Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests

Spelling error

Mourning is misspelled as "morning" in the section for may 15th.

RFC - new name for the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was no clear consensus for an alternative name. The leading minority alternative name was "2018 Gaza border clashes". -- Batternut (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Several people raised objection to current article name, as being inaccurate and biased. A request to move determines whether there is a consensus to move to a specific name, the goal of this RfC is to find a new name that can gain consensus. A few initial suggestions:

• 2018 Gaza border protests (no change)
• 2018 Gaza border peaceful demonstrations
• 2018 Gaza border riots
• 2018 Gaza border events
• The great march of return

“WarKosign” 07:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Add:

• 2018 Gaza border clashes Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes --Shrike (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• 2018 Gaza border events. There were many different kinds of events, ranging from peaceful protests, through riots (burning of the crossing) to terror attacks (fire bombs, explosive charges, attempts to infiltrate the border fence). Any attempt to describe all the events in a single word will be inaccurate and POV-prone, so the title should not attempt to qualify these events; only to indicate that there were several events that the article describes. “WarKosign” 07:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Gaza border clashes is actually better. Dictionary definition of a clash is an event, possibly violent, in which there is disagreement between two sides. Covers vast majority (all?) of the events in the article and is more specific than just "events". “WarKosign” 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border clashes or as a 2nd choice 2018 Gaza border events - clashes is also widely used. The problem with "protests" is that while there were also protests - we also had some clear non-protest activity - from bi-directional shooting incidents (Gazans shooting at the IDF and the IDF shooting back), sending firebomb kites to start mass fires in Israel, pipe bombs and molotov cocktails, breach attempts of the border fence, stone throwing, tank fire and aircraft attacks from Israeli side against military targets in response to the aforesaid events, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests, the existing name, is the least problematic of the choices. I don't buy the argument that existence of some non-peaceful means of protest makes it not a protest. Actually, the main difficulty with the title is not that it downplays Palestinian actions but that it avoids mention of the main cause for notability (as judged by the great majority of sources), namely the extreme Israeli reaction to the protests. Zero^talk 08:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment the word protest is commonly associated with a non violent event( see how the Anti-Trump protests had been classified by the Portland Police). Yahoo uses protest and clashes WSJ uses Gaza border clashes bloomberg also uses clashes so does does the BBC also uses clashes . Merriam-Webster describe a protest as 'a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent' and the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval but in this case the word riot (public violence, tumult, or disorder) would be more appropriate. 159.253.248.140 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Search for "violent protest" (with the quotes) to find more than half a million disproofs of your claim that "protest" implies non-violence. By contrast, "riot" is a judgemental description that would amount to a one-sided opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Zero^talk 12:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border clashes as the common name that is also specific. 2018 Gaza border events should be possible as lower priority since less specific. The current 2018 Gaza border protests is not common and imprecise. gidonb (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests - Here's a Google search of "Gaza Border" picking the first ten RS's on the topic and identifying the descriptor they use; Violence, Confrontation, Protests, Protest, Clashes,Violence/Protests, Protests, Violence, Demonstrations, Protests. Seems like "protests" is the most common descriptor. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes as first choice as most NPOV the second choice 2018 Gaza border clashes --Shrike (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• (my new comment is somewhere below) 2018 Gaza border riots per riot, protest, Category:Riots and Wiktionary definitions {clash, riot, protest, demonstration}. Replying to "clashes" supporters, the Wiktionary definition of clash says A skirmish, a hostile encounter. Contrary to above editors, protests are not necessarily peaceful (so "2018 Gaza border protests" is my second choice); however, this is a very violent protest: since ~10K were injured out of ~30K total protesters, this makes one third of the protesters violent, not including all the protesters that were going to be violent but had stepped back after the warning shots. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I found only one other violent border protest on Wikipedia, mentioned in 27th G8 summit#Protests, which uses "riots": There were also several border riots ahead of the summit, as police attempted to prevent suspected activists from entering Italy. wumbolo ^^^ 17:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me get that straight. A large number of protesters were shot, therefore the protesters were violent? Bibi has a job for you. Zero^talk 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Oh yes, according to The New York Times, protesters are shot only with very good reason: they were attempting to breach fence (and after the warning shots). wumbolo ^^^ 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo the very article you cite to claim that protesters are shot "only with very good reason" states people [were] being shot with their backs turned to the fence, while praying, or with nothing in their hands. That same article that, again, you cited says that there are calls for an investigation of war crimes by Israeli forces. In fact, the New York Times actually defends the Palestinian cause: The Palestinians have much to be angry about. A collapsing economy and a worsening public health crisis along with the 11-year blockade of the tiny, jam-packed territory makes it almost impossible to leave. But the effort is billed as the Great Return March for a reason: Most Gazans are Palestinian refugees or their descendants, and marching on the fence highlights their desire to reclaim the lands. Do you perhaps want to re-read the article you cited? Because the only ones in the source who claimed that they killed for "very good reason" are the ones pulling the trigger.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I would rather trust what someone who was verifiably there says, in this case Israeli soldiers (and we can know which exactly), than what a video that was surfaced says. wumbolo ^^^ 07:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border protests because that is what they are and how they are commonly referred to. "Protest" has never implied that the protestors were entirely non-violent though a majority of Palestinians were in fact so. "Clashes" imply some sort of militaristic action on both sides when, in reality, this verged on a massacre by Israeli forces; much of the focus recently, indeed, has been on Israel's extreme use of deadly force. "Riots" simply is not a descriptor used in the common name of these events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests. Per Zero. It is the one objective description of what occurred that does not drag us into POV territory, as do the words 'clash' (there was no real 'contact': snipers behind berms shot at people up to 700 metres away) or 'riot' (a foreign power describing vigorous protests within the borders of another country as a 'riot' ('a noisy, violent and uncontrolled public meeting,') obviously abuses the natural meaning of that word, which is used of civic upheavals within a town or country.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests. The demonstrators here were probably less violent than the ones at Kent State or the Arab Spring, although the authority/ civilian death ratios are surely similar.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border clashes most of these "protests" are riots.--יניב הורון (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests per Zero. The protests are widely called protests in the international press, eg The Guardian, NY Times, LA Times, BBC, Washington Post. Where those sources use the word "riot", if they do, it is in quotes from an Israeli spokesman. We dont need to tote an Israeli POV in even the title of the article. We likewise dont title the article the Great Return March as we also dont need to pick the opposing POV. There exists an easy answer here, see what most third party sources are using for this event and go with that. And that appears to be "protests". There is nearly no sourcing presented here to justify a change from the current title. nableezy - 00:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• 2018 Gaza border clashes these aren't peaceful protests being done by civilians. 50/62 dead in the last one were Hamas members claimed by Hamas. caz | speak 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  Your argument is dishonest and obtuse. Hamas isn't just its military wing. Hamas is also a political party (the largest political party in the Gaza Strip at that) and social organization. Being a Hamas member means nothing. The idea that they're all terrorists or that they're not peaceful simply because they're members of Hamas is an unacceptably ignorant claim. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border protests, per Zero, NickCT and TheGracefulSlick. Many of the folks arguing for the "riots" moniker are failing to provide any evidence; furthermore, they are forgetting that the level of violence has escalated greatly in recent times, but the protests have been longer-running, and were notable before the violence. Vanamonde (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  As you might see from our article, there were bi-directional violent incidents (Molotov cocktails, shooting, etc.) in the week prior to the start of the announced march, and on the first Friday (as well as on just about every day - Friday or not - since).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

One soldier was injured by shrapnel of unknown provenance, and 122 Palestinians were shot dead, and several hundred wounded. That is the 'equivalence' you imply by 'bi-directional'.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to fire coming from the Gazan side - several well documented incidents. Casualties are a separate matter.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border protests Widely referred to as protests by sources, and the statement that "most of these 'protests' are riots" is complete and utter bollocks. It's undeniably, unquestionably, indisputably, objectively true that the vast majority of those involved are unarmed protesters, and the fringe exceptions are exactly that: fringe exceptions. To say otherwise is to flip it, to give WP:UNDUE weight to the extremes in order to advance a WP:POV. It's not subject to opinion that the overwhelming majority of those involved were in fact unarmed peaceful protesters; if you argue that we should instead portray it as Palestinians being mostly violent, the only explanation is bad faith, and you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Israel-Palestine articles have enough POV concerns already. There's a reason why they all have blue locks. The last thing we need is for our job of creating a reliable and accurate encyclopedia to become harder than it already is. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: so which is it, "vast majority" or "overwhelming majority"? 10K out of 30K protesters (roughly) were injured by Israelis. Were they peaceful? wumbolo ^^^ 18:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I use two synonyms and you ask me "which is it?" What??? My apologies if English is not your first language and this may be a simple misunderstanding, but both "vast majority" and "overwhelming majority" refer to a majority that's very solid - not a slim majority, not a plurality, not a minority, but just a clear majority. Most of those involved were peaceful, nonviolent, unarmed protesters. Period. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

English may be your first language, BUT there is no indication (WP:RS) how many had been armed and how many had been violent, the claim that because ONLY a third of the people had been injured that mean the majority is non violent is a logical fallacy. There is simply NO data presented by WP:RS on how many of the population had been peaceful, nonviolent, or unarmed. 37.19.119.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that the majority of protesters being peaceful is already in the article with a multitude of sources backing that claim, don't you? To say otherwise would be original research based on what you want to be true, or based on speculation from viewing media coverage of the most extreme cases and assuming that's just how it was, but the fact that most of those involved were nonviolent has a strong consensus of sources supporting it already. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border protests that's what the vast majority of sources call it. Plus, it accurately describes the event. "Clashes" is inaccurate, as it would need a second side to have been clashed into, and "riots" suggests some form of loss of control, which does not reflect these organized events. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border protests - 2018 Nakba protests would be better, but current title is OK.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Great March of Return - in so many subjects the Wikipedia insists on calling things that by which their owners or originators say they want to be called. For example, Bradley Manning, who per Wikipedia has not undergone transition surgery and is therefore a physical male, is called "Chelsea Manning" on Wikipedia, and is referred to as "her" by Wikipedia on Wikipedia's own voice. Likewise, the originators and participants of the Great March of Return choose to call themselves marchers (even if most of the dead are actually Hamas terrorists). Therefore, for consistency, Wikipedia should call their event and related consequences, the "Great March of Return".XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2018 Gaza border clashes. Let's look at the definition. clash: A skirmish, a hostile encounter. Let's take a look at skirmish. skirmish: A brief battle between small groups, usually part of a longer or larger battle or war. This fits the definition. The 2018 protests fit into the broader (larger and longer) scope of the Gaza–Israel conflict, which has "conflict" in the title. Let's see the definition for conflict. conflict: A clash or disagreement, often violent, between two or more opposing groups or individuals. The 2018 protests are a disagreement (or a hostile encounter), are often violent, and are between two or more opposing groups. Note that the 2018 protests don't have to be a battle in order to be a skirmish/clash. The definition for battle says that all the divisions of an army are or may be engaged, which is not the case here. However, looking above at the definition for skirmish, we see that it is brief (which this is) and between small groups (indeed, this is relatively small). wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  All of the proposed article names except Great March of Return are descriptive titles. Let me cite:

  Policy Neutral point of view section Naming (shortcut WP:POVNAMING): Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

  Policy Article titles section Non-judgmental descriptive titles (shortcut WP:NDESC): In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title.

  According to Bloomberg, "Hamas [was] offering $3,000 to relatives of those killed by Israeli fire and several hundred dollars to those injured." There's also this tweet. News outlets use these photos (but not those with the swastikas!) and coverage as a propaganda wing for Hamas. Sounds familiar? From The New York Times, "Hamas officials have made little secret of their desire to publicize the case. With little chance that its supporters could deliver on threats to storm the Gaza fence this week, the protests were largely about winning international sympathy. Layla's story helped." Why would someone take their baby to the protest knowing Israel was using tear gas? Wikipedia should not be WP:ADVOCACY for Hamas! wumbolo ^^^ 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are making an exception of the Gaza government's behavior which is normal, certainly in that area: if you find it repulsive that the death of a child in a conflictual situation should be 'used' by the official representatives of the community injured, examine how settlers in Hebron brought the Israeli government to a crisis for a week over the Murder of Shalhevet Pass, to cite one of a thousand cases. If you find it scandalous that a government provides indigent families with compensation when one of their members, or even soldiers, dies in battle or in 'clashes', that is virtually universal practice in modern states. If a family loses a breadwinner, they are helped out. Israel offers compensation for victims of terrorism, and Palestinian authorities offer compensation for what they consider victims of state terrorism which, in this case, 119 people shot dead by safely entrenched snipers, is arguably just that.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

When you express that you want to "publicize the case", it makes your motives kind of different than merely providing support for the family of the victim. Wanting to "publicize the case" like that is victim playing and it very much diminishes your case, making it look like you care more about something else than the victim. wumbolo ^^^ 09:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Go check the translation. Huge 'publicity' i.e. reportage surrounds every Israeli death, an appeal to the conscience of the world to help Israel as a victim of terrorism follows every incident. It is in the nature of modern news coverage, that each side spins events, and therefore there is no anomaly. Israel even asked for cash compensation from the victim's family for damage to a jeep ($28,000) that flipped over and crushed to death a 21 year old, in disputed circumstances. This hysterical double standard is all POV-ridden.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: double standard? Of course there is media bias spin on all sides, and that's the reason we have the policies WP:POVNAMING, WP:NDESC and WP:ADVOCACY which ensure that we report everything neutrally. Wikipedia is not supposed to have 50% articles biased to one side, and 50% articles biased to the other side; every article should be neutral. wumbolo ^^^ 14:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Gaza border clashes It is the clash elements that make it noteworthy over and above the protest element IMO. Phantomsnake (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  The protests have generated WP:GNG notability on their own, but even if they didn't, that would be a product of a natural bias towards sensationalism in for-profit media focusing on the most extreme parts of the story. Nevertheless, what the sources do confirm is that the event itself was primarily a protest, even if the clashes within it may be more eye-catching. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - a couple of IP users expressed opinions relevant to the RfC at #Suggested neutral name for the article. I'd rather not move/copy their comments here, but I think they should be counted as !votes. “WarKosign” 07:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.23

Can anyone create this new article here? - United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.23

• UN General Assembly slams Israeli killing of innocent Palestinians

According to the report, 120 states voted for, 8 against and 45 abstentions that denounced Israel for Palestinian civilian deaths in the besieged Gaza Strip. Countries that voted no are: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Togo, and the United States. ---135.23.145.49 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it could be added to this article as part of the reactions section but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article of it's own. Also why did you link to PressTV?? They are very biased and it is the State media outlet of a State with very negative relations with the country (Israel) they are reporting on in that article. Also, it didn't actually pass. It failed to get the required two-thirds majority to pass. ShimonChai (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading. There was an initial amendment that didn't pass, but then "the resolution passed by a vote of 120-8 with 45 countries abstaining." Zero^talk 06:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that is confusing. ShimonChai (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See below relevant links:

• The resolution: https://undocs.org/en/A/ES-10/L.23

• UN News: https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/06/1012162

• In the press: New York Times and ToI

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A very similar article is at United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.23. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested neutral name for the article

Israeli claim: It was an attempted terrorist invasion, run and prepared by Hamas.

Palestinian claim: It was a a peaceful protest. Israeli soldiers massacred us.

I think a neutral name would be "2018 Gaza borders events", something everyone agrees on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A049:4F8F:E109:64A5:4091:C874 (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see Archive 1. "Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests""ShimonChai (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, more recent, #RFC - new name for the article. “WarKosign” 16:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling this article "2018 Gaza border protests" is unfair. We can see clearly from the article, from the timeline, that there were multiple incidents of people who were killed armed with bombs and guns. Many of the killed were members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. When the reader sees in the lead the "2018 Gaza border protests" and then he sees in the infobox that 123 people were killed, it makes him think directly that Israel has carried out a massacre, which is very, very disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.189.144 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you consider whether you have been reading a balanced assessment of the events. So much propaganda has been thrown around over the last few weeks. Try reading Vice’s debunking of some of it here: [1]

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, for balance, you can read this. “WarKosign” 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You proposed that an investigative journalism organization publishing an article written jointly by an Israeli and a Palestinian should be balanced against an article published by an Israeli propaganda organization? Either this a joke, or your political compass is set to extreme. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Double standards again?

Icewhiz. UNDUE weight to oped.)

This takes out Norman Finkelstein. But you left 106 words from an Israeli journalist whose oped (thus titled) I covered extensively. You appear to be using a double standard, retaining a strongly pro-Israeli op ed, and excising 106 words of what you consider an oped by a critic of Israel, as undue. Explain yourself.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• (2) Secondly, it is in extreme bad faith to remove content, as you just did while the appropriate RSN board has an open discussion on whether it is RS or not, and where there is no evidence anyone (I exclude Strike's mechanical 'vote') external to the dispute agrees one way or another. That is preempting the result of a discussion that has no concluded.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. As long as material is contested, it shouldn't be in the article. Finkelstein's opinions on the New York Times reporting are UNDUE. This article isn't about Finkelstein's opinions about the Gaza border events, but about the events themselves. Having a source for an opinion is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion - we do not include every op-ed. I was considering cutting out Ron Ben-Yishai (or the entire "Media coverage criticism" section) as well, however I thought that the information on the IDF keeping reporters 2kms away from the Israeli side of the border fence was pertinent information - as well as comments on the available footage. I wouldn't call the information in the article from Ben-Yishai as "pro-Israeli" - if at all it describes an Israeli failure, and there are other voices there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not an answer. It's a set of assertions, based on your personal feelings of what's due and undue. Ben-Yishai's article as an Israeli war correspondent thoroughly committed to the IDF viewpoint (Palerstinians who protest are committing suicide on the fence, i.e. no one is shooting them) is an op-ed. The space I gave it is exactly equal to the space I accorded Finkelstein, and it is a blatant use of double standards to find any reason to omit one as undue, and retain the other as due. That's what you did, and your arguments here are just 'I-Icewhiz-think-this-so-it-goes-out-and-as -long-as-I-contest-your-stuff-you-can't-put-it-back.' There's a name for that. You reverted out material that stayed here while a discussion took place, preempting the result. That is not acceptable. Why did you revert when it was under discussion.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume good faith when I see it. You are editing against WP:Undue yet claiming it justifies your excisions which have left 106 words to an Israeli war correspondent's Op-ed POV, and 29 words in the main text to three writers who present the other side's perspective. That is outrageously unbalanced.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is text you added, very recently. WP:ONUS on you to show reasons for inclusions. Following your comment here, I trimmed down the section a bit more, trimming Ben-Yishai as well.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you take policy seriously, I won't take your edits seriously. You are a serial POV reverter of fair and balanced information. WP:ONUS is pointless with editors who refuse the normal procedures of compromise by consensus building, and is only used by appearances, as an instrument to convert into a de facto paralysis, wholly to the advantage of the reverter, pages that require work on them. I.e. you are using that to have the text you want. Period. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a RS, UNDUE does not allow for the excising of any material that somebody feels is not sufficiently Zionist. And not everybody who criticizes the maiming and killing of unarmed protestors is a "critic of Israel" (both a BLP violation and a SYNTH violation). nableezy - 16:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This repeated removal of a reliable source because a set of users dislikes his policy is a violation of NPOV. Claiming BRD as a reason to revert is a violation of WP:CON, you must have policy based reasons for your edits. BRD is not one. WP:RS specifically allows for citing experts in the field. Finkelstein qualifies. WP:RSN has found not one uninvolved user to claim that he doesnt because he so obviously does. People disliking his views is not a policy based reason to remove him from the article. Honestly, this level of game playing calls for an RFC/U and potentially a new arbitration case. nableezy - 21:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:CON supports WP:BRD: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." As long as there is no consensus to include some content, editors should not be attempting to re-insert it by edit-warring. “WarKosign” 06:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BRD says discuss. You reverted without ever appearing here to discuss the issue (2) The text I wrote has been fiddled with since to produce several versions, and in reverting you do not explain why you reverted to the last version, not the version left by Yaniv, nor to the several changes left by Icewhiz. In other words, you restored the text to the last version which was done, against my, for one protests, and in defiance of an on-going discussion at RSN. So you have not adhered to policy or good practice. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am following this discussion and will comment when I have something to add that wasn't said before, since you don't like "mechanical 'votes'". I was under impression that everybody agrees that current "Media coverage" section as being better than nothing, but if it's not the case - let's revert back to before you created "Media coverage criticism" and discuss from there. “WarKosign” 08:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point.Your revert chooses to restore the last version by Icewhiz on 13:43, 17 June 2018‎ performed an hour and a half after I had already opened up a discussion [‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests&diff=846246247&oldid=846223791 on three of Icewhiz’s edits]. Icewhiz just went ahead and made a further substantial removal of material while this was under discussion. So restoring his last edit is not WP:BRD. It is deciding to throw your weight into a version that has no consensus, that was fixed after a discussion was initiated, and the last version still gives an Israeli defense correspondent much more weight than the other two sources, which is stillWP:Undue by Icewhiz's own admission.

Now you suggest we erase the section altogether, and do it here. Well, by all means, roll up your sleeves and provide an alternative to replace it, but wikipedia is not constructed by erasure and endless chat, and further the insinuation I don’t know how to write a section outline is offensive. One cannot restore it to the text prior to Icewhiz’s last edit since he admitted that even that, as I commented here, breaks the very rule he cited for outing Finkelstein’s op ed paraphrase (106 words) and retaining Ben-Yishuv’s op-ed paraphrase (106 words) He admitted here that his edit taking out Finkelstein as an undue oped left the text unduly biased to Ben-Yishai (as it is now), so the only solution to this mess created by hectic editors is to restore the version prior to that, which has Ben-Yishai with 88 words, and Finkelstein with 71. More reason to do so is that only Icewhiz (I discount Shrike’s mechanical edit, which was meaningless policywise) argued against Finkelstein as an RS at the RSN board discussion, while the one external editor backed Nableezy and myself.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to roll back to a stable version, then it will be 08:57, 14 June 2018 - prior to your edits. Please do not put words in my mouth - I admitted to nothing. Finkelstein RSness is disputed, but even if we were to consider his op-ed an RS - it would still be WP:BIASED, and possibly WP:UNDUE (for instance - his comments on the New York Times coverage - is definitely undue). I tried to edit collaboratively here - by constructively modifying your additions. If you want to take an "all or nothing" attitude, and discuss stable versions - fine. If you want to constructively discuss what to include or exclude (and I'm malleable to discussion) - then discuss. Turning this article into a Finkelstein quote farm is a definite non-starter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can revert out, it's lazy. I didn't put words into your mouth. When I noted that you were using double standards in erasing Finkelstein per WP:Undue, while retaining Ben-Yishai, clearly an op-ed, -not like Finkelstein's piece which was analytical, providing verbal evidence of discursive trends in reportage - you then cut back Ben-Yishai, which is an admission that my point was accepted. What you did however, was still to leave Ben-Yishai's story undue compared to what you excised, Finkelstein. In short, you cut kept paring back. There is a substantial amount of material on the 'media war' but even I couldn't edit it in because this excision, then talk page blah blah blah and revert rules made constructive editing impossible. I am not taking an all or nothing approach (a remark I take as meaning you are just going to revert to your preferred version). It is pointless using caricature here, as with stating that a brief paraphrase of one of the foremost scholars on Gaza's history consists in a quote farm. There is no quote, as any donkey on the farm could see. The weird thing about this place is that it's up to me, the 'pro-Palestinhian' arsehole, to add material from Israeli defense sources, mocking Palestinians just to keep the text POV-balanced, whereas my interlocutors just keep erasing legitimate material about the Palestinian POV. I guess word will seep out to those NGOs who supply me with massive funding to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their West bank clients, that I am guilty of collaboration with the enema, sorry, enemy. I'd better keen an eye out for movements in my street for Hamas hit squads, ya never know.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, saying 'If you want to roll back to a stable version, then it will be 08:57, 14 June 2018 - prior to your edits' is absurd. There is no 'stable version' of an article like this, and operatively you are insinuating that things were stable before I edited. Policy and arbitration consistently upholds the principle that editors of good standing do not, as you and WarKosign are suggesting, revert or cancel whole sections of a page without drastic reasons, none of which exist in this case. Check the other war articles. We have media discussions on many, some extensive enough to be forked into independent articles, and what I did was perfectly consonant with I/P conflict article practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by Ben-Yishai stating Israeli journalists were banned from anywhere within 2 kilometres, while Finkelstein wrote he, Halbfinger for the NYTs, was embedded with the snipers. So I checked, and both on Twitter and on the piece I now quote, he writes of driving right up and being among the snipers on the perimeter line. Why this liberty was accorded the foreign reporters but denied Israeli journalists is a mystery, but I have added his text just in case any alert reader may be puzzled as I was.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Finkelstein wasn't embedded (he has entry issues to Israel IIRC), Halbfinger was (on 8 June? That was a quiet one IIRC). The 2km restriction was probably in place only on the first Friday and possibly on 1-3 of the more tense Fridays. The IDF issues a closed military zone in a blanket fashion (usually excepting residents in the zone) - it is not specific to journalists - and I don't remember seeing the notice on most of the Fridays. If a journalist is embedded - then that's a free pass into the zone (with a chaperone). Note that the better Israeli reporters usually have something better to do than to go to a whole day tour of the border (that's for the low ranking camera pool) - particularly when things are rather routine. The foreign press, on the other hand, really has nothing else to report about (the ones that got sent here or are based here) - they are 100% on the task.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a rushed late night edit. Finkelstein is cited as saying Halbfinger was embedded, that's what the text I wrote has in the article ('In particular he mentions articles by David M. Halbfinger, who was embedded.'). Apologies, but I thought that bwas clear, whereas my prose above wasn't. The rest is your guesswork, contradicting Yishai who wrote after 3 Friday protests had taken place, and states quite clearly the ban was in effect for that period. We should only go by what sources say. By the way: Finkelstein doesn't have entry issues with 'Israel' alone. Israel will not permit him to set foot in territory Israel has no right to, beyond its recognized borders. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your puzzlement of this "mystery" - some of what I wrote is indeed OR from knowledge of the area. The observation on the variations on the 2km restriction (which was present only on a few of the Fridays - the more significant high casualty Fridays) is based on my recollection of the sources (the closed military zone notices themselves and reporting thereof each Friday) - these tend to be Hebrew only, they should still be available online if you really want to dig into it.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked around yesterday, and found several things which suggest that this was a policy continued throughout the whole period: for example, Oren Ziv, 'How do Israeli journalists report on a place they can't reach?,' +972 magazine 19 May 2018. This leaves little doubt that Israeli journalists couldn't get, as Halbfinger managed, anywhere close to the Israeli side of the action for the first three weeks at least.

From this distance, however, it is impossible to know what is happening on the other side of the border. The journalists who are reporting from the border are, in fact, far away from the action. Since the siege was put in place, the information that reaches Israelis through the media is always second or third hand.

The mystery is, why would Halbfinger have rights denied local Israeli journalists? My guess is that, as a NYTs reporter (all the news that is,(in our view) fit to report), he is more predictably self-censoring than would be the case with an unscreened group of Israelis. Opinion in Israeli, unlike what is reflected here by editors for Israel, is more diverse than its reflex in the mainstream foreign press, and the IDF, which in planning had specific orders to shoot down a lot of people as a lesson, didn't want local journalists anywhere near the killing squads. Taking photos of snipers in action which could be used later to identify them was the problem. But that's just my guess, and useless.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Are people more or less satisfied with the version as it exists right now? Both Finkelstein and Israeli journalists are quoted, so that the original issue seems to have been more or less resolved?

Unfortunately, I am not clear as to the scope of that section. The only ones quoted are Israelis and Americans. Nobody from the rest of the world. Moreover, the section is too "meta"; it doesn't say how the media in general covered the protests, but immediately launches into a critique.

I have added this Haaretz article surveying the reactions from a somewhat broader cross-section of the media. If anyone has any sources on how, say Asian or African media covered the protests, would be nice to have. The Haaretz article does quote South African media. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this is much more balanced now. I re-arranged it a bit. I would like to see some source saying how much media coverage the events got. “WarKosign” 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

High Anti Israeli POV in this articale

The lack of updates of Israeli casualties (it's 4 not 1) and the fact the event where Palestinians engaged in mortars and rockets attacks not covered (events of late May and June) show the high anti Israeli attitude in the page. The lack of description of kite bombs and arson balloons and describing the daily arson attacks (daily arson attacks) just show how one sided this page is.

JPOST , WSJ , Fox news, AFP USnews have covered last week events. washingtonpost had been describing the arson attacks last week. An entire month of arson attacks is hidden in this page and so are the mortar and rocket attacks. Even the infiltration when Palestinian forces had crossed the border and put IDF position a blaze are not covered.159.253.248.204 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the number of casualties ?

Arson attacks are described in the article, please suggest a specific change that you would like applied. “WarKosign” 08:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WarKosign maybe adding picture of the arson kite or of the damages field. Sokuya (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are you aware of any acceptable images available ? “WarKosign” 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a bunch of Images, the current size of burnt farmland, forests and nature reserves are proximally double the size of Ramat Gan[2][3] Sokuya (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Burnt field near Kibbutz Be'eri
• 
  Burnt crops in a field in the Eshkol Regional Council
• 
  Arson Kite

Hamas paid family to claim Gaza baby was killed by Israeli tear gas

8-month-old Layla Ghandour actually died from fatal blood condition that runs in family and not by tear gas, as mention in the following sources and others:

• "The Associated Press cited an unnamed Gaza-based doctor as saying on Tuesday that the baby had a pre-existing medical condition and that he did not believe her death was caused by the tear gas."

Times, The New York. "Uneasy Calm Falls Over Gaza After Israel Kills Scores at Protests".

• "Gazan doctor, Israel cast doubts over Hamas claim infant died from tear gas".
• "Hamas paid family to claim Gaza baby was killed by Israeli tear gas, says cousin".
• Balousha, Hazem; Holmes, Oliver (24 May 2018). "Gaza ministry removes baby from list of people killed by Israeli army". the Guardian.
• "Gaza health ministry removes baby from border clash death toll".

Sokuya (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph of this section is already dedicated to this case. Anything else ? “WarKosign” 10:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I added more reliable source references to support the section. Sokuya (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It is much more likely that the family brought an already dying child to the protest in the hope of receiving martyr’s payments. The idea that this was someone concocted with the authorities seems to be no more than a politicized aspersion. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but our personal opinions are irrelevant, this is what the sources say. “WarKosign” 12:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add in the lead, after the "59/60 Palestinians were shot dead", the following:

...",A number which included, according to both Israel and Hamas, dozens of members of militant organizations. A Hamas official said that out of the 62 killed, 50 were members of Hamas, and that at least half of those killed until the interview were members of the Islamist group. The IDF said that at least 24 people who were killed in May 14 were members of terrorist organizations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It is already covered in the article and your request is denied. Zero^talk 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you call this article "protests" (LOL) at least be honest, and write immediately after the fact that "Palestinians" were killed the fact that many of them were terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:4F8F:B157:72A9:E4:A871 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please keep your comments focused on improving the article. If I understand your intention correctly, you want the lead to say that according to several sources, including IDF and a senior member of Hamas, many (most?) of those killed in the events were affiliated with Hamas. The lead should summarize the main points of the article, the question is whether this is one of these points. I believe it is. “WarKosign” 12:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a main point of the article and in any case it cannot go into the lead without something to balance it. Beyond that, I don't accept ip's comments as being in good faith. Zero^talk 12:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead already is unbalanced; it already gives number of Palestinians killed in the events without context and thus implies that all the casualties were civilians shot during non-violent protests, which is far from truth. The purpose of this statement is to show that there is a dispute regarding nature of the casualties. “WarKosign” 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"This is not the main point of the article", LOL! Like, "All we want is to show people how EVIL Israel is, so don't Let the FACTS confuse us!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign, it should be mention in the lead. Sokuya (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no real dispute regarding the nature of the casualties. An unarmed demonstrator not posing an immediate threat to life does not become a legitimate target by belonging to an organization. That viewpoint (made in many reliable sources) is essential balance. In addition, members of Hamas include doctors and nurses working in Hamas hospitals and teachers in Hamas primary schools; only a fraction belong to Hamas' military wing. So the statement is also unacceptably misleading. By the way, IP, non-extended-confirmed users are only allowed to make non-disruptive comments here. That description does not apply to your comments so far; lift your act or I'll start deleting them. Zero^talk 00:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Do RS say that most of those killed were Hamas members? Then of course it should be in the lead. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I oppose including this information, only because it is incomplete. Hamas has been paying protesters, and if we don't say that in the lead, we shouldn't be saying that many of them were Hamas members, which they were, according to Al Jazeera. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix the first paragraph to:

"On 30 March 2018, a six-week campaign composed of a series of protests was launched near the Israeli border at the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory controlled since 2007 by Hamas, an Islamist fundamentalist organization. Called by Palestinian organizers the "Great March of Return" (Arabic: "مسیرة العودة الكبري"‎), the protests demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel. They are also protesting the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the moving of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, Israel maintains the claim that the blockade is necessary to protect its civilians, and refuses to accept the right of return for fear that it will end demographically the Jewish state. Violence during the protests has resulted in the deadliest days of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 2014 Gaza War."

1. It is very logical that the fact that Gaza is controlled by an Islamist fundamentalist group may have affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers, therefore, it should be mentioned.

2. It should be mentioned also that the two main demands of the organizers of the protests are seem completely unrealistic by Israel, the country which they protest against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers" — are you saying that Israeli soldiers are not acting in accordance with their orders? Zero^talk 00:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is important to detail the background of Israel's response to the demonstrations and why it did so. To write about a military event in Gaza without mentioning that an Islamic fundamentalist organization responsible for the murder of hundreds and thousands of people control it is simply illogical. It would be very logical that if such an organization did not exist, there would be another response. (The fear that terrorists could be among demonstrators capable of murdering Israeli civilians would not have existed in such a case.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A042:4F8F:4182:C6A4:10DE:F16B (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I was interested to learn what no Israeli has ever heard of, that Hamas has murdered several hundred thousand people.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. Perhaps we should add these related third and fourth points:

3. It is very logical that the fact that many senior Israeli politicians frequently position Gazan people as sub-human, advocate collective responsibilty and encourage extreme exclusivist nationionlism, may have affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers, therefore, it should be mentioned.

4. It should be mentioned also that, forty years ago, the main demands of the organizers of the Soweto uprising were similarly seen completely unrealistic by the country which they protested against.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

In the opening paragraph: Replace the vague and referenceless second part of the sentence "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][14] a number of whom have been members of various Palestinian militant organizations;" with the actual number (50) that Hamas claims to have been active members, followed by the appropriate citation (which already exists in the bibliography and used as reference elsewhere).

New sentence suggestion: "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][14] 50 of them confirmed by Hamas to have been active members of the organization.[175][176][177]"

Those reference numbers are valid and were taken from the bibliography.

Thanks, Eyal ~There were better times. (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed at length above. The Vice article referenced in our article decontructs the propaganda around this particular point. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add on June 20

Please add that Hamas and other groups had fired approximately 45 mortars and rockets from Gaza into Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add that on July first Palestinian infiltrated Israel and burn abandoned army post

On July 1'st 2018, a group of Palestinians had infiltrated Israel and burned and Israeli army post.timesofisrael Palestinians also sent Incendiary kites that started 24 fires 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2 2018

Please add that on June 2'nd Palestinian started fires in the 'Karmia' Natural reserve destroying 350 dunams nana5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 5'th 2018

Please add that on June 5'th (the Naksa day), Palestinians used arson kites to start 9 fires in the Gaza envelope, starting a fire near the Sapir college [http://www.20il.co.il/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%A7-%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%A1/ Channel 20]5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 18 2018

Palestinians had been wounded while trying inflatrate into Israel jpost 5.144.60.36 (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why this article has no mention of such term as 'terror' for arson & explosive actions in Israel from Gaza by kites, balloons, etc.? Suggestion

I've found only one 'Wheat field set ablaze by Palestinian 'kite terrorism', YNET, 17 April 2018 such RS but without corresponding description in an article itself.
Is it any reason for for it?

Nevertheless there are enough other such RS as

• Beyond kites: 'Fire balloons' increasingly used to set southern Israel, ToI, 4.06: “Kite terror” has become a catch-all term for the phenomenon..."
• WATCH: Latest Terror Threat from Gaza – Attack Balloons, Breitbart News, 5.06
• Israeli drones downed over 350 incendiary terror kites, balloons — report, ToI, 7
• 'This Is Terrorism': Israeli Farmers Still Reeling From Gaza's Burning, Haaretz, 13.06
• Hamas' 'terror kites' and 'arson balloons' latest destructive weapons in war against Israel, Fox News, 19.06
• Israel combats 'kite terrorism' with new electronic eye system, i24NEWS, 22.06
• Condoms, kites, birthday balloons: ‘Silly’ Gaza weapons could lead to real war, ToI, 20.06
• IDF uncovers Hamas's operating system for kite terror, JPost, 25.06
• In one day, Gazan kite terror sparks 24 fires in Israel, A7, 30.06
• 12 fires rage in the Negev from terror kites, balloons, JPost, 1.07
• etc.

May be it's a good case for a separate article describing this new Hamas weapon with later mention in current one. Who will undertake? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Every single one of the sources you listed are right-wing and frequently anti-Palestinian in their reporting bias, with the sole exception of Haaretz who are quoting some farmers. Our article is intended to be NPOV; cherry picking terminology from one's preferred extreme of the reporting spectrum is not consistent with that. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: The same reason it does not cover the daily arson attacks using kites and balloons, the booby traps and explosives attached to balloons, mortar fire and infiltration attacks.

The page cover mostly events when Palestinians are hurt but does not add the context, it will not cover other events when the event does not fit with the agenda, nor will list events when Israeli people are hurt. Just on the may 29, in one event seven people had been wounded but you will not even see that covered here.

It does not fit the page point of view. Only a selected few can edit the page, and most of the selected push a specific narrative (intentionally or not , but bias is perfectly seen here).

Even if you give them WP:RS they will claim it's "right wing" or any other excuse. This talk page have numerous WP:RS that cover events but they are ignored as they do not fit the narrative. I would have expected this page to cover the daily list of arson attacks and skirmishes (per day and maybe cover a map like the one presented here ). 37.19.120.60 (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

TOI and JPost are perfectly mainstream. There is coverage in NYT and Reuters as well. Could definitely be developed more in the article if someone would pick this up. Please note we do have an article - Firebomb kite.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: it seems you wished to answer to Onceinawhile and not me , and why isn't i24news or fox news are not "mainstream" ?37.19.120.60 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My omission above does mean that I believe they are non-mainstream - just that I chose not to refer to them. Fox is fairly partisan (on the other hand - so is CNN) - they within the mainstream spectrum. I'm not sure I have a view on i24News, so I chose not to comment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We don’t use it be cause ‘terrorist’ is the default’ Israeli mainstream newspaper euphemism’ for Palestinians. When Israel does exactly the same as the Gaza kite fliers, it is not described as terrorist. Burning or destroying Palestinian crops and olive groves is a standard tactic by Israeli settlers, and the IDF, and has been regularly reported every week or so for the last two decades. This is not for once mirrored in mainstream western reportage, for obvious reasons.

• Israel settlers burn olive trees BBC News 21 July 2009

• Harriet Sherwood Israel urged to protect West Bank olive trees after settler attacks The Guardian 15 October 2012

• Itamar Fleischman, Settlers throw stones, burn fields after terror attack Ynet 320 April 2013

• settlers burn hundreds of olive trees in Nablus Middle East Eye 25 September 2017

• Tabatha Kinder Palestine: Jewish Settlers Torch 100 of World's Oldest Olive Trees IB Times 8 January 2018

• Israeli settlers set ablaze Palestinian lands in Nablus-area village Ma'an News Agency 30 June 2018

Indeed they use techniques like burning tires to find the right wind direction for sending toxic ‘stuff’ over the border into Gaza agricultural lands, razing crops herbicides.

“I saw the soldiers setting tires on fire to determine the direction of the wind. Then the Israeli gliders began spraying unknown pesticides at an altitude of 400 meters [0.25 miles] on the Israeli side of the border. The [pesticides] reached the Palestinian agricultural lands at a distance of 1 kilometer [0.6 miles] from the separation fence. By the end of the day, crops such as spinach and peas on my land and the adjacent lands died. In the following days the zucchinis and berries turned yellow,” Hana Salah, Gaza farmers denounce Israel pesticide use along border Al-Monitor 20 March 2018

The last incident occurred before the Great March when kitebombing was adopted. Perhaps the Palestinians are, once more, mimicking IDF sand Israeli terror preceden ts? (truck bombs in markets, assassination, hijacking etc.) Their only problem is that when they do things Israel does, it becomes terrorism, whereas when Israel does it . . .Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So 'Nothing new under the sun'...

The same & new persons with the same not NPOV content... And the same attempts of Hamas apology and so on.

And current article's version, so similar to the endless & not NPOV Lists of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict series, one of which is already added to the article :)

Alas, I have nothing to add to what I've already wrote about such one here and later, and about a same bias approach there, etc.

Unfortunately, I cannot again find enough time for this, but I wish the best luck to those who is trying to make e-Wiki similar to a NPOV encyclopedia. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what this section is about. Are you saying that Wikipedia ought to use the phrase "terror kites" to describe the kites? If so, that would not be NPOV. "Terror kite" is the Israeli government term, third-party sources like AP (here, for instance) call them "incendiary kites" or "flaming kites". We can't simply use the Israeli govt. term in encyclopedic voice. Leaving aside the exact term used, the damage inflicted by the kites is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

By words of same AP: some media do use a "desperate ploy" trying not to name terror by its name, but others do not afraid, such as

• 'Terror Kites' Causing Massive Fires in Southern Israel, cbn, 06-04-2018
• Israel fights "kite terror" with hi-tech, xinhuanet, 2018-06-21

(+ to above mentioned ones)

So it's Wikipedia who ought to follow all sides RS, without selecting only those what are liked by some editors and their groups. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if you understand that the Xinhua source you linked above uses "kite terror" in quotes because it is describing the Israeli organizer's viewpoint. By the same token, would you like the events of May 14 to be described as a "massacre" on Wikipedia because this Xinhua story quotes the Palestinian health ministry as saying that?

NPOV requires that we describe the fact of the burning kites and the damage they inflict in Israel (as this article does). Labeling something "terror" or "massacre" is a value judgement, aimed at evoking a certain response in the reader. There are literally hundreds of stories about these events. You can't just Google "terror kites" and claim that it is the normal usage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

External media
Images
BBC: Jenin ‘massacre evidence growing’, 2002
The Guardian: Israel faces rage over ‘massacre’, 2002
Video
"Palestinians" Terror Kite ignites fires at Israeli Sapir college, 2018
Two months of burning kites from Gaza, 2018

Wow! And I'm not sure too, that you understand correctly, whose attribution Xinhua had in mind, three times using "kite terror" expression in its article.

As for the "massacre" ... I'll just remind you how such "respected" RS as The Guardian and TTT were screwed up in 2002, spreading Erekat's lies about the "massacre" in Jenin. :)

Therefore, it would be interesting to obtain confirmation for such casualties data as "7,618 struck by live ammunition or rubber bullets" in this article, from a more respected source than Hamas or its "Ministry". --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid use of "kite terror" with the exception of attributed statements. The technical term is Firebomb kite (and incendiary kite, and also the less technical flaming kite (the kite itself is usually not a-flame but rather carries a device that is or that burns when it his the ground (alternatively - some carry small explosive booby traps)). I'll note that "terror kite" is not an Israeli government term (the IDF/Israeli government has actually been (for various local reasons - e.g. the Syrian front) downplaying this) - it is more of a colloquial term (it has been used by some Israeli politicians, media, and also media outside of Israel) - which is generally not in official use.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Fringe picture choice

For those who aren't aware, Neturei Karta members have tended a conference in Iran that "debated" about the Holocaust. Not to mention that their (fiery) views on homosexuality and other things might surprise the educated and liberal sorts that I expect are posting their image. Of course it's easier to AGF here, seeing as if someone were to convince me this was a Palestinian POV push I would wonder about how unstrategically it was done, [choosing Jews who tolerate Holocaust denial] out of all the possible picture subjects you could have used, giving oxygen to it and all. Not cool guys. I assume you didn't know, but next time I'd recommend looking up about a group you're posting a picture of next. Have a nice day, all of you.--Calthinus (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point, but when it comes to Israel, many liberals throw their "ideals" and logic to the garbage. I'm surprised they always choose to show the same Neturei Karta freaks (which were condemned even by the anti-Zionist Satmar hasidim) as an example of "good Jews", despite there are so many liberals Jews around world that support the Palestinians without shame. Maybe because deep inside they know those liberals of Jewish extraction have zero conection to Judaism and everything they support is against the Torah, Israel and the Jewish people, while NK present themselves as "Orthodox" Jews with all their external customs, which supposedly make their claim against Israel more legitimate (that's only my personal speculation, though). In any case, they are nothing more than a fringe group (100 people?) and showing them in this article is probably undue weight.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well hmm I can certainly see how it could be WP:POINT -- but surely if so it was an amateur POV push at best. Imo, one reason NK gets more love from advocates than Satmar is that NK makes more of a show -- see also Westboro Baptist Church for an even more extreme but vaguely analogous example of publicity through controversy -- not as many people know of the Satmar dynasty and in fact I know of them but I wasn't aware they currently had an Anti-ZIonist position. As long as the WP:UNDUE picture doesn't come back onto the page I'm content. --Calthinus (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a liberal, which in any case is a fringe viewpoint these days. I see, Calthinus, that you read the Haredi wiki page, which is a gross violation of NPOV. 'Freaks'? If Neturei Karta are 'freaks' (Their 'freakish' position, as opposed to the Hasid 'mainstream' is that NK (5,000) preserves the overwhelming consensus of traditional modern orthodox Judaism down to 1948 that fidelity to Judaism means one cannot accept a secular preemption of the Messiah in creating a Jewish state). That was the mainstream view, and the Haredi piously stick to it, with eminently strong religious arguments based firmly on Jewish tradition. To brand them as 'freaks' is like Shalom Auslander saying ('Opposite of modern,' TLS 28 February 2018) that Hasids (400,000) are 'crackpots' in a review of a recent book (David Biale, David Assaf, Benjamin Brown, Uriel Gellman, Samuel Heilman, Moshe Rosman, Gadi Sagiv, Marcin Wodziński,Hasidism: A New History,Princeton University Press 2017). All sorts of Ultra-orthodox rabbis have similar views, see Yaakov Shapiro, for example, 21 minutes into this and when you examine what they say, it is eminently rational politically, regardless of what one thinks of these groups theologically or sociologically. These groups, branded as 'fringe' are not fringe religiously (were they, huge numbers of Jews would be 'fringe/freaks'): they are a vocal minority politically, and they are, by their testimony, living challenges to anti-Semites. The scandal is that they maintain a dialogue with groups the political mainstream brands as terrorists, Hamas, Palestinians, Iran, Hezbollah etc., something many mainstream Christian groups do, and no scandal is attached to the latter.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You are sleepy after all. It was Yaniv who called Neturei Karta freaks, not me. I said fringe. Which for all the explaining away above, is the only word that can be used to describe a group that attends a conference where the Holocaust is "debated" hosted by Iran. Well, okay, some might say "Uncle Tom". And neither of us said anything negative toward the Haredim as a group-- just Neturei Karta. And as I said this isnt even an NPOV issue its why are we advertising a totally irrelevant fringe group whose self-tokenization is normalizing Holocaust deniers?--Calthinus (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to both posts. I may write annoyingly, but if there is one deceptive thing I detest, it is 'explaining away' anything. I think it wholly immaterial to inclusion or exclusion that NK attended talks on the Holocaust in Iran, which in any case has a community of 25,000 Jews and requires gestures that are not obsessively nukelik from the world. I am totally irreligious, but I look at people like the NT and Paolo Dall'Oglio (the article says nothing substantial about that extraordinary man) as often deeply intelligent actors venturing into no-go zones in order to, often with no results, wrest some prospects for peace in a world that, on both sides, is given to ranting clichés and taboos on contact. Israel Hirsch spoke to Iranians as his father spoke amicably with exponents of a Jewish terrorist movement whose aims he otherwise detested, the (Irgun) Saying 'Uncle Tom' is to embrace tabloid caricature. Your last point is utterly ideological and false: they argue, like Norman Finkelstein, that the Holocaust is used by Zionism to justify the establishment and policies of Israel. Hirsch's son, Israel, stated quite clearly:

According to Hirsch, "Because the UN agreed to establish a state because of the Holocaust, the Iranians are claiming something very logical. They aren't saying that there wasn't a Holocaust, but who perpetrated the Holocaust? The Nazis, the Germans. So they should at least pay compensation to the Jewish nation and establish a Jewish state within Germany and not within the land of Israel, which belongs to the Palestinians."

Hirsch openly identifies with Holocaust survivors. If your opposition to the pic is based on these demonstrably false clichés in the tabloid spin of hatred against a dissenting minority, then it is skewed. If we can come up with a photo of, say, Arik Ascherman or any other religious group expressing the same solidarity, well and good. It could replace the present one as a compromise. But that some religious Jewish groups find the systematic murdering of unarmed people despicable and protest, is noteworthy. Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I basing my opposition on a "tabloid spin of hatred against a dissenting minority", or are you too uncritically buying the defense of a group that congregated with Holocaust deniers? Holocaust deniers attended the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, this is a fact. David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan attended, for crying out loud [[4]]! If the Iranian organizers had been more clever it would not have included Holocaust deniers in the conference -- but, oops I guess. I have not even discussed their lovely views on some social issues and how their opposition to Israel stems in part from their view that most Israeli Jews are not "True Jews" largely because of those social issues (some hints: Women's rights, LGBT rights, …). I don't know if you're aware but among most Jews even being in the same room with someone like David Duke is pretty unforgivable because it is normalization of his rabidly anti-Semitic views. Talking with people you politically disagree with is one thing -- men like David Duke are another.--Calthinus (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So we're clear -- I'm not saying that they cannot be here because they congregated with David Duke. I'm saying that a Jewish group that goes to a conference that people like him attend -- hence normalization -- is very, very fringe, including even for Haredi groups that are not Zionist.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) If your principle objection is to NK appearing in the same room as a toxic bigot like David Duke, then you'll find your social world subject to severe curtailing, the principle being. 'never enter any place where a denier of mass murder(or a mass murderer) is present'. Were that true, international politics would collapse overnight. Mass murder occurred at 2018 Gaza border protests, and numerous prominent Jewish public figures, who will regularly be accorded the red carpet treatment abroad, deny that it was any such thing. Some even ordered it. I don't think this translates into meaning that if Avigdor Lieberman et al., go to the UN, they should be avoided like the plague. It's like saying no one should meet with Israeli politicians because they support a country, Turkey, which denies the Armenian genocide, and refuse to legislate recognition of this known historical reality. Should we boycott the Ukraine because it passed laws celebrating Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. Or should we refuse to meet with Polish politicians who drafted the bill trying to outlaw admission that (some) Poles assisted in the Holocaust. No one does that, and these people are regularly met with abroad. Should a Christian refuse to meet any observant Jew because the latter are obliged to recite three times a day the Amidah with its Birkat haMinim calling on the Lord to have them blotted from the book of life. No.

This is the old guilt by association ploy, and its use is extremely selective, so a NK rabbi whose grandparents were murdered at Auschwitz turns up in Tehran where David Duke is ranting, the former is 'normalizing' the latter. One could go on all day about people who have done similar things, starting with Arthur Ruppin the architect of Zionist settlement shook hands, and had a long discussion with Hans F.K. Günther, the founder of National-Socialist race theory, three years into the ascendency of Nazidom when persecution of Jews was well underway . Their views on race were very similar, the one influencing the other. The fearless principle is always, 'I will not allow the presence of a despicable arsehole in a forum to cancel my right to speak my piece'. If one concedes to fuckwits that power, a large part of the more interesting conversations in the world would never take place.

In the specific instance, Hirsch's testimony was living proof that, whatever that racist cunt says, it is denied by the facts of the Holocaust victim's life. If you had some proof they went over and shook hands with Duke, you might have a point. I see no evidence of that. As to their social views, (think of our 'grab them by the pussy' President) the things you detest in the NK are widely shared by hundreds of thousands of devout Jews of various persuasions, the kind that spat at Shalom Auslander's wife when they ventured into his old haunt, Mea Shearim, or who spit regularly at anyone identiably Christian in Jerusalem - priests, nuns etc.(An extreme minority of course). Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we know we both agree Hirsch is not a Holocaust denier-- despite some um, interesting theological views -- "the Holocaust was the will of ``-----" and Zionists are not "True Jews" because they say "never again" thus denying divine will to make genocide apparently... -- well I'm more of a secular guy but I can sense there might be some controversy over that one. What I'm saying is, as Jews that went to a conference where -- we cannot deny the facts -- rabid Holocaust deniers were given a podium to speak, they are insanely fringe because the idea that that is an okay thing to do is, yes, very fringe among Jews, secular and religious alike. Well, there are many fucked up things in the world of which many are referenced in your post but actually a lot of these are not fringe. Denial of hte Armenian Genocide by Israel? Very regrettable, but not fringe (and while not excusable it is understandable given Israel's warm and vital relationship with Azerbaijan). World War II revisionism in Central European countries? Also not fringe in those countries-- very, very regrettably. Israeli human rights abuses -- in Israel not fringe given justifications used by much of society, though quite regrettable. National Socialism in the 1930s -- not fringe, it was popularly elected, and I don't think I have to spell out how fucked up I think it is but it was not fringe at that time. List goes on. Much injustice exists in the world. You're confusing fringe with "fucked up". Our goal on Wikipedia is not to change the discourse already present in society -- it is merely to reflect it in an informative way. Activism is very necessary especially nowadays, and it has its place. That place is not Wikipedia. If we were to relax on our standards, we would also give an opening to the far-right types that are ever so problematic nowadays (including, increasingly, on Wikipedia).--Calthinus (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I answered this. Neturei Karta's presence in Tehran can be thought deleterious or not according to POV. I don't see it as the former. Whether I approve it or not is another matter.

What's wrong with having fringe views? The whole of civilization is founded on what began as fringe views, lunatics in the desert preaching visions of God, some carpenter being proclaimed God's son in the flesh; a merchant thinking he was god's messenger, and their teachings are still very much with us with the 'fringe' impacting all dimensions of our thinking. It's not all negative. Socrates was deemed fringe by the majority that condemned him to death. Blood libel was not a fringe view, it was dominant in the East. The fringe and correct view emerged after 1000 years to be correct. The scientific way of thinking drives the world, and yet those who constitute it are demographically 'fringe' and even their Darwinism is fringe compared to what a very substantial proportion of the American people believe that crap (42%). I'm not an activist. I oppose mainly here online activists who edit Wikipedia ethnonationalistically or, in some cases, in direct execution of a national mission, without due weight to both realities. An activist in the I/P world is someone whop believes you can do something about the realities there: I'm a hard realist - and think, and have thought for more than a decade, that that is impossible, and the Palestinians are going to be screwed for the foreseeable future. Nothing I do will change that. The historical imagination that tries to give due weight to all of the complex factors in an historical situation is, however, not 'activist'. It is realist and empirical, and functions only if one exercises extreme care over who says what about whom. That the NK view on Zionism is fringe ethnoreligionationally is true. Yet it happens to coincide with the judgements, secular, of a good many outstanding scholars, if you strip it of its theological straightjacket. I don't think 99% of the mainstream commentariat would be left standing if they were to weigh in in a debate with Yaakov Shapiro. He knows the topic intimately, they don't. There are plenty of far right types editing in this area. By the way it is a common error to say National Socialism was popularly elected. Hitler got 36% and von Hindenburg about 50% and, dopey old fogey as he was, he effectively elected Hitler, not the people, who gave him a strong relative majority.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with having fringe views? Really, one thing, wiki policy. In society, yes they are useful for progression and broadening hte debate, et cetera. On Wikipedia, having them leads to headaches. For us it's about Wikipedia. --Calthinus (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The fringe views are not what is being discussed re the picture. The picture's inclusion or not has nothing to do with NK's theology. It has very much to do with the fact that it is one of the strongest Jewish advocates for Palestinian rights, demonstrated on their behalf in regard to the Border protests, and is thus a fair candidate for inclusion. The strongest argument indeed is the fact that we show 2 photos of Basque demonstrations against Israel, and one which took place in Iran. You are quibbling about a Jewish protest, while silent on the undue weight given to a Spanish minority's protests, and to Iran (the iran photo is there to suggest I guess that the Gazans have friends among Israel's geopolitical enemies.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I think a group that is fringe among Jews should not be used to represent Jews, or even the subset "Jews that are pro-Palestinian", as that is undue. I would guess based on his comment that Yaniv agrees. Basques and Iranians well, many of htem do support Palestinian aspirations, so I'm not sure what the issue is? That Palestinians have friends among Israel's geopolitical enemies is, um, true.--Calthinus (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That critics of Israel's behavior with regard to Palestinians are all too frequently associated in Wikipedia with countries the 'West' doesn't like constitutes a non-too subtle attempt to spin their human rights as supported only by 'terrorist' or 'rogue' nations. I suggest for starters that, to recall the old joke, we put all out Basques in the one exit from the page, and find some images that are less 'fringe'. On an important page, insinuating that the murder of Palestinians elicited protests from Iranian Israel nukers and ex-terrorist Basque autonomist groups is blatant POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We have one "Western" image (Basques) and one "non-Western" one (of Iranians). I don't see what the issue is. It seems that you are calling reporting the actual reality "spin". Yes it is true that almost all countries hostile to Israel support Palestinian aims, and their support is much more salient than those in Europe who do. But we have one image for both. How exactly is that a problem???--Calthinus (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's pointless arguing with you. 136 nations of 196 recoignize the statehood that is 'Palestinians' aim', and a very large percentage of those have diplomatic relations with Israel. It is also true that, unlike Micronesian islands, all European states support the Palestinian aim of achieving a two state solution. So you consistently spin the facts into some fantasy of hostility to Israel =pro-Palestinian, ergo show the terrorist connection meme so beloved of editors here.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This event was not about supporting a two state solution (the Great March of Return supporting the Palestinian right of return to areas not in the future Palestinian state as per 2SS), and Iranian protestors are not "terrorist" (come on, what are you an altrighty now?). Anyhow, although vaguely enjoyable at points, this was indeed objectively a waste and also probably inconsiderate of others considering the walls of text on a public talk page. If you still insist on keeping the undue picture I will make an RfC. --Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Per this TOI article it seems that NK’s views on the topic of this article have been considered of some interest. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

100 days of incendiary kites, balloons landing in south Israel

This information need to be mention inside the article and in the 'Casualties section' in the Infobox:

For the last three months Palestinians have burned more than 30,000 acres (I think they confused with dunam) of land near Gaza border. That the size of an Israeli city! Almost like Petah Tikvah (35,868 dunams) but already bigger than Netanya (major Israeli city with 28,455 dunams) and Herzliya size (21,585 dunams). Estimates are that more than a third of all the land adjacent to the Strip already has been burnt, destroying Nature reserves and costing the lives of many animals. In June, the Tax Authority estimated that the damage will cost upwards of NIS 5 million ($1.4 million) and rising. The Agriculture Ministry has recently begun encouraging farmers in the Gaza border area to harvest their wheat crop ahead of time to above the wheat being destroyed by fire. In this tweet from Israel Television News Company they report that more than a 33,000 dunam burnt which about 20,000 of it belongs to Nature reserves areas. Sokuya (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

All of this is mentioned in the article already, and the discussion about regarding economic costs decided that economic damage wasn't to be included in the casualties section. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani not at all, most of it is not mentioned. The article have only 3 lines about it and the data need to be update. 30,000 dunams isn't mentioned, estimate cost of damage isn't mentioned, third of all the land adjacent to the Strip has been burnt etc etc. Sokuya (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is called denialism. I.e. pretending to have read something you haven't, and stating the article or sourcer fails to mention what the article or source does mention. I.e.'estimate of cost of damnage isn't mentioned'. Wiuth that you have just shot your proposal down. For we have long had:

As of early June, roughly 5,000 dunams of Israeli crop fields were burned by firebomb kites launched from Gaza, with an estimated economic loss of US$1.4 million, in addition to 2,100 dunams of Jewish National Fund forests in the area and 4,000 to 5,000 dunams in the Besor Forest Nature Reserve.[208] The New York Times reported one of its journalists sighting “vast stretches of scorched[peacock term] earth,” with “losses to Israeli agriculture from flaming kites [being] immense.'

So just drop it. This is bad faith argufying.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was referring to, those 3 lines. See there is no mention of the 30,000-33,000 dunams or the 20,000 of it belongs to Nature reserves areas. I stand corrected on the US$1.4 million cost. Still this section need an update. Sokuya (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a matter of elementary arithmetic. If you actually read the page then firebomb kites are mentioned 12 times. Estimated cost of damage is mentioned. Of course the Israeli press makes much of the fact that produce worth the equivalent of two Brooklyn homes was destroyed, and never adds that Israel has denied Gazans the export or consumption value of produce from the 17% of cultivable land in the Strip which farmers access only if they want a bullet in the chest, and have done so for over a decade. Compute the economic loss of that, and the huge impoverishment of a once viable fishing industry off the coast 90% of whose fisherman are now living in poverty because Israel broke its word, and constricts them to stay way within the limits assigned that coastal people by international law, and what you are talking about is piddling. It gets 12 mentions, and the price as of June 6, whereas we state zero about the sustained economic loss in denying land use to territory it does not even claim, creating a no man's land which, many decades ago, I'd watch every evening for several months, as old men had their oxen or donkeys turn the soil a 100 metres across the border and eked out a decent living. They didn't have our nice swimming pool, but none of my comrades in the kibbutz fields thought of shooting them, and they didn't shoot me when I strolled over into Shuja'iyya. Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how is this even related? Stop trolling. Sokuya (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Property damage is not "casualties". Not according to Wikipedia practice, and not according to the English language either. This proposal will go nowhere. Zero^talk 07:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I get that it not belong to the infobox, my proposal is to update the correct information inside the article. Sokuya (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please continue the discussion and establish consensus. Any editor with permissions to edit will make the changes per the consensus. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The article

I found it strange to see that the facts that Gaza is controlled by an Islamic terrorist organization, a fact which creates a serious fear that terrorists could be among "protesters", which occurred, that Israel has warned several times to not apporach the fence, and that some of the peaceful protesters were shooting guns and installing explosive devices on the fence - are not mentioned even one time in the lead of the article, but instead hidden in the timeline. If any other country in the world would deal with such a case of course you would mention that noticeably in the lead, but hey we are talking about the Jewish state now, Israel is evil and massacares Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.48.116 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you add the same into the lead of Soweto uprising first. Then your argument might have some weight. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if you're serious. I will answer you if you say yes, but at any rate, just so you know, you should be ashamed that you are humiliating the victims of apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:1176:C6A4:3034:2B61 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. Read contemporary reports from 1976 (e.g. the Herald Tribune here) and you’ll see that John Vorster’s rhetoric was similar to the propaganda which you are repeating above. This repeated itself with greater intensity in the following years; see for example Umkhonto we Sizwe. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Apartheid South Africa, the "protesters" in Gaza (de facto Islamic terror state) were not "protesting" inside the country but in another "country"/territory, near the border. The events were part of an armed conflict between Israel and terrorist organizations in gaza, such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which committed to the complete destruction of Israel and their leaders have historically called for the genocide of all the Jews. This is Wikipedia, not Palestinipedia, and important information for understanding the article should be added to the lead, even if some editors don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:46A5:5261 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Another territory, huh? I recommend you learn about Townships and Bantustans, which operated similarly to Gaza and Areas A+B of the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Troll - You continue to insist on your hallucinatory analogies, and not to explain why not mentioning important FACTS in the lead of the article. Anyway, Gaza was never Part of Israel, it was part of the British Mandate until 1948, in 1948-1967 it was occupied by Egypt, in 1967-2005 It was occupied by Israel, in 2005-2007 It was controlled by the Palestinian authority, and in 2007-present it has been controlled by an Islamist fundamentalist group, Hamas. Yes, it is another territory, look even at google maps, and please stop spreading your propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:96A7:455F (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone, Who is not a troll, add the information that was suggested above to be added into the lead of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:96A7:455F (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the first paragraph should look like this: "On 30 March 2018, a six-week campaign composed of a series of protests was launched near the Israeli border at the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory controlled since 2007 by Hamas, an Islamist fundamentalist organization. Called by Palestinian organizers the "Great March of Return" (Arabic: "مسیرة العودة الكبري"‎), the protests demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel. They are also protesting the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the moving of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, Israel maintains the claim that the blockade is necessary to protect its civilians, and refuses to accept the right of return for fear that it will end demographically the Jewish state. Violence during the protests has resulted in the deadliest days of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 2014 Gaza War, after thousands of people approached the fence, despite Israeli warnings." Everything added here is a fact, and the hallucinatory objections that are recorded here to these additions show the high anti-Israeli bias of a some users here. They simply can not imagine that the article will not show that IDF soldiers are monsters who massacre Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:B6C4:405F (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NPA.

If your objective is to discredit the Palestinians’ right to protest, or to justify the killing of unarmed Palestinians, by painting all two million of them as terrorists, you have come to the wrong place. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh here we go with the troll again. No one said they have no right to protest, no one tried to justify the "killing of unarmed Palestinians", and no one painted all the residents of gaza as terrorists. The purpose is to give the reader the background - that gaza is controlled by an Islamist fundamentalist organization, that Israel does not accept the demands of the "protesters", and that Israel has warned the "protesters" several times to stay away from the border. Your objection does not really have a logical cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:B6C4:405F (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously Israel doesn’t accept the demands of the protesters - if they did, there would be no protest. Re the controlling government of the territory, if we are going to consider that a relevant contextual point, we must give the full picture - i.e. we should also explain clearly that the territory is still considered occupied by Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2018

2018 Gaza border protests → 2018 Gaza border clashes – The RfC above concluded that this is the most popular alternative title after the status quo title. I am requesting a move to receive input from those who voted for a third choice. wumbolo ^^^ 15:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my arguments above. wumbolo ^^^ 15:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  It's not common for the RfC nominator to !vote on their own proposal; to someone skimming it makes it look like there's more support than there actually is. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. Of the 14,000 Gazans injured, the vast majority were not involved in 'clashes' on the border. They were hundreds of, sometimes 700 hundred, metres back. If East Germany had shot repeatedly into West Berlin hitting protestors up to half a kilometer away because they objected to the wall, that would never have been described as 'clashes'. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• It should be changed to 2018 Gaza border events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:1176:C6A4:4034:2B61 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Definite "no" to "events"... --Calthinus (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

what happened on the border was composed of both protests AND clashes. There were people which their behavior was peaceful, and there were also people which were throwing Molotov cocktails, shooting guns and installing explosives on the fence. I oppose calling those events clashes because there were peaceful protesters, and I oppose calling those events protests because there were people who carried out bombings&shootings, and dozens of the killed were terrorists according both to Hamas and Israel. Therefore, it should be called simply "events". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:1176:C6A4:4034:2B61 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The two options currently on the table are protests or clashes, which one do you prefer ? “WarKosign” 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no right to vote, I have only right to share my opinion with you. I think you should add that option - "events" is the most logical name for the article!

• Oppose - widely described in reliable sources as "border protests", this current title meets the requirements of WP:NAME. The argument advanced, that the RFC shows this as the most popular alternative title is a bit misleading. What the RFC found was There was no clear consensus for an alternative name and that leading minority alternative name was what is proposed again here. Minority. The majority opinion of the RFC however was 2018 Gaza border protests (9 supporters as opposed to 7 for "clashes"). nableezy - 18:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  "alternative" = "other". My rationale is correct. wumbolo ^^^ 19:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  Again, your rationale is at best incomplete and at worst misleading. You are proposing to make a move to a name where a majority of respondents of a recent RFC supported the current name and argue in favor because the RFC calls the most popular alternative, ignoring the most popular, absolute, is the current title. So if the argument is based on strength in numbers from the RFC your rationale is incorrect and the argument misleading. nableezy - 06:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: Maybe those who voted for e.g. "The great march of return" had my requested title in mind as their second choice, and not the status quo. wumbolo ^^^ 15:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• (addendum) to restate the argument from the RFC which just saw no consensus for changing the name, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The Guardian, NY Times, LA Times, BBCWashington Post. Arguments in favor of changing the name are based entirely on OR, not reliable sources. nableezy - 06:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? Let's check:

• The Guardian: even from your link: "... during clashes with Israeli forces ... A Palestinian youth hurls a stone during clashes" + How Gaza clashes could ignite flashpoints all over the Middle East + Fatal clashes in Gaza after opening of US embassy – in pictures ...
• NY Times: even in your link "clashes" are used 5 times + "after weeks of deadly protests, arson attacks and armed clashes along the border" + At Gaza Protests: Kites, Drones, Gas, Guns and the Occasional Bomb. A Times reporter sees new tactics and new destruction, but few reasons to think the border fence clashes will end anytime soon...
• BBC: Israel border clashes:.. + Gaza-Israel Border Clashes + border: Clashes 'leave 16 Palestinians dead and hundreds injured' + Newshour: Deadly Clashes in Gaza Border Protest + mentioned by ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss below
• Washington Post: Gaza border clashes resume between Palestinian protesters and Israeli forces + Behind bloody Gaza clashes, economic misery and piles of debt + "... killed three Palestinians along the Gaza border on Sunday in clashes where Palestinians have protested" + Burning tires, tear gas and live fire: Gaza clashes turn deadly, etc.

So your arguments aren't so strong. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they discuss clashes within protests. If you really read "Deadly Clashes in Gaza Border Protest" as supporting the idea that the source is calling the topic as a whole a "clash" and not a "protest" then I dont really know what to tell you. Any native English speaker can see what that source is calling the topic as a whole. nableezy - 13:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Igorp_lj Every article you cited also refers to the Gaza protests/protesters. Clashes are something that happened during the protests, but they aren't the entirety of it. This is akin to me renaming The March on Washington to The 1963 National Mall Bob Dylan Concert. I could certainly find sources stating that such a concert occurred, but it wouldn't be a useful way to identify the event as a whole. Nblund ^talk 00:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. Clashes are not one-sided events. Opposing people have to come face to face in order to “clash”. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Which is exactly what happened here. “WarKosign” 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the article WarKosign. If 14,000 people 'clashed' with 100 snipers, you'd have had a different story. They didn't, and no honest assessment of the documentation can argue otherwise. This is a simple matter of the English language. People shot from 100-700 yards distance from a border cannot be said to be 'clashing' (which implies the physical collision of bodies, as is usual in riots etc). Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The article isn't about non-violent protests, it focuses on the violent clashes that where organized under disguise of peaceful protest. Without the clashes there wouldn't be so much coverage and this article wouldn't exist. “WarKosign” 22:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Does non-violent appear anywhere in the title of the article? Is there anything besides unsourced speculation that you or anybody else would like to offer? The RSs refer to the overarching topic as "protests", protests that include instances of Palestinian violence, many more instances of Israeli violence, against armed and unarmed protestors. That is what the RS say. And despite the repeated efforts of a group of editors to completely ignore that fact to push a narrative that is openly a minority POV, the policy of this website is to use what reliable sources use for titles. Not what a group of editors who openly ignore what the sources say and make arguments based entirely on OR in contravention of Wikipedia's content policies. nableezy - 13:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per my (and other's) reasoning in the RfC. “WarKosign” 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per such arguments in the RfC. Moreover: these events became known only because of violent border clashes initiated, financing & leading by HAMAS terrorist organisation ruling all Gaza Strip. And current article title only helps to mask this fact. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For all who tries to use "14,000 wounded" here: I'd repeat my question from prev. topic: "it would be interesting to obtain confirmation for such casualties data as "7,618 struck by live ammunition or rubber bullets" in this article, from a more respected source than Hamas or its "Ministry". --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2018". The same is about 13,000 - 15,000 numbers The same is about 13,000 - 15,000 numbers (who, under what circumstances, etc.) as well. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, could be called protests at first, but the article isn't really about that anymore. If the article encompasses anything but the initial events, 'protests' is a misnomer. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep existing name): per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. The vast majority of those killed and injured were protesters, not insurgents returning small arms fire. Israeli snipers shooting people from large distances is not a clash, i.e. battle nor engagement. The informal discussion above did not arrive at a consensus [5], so should have been described as such in this RfC. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Hamas leaders themselves admitted a large portion of fatalities belonged to the organization. "Protests" included shootings, molotov, stones, explosives and inflamable kites.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Can we put to rest already the non-argument of bringing up Hamas on Israel/Palestine articles? Hamas is many things: they are a political party (the incumbent and largest one in Gaza at that), they are a social organization, and they are a military organization. People love to pretend that they are only the latter-most of these things, and that they're apparently the same as IS or Al-Qaeda. This "rationale" is extremely problematic because you're simply listing things that were included during the protests, completely ignoring the fact that the violent examples you cited were a small minority of those involved. At least try to have some perspective here. A rationale that's blind to objectivity, regardless of whether it is proposed accidentally out of good faith or purposefully out of a POV, is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  @BrendonTheWizard: Something around a tenth of all Palestinian protesters being violent is a pretty significant minority. (Note that I'm only counting those that were injured by Israelis as violent; a lot of them probably decided not to be violent after the Israelis' warning shots) wumbolo ^^^ 16:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant. Reread slowly what you wrote above. Anyone shot by Israeli snipers was, by that very fact of being wounded, 'violent'. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo are you serious? You think number of injuries is a good proxy for number of violent people?! How exactly do you define violence? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: attempting to breach the border is violent enough for saying that they were clashes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OR. nableezy - 21:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much too non-symmetrical to be called "clashes". Zero^talk 07:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support There where violent confrontations and actions from both sides of the conflict hence clashes is appropriate word --Shrike (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

All we are getting here is a mechanical 'support' vote by editors in Israel or pro-Israel. There are no arguments of substance. To have some validity in the process, we need external input. So far we have a consensus by Israelis/pro-Israelis for inserting the Israel official viewpoint.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And all the Palestinians/pro-Palestinian vote "oppose". the article, again, should be called simply "events", because it was composed of BOTH protests AND clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:46A5:5261 (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There are no Palestinians editing this area. Those who have written 'oppose' form no editing block, share no political views or identity or religious or national background as far as I am aware of.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussion. Wide use of the term. The events clearly also involved significant violent events which would not normally be called protests.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support the article has wider scope than "protests". If we made an article about only the "protests", it wouldn't provide context. We should make sure the title of the article matches the SCOPE of the article, and ensure that the scope of the article isn't a POVFUNNEL. Plus, plenty of mainstream news outlets are using the term. Talking about the motivations of !voters above strikes me as a bit ASPERSIONy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's no aspersion. It's an observation of a fact. Editors should never 'vote' in lockstep with a national POV because of their personal attachment to a country. That is the fundamental ethical principle underlying WP:NPOV. I can imagine an editor or two from that area also supporting the change, and I wouldn't call that, despite my disagreement, a lockstep vote, because there area editors here who do not vote automatically along perceived national interest lines. It would be a rational exercise of judgement, which so far we haven't got much evidence for here.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a wider scope than protests, but therefore you support renaming the article from the current version (scope focused on the majority of the events involved: actual protests) to instead focus solely on a smaller, narrower, minority fringe scope? That's absolutely nonsensical. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

IT is understandable that editors who appear to vote in lockstep, while perhaps not editing that page, reflect the impression given by the Hebrew entry on this topic, which is essentially a description of terrorists clashing with IDF troops (defending their homeland) in an endeavor to invade Israel. That represents how Israeli newspapers spin the 'event', as a violent series of 'clashes'. One cannot introduce this into an English language sourced encyclopedia without doing violence both to the substance of more detached reportage (arguably) and the conventions of plain English usage, which does not confuse the notion of physical clashing with the notion of generalized protests (in which clashes formed an element). It is WP:NPOV that is at stake here.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The peaceful portion of the protests (which occurred over a kilometer away from the border) have little to do with the event that actually garnered media attention - attempts to breach a highly militarized border by force.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I clarified that the status quo title was the most popular title in the RfC. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Blatant attempt to disregard the common name in favor of an unneutral title. More sources consider these events as protests and that has yet to change. Just because a band of editors do not like that, does not mean we ignore the common name.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support. The suggested new name is, in my view, the better of the two alternatives, and hits the subject matter directly on the nail. First establish that there were border clashes, and only afterwards discuss the outcome.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Why not renaming it as "2018 Gaza border events"?! Why?? Instead of endless discussion here simply rename the article to something everyone agrees on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:4F8F:11B7:8645:1622:325F (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "events" is too ambiguous. It begs the question, "what led to these events?" Again, "border clashes" says it all.Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

How was and is it called in Israeli usage, David? Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Anyone? Why will no editor reply to this? Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Again?? We just had this discussion in late May and now it's early July, meaning it's only been one month since we reached a consensus, and there was a consensus against renaming. The "Clashes" proposal is inherently POV-charged. It's just an objective, undisputed, well-sourced, well-documented fact that the majority of participants were protesting, not clashing. Renaming the article gives undue weight to the fringe and sensational examples as part of a rather obvious effort to smear the belligerents as violent to ensure no reader leaves the article feeling sympathetic to the protesters. Nothing against challenging consensuses, but proposing the same thing month after month until you get the outcome you want makes it very questionable whether or not it's good faith. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Protests" is also POV, so your argument actually makes more sense in favor of renaming. These "protests" were violent clashes, which is a NPOV factual description of the events. “WarKosign” 22:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What?? "Protests" is not POV when there's a seemingly limitless supply of sources already in the article that state that the majority of those involved were peaceful protesters. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support move. The "clashes" have clearly become the most notable part of this article, not the "protests" per se.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Gaza Protest appears to be the name commonly assigned to these events in reliable sources. Point of fact: I believe editors are mistaken in the belief that "protest" only applies to non-violent actions. Protest can include both violent and non-violent, as well as armed and unarmed demonstrations. For instance: the violent demonstrations going on in Haiti over fuel price hikes are called "protests" in the press. So was the occupation of a federal building by armed militants in Oregon. "Clashes" only implies violence, so it would not be a good way to characterize a demonstration that, by all accounts, included both violent and non-violent tactics. Nblund ^talk 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The page deals with roughly the events stemming from the "Great March of Return", which lasted for many weeks. It says so in the first sentence. Obviously, to reduce everything to "clashes" is absurd and wrong. For instance, see this Telegraph article from April, which calls it "protests".

  Even during the most notable day of the event (May 14), the incident is routinely described as "protests" or "firing on protestors". See NYT, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian, CNN. This is a small sample; I can easily multiply sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

How convenient to distort the underlining meaning of this article. The words "Great March of Return" are no more than a euphemism for "demonstration" or "protest," where the plan was to march to the Israeli-Gaza border in order to make their voices heard by confronting Israel. Its very nature sparked the clashes between IDF forces and Gaza citizens (some militants) along the Israeli-Gaza border. The words "2018 Gaza border clashes" incorporate therein the march, the violent demonstration, the resulting injuries, the burning of fields of grain, etc., and are synonymous with the meeting-up of these two groups diametrically opposed to each other. It describes in a few words the entire article. The rest is history.Davidbena (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

How is any of that inconsistent with "protest"? Protests are often provocative, and organizers often recognize the possibility of violence. The 1968 Democratic Convention Protesters, and the Freedom Riders, and the Tahrir Square protesters, for instance, all recognized the possibility that their activities were likely to provoke violent clashes, yet we still refer to those as "protests" rather than "clashes". Even if all the protesters were violent (they weren't) clash would be a poor descriptor because "clashes" are not necessarily political. We use clash to describe events like soccer riots that have no larger cause behind them. Nblund ^talk 21:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund, the difference being that many protests are peaceful protests, but this was not. It was a "clash" between two ideologies; one that has in its charter a clause that does not recognize the State of Israel, and even encourages an armed resistance against it, while the other recognizes the State of Israel.Davidbena (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Nonviolence" is not part of the definition of a protest - otherwise "nonviolent protest" would be redundant. All three of the protests I mentioned above involved violence (although the violence in the Freedom Riders was one sided), and they all involved some level of clash between ideologically opposed groups. I could also add that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, the 2015 Freddie Gray protests, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests all involved varying degrees of violence between protesters and police. Some protests are peaceful, some are violent, a lot of protests (this being one of them) involve both violent and non-violent actors. Nblund ^talk 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In the final analysis, we must all decide what it is that we want to emphasize here. It is true that protests often turn violent, but since this article brings up many issues (political grievances and reactionary forces slinging stones to make their cause heard, and people being shot, etc.), as well as all that ensued after these events, the real emphasis here ought not to be some mere "peaceful, nonchalant protest," but rather a title that covers everything in as few words as possible. That title is unquestionably: "2018 Gaza border clashes," a title which immediately prepares its reader for the conflicting interests and the aftermath. The alternative that you are suggesting does not prepare the reader for the aftermath, and only assumes from the start the right of individuals to protest, no matter how violent these protestations may become.Davidbena (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In short, Israel's foundation was based on a story of return positing a desire by Jews for 2,000 years to return 'home', and that is natural, though there is no proof of expulsion. Whereas Gazans expelled at gunpoint from their homes 70 years ago may long to return to them, and, caged, decide to protest symbolically by a 'Great March of Return', and were in large numbers shot, or shot dead, by Israelis who claim the former were 'clashing' physically with these valiant defenders of a homeland to which only they have a right. Don't talk about euphemisms, please.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You say, "there is no proof of expulsion." I suggest that you re-read our exchanges here, where it is evident that the majority Jewish population in Palestine during the early 2nd century CE was diminished because of wars and exile (whether forced or voluntary).Davidbena (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, there is no disagreement between you and I that many of the senior citizens of Gaza (or their relatives) were expelled from their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but let's not forget too that many of the Arabs were belligerents in that war against Israel. That was the result of hostilities and of a general view that their presence in those regions endangered the security and lives of the Jewish people. Remember the Convoy of the thirty-five. Remember Gush Etzion. Remember the Hebron massacre. In spite of it all, for the most part, Israel was merciful to these people and did not kill those evicted from their homes, but drove them away to other areas of the country. I'm not so certain that the Arab armies, had they been the victors, would have been as kind to the Jews. As for whether or not Jews were ever expelled from their ancestral homeland, and which you alleged "there is no proof of expulsion," this is a clear diversion from the topic and doesn't belong here. To answer you here would mean that we're getting side-tracked. Nevertheless, so as not to appear as though we admit to such charges, I will address the issue about the expulsion of Jews from the country in a separate section on my Talk-Page and I'll ping you there.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

'In spite of it all, for the most part, Israel was merciful to these people and did not kill those evicted from their homes, but drove them away to other areas of the country.'

Benny Morris counts 25 massacres - villagers being lined up and mowed down- of Palestinians (the Palestinian count is upwards of 60) in that war, where the hopelessly outgunned Palestinians (whose military capacities had been destroyed by the British army in 1936-1939) lost 13,000 people while the Yishuv lost 6,000+, mostly in battles with the Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian, and Iraqi armies, not while fighting Palestinians. Call that 'mercy' in the language of your choice, but not in English, please. Still, this is immaterial to the edit issues. I'll drop a note on your page.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What one person may see as a "massacre", another person will see as "war time casualties" for criminal offenses (e.g. sabotage, murder, etc.). Let's not forget that Benny Morris was out to defame Israel in its defense over its own country. Try being more objective. Take a look, rather, at the contemporary British records for that same time period. They were impartial witnesses. Actually, events that preceded the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and which culminated in the eviction of Palestinian Arabs can be read about by the British contemporaries of that period; I mean Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), who mentions there the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24: To view, open collapsible window.

Record of events in Palestine (1920–1930)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
April, 1920 (Easter Sunday). “Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry * that the reasons for this trouble were: (a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war. (b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews. (c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.” 24th September, 1928 “The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.” August, 1929 “On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.” “The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.” “As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.” October-December, 1929 “A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930*, that "the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future" was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.”

You see, there was a long history of hostilities. Let's try and keep to this specific topic without side-tracking. If you wish to say more about this, please address me in a private e-mail or on my Talk-Page. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: per ]]WP:COMMONNAME]] and the succession of events. As someone pointed out already, the use of violence was too asymetrical to call a "clash".Emass100 (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Emass100: asymetrical how? If you mean that Israel was more violent, it's not the case since they were no more violent than what was proportionally necessary. If you meant that protesters were more violent, it's not true either, since the IDF set strict rules and followed them. wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, asymmetrical violence is a term that is used to cover things like 7,618 Palestinians being wounded by Israeli gunfire vs.1 soldier suffering a slight injury from shrapnel of unknown provenance. Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Might" does not always equate with "right," but in some cases it does. We say in Hebrew, "one person will chase a thousand." If the Palestinian people have suffered at the hands of Israel, please consider that it may have been because of their hatred and enmity of the Jewish nation. I say let the two peoples make mends and learn to live together in mutual respect and harmony.Davidbena (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Neturei Karta image

Currently this page features a picture of Neturei Karta men in recognizably Orthodox Jewish attire holding a sign that says "FREEDOM for GAZA and ALL OF PALESTINE", and showing a map of all of Israel and the Palestinian terr-s colored in the Palestinian flag, and another sign that says "Judaism and Zionism are Diametrically Opposed". Should this picture be allowed to be on this page? Please vote Keep or Remove and explain your reasoning. --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging people I see signed on this page, feel free to add anyone I miss : @יניב הורון, Nishidani, Icewhiz, Onceinawhile, Ynhockey, WarKosign, Wumbolo, Sokuya, Igorp lj, Kingsindian, Zero0000, Scaleshombre, Nableezy, ShimonChai, Brendon the Wizard, Bolter21, and Oncontour:

• Remove as proposer. Neturei Karta is widely considered fringe (and I would argue quite WP:FRINGE) both religiously and politically among Jews. The Anti-Defamation League calls them on the "farthest fringes of Judaism"[[6]]. They are well known for stunts like attending the 2006 International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust in Iran, where among other things rabidly anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers were given the podium to speak-- including David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan. Their views on a wide range of things are fringe beyond belief, including theologically -- for example they have said that genocide is divine and it is thus in rebellion against God to try to prevent genocide.

The reader, however, is not aware of this, and for the reader the picture is accomplishing two purposes -- (1) a token visibly Jewish contingent denying the right of Jews to inhabit Israel (the reader is not going to be aware of how insanely unrepresentative they are), and (2) an advertisement for Neturei Karta, a quite marginal group. Neither of these is even remotely in line with wiki policy, and are much more adhering to violations of WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE. With regards to the first point, neither attempts to mitigate the conference (before that Duke spoke was revealed [[7]]) nor "fringe views progress civilization" engage with this, while the argument that calling Israel is illegitimate is not fringe overall misses the point that they are making a Jewish argument that Israel is illegitimate and their grounds for that argument include the (arguably masochistic) tenet that any Jewish suffering even up to the Holocaust are "divine will" and therefore not kosher to try to reduce. Okay, I confess I'm not some Halakhic scholar but based on what I do know of the Jewish faith this seems incredibly fringe. Lastly, I believe this RfC should have precedent for the usage of this image elsewhere. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody denies Neturei Karta is a fringe group, rejected by both mainstream Orthodox and secular Jews. However, picture is attributed to them, not simply "Orthodox Jews", so a reader who wants to know who they are have a link to find out. I really don't mind so much this image with the current caption, but I get your point.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I did get a little caught up on this (… not sure it deserved the RfC, on second thought... my apologies for the pings, sincerely). My thinking was along the lines that not many readers are going to click that link. --Calthinus (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Remove As well as other protest images that have nothing (almost) to do with the events in Gaza. Showing pictures of protests, and the messages therein, in some of these is essentially WP:SOAPBOXing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment. If you believe that, you subscribe to the principle: All photos accompanying public events covered by Wikipedia that contain images of public protests violate WP:SOAP, and must automatically be removed. That is patent bullshit of course, and has zero to do with Wikipedia policy. If it were, you should immediately remove, for starters, 7 jpgs from Gilad Shalit which illustrate public events asking for his release. Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

At present we have 4 pictures from international events - to one from events in Gaza (we also have a photo of the fence and burnt fields). This article is about events in Gaza - and photographs should primarily be from in and about Gaza - not from various international events.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Answer the point, don't duck, or switch the reasons for objection when your first collapses. You stated 'Showing pictures of protests, and the messages therein, is (soapboxing).' You know, like every wikipedian that this is utter rubbish: umpteen articles show protest photos or demonstrations, and the demonstrations are connected to the border. So what's the point of making such a silly argument on behalf of exclusion, when it has no basis in policy or practice?

• Gilad Shalit was kept prisoner in Gaza: the article on him has 7 pics showing photos from around the world protesting his treatment.
• At 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers we have a bus sign in Jerusalem reading 'Bring back our boys'.
• Gaza War (2008–09), one of our outstanding NPOV violations with a dozen photos of Israel being 'attacked' by Hamas, and a couple of damage to Gaza, reversing the reality, we have two photos at the bottom of foreign protesting.
• On your argument the picture at British responses to the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire of a politician's poster advertising a protest against accepting Jewish immigrants from Russian pogroms is, on that page, soapboxing.
• 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict two photos of protests in Berlin and Helsinki.
• Israeli disengagement from Gaza has a Tel Aviv protest photo on behalf of the Gaza settlers, who represent as small a group as the Haredi.

Therefore the situations are identical, but you are making an exception if the 'victim' is Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The situations are not "identical". The protests regarding Gilad Shalit were actually about the topic. But the Neturei Karta signs are also or in fact primarily about something else -- Zionism. Their signs don't mention the Gaza border affair at all. It is inserting commentary about the legitimacy of Israeli statehood into an article that is not about that. --Calthinus (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, is it Nishidai's data above correct?

Gaza War (2008–09): "dozen photos of Israel being 'attacked' by Hamas, and a couple of damage to Gaza" @ Nishidani

• Gaza: Destroyed building in Rafah + Explosion in Gaza + Damage to the Zeitoun + Phosphorus cluster bombs + Palestinians in a Gaza city + Al Jazeera video + Destroyed buildings in Gaza + A satellite-based damage assessment of the Gaza Strip + Tent camp, Gaza Strip; Destroyed buildings in Gaza = 8
• Israel: Grad rocket hitting Beersheba + Kindergarten classroom in Beersheba + Repairs being made to water pip + Israelis running to bomb shelters + rocket attacks placed up to 800,000 people = 5

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict "two photos of protests in Berlin and Helsinki" @ Nishidani

• Quds Day 2014 pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin + pro-Israel demonstration in Helsinki - so what?

Israeli disengagement from Gaza, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers - what is it so unusual in a fact that significant (key word) parts - up to hundreds of thousands, of Israeli society use their right to demonstrate for or against?

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to Nishidani: Even though I do not agree that we need to remove the picture of NK, I especially disagree with the rationale you provided. It's very easy for someone to appear to be arguing against the opposing view when you're strawmanning them. Knowingly or unknowingly, that was just a bad argument: nobody even gave the appearance of an assertion that by definition all photos of protests are WP:SOAP. However, that doesn't mean that which images we do and do not display can absolutely be for WP:SOAP purposes, and I have reason to believe part of you knew this when you argued. It's possible to cherrypick the most extreme examples of one side being violent, downplay how many images we show of that same side being injured or killed, and create the illusion to any casual reader scrolling through the article was the opposite of what actually happened. Images in an article, just like the text of an article, are there to summarize it. Omission and inclusion can be equally charged, and all weight should be balanced. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's refreshing to hav editors who disagree, with an intelligible argument. I don't willingly create strawman arguments, there are far too many silly arguments for someone like myself to invent even sillier ones. I look at the operational and logical significance of arguments. And when I read:

As well as other protest images that have nothing (almost) to do with the events in Gaza. Showing pictures of protests, and the messages therein, in some of these is essentially WP:SOAPBOXing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I remarked (a) that an image of a protest over the Border Protests cannot be dismissed as having 'nothing' (almost) with the Border Protests in Gaza. To do so is in-your-face logical absurdity and (b) that to state 'showing pictures of protests (and the messages displayed) is essentially WP:SOAPBOXING,' is unambiguous in its implications: i.e. for the editor, it is legitimate to remove any protest picture and the message protestors are seen to make on the grounds its presence constitutes propaganda for a cause. That is absolutely dissonant with wiki policies. It would mean, operationally, censoring and excluding all protest photos. I take people at their written word. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I could see how a small minority of images, in proper balance, or international protests about the events in Gaza could be relevant. However, it is illogical for these to be a large proportion of the photographs in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Whom does NK represent at all? And another question: why is this sect so liked by Anti-Israeli propaganda? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Remove The NK are fringe yet savvy at branding themselves, because they are ultra orthodox Litvak Jews who make inflammatory statements. I think WP:SOAP is a difficult policy to enforce in general, when mere coverage of this topic is weaponized. Otherwise, all photos of Gaza solidarity protests outside of Gaza ought to be removed.

I specifically would support removing NK, since they do not reflect mass movements. If you want to cover anti/critical Zionist Jews, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, J-Street, All That's Left etc... would be better choices. There is obviously a history of anti Zionist Orthodox Jews as seen here Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism --Shushugah (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• There's a colossal difference between saying that we should remove what you describe as a fringe example and removing all photos of Gaza solidarity worldwide. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Replace NK image, do not remove all of the images or text relating to them Still include the text that mentions NK with sources, but replace the photo with some other international solidarity march. Images, like text, are here to provide an accurate summary of the event and its more important or interesting points, but featuring a random fringe group that, for strictly religious reasons, believes Israel cannot be formed until after the Messiah comes back is just WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group with little significance internationally. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this can be assessed without editors reviewing the overall presence of pics on this page. The breakdown is this:

• (1) Two photos of a deserted peaceful border from the Israeli side and one of a small motorized truck carrying demonstrators and tires on the Gaza side.
• (2) Two photos both dealing with Basques protesting the war (read the language on the banners)i.e.Gaza Iruñea elkartasuna 1.jpg Pamplona /File:Gaza Donostia protesta 2018 3.jpg San Sebastian
• (3) File:Damege caused by palestinian fire-kites 2.jpg in Israel.
• (4) Two photos of a pro-Gazan demonstration in ‘terrorist’ Tehran and Neturei Karta in London in one of several rallies there over the period. The Neturei Karta demonstration https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2018/04/gaza-london-protesters-denounce-killings-palestinians-180407172616217.html figures prominently in reports of that specific event in London

My assessment is that (1) is okay, despite the implicit message of a peaceful Israeli border and a crammed activist tire-burning Gaza border. (2) and (4) show demonstrations against Israel and for Gaza. That is undue, but the one photo people are pressing to elide is of a demonstration in London, on the grounds that neturei Karta is a fringe Jewish group. Well, take it out and you have 2 images of Basques demonstrating (a minority in Pamplona and San Sebastian), and one of Iran, the 'terrorist' state. You don't have to be Roland Barthes to get the message that those who protested did in obscure corners of the world, either a small ethnic minority in Spain, or a crowd in Iran. What is important about the Neturei Karta image is that it is one of a march that took place in London, you know, the real world. Objecting to the Haredi, and ignoring the fact that they were part of a large group protesting Israel's behavior in central London, leaves us with Basques and Iranians, as marginal as the Haredi in terms of world opinion. The 3rd is fine, but there is no corresponding picture of damage to Gaza or Gazans. So the overall selection is problematic, and singling out for erasure the NK pic doesn't solve the problem, it makes the POV subtextual message even more unbalanced. The elision leaves us with a photo message: there is a border for both, one quiet the other rambuctious; Israel was damaged; Iranians and Basques protested against Israel. The Neturei Karta image says -some Jews (in that April 7 demo there were quite a few small but vocal Jewish anti-Zionist secular people as well) protested, and did so in a major Western city. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

LIE in the article

In the section "Palestinian tactics" it is stated that during the "protests" ( In the next demonstration against animal cruelty I will also bring ak-47, it is a legitimate form of protest isn't it?), "Palestinian protesters have used burning tires to obstruct the sightlines of Israeli snipers", which is a complete lie, They did it regardless of the snipers, but just to go wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.115.168 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources say that tires were used to obstruct snipers, which is backed by the number of fatalities from long-distance snipers, you say that they were just carrying burning tires for no reason other than to go wild because they're basically stupid primates that want to act wild without motivation. I wonder which version is more trustworthy? With all due respect, you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot call it protests

There is a difference between internal protest within a state and "protest" in a nearby territory, Gaza, which is currently in an armed conflict with Israel. It can not be ignored, especially when "protesters" used stones, Molotov cocktails, guns and bombs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.115.168 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)