Jump to content

Talk:2022 Al-Aqsa clashes: 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
Line 374: Line 374:
*:Apart from being wrong. Jewish people for 2000 years have prayed at the Western Wall, not on the Temple Mount where their very presence is banned rabbinically. In fact for anyone familiar with the specific halakhic ruling made in 1967 prohibiting such promiscuous movements on the site of the old temple, the Israeli police as Jewish are, on each occasion of these intrusions, violating halakha, risking trampling over the sacred area where only the sanctified feet of the High Priest could move at ritual times. Anyone familiar with the precedent, the 1920-1929 pressure to establish, against custom, exclusive rights to the Western Wall itself, will recognize the pattern: persist in creating clashes whose resolution leads to a change in the status quo leading to exclusive Jewish possession. All Palestinians know that. The choice offered counters 'storming' (Palestinian POV) to 'clashes' (Israeli POV) and excludes the rational neutral compromise in 'raid' or 'incursion'. So the game here is merely to alter the spin, not to honour NPOV. The proper thing would be to reformulate the RfC in terms of indisputably neutral terms like those suggested, otherwise as often, this will play out with the usual lockstep numbers gaming. 'Clash' is no more neutral than 'storming' and the failure to mediate or compromise is indicative of a refusal to seriously apply policy.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*:Apart from being wrong. Jewish people for 2000 years have prayed at the Western Wall, not on the Temple Mount where their very presence is banned rabbinically. In fact for anyone familiar with the specific halakhic ruling made in 1967 prohibiting such promiscuous movements on the site of the old temple, the Israeli police as Jewish are, on each occasion of these intrusions, violating halakha, risking trampling over the sacred area where only the sanctified feet of the High Priest could move at ritual times. Anyone familiar with the precedent, the 1920-1929 pressure to establish, against custom, exclusive rights to the Western Wall itself, will recognize the pattern: persist in creating clashes whose resolution leads to a change in the status quo leading to exclusive Jewish possession. All Palestinians know that. The choice offered counters 'storming' (Palestinian POV) to 'clashes' (Israeli POV) and excludes the rational neutral compromise in 'raid' or 'incursion'. So the game here is merely to alter the spin, not to honour NPOV. The proper thing would be to reformulate the RfC in terms of indisputably neutral terms like those suggested, otherwise as often, this will play out with the usual lockstep numbers gaming. 'Clash' is no more neutral than 'storming' and the failure to mediate or compromise is indicative of a refusal to seriously apply policy.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*:NYT, the Economist, AFP and Wapo use "hysteric language" and turned themselves into "Arab sources" when I wasn't paying attention:) [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*:NYT, the Economist, AFP and Wapo use "hysteric language" and turned themselves into "Arab sources" when I wasn't paying attention:) [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
::* Neutral sources mostly use neutral language, using storming only to describe hysteric language by Palestinian nationalists. Jews haven't prayed 2,000 years in the Western wall, as the second temple was only destroyed in 70, so only 1952 years ago. There has been Jewish worship on the mount before, for instance during [https://www.jstor.org/stable/24669751 361-3 there was an attempt to rebuild the temple], and there were other periods in which Jews worshipped on the mount.


==Lede has gone downhill quickly.==
==Lede has gone downhill quickly.==

Revision as of 16:57, 5 May 2022


Strong anti-Israel bias

It's my observation that the wording in this article harbors a strong anti-Israel bias. Everything from the title's use of the word "storming" to listing the cause as "Plans by Jewish extremists to perform Passover sacrifices in the Temple Mount" seem to downplay the fact that Palestinian Arabs hurled large rocks at buses of Israeli Jews on their way to the Western Wall and that police didn't raid the mosque until after those attacks happened. "Earlier clashes in the morning" is an astoundingly muted description of those attacks. There are also photographs of stockpiles of stones in the mosque, and this isn't even the first time this has happened. Worshippers also stockpiled large rocks in 2014 and 2021 to throw at Jews at the Western Wall. --EricSpokane (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had the same thought. I completely agree. For the article name, I can suggest a rename to "2022 Temple Mount Crisis" - following the standard set by the article describing a similar event which occurred in 2017. I also agree that the "earlier clashes" is a euphemism of the actual events which preceded the police raid. I would be happy to hear some other thoughts on this. Tombah (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I completely disagree, this article repeatedly parrots Israeli claims as though they are objective fact. International sources do not use the type of euphemisms you are doing about a series of attacks by police on Palestinians. nableezy - 17:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "storming" says : "the police started the event" but police says it started because vilence of some Palestinians. Better name is the riots in Temple Mount (riots includes police's behavior) or 2022 Temple Mount crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myn2021 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not biased at all. The storming is an act of unprovoked aggression. CR-1-AB (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

"rioters" as a cause

That is according to the Israeli police, and non-Israeli sources do not parrot that phrasing. Tombah Ill give you a chance to make your addition neutral, otherwise I will do it for you. nableezy - 17:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will just do it myself actually. nableezy - 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 april

Here threre more information, eith video and pictures

https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/sjprvggs9

https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/rjlvsiyhc#!/replace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:15E1:250:F879:A933 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Times

https://time.com/6167393/al-aqsa-mosque-jerusalem/ Hours after the clashes began, the police said they had put an end to the violence and arrested “hundreds” of suspects. They said the mosque was re-opened and that Friday’s midday prayers would take place as usual. Tens of thousands of people were expected.

Palestinian witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, said a small group of Palestinians threw rocks at police, who then entered the compound in force, setting off a wider conflagration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:15E1:250:F879:A933 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC) More for befre: https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/s1uoinghc[reply]

https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-704773/amp

https://www.timesofisrael.com/clashes-resume-at-temple-mount-after-friday-afternoon-prayers-for-ramadan/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:15E1:250:F879:A933 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which of these sources mention the eye witnesses? I can't seem to find it. Thanks Tombah (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah, This: https://time.com/6167393/al-aqsa-mosque-jerusalem/ 05:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.11.25 (talk) [reply]

i offer to

i offer TO Quote from a newspaper / YNET website in the opening of an Article: "Police forces clashed with masked, stone-throwing Palestinians near al-Aqsa mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem when violence erupted after Friday's Ramadan morning prayers." or not any website. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjwkryu4q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:9DDD:1DF8:C07:7557 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I think this helps to balance the lead, which currently shows the Al-Jazeera report only. It will be added shortly. Tombah (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WITNESS FROM TODAY

https://twitter.com/GalAharonovich/status/1519956350889046016 

AND BEFORE

http://www.memri.org.il/cgi-webaxy/item?5601 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:95BD:F38:BD9B:F94A (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename

In my opinion, the current name used for the article is imbalanced, since it implies it was a one-sided act of aggression. The latest report by the UN describes the April 15th events at Al-Aqsa as a series of clashes between Israeli Security Forces and Palestinians. To fit this description, I would like to suggest a rename to "2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes". I'd be happy of course to hear more thoughts on this. Tombah (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most of the sources call it clashes. So its WP:COMMONNAME Shrike (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Violent clashes broke out Friday between Palestinians and Israeli police at Al-Aqsa Mosque, in what has become a weekly occurrence ahead of midday prayers for the entire month of Ramadan."
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-closes-gaza-crossing-UN-probe-al-aqsa-violence (a week ago) "Friday's latest storming of al-Aqsa was the seventh in eight days carried out by Israeli forces inside the mosque."
I think we should have a name and scope that reflects what has actually been happening, it will be descriptive rather than common, there are multiple sources referring to storming so even at a minimum that's an alternate name. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology such as 'raid' and 'incursion' also crops up (e.g. [1]), and Aljazeera contextualizes it within a trend of 'raids, closures and restrictions'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to clashes per Commonname, reliable sources, and accuracy. Just from a cursory search, The Guardian, France 24, The Wall Street Journal, NDTV, Alarabiya, Haaretz, NPR, Reuters, Arab News, Herald Sun, The Australian, Yahoo News have described them as clashes recently Drsmoo (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of this comment, seems we will need an RM. I have changed my own prior comment to formal opposition on the grounds stated. AJ is green at RSP last time I checked.(AJ English is Broadcaster of the Year at the 2022 New York Festivals TV & Film Awards, 6 years in a row)Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah, you can not just change the scope of this article on your own whims, the article currently has a title and a scope of the storming of the al-Aqsa. You dont like that, I get it. But you need consensus to change it. nableezy - 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we need to rename.https://time.com/6167393/al-aqsa-mosque-jerusalem/, From the times: "Palestinian witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, said a small group of Palestinians threw rocks at police... " So it There were two sides Myn2021 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody can demonstrate there is a common name that is a a non-argument. These are all descriptive titles, not proper names. As far as balance, the balance of the sources focuses on the Israeli incursions in to the mosque. nableezy - 16:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the claim on not being commonly called storming by reliable sources:
  • "Israeli police in full riot gear storm Jerusalem holy site after rock-throwing". CBS News. 2022-04-22. Israeli police in full riot gear stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed.
  • France-Presse, Agence (2022-04-22). "Dozens wounded in Israeli-Palestinian clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque". the Guardian. The Palestinian Red Crescent said 57 people were wounded on Friday, including 14 Palestinians taken to hospital, one of them in a serious condition, after police stormed the facility in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem's Old City.
  • "Israeli police storm Jerusalem holy site after rock-throwing". NPR.org. 2022-04-22. Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed.
  • "New clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound". France 24. 2022-04-22. The Israeli police stormed the compound and fired teargas and rubber-tipped bullets at stone-throwing Palestinian youths, said an AFP photographer on the scene.
  • Brugiotti, Carlo (2022-04-29). "The storming of Al-Aqsa: 'The patients kept on coming like waves' - Israel-Palestine conflict". Al Jazeera. Israeli forces had stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem during morning prayers.
It is a complete fabrication that this is not commonly called a storming by Israeli forces. Reliable sources across the world have called it that. nableezy - 16:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those sources describes the incidents as clashes. The only one that doesn’t is Al Jazeera, which is an opinion piece. Drsmoo (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEADLINES, read on, MacDuff. CBS "stormed" AFP "stormed" NPR "stormed" F24 "stormed"· Go back to bed now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious, every single one of the reliable sources listed describes them as clashes, and uses clashes more frequently in the article than storming. Try reading next time, rather than jumping to tendentious editing. Drsmoo (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of them describes it as a storming, and I quoted them doing so. nableezy - 18:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for your rm.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This renaming would not improve the balance. The event here is an incursion by armed police equipped with tear gas and rubber bullets and authorised to use force against unarmed civilians mid Ramadan, resulting in 150+ injured Palestinians. Clashes is WP:EUPHEMISM that describes nothing and implies some sort of false equivalence of force and aggression. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/thousands-of-israeli-police-deploy-on-temple-mount-for-last-friday-of-ramadan-1.10769427 “Hundreds of young Palestinians fired fireworks and threw rocks within the compound, with some also hurling rocks towards the Western Wall and Mughrabi Bridge. One fell in the Western Wall plaza, though no one was reported injured…
In response, police entered the Temple Mount compound for the first time in a week and used riot control methods, which Palestinians said included tear gas and foam-tipped bullets. According to the Red Crescent,42 people were wounded and transported to the hospital…
Riots and violent clashes between young Palestinian men and police have broken out on all the past Fridays during Ramadan this year, but the demonstrations held early in the morning on these days, and which ended before the midday prayers, were quiet.” Riots would also be acceptable, and the reliable sources reflect the reality. These were riots and clashes, and are widely and accurately described as such. Drsmoo (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above re "stormed". The whole thing is about (multiple) Israeli incursions into the mosque.17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the GCC countries going on about breaching the sanctity of the mosque, status quo, etc etc. That's what it's about, not "clashes". You don't need thousands of police for "clashes".Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all it is about. That's a part of the conflict you're choosing to focus on. One could just as easily focus on the stone-throwing that started it all. Many things happened before the storming and many things happened outside the mosque. The storming isn't everything. Like it or not, RSs refer to these episodes as clashes more often. - Daveout(talk) 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could just as easily focus on the stone-throwing that started it all. One could if one is interested in irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah, your edit here is disruptive, there is no consensus to change the scope of this article from the storming of al-Aqsa to what you euphemistically describe as a series of clashes. You cannot push through edits through revert-warring, your edit was challenged and it is incumbent on you to seek consensus for it. nableezy - 18:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article from day one has been the overall clashes. The goal is to have the article name reflect reliable sourcing, which overwhelmingly refers to the events as clashes or skirmishes Drsmoo (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You simply assert that, while I have provided numerous sources that focus on the storming of the mosque, with any preceding "clash" (curious phrasing for armed police firing on largely unarmed civilians) background to that. And the scope of the article has been, as evident by the title and the lead, has been that storming. If you want to reframe the article in to another topic that needs consensus. nableezy - 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even your most recent edit includes a description of attacks on police officers in the lead. And other than the one opinion piece, every single one of the sources you found includes more references to and descriptions of clashes than references to storming. Drsmoo (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The storming is clearly only one out of many events that took place in the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Compound on April 15th. Let's go over on the main headlines as major international media outlets published them during the same day.
Looks like Al-Jazeera are the only *major* media outlet who preferred describing the events as a "storming", instead of "clashes", but let's be honest: they are not exactly well-known for their balanced accounts of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. While a storming did occur, it was part of a larger chain of events that took place on that day on the Temple Mount. Our readers are probably expecting to see the fuller picture, and the article itself already describes the whole chain of events, not just the storming. Portraying the storming itself as the only notable event is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Tombah (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted from CBS, NPR, France 24, The Guardian, AFP, and I can add NYT: Clashes between Israeli police officers and Palestinian stone-throwers broke out Friday morning at the mosque compound, injuring more than 150 Palestinians and several officers; leading to more than 400 arrests; and prompting the police to storm the largest mosque within the complex, which contains several places of worship., Washington Post: Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed. It is disingenuous to claim that these major media outlets do not call it a storming of the mosque. Yes they also describe clashes prior to the storming, but it is nonsense that they do not also describe the noteworthy event as a storming. nableezy - 21:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most sources agree that the storming took place during a day-long clashes at the site. The UN report says that Israeli Forces entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque after some had barricaded themselves inside and used it to throw stones and firecrackers at them. So the question remains: is this article a (1), summary of the April 15th events in the Al-Aqsa Compound, or (2), a description of the storming itself? If the answer is #1, this article should be renamed. (2) means most of it should be removed, or all of it, as it would be a violation of WP:NPOV, as it ignores the full chain of events, and describes only the event seen as the most notable by one of the two sides only. Tombah (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They place the "clashes" as background to the story, the story being the storming. nableezy - 21:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue. The only source that is actually doing that is Al-Jazeera. Tombah (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press focuses on the storming, and gives rock throwing as background. CBS focuses on the storming and gives rock throwing as background. It is untrue that what I wrote is untrue. nableezy - 21:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press article you mentioned is irrelevant, as it describes events that occurred on April 22nd, one week later. The April 15th article by APNEWS (not sure if they are the same) has some other framing for the events: Palestinians and Israeli police clash at major holy site. This is not the point, we can go on like this forever. We've already seen that the majority of sources describe the April 15th events as clashes, which also include Israeli forces entering the mosque. My previous question still remains, and to me, the answer is quite clear. Tombah (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed go on like this forever and as I have now indicated several times, still waiting for an RM where you will no doubt explain excessive use of force, multiple incursions and damage to the mosque, high casualty counts and so on as "clashes". Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UN they dt/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/tor-wennesland-special-coordinator-middle-east-peace-process-8 Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East already includes everything you mentioned, but uses the term *clashes*. Never *storming*. Seems like a legitimate, balanced source to me. Tombah (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RM, (cough, cough).Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So youre of the opinion we should cite UN special coordinators for fact as neutral? Is it just this one? What about when a special rapporteur discusses apartheid in Israel, is it still a legitimate balanced source? Or is that determination made only when they dont use phrasing you object to? nableezy - 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down the page to see the other related reports, notice how every one mentions the status quo (and of course one that mentions apartheid practices in addition). "Clashes", my ass.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources above focus on the clashes, in addition to the preponderance of other sources that do as well. If this isn’t an RM, why did you vote Drsmoo (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, given they both lead with the storming and provide the context for it. nableezy - 23:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See selfstudier’s post on headlines. Guidance is to take information from the articles body, as headlines and sub headlines are often exaggerated. Both articles are primarily writing about what you describe as “context” and what the articles themselves describe as clashes. In addition to the multiple other articles that also predominantly describe clashes. The reliable sources are essentially unanimous. Drsmoo (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See it yourself, I said nothing about the headline. The article body in both opens with Israeli forces stormed the mosque. It is a straight up falsehood that the sources predominately discuss the "clashes", they all put those as background to the storming. nableezy - 00:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles are essentially the same text, which spends equal time on describing rioting and police actions. As Tombah said: “is this article a (1), summary of the April 15th events in the Al-Aqsa Compound, or (2), a description of the storming itself? If the answer is #1, this article should be renamed. (2) means most of it should be removed, or all of it, as it would be a violation of WP:NPOV, as it ignores the full chain of events, and describes only the event seen as the most notable by one of the two sides only.” As for the reliable sources, they are essentially unanimous in describing the activities of both sides, and clashes is the common name for the events in reliable sources.Drsmoo (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the other sources offered above? It is about the repeated storming of the mosque, that is what makes any of this notable. There are "clashes" between armed Israeli police and Palestinians on the compound regularly, we dont have an article for each time it happens. This one is notable because of the storming of the mosque. nableezy - 03:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The storming is a discrete event. The broader background of clashes is not. That is what makes 'clashes' a different scope. For instance, if an article was to describe 'clashes', the immediate question would be what period of time is being covered, i.e.: 'clashes' from when to when? Even if there was a case to be made for an article on the clashes, in the sense of them being notable above and beyond routine clashes, that would be a broader scope and a different article from this particular Al Aqsa raid/incursion by police, which is a more specific, granular subject than clashes in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

No consensus to merge. Editors wish to consider possible improvements to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2022 (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 article 2022 Israeli-Palestinian clashes, created on 23 April, 2022 by an editor not qualified to edit in the IP area, should be merged to this article, created a week earlier. Despite its title, it principally covers the same event(s) as here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it should be rescoped to have the storming as a linked section alongside whatever other iterative clashes the community views as due mention. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The principal event is Friday 15th and that is what the other article leads with as well ( referring to it as a storming in the first and third lines and as clashes on the second and fourth). Of course presenting it as an Israel Hamas affair is not correct this time around. It seems we can use this article's background and aftermath sections to do any relevant before and after matters, I made a start on that in the aftermath section. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, sure, at the moment it is a POV fork, but I'm wondering if there is a scope outside of the storming that the other article could be repurposed for. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Idk, there is Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 (and the other years as well), that would seem sufficient to pick up minor events? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 Israeli-Palestinian clashes article is indeed part of a larger series of events. The 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque storming was actually part of a series of clashes and tensions that started on March 22 this year.
The "clashes" had already been preceded by:
  1. 2022 Beersheba attack
  2. 2022 Hadera shooting
  3. 2022 Bnei Brak shootings
  4. 2022 Tel Aviv shooting
I think the proper response would be to change the 2022 Israeli-Palestinian clashes page into an article that doesn't start on April 15. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make that proposal on that page not here. I take your comments to mean that you object to a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the POV of the original creator, I created the article primary on the basis of this france24 article concerning rocket attacks from Gaza
https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20220420-israel-launches-fresh-strikes-on-gaza-after-rocket-fire
and this article by reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-forces-kill-palestinian-west-bank-clashes-palestinian-sources-say-2022-04-01/
I wouldn't oppose changing the clashes page into an article that doesn't start on April 15- but what single escalation caused this series of events to occur? Yokohama1989 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "series of events", which events? And with what connection between them? The Reuters is about a Palestinian killed in Hebron on April 1, by itself that did not cause anything. The F24 leads with a single rocket that did no damage being fired from Gaza 6 days after the principal mosque incursion on 15th and then speaks about "nearly a month of deadly violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories, focused on Jerusalem's flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount." I don't think there is a "single escalation", there is a combination of factors producing the result, in 2021, that was an 11 day crisis across Israel, WB and Gaza mainly caused by Sheikh Jarrah and the storming of the mosque. This time, it is not a crisis as such, just the predictable outcome of one provocation after another, many of them, by both sides.
At the moment, most of the article is about one event, the storming of the mosque on 15th (ie it is a fork of this one). If you wanted to keep the other page and start it on 1 January, it might be possible to produce an article about slowly ratcheting tensions producing ever worse outcomes but you will need far better sourcing than the F24 news piece.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about a single event being the root cause of all of the violence of late- rather i'm trying to understand what single event precedes all of the Ramadan violence that we saw with rocket launches, artillery strikes, airstrikes, etc.
1. you could state that these clashes dated back to the violence in Jenin
"“God blessed the champions of Jenin with a Molotov cocktail and a knife.”"
2. Prior to the supposed start date of the 2021 crisis, Palestinian groups had already launched some 36 rockets into Israel which is what triggered off Operation Guardian of the Walls, why did they choose the Al-Aqsa mosque protests as a starting point in that article?
3. The IDF talks about a "recent" rise on terrorist activity. This clearly distinguishes it between violence in the West Bank which is seen as a normality and nascent escalation Yokohama1989 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already replied to this below. To repeat, this discussion is only about a merge. I understand your comments to mean that you object to a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2022 Beersheba attack seems to be a starting point as many media sources report the recent crisis as a "wave" of violence, including Palestinian attacks. Reuters The Economist CBS News Haaretz The New York Times The Washington Post Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's special about March 22? The linked article has a Background section that says "In early 2022, a string of clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians occurred, but mostly confined to the West Bank and Jerusalem,". So now we are already back to "early 2022" whereas I said 1 January.
Here is the Special Rapporteur for the oPt commenting on 25 April Pertinent is "More than 40 Palestinians and 15 Israeli and foreign nationals have been reportedly killed in the violence so far this year." and "The level of violence required by Israel to maintain its occupation has been steadily increasing over the past 16 months." taking us back to the beginning of 2021.
"Last year marked the highest number of Palestinian deaths resulting from confrontations with Israelis related to the occupation since 2014. As well, the number of Palestinian children killed as a result of Israeli violence in 2021 was the most since 2014. The reported incidents of settler violence towards Palestinians or their property in 2021 was the highest since statistics were first gathered in 2017. And the number of Palestinian homes demolished as a result of Israeli orders in 2021 was the most since 2016."
All of these things plus settlements plus the status quo are on one side of the scale. Any date that is picked is arbitrary, there is no single start event. But of course you want to emphasize a lone wolf killing by an IS supporter in March, tsk, so transparent.
In any case, this discussion is for the other page not this page, IF editors there want to keep it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Al Jazeera:
A rise in attacks by Palestinians has led to the killing of 14 people in Israel since March 22. Meanwhile, Israelis have killed at least 46 Palestinians from the West Bank since the beginning of 2022.
According to this April 7 CBS article:
Tensions have been high after a series of attacks by Palestinian assailants killed 11 people just ahead of the holy Islamic month of Ramadan, which began nearly a week ago.
They then classify the Beersheba incident as the first attack during the crisis.
According to Al Jazeera (again):
Palestinians and Israelis have witnessed an increase in violence over the past month, with Palestinian attackers targeting Israeli cities and Israeli forces stepping up raids, shootings and arrests across the illegally occupied West Bank. The recent surge marks the deadliest wave of violence since 2016.... Four attacks by Palestinians in four Israeli cities have taken place since March 22, killing 14 people, while Israel has increased its raids on Palestinian towns and villages, leading to daily clashes and arrests. Sixteen Palestinians have been killed in the same period, including those who committed the attacks in Israel.
BBC:
A wave of attacks by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Israel in the past three weeks has left 12 Israelis and two Ukrainians dead. It has been one of the bloodiest periods of its kind for years, putting the country on edge.
VOA:
The fresh attack, combined with the death of a Palestinian man elsewhere in the occupied West Bank, could further fuel tensions that have soared over the past two months. A string of Palestinian attacks in Israel and the West Bank have left 15 Israelis dead, while at least 27 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in recent weeks.
VOA again:
The Al-Aqsa tensions have come against a backdrop of violence since March 22 in Israel and the occupied West Bank.
France24
A total of 23 Palestinians have meanwhile been killed in the violence since March 22, including assailants who targeted Israelis, according to an AFP tally. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take the argument to the other page. This section is for discussing a merge. I assume you are arguing against a merge but that's a case you need to make on the other page (ie you want to add content to that page so that the content marries up with the title). Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2022 (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.

30 April

https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/ry2xii9s5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:74DB:1072:8933:2903 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently about some further disturbances earlier today, if the editor can't edit and doesn't know what it is they want, I don't see the point in just posting a link. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks on this kind of article

According to Israeli reports, dozens of Palestinians marched near the Western Wall and attacked police officers by throwing rocks at them.

This is the standard boilerplate Israeli version of how every single irruption of clashes on the Haram esh-Sharif unfolds. Time and again, breaking news of these episodes uses precisely this pseudo-description, which is vapid in its imprecision and vagueness, and pointless for our encyclopedic ends. Where is ‘near the Western Wall’? Were they marching on the Haram, or in the area contiguous to, on the same level as, the Western Wall. Where were the policed forces stationed, in the Haram or below? This story is one that has been repeated foor nearly 100 years, and implies the start is always rocks thrown from the Haram down to worshippers at the Western Wall caused a (justified) Israeli reaction to ensure Jewish worship. The sentence conveys this, whereas, so far, evidence is lacking for that ancient scenario.

In an earlier article covering similar incidents, it proved extremely difficult to get a precise chronological account of what happened and where. Particularly from the Israeli sources which repeatedly employed variations on the meme cited above. This obscurity itself is curious, given the intensity of coverage, the presence of numerous witnesses, and contemporary footage. We should therefore not be aimlessly citing sources without regard for reliable testimonies in sources as to the precise order of events.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 2022

2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque storming → 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes – First of all "storming" is a pov term used by one side of the conflict. Second clashes is WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by multiple sources from leading news outlets around the world [2],[3],[4],[5] Shrike (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentTotally inappropriate. 'Clashes' implies two groups in the same area came to blows, neatly suppressing the core fact that these clashes occurred after, or as a result of, an Israeli police intervention inside the Haram area precisely at the moment of prayer. All sources concur that Palestinians were gathered on the Haram, and an Israeli police force (technically they have no jurisdiction there) entered the compound to raid presumed stocks of stones, and disperse the 'crowd'. An 'incursion' is what occurred, but one should not exercise massive energy in title RfCs before doing the work few care to do on wikipedia, i.e. actually muster all reliable sources to figure out the precise unfolding of events, so9 that editors can see who started what, where. Without that, an accurate stable title won't be forthcoming. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clashes is far more neutral, especially when something like this is dispute. Storming has a very negative sense, which is what one side of the story is, but if we went with the other side of the story this could be called "2022 protection against terrorism at the Al-Aqua Mosque." Clash is the most neutral term. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as proposer --Shrike (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic Discussion

--Tombah (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is not WP:RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed in the section prior to this RM, multiple other sources including CBS, AFP, NPR, France 24, Al-Jazeera, The Economist, WAPO and the NYT (as well as all the local papers from the Gulf states plus Jordan, Egypt and Turkey) describe said incursions as "storming". Therefore the argument that storming is used by one side only is demonstrably false. Storming is entirely appropriate since the police were in full riot gear and armed. Are we to believe they walked up and knocked?
Proposer cites
1) CNN and AP which are about events of April 21 (a Thursday) and not about the main subject of the article.
2) Reuters and BBC do cover the principal event on 15 April, both referring to "clashes" following incursion by Israeli forces, described as "entering" the mosque. As can be seen from the above, we can consider these reports as unrepresentative. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of "Arab" sources, not untypical for the whole region (Gulf Jordan, Egypt, Turkey):
  • Mohammed Abu Zaid (16 April 2022). "Egypt slams Israeli storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque". Arab News. Egypt's Foreign Ministry has condemned Israeli forces' storming of Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque and violence against Palestinians in its courtyards
  • "Israel government faces new split over Al Aqsa Mosque storming". TRT World. 17 April 2022. Arab-Israeli party Raam "suspended" its membership, after Israeli troops stormed Al Aqsa Mosque, igniting protests at the flashpoint Jerusalem holy site that wounded more than 170 Palestinians in the last three days.
    Note: Three of the links above are simply mirrors of the Associated Press Wire Service, (CBS, Washington Post, and NPR), and are in fact the same AP source with the same author. Almost all are describing the events of a week later (not the 15th), and almost all describe the events as clashes. Drsmoo (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a smaller "clash" at the mosque was a storming, then the earlier much larger "clash" was certainly a storming. Clashes are a daily occurrence, not an event. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - euphemistic and based on fabrication on what the sources say. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the storming of the mosque as a storming, and the clashes on the complex outside as background to that. The only thing that makes this notable is that the mosque was stormed, and that is why sources routinely focus on that. See Selfstudier's sources for proof. It is a fabrication that third party reliable sources do not use storming, it is a fabrication that the term is only used by one "side", it is a fabrication that sources prefer "clashes". And the entire basis of this request is built on those fabrications. And to add to the list of sources:
Yes, there are sources that discuss clashes. That however is a different scope than this article, which is about the notable topic of the Israeli forces storming the mosque. Yes, sources that discuss another topic will use different language. That has nothing to do with the title of this article, and the attempt at misdirection in throwing a bunch of unrelated sources up to pretend like that is the "common name" is just that, misdirection and obfuscation so as to reframe the article in to one on another topic. nableezy - 16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Zeex.rice's edit count". XTools. 1 May 2022.
There isnt a single thing of any relevance to what I wrote in what you wrote. And if you were going to follow your previous commitment not to perform extended confirmed contributions until you had 500 mainspace edits you shouldnt be in this section anyway. nableezy - 12:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy My commitment was not to edit any extended protected pages. The talk pages a are for everyone:
"Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. " 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That continues... ".....This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc" Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from 4/15:

Sources from April 22/29:

Drsmoo (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Associated Press, same author, a week later https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-religion-jerusalem-israel-70ec6d764384ad816c8a5adb81b770d8 "Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed." If a lesser event is a storming then so is the main event. This is not about ongoing clashes, a daily occurrence, it is about a full scale armed incursion by large numbers of police into the Al-Aqsa mosque, regarded by Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular as a major provocation, regardless of who threw the first stone. https://www.timesofisrael.com/uae-bahrain-join-condemnation-of-police-actions-amid-temple-mount-clashes/ "The UAE strongly condemned today Israeli forces’ storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque.... stressed the UAE’s position that the Israeli authorities should respect the right of Palestinians to practice their religious rites and halt any practices that violate the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque."Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both describe the events as clashes as well. Drsmoo (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Temple Mount clashes are clashes, see the difference? Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (the Irish Times), as well as France:
and Germany (in addition to DW):
So far as I can tell, the arguments for contravening this overwhelming consensus in the sources are twofold: 1) "clashes" is felt to be "euphemistic" and thus NPOV, and 2) some (but as Drsmoo shows, by no means the majority of) coverage uses the phrase "storms" in headlines addressing events on April 22. But of course the other party in the dispute feels "storms" to be highly partisan and NPOV, and as for argument 2), if editors are so keen to use media coverage about the events of April 22 to describe events of April 15, wouldn't it simply be better to address the events that are the subject of this page on the page [6] that covers the events of April 22 - just as, most recently, Zeex has suggested? Finally, yes, a random IP did something weird on my talk page - and of course that does not preclude an editor from weighing in on a topic s/he routinely edits, especially when this involves a page s/he had already been keeping an eye on. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the third one that was canvassed duly appears.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SS, old friend. I already acknowledged the situation up front, and I trust that editors on this page are both gracious enough to read what I wrote all the way to the end and sophisticated enough to appreciate the scenario I detailed in my concluding sentence. Finally, I realize that this appeal to you is perhaps approaching the status of a refrain, but, with respect, perhaps you might be willing to engage with my arguments in the same good faith with which I have written them? Surely that is the best way to increase the quality of the page/pages in question. Yours, of course Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be basing this on the headlines. The fact that you have mentioned headlines twice makes me think you have not read WP:HEADLINES. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your substantive response, Iskandar. I was thinking of "Common Name" debate above, and I still think the observation carries some weight. But your point is a very fair one, and I am happy to accept your invitation to go through the articles cited one by one (with a nod to the earlier evidence collected by Shrike, Tombah, Drsmoo):
  • BBC: [7]: First sentence "More than 150 Palestinians have been injured in clashes with Israeli police at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, Palestinian medics say." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Telegraph: [8]. First sentence: "More than 150 Palestinians were injured after clashes broke out with Israeli riot police inside Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound on Friday." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Times: [9] "More than 150 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli police at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem yesterday." The word "storm" is used once - to describe events from 2021. ("Last year, after Israeli forces stormed the mosque during Ramadan, an 11-day conflict ensued.")
  • The Independent: [10]. First sentence: "Clashes broke out early Friday between Israeli police and Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a major holy site in Jerusalem, and medics said at least 59 Palestinians were wounded." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Financial Times: [11] First sentence: "Clashes erupted on Friday at Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque between Israeli security forces and Palestinian worshippers after weeks of escalating violence." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Guardian: [12]: "Medics say more than 150 Palestinians have been injured in clashes that erupted when Israeli riot police entered Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque compound, in the most significant violence at the holy site since similar scenes sparked a war last year." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Associated Press: [13] First sentence: "Palestinians and Israeli police clashed at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Friday as thousands gathered for prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • Reuters: [14]. First sentence: "At least 152 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli riot police inside Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound on Friday, the latest outbreak in a recent upsurge of violence that has raised fears of a slide back to wider conflict." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Washington Post: [15]: First sentence: "Israeli forces killed six Palestinians in confrontations in the West Bank this week, and clashes between police and Palestinians broke out Friday after early Ramadan prayers in Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Wall Street Journal: [16] Israeli police and Palestinians clashed Friday around Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • NPR: [17] Third sentence: "At least 25 Palestinians have been killed in the recent wave of violence, according to an Associated Press count, many of whom had carried out attacks or were involved in the clashes, but also an unarmed woman and a lawyer who appears to have been killed by mistake." "Storm" and derivatives do not appear in article.
  • CNN: [18] "Palestinians and Israeli forces clashed in and around the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City for hours on Friday morning, before an uneasy calm returned to the city later in the day." The word "storm" appears only at an arm's length, being attributed to Jordanian government officials: "Jordan's Foreign Ministry condemned what it described as the storming of the compound, calling it a "flagrant violation.""
  • France 24: [19]: First sentence "Clashes broke out early Friday between Israeli police and Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a major holy site in Jerusalem, and medics said at least 150 Palestinians were wounded." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Irish Times: [20] First sentence: "At least 152 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli riot police at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the Palestine Red Crescent said, two weeks into the Muslim holy month of Ramadan." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • Even the The Economist, one of the subsidiaries of which has been cited above, uses "clashes", not "storming" in its flagship publication: [21]: "More than 100 Palestinians were said to have been injured in the compound of Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque in clashes with Israeli riot police, who accused the Palestinians of throwing stones and fire crackers at Jews praying at the Wailing Wall below"
Very tellingly, and as Drsmoo observed, with the exception of Al Jazeera (and this says something in its own right) those who plump for "storm" must apparently wait until publications dating from April 22 or after to find RSs that use the word to describe events in 2022 - and that is precisely because the word seems to be reserved for the events of April 22, not April 15. In short, what we find are 15 sources, comprising a solid chunk of the reputable outlets in the English-speaking world, that use the word "clashes", usually in the first sentence of the main article, to describe the events this page describes; they also eschew entirely the word "storm" to describe those events. Unless editors are able to find a similar number of high-quality RSs that do describe the events of April 15 with language from the "storm" family, we should no doubt follow the lead of these sources. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is material from the lead of the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis where a virtually identical incursion was carried out by Israeli forces in very similar circumstances. Then, as now, editors objected. It says "stormed" still because there were sources saying that just as there are now. How else to refer to an armed incursion into a mosque? There were also "clashes" all over the place, this is the principal problem with all the above objections which are merely an attempt to turn a common noun into a common name rather than accurately describing an event.
On 7 May, according to Israel's Channel 12, Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police forces,[1] who then stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque[2] using tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades.[3][2]
Sources

  1. ^ "TV: Palestinians stocked rocks for Temple Mount riots, police caught unawares". The Times of Israel. 8 May 2021. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  2. ^ a b Holmes, Oliver; Beaumont, Peter (10 May 2021). "Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque ahead of Jerusalem Day march". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  3. ^ Srivastava, Mehul; Cornish, Chloe (13 May 2021). "Violence flares between Jews and Arabs on streets of Israel". Financial Times. London. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2021.

Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused: SS, is your argument now that it just doesn't matter at all what the sources say, because there is no other way to refer "to an armed incursion into a mosque"? As I (and others above) try to demonstrate, RS very clearly do choose when they use "storm" and when they don't; it turns out that, whether we like it our not, they simply don't for the events of April 15 (but do for April 22, and perhaps at other time in the past). Given that sources are perfectly capable of using "storm", surely the most effective way to prove the case is not to engage in elaborate special pleading - which, as nableezy rightly noted much earlier on this page, others can just as easily from the other side - but simply to provide sources that support your claim for the events in question? If it's a strong case, that should not be difficult. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you are confused. I already provided sources, here is NYT (not exactly known for being pro Palestinian) referring to storming on 15th:
"The clashes on Sunday followed a more intense incident on Friday, when Israeli riot police officers, firing rubber-tipped bullets and stun grenades, stormed the main mosque in the compound to detain hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom had been throwing stones at them. More than 150 people were hurt."
In addition, there are sources referring to much more minor incursions of 17 and 22 as "storming" and if they are storming then the far bigger event obviously is as well. Look elsewhere for special pleading, you won't find it here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is very good, SS - one source down, 14-15 to go to make for as strong a case for "storming" as for "clashes". Since in this instance I agree with Nableezy's remarks above that "International sources do not use the type of euphemisms you are doing about a series of attacks by police on Palestinians", I take it that when 15 of 16 sources say "clashes", not "storm", they have not engaged in any euphemism in doing so. Do you have any further sources for April, by chance? If not, perhaps neutral editors will feel confident in evaluating the relative merits of a view based on one RS and a view based on 15. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they simply don't for the events of April 15 turned out to be false. I won't embarass you further. 2009 Temple Mount clashes are "clashes". See if you can spot the difference between those and the subject of this article. This discussion is not, as you and some others seem to think. about whether clashes is a common name, it is about a proper descriptive title for the event. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wandering Off Topic Discussion
  • Yes, the implication of a relative equality of force is the aspect of the use of 'clashes' as a piece of terminology that is the most deplorably euphemistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Loksmythe (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NPOV and NOM. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with no prejudice to a possible different alternative name. 'Clashes' refers to what happened inside Jordanian administered territory strictly speaking outside of Israeli jurisdiction (it is not in Israel/ it is not 'occupied' by Israel) Despite the frequency of Israeli incursions into the Haram, and the endless attempts, on security grounds, to establish a right by practice, the massed entry of Israeli police into that area on such occasions is invariably an incursion or storming. The word 'clashes' neatly sidesteps the fact that such 'clashes' occur when a raid/incursion/storming has already taken place: it disguises, suppresses, or camouflages why, in part, such clashes occur, rather like that if thugs enter your house and you resist, 'clashes occurred', with the assumption that there are two sides to the question. There ain't. Israeli police know that their massed armed entry into a site of prayer, particularly on Friday, will provoke precisely the reaction their intrusion is supposed to block.
All this is reflected in the ingrained, hideously vague boilerplate language invariably used by Israeli mainstream newspaper coverage,- that falls back on the spuriously 'neutral' clashes while refraining from determining who did what and when- which is picked up reflexively abroad. So the only way, as I have said, to determine what the appropriate term should be is to sift carefully all sources to ascertain the chronological order of events, to establish when police entered - before or after rocks were thrown. Editors chiming in with the usual POV lockstep vote, while not helping out the clarification of the sequence of events that should be the basis for a proper judgment, are doing the page no service. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOV and WP:CommonName. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The events of April follow a very usual pattern: Nationalist Israeli Jewish provocation in relation to planned religious ritual of some kind on or near the Temple Mount, leading to Palestinian reaction, sometimes in the form of riots, or the stockpiling of stones to be used in defense of said provocation, sometimes leading to even stronger retaliation by security forces. This can be seen again and again in such articles as Pro–Wailing Wall Committee, 1929 Palestine riots, 1990 Temple Mount riots, 2009 Temple Mount clashes and 2017 Temple Mount crisis. While the disturbances follow the same pattern, they have been described differently each time. In this case, the main event seems to be the entering of police into the mosque. In the AP's language, Israeli police later entered the mosque and arrested people inside. The police rarely enter the building, which is seen by Palestinians as an escalation. Therefore, while 2022 Temple Mount clashes would seem to be correct, if vague, 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes on the other hand is misleading, because what happened there was not a disagreement pertaining to the mosque, but rather an incursion into it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israeli-police-fire-rubber-bullets-in-new-al-aqsa-incursion/ar-AAWrsUA "Storming" however has a bit of a sharp ring to it, reminiscent of stormtroopers or a siege/hostage situation. So if the proposed title was 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque incursion I might support that. Havradim leaf a message 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I concur with Nishidani's no prejudice to a possible different alternative name, for myself I would be fine with "raid" or "incursion" as being equally valid descriptions of the event. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incursion and raid both sound better to me than storming, which is a verb changed into a noun. Havradim leaf a message 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have no problem with either of those. All appear in the sources. Of the two, incursion feels like the slightly more accurately descriptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Storming" is the usual hysteric language used by Arab sources whenever Jewish people come to pray at the Temple mount. It is not neutral and it evokes images of SS storm troopers. Most neutral sources not the Arab rioting on the temple mount, stone throwing and firecrackers shot directly at Jewish people and police. Most neutral sources do no use storming. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disturbing choice of metaphor, but each to their own. I think it is a stretch of the imagination to believe the heavily armed police were there to pray however. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from being wrong. Jewish people for 2000 years have prayed at the Western Wall, not on the Temple Mount where their very presence is banned rabbinically. In fact for anyone familiar with the specific halakhic ruling made in 1967 prohibiting such promiscuous movements on the site of the old temple, the Israeli police as Jewish are, on each occasion of these intrusions, violating halakha, risking trampling over the sacred area where only the sanctified feet of the High Priest could move at ritual times. Anyone familiar with the precedent, the 1920-1929 pressure to establish, against custom, exclusive rights to the Western Wall itself, will recognize the pattern: persist in creating clashes whose resolution leads to a change in the status quo leading to exclusive Jewish possession. All Palestinians know that. The choice offered counters 'storming' (Palestinian POV) to 'clashes' (Israeli POV) and excludes the rational neutral compromise in 'raid' or 'incursion'. So the game here is merely to alter the spin, not to honour NPOV. The proper thing would be to reformulate the RfC in terms of indisputably neutral terms like those suggested, otherwise as often, this will play out with the usual lockstep numbers gaming. 'Clash' is no more neutral than 'storming' and the failure to mediate or compromise is indicative of a refusal to seriously apply policy.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT, the Economist, AFP and Wapo use "hysteric language" and turned themselves into "Arab sources" when I wasn't paying attention:) Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral sources mostly use neutral language, using storming only to describe hysteric language by Palestinian nationalists. Jews haven't prayed 2,000 years in the Western wall, as the second temple was only destroyed in 70, so only 1952 years ago. There has been Jewish worship on the mount before, for instance during 361-3 there was an attempt to rebuild the temple, and there were other periods in which Jews worshipped on the mount.

Lede has gone downhill quickly.

The lede is now more one-sided and less informative than it was 2 days ago. This makes me think that, because of the on-going move request, some editors are trying to narrow down the scope of the page in order to favor the Palestinian POV (which focus on the mosque-storming and the police action while downplaying anything else). The word “clash” that was on the first sentence for two weeks was removed, now we have the word incursion on the second paragraph. And we also shouldnt be explaining what the al aqsar is and who administers it in the first paragraph, it is out of scope and favors one POV.

In my view, we should imitate parts of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. It mentions the protests that commonly precede the stone-throwing:

The crisis was triggered on 6 May, when Palestinians began protests in East Jerusalem over an anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Israel

Then it goes on to mention the stone-throwing, the mosque storming, and the police action (all in the first paragraph):

according to Israel's Channel 12, Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police forces, who then stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque using tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades.

I want to know what you think. Peace. - Daveout(talk) 17:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The principal reason this relatively new page has not been improved is likely due to the move request distraction. Edits like this and this are not at all helpful. I already covered the similarity with the 2021 crisis in the RM above (because why would that be a storming and this not?). In 2021, the "causes" were given as Sheikh Jarrah evictions and the storming of the mosque, whereas this time around the causes are said to lie in threats, perceived or real, to the status quo and Palestinian stone throwing (?). If one cause is the status quo then the waqf situation does actually need to be explained and is not out of scope. All in all I am not really sure what it is you are driving at, perhaps if you explained what exactly has been "downplayed" in your view? Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Apart from reintroducing material that fails verification, the following material together with its sources was deleted from the lead (the sources were autorecovered but no longer reflect the material).

"Al-Aqsa is an Islamic holy site under the custodianship of Jordan and administered by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf. Palestinians believe that Israel is trying to change the status quo in various ways, for example, by allowing Jews to pray in the Temple Mount."

This, even though the material is identified as being a principal contributory cause. The overall edit is a virtual repeat of a tendentious edit by a different editor and already reverted once as well as referred to again in a preceding section. Selfstudier (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple Mount has great importance in Judaism too. Am I the only one who deems it odd this piece of information is missing in the above?
The rest of the lead is much more balanced now, as it follows the account given by international media a bit more closely. For the verification bit - you are right. I'm on it. Tombah (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tombar. The first paragraph should detail the conflict: how it come to be and so on. Like we see in similar articles. Instead, we have a description of Al Qsar and its administration (wtf???); and one of the lame excuses for the riot. Those less critical info should be in the third paragraph. - Daveout(talk) 16:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two "causes" and both are in the first para of the lead, that seems correct. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stone-throwing 'caused' the 'conflict'. But the excuses for the riot that preceded the conflict were two: jews threatening to sacrifice goats at the temple mount, and status quo concerns. (at least that's what I gather). I see the riot and the response to it (the conflict with the police) as separate things. - Daveout(talk) 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as well say the stone throwing was an excuse for the storming. Personally I don't see stone throwing as a "cause" but that's what y'all wanted so that's what you got. What riot? (Edit, the goat thing is just one symptom of the status quo problem, I am not overly concerned with identifying that as a cause if that's what bothering you). Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, are we now doing the job of the police for them and conjuring riots as well as stone-throwing to retroactively justify police brutality? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Al-Aqsa_clashes&oldid=1086346206"