Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015

NPOV

Nishidani, that's the pity, but beginning of your "new" article is not NPOV as its "2014" prototype.

You use again the same selective quoting what we are discussed now at your Talk page, bringing as a fact what has been written as "Locals said ..." even in Maan News - your source only. Unfortunately, you repeat the same Agitprop's trick of Maan (for some reason considered as RS by you :) - affirmative header which isn't approved by content.

Moreover: why do you add to the "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" such administrative actions what you call as "property damage, house demolition" of illegal buildings? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe Ma'an News Agency is not RS, ask the appropriate board. The fact that a EU sponsored regional newspaper is Palestinian is no reason for thinking it less objective that the Times of Israel, or Ynet, both of which are far more prone to use inflammatory adjectives and biased nouns in their (under)reportage, but which I accept as RS, because they are.

I did not create the 2014 article. Someone else did and that person acted on a consensus decision on the Silent Intifada page. I merely made it more comprehensive by following the indications in the title given to that new page. So your argument I am on an NPOV violation spree has no merits. There are dozens of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel etc pages with no mention of the 'other' party's violence. These pages at least subscribe to NPOV: all violence by all parties reported in RS will be noted, and where possible sourced to sources on both sides. It is no argument, again, to say a page is not NPOV, when it is a stub. If you believe that, take it to AfD, and see what the consensus of outside editors is.

Property damage was added to the 2014 article insistently, when it referred even to a broken windscreen in a settler's car, despite a general agreement not to use it on that page. I saw no one from an Israeli POV removing it. They let it stand, against the agreement, and it was reinserted, with no one backing me, after I removed it, and one edit on Palestinian property damage. Destroying someone's home is a form of violence, destroying someone's crops and livelihood is a form of violence, and there is no reason to believe such incidents cannot be registered, as every Hamas missile hitting a farm or shed or building is duly registered on the pages I mentioned. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "EU sponsored" Maan as well as other anti-Israeli NGOs doesn't make it RS. What is only interesting in this example, is your silent about above mentioned trick, has been used in your edit.

I do not write about "Someone else" edits, I do write about yours ones here in "2015" article as well as in "2014" one.

Your own opinion about Israeli actions against illegal building does not give any base for their including into the article with "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" title. So I erase them.

Any way, I do not accept and even not understand your next attempt to equate terrorist attacks on "settler's cars", regular autobuses, etc. with legal Israeli actions. If nobody was killed in such attack means only that its goal hasn't been reached and does not alter its violent nature. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

'Your own opinion about Israeli actions against illegal' building'. I.e. you espouse the Israeli official POV, contrary to international law, that Palestinians building on their own land, in territory over which Israel is the occupying power according to international law, are engaged in 'illegality' when they build without an Israeli military permit. This is one POV (Israel's) but it is not a 'fact' of law. All Israeli building over the Green Line is illegal, in the POV of International Law. So, given that your wording reveals you come to these articles with a government POV, please desist from repeating that I am some anomalous POV pusher here.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You have an opinion, nothing more. Ask colleagues. The fact that you have the primitive idea that any forum, newspaper or media outlet that documents what happens to Palestinians is ipso facto therefore 'anti-Israel' means it is pointless discussing these issues with you. You do not understand WP:NPOV which is the balancing of all perspectives according to sources, not the establishment of one POV from one POV source base, to the detriment of the other party. Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani: "The fact that you have the primitive idea"; "You do not understand WP:NPOV" - here; "I think you are well-meaning but this is silly" (other Talk)...

Mr Nishidani, whom have you yourself imagined as ? Guru in class of fisking? Hero of "Cult of personality" comics? :)

"Give someone an inch and he'll take an ell"...

Perhaps I was too polite to you, giving a reason to think you are entitled to teach somebody else.

So let's call by name, what is at stake in this topic:

Someone N. was caught once again red-handed on selective quoting, and then hasn't written a word about this subject.

In response to my argument that inclusion of "Property damage" incidents into the article doesn't correspond to its "List of violent incidents" title he wrote above that "Property damage was added to the 2014 article insistently...", adding, as usual for him, a lot of extraneous considerations ...

So I have to realize that instead of a clear answer about his actions Mr. N will write only something as dull Pal.Agitprop propaganda.

Note: discussion about (not) legality of both sides' actions in Judea and Samaria may be continued at other relevant Talk pages, but not here --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't catch me out 'red-handed' with selective quotation. That is sheer fantasy. If you think an editor has not given the full context, you simply add what you consider missing from his source. Don't huff and puff about agitprop. Facts are not agitprop, and this page is and will continue to be, a list of facts, regarding injuries to either party. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did. See diff above as well as other your such your attempts. Any editor has to make NPOV edits. Isn't it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Next "Locals said" is omitted (10.01, Maan) :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

About Maan what Nishidani regards as RS: "As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads". :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As my citations now show, it is a legitimate POV to regard demolition of civilian properties and damage to livelihoods as both acts of violence and forms of illegality under international law. Israel is legally, even in Israeli law, an occupying military power, and is bound by international conventions. All Israeli activities in those occupied territories which violate the Conventions and articles of war are forms of violence. On the other hand, Israeli courts have tried to devise a legal system that justifies these, in rulings that are perceived as valid in Israel, but not in the broader field of international law. You have an Israelocentric, POV (Judea and Samaria is unwiki Likud language)? Fine. I am very attentive to the Palestinian and International Legality POVs, fine. NPOV consists in putting forth both sides of any issue, event, or question, and I will continue to do so.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nishidani: "As my citations now show..." your "cituations" seems as next trick and wp:OR/wp:SYNTH). See next subtopic. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of those buildings are being demolished b/c of construction rules and not as part of the conflict. There are Israeli buildings demolished and fines given to Israelis as well. My brother is an architect who works around there a lot and have to solve issue for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

not in sources & OR/SYNTH

Nishidani's variant of head section & "citations"

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities.

• "Violence by Israeli settlers", "Settler violence against Palestinians"

- not about Israeli authorities. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead reads:

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict,

Settlers are Israelis, and the quotation from OCHA lists settler damage to property as a form of violence.

Violence by Israeli settlers . . . includes physical assaults, harassment, takeover of and damage to private property, obstructed access to grazing and agricultural land, and attacks on livestock and agricultural land, among others.

Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Once more: "Violence by Israeli settlers" - it's "not about Israeli authorities". --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism"

- not about the subject. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as follows: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives

The lead sets the terms of definition. One widely used definition includes property damage as terroristic, and as the citation by Brian Frederking underneath shows, one of the points of view is that property damage is a form of state terrorism. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's you, who is trying to connect the definitions of State Terrorism & House demolition to this article, bringing to it only those sources which may approve your own POV. I'd recommend you to learn these articles & and their sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• "while one side interprets Israeli policies in the occupied territories as state terrorism, the other side considers Israel to be acting in self-defense"

- so? Only one of possible opinions. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole citation underwrites what the lead says: definitions say that terrorism is an intentional act of violence against persons and/or property, and it is intended to intimidate a population or influence government policy'. This is the POV of both Palestinians and the International Community and International law, i.e., that willful property destruction is not permitted to Israel as an occupying power. Saying 'so? Only one of possible opinions' is not an argument, but an expression of dissatisfaction. You are welcome to add other sources to complete the point.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See above: "It's you, who is trying to connect the definitions of State Terrorism & House demolition to this article, bringing to it only those sources which may approve your own POV..." --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The destruction of a home is a barbaric act, and taking such a course of action, no matter what the excuse, is an act of terror that comes under the category of a war crime. . It would be hard to overstate the symbolic value of a house to an individual for whom the culture of wandering and of becoming rooted to the land is so deeply ingrained in tradition, for an individual whose national mythos is based on the tragedy of being uprooted from a stolen homeland.'

The connection is the sources as a POV.which as such mmust be represented in the text.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whom are you bold now? Is it from too? As I see Frederking did write the following :

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has greatly complicated this dispute. While those on one side interpret Palestinian acts of violence (particularly those suicide bombers that kill Israeli civilians) as clear acts of terrorism, those on the other side interpret Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation as a legitimate act of national struggle. Conversely, while one side interprets Israeli policies in the occupied territories as state terrorism, the other side considers Israel to be acting in self-defense

--Igorp_lj (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Look. It's hard enough dealing with people who don't understand Wikipedia, without negotiating with people who write garbled English.'Whom are you bold now?' is meaningless. Secondly, what you quote is what is in the citation. I challenge any person of average intelligence to understand the point you are trying to make.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Look. It's hard enough dealing with people who don't understand" (@Nishidani) even irony inside "" :)

Ignoring your next personal attacks: "what you quote is what is in the citation" (@Nishidani) - absolutely true, and this quote does indicate that 'not in source' regarding to is correct, in contrast to your "point you are trying to make" (@Nishidani).

I think that even "average intelligence" isn't needed "to understand" (@Nishidani) that this quote is Benvenisti's one cited in another source, and what for some reason placed by you here. Or you again "confuse the tracks"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tags because they are self-evidently false descriptions, since the sources contain precisely the quotations attributed to them. I will remove the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tags unless you can, arguably in a separate section, show where I have engaged in original research and synthesis. I have simply cited various sources for the definitional language regarding violent acts to show that violence does not exclude the willful destruction of property and livelihoods. The sources say this. I didn't make it up.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll restore the 'not in source' tags because I did show that the these sources do apply either to individual settlers only, or to different POV regarding the State Terrorism & House demolition, but not to administrative actions of the State of Israel performed in accordance with its relevant regulations. I'd remind that just such 2 actions you've included into article ('5 January' incidents from your edit) as violent ones. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You have shown nothing, zero, zilch. You cannot tag with 'not in source' a source which contains that quotation. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"zilch" (@Nishidani)? IMHO, this is about your "arguments" :) And about your "bold": it's not an argument too. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Expressing its Grave concern"

- so? Pls remind was it before or after Goldstone report and his retraction of it? (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property' are defined as grave violations of international law.'

There is no reasons why violations of law should not be considered as a form of violence to the occupied population.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered to my question about "Goldstone report and his retraction of it? (:)". The rest - see above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is the article POV tagged? There seem to only have been a problem with some few parts but not any more (no tags given in the other places now). So then there is no need keep the tag. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Understanding wikipedia's elementary rules

Igorp. You are required to explain why you placed a tag here on four separate sources. Any independent eye can immediately confirm that what is quoted is in the linked source. Since this is such an elementary form of abuse, I won't reply to the screed above until this is clarified to my satisfaction. If you cannot show that those links do not contain the material quoted from them, and refuse to budge, I will report you.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See aleady existing explanation in "not in sources & OR/SYNTH" subtopic above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reply to my request. You cannot tag as 'not in source' a quotation that is in that source.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See above and let's continue there --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Next look

Nishidani, if I understand well, during my absence you took back your claims that sources relate to Israeli authorities' actions. However, you continue to insist on their {{OR}} inclusion, basing on mainly new one-sided sources. It also remains to understand why have you removed the Ashtul's sources.
So I am going to return to the article the OR template what you've removed for unknown reasons, and to deal with information on cases of Arab violence, removed either by you or by Zero. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Continued:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2015#POV Tag

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A different connected page for demolitions

Demolitions is a very controversial subject and there are many ways to look at it. Nishidani, why not have an article dedicated to them so everyone is happy? It can be linked in the lead or wherever the consensus will be so people who are looking for the info will be able to see it. Popping it in between shots, Molotov cocktails and olive trees being uprooted seems a bit out of place. Ashtul (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Demolitions, the destruction of property on foreign soil, is widely regarded as a form of violence. The practice is not 'controversial'. It is universally deplored. I edit to get information onto Wikipedia, not to make people happy.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The destruction has nothing to do with it being Palestinian but rather the rules of construction. Even if you consider Israeli presence as occupation, Israel has the obligation to manage different aspects of live including that one. The houses demolished are new constructions built without proper permits, not old ones. Ashtul (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no knowledge of the topic. It is pointless replying.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you know it all about the I/P conflict. Regardless, putting it under violent incident to me seems off topic. Maybe you want to write every time Israel arrest someone suspected of being in terror (or freedom fighting)?Ashtul (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Coherence in the application of wiki criteria

Ashtul has loaded the page with reports from the private Israel 'Zionist-patriotic' website 0404 and to HaKol HaYehudi, idem, which fail all criteria for WP:RS. If we exclude English sources like +972 magazine and Mondoweiss (which are notable, in English and written by professional journalists) as some editors insist, then there is absolutely no place here certainly for that kind of outlet, when we are dealing with facts. (2) I have no problem in reporting Molotov cocktail incidents where damage to people or property is reported. The several examples cited do not, in the dubious Hebrew websource, refer to such incidents. (3) Igorp is so focused on me, he is ignoring the obligation to treat all additions to this page in the same light. I see no comment from him on Ashtul's edits, which are atrocious.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(1)Those are like apples and oranges. What does one have to do with the other? The +972 magazine and Mondoweiss comment was made on an article that hopefully at some point will look professional and informative. This list page doesn't claim to be so. I would argue +972 magazine and Mondoweiss should be accepted here as well.

(2)Molotov cocktail is an extremely violent and whoever throw it is obviously willing to kill. I think we need to build consensus on what should be reported.

(3)Everything is as atrocious as demolitions. I see the value in listing them, but throwing them into this list, thus categorizing them "violent incidents" is POV and atrocious. Ashtul (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as I am editing it This list page doesn't will claim to be' professional and informative . Please quieten down. You are acting highly irrationally. You edit in non-RS reports that a Molotov cocktail was thrown on the cornerstone of a Jewish building in Hebron into an article on 'violent incidents' while arguing that Israeli bulldozers demolishing family homes in an occupied territory is not a 'violent incident'. Wikipedia is not a forum for just throwing out opinions. Please inform yourself of the elementary rules for editing per NPOV and RS, and whatever principle you adopt, apply it to all pages and all sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said demolishing houses isn't violent but it is done in a legal manner and with court orders. Putting it together with clashes between IDF soldiers, Palestinians and Israelis is unfit.

Why won't we just add anytime Israeli government approves more houses to be built. It also violence. Ashtul (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not included in the sources I know of. Demolishing houses is not done in a legal manner. It is done by a military authority in an occupied territory, and thererfore falls under the international law of occupation. It is done on an ethnic basis, in violation of Israel's obligations as a military occupant of a foreign land. The family house of a Palestinian terrorist is demolished by an order; no family house of an Israeli terrorist, even the settlers convicted of such acts outside Israel, in the West Bank has been demolished by the same criterion. Israeli law applies to settlers, collective punishment applies to the occupied, and that is a violation of international law, and widely seen as a violent wholly arbitrary measure not based on law, which must be applied blindly using one principle for all, but on coercion and intimidation (by a state)Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The demolitions on this page are NOT those types of demolitions.Israeli authorities bulldozed several shops in the village of Husan in the West Bank, near Bethlehem, on the grounds they had not given permits for their construction. The house, under construction, of Abd al-Rahim al-Jaabari in the Ein Bani Sleim area of eastern Hebron was razed to the ground by Israeli forces on the grounds that the structure was being erected without Israeli permission.

Ma'an source clearly says "Israel... regularly demolishes structures built without permits." Ashtul (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel demolishes homes built with permits, Israei and pre-Israeli, as in the case of the homes of terrorists. The reason given in such instances is never that the house lacks a permit, but rather because one of the inhabitants in an historic Palestinian home committed an act of terrorism, and the demolition of his family's home is part of the (collective) punishment meted out to Palestinians, which is a primitive notion not acceptable in international or modern national legal systems. Secondly, Israel demolishes homes that their Palestinian owners say predate Israeli occupation. We are obliged neither to believe one side nor another: the practice does violate International conventions governing occupied territories as does the refusal to allow Palestinians to build on their own land within area C and often in Area B.

Israeli forces on Monday issued five demolitions orders to Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the owners said. Akram al-Shurafa told Ma'an that his home in al-Tur, which was built in 1938 and inherited from his grandparents, was slated for demolition. The property has all the required legal documents and is registered in his mother's name, he said.Al-Shurafa says the demolition order is a way of targeting him after he was recently exiled from the city of Jerusalem for five months, together with four other Palestinian community activists.. . Another man, Abdullah al-Hadera, also received a demolition order for his al-Tur home, which was built over 50 years ago, .. The Israeli municipality last Wednesday distributed demolition orders to 11 houses, some as old as 30 years, in the Silwan neighborhood for "building without permits." Israel rarely grants construction permits to Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and regularly demolishes structures built without permits. Israeli bulldozers have demolished at least 359 Palestinian structures in the West Bank so far in 2014, according to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.Israel issues demolition orders to East Jerusalem homes,' Ma'an News Agency 22 December 2014.

Home demolitions have long been used as a deterrent punishment in the occupied West Bank, but this is the first time they have been adopted as a matter of policy in occupied East Jerusalem. The practice has been condemned by human rights watchdogs and the international community as collective punishment that targets the families of perpetrators rather than the assailants themselves.HRW: Punitive Israeli house demolitions a 'war crime' Ma'an News Agency 23 No9vember 2014.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your HRW report is directly about demolition due to terrorism, not building permits. The other Ma'an article about Akram al-Shurafa says "Meanwhile, Israel issued two other demolition orders to Talal al-Sayyad and Basil al-Sayyad despite the fact neither of them own any properties" which brings us to ask, what exactly were all those people served.

Will you please explain why are you against two different articles? Why would you want to lose the house demolition in this much bigger list. Ashtul (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hold on a bit, and reflect. 'House demolitions' is in the as coming under the category of forms of violence because sources say the legality of the practice is contested. One POV that of the victims or international law, reads it as a form of violence. Israel's POV says that the houses are 'illegal'. Neither POV should prevail, and therefore it is necessary to clarify that in the lead, as I will now do.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to the lead is as POV I would expect from you. I will look at it later and I am sure we will settle somewhere. Overall, I think it is a solution. Good night. Ashtul (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul To remind only: the House demolition article aready exists and it's mentioned in 'not in sources & OR/SYNTH' subtopic above. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To remind only:This is not a reduplication of that article.(b) Your tagging and assertions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH show you do not understand those policies, since the description of the content of the page in the lead, in response to your charges, is sourced to books and articles describing the POV that considers such things as certain kinds of house demolition, and property damage, as a form of violence. That is not 'original research', not a synthesis: it is referencing.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"is sourced (by you - Igorp_lj (talk)) to books and articles describing the" one POV only and even all of those do not approve your POV (see above). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Link about violence in the lead, why are they needed?

I don't really understand why do we need those links you fight over tagging as (not in citation given).How are they adding to the article beyond pushing POV. Should I add publication about how some Palestinians incite to kill Israelis? Terrorizing? Seems totally redundant. Ashtul (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead is usually unsourced, but in a list which defines what goes in or out, contested words and definitions require sourcing. I have provided sources which affirm that violence is not merely physical, but takes other forms, including house demolitions and destruction of property. Is that clear? There would be no need for them if editors could see the appropriateness of the categories of violence mentioned in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit the lead. Your grammar is atrocious and the text is garbled as a result of this attempt to add to it.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is great to see that while you found all kind of sources of settlers violence, there is nothing specific about the Palestinians. Someone said POV??? Ashtul (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul. Please desist from farcical editing.

• Ashtul the quotes from B’tselem and re Hamas (1,2) have nothing to do with the definition of the lead. The lead states that attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are part of the substance of the list.

Secondly, the following sources must be removed because Facebook, channel 0404, and HaKol Hayehudi are not valid sources for facts. See WP:RS. You need mainstream reliable newspaper or official institutional documents reporting all these events, the rule I subscribe to in editing. You have persisted in adding in such sources even after I opened up a request for comment at the RSN, where the only external (administrator) comment remarked I am being too generous in not removing these sources at sight.

Thirdly, if you provide a source in Hebrew, give the English title, source, and summary content of the article. Non-Hebrew readers must have the chance to verify what is being attributed to it.

Fourthly, please note some rigour is required here. I do not enter in incidents where no physical injury or damage is reported for incidents that are otherwise violent. Fpor example I refrain from mentioning for 15 January that Israel border troops used machine gun fire to drive off Palestinian farmers tending their lands at on the outskirts of Khuza, al-Farahin and al-Qarara, in eastern Khan Younis Israeli troops open fire at Palestinian farmers across Gaza border Ma'an News Agency 15 January 2015. What you are doing is scraping any barrel for any report that might suggest an incident, ignoring RS protocols, and just adding it, in disregard to the high bar we should use, and for damage to individuals or property. Rumours, and bad sources have no place here, for Palestinian reports (Jan.11: cf. Israeli Settler Opens Fire At A Palestinian Market In Jerusalem) or Jews/Israelis. I keep that stuff out, and I expect other editors to be equally discriminating.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• A Molotov cocktail was thrown by Palestinians near Givat Assaf."בקבוק תבערה הושלך לעבר רכב בכביש האמבטיה, בסמוך לגבעת אסף". 0404 חדשות.

Removed as failing both the definition of the lead (no reference to damage and, above all, an Unreliable source for facts.

• Three Molotov cocktails were thrown at a Jewish residence in the neighborhood of Ras al-Amud in east Jerusalem.

Unreliable source. "News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). The site registers has a private axe to grind, is neither a mainstream newspaper, nor a government source, and uses not official news but Facebook pages, which are not valid sources of information for facts. If it has no better sources than Facebook, it is not serious. There were no casualties and a generic rumour of damage, what damage, where,? is not sufficient. The link also is imprecise.

• A Molotov cocktail was thrown by a Palestinian between Migdalim and Tapuach."בקבוק תבערה הושלך לעבר רכב על הציר בין מגדלים לתפוח". 0404 חדשות.

O404 is an unreliable source. No damage was done, no specifics.

• Fire was opened "at the Salem roadblock northwest of Jenin. There were no casualties. The building was damaged".

As above, Facebook is not a reliable source, esp when cited in another unreliable source a private research group

• "Border Police guards apprehended a Palestinian who tried carry out a stabbing attack at a roadblock in the Qalqiliya area"."News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). December 31, 2014 – January 6, 2015. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

No violence reported, but an arrest on suspicion. The ITIC again is not reliable, also because it gets its facts from facebook pages.

• In two separate events, two Molotov cocktails were thrown by Palestinians at car near Beitar Illit."הטרור בישראל: שני בקבוקי תבערה הושלכו הלילה ליד ביתר עילית". 0404 חדשות.

0404 is not RS for facts. No evidence of damage

• Palestinians threw two Molotov cocktails at Beit Hadassah in Hebron."טרור גם בסערה: ערבים זרקו בקבוקי תבערה לעבר בית הדסה בחברון". 0404 חדשות.

0404 Not RS.

• An Israeli marchant was robbed by Palestinians and his car was stolen while delivering goods. It was later returned by Palestinian Police."העביר סחורה לערבים ורכבו נשדד". 7.1.2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

HakolHayehidi is not RS.

• Palestinians stole four horses from Beit Hagai."בחסות השלג והחושך: חדירה לבית חגי". 8.1.2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hakol hayahudi is an extremist site and not RS

• An Israeli source reporting of the incident says the area has daily confrontation by Palestinians and radical-left activists."כ-150 עצי זית נכרתו בהר חברון". 11.1.2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

HaKolHayehudi is not RS. Not pertinent, but exculpatory

• An Israeli source says, The Palestinians kids threw stones at the town entrance and head of security tried to move them away. The case is investigated by Israeli police."רבש"ץ הישוב סילק פורעים ונעצר לחקירה". 12.1.2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

HaKol Hayehudi is not RS, as above. No damage reported

• "בקבוק תבערה הושלך לעבר רכב של מאבטח בעיר דוד - הרכב נשרף כליל". 0404 חדשות. 10 January 2015.

0404 is not RS

• Palestinians shot and damaged an IDF vieachle near Ramallah."פיגוע ירי לעבר רכב צבאי סמוך לרמאללה - אין נפגעים, נגרם נזק".

0404 is not5 RS.

• Palestinian threw stones at a bus full of students near Anata Junction and damaged it."מחבלים רגמו אוטובוס תלמידים באבנים סמוך לצומת ענתא - נגרם נזק".

0404 is not RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will also remove two other events reported since, though not WP:OR, as Igorp wrongly charges, they are contested by him. I have also changed the lead challenges because the two instances are the only examples I have added which Igorp challenges as improper because in his view, the Israeli destruction of property on the grounds a permit was not given, is legal and therefore not violent. Having done this, there is no ground for his charging that the lead is sources are not in the sources given (which is bizarre however, since it is counterfactual. The sources have the quotations attributed to them.

• 5 January
  • Israeli authorities bulldozed several shops in the village of Husan in the West Bank, near Bethlehem, on the grounds they had not given permits for their construction.'Israeli forces demolish shops in Bethlehem-area village,' Ma'an News Agency 5 January 2015.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The house, under construction, of Abd al-Rahim al-Jaabari in the Ein Bani Sleim area of eastern Hebron was razed to the ground by Israeli forces on the grounds that the structure was being erected without Israeli permission.'Israeli forces demolish house under construction in Hebron,' Ma'an News Agency 5 January 2015.

Nishi, I'll look for something to make 0404 WP:RS. As for HaKol haYehudi, I can understand they are not RS.

As for the links I added at the top and you took off, please return them. They are good as those you added. The fact they play for the other side is your NPOV. Ashtul (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You will have to make a case for it at RSN, because private news channels, with no history for verifying their sources or using authoritative journalists with a strong professional curriculum are not allowed. (b) Your quotes are wholly ireelevant to what the lead does, establish definitions with sources that add substantive evidence for those definitions. That B'tselem rightly condemns people who justify terrorism by skewing interpretations of international law has absolutely nothing to do with definitions here. I've removed them. Please read closely what others say, and please try to write comprehensible English, for 'The fact they play for the other side is your NPOV' is meaningless, as well as screwing up the meaning of NPOV by confusing it with POV. If you can't master the niceties of English, then ask for help, because your additions or revisions are often unacceptably garbled and not appropriate to an encyclopedia, and just result in an extra workload for others.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, mocking my English doesn't make your case stronger. The sources I added explain why Palestinian violence can't be looked at as freedom fighting. It is as appropriate as those you have added.Except for house demolition, violence is violence and does not need explanation. If you feel the urge to explain why 'settlers' violence is not OK, it can be balanced with the same about Palestinian violence.

I addition, If you would have looked at 0404 חדשות you would see they are WP:RS. It is a news agency that was mentioned by others before. Taking out their links b/c you don't like Hakol Hayehudi is your POV. No editor commented regarding of 0404 and mentioning facebook is complete BS as no source was facebook. Please revert this Ashtul (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention, on Skunk page you didn't claim 0404 was not WP:RS. Ashtul (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

0404 is a user-contribution site that doesn't take responsibility for what its users post. This is stated clearly here. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that it passes WP:RS. Zero^talk 09:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, you claim "the quotes from B’tselem and re Hamas (1,2) have nothing to do with the definition of the lead. The lead states that attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are part of the substance of the list" yet you put there 10 sources. For what??? Even for housing demolition the is an option to simply link it. Any other reason other then WP:BIASED?

What is wrong with my recent suggestion -

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation involving a violation of rights, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities. Housing demolitions are included as well.

It is nice, clean and covers everything. What do your quotes add to the mix? Ashtul (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I write according to sources. I try everywhere to base my remarks on what sources say, because readers should be able to independently verify everything. You've just excised in this proposal, all of the sources I used to compose that lead. Secondly your editing is hasty, rapid, and creates so many complexities from edit to edit, with bad syntax, poor sourcing, and entries that do not fit the definition given in the lead, that you leave people with no recourse but to go back to the last intelligible version that respects the points on the talk page. If you stay on, you must edit less, learn policy, read much more broadly on each topic, and stop head-hunting for what you take to be the wrong POV angle. All POVs are legitimate.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You make the definition of what will be included in the list. I checked a few lists on WP and most of them have very short description. They may get lengthy if something is excluded. All your links don't say anything beyond vioence (mostly 'settlers') is bad. Even for demolition which need more explanation, it is linked. so why only pro-Palestinian agenda? My proposal above gives any reader just as much information. If they want to learn more about the conflict, they have shortcuts.

Also, lack of time is hardly an excuse. Ashtul (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "as Igorp wrongly charges" @Nishidani -

It's your own opinion only.

• "The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). The site registers has a private axe to grind, is neither a mainstream newspaper, nor a government source, and uses not official news but Facebook pages, which are not valid sources..." @Nishidani -

You haven't checked the sources carefully. Check them again :) Any way ITIC is the 2nd source in this case. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

such sites as ... use 0404 as a RS

@Nishidani, @Zero0000,
Regarding your claims to 0404 - as I've checked such sites as jpost.com, haaretz.co.il, timesofisrael.com, ynet.co.il, walla.co.il use it as a RS.
So I'd suggest you to return to the article(s) what you've already deleted.
Any way, I am suprised that you've removed its referenses before result of discussion on 0404 is reached. :(
--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't the faintest understanding of RS policy if you believe that, since a mainstream source quotes or refers to another newspaper or media outlet, that instantaneously legitimates it, be it obscure, marginal, a website, blog, as reliable for facts. How does this work, by magical contagion? Please try and read policy, and observe how RSN handles these questions, because your comment suggests a total unfamiliarity with how we work these issues. Were the analogy true, WP:RS would be meaningless as a policy guideline.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(Ignoring your next personal attacks).

• "how we work these issues"

I've already seen enough here as you "work these issues" and what sources you try to use as RS to understand your own approch to them :( So I'd prefer somebody else to learn "these issues".

Essentially: I do not see any problem to use 0404's info with appropriate attribution. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Look. No 'pro-Israeli' editor comments when any occasional use I make of Mondoweiss or Counterpunch is automatically reverted, at sight, as 'not reliable for facts'. On the other hand, these same editors never challenge any dubious or unconfirmed Israeli newsoutlet. They let stand, Hakol Hayehudi, 0404, Arutz Sheva, The Algemeiner, which are either activist or pitched to an ideological constituency. I have a natural right to ask of editors that they be coherent, and not pick, choose and delete sources according to ideological preferences. Mondoweiss and, occasionally Countrerpunch, are far more informative and better written, with better contributive names than the private 0404 which relies on contributor reports for its webpages, and therefore exercises no editorial control over content or fact-checking. Finally, far more incidents than I register occur in these territories day by day. I read about them on websites that are not usable, though informative. I do not add that stuff in out of respect for WP:RS. Neither should you or anyone else add stuff in from media of similar status. You should also note that many of the incidents Ashtul mentions constitute neither damage nor physical injury.

In short, you have my editing, which, whatever its problems, reflects 8 years of experience in this hard environment, in your sights, but maintain a rigorous silence about selfr-evidently bad contributions by Ashtul. Good editors challenge bad or dubious editing from any side, and this you have yet to learn.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(ignoring your next advertising of M & 972 :) )

"Look". You may check my similar experience in ru-wiki as well. I'm really ready for constructive cooperation to reach a real NPOV in the article. Sure it includes information from the anti-Israel organizations as well as from either pro- or neutral ones. If I understand well the Ashtul's posts here he is also ready for it. The question is, if you are ready, too, to "take the blinders off" and to show the same approach. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, please explain your why you oppose my new lead proposal. It is almost all your text but without unnecessary sources.

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation involving a violation of rights, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities. Housing demolitions are included as well.
Everyone who read it, know exactly what is the list about. Please try to answer precisely without going in circles. Ashtul (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've already explain above I oppose inclusion of State's Housing demolition actions to this article. May be and only if the process itself leads to real violent incidents.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul. In controversial articles, the optimal procedure is to source all statements. You desire to remove all sources, impoverishing the lead and making it look subjective. So your proposal is a no-goer. Igorp, Israel is not a 'state' authority in the West Bank. It is an occupying military power bound by strict rules regarding humanitarian law and basic guarantees to the indigenous population, of which housing is one. Sources say that refusing to give permits, and demolishing houses that lack them, violates international law. Israel refuses to accept this, saying it applies 'Ottoman law' and its own conventions. The lead specifies, with the quotes, that this definition is contended therefore. But to deny housing demolition a place is to make the article conform to the peculiar, isolated Israeli POV. That is the problem.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What Ashtul took from 0404 fails the description in the lead of what the page deals with

Igorp. Please examine it and tell me why this trivia, apart from the non-RS status, fit the lead specifications of acts of violence that affect persons or property. They are all extremely vague and poorly reported, so no reader can know what happened.

•A Molotov cocktail was thrown by Palestinians near Givat Assaf.

At whom, not in the settlement. Towards it? At a car? This does not qualify as no damage to property or civilians is indicated.

•Three Molotov cocktails were thrown at a Jewish residence in the neighborhood of Ras al-Amud in east Jerusalem.

Did it hit something? Was someone hurt? This does not qualify as no damage to property or civilians is indicated.

•A Molotov cocktail was thrown by a Palestinian between Migdalim and Tapuach.

That's a fair stretch of country. What was the target, a car, a property. Who reported this? This does not qualify as no damage to property or civilians is indicated.

•Fire was opened "at the Salem roadblock northwest of Jenin. There were no casualties. The building was damaged".

This does not qualify as what the fire was (shooting, arson?) is unspecified. No one was injured, no indication of what the ‘damage’ was, and to what building.

•"Border Police guards apprehended a Palestinian who tried carry out a stabbing attack at a roadblock in the Qalqiliya area".

This does not qualify because it is an arrest on suspicion, based on Facebook. If an attack occurred that is normally reported in major outlets. However, what one does is look up Facebook page of the Israel Police Force, January 5, 2015, get the details, then find some mainstream press report, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of Israel etc., in their Hebrfew editions, to get a source we can use. It's worth investigating

•In two separate events, two Molotov cocktails were thrown by Palestinians at car near Beitar Illit.

No mention if the car was hit, no damage, no casualties.

•Palestinians threw two Molotov cocktails at Beit Hadassah in Hebron.

I’ve seen the photos. There is a piece of blackened ashlar. Hebron settlers are not reliable for reports, and no ‘damage’ nor injuries are reported

•An Israeli marchant was robbed by Palestinians and his car was stolen while delivering goods. It was later returned by Palestinian Police.

This is a case of criminal theft, with restitution.

•Palestinians stole four horses from Beit Hagai.

Beit Hagai settlers complaining to 0404. No police report, no mainstream coverage as yet, and it may be criminal. The article is about the I/P conflict, not about common crime. And the source is HaKol Hayehudi

•An Israeli source reporting of the incident says the area has daily confrontation by Palestinians and radical-left activists.

This is a smear gloss (radical left activists is cant for Israeli NGO staff) and HaKol Hayehudi is not RS

•An Israeli source says, The Palestinians kids threw stones at the town entrance and head of security tried to move them away. The case is investigated by Israeli police.

No damage, no casualties.

•Palestinians shot and damaged an IDF vieachle near Ramallah

Damage to an IDF vehicle by gunfire usually gets reported in the mainstream press. It wasn’t, as far as I can see, Settlers have shot at IDF vehicles. You need good police reports to determine stuff like this, not just assertions in non-RS

•Palestinian threw stones at a bus full of students near Anata Junction and damaged it.

A bus scratched by a stone is not damage, nor were casualties involved. Stone-throwing by settlers and Palestinians is a daily thing I for one do not report, unless casualties and serious damage occurs. If you check List of Israeli price tag attacks you will note that I included an incident there on January 14 of damage to property, but didn't reduplicate it here because it falls under a different classification. It fits the picture of course, but this should deal with violation of person and property in direct clashes and incidents between the two parties, not criminal or symbolic acts.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, I am not going to discuss something about Ashtul till his return from your ban.

So you have time to copy here his text with its references what was deleted either by you or by Zero to let me check original one instead of your version. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There you go. 0404 is not RS. But out of scruple, I reraised the issue to be more explicit as to why the way these contributor notices on that medium, as given by Ashtul, did not fit the definitions. Your response? An assumption of bad faith. One example of why we should not further trust such reports is in The Times of Israel this morning. A reported attack by a Palestinian shepherd on settlers earlier this month, the sort of thing listed as a fact on websites like o4o4, turns out, according to the Israeli police investigation, to have been trumped up by the settlers. Multiple reports from mainstream sources are the only way to thresh out the facts from the sort of hearsay and subjective claims these inferior websites carry.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Igorp. Between 13-19 January, OCHA reports, apart from Anata Junction, another Israeli vehicle being damaged by stoning, this time at Sinjil (Ramallah). No date is given, so I can't put it in yet, but if you could do me the courtesy of checking that time frame to find out when exactly this incident took place, we can then source it to OCHA. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It loloks like the incident we report for 12 January, coming in too late for the 12 Jan OCHA report so included in the 13-19th period. Still, I may be wrong.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I removed myself most of these edits after the big revery. It was easier that way.

One case on which I disagree with you is "An Israeli source says, The Palestinians kids threw stones at the town entrance and head of security tried to move them away. The case is investigated by Israeli police." as it was part of the story about the kid being shot. By itself it wouldnt belong but since the case is mentioned, the other side of story should be heard. Ashtul (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral undiscussed changes in the name of the article by Greyshark

• Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000
• Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2001
• Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2002
• Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2003
• Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2004
• Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2005
• Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2006
• Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2007
• Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2008
• Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011
• Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2012

• • You redirected List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014
  • You redirected List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2015 to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 on the principle that Timeline is ostensibly normative. As you can see above, it isn't.

Violence in the conflict rates 6 pages, Timeline, before your unilateral change, 5.

Secondly these pages are about violent interests, and Timeline is a misnomer, since, while those pages deal with a poor selection of incidents, they do not comprehensively cover either political incidents nor violent incidents, as do all pages on violence.

We ase dealing with violent events lists as in Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, with the difference that partisan description is disallowed, and per NPOV which is violated in the following articles. These are lists of violence, not generic timelines. By your logic all the following articles should be reclassified within a Timeline I.e.

• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013
• List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014

As I interpret what you did, it was arbitrary, removed 'violent' from the title for Timeline though the precedents are in favour of 'violence', which is a much more accurate description of the content of all these articles, which leave out huge amounts on non-violent issues in the I/P conflict. There is huge confusion and no normative procedure here, and unilateral changes which supply no remedy, but are applied to one side, are no solution, being ill-thought through. If you think you have a case, make it. But I would advise you to revert your name changes.- These things should be done collegially and consensually, not by personal fiat Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani on this. Ashtul (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed and approved long ago at Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Merging_into_Timeline_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. The completion of the renames has not been made despite the outcome of the consensus back then. I guess the complete rename of subarticles has to be completed all at once and not one by one to avoid confusion. Per WP:GF i can now move all articles of "violence during <x>" to "timeline of <x>", unless a new discussion to be initiated to question the previous consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Valid formally perhaps but surely not a consensus. No one ever notified me, for one. Only two editors, neither active now, commented. I'd suggest you suspend the incongruity I noted. I would appreciate it if you could tell me how to raise a new discussion and where and what schema to follow. In these technical things, I know virtually nothing. My main problem is not the use of 'Timeline' but the fact that the Timeline articles are nothing of the sort, since they exclude a huge amount of non-violent material, the political histories of the dispute, legal rulings in Israel and elsewhere, the peace negotiations. We have lists of violence, that is all. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Formally and procedurally valid, but i agree that consensus can change - especially almost 4 years later. I'm not going to continue renaming the sub-articles, though you should take a look at a previous naming, which had once been completely non-consistent (we once had a "violence in <x>", "timeline of <x>", "list of violent incidents in <x>", "list of deaths in <x>" etc.).

Anyway, what exactly would you like to do? An RFC (request for comments) - to ask the editor community what to do in general and raise various possibilities? maybe to propose rename of "Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, <year>" subarticles to "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict <year>" subarticles in a concentrated procedure? Let me know and i will assist to file.GreyShark (dibra) 05:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is name accuracy. A Timeline of the Conflict would naturally cover everything of political, diplomatic, social and conflictual notability with regard to the two sides. Operatively these articles are uniquely concerned with the registration of incidents of violence, real and perceived, suffered by both sides, to the exclusion of a very large amount of matter, and therefore I think that one needs, at a minimum, a title that reflects this specific content. I.e., I would suggest Timeline of incidents of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015,etc., or something along those lines. I'm amenable of course to other suggestions that cope with the specificity of the content. Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not only accuracy in regard to the content, but it is rather non-consistency, but the question is also what is violence? killing is obviously violence and there has already been List of deaths in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2012 (later renamed to timeline), but there have been no deaths so far in 2015 to make such an article; wounds are probably a result of violence as well, but this is much more blurred, and i don't think there is any precedent of making a list of wounded people incidents on wikipedia so far. Essentially, you are proposing of making an article on "violence" or "killings" in 2015, which so far are very minor importance or non-existent (no killings, compared let's say to Syria, where thousands have already been martyred in January). So, i don't mind to make a proposal with you on rename all yearly articles to "Timeline of incidents of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", but i wouldn't support the proposal and there will be a problem with defining "violence", which can put you in trouble. Maybe you should first make an RFC, what do you think?GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As the lead documents, what one calls violence is a matter of POV. In an extremely large number of compilations I am familiar with anti-Semitic incidents,'with weapons or without, by arson, vandalism or direct threats against Jewish persons,or institutions such as synagogues, community centers, schools, cemeteries,monuments as well as private property,' are explicitly defined as, and listed as 'violent', and it appears to me that it is a contradiction to use an extensive reading of violence for anything pertaining to Jews, while excluding the same broad definition for Palestinians suffering from similar acts at Jewish hands in Palestine. Though not mentioning it at the time, this anomaly influenced my judgement in determining what comes under the umbrella.

From the perspective of both Palestinians and the international community, demolishing tents in winter to leave local families and children out in the cold, as in several Jordan Valley incidents, is a violent act, as is the destruction of food sources, sown fields, olive groves, etc., on which the livelihood of an occupied are based, though Israel doesn't see it as such. No one POV can prevail of course. In general, when someone else created Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, which bore the title of 'Violent incidents', several editors, not myself, began adding stone-throwing. damage to cars. They formed a majority and no one reverted them. After much argument, I then accepted the fait accompli and began to add similar incidents with Palestinians. This seems to have been accepted. The present article is a continuation of that article, and follows the procedures established, not by my initiative there. When you, in turn, add a 'generic' word like 'Timeline', and excise reference to 'violent incidents', this translates automatically (one of my reasons for objecting) to a space where anything at all related to the I/P conflict, anything bearing on it, from minor incidents, crop damage, house demolition, human rights reports, diplomatic negotiations, court appeals, political events (even violence among Palestinian factions, which I have withheld so far but consider for possible inclusion, is 'fair game'. That is what your generic 'Timeline' reformulation does, it massively opens out the parameters of inclusion, as opposed to my rather stricter focus on events that can be defined as violence to property and people on either side. Actually, from a POV perspective, I have no real objections to your reformulation, but from an innate desire for taxonomic distinctions and clarity, I prefer articles to be more focused, so that I don't need to bung in price tag attacks, which has its own page. In a generic timeline I could, but so far I don't, add in proposals to build more settler homes, as reported to day, or even rumours a toddler was subject to a kidnap attempt (reading between the lines, since the father is a terrorist, that may be a self-serving piece of propaganda even. When in doubt, suspend, I think).Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality

Wow this page is biased beyond belief. It's time for a serious revamping of the page. I will liberate the page from this bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.33.115 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Confiscation notice

Nishidani, has a confiscation notice also become violence now?

Israel gave seizure notices it would confiscate for Jewish settlement 500 acres of reportedly private Palestinian land belonging to the al-Halayqa, Rasna, and al-Hasasna families, at Ash-Shuyukh, 6 miles northeast of Hebron.

Ashtul (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just notice a few more that don't make the cut you have placed on similar events.

According to a Palestinian report, 10-year-old Muhammad Afeef Khweis was arrested by Israeli police in a park in the At-Tur neighborhood of East Jerusalem. His uncle was also arrested after being sprayed with pepper. The family complained of being assalted.

A Palestinian man reported that settlers had smashed his rear window and tried to stab him, near Silat ad-Dhahr (Jenin Governorate), and fled when other Palestinians arrived. Ashtul (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Monthly summeries

I have placed it first b/c as far as I can see, the other summaries do not cover the whole month but parts of it. If any RS covers attacks on Palestinians in that way, I have no opposition for it being placed before Shabak one. In addition, I translated firebombs and IED according to Hebrew version to make it more clear. Ashtul (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, which fits our criteria. However, unlike all of the other sources used, it is thread-bare, and there is no way of using the statistical data to verify precisely what incidents are alluded to. In this context, close control of what is reported, and what actually occurred, is indispensable. The weekly reports I used are eventually reworked as monthly reports, which will substitute them when they are published. IED is not appropriate. Most of these devices are 'bombs' made by teenagers, not manufactured weapons of war.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your translation for IED is good.

The way you buried the report, not even putting it in a new paragraph isn't NPOV. I believe this kind of statistics break down should lead the monthly reports. Weekly reports can come later. The fact it doesn't break it down is true but so are many of the report that are on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014. Just an example - From 22 October - 10 November, 22 homes were demolished in east Jerusalem alone. Ashtul (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't 'bury' the report. It was placed at the end of the other reports that are very detailed. If the Shabak comes up with the kind of detail, day by day, place, nature of incident, we have in new sources, it will be included. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the earlier sources before you write such a statement. The first 'source' is an unidentified 'Arab rights group' that gives just as much details (if not less).

I just checked OCHA website and January report hasn't been released yet. Once it is released, I have no problem with it being put in a different paragraph before shabak report.

Please self revert. Ashtul (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

An undertaking in having your topic ban listed was that you avoid pages I edit. Do so.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No. it was that i will 'keep a respectful distance' from you. I have edited this page before not to mention you followed me to two different pages. I was as respectful as it gets in all conversation we had since.

I put a great WP:RS, invited anyone to put input as for its location but you buried it (there is really no other way to put it) then gave an explanation that doesn't hold water. Ashtul (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You admitted stalking my edits some time ago, so keeping a respectful distance after that means you should not edit in my vicinity. That wasn't a great RS. It is useful for the perspective of Shin Bet, which registers as an act of terror some incident where a Palestinian throwing stones at soldiers who shoot you for defending your own land. You don't have to have an intention of doing harm when throwing stones in the direction of soldiers as they shoot your way to get up to 10 years in jail. By its own terminology, the report is stupid. It falls short in allowing readers information to control how that kind of assessment is made. If you compare B'tselem, or the other sources here, they provide names, places, dates and other details which enable sceptics like myself to cross-check the data. That Shin Bet will give nothing but an obscure statistic does it no credit. It is useful, however, to document that agency's assessment per month. I don't trust a lot of Palestinian evidence, and I don't trust official IDF or Shin Bet evidence on the same grounds. It is all, as often as not, public spinning to gain sympathy, and the only option left to serious analysts is to prioritize documents that go into details and allow independent scholars the opportunity to independently verify the assertions.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, January start with this -

In January, according to the Arab Group for Development and National Empowerment, an Arab Human Rights association, Israel detained over 400 Palestinians, on average 13 per diem, of whom 57 were minors, and 18 women.

An unidentified 'Arab rights group' that gives just as much details (if not less). In addition, it talks about Israel detainees which aren't even covered in the description of the lead. Ashtul (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Nishidani to Igorp

One follows sources. One does not add explanatory notes when sources are inadequate, especially when the the lead carefully notes that:Housing demolitions are regarded by Israel as justified as a deterrent response to acts of terrorism or on the grounds that the houses in question in East Jerusalem, and the occupied West Bank were built without permits from the Israeli Military Authority governing the West Bank

All an intelligent editor needed to do here was add 'structures' to 'housing' = 'housing demolitions and the dismantling of structures', for example. (3) It is not illuminating to add that Ma'an does not give the reason. The note is 'empty'. Please reason carefully, rather than suspiciously. I am not omitting anything, sources do. Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sorry, you're right for the 2nd, but absence of reason (1st) should be mentioned" --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the lead:

Housing demolitions are regarded by Israel as justified as a deterrent response to acts of terrorism or on the grounds that the houses in question in East Jerusalem, and the occupied West Bank were built without permits from the Israeli Military Authority governing the West Bank.

Ergo, any mention of demolitions is covered by the lead explanation. If sources don't mention it, one should intrude a useless footnote, implying the obvious, since the reader will know it from the lead. This circular nitpicking really is vexatious, well, I don't give a fuck either way, but, pal, use your time to edit more constructively, uh?Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

See NPOV topic above with arguments against such including. So there is no consensus for it, and it's default for you only.

And here is the next example of your "NPOV": the last your edit only based at the same Maan only (based on evidences of some coordinator/member of a "local popular committee in the village"):

• • Israeli forces put down a weekly demonstration at Kafr Qaddum. Bulldozers demolished the village's main water-line.4 Palestinians were injured by rubber-coated steel bullets Nasser Barham (42) was shot in the stomach; Hakam Khaldun (24) was hit in the lower abdomen; Maher Jumaa (45) was wounded in the foot; Muhammad Abd al-Salam (18) was shot in the head.<ref name="Ma'an27">
  • In a separate incident 4 activists taking part in a weekly protest march, one of whom was an Icelander, suffered injuries, and a child was taken into custody, in clashes with Israeli forces at Bil'in.Ratib Abu Rahma (50) was shot in the back; Ismail Mohammad Abu Rahma(18), Ellan Shalif (78), and the Icelandic activist (27) were wounded in their lower limbs. <ref name="Ma'an27" />

It's so sad to see your text at a news' background from the same Maan (:

• 2 killed in suspected Boko Haram attack on polling stations in Nigeria
• Local official: Tribes kill 21 Shiite rebels in south Yemen
• Health official: 54 dead in 3 days of clashes in Yemen`s Aden
• 8 children wounded by cluster bomb in south Lebanon

Are you (considering yourself as "intelligent editor") paying the same attention for these tragic accidents instead of this propaganda's article? --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

References

POV Disaster

This article is a POV disaster -- owned by Nishidani to show a very distorted view of the conflict. Also becoming way too long because Nishidani is including many non-notable incidents. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at Palestinian stone-throwing or Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, with its 12 sister articles? Make a case that when Palestinians are injured the facts are not-notable.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous articles about attacks on Israelis, pages about Israeli victims etc. Both sides can be included in this article and no one owns the article but I guess it's easier to just tag something. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Grossly Imbalanced

Nishidani, are you not going to add anything pertaining to incidents in which Israelis have been harmed or killed like [1]? You're clearly well appraised of what is going on in the conflict. To purposefully exclude such incidents is indicative of highly POV editing and this article is nearing the point of being unsalvageable and requiring an AfD. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, are you claiming Nishidani did not make this edit [2]? Did you not even bother to read the article? Is your battleground mentality so strong you make posts attacking other editors for things they have not done? 184.145.87.79 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I read several newspapers each day just on this topic. Of course, things can escape my attention, but that one didn't. There is no POV problem I can see. Anything, anything constituting physical injury or property damage to Jews or Palestinians is, obligatorily, registered here when it comes from RS (at least 60-70% of what I read I don't put in because it is on pro-Palestinian sources I regard as reliable but wiki might have doubts about), and any editor can note here any lapse of concentration. Provide a link and I'll do the footwork.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag

See also: Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 § NPOV

I had added the POV tag months ago. I wasn't aware that it had been removed, so I re-added it. This article is so absurdly stacked it indicates a clear WP:POV and WP:Ownership as you've defined the very grounds of what should be deemed notable. The fact that the second paragraph of the lead is dedicated to housing demolitions is absurd well poisoning that has little to do with the topic of the page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion. Back it up by facts. What have I missed. This was, against my view, once about incidents of violence. It was changed to 'Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' by Greyshark. A Timeline registers events, and the events registered are those in notable mainstream sources, 3 Israeli and I Palestinian, namely Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Ynet and Ma'an News Agency. Housing demolitions are noted in allfour as regular events illustrative of the conflict. I don't own this. Here, as in life generally, I follow Rabbi Shmaya's advice: "Love work. Hate authority. Don't get chummy with the powers that be." (Avoth 1:10). A lot of editors are lazy, but that's not my fault.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also consider the some people don't have the inordinate amount of time to edit that you do. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of my time is spent reading on topics I never edit, or gardening or looking after people, believe it or not. I dislike wasting too much time on this enterprise.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"namely Haaretz (9 mentions), The Times of Israel (19), Ynet (17) and Ma'an News Agency (134).

As I guess all Ma'aan refs are yours. What about other ones? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an, being the dubious publication which publishes patently false stories, like this one which said Israel was flooding Gaza with non-existent dams in Southern Israel[3]. Maybe we shouldn't be relying so heavily on a paper with such a dubious record. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The I/P conflict involves two peoples. Per NPOV we seek rounded coverage from both sides. I use 3 mainstream Israeli newspapers, and one mainstream Palestinian paper. The latter figures more prominently in sourcing because the events are rarely covered adequately, if at all, in the Israeli English-language press. Ma'an was established with European government support. All newspapers publish allegations that prove to be false, and mainstream newspapers usually offer retractions or report the other side's version, as did Ma'an on that occasion. Please note that that allegation was never registered on this page: I evaluate from numerous articles what fits the intended coverage of this article, and exclude much that fails rather severe criteria for inclusion. That Ma'an has to be used only shows how poorly Israeli and western mainstream coverage is of the Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an did not offer a retraction to a story that was patently false. Indicative of poor journalistic quality of that publication that should not be so heavily relied on. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please concentrate:'All newspapers publish allegations that prove to be false, and mainstream newspapers usually offer retractions or report the other side's version.' While anyone in the know at the time knew that Judith Miller of the New York Times was writing up fabrications for two years, and mentioned it frequently in print, the NYTs took donkey's ages to fess up. Israeli courts have laid down verdicts that Israeli secret services persistently lied for decades, and were regularly, and still are, quoted in the mainstream press. Scholars have noted that Israeli government on incidents are purposely dishonest, and they are all unwittingly relayed as facts. You have one example of Ma'an relaying a report it later balanced by giving the Israeli version: that does not add up to anything. The 'imbalance' you protest about is in reality: an unarmed people lives among heavily armed occupying population regular stealing property and resources and an army that seems trigger happy even in trivial confrontations. All Israeli statistics show an imbalance over decades of 1:10 in casualties in Israel's favour, so that translates out to far more incidents of harm, injury or death among Palestinians than among Israelis. Israeli papers generally ignore these 'minor incidents' unless there is a Jewish victim. Ma'an reports them, and that simple fact explains the difference.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• "All Israeli statistics show an imbalance over decades of 1:10 in casualties in Israel's favour...", etc.

As usual at Nishidani, his agenda is represented as a fact.

And even here, he (as usual) muddled information from his own source:

• Ranan D. Kuperman has noted that "information regarding casualties and damage are very reliable... However, Israeli government on incidents are purposely dishonest about reporting who initiated the incident.." (omitting by Nishidani)

So what is the real price for such "arguments" ? :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Ma'an's retranslator?

Next example (yet with Nishidani's claims :) : "For the nth time. Don't ask if the source doesn't supply an answer to a personal query. Look around and help find a source that answers the question"

A Palestinian was shot and wounded near Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip by Israel Border forces.

Dear sir, as you brought this information, it's you who is responsible for its completeness. Imho, if your source is not able to produce a quality information, there is no place for it in Wiki. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite the relevant policy. I personally don't report what sources don't state, and no one else does either.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are yet examples what one had to add after next your not-NPOV contribution, when you add to what you call the article (in fact - Maan's propaganda List), only what condemns Israel.

Even Maan you managed to distort. :)

• "A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun after Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip"

So if your suggestion means that somebody has to clean up after all such your fakes, the best way is to erase this propaganda List itself. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead Tag

The lead as currently written does not comply with WP:LEAD. It is not a summation of material in the article but instead introduces unique material of a POV nature. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. There is nothing to sum up in a list, other that defining what is included or excluded from the list.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please not that there is a request to discuss the issues with the article, but none of the two POV driveby taggers are discussing, as requested, the issues.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then the way the lead is constructed right now, it sounds like the whole article is about house demolitions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's "stable" as you say because YOU WP:OWN the article. There's no need for an entire paragraph explicating house demolitions when the first sentence of the lead already states "property damage." Yawn. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad memory. That was expanded because the inclusion of House Demolitions was challenged as appropriate. House Demolitions have a complex POV history, not regarded as violent or political by Israel, but matters of law and order, not relevant to the I/P political conflict, and therefore needed appropriate clarification.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Too Long Tag

This article is unreasonably long and difficult to navigate, particularly because incidentals of dubious notability are being included, to POV effect. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay do some work and tell others why you think this. As it is, you state a personal opinion. A chronological list is by definition not difficult to navigate. If you can't make an argument, the tag will be removed.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani to Plot Spoiler

You are going around consistently and reverting me, and making a nuisance of yourself by incomprehensible, perhaps provocative reverts, as this here. If this is just gaming, I fully expert the other reverter to back up and see what I do. Instead, if you have a disagreement with the page, on a text that has been stable for months, you should not go around removing text en bloc without a talk page justification.

• The article is called 'Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'.
• That is taken to mean, a list of events that illustrate the conflict between Israel and Palestine (for the year 2015).
• House demolitions are regarded as a source of conflict by most sources, certainly by international bodies and the Palestinians themselves.
• Therefore you must show why they are insignificant or irrelevant for the page topic.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable because you've wholly WP:OWNED the page for MONTHS. LOL. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I edit the page. No one else does, that does not translate into WP:OWN. The few who have, do so to revert, erase, cancel or tag it, without argument, like yourself, and they are all identifiably pushers for a certain POV. If you haven't got the time to be constructive here, don't whinge.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I know YOUDONTLIKEIT that you no longer get to singularly WP:OWN this page to push your narrow WP:POV. Tough noogies. You're just going to have to learn to edit collaboratively and constructively. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That's another personal attack. Please list specific omissions or additions you object to. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

See topics above (as well as in other articles) about your omitting, selective quoting, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your own comments are generally incomprehensible and personal attacks, like those of Plot Spoiler. If you think this page consistently misquotes or selectively quotes sources, indicate where. Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No comments to another personal attack from you. There are a lot of such indicated examples in this Talk as well as in others ones. Simply open your eyes. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

See also: Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 § POV Tag

• This edit tells the Israeli version, and eliminates the family statement. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not correct. One may see that family version is remained. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• This incident

• "A Jewish man was found tied up and stabbed in the trunk of a car belonging to Palestinians from East Jerusalem late Thursday night. He was moderately wounded and police believe the incident is criminal in nature"

This so far is believed to be of a criminal nature. Crimes by ethnicity do not figure among I/P incidents on this page, whether the criminal or victim be Israeli or Palestinian. I have been waiting for clarification from sources. If the incident is defined as ‘terror’ then it is included. So far to my knowledge, it has not been so. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why I've placed {{clarify}}. There were enough cases when the police changed a criminal version to terrorist one. Let's wait. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You cannot assume that this is a terror or violent act motivated by ethnic hatred, when there is no official determination. This has occurred several times, and I have always noted on my work page the incident, and either ignored it if it is rejected as a hate crime, or included it when that assessment is made. One waits: one does not prejudge events on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• The source says Ibrahimi Mosque not ‘Cave of the Patriarchs’ . I follow sources. The link is however to Cave of the Patriarchs. Ibrahimi Mosque because there was a protest at the time over not being allowed into the Mosque not into the generic Cave of the Patriarchs.

• To be cont. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a sandpit for childish games, but a serious labour of work where one strives to present information accurately.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"a serious labour of work where one strives to present information accurately" - alas, "accurately" isn't about you. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "I follow sources" @Nishidani.

Not correct twice: there were already 2 sources in your "20:24, 26 April 2015" version before my edits - Ynet & Maan. Surely, you've chosen the last one using the trick [[Cave of the Patriarchs|Ibrahimi Mosque]] :) . Moreover, you've distorted even Maans version, where is written "outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is called WP:PIPING. Would just adding Ibrahimi Mosque so that it redirects be less of a "trick"? I think the article name should be used if there is not a good reason to not use it and the reason given looks to be one of them. The addition "Ibrahimi Mosque, according to Ma'an" is not better.

Can you add more about what you say got distorted? --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

""outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it", as at N. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Maan News write both "at" and "outside". If "in the Cave of the Patriarchs" could look like "inside", it is easy to solve that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• ‘excessive’ in inverted commas versus introduced ‘violent’. All these incidents are ‘violent’. Tear gas is always shot, and known to be harmful (it’s on the manufacturer’s label if inhaled in notable quantities). The only edit that looks borderline, but trivial. I have left in 'violent' and written 'exceszsive' per sources. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not correct. I haven't "introduced" 'violent'. It already was in your Maan's source: "during violent clashes in Sinjil village", but you've omitted it. Thanks, that you didn't name them "peaceful" as you did in other article. So I do not buy your "All these incidents are ‘violent’".--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• this violates a principle that you do not describe incidents as ‘terror’ attacks when one side questions this (b) the says in Ma’ale Adumim’ whereas the source says it was at a checkpoint near Ma’ale Adumim. I didn’t even provide details of the Palestinian version because I refrain from quoting IMEMC, but since that is on of the Palestinian POVs, (according to which the incident occurred when a female relative he was walking with was the object of vulgar language). You, Igorp, just adopt the IDF terminology. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, you just wrote that he was killed (by IDF) "the day before". A top of "NPOV" :) Regarding to the Ynet's (not IDF's) "thwarted terror attack in Ma'ale Adumim" - it was to remind why and how he was killed after your confusing text --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Such a touching "Palestinian version": he went for a walk with a female relative "with a butcher's cleaver and knife". :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• • 20-26 is okay,
• an Israeli policeman was wounded by a rock, that’s a useful addition.
• This edit conflates two distinct events, one at sea, one on land. They are separate incidents. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not correct. According to your own Maan source, it was the same incident:

• "Israeli forces shot and injured a Palestinian man east of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on Sunday...
• The injury came as Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip."

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally, please do not paste in tag asking for clarification that no source offers. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is totally unacceptable to change to the version given by the Israeli army, usually repeated by Israeli sources, when for example Palestinian witnesses quoted in newspapers give another view. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have repeatedly added 'reportedly' to Palestinian events, precisely to contextualize the 'news' as a POV. None of us here know the truth. All we do is parse as carefully as possible what mainstream news sources day.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, if someone places Maan's one side propaganda as a fact, even without any attribution, such clarification is necessary for NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What you call 'propaganda' are facts important to the main Palestinian independent news agency that Israeli mainstream papers frequently ignore. I find most reports skewed by bias, and only give the factual content. If you notice cases where this does not occur, notify the page.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to count yet a time of your today's reverting edits for "IR". :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a revert and then cancelled it, reverting myself.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, can you pls explain your revert "Not at all agreed to in the talk page"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Igorp, you are showing a chronic inability to understand both policy and points by others. I don't know whether it is linguistic, but it's like talking to a wall. Secondly Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source, being a political organ for settlers that has no credibility, a large part of it being hostile gossip or editorializing. IDF official statistics should be given from mainstream sources that report them.Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I might note that, to underline the obtuseness of your editing on these subjects, you object to the Arab designation of 'Ibrahimi mosque' which is where Palestinians pray, and prefer the 'Cave of the Patriarchs' which is not in the source. When reverted, you come back and add 'Ibrahimi mosque,according to Ma'an News'. This is utterly farcical. The incident regarded Palestinian Arabs outside the Ibrahmi mosque where they pray, not the Jewish area, and secondly, it is not 'according to Ma'an News'. That is how the whole Arab world calls it. It is profoundly dumb editing to do things like that.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Further, Your edit here put the incident re **Fadi Abu Mandil from its proper position on Friday 24 to April 28. It’s incomprehensible why you do this. The 28th report (Tuesday) said he was wounded on the preceding Friday =24th. Evidently you are not reading sources. If you can’t distinguish the date of a report from the date of an incident which occurred days earlier, and which the article refers to, then you should go elsewhere on the net. This place requires care, comprehension and accuracy.

According to Walla!, from January 2015 until April 26, 172 attacks against the Jerusalem Border Police and SWAT teams were recorded. 148 Molotov cocktails and 15 explosive devices have been thrown at Border Police, 1 shooting incident, 4 stabbing attempts or attacks and 4 "car rampage"attacks (attempted or actualized) have been launched.

These are assertions of fact, and can’t be reported by Arutz Sheva, which is not reliable for facts. Find a government, or mainstream source. It shouldn't be hard, since it is official data.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding to your revert with so symptomatic description: Fixing damage and incompetence See talk - it's just about you, :) who (why?) isn't able to understand what has been already written above:

 :* "I follow sources" @Nishidani.

Not correct twice: there were already 2 sources in your "20:24, 26 April 2015" version before my edits - Ynet & Maan. Surely, you've chosen the last one using the trick [[Cave of the Patriarchs|Ibrahimi Mosque]] :) . Moreover, you've distorted even Maans version, where is written "outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ynet's (ref name="RoyYan") quote:

• "Earlier in the evening, a Palestinian terrorist attacked a Border Police officer, stabbing the Israeli in his head and chest with a knife near the Cave of the Patriarchs".

So I really do not understand why you've reverted to:

... was shot dead when, rushing a combat unit,(ref name="RoyYan") he stabbed an Israeli soldier three times in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. The incident took place while the soldiers were reportedly blocking Palestinians from worshipping in the mosque. Some days earlier Israeli settlers had raised the Israeli flag over the mosque.(ref name="Ma'an")

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Fadi Abu Mandil" - I'll check later.

It's so interesting to hear such claims about Arutz Sheva from Nishidani who with his 150 refs "Ma'an" (only here) what isn't better than Arutz Sheva. Any way, I've already asked you what Wiki decision supports your own opinion, but as I remember didn't receive any answer. Especially for you, I'll add a Walla source in Hebrew :) Yet question: are you going to exchange Maan's refs with official PNA ones?

About the rest your claims - see my arguments above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I can't imagine that Arutz Sheva's coverage could be any worse than Ma'an's, which has been shown to be quite shoddy and propagandistic at times. Take these incredible Ma'an columns in Arabic which blame Israel for the Itamar massacre[4] and promote anti-Semitism[5] or just publishing outright fabrications that are never vetted or corrected[6]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you didn't note that,

• ignorping the talk page, Igorp's edit restored a false datum, about Fadi Abu Mandil he himself had introduced, which he then admitted he hadn't checked ("Fadi Abu Mandil" - I'll check later.'). That is a blind revert, and reportable.
• You didn't notice that in his blind revert he restored a totally garbled piece of English, which I had corrected.'A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun', cancelling my grammatical:' A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by Israeli forces in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun.
• You didn't notice that his edit asserting that the 'Cave of the Patriarchs' is, according to Igorp, known only to Ma'an News as the 'Ibrahimi mosque' when that term is the standard Arabic phrase for the site, and restricting its usage to the opinion of one news site is farcical.
• You didn't note the farcical incongruency of challenging 'activist' sources, while citing for Ma'an's ostensible unreliability a dubious blogspot like Elder of Ziyon.
• You didn't note that I am citing the English version of Ma'an News, and whatever controversies stirred up by a rare article (quickly removed, as was the racist/genocidal blog on The Times of Israel website recently, not impairing editors' use of that paper) in the Arabic version are immaterial to editing this page.
• You didn't notice that the whole history of Arutz Sheva on RSN nowhere affirms that it is reliable for facts. If you have a problem with Ma'an as a source for facts, take it to that board.
• You didn't notice that I did not dispute the asserted facts which are on Walla!, but their citation through a dubious source. I requested some homework, which neither did.
• The only intelligent correction here is 'near' for 'in'. You approve of carelessness, if it supports your POV, in short. There is no logic here other than your instinctive tagteaming backing of an incompetent editor, presumably because you have a minor career as a reverter of my edits.

Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"ignorping the talk page" @Nishidani - I do not know what is the best definition for this post - either result of blind rage or simply an outright lie? So it is about traditional Nishidani's personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with his "only true POV". (:)

One may easily check that I've returned an info about the Fadi Abu Mandil to "24.04" section just after my "I'll check" here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun after Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip.

Thanks, a totally garbled piece of English @Nishidani :) typo error is corrected.

Cave of the Patriarchs[41] ("Ibrahimi Mosque"[40]), etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll clarify. I never feel rage. You are an incompetent editor, incapable of simple judgements. I regard you just as a nuisance presence, unproductive, textually illiterate, unfamiliar with the topic, queasy about the content for pov reasons, and, above all, harbouring an obsession with my editing. If you want to waste your time, push on, niggle away, do your best. It isn't much, and I can cope with the noise factor. p.s.Now that you have Waalla! as a source, the crap tertiary report in the settler rag, Arutz Sheva, is not even justifiable. It will be removed, probably not by me. But I will consistently take out stupid attempts to push trash into the sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope a day will come when you, losing your some administrator' umbrella, will have to answer for your boorish personal attacks against all opponents who dare to disagree with your "only correct POV". In the meantime, I'd note that all your dirt, rather - a sign of powerlessness to resist the imposed facts and RS, and inability to cooperate constructively with opponents.

Unfortunately, not everyone has so much wiki-time, as you have, otherwise Wiki has already got rid of your not-NPOV a long ago.

Returning to the topic: have you any claims to A7's translation? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A7 is not reliable for facts, every discussion where neutral observers have commented, notes that. As to 'boorish personal attacks' please review your comments on this talk page, and note the sequence of silly remarks,smug insinuations and childish errors, requiring constant correction. Finally 'facts' are not 'imposed'. Facts are facts. You've added a couple of bytes to an article, consisting of reported facts that is 124,492 bytes long. I did the rest. I work, you quibble over trivia, and and even you have had to retract much of that trivia.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"124,492 bytes" of not-NPOV? No comments. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Factual accuracy tag

Could editors please direct me to events whose factual accuracy is under challenge. Any dissonance between sources and the paraphrase is quite easy to fix. Unless such evidence of distortion is forthcoming, the tag must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically everything by Ma'an. For example, the removal of info (you entered) which you didn't dispute recognizing Ma'an (and yourself by introducing it into the article) took a step too far. If Ma'an are stupid enough to publish on a full scale land invasion (which obviously didn't happen) what does that tell you about their fact checking credibility? Ma'an writes about every rumor and in many cases with no factchecking. Writing 'reportedly' about rumors doesn't make them more credible than Aratz 7 which you insist on leaving out.

In your last edit while overtaking another vehicle which I couldn't find in any of the 3 sources. WP:FAKE

or he tried to make a U-turn which is super unlikely to result in two people going to the hospital (If you have driver license I don't need to explain). Another example of Ma'an lack of filtration or just pure whitewashing of terror.

BTW, you write while overtaking another vehicle, and that he tried to make a U-turn in one sentence. I seriously doubt you ever sat behind a wheel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you have a bee in a bonnet about pages I edit, tag them, revert, or make wild accusations. You introduced Ynet, described as a fact what sources from The Guardian to Haaretz call an allegation or suspicion, ignored the mention of the Palestinian versions given on the Ynet article, and now accuse me of WP:FAKE:

'In your last edit while overtaking another vehicle which I couldn't find in any of the 3 sources. WP:FAKE'

The source you introduced reads.

"The driver never tried or intended to run anyone over," said At-tur resident Mufid Abu Ranam. "He tried to overtake a car and his car skidded. And despite that, the police shot him." (Ynet)

I don't expect apologies around here but you should, technically, retract by striking out your wild and uninformed accusation. It won't look good if you are reported.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I appologize! putting the two in one sentence still make no sense.

Responde to the initial example, please!

Please reformulate what you call your 'initial example', and I will address it. It is not clear to me what you are referring to.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

To be restored

Thanks for telling me you removed the following entry.

• 11 May
  • Israeli forces conducted overflight exercises on the Gaza Strip, and in an incursion escorted bulldozers into Shuja'iyya, Gaza city under cover of fire. Shots were fired within the vicinity of farmers at Khan Yunis.

The edit summary is not compatible with wiki policy. I.e.’ Great example for ma'an lack of credibility. This type of IDF activity would have draw more attention and official Hamas response.’

This is second-guessing things, assuming that if Hamas doesn’t react, or if the customary incursions of the IDF to bulldoze ground are not mentioned in Israeli mainstream newspaper , a Palestinian RS that mentions it lacks credibility. I report what I read, believing no report, Israeli or Palestinian tells one the 'truth'. They give, if they report anything, versions, and that is how I attempt to draft the page. This is not therefore an example of lack of accuracy of the type I requested.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you for real? You gave the definition of unreliable source!!! "They give, if they report anything, versions,". Is being RS a god-given present which then one carries forever. No, you look at the reports and if you find them unreliable (maybe only on a certain subject) you declare a source unreliable.

I didn't say the land invasion didn't happen because Hamas didn't react but b/c Hamas didn't even write anything about it. Niether did any other credible media source. You can get away with all the other blackwashing on Ma'an saying 'it isn't enough of interest for other reliable media' but this land invasion couldn't possibly not get more attention.

In short, Ma'an publishes any 'version' w/o checking the facts. Without filtering. I don't see how this isn't equivalent to WP:USERGENERATED.

References

Disputed and one source tags

A recent edit (diff) added {{disputed}} and {{one source}} tags. Such tags require plausible justification on the talk page. Re "disputed", what fact is disputed? What source disagrees with text in the article? Re "one source", see {{one source}} which includes "Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy". However, the article actually contains the following 270 references using the following:

• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=251auz8OBAwC&pg=PA96
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=3eZK7cm6pjoC&pg=PA72
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=CkLHZCzMEJkC&pg=PA426
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=COnrh2QuUIkC&pg=PA18
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=n3aTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA157
• 1 × books.google.it/books?id=NmXBmOGbHL4C&pg=PA136
• 1 × domino.un.org
• 1 × hamodia.com
• 1 × news.walla.co.il
• 1 × www.aljazeera.com
• 1 × www.amnesty.org
• 1 × www.europarl.europa.eu
• 1 × www.icahd.org
• 1 × www.nytimes.com
• 2 × reliefweb.int
• 2 × www.jpost.com
• 2 × www.shabak.gov.il
• 7 × www.btselem.org
• 10 × www.haaretz.com
• 14 × www.ochaopt.org
• 19 × www.timesofisrael.com
• 23 × www.ynetnews.com
• 62 × www.maannews.net
• 115 × www.maannews.com

The above shows that the "one source" tag is not justified. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)