blind criticism of yours, that's rude. If you still think this is original research, you should back your claim with constructive criticism. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actors in all conflicts wish articles here showed them in a positive light. However, Our job here is to be neutral. Of 19 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than talking about how neutral this is (it isn't), I'm going to make a more structural critique. This is too much for the lead. The lead should outline content that is reflected by the article, and should be a broad overview of the topic at hand. This gets sidetracked into a discussion of Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties and Hamas's indiscriminate targeting(or lack thereof) which, while a possibly good addition to the article(only if included as an Israeli perspective, many Palestinians and their supporters have a wholly different view, and that needs to be respected), is not fit for the lead. Ideally the lead will not need citations as everything said within is detailed later within the article, if you really want this info in the article I recommend you draft a section for the article proper like "IDF Tactics" or something to that effect, rather than attempting to fit it into the lead. The lead as written uses very even handed language and speaks broadly to avoid ascribing motivations, which is ideal for what the lead is supposed to do, and adding this information into the lead complicates our job of maintaining neutrality dramatically. BSMRD (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what is specifically not respecting npov in the proposal, except that it support Israel views? The fact that it support Israel views is exactly legitimate, and as you are well able to do, I am sure you will find criticsm. Censoring isn't part of npov.
why won't you talk about things that you find "possitive" about Israel military operations? Is npov based on negativity? Obviously the Israeli point of view should be presented. there is absolutely no argument for providing only palestinian point of view. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV doesn't mean that anything bad needs to be 'balanced' with an even amount of 'good'. The coverage in article needs to reflect coverage in RS. Whereas maybe work on NPOV can be done, lengthy regurgitation of IDF press office statements is not it, and does no justice for readers either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. NYT etc isn't idf press. 2. There is no mention of Israel's views, that's a big problem for Wikipedia, noone talked about using the IDF press.! --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal almost doubles the length of the current paragraph, mostly sourced to attributed statements by the IDF. They are given in news sources, yes, but they are attributed statements of the IDF. AP, for example, has called some of the statements dubious. Further, some of the information is not verifiable, eg it claims Hamas uses civilians as human shields, sourced to our article on it, but our article says this is unproven. I don't have the time to fact check it all, sorry, but generally the lead cannot serve as either an IDF or Hamas mouthpiece; it does not need to be filled with attributed statements of the parties. Many of these are already in the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, while some users on the talk are being clearly over-zealous on the side of Israel, the article as it is does seem to be unfairly biased in favour of Gaza. In example it does not talk about Israeli casualties, much is missing or out of date, 15 citations are from the Guardian while only 5 are from the BBC, why is this the case when the Guardian is politically motivated (clearly) where as the BBC is neutral as matter of policy. Why also are there 11 New York Times citations, and only 3 from the Wall Street Journal (again, the former is politically biased, the later is not.)

Lastly, and most strikingly, it does not make note of the US statement of 'Israel has a right to defend itself' in the Diplomacy section, and makes multiples notes of the other kind of statement from other nations.

Why is this the case? --Ester9001 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 you should do more edit request and ask maybe involve other people than the squad on here. :-) --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Please update the casualties infobox:

In the right-hand side, under "Gaza", "change 20–130 militants killed" to "20–130+ militants killed", per the BBC source provided.

In the right-hand side, under "East Jerusalem", add "1 Palestinian Killed"

In the left-hand side, add a new section "East Jerusalem", containing "6 Israeli's Injured".

Per Reuters. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) It's already 150+ anyways.(ps. They keep Israel data low for criticsm ;-) that s why they cite Hamas so much, but when it comes to Israel they have more doubts than philosophers.) --Rectangular dome (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

160 militants were reported killed. It's hard to keep up, I prefer to wait for the operation to stop and then update with stable numbers. “WarKosign” 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why at the same time the Hamas figures keeps being updated, and here people need to ask many times for a change. (Ps. flagrant double standard for me).--Rectangular dome (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to find figures I found it far easier to find data on Gaza figures than Israeli ones. Far more sources report the former, and include it in a paragraph on tangential reporting on the event, whereas they often do not include Israeli casualties in the same articles. That may explain why the data is harder to keep updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: These numbers are generally out of date by the point someone looks at the edit request. Feel free to put the updated numbers and sources on the talk page, but there's no need for an actual edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add mortars and 2 deaths

Please add "rockets and mortars"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/amp/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox +"2 foreign civilians". They died under the bombings of Hamas. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-foreign-workers-confirmed-dead-in-mortar-attack-medics/

Thailand nationals https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/rocket-barrage-renews-after-night-of-quiet-idf-continues-striking-hamas-668391

--Rectangular dome (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead figures

As far as I can remember, 3 of the 4 the lead figures listed for Gaza are abroad, whereabouts unknown, i.e.,Saleh al-Arouri, Ziyad al-Nakhalah and Abd Al Aziz Awda. Ismail Haniyeh is formally obliged by Hamas rules to live abroad, but certainly is directly involved. Is there any evidence the other three have a role in directing events from such places as Damascus and Qatar? All decisions on military actions of this type are decided by a joint action committee consisting of Hamas, PIJ and other factional operatives/head commanders in the Strip. In any case, we need documentation for them on this, otherwise the infobox would be based on inference and hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ministry of Health is run by the Hamas government"

I cannot see any citations for the claim. I don't think it should be there. It should be removed or reliable sources shall be added because this can be controversial and might be self-claim. CyberTroopers (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. “WarKosign” 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the term "run" is appropriate in that statement. "Control" as written in both sources you provided would be much appropriates because they both have different meaning. Meriam Webster defines "control" as an "exercise restraining or directing influence over" meanwhile "run" is "to go without restraint". If the ministry is run by Hamas, the ministry itself is a Hamas (citation needed). CyberTroopers (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks WarKosign. It was in the source when I wrote it. If that has been disappeared by anyone of the numerous editors here, suffioe it to retrieve the original edit form. By the way, there is absolutely nothing controversial about the statement. Hamas is the political party running all aspects of the administration in the Gaza Strip and has done so for 15 years. Any of a dozen scholarly studies on its administration will tell you that (see the Hamas page.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minister of Health of the Gaza Strip redirects to Ministry of Health, Palestine and there is a bit of explanation there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli soldier injury from mortar fire, while assisting in transfer of aid at Gaza crossing

https://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-hurt-by-mortar-fire-while-assisting-in-transfer-of-aid-at-gaza-crossing/

I feel like this is a significant enough story to add to the wiki, especially since no descript is gone into in the casualties section for Israeli casualties.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2)

Add Palestine to the infobox on Hamas's side. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Its already present in the infobox Run n Fly (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (3)

Change "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 people in Israel have so far died in the conflict." to "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 Israelis have so far died in the conflict." 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were 12 Israelis? For example, one was an Indian. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were not 12 Israelis. They were 9 Israelis, 2 Thais and 1 Indian. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Per replies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking out the separate parts into their own articles

It appears that we are breaking out casualties in the info box instead of considering them as separate military actions/civil unrest. For example, the Israel-Gaza conflict has become a separate, though related, operation. According to the IDF, the operations are known as Operations Guardian of the Walls. Per prior Gaza wars, they operations by Israeli forces have their own pages (See Operation Cast Lead or Operation Hot Winter for the two 2008 conflicts). The article itself makes zero mention to "Guardian of the Walls" and the Israeli military operations, despite this designation giving a redirect to this article.

The unrest in the West Bank and Israeli-Arab clashes in Israel have a much different dynamic and can be considered more as "Civil Unrest" than part of the larger conflict with Hamas. The riots have different belligerents: protesters/rioters from both sides, Israeli border patrol/police, and some lone-wolf militant attacks. They are currently lumped together as a single set of belligerents when they are not necessarily allied (think Fatah vs Hamas) or even approaching the conflict with the same tactics as Hamas, PIJ or even Hezbollah.

I am proposing that we create separate articles to separate these two facets of the conflict/unrest in the scope of the wider conflict rather than continuing to lump them together in the infobox under "parties to the civil conflict" and then taking the time (and effort) to separate them in the "casualties" section. This will also help streamline the updates to the body of the article, so we can easily understand the two sides of this operation.ItsGrrreat (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times already even though it's only just over as week since this kicked off. Those separate articles have been created and then redirected here, where there is an ongoing RM that probably ought to be resolved in the first instance. At least for now, editors seem content to keep all the events, which are to some extent connected, together in one place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem, but by having the civil unrest and the conflict in one article it almost validates the initialisation of conflict as response to the civil unrest. Ofcourse the unrest has became much worse during the conflict, and they are obviously inter-related. I do think efforts should be made by the editors to idstinguishe these two elements in the article, to the effort of having an individual section for civil unrest, rather than lumping it all into the 'escalation' section. Which does, in my opinion, seem to legitimise the idea that the conflict was justly instigated by the police incident in Jerusalem and the unrest which has happened in the past week. Efforts should be made to separate coverage of state-state conflict and coverage of unrest in Israel. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of sources connect the two events. It's hard to dispute that Hamas fired rockets in response to the clashes on the Temple Mount; it does not necessarily mean that this response was justified or warranted. “WarKosign” 15:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, as I said "The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem".
Many in Israeli feel like Gaza use rocket barrages as a means of socio-political protest. Iran has commented in the last few days as saying "Palestine has a good unique way of dealing with Israel" (he since said in a statement he regretted this speech). The point is that one must be careful to separate the issues in terms of articulation to the reader of the wiki, in that the actions of Hamas and social unrest are not conjoined in any legally acceptable manner.
In example, a Palestine terrorist in Israel, is not a terrorist with association to Hamas, he is an independent (as far as is known) terrorist. Unless evidence shew otherwise.
The only legally acceptable form of protest, is protest which is not in any way in association with Hamas or instigating violence, which is a crime and
not a protest but a riot.
----Ester9001 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (4)

In the Diplomacy section, please add note of the statement from the USA and UK, saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-reiterates-israels-right-to-defend-itself-theres-false-equivalence-being-made-between-israel-hamas/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-british-pm-back-israels-right-to-defend-itself-from-iranian-strikes/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israel-has-right-to-respond-to-rockets-palestinians-have-right-to-safety/ Ester9001 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual stances by states are in the International reactions to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. We arent going to include only those supportive of Israel when it is a tiny minority and we arent going to include all the statements in support of the Palestinians or opposing Israel's actions as it will overwhelm the article, so we have them all in a child article. nableezy - 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The US and UKs support is the only thing which has blocked united security council resolutions to call for end of hostilities.
It is relevant.
Ester9001 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is the US only, 14 to 1. The right to self-defence is just a truism. The reason given by the US for blocking a ceasefire call was that it might disturb their behind the scenes efforts to calm the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truism smuism. Every man and nation has a right to defend itself, and the US and UK and Germany made those statements about the right to defense before the United Security Council blocks, a week before at the start. --Ester9001 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree with me.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:]]== Follow up on the ruse? ==

There has been very little coverage as far as I can see in the foreign press of the outcome of the ruse (and it was, from a purely military perspective very shrewd in its potential for a winning blow) concerning an imminent invasion. We have 3 sources (St atesman) saying it was a major success but now note Maariv states that it was subsequently judged to have been a failure or to have fallen far short of its aims. [19]. Worth keeping an eye out for some reliable report in English on this.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been an honest mistake. And no, I'm not WP:FORUM baiting, it's a piece of information that should be mentioned in the article. “WarKosign” 17:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and we do now mention it. Deception is a standard war tactic the world over so is neither a surprise nor 'morally' objectionable. 'Honest mistakes' doesn't ring right, though. It appears so far that the tactic failed to achieve their aim (Aluf Benn, is Israel’s most failed and pointless Gaza operation ever. It must end now Haaretz 18 May 2021 'Israel’s land forces have been consigned to the marginal role of deceiving and confusing the enemy into descending into tunnels in the hopes of trapping them through airstrikes. Even this doesn’t seem to have succeeded – large numbers of Hamas fighters were not inside the tunnels that were bombed.') Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning children casualties in the infobox

I noticed that children Palestinian casualties keeps getting removed from the infobox. But on the Israeli side we have a breakdown by both nationality (mentioning Indian and Thai) and breakdown by ethnicity (mentioning Arab-Israeli). I think we are going to do a demographic breakdown we should be consistent, otherwise we should only breakdown by combatant and non-combatant.VR talk 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning children is especially important as we otherwise don't have reliable figures in the breakdown of civilians and militants killed on the Palestinian side. Its is also WP:DUE as nearly every news source mentions this. Pinged EkoGraf.VR talk 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, returning it. nableezy - 16:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding slightly, if you want to break down military vs civilian casualties for Israel, including those suffering from anxiety in the count and not even saying so, because the sources do, well the sources also break down the Gaza casualties by age and it is just as DUE to include in the infobox. nableezy - 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Casualties" has a well defined meaning, which usually only includes those physically wounded or killed. Social and psychological effects (anxiety, ...) can be mentioned somewhere in the article, if the sources mention it, but not in the infobox, lest we confuse our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I see EcoGraf's edit rationale states that infoboxes don't make that distinction normally. His argument certainly holds for the infobox of the 2014 Gaza War where as here a quarter of those killed in Gaza were children (ca.515).Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas ofcourse controls the hospitals and ministry of health which publishes the death certificates and has been accused by Israel of fabricating and inflating number of child deaths. Perhaps that is why it was removed? Ester9001 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy First, regarding your comment, "we break down civilians/military for israel but not palestine", this is incorrect. Based on the available sources we have, we have provided an overall toll of civilian and military dead among the Palestinians and broke that down to the lower (per Hamas/PIJ) and higher (per Israel) estimate of militant dead. Wikipedia infoboxes customarily contain the overall numbers of dead and/or a breakdown between civilian and military, with sometimes a breakdown in nationalities. However, the infoboxes do not contain a breakdown among male, female and children. This is information, like I said, that is more appropriate for the main body of the article. If we include the numbers of children for one side, we would have to include the numbers for the other side as well, which gradually leads to an overinflation of the infobox and WP policy/guidelins state we should avoid overinflating the infobox. Finally, regarding your comment about Israelis suffering from anxiety, there has already been a discussion on that issue during both this and the 2014 Gaza conflict and consensus is the infobox includes only physical casualties that are directly a result of the conflict. As RandomCanadian has said, those suffering from anxiety can be mentioned in the main body of the article, but they have no place in the infobox. Vice regent infoboxes sometime contain breakdowns between nationalities, however, as you pointed out, the figure on the Israeli side also contains the mention of the two Arab-Israelis, which is an ethnical breakdown, which I think should be removed from the infobox. In principle, I agree with your proposal that maybe it would be best to do a combatant/non-combatant breakdown, while mentioning the rest of the information in the main body of the article. So, I would kindly ask Nableezy that you cancel your edit here [20] until a clear consensus can be reached on the figures that would be included or excluded from the infobox as per WP guidelines so an edit war could be avoided. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline? And yes, we do breakdown civilian/military for Israel and not Palestine, saying that is incorrect is dumbfounding given the infobox is readily available for anybody to look at. We include that 11 civilians and 1 soldier was killed on the Israeli side, but amalgamate those two things together for the Palestinians. Yes, we include what each side says is the "militant" death toll in Gaza, but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed. I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit. nableezy - 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion that the Palestinian Ministry of Health inflates child death figures is an anti-Palestinian conspiracy theory. Think how many people would need to be in such a conspiracy to allow this to happen. People who don’t understand the region seem to think that every person in the Gaza administrative bureaucracy is somehow a Hamas militant.

They publish names, locations, ages etc on a regular basis. This type of information is very difficult to fabricate.

If you want additional evidence, note this desperately sad tweet from the Norwegian Refugee Council today:[21] We sadly confirmed today that 11 of over 60 children killed by Israeli air strikes in #Gaza over the last week were participating in our programme helping them deal with trauma. All of the children between 5 and 15 years old were killed in their homes. If just one NGO had been treating 11 of the children, it is entirely reasonable that another 50 children had died given the scale of Gaza’s population. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy "What guideline?" WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONS. "I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit." The question here is not if it should be removed, but instead if it should be included. And a clear consensus does not exit in this regard at this point. You inserted the information after the discussion regarding its inclusion was started and did not wait for the discussion to reach a conclusion, as guidelines require us. "but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed" We don't say it because there are no sources (either Israeli or Palestinian) that say how many of the dead are actually civilians, only claims by both sides how many are militants. Also, please stick to WP:GOODFAITH. In any case, I still think Vice regent's proposal may be the best solution. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but my reverting your revert doesnt make my revert editwarring and yours not. I have made one revert here, I have not edit-warred and do not intend to. You have likewise made one revert here (that Ive taken the time to count at least, have not checked the history). The guideline I asked for was what says children should not be listed in the infobox. Cus WP:DUE would seem to say it should be when every source that discusses numbers seemingly includes that material. No, I did not insert the information after the discussion was started, I returned the material that had been remove by you without any discussion at all. Also, the UN yesterday said 116 civilians, including 61 and three pregnant women have been killed. I'd be fine including civilians without breaking down children in the infobox like that. nableezy - 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy Thank you very much for providing the source on 116 civilian dead and I agree that it should be included in the infobox, while moving the children figure to the main body of the article. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder All information must be based on WP:RS. It's beyond our remit to criticise sources as "palestinian" or "israeli" propaganda. Ideally, we have independent reliable sources to confirm the numbers. If they disagree, then we need to report all significant viewpoints per WP:NPOV, cited to reliable sources. See for ex. 2014 Gaza War, where competing counts are given in the infobox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Israel or any other major player disputed Palestinian figures for either total killed or number of children killed? As Onceinawhile pointed out, this information is hard to fabricate. Since RS's take both of these figures from Gaza MOH at face value and since no one disputes it, we don't even need to attribute it and can state it in wikivoice.VR talk 19:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers were backed by the UN per WSJ: United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. So shouldnt just be attributed to the MOH. nableezy - 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source says: In total, 212 people, including 61 children and 36 women, have been killed in Gaza since last Monday, according to the Palestinian health ministry. ... United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. ... A spokesman for the Gaza health ministry denied manipulating figures, saying it has the names of everyone killed in Gaza and could verify those with international organizations. UN doesn't seem to verify MOH's figures. I guess we could give both sets, however, but I imagine they will be verified once it stops being a current event so don't see the point. Or just attribute separately. ProcSock (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which country's casualty statistics do get independently verified? I am not aware of any country which arranges third party audits of these statistics. I could see the "wounded" statistics might benefit from an audit, as there can be subjectivity there, but counting death certificates entails no subjectivity. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5)

Change "Personnel killed

  • Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
  • Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"

to "Personnel killed:

  • Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
  • Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"

Basically just add a colon because we are introducing a list. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (6)

It is not Jews against Palestinians. That is extremely offensive. It is Israelis against Palestinians. Jews are people of the Jewish religion and have nothing to do with the conflict. What your doing is inciting hate against Jews. Why not say Jews against Muslims. Or Israelis against Muslims. Because that is equally wrong. Please correct this to Israelis against Palestinians. 86.10.34.111 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second! The fact that is says, on the first paragraph of the wiki article,
acts of mob violence between the Jews and Palestinians
is utterly absurb. Possibly anti-Semitic. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT "The violence was the culmination of building tensions between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem and elsewhere over the past couple weeks." Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It then should be 'tensions between Jews and Muslims' or ideally not refer to religion at all.
I do not care that it was in the New York Times, that is meaningless! You will find many other sources talking about the same event which do not use such language.
Please may an editor change it, otherwise I will file a dispute resolution for it. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite easy to find reliable sources phrasing the events in this way, unless there is a good reason we usually go by reliable sources. Even if one were to resort to the euphemism "intercommunal conflict" I am pretty sure it would be fooling no-one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest using any euphemism, in the first para of the wiki it says: "between the Jews and Palestinians", this is anti-semitic, at the bare min it should be "between Jews and Palestinians".
This is outrageous. Change it some editor please.
--Ester9001 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Between Jewish and Palestinian-Arab Israelis.' perhaps. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Palestinians that are not Israeli in East Jerusalem? Residents without citizenship? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has altered it anyway but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may get reverted back (I did change it to "between Jews and Palestinians" earlier but got reverted.).Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute. 18 May 2021 (7)

All disputes of neutrality is highlighted in a Bold Italic.

In 2.4 (Arab communities in Israel), it states "In Acre, a Jewish man was attacked and seriously injured by an Arab mob armed with sticks and stones while driving his car. In Bat Yam, Jewish extremists attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians. An Arab motorist was also beaten in the street, an incident which was caught live by an Israeli news crew. An Israeli soldier was severely beaten in Jaffa, and two civilians including a paramedic and a police officer were shot by Arab assailants in Lod and Ramla. An Israeli news crew was attacked by Jewish extremists in Tel Aviv, and a Jewish family which mistakenly drove into Umm al-Fahm was attacked by a mob before being rescued by other local residents and police."

Usage of "Arab mob" or "Arab assailant" is a possible dispute of neutrality. Using the word Arab could impose that the editor is an anti-Arab. I suggest that "Arab-extremist" be used instead of just using "Arab" as for it sounds as if all Arabs are extremists.

— Chxeese (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because Judaism is a religion so one may be a Jewish extremist, but Arabian is an ethnicity, one cannot be an extremist of his ethnicity. Muslim-extremists would fit. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Arabs are Muslims. That is like saying all Americans are Christians. Additionally no Muslim-extremist claimed responsibility for the attack, making it unfitting. -- Chxeese (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. The Israeli were police, may have contain (if proportional to the national population) 20% arab, 20% Russian, christian / athiest / whatever. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Broken record here, go by the sources. That JP/ToI would report on this way does not surprise me so best thing would be to see if there is are alternative sources saying it differently.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Arab-extremist' just does not sound right to me, surely it should be either Islamic-extremist, or arab far-right or some such terminology. That is all I was trying to say really. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+2 Israeli injured, soldiers. +3 Palestinian dead, armed demonstrators.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-soldiers-shot-in-west-bank-palestinian-killed-by-gunfire-amid-unrest/

Two issues with the infobox

The Infobox lists Roni Alsheikh in the commanders section on the Israeli side. Alsheikh was the Israel Police Commissioner, but that position is now held by Kobi Shabtai. I'm unaware of any command position he holds now, to the best of my knowledge he's retired. Can someone check up on this? Also, in the casualties section, in Israeli casualties, it notes two Israeli-Arab casualties alongside the foreign workers. While we should mention the foreign workers to make clear that they were not Israeli, should we really be categorizing citizens of the same country by ethnicity in the Infobox? That's something for further down in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there shouldn't be a breakdown by ethnicity. The two Arab-Israelis should be mentioned in the main body of the article, but not the infobox. Someone also raised this issue elsewhere on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about a new WikiProject Proposal - This article would be a main

Hey editors of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. I recently proposed an idea for a WikiProject for 2021. This crisis (Or conflict depending on the move discussion) started in 2021, and the proposed WikiProject is dedicated to 2021 articles, so this article would be main article for the new WikiProject, especially with over 100,000 views every day this week. So I thought I would drop by and let you know about the proposal. Feel free to drop your opinions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Evictions”: is the term neutral?

I’d like to suggest changing “evictions” in the second paragraph of the intro to any of “forced removal”, “forced displacement” or “dispossession”. Terms like “eviction” and “property dispute” are sanitized to the point of being misleading, and don’t adequately portray the facts on the ground or the legality of the situation. The fact that these terms are strongly preferred by one party (the occupying power) should give us serious pause re: WP:NPOV.

I have a number of sources to support this change, generally endorsed by WP:RSP:

From the International Court of Justice: “Israel: ICC must investigate forced displacement of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and attacks against civilians in Gaza”

From CBS News: “The United Nations Commission for Human Rights has called the forced removal of Palestinian families a potential war crime. Israeli officials have called it a ‘real-estate dispute between private parties.’”

From Al Jazeera: “Sheikh Jarrah residents speak out on Israel’s forced expulsions”

From Haaretz: “Democrats Urge U.S. to Act Against Israel's 'Abhorrent' East Jerusalem Evictions: Several Democratic lawmakers are calling for an investigation on whether Israel’s ‘forced displacement for Palestinians’ violates U.S. laws”

I do not want to start people foruming, I just think this merits discussion and probably a change. I think “forced removal” is a more accurate legal description; “eviction” is better suited to a more banal dispute over residential tenancies.WillowCity (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed description of the circumstances is already present. This is just highly inflammatory language that would bias the article in favor of one side. We can use banal words, then lay out the entirety of the facts in the article, and let the readers decide on what they think of it.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is accurate, not inflammatory. With the utmost respect, it sounds like you are saying that banal language that would bias the article in favour of one side is preferable to bold language that runs a risk of the same.WillowCity (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banal language, just dryly describing the bare facts, is not bias. People can read the rest of the description and reach their own conclusions.--RM (Be my friend) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should describe the the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 as "a large wave". As well, "forced removal" is an equally dry description, it just reflects international as opposed to Israeli domestic legal opinion.WillowCity (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is a balance of sources so if most sources are saying eviction we should go with that. I need to check about "property dispute" and similar phrasing, that sounds a bit off to me but I could well be wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (7)

In the last paragraph of the subsection entitled "Arab communities in Israel" of the "Escalation" section, I kindly ask that the link to the page 'Cellcom' be edited to direct the viewer to 'Cellcom,' as the current link is not specific to Israel and directs the viewer to more than one page. Ajs2004 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bold??

Editors are making a meal out of avoid bold for the opening sentence. Although I agree that a strictly descriptive name probably ought not to be bolded, it does seem that this is being used as an excuse to rephrase and make other adjustments to the lead sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small edits

Second paragraph should read 'right-wing' as opposed to 'Far-Right' Jewish nationalists - it is a large march which encompasses Jews from various levels on the spectrum. Does source specifically say 'far-right'?

First sentence of third paragraph reads as if Israel should have been expected to accept the ultimatum issued, perhaps consider restructuring the sentence.

Finally please change 'airstrikes on Gaza' to 'on targets in Gaza'. Israel didn't 'strike Gaza', that surely breaches impartiality guidelines. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis&oldid=1023918509"