Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Involvement of Palestinian Factions

Both the PLFP and DFLP have announced their participation alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shouldn't they be added to the belligerent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.208.39 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second this, and also request the addition of the Popular Resistance Committees which have engaged in fighting also: see here --CommieMark (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Merging

With another page about the 2021 Jerusalem clashes, I think this page should merge with that one as to not cause confusion and possible misinformation. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry wrong page, remove reply Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the other article as redirect. Feel free to copy from history. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. however it might be better to have it moved to "2021 Arab/Israeli War."

The wave of attacks against Haredi looking Jews had predated the ruling and should be added to the background

The Background ignore the two weeks of violance by Palestinains which was targeted against mostly Haredi looking just a few examples At some point it was even described as TikTok Intefada where Palestians would attack Jews and then upload this to TikTok, by Ignoring these waves of attacks the articale make it look as if it was appear out of thin air.

While that may be true, twitter is not a source that can be used to justify additions to this or any page as a rule. Wikipedia guidelines prefer to uphold what it views as 'reliability' even if that comes at the cost of factuality. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if you do not like the twitter footage, there are many other sources that describe it and even court rullings which I had linked in my comment. Out of 11 refernces you had only three twitter links 2A00:C281:1804:4500:7093:17CA:887E:BFDD (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I am not disagreeing on the merits of those, but the twitter sources could not be a basis is all I am saying. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia were the terrorists narrative prevails, especially when it comes to Jews and Israel. Stop supporting terrorists (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Trying to set up a "they started it" argument is a bit pointless. Whichever incident(s) you like to pick someone else can just go further back in time and pick a different one. Anyway, for this article we go with what the reliable sources say was the proximate start, mainly Sheikh Jarrah.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Factual error in the lead

The lead says "and over 20 Palestinians being killed" yet , they had been killed in Gaza after Gaza rocket attacks triggered an Israeli retalitation (from the article itself). The same should be put in the casualty box— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c281:1804:4500:7093:17ca:887e:bfdd (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Clashes"

Several prominent figures have criticized the usage of the word "clashes" in relation to this incident, calling it non-neutral: "This is not a "clash" between two equal sides. This is a straightforward attack by Israel on Palestinians." As of right now, this is the term used by the title of this article. Should it be changed? I want to hear some input first. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like that's what all the references sources call it. No? | MK17b | (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Commondreams is not WP:RS to anything and clearly WP:UNDUE. Also please mind WP:SOAP Shrike (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Common Dreams is not WP:RS to anything" is not currently the opinion of WP:RSP. I also made no assertion about the neutrality or non-neutrality of the current title myself other than to point out that several people have challenged it, as reflected in that article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

From the guidance at WP:TITLE: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered... [s]ometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

If your issue is that the word "clashes" doesn't take enough of a side in a dispute, that seems like exactly the opposite of the kind of case that might make us override the WP:COMMONNAME used by reliable sources. "Clash" is indeed extremely benign/neutral/milquetoast, I don't see what problem using the same word that reliable sources do introduces here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Could it possibly be changed to 2021 Jerusalem Crisis or 2021 Israel-Palestine Crisis? I feel like the events have moved far beyond the clashes in Jerusalem, seeing as people have now been killed in airstrikes and rocket attacks. But I'm not sure what name would be better to more broadly reflect the events of the past several days. I do feel that "clashes" is just insufficient as this develops. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 13:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah possibly, e.g. from the NYT: [1] 20 people were killed in the airstrikes. The escalation followed clashes between the Israeli police and Palestinian protesters. I'm not sure if "crisis" is really used much by reliable sources, but there is possibly a word we can use that's a bit less anodyne than "clashes", which I agree probably does feel a bit insufficient for the way this has developed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

True true; I feel that “crisis” is the best descriptor. Even though it’s not the most commonly used by RS, I don’t know anyone on any side who wouldn’t refer to this as a crisis. The events are no longer just the clashes, and no longer just in Jerusalem. I don’t love keeping the current name and think it should be moved ASAP. If anyone has any better name suggestions feel free to add them.Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 16:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I see you made the move. Seems reasonable for the time being, though I would like to see going forward what reliable sources call this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I think crisis is a bit vague, I'd go for clashes. - Daveout(talk) 20:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Issue with the lede, the sentences claims the police forces "stormed" the mosque. This is highly biased and incendiary language, and is not what the source claimed. Moreover, it should be noted the REASON for the necessary raid, the mosque being the place where protesters/rioters hid after attacking police, as per several Israeli sources. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at the top of the talk page, please provide a reliable source for the change you want made, and also a more specific wording suggestion. Otherwise, it is unlikely your request will be granted. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not incendiary language, it is a factually neutral description of an incendiary event. I do not think the neutrality of this wording is legitimately in dispute. A term like "raided" (while also factually accurate and readily sourced ) is as or more "incendiary". As stated above, please provide sources. I suggest removing the parenthetical about neutrality. WillowCity (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IfNotNow

Remove ridiculous reference to IfNotNow, their credibility was only just diminished further by leaving up a tweet praising the desire of Palestinians to "bomb Tel Aviv" for over 24 hours. They are hardly a reliable source. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

IfNotNow is not used as a citation anywhere in the article. Your opinion on their credibility is OR and not relevant here, this is not a forum for airing grievances about advocacy organizations. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in first paragraph of article

"In response, on 10 and 11 May, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired over 400 rockets at Israel,[11]"

[11] is this article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/israel-palestine-rockets-fighting-hamas-evictions

But the citation source contradicts the text in this article. It says "No injuries or damage from the rockets have been reported." It also nowhere cites any number of rockets being fired, let alone 400. This is not an appropriate source for this claim.

I found another source that supports the 400 rockets being fired claim. Please see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-middle-east-news-2021-05-11/. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Causes in Infobox

At the time of writing the causes section in the Infobox reads "Planned decision by the Supreme Court of Israel to evict Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem".

The main article under Background suggests "Palestinian protesters were also frustrated with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas's decision to postpone the 2021 Palestinian legislative election, believing he had done so to avoid political defeat for his party Fatah."

Should the postponement of elections be added as a secondary cause or would this be Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Rename

The clashes are not limited, or even centered around on Jerusalem now. With the Gaza crossfire going on, protests around the country, etc., 2021 Jerusalem clashes doesn't really fit the bill. The dead happened in Gaza and Ashkelon. I personally have no opinion on what it should be renamed however. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6468:4049:4F65:6B1 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I moved it, anyone has anything better?Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be hyphenated as Israeli–Palestinian as in other articles, for example Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Arab–Israeli conflict.

Also the name of the linked Commons category should be changed to match any title. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Add refs

Hello, please add this event of "cases of Israeli civilians being attacked my mobsters", in TOI, H and JP: https://www.timesofisrael.com/some-280-palestinians-9-cops-hurt-in-latest-heavy-clashes-in-jerusalem/ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/palestinian-youth-injured-in-car-crash-in-old-city-riot-667743 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/video-shows-palestinian-mob-assaulting-jewish-driver-israeli-cop-intervening-1.9789998 Also in NYT, which added this event "The Hadassah Medical Center reported that a 7-month-old girl was treated after being slightly injured in the head by a rock." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/world/middleeast/jerusalem-protests-aqsa-palestinians.html

The event of "fireworks shot at Jewish home in East Jerusalem" : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/video-shows-fireworks-shot-at-jewish-home-in-east-jerusalem/

--Etudes jb (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Injuries

Just so everyone is aware, the pro-Israeli media always inflates injury numbers, for example, many Israelis currently being called injured are injured with anxiety, whereas Palestinians suffering from anxiety are not listed as being injured. Should we remove those with non-physical wounds, and trivial wounds like sprained ankles from the Israeli injury tally as there are no sources tallying the same for Palestinians? Of 19 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Of 19. Anxiety and trivial wounds are not included in Israeli counts. Secondly if you have a news source saying that they are feel free to mention in the article with the appropriate reference. Only verifiable references should be used to keep Wikipedia accurate. Nerguy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If you read the sources such as the jpost article you would quickly know that they are including anxiety and trivial wounds in their count. Why would you state otherwise? Please read the sources before oddly claiming I am wrong and embarrassing yourself. Of 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As I previously stated Of 19, since you believe there is a disparity, feel free to mention in the article with the appropriate references. However we cannot change the numbers that the media have presented. Also, I don't feel embarrassed for disputing something that has not been backed up by verifiable sources. Nerguy (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

From JPost: Of those injured on Tuesday, five were children, 26 were in light condition, 13 were suffering from anxiety, one person was moderately injured and two other people were seriously injured. Kinda think that should be spelled out. nableezy - 18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I see Nableezy that you have added anxiety. But the Wikipedia article counts the injured at 70, while the JP article you referenced counts them at 90. I will make the appropriate correction. Nerguy (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I am removing the 13 suffering from anxiety. It absolutely does not qualify as an injury or casualty, and you will not find one other Wiki article that documents how many people were anxious during a war. I can guarantee you nearly 100% of the millions of people in the region are anxious. I am incredibly anxious over this, does that mean we should add a section of 1 person in the US with anxiety? No. 90-13=77, so I am changing it to 77 injured. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 19:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a great solution either. I obviously agree that reporting "anxiety" as an injury in a civil conflict seems stupid, but taking it out and using 90-13=77 seems worse, and is probably original research. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What about a footnote? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that there are probably thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who have gotten anxiety from this situation who aren't going to be reported in RS (because doing so is blatantly a tactic to inflate injury numbers in an obviously one sided conflict), I don't really think it's worth mentioning it all. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I would honestly prefer to just remove both of the civilian injury counts from the infobox for now. There's a dispute going on over the Palestinian count too, and at this point in time the numbers seem bound to be an inaccurate mess. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldnt be included, but if the numbers we are including do include anxiety that should be made clear in the infobox. nableezy - 18:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove all of the injury counts. Only list counts for the actual wounded. Dom Zero (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed during the previous Israel-Gaza war as well when Israel included those suffering from anxiety among their "injured". And the result of that discussion was that they should not be included in the infobox which is reserved for physical injuries only. If the same cited source says that 90 were "injured" out of which 13 were suffering from anxiety it would not be original research to write 77 wounded in the infobox since it would be in line with WP:CALC policy. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021 (2)

"Which the Times of Israel described as supporting Hamas", there's clear video footage of them holding Hamas flags. JoshRichards98 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Include info criticizing media coverage

Not sure if this source is reliable, but it seems to do a good job at summarizing criticisms of the media coverage of this incident. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In determining whether the source is reliable, a good guide is WP:Newsorg and WP:Questionable. The article itself reads more like an editorial or opinion piece, though I admit that the content is interesting. I am just concerned that the source is not one readily known as being reliable. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

26 civilians killed?

User:Gianluigi02 you have reverted me without providing any source for your edit of 26 Palestinians civilians and 4 militants being killed. Yet you contradict IDF's claim of the death toll even though they're a party to the conflict and even the Palestinians aren't disputing them. It was clearly said in earlier reports that 26 Palestinians in total have been killed, including nine children and one woman, plus IDF said 16 militants [2]. Later it was said 28 had been killed including 10 children and one woman [3].

I wonder where you are getting your claim of only 4 militants being killed. I believe you're basing your claim on 4 Palestinian militant commanders being killed, but those aren't the only militants necessarily killed. Do not make edits using your own belief or conjecture. Revert your edit please. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a report about one more Palestinian militant being killed, belonging to Palestinian intelligence services per a Palestinian security source. Your claim of 4 militants being killed is clearly wrong and has no basis. [4] LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

According to NBC 30 Palestinians including ten children have been killed. [5] Neither it nor any source mentions 26 civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

26 (9 children)was an earlier figure from the Palestinian Health Ministry, it's at least 30 now (10) + 3 Israelis. (Reuters and NBC)Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I've clarified that they were earlier or later figures. But no one said 26 civilians or 30 civilians were killed. Not even the Palestinian Health Ministry. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Independent originally said 26 civilians in Gaza but changed it later to Palestinians.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If it changed it as you say then that represents it realised it had wrong information. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's always the same, current AP reporting is 28 (including 10 children + a woman) with Israel claiming that 15 of them were militants. Might as well just wait for things to settle down a bit (or not).Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Only 4 militants are confirmed dead so far. The other identities confirmed are those of 10 civilian children and a woman. The identity of 15 other victims is not known so far, many are suspected to be civilians, so we should add them among the civilian casualties at least so far. Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

4 militant commanders are confirmed dead so far by Palestinians. Add another militant killed [6] by Palestinians. You're only using is Palestinians confirming who has been killed. But disregard Israel's claims, even though it can monitor who was killed. That's not the correct way to go and bias for one side is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just because identities of others are not confirmed by Palestinians, does not mean you call them civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

See below section, sources from either side at least need attribution and ideally a third party source instead.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Gianluigi is using Palestinian claims. Since the other parties are just repeating what they say, it's the wrong way. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Add contradictory claims, we will sort it out later.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction however? Palestinians never contradicted Israel's toll. The only one making a contradiction is Gianluigi. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Tolls from either side are unreliable. Truth first casualty of war, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why use Palestinian claims? The claims of how many died are actually all linked to Palestinian statements. Not like any of the journalist went there to count or saw a hospital list of the dead. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have anything more to add beyond what I have already said.Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you remember Palestinians never said at least five militants were killed. Gianluigi is thus using his own conjecture. There is nothing to contradict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Situation in Lod

Why is this article referring to them as "Arab mobs" and implying that they're going on a pogrom against Israeli Jews? What's the rationale for that kind of wording and POV? 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't made that edit. Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I belived that this question was on my own talk page.😅 Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited article uses that term: "Arab Israeli killed amid violent riots by Arab mob in Lod; Jewish suspect held". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're gonna be putting that in wikivoice we better have a damn good reason. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ToI? Think I'll start including WAFA.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If your concern is about the source's reliability, that is an issue much larger than any individual article and you should take those concerns to WP:RSN. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources from either side need attribution at a minimum, a better source for preference.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "side". The Times of Israel is an independent newspaper, not part of the Israeli government. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We should prefer third party sourcing (wp:independent).Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Reuters "In the ethnically mixed Israeli town of Lod, near Tel Aviv, witnesses quoted by Israeli media said one or two armed Jews shot at rioting Arabs, killing one and wounding two. The dead man's father told the Walla news site he had been ambushed while on a family visit." See the difference?Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The Times of Israel literally is a third party source! The only COI they have here is happening to be in the same country. I will repeat what I said, which is that I implore you to take this to WP:RSN if you think there's an issue; this is not the correct venue for determining that otherwise, as this issue would surely affect many more articles. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Granny suck eggs, heard of that one?Selfstudier (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine, just don't say it's my fault that the issue you're arguing about won't get resolved when you've been made amply aware of how to actually go about fixing it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha TOI is a mouthpiece for the Likud party. It's not neutral, hence the "Arab mobs" claptrap. 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall blaming you for anything? And I know how to fix it, just delete it and replace it with a better source (when I am in the mood, it's not that important).Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that it's a "mouthpiece for the Likud Party". It's just an independent news source from Israel. The only legit l claims I could find about it being biased (From Media Bias/Fact Check) were actually that it's left-center leaning (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/). --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a good way to check. Does the TOI repeat the same things as the Likud party? Does it accept what the Likud party and Netanyahu say without question or criticism? They can't even refer to the Palestinians as "protesters" as opposed to "terrorists" in regards to unarmed people demonstrating. 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For controversial matters, we should prefer sources that are uninvolved when editing in IP area. If the material is accurate, it is usually very simple to find such sources.Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Article neutrality

After reading the article and looking at it's recent edit history, I see a clear bias against the Israeli side, or in support of the Palestinian side. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC) For example: https://i.imgur.com/MRTKIiJ.png . This is clearly from a non-neutral point of view

You must be joking. Unless you think that reporting on the events as they occur is "biased towards Palestine". 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit using reliable and ideally, independent sources with due weight, etc etc. That usually fixes things after a while.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit this page. Just my observation. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You may ask for edits to be made using an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We had seen with responses of Nableezy and others, half truths (about the lynch attempts of Jews) in this very page, this articale now is a joke and filled with factual erros from the lead to the internel sections favoring the Palestinian side. It says Palestinian Civilians when even the sources does not say they had been civilians, Original Resarch and outright lies are ok as long it is favoring the Palestinain side. Not a word about the waves of lycnh attempts against Jews nor the rocket attacks before this clashes. A lie that Ben Gvir opening his office in Sheikh Jarah triggered clashes while he moved his office there AFTER daily attacks and lynch attempts against Jews. The fact that Palestinian militants had been doing agro terrosism BEFRE the event is not even covered and it looks as if it started with the clashes, a date is selected about Sheikh Jarah when since April there had been attacks by Arabs against Jews 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Clashes section should be organized by location

AllegedlyHuman thanks for reverting my mistake. I think the "Clashes" section should be organized by location. Right now it is hard to follow. I think the main flashpoints have been: Sheikh Jarrah, Lod and Al-Aqsa mosque and we can have a further subsection for "Other".VR _talk 23:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead chronology

The lead currently says

In response, on 10 and 11 May, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired over 400 rockets into Israel, hitting homes and a school, killing two Israeli civilians and injuring at least 70 Israeli civilians. Israel responded with airstrikes into Gaza, and according to Gaza officials at least 30 Palestinians were killed, including ten children, and 203 more were wounded. According to the Israel Defense Forces, at least fifteen of those killed were members of Hamas, and many others were killed by Palestinian rockets.

This implies that all the Israeli casualties happened before all the Palestinian casualties. But my impression from the news is that there have been several rounds of both Palestinian and Israeli attacks and the casualties are spread throughout said rounds. So can we phrase this differently?VR _talk 00:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Useful article

This article > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/11/dead-in-gaza-after-jerusalem-violence-spreads may be useful. Beeveria (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I've added it to a new further reading section. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a further reading section with a random article in it. Why highlight this specific article? You can just use it to source prose in the article body. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables?

Not sure what making these tables adds, and I thought the previous breakdown of Mideast reactions was helpful as well. Tables also make it so the photos do not go with their respective nations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, can we not start every sentence with the date? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

There's so many reports say that the Israeli civilian casualties increased, but I see no updates in the infobox. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It can take up to several hours for information to be updated in the article; the situation is rapidly escalating and initial news reports can be unreliable. If you have any reliable sources with updated figures, feel free to provide them on the talk page and the article will be updated. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 01:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Due to this being a current event it's going to be moving a bit slowly to update. Wikipedia doesn't break news, it follows. If you have any RS's that could help us update the tally that would be much appreciated. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Area vs neighborhood

As I was thinking about cleaning up the article a little bit I ran into a bit of a pickle. One time we call Sheikh Jarrah an "area" and another time we call it a "neighborhood". I don't have any preference for either, but can someone a little more clued in give some advice on which way the article should go.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Sheikh Jarrah uses "neighborhood", so let's go with that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use the terminology in the subject's article. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

400 rockets?

The only source we had for the claim in the lead that 400 rockets were fired is from the Washington Examiner, which per WP:RSP isn't great: "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." I am having difficulty finding other sources to back this up (keeping in mind WP:CITOGENESIS). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

NBC News says 480 rockets. Feel free to add it if you like. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

160 "operations" against Gaza during the same time, at that. Huh.2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and added it myself and removed the dubious template. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest news reports state well over 1,000 have been fired to-date.50.111.52.57 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Flip flopping on casualties section

Currently the israeli side of the casualties section has swapped from the anxiety claim, to injuries minus the anxieties, to back to 90+ injuries (which includes incredibly light injuries and the anxiety claim that are absolutely not "casualties") the article itself gives the breakdown that "Of those injured on Tuesday, five were children, 26 were in light condition, 13 were suffering from anxiety, one person was moderately injured and two other people were seriously injured." The claim of 90+ casualties at this point is laughably dubious. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On the same note, why are the palestinian non-combatant casualties simply referred to as "palestinian" and not "palestinian civilians" as israeli citizens are in their own section? Paragon Deku (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Injured are injured. Original research over what you consider an injury is not necessary. Besides that, you don't know if the specific determinations (anxiety, light condition, children, etc.) in the article are mutually exclusive. Our job is to provide sourced claims, not speculate ourselves. With respect to specifying casualties as "civilian" or otherwise, I would assume that that distinction is being made on the Israeli side because we have the breakdown of how many casualties are civilians there. If you have a similar breakdown for the Palestinian casualties, please feel free to include it. Don't just guess. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's Original research to call into question why anxieties are included in the Israeli injury count and not at all in the palestinian count. I'm sure if we were including "anxiety" we would have about half of the child population of Palestine who reportedly have no will to live. As for not speculating about "sourced claims," I'd like to wonder what the entire point of discussion on the reliability of sources stands for if not to speculate or question the accuracy of statements and what we choose to put in wikivoice. Furthermore, why are you simply assuming why the distinction is being made rather than seeing the sources for yourself, which clearly outline that the injuries are to palestinian civilians? Paragon Deku (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion was held earlier, see section "Injuries". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the rapid pace at which this talk page and the main article are moving, I wanted to address the specific usage of the term "civilians" and the re-inclusion of the anxiety "injuries" despite lack of consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it is. Assuming that the source is adding people suffering only anxiety into their number of injuries is OR. Doing math to determine the "real" number of casualties is OR. If you have a source with different figures, you're welcome to provide it. You're also welcome to discuss whether a particular source is reliable or not. You're not welcome to change the figures given by a source to fit your opinion on what they should be.

I'm not assuming anything about the distinction being made. The AP source says 35 Palestinians were killed by the air strikes in Gaza. Does it say how many were civilians? No. The Times of Israel piece says the Palestinian health authorities say 32 Palestinians were killed; it also says the IDF claims "at least 18 militants" were killed. You can't synthesize the figures in these sources to determine how many civilians were killed. If you find a source that says how many civilians were killed/wounded and it is reliable, then we can change the data in the casualties section. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just pointing out [math isn't OR]. I would argue that it is misleading and undue to report "anxiety" as "casualties", and that doing basic math to remove those suffering "anxiety" isn't OR. BSMRD (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means, let's include Palestinian anxiety victums and civilian vs militants numbers. Just find a reliable sources providing these numbers. “WarKosign” 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You won't find an RS providing those numbers because cooking up casualties by including "anxiety" is a dishonest tactic used to make the situation seem less one-sided than it is. For the sake of talk page discussions you can put in an iota of self-critique of sources without needing to dredge up RS's for everything. And for the record, I provided an RS that takes UN testimony on the fact that half of Palestinian children in 2008 demonstrated almost no will to live. If we REALLY wanted to go there, we could probably find UN reports on the psychological health of Palestinians and bloat up those numbers nice and easy. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is reprting 16 or 17 year-old militant casualties as "children" a honest tactic? What you are saying about may be valid claims, but this is original research and has no place on the Wikipedia. Once there are sources that provide numbers of Palestinian axiety victums in this conflict - we can use them. 2008 and other historical UN numbers are irrelevant. “WarKosign” 07:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is that including any "anxiety" tally as a casualty is, to be blunt, completely fucking ridiculous. I'm in the boat of removing the casualty section until we have solid reporting on the topic, because as is there's clearly some inflation by "anxiety" that is not including in any other casualty tally on any other wikipedia article. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how else to tell you that you can't just make up numbers. Repeating the same assertion isn't going to make it more valid. Start an RfC if you want, but you're not going to get consensus to subtract 13 from 90 because the source says they "were suffering from anxiety," because you can't prove that the conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. that "suffering from anxiety" was their only injury. Again, I urge you to actually read the Wikipedia policy on original research. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the issue has been raised multiple times now, an RfC on the casualties section may actually be warranted, just to get consensus on what to do with it generally. BSMRD (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

BSMRD, while I have you, synthesizing numbers from different parts of the source, used in different contexts, is explicitly against WP:SYNTH and not a "routine calculation": Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we just "make up numbers," I'm suggesting the casualty section be removed entirely or reworked to account for this given that the impression it leaves is inaccurate. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The better solution would be to source the claim that injuries are not over 90. Then we can update the figures in the casualty box. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I heartily disagree, as I am sure several other users do as well. It's going to be hard to find a reliable source for an ongoing conflict that reports death and injury statistics accurately, and considering that the Jerusalem Post is not the most reliable source to begin with, citing them alone for civilian injuries is a pretty hefty WP:EXTRAORDINARY issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not bring your disagreements into here, base your arguments on facts and policies only. Also do note that one wrong report does not make a website unreliable. That said Jerusalem Post did not claim the cure for cancer claims were definitely a fact [7]. Start a discussion on Reliable sources noticebosard and you'll need to include many examples of consistent deliberate false reporting, not just it being wrong once in a while. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

JP, ToI etc cannot be relied on in this context, claims should be independently sourced. JP was even paid by IsGov to slander BDS and they did.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "do not bring your disagreements into here?" What is a talk page for? My argument is based on the fact that anxiety is not a casualty. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It means do not bring your personal thoughts and opinions here about a subject. We and in fact many news sites do include shocks and traumas or anxieties often in attacks. So not a big deal. This isn't the first time. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there another wikipedia article that counts "anxiety" as a casualty? Paragon Deku (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As for IsGov paying JPost for BDS please provide a link and take it to RS noticeboard because that's ground for banning a source. But ToI is an independent newspaper so there is nothing wrong with it, even if it's Israeli, as long as it's not overused. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim you used them for earlier (ToI blog) already turned out to be wrong. JP situation is well known, look it up. If you use these sources, needs attribution at a minimum and ideally an independent source (stuck record). This is normal for the IP area, I am not just saying it for fun.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, neither ToI nor JD are listed on WP:RSP one way or the other. "Look it up," isn't a valid argument, by the way. Source your statements, please. What claim turned out to be wrong? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

They are not RS for IP area because not independent of conflict. The false claim (ToI blog for militants killed) has already been removed from the article so no longer an issue. As I said, JP issue is well known to editors in this area, look it up.Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me which claim from ToI turned out to be wrong. I have also looked up your claim about BDS and JPost, since I couldn't find any I have questioned you. We cannot always have uninvolved information. That's why uninvolved is only preferred and not the only type of source allowed. The Gaza death toll for example is from the Gaza health officials. Not independent claim, and it's not even represented as being (per Gaza health officials/Hamas/Palestinians) to represent it's one-sided claim. But it's wrong if someone uses an Israeli source? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I just told you above, it has been removed, it is right there in the editing history. https://www.972mag.com/israeli-propaganda-bds-jerusalem-post/ "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special". I said that if you use them , it needs attribution at a minimum (so that readers can apply judgement as to validity) and ideally an independent source, I did not say you could not use them.Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you look it up. By that measure, we can't include Al Jazeera sources either, since they wouldn't be "independent of the conflict." (See WP:RSP.) Of course, that's nonsense. The militant claim did not "turn out to be wrong." Again, please provide a source that says so. The ToI source quoted the Israeli Government, so unless you think they are unfaithfully reporting what the government told them, I don't really see your case for saying it "turned out to be wrong." AlexEng^(TALK) 09:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the way I do things even if you are not. The ToI source did not attribute their claim to IsGov, they stated it in their voice as as fact (ToI blog). AJ is independent RS (ie not Israeli and not Palestinian). There is little need to rely on these sources when clearly independent sources are plentiful.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

SelfStudier I assume you're referring to Gianluigi deciding to remove number of militants killed per Israel That's actually a disruptive edit by him as he (and you) are selectively establishing yourself who is true or false without proof. Even when the Palestinians never contradicted them. The tactic you used is that Hamas and PIJ haven't confirmed the total number of militants killed, only their prominent members who are worth a notice ie commanders. That does not mean total number of militants killed.

Note also the website you use [8] provides no documentary proof of JPost being paid. What is also to be noted is that +972 Magazine is uniformly anti-occupation of Palestine [9]. It's quite clear you're against Israeli sources here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also AJ is not independent, it's funded by Qatar which is partial to Hamas and the outlet is often pro-Palestinian. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP disagrees. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It does though, "some editors" (even though it is one person), implying minority, do not get to decide whether Al Jazeera is a partisan source. I have gone through all the previous discussions listed on the perennial sources page. That summary is misleading and implies consensus of multiple people when in reality it's one person, who might have a WP:COI as evidenced by their edits, see [10]. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that the whole premise of that anti-JP article in +972 Magazine is bunk, considering the fact that the back cover of that special supplement clearly says State of Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy right at the top, with the logo and everything. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You can be as happy as you like, but that doesn't mean that you have consensus to remove sources. You are wrong regarding the ToI source: Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists. The name of the conflict is the Arab-Israeli Conflict per the DS notice right at the top of this page. Al Jazeera is an Arabic news source. Moreover, if you'd read WP:RSP which I have now linked multiple times, it says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. which is more of a consensus than the non-mention of JP or ToI. I've yet to see a "clearly independent source" mention the number of wounded Israelis. If you're hiding one, cough it up, please. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier just so you know, ToI did say it was Israel's claim that 18 militants had been killed [11]. "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists". Your whole claim of ToI being false is itself false. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't put the material in and I didn't remove it either. If I edit the article I will source my edits using independent third party sources.Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't say that. But you were wrongly claiming what ToI said was false and it didn't attribute the number of dead militants to Israel. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the editor who removed it says in his edit summary that the claim was false and I agree with him based on the evidence. And using the ToI blog (saying "Israel" is not attribution) as a source is really not a good idea but now I am merely repeating myself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One editor calling a source false is not evidence. Saying Israel is attribution, just like "India said x number of people died". It refers to an official channel. What else do you need? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume they got their info from that well known source of disinformation, the IDF, but they didn't say so, nor did they attribute it to anyone else. All I need is a reputable third party independent source.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your clear bias is showing here, because IDF's no less disreputable than Palestinian sources themselves. Everyone doesn't need to clarify the obvious for you. When they say Israel they don't mean Palestine or United States. What you "need" is really irrelevant here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You know what you can do with your allegations of bias. I already said clearly that info from either side cannot be relied on.Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet you go on to use a ridiculous claim like ToI never attributing, when it did. If that's not bias then what is? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's chat later, I have things to do.Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

adding content

add "Hamas claim victory "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-hails-victory-in-battle-for-jerusalem-after-onslaught-on-central-israel/

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202105121082863798-hamas-leader-claims-victory-in-the-battle-for-jerusalem-amid-israeli-palestinian-escalation/

--Sandtransman (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal Operation Guardian of the Walls to here

I'd propose merging Operation Guardian of the Walls to here, since the bulk of article is casualties list which is duplicated in both articles Shushugah (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand the rush to split that out, maybe later on when things settle down a bit, it's just duplicating what's here mainly.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support: I say that we should merge these articles to make a "C-Rated" Article. At-least it is better then 2 "Start-Rated" articles. DXLBandLokiBlaster 13:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Update

It appears someone has already redirected the page to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

bruh DXLBandLokiBlaster 15:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (2)

In the reactions section, will someone please add this to the UN reaction as the Middle East envoy said this and it is not there: Stop the fire immediately. We’re escalating towards a full scale war.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/gaza-un-warns-of-full-scale-war-between-israel-and-palestinians.html • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I did see that earlier but there is a UNSC meeting later on today so why not wait and see what comes out from there? A short delay won't hurt.Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"A large crowd of Israeli Jews..."

At § Reactions #Israeli and Palestinian, a sentence states A large crowd of Israeli Jews gathered around a fire near the mosque on 10 May, chanting yimakh shemam. IfNotNow co-founder Simone Zimmerman criticized them as exhibiting "genocidal animus towards Palestinians — emboldened and unfiltered".

References

This is WP:UNDUE. The event is disputed (as described at § Social media), Mrs. Zimmerman is a non-notable individual and the sources cited are both heavily biased. Compare this with the rest of the paragraph, which quotes Israeli and Palestinian officials. --JBchrch (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe it is WP:UNDUE. First of all, I am sorry but I can not see how two US non-profit news agencies are characterized as biased at the same time where Times of Israel is not. Second of all, I believe we should include Simone Zimmerman, because of her co-ownership of IfNotNow and also for her role as the director of B'Tselem. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The Intercept is biased according to WP:RSP. Common Dreams explicitly publishes "for the progressive community". Zimmerman is director of B'Tselem USA [12], not the Israeli organisation. If this is really WP:DUE, we can certainly find sources that are more neutral and have higher standards. Please note, for your information, that I would have the exact same position if a certain fact were sourced exclusively to The Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel. JBchrch (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We can attribute the statement to The Intercept then, if needed. As for Common Dreams' publication for the progressive community, I am not sure if I would call it "explicit", it's not like they self-identify their news as explicitly directed toward the progressive community. The comment about Zimmerman is true, but I still do think her opinion should be included, though maybe attributed a bit differently. About my ToI comment, I am sorry if you felt that the Times of Israel part was a direct attack on you. It was based off my observation of some people on this talk page, who seem to think it is not a biased source by itself. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That section jumps around date wise, I am not clear precisely where this material fits in the timeline of events, in general I would prefer a less pithy description of what occurred, the quote can be included inside the ref.Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries for the Times of Israel comment. Yes, the page title for their home page says "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community". Regarding comments on the event, the § Social Media paragraph has two "critical reactions", one from the Intercept and one from Ayman Odeh, both of which are notable. I still think this is sufficient and that there is no need to add Zimmerman, but I'll let the consensus approve of disapprove. JBchrch (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A separate question is whether it is duplication of the material in the social media section? If it is decided that the Zimmerman comments should remain, should they move to be with the discussion of the video? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Perhaps moving it to the social media section and placing it alongside David Patrikarakos' claim of it being "fake news" would be good for WP:DUE? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that as well, it's definitely in an odd position right now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I moved it per above.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (3)

A Palestinian rights group says eight of the Palestinian casualties from the past 48 hours, including two children-aged 16 and 5- were killed by a Palestinian rocket that fell short, not Israeli airstrikes. Jonrave (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could you please provide a reliable source? JBchrch (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source for this claim that at least 8 Palestinians, including two children, were killed be a rocket that fell short in this particulare incident. JoshRichards98 (talk)

Ref controversy

The choice of Al Jazeera for the death count lack coherence with the neutral point of view principle.

For example precisions about death toll etc is necessary.

An example to add : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-group-at-least-some-gaza-child-victims-killed-by-failed-rocket-fire/

--Sandtransman (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s safe to say neither group is going to be neutral for reporting causes of death and the casualty section is iffy until we have neutral parties ruling on it. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:98 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Times of israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:3663:2b00:e553:701b:a29d:f4a8 (talk • contribs)

It might be good, might not, the DCIP website can be read by anyone but ToI is saying "The veracity of the group’s reporting is not known." so who knows? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I was checking that earlier:

• The New York Times says Two days of Israeli strikes on Gaza, which is controlled by the militant group Hamas, have killed at least 53 Palestinians, including 14 children, and wounded more than 300 people in Gaza by Wednesday afternoon, according to Palestinian health officials. [13].
• Reuters say At least 53 people have been killed in Gaza since violence escalated on Monday, according to the Palestinian territory's health ministry. [14],
• The Washington Post says Some 48 Gazans, including 14 children, according to Palestinian health officials, and six Israelis, including one teenage girl, according to Israeli emergency response officials, have been killed [15]
• AP says The death toll in Gaza rose to 48 Palestinians, including 14 children and three women, according to the Health Ministry. More than 300 people have been wounded, including 86 children and 39 women. [16]
• the Wall Street Journal says Israeli strikes and Hamas rocket fire have so far killed 56 Palestinians, including 14 children, and six Israelis, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials. [17] and
• the BBC says At least 53 Palestinians and six Israelis have been killed since Monday. That includes 14 Palestinian children caught up in the conflict. [18]

I propose we say that "As of the 12 May, 53 Palestinians had been killed, including 14 children, according to Palestinian officials.", sourced to the NYT, Reuters, and the BBC. JBchrch (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there is no consensus that "Times of Israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera" as Selfstudier said above. I agree that the statement you proposed is well supported and should be in place, JBchrch. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I did not say that, it was an unsigned edit made by some one else.Diff And that's the second time now that you have made misleading statements about what I have said.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has a known biased against Israel and is known to report things that did not happen,i but it is no surprise this page is using it as a source given the Anti Israeli bias in this page. 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Should Lod have a subsection?

In the article the riots in Lod seem to be particularly serious. The mayor says the city has "completely lost control" and describes it as "near civil war", it is the first time since 1966 that Israel has used emergency powers over an Arab community, and the President of Israel described the riots as a pogrom. The BBC 2 and the Guardian in the UK have coverage of Lod independent of their coverage of the clashes in general. Therefore, would it be appropriate to have a subsection within clashes for Lod? or would this be too finer subdivision of an already smallish section? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps not yet, there is a curfew, right? The main point here I think is not Lod per se but that the problems have spread to mixed ethnicity areas within Israel.https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/violence-grips-mixed-arab-jewish-towns-israel-tensions-flare-2021-05-12/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-arabs-palestinians-protests-unrest/2021/05/12/af8df29a-b308-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html?Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Lod and Al-Aqsa mosque should both have subsections as I proposed at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Clashes section should be organized by location.VR _talk 17:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that subsections would break up the timeline. It's convenient at this point to see how everything escalated and in what order.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and did it anyway so I included Gaza as a subsection for consistency, all under the heading escalation.Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier can we separate the protests and clashes from the IDF-Hamas war that has now erupted? On the other hand if people disagree with my organization I'll go ahead and self-revert.VR _talk 17:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I just continued your idea ie each to its own geographical section, I think West Bank needs to be in there too, probably. People should be able to track the escalation. And the casualties should be separated out to it's own place.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Reaction of Pope Francis

Add the reaction of Pope Francis on this situation, "I pray that the city might be a place of encounter and not of violent clashes, a place of prayer and peace, I invite everyone to seek shared solutions, so that the multi-religious and multi-cultural identity of the Holy City might be respected and that fraternity might prevail. Violence generates only violence, enough with the clashes" Chxeese (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Though this wasn't formally an edit request, it has been done (albeit with different sources). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (4)

2401:4900:5A50:4E80:5547:773D:BEA2:9661 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the section above this one is the same user.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Casualty section

Considering there have been numerous questions regarding the accuracy of the casualty statistics reported by the sources we have available (including whether or not anxiety counts as a casualty and how best to apply this in an article), I'm proposing the casualty section be removed until enough foresight is given by reliable sources to give accurate numbers. Constantly updating the tally with potentially inaccurate information does not seem like a good route to go. I may end up opening an RfC if a consensus can't be reached, but I think it's in the best interest of the page to remove it and would like to know whether other editors of this page support or oppose the concept. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll go with the flow, personally I am OK with just using the infobox provided that we use only the best sources for updates.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AP just released an article with what seem to be more accurate casualty statistics, although Israeli injuries are left at an unclear "dozens," but it looks to be there are accurate death tolls. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the section altogether. If it's adequately sourced, it's germane to the article and good to have. There's no deadline to have the exact statistics. It can be updated as new information becomes available. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Malaysian response to the crisis

The Prime Minister of Malaysia has released a press statement condemning Israel here. External source here. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added with quick summary and sourcing. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (5)

you could change the number of Israeli civilians killed from 5 to 6 after the latest casualty according to this source. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-paramedics-year-killed-rocket-strike-apartment-building-77648145 Whitesin21 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli protester casualty

Shouldn't the Arab-Israeli protester casualty, currently on the Palestinian side on the casualty table, shouldn't they be on the Israeli side? Since even though they were an arab-israeli protesting, killed in skirmish with Israel Police Force, they were still Israeli, so would be an Israel casualty...

It's very clear what side of the conflict they were on. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Arab-Israelis are (appropriately) listed as a belligerent on the Palestinian side, as the relevant Arab-Israelis are currently engaged in protests and some riots against Israeli security forces. So even though they are Israeli citizens, they're opposing the Government of Israel in this circumstance. By analogy, even though American revolutionaries were British subjects, they were counter to British forces during the Revolution, alongside their allies of France and Spain. Again, that's an analogy and by no means the same situation, but the reference is the same. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As stated by AP [19] they are supporting the Palestinians in this conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (6)

A 5 year old child has died of his injuries after a rocket barrage from Hamas hit his home in Sderot. SteelMailbox (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (7)

Shronanigans (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a few typos and formating inconsistencies. Several places list "in (date)" instead of "on (date)." Additionally, the date format is inconsistent throughout the article. Some have the day then month (9 May) while others have the month then day (May 9).

Thanks for your suggestion. Please note that the article is being worked on at a fast pace, in order to keep up with the news developments. Copy-editing will probably be dealt with at a later stage, when the article is more stable (unless an extended-confirmed editor performs a copyedit earlier). JBchrch (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done I don't see any dates that need correcting. Possibly, they were already fixed by other editors. If you have any specific corrections, please reactivate the request per the instructions. Please also include the exact text that needs to be corrected, and the replacement text to be substituted. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths in lead

Currently, we're sourcing the number of deaths in the lead to the New York Times, but the piece seems to indicate that only 35 Palestinians had been killed by the night of 11 May. A previous version of the article may have supported the 65 (According to the AP, this is what Gaza's health ministry claims), but I don't think it's appropriate to use the source to provide for a number it doesn't actually give. The Wall Street Journal, as of 5:53 GMT today, seems to be reporting 56 Palestinian deaths (including 14 children) and seven Israeli deaths (including 1 child). The reporting from WSJ appears to be based on the numbers given by both Israel and Palestine. The WSJ source, however, doesn't give a good estimation on the number of casualties of Palestinians (though it says >200 Israelis have been injured in rocket attacks since the evening of 10 May). A more recent report from the Times of London seems to put the Palestinian death toll at 53 (including 14 children) and the Israeli death toll at 7 (including 1 child). This is an increase in the number of Israeli deaths reported by the Times of London earlier today. France 24 currently reports 56 Palestinian deaths (including 14 children) and an additional >300 casualties in Gaza in addition to 6 Israeli deaths (including one child). Argentina's Clarín reports that 65 Gazans have died (including 16 children) and that at least 7 Israelis have died (including one child), and Argentina's La Nación reports that 65 Gazans have dies (including 16 children).

The WSJ, NYT, Times of London, France 24, La Nación, and Clarín are all respectable sources, though there seems to be general disagreement on the number of casualties/deaths here (likely owing to the fact that this is ongoing). WSJ and Times of London seem to be in agreement on the deaths of the 14 Palestinian Children and the number of Israeli deaths, though they slightly differ on the total number of Palestinian deaths (both of which are much higher than NYT). Argentine media, as well as Arab media, reports the 65 number and the 16 children dying pretty consistently, though Arab media seems to be doing so with attribution to the Gazan health ministry. All of this is to say, I'm editing the lead to incorporate more recent reporting (I think noting a range of deaths is better than picking one number, especially when reputable sources disagree), and I'm editing the relevant sections to incorporate the reporting from the various sources, so as to try to avoid overreliance on a single source here. As time goes on, I expect all these estimates to change upwards, though I figure that doing this now will help the article to better reflect the current situation and will provide a framework to build upon as new reports come in. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I moved the casualties section to its own space as it is not just Gaza. Someone suggested we might do away with it altogether, idk if that's workable.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

They all take their info from Hamas and they say it.We should attribute it too. --Shrike (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two more problems with this article

1. The article has a paragraph starting "On the morning of 9 May, the final Friday of Ramadan"; however, 9 May was Sunday, not Friday.
2. The issues surrounding the controversial "Flag Dance" of Jerusalem Day, 10 May, and its influence on the crisis, is completely ignored.

Animal lover 666 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's messed up, Friday 7th.Selfstudier (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Did Israeli police enter the Al-Aqsa mosque

According to Israel national news on 10th May, they did not enter and only made arrests outside. Says in the wiki that they stormed the Mosque Compound, however I suppose 'compound' may be the outside part also. However maybe it should make mention of this claim that they did not enter the Mosque building itself.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/305906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ester9001 (talk • contribs)

They threw stun grenades and tear gas into the actual mosque itself, but I don't think they actually entered it on foot, just the compound (though they broke the windows of the mosque from outside to throw things in). This could probably be explained, but it seems most sources just talk about them entering "the compound" and leave it at that. E.g. NYT, or the Al Jazeera source currently in use. The source you linked above was referencing a statement from the Israel police, which would probably have to be attributed if we were to include it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wounded vs Injured

The article uses both terms seemingly interchangeably, I think it would be good for the presentation of the article to establish consensus on one term for use, especially for the infobox, instead of switching between the two. Personally I prefer wounded, thoughts? BSMRD (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to pick one – and it's not clear that we should – then it should be "injured," because it's a more accurate umbrella term for all of the situations described in the article. A wound is a specific type of injury, and not all of those injured were wounded. I hate to get technical here, but we should at least be correct if we're going to generalize.

Alternatively, we could use whichever term is appropriate for the situation that it describes. For example, 21 police officers injured during protest activity is more accurate than wounded. On the other hand, 300+ Palestinians wounded by Israeli airstrikes, misfired rockets, etc. is specific and also accurate for that situation. So, I would argue we should stick to the language in the sources and make decisions on a case by case basis. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (2)

The IDF fired missiles at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on 23 April after 36 rockets were fired at southern Israel.

after to in response to

Just clearing the vagueness 150.242.64.120 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I restructured the sentence completely. Maybe that addresses your concerns; maybe not. I did, however, make it closely reflect what is written in the source. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously stockpiled

In the Escalation section, the article said the Palestinians threw previously stockpiled stones. The source it cites doesn't say that. Previously stockpiled should be deleted. 2601:1C0:CD02:DE90:95AF:68D8:20BF:A36A (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is present in a New York Times article cited earlier in the article ("The Palestinians had stockpiled stones at the site in expectation of a standoff with the police and Jewish far-right groups"), I added a cite to it in this section. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

flag icons?

Does the article need the flag-icons? We have MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, to avoid using flag icons in the info box. And for the list in Reactions, you have the country name is it really needed to have the flag icon? Govvy (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts. I'm not sure to what degree that would extend to {{Infobox civil conflict}}, but I think it's probably fine here? Regarding the reactions section – I think the guidance at MOS:FLAG allows us to use the flags of countries in tables like these, I don't see an issue there. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"far-right"

in the intrudaction is says that the flag parade was organized by far right jewish natiolists. its not true. is an annual parade citing the day Jerusalem was united during the six days war. please remove the "far right" from the intrudaction?--Haya831 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From the NYT source in the article: [20] The unrest was long predicted to come to a boil on Monday, when far-right Israelis were scheduled to march through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. Is this controversial or disputed by other reliable sources? If so we could attribute it to the NYT, but in general I don't think they need attribution without good reason. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

here is a source from bbc [21]. The flag parade is never was organized by far right movemants in Israel. I live in jerusalem since 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haya831 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Split?

I find it strange that the article dealing with the civil conflict was merged with the one for the new war in Gaza. Regardless of whether they are two sides of a coin (which is debatable), there should definitely be a separate article for the war in Gaza. Hamas is not part of a "civil conflict", it is a belligerent in a parallell war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What war in Gaza? Are you referring to the strikes? I don't see why they should have their own article. It would have great overlap, as it's an integral component of these events, and would thus be confusing for the reader. We can't create two new articles every time Hamas and Israel exchange air fire. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not splitting it, at least not yet, so neither should we. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html The events are obviously connected.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they are connected does not mean they're one and the same. Even if they were, the Gaza events are notable enough to warrant an article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately it falls upon editor discretion as to whether people find the two topics worthy of separate articles. In such a hypothetical article, you'd be duplicating half this article in the "background" section, and the other half in the "reactions" section, leaving little in the way of unique content. So personally I don't see the point at this time, but others may feel differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Causes

I disagree with this edit which adds to the infobox:

• Palestinian frustration with Palestinian President's decision to postpone the 2021 elections

Sourced to The Guardian and AFP. The infobox should only have the core causes. This rationale does not appear to be widely supported by the HQRS, and there is a lot of speculation on wider causes. The Guardian specifically gives half a dozen causes, including The Trump Administration, the Israeli elections, the restrictions in the month of Ramadan, communal violence in the streets, and Israelis nationalists waving flags in the Old City, all of which aren't mentioned.[22] It's completely arbitrary to include the Palestinian elections being delayed (and omit all the others) unless widely supported by HQRS. The infobox only needs to have the core factors which HQRS agree on, not the speculated factors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Afaics, sources that mention it, do not say it is causative but only another factor adding to Palestinian frustration. Probably one could make a lengthy list of such things.Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

Do we have to list every statement released by national governments? This is contrary to WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:ROUTINE. I suggest just summarizing statements in support of Israel, support for Palestine, and neutral calls for dialogue/ statement of concern.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. At minimum we should scrap any kind of routine response, especially by a country not directly related to Israeli-Palestine conflict affairs (for example either by being a regional power, historically invested, or internationally influential eg a UNSC member). For example, I don't see why the routine responses like those of the Philippines are warranted for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. This is especially responses by Muslim-majority nations which have influence and connection to the conflict are deleted under this new justification (like Indonesia and Malaysia), and responses from parties such as the Vatican City are also deleted with this justification. However, if needed, we can instead summarise countries' responses to those which are

1. condemning both sides

2. condemning Israel

3. condemning Hamas

as most countries are more or less falling under this category. At the very least, it should be noted that nations which voice out their opposition to the issue are noted in this article. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – The article with full International Reactions is over the WP:SIZESPLIT rule of thumb of almost certainly splitting at 100,000 characters, now that they have been split out it is under this, although still within 'probably split' this is probably because of the number of citations to make sure everything is unbiasedly sourced.

There is precedent for this over at Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#International_response, where responses are grouped in the main article and the full details are in International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. However, it needs to be treated carefully for this article as there are more events and parties involved. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this issue should be dealt with centrally somewhere (has it, does anyone know?), making arbitrary decisions about which country is worthy to comment is not something we should be doing article by article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Either it should be reduced with only Isreal and Palestinian reactions or being forked out to a new page. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Feast to famine is not really a good solution, we have lost the thread of what is happening with key actors like the US and the UN.Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions 2

Hi!, I wanted to point out the terrible biased POV of Wikipedia by removing reactions from so-called non-influential countries and leaving only the powerful's reactions. It is a sad attempt at how US- UK- and UNSC-centric this website has turned into. No offense intended, but what makes the UK more important than Chile or Japan more important than Argentina makes no sense to me. CoryGlee (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add more international reactions, please do so on the new international reactions article. X-Editor (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There is limited space in any Wikipedia article. The consensus solution appears to be to give all responses over at International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and in this article list responses from countries that have some broad link to the parties/conflict.

The UK response could have more weight because it administered the area under the UN Mandate, likewise the Jordanian response might be included because of the country's historic involvement in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Weight is given to the United Nations Security Council because in theory the body is responsible for ensuring international peace and security.

If it appears that the article gives greater weight to great powers, this may be because they have historically exercised more influence outside their own borders and thus have greater links to the conflict and the parties. However, if there are any instances of direct bias without a good historical reason to include the response then please do highlight this. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Second on this. There should've been at least consultations and consensus before the mass removal of many nation's statements on the matter. If an Extended Protected editor restore the edits by ProcrastinatingReader until we can have consensus on what we should do first, then it'll be much preferred. Otherwise, this is leaving out many countries' statement on the matter and building on the impression that a few countries have only voiced out on the issue. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone else has already moved all the reactions from 2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#International to International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and added a link to that here. Whether any reactions from there should be listed here, which those should be, can only be resolved through further discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the full list into that article, however. Hope that might address your concern of selectivity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Add China's reaction to the international reactions section

As of right now, it seems the list is a bit arbitrary? In any case, I think China's reaction should also be listed, as it is a notable UNSC member who has attempted to take action on this issue:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-calls-for-calm-restraint-amid-israels-jerusalem-attacks/2236116

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-urges-united-nations-to-act-on-israel-palestinian-conflict-2440924

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-calls-restraint-after-israel-palestinian-clashes-2021-05-12/

https://english.cctv.com/2021/05/13/ARTI774r9itTg6GCWE4oWJrN210513.shtml

https://english.newstracklive.com/news/china-pushes-for-united-nation-to-act-on-israelpalestinian-conflict-sc57-nu318-ta318-1159701-1.html

--2601:644:8500:A520:6CCB:BC53:F108:EDC8 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Logically yes. But these responses are mechanical, and unbelievably tedious. No one reads them but the editors who add these tidbits. No mention is made of the hugh outpouring of cheering squads among journalists recently reported by Gideon Levy. I.e.

“Two Arabs were killed in Lod by a missile launched by Hamas. I call that poetic justice. … Too bad it was only two,” tweeted journalist Shimon Riklin on Wednesday regarding the killing of two Israelis, a father and his daughter. “Ben Caspit, on the other hand, is presumably a centrist journalist, and he screamed at the imam of Lod: “We really have to hit you hard, and show you who’s the boss here, show you that you don’t burn anything belonging to Jews in Israel.”Gideon Levy, 'Those Who Thirst for Blood,' Haaretz 13 May

That sort of material tells you far more about the rage (we already have quotes from Palestinian groups calling for violence) than a roster of 'names' or countries just tweeting or announcing the usual vapid 'statements'.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" section

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" subsection, the first paragraph repeats some things in the second, and the grammar is off. I can propose replacing:

"During the evening and night of 10 May, Arab rioters in Lod threw stones and firebombs at Jewish homes, a school, and a synagogue, later attacking a hospital. Shots were fired at the rioters, killing one and wounding two; a Jewish suspect in the shooting was arrested.[63]

Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks were thrown at Jewish apartments. Some Jewish residents were evacuated from their homes by the police. One man was seriously injured... "

With:

"Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks and firebombs were thrown at Jewish apartments, a synagogue and a school. Staff at a local hospital were also attacked, while in some neighborhoods shots were fired at rioters, killing one and injuring two. A Jewish suspect int he shooting was arrested. One man was seriously injured..."

I noticed that the usage of "mob" was being actively discussed in the talk page, not sure if "rioters" is better. Maorbs (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize that in Lod Arab residents are denied the right to build bomb shelters. I.e.

Two Israeli Palestinians were killed in a neighborhood of Lod: because it is “unrecognized” under racist Israeli regulations, its 600 residents may not build bomb shelters to protect themselves and the municipality refuses to do so.' Richard Silverstein, ‘Hamas Fires Iranian-Made Cruise Missiles for First Time, Five Israelis Killed’ Tikun Olam 11 May 2021

Of course that is a blog, and cannot be used. But Silverstein has excellent contacts with some Israeli security sources, and a mainstream source should be sought for this interesting detail.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Economic Losses

Israel :

https://kwinews.com/the-manufacturers-union-reveals-the-losses-to-the-israeli-economy-due-to-the-gaza-missiles/ ($50million - $160million)

Hamas :

Price per missiles : https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/graveyard-shift-for-islamic-jihad-a-visit-to-a-gaza-rocket-factory-a-531578.html (600$)

Number of missiles fired : https://mobile.twitter.com/IDF/status/1392614050341793798 (1500+ idf claims)

600 * 1500 = $900,000 Blazeken93 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that experienced, but here's my 2 agorot:

This makes sense perhaps as a subsection of the larger Israel-Palestine Conflict, as well as perhaps with respect to the Iron Dome missile defense system. It certainly is an interesting comparison (it is much cheaper for the Palestinian militants to attack than for Israel to defend, and this may be an issue in using any missile defense system in this manner).

• Are economic losses normally included in articles of this kind?
• This looks like an analysis, so there should be reliable sources for this comparison and its relevance. Discrete sources that build up the facts would make the comparison more like original research.

RebBlumstein (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Names of the Casualities

Al Jazeera and many prominent sources have reported the names of the children killed in both the clashes and the airstrike. I noticed that under the tag Casualties, the articles doesn't name the victims, but just leaves it as a statistic, which said "83 Palestinians had been killed, including 17 children, and more than 480 others wounded". In comparison, the next two paragraphs not only names the Hamas Members, but also defines their roles as commander or militants, while the fourth paragraph, is more sympathetic to the isreali victims. The word 'civilian' is used only once to describe two people killed in Dahmash, while a third women residency is mentioned to where she lived.

Not too say that the article is biased, but there isn't any sympathy to Palestinian victims, and again reduces them to a statistic. By doing so, the article imply both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed might be Hamas members (One can assume that no women were killed either.)

Link is also here if you want to add their names. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/palestine-know-their-names/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.2.98 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who to ping here, so I'm just gonna address this generally. The reason we don't put names under the casualties section is because no article on Wikipedia does. If we only put the names of Palestinian victims on the list, then the article would be inherently biased as it would imply that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice.

Furthermore, I could argue that Al Jazeera is partisan when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as noted in the summary of Al Jazeera here, and that the source you've listed for the names is partisan as it attempts to paint Israel as inhuman. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reason is to avoid the implication that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice, then shouldn't it be true for the opposite as well, instead of saying "while two more civilians from Dahmash and a soldier died the next day", we state that "three Isreali's died". Allow me to assure you, I don't want to do that because that also reduces the victims to a statistics, but if one is fair for one, then that makes it unfair to the other.

Also by saying, you want to avoid implying that "Israel is killing innocent civilians", isn't that already admitting a bias against Palestinians. In which case my above assumption is true, that the article implies both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed are Hamas members, with no civilians.

And while I agree that Aljazeera does have a possible leaning to the Palestinians, the same portion of the article uses extensively Ynet, which, while not present in the WP:RSPSS is known to be on the right of the Isreali Political Spectrum and also has a stronger bias for Isreal.

While I do admit that that puting names may drift the article to one side, merely reducing them to a statistic and only mentioning Hamas commanders and militants also biases the article.

Requested move 13 May 2021

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

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• Oppose confusing with the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict. Putting 2021 in front makes it seem strange, like possibly this article is about all events relating to said conflict in 2021, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also your sources, for the most part, aren't HQRS. While "crisis" is probably not the best title, this proposal doesn't seem much of an improvement and at minimum isn't supported by the given evidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There is an article for the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is apart of the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and an article called 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict as there is another article called Iraqi–Kurdish conflict so your argument is flaw Ridax2020 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • PR's argument is not flawed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—those articles you mention are just as confusing already. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Your opinion doesn't count alone, you can't dictate till discussion ends, its what WP:RS says that counts. WP:NOR is a bigger violation than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and there are separate articles of Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War which just like this were prominent phases of the half a century of crisis. Either ways WP:RS calls it a conflict and that's what matters most and let's see what the consensus leads to. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It started out with clashes, then I moved it to violence and then someone else moved it to crisis. I would agree that, in general, this is a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict and we also have articles like Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2021 where, in theory, material from here could end up in those other articles at some point. Although the events here are exceptional enough, I don't think it yet rises to the status of the main Israel-Palestine conflict in the sense of that having gone on for a long time, crisis is sufficiently expressive for the time being imo.Selfstudier (talk)

There is a sustained campaign of bombardment by both sides that has lasted for several days, it is not intermittent skirmishing but now a full blown armed conflict between the parties. See also my comments below, the use of the proposed title is the normal manner in which these sorts of articles are titled until they are given more formal names by sources outside wikipedia. For examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict pages.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If sources begin referring to these events in some consistent way, I would be happy to follow them. Meanwhile, what is the hurry? It's been a week.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is the common way of describing conflicts such as this until a proper formal name is established the sources. For recent examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the same manner how this conflict at issue here is part of the greater overall Isreali-Palistinian Conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:OSE, and if I remember correctly (having closed one of the RMs related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) the widely attended discussions tend to be quite weak on actual policy arguments. I wouldn't look in that direction for inspiration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The results of the requested move discussions you referenced resulted in the current title that the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has and the resulted in labeling the 2020 conflict there as a war. So that "direction" is a perfect example. I know, because I too was involved in both move discussions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is a full blown conflict, exactly like the case of 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict per XavierGreen. To call this a crisis is WP:EUPHEMISM. Albertaont (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This a an all-out armed conflict, like the 2014 Gaza war Mausebru (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting, for the record, that per WP:ARBPIA4 non-EC editors may not participate in internal project discussions in the topic area. And per this ARCA that prohibition extends to requested moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Usual to strike in such cases, I have done so.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO “crisis” refers to the entire situation: violent police actions against protestors, evictions in East Jerusalem, Hamas attacking Israel, Israel attacking Hamas, the violent rioting in Israeli cities that some are describing as pogroms or civil war, violence in the West Bank. The scope of events extends far beyond just the armed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli government. I think it’s worth waiting to see how events develop before changing the name, and to my knowledge it is inconsistently referred by RS due to just how much has happened over the last week. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 16:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to fact that the crisis become an full-blown military conflict. I initially proposed the article to indefinited synsop move protected but i don't think so it can be archive. 36.65.44.100 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per Arbpia restriction, non ec editors cannot participate in formal discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly not just a "crisis".--Sakiv (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too early. The conflict is itself the longest in modern history, and this, so far, is the latest bloody blip. The conflict is perennial/continuous, lowscale warfare and lawfare, and these explosions are usually restricted to particular moments, which is what 'crisis' precisely refers to. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Definitely not a crisis anymore. Elserbio00 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Not just a crisis anymore. And some sources even calling it a "war". EkoGraf (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this article refers to a very specific series of events; "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" makes it sound like its an overview of the Israel–Palestine conflict during 2021. Besides, no reliable sources have been presented for such a move. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  https://abc7.com/amp/israel-palestine-conflict-airstrikes-vs-what-is-happening-in-jerusalem/10619354/, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/world-leaders-call-for-restrain-and-peace-talk-as-israel-palestine-conflict-escalates-9285841.htm/amp, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/israel-palestine-conflict-biden-speaks-to-netanyahu-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself/amp_videoshow/82594971.cms, https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/delta-united-and-american-suspend-flights-to-israel-because-of-israel-palestine-conflict-01620911890 Ridax2020 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Touché. Either way, the move implies that skirmishes or conflicts earlier in 2021 would not be under the 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict, but would be under the Israel–Palestine conflict—which really makes no sense. Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  None of these are HQRS. Given that every single top RS has covered these events from The New York Times to CNN, The Times (UK), BBC, etc., the sources you can provide are MarketWatch and local affiliates of CNBC and ABC? IMO your own evidence shows this is not the WP:COMMONNAME and might be WP:Original research. RS are inconsistent and have not settled on a name, so the point of this RM seems confusing. BBC currently seems to most consistently be using "Israel-Gaza violence".[23] The Times uses "clashes".[24] The New York Times varies between "conflict" and "crisis",[25][26] sometimes using "dispute".[27] Some lower quality sources use "war". The closer may note that any evidence provided by the supporters who provided something is from relatively low quality sources, and most supporting editors don't appear to have checked for sources at all. Sources haven't settled on a name yet; we can only do so when they do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support changing it to the 2021 Israel—Palestine Conflict since “Crises” would be the wrong terminology to describe the current evident taking place.BigRed606 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP conflict has been going on for decades, this event is not occurring out of thin air, it is the continuation of the IP conflict. I would wait for RS to give this a name. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Like ips saying support gets striked out as ips are not allowed to vote, so this ip saying oppose should be striked out too. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is a full on war. From my point of view, I believe that the current events going on in the Israeli-Palestinian territories do not accurately reflect a "crisis". Xpërt3 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly more than just a crisis. PaleoMatt (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The breaking point has been crossed. AustroHungarian1867 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose What is currently happening is a renewal of a decades long conflict. It is a "crisis" until further updates. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The 2008-9 and the 2014 wars were also renewal of decade long conflicts Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War, every country has crisis, like India - Pakistan, Russia-Georgia, but it escalates to a war after certain boundaries are crossed, e.g. Kargil War, Russo-Georgian War. Now it hasn't crossed the thresholds of war but its more than a crisis, there are battles, bot sides are incurring loss of lives, etc. the crisis exists since 1948, and its a new part of it that deserves its own conflict article. Most importantly WP:RS calls it conflict, not the term crisis, so its pure WP:NOR to call it by aa term based on the judgement of a few editors, hope to prioritize WP:RS over everything. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a crisis of a larger conflict. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

​ You can only !vote once. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - certainly not a conflict, the umbrella framework is the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is still a minor event, largely having to do with the failure of 2021 Palestinian elections and fallout of the Hamas-Fatah conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 11:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes was a part of the larger Kashmir Conflict going on since 1948, the same time as the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which also have spawned separate articles on the Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2014 Gaza War, Gaza War (2008–2009) and so on, this is another prominent phase of it with significant Notable coverages, significant death toll on both sides, significant international diplomatic concern, missile strikes (as someone pointed out below) and the vast majority WP:RS calls it conflict, its pure WP:NOR to use the original term crisis here, we should use the terminology supported by WP:RS rather than that of few individual editors, and the most widely used term in WP:RS is a conflict and we should stick to that but yeah whatever is the outcome of the consensus, I will accept that. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-Support I believe that this would be more of flare-up than a conflict, but yeah a missile strike is a "conflict" DXLBandLokiBlaster 12:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as there is no question calling it a conflict Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think this 'crisis' has gone into a full blown conflict by now. God'sNotDead (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbpia, non ec editors may not participate in formal discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - wait I think we should really see what direction this is heading in, and whether it will escalate more or not. Naming conflicts is always controversial, and I think for now we should keep as is. Flalf^Talk 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this isn't conflict, what is? Nerguy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note if anyone wants to know the number of people opposing this article name being changed and the number of people supporting the name being changed, its 12 supporting and 9 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (3)

Remove the word "belligerent" in "belligerent occupation." Add a sentence about the number of Israeli deaths. To list number of Palestinian deaths without listing number of Israeli deaths is blatantly antisemitic. 24.130.171.62 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the technical term used in the legal literature. As late as 2009 this was officially admitted.

'The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.' Israel's Ministry of Justice 2009, in Uri Avnery, 'Israel's Most Revolting Law?' Counterpunch, 23/03/2009

Scholars call the situation the longest ongoing conflict in modern history, and define it as an asymmetric war. When squads of soldiers continue to raid family homes all over the West Bank night after night, as they have persisted in still doing, that is not peace. The term is perfectly neutral, descriptive. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The term "belligerent" implies Israel is instigating a hostile occupation of East Jerusalem. This terminology is extremely misleading and militates heavily towards the Palestinian side of the conflict. The term "occupation" proper is far more objective and impartial. It is not instructive that the term "belligerent" has been used in the legal vernacular. The average layperson, as well as many scholars, simply refer to it as "occupation" or "military occupation."

False. Belligerent occupation is standard phrasing and completely neutral. That's how the Israeli Supreme Court describes it as well.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarify Ben-Gvir's political party/ideology?

It's not *wrong* to call him far-right but that can come across as vague in the context of Israeli politics (does it mean an ultranationalist or a religious zealot? A Yisrael Beiteinu supporter? Even a Likudnik?) and the article twice uses the term to refer to him. I think it'd be more informative for at least one of the references to be to his political affiliation in Otzma Yehudit, and/or to describe him as a Kahanist. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For English WP, the expression "far-right" is self-explanatory and I would think it covers all your use cases.Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The all Arab-Israeli article should be indefinite move protected

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/requests, i propose the amendment about existing arbitration enforcement about Israeli-Palestine articles that would ban any users except administrators to move any article subjected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, i can't do it because i don't know about how to file arbitration amendment. Can someone help me about it? Are there have a chance that unregistered user like me can enact the amendment request? 36.65.44.100 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your best shot would be to enlist the assistance of someone sympathetic to your request. It is not that long since the last round of Arbpia discussions, I don't know when the next one will be.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, I saw your informed contribution on the move debate on the Arbitration Committee ruling, do you know how to advise here? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This would probably have to be filed at WP:ARCA as a request to amend the WP:ARBPIA4 case. I suppose no rules stop the IP from filing it (it's unclear whether a non-EC user filing an ARCA for the topic area would be violating the 500/30 rule, but I'd imagine not). I don't really think this would be a good idea though. Page moves are normal, and often the initial title of a page is not the right title, so a topic-wide page move ban seems excessive IMO. In any case, if such a request is made it would be a good idea to supply evidence of sufficient disruption to the point where there is a need for such a restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion came up at the VP recently about (more generally) non-confirmed users filing arbitration requests. I believe the consensus was that it's permitted. If one has troubles they could request clerk assistance at WP:AC/CN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all advice. 180.242.50.216 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures for use

• 
• 
• 
• 

Taken in Kfar Saba, north of Tel Aviv.

Israeli civilian population targeted by terrorist bombings. More if needed. Faithfully --YeudiGH (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding these images to commons. I have, on commons, created a category for them. --Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"hitting" vs "targeting"

Introduction, second paragraph:

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings.

This difference in wording (hitting vs. targeting) should be justified. Not saying that it's not, just wanted to be sure. Maybe double-check that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andibrema (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(if I'm wrong, someone please feel free to correct me): Hamas rockets are fired indiscriminately towards civilian areas, without specific targets (they're not very advanced pieces of technology, so the harm they cause is more random). In this case, the homes and school in Israel were not specifically targeted. The IDF airstrikes targeted specific residential highrise buildings in Gaza, which is why there's a difference in verbiage. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Rockets fired from Lebanon?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306183

Wait for other media sources to validate...

Supposedly there were four rockets, fired from Palestinian insurgents

Casualties

Shouldn't there be a sentence in the Casualties section about Israeli casualties? Right now, the only info in the Casualties section is about Palestinian casualties. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave up paying attention to that section, probably you are better off with the infobox, that seems to be always current, if not entirely accurate.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of language like "stormed"

Wording like "stormed" is neither neutral terminology nor backed up by the reliable references used in the article. Yesterday, there was some discussion in this talk section about whether Israeli police even entered al-Aqsa mosque, or whether the clashes were outside. But in either case, there is more encyclopedic and accurate language that can be used for the confrontation between police and protesters. OtterAM (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The ToI source (we should ideally find some others) says "The international community, including Israel’s Arab allies, condemned the Jewish state Saturday for security forces “storming” of Al-Aqsa during the clashes." (their scare quotes) and it also says "Anger grew on Saturday with the circulation of a video in which a stun grenade is seen detonating inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque, after it was launched into the building by Israeli security forces. According to Channel 12 this was in response to attacks on the forces from within the mosque. Other images online appeared to show the riot police entering the main mosque building amid the violent clash."

I find it difficult to imagine how they entered if not by storming but I will look around for some other sources and perhaps you could do the same? I replaced the article wide neutrality tag with an inline tag next to the word "stormed".Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Storm: "a violent assault on a defended position". If anything, this gives too much credit to Israeli police, since it is a stretch to say that al-Aqsa was "defended" in any meaningful sense. As I stated above, other terms like "raided" have also been used to describe the events at al-Aqsa. The neutrality of this should not be in dispute. WillowCity (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sources:

• Financial Times: Israeli police stormed the compound, which is sacred to both religions, at least three times in the past week, using rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. At least 600 Palestinians were injured.
• Business Standard: Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque, hundreds of Palestinians hurt
• The Guardian: The latest violence came after Israeli police stormed the compound early on Monday firing stun grenades and tear gas and clashing with Palestinians inside following days of worsening clashes.
• Al Jazeera: More than 170 Palestinians have been injured after Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque...

It seems like fairly common language (especially given that ToI, whose bias, if any, would tend towards downplaying this, still acknowledges it.) I've added FT and the Guardian, which are probably the highest-quality out of these, and removed the tag for now - we can still debate the exact wording, but I'm simply not seeing how a POV tag can be maintained in the lead of the article over wording that is used in, in the article voice, in such high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

My point is that this feels like an intentional omission.

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

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

One should be extremely war of words like response. In the cycle of violence each side responds to what the other did. The usual mainstream view is that Hamas provokes: Israel responds, as the primary victim.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is blatantly a crock of horseshit given what Israel has been doing to Palestinians this past week: actively genociding them. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have news or statement from organisations that claims as such, please refrain using the Wikipedia talk page as a place to criticise either Israel or Palestine as per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Um, Hamas, like it or not, came to power via a democratic election under international observation, and has run the Gaza Strip and administered 2,000,000 people for 16 years, That it has offices is obvious. That in itself means nothing. All governments have offices. Of course, if Israel chooses like a few other powers to designate it as a terrorist organization, then even custodians and janitors of a school or building recruited from the lower echelons of Hamas, are thereby 'terrorists' and fair game. This is unfortunately part of the nonsense of western reportage, the mindless reductive use of Hamas as a synonym for a terrorist group when, whatever terror it engages in, like so many governments, it also runs a civil bureaucracy etc., that has nothing to do with threatening anybody (outside Gaza).Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Where in Selfstudier's comment did he call Hamas a terrorist organization? The fact that you see a comment supporting adding info from a press release by the IDF and immediately jump to the conclusion that this person is against Hamas and then begin ranting about how Hamas is being unfairly framed by the west as a terrorist group makes me doubt your ability to add to this article or any other article surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict without biasing the info in support of Palestine. Please, just stick to the facts, your opinion on the conflict isn't needed.

EDIT: I just looked at your user page, and it is clear you have strong opinions in this area that hinder your ability to edit neutrally on this topic. I would suggest leaving the editing of this article to people able to look objectively at the facts. I myself am heavily opinionated on this subject, so I stay out of this and only point out obvious cases of bias here in the talk page. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You really should apologize, attacking other editors and jumping to accusations of bad faith (particularly against an editor who spends much time finding and analyzing sources in order to contribute high-quality edits) is not appropriate behaviour. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ööööhmmm, no, Aknell4 is absolutely right, no need for any apology. 94.219.52.95 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Passion in an editor is a good thing and they clearly just want an even handed approach. I’m sure if those of us passionate about the topic were actually soap boxing and POV pushing this article would be very different. Namely it would not be labeled as a “crisis” as if this is anything but a largely one sided genocide by a settler-colonialist apartheid state. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground invasion of Gaza

Per the New York Times a ground invasion of Gaza has begun.[28] you probably need more sources but here is a first one for you.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that link doesn't work for me. Someone has added something to article already but some sources are saying that there has been no entry into Gaza as yet so perhaps we need to wait a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground troops are present on the border, but have not entered Gaza. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306197

--Ester9001 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Language of:

The language of: "

The Israel Defense Forces states that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties are confirmed members of Hamas, and also states that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip

"

Should really say that the IDF has so far confirmed 15 Hamas members among the dead. Because this number, 15, was stated when the total dead was only 30 a day or two ago. So saying 'the idf have so far confirmed' would be good to avoid confusion and pay regard to the fact that the event is currently unfodling.

"So far" is an implication, simpler is to date the claim.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Revert "The following day, Israeli police conducted arrests in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site." to "The following day, Israeli police stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site."

The line about "conducting arrests" creates a distorted picture of events. I strongly suggest the article revert to the prior sentence about police storming al-Aqsa, with the removal of the neutrality tag. I do not understand why this change was made without discussion, let alone consensus. WillowCity (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Zeex.rice in Special:Diff/1022897764. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal or moving of statemnt regarding Gaza from Al-Aqsa section

There is a statment in the 'Al-Aqsa' section: "Militants in Gaza fired rockets into Israel the following night.[66]" This reads as nonsequetor and better belongs in the 'Gaza' section. Please remove or move to the relevant section.

Update on death toll in Gaza

Change from "113 civilians and militants killed, 580+ wounded" to "109 civilians and militants killed, 621 wounded " 3skandar (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The data is from the Health Authority of Gaza's Facebook. The source of the previous citation from Al-Jazeera is unclear, I could not find the "113 deaths in Gaza" figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3skandar (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3skandar (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Their Facebook page is not an RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Add children death in Gaza based according to Gaza Health Authority

Change from "* 20 militants killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" to "* 20 militants and 29 children killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" 3skandar (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Same reason as above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

This talk page is too long. Why not archiving most unused discussion on this page? 182.1.60.223 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"This talk page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. Any threads with no replies in 3 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived." Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone with more WP formatting knowledge than me please separate the following notes so they don't look like they belong to the latest Talk section? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done −Edward (^t⋇_c) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (2)

change the last line on Gaza section " On 14 May, Israel Defense Forces' ground and air troops claimed they had troops on the ground and in the air attacking the Gaza Strip,[95][96] although this claim was later retracted.[97]" TO

On the night of May 14, at 00:18, the IDF Spokesman announced that the attacks in the Gaza Strip had been expanded, and that ground forces of the Armored Corps and the artillery were attacking the Gaza Strip.(https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1392953390443991040). In response, Hamas sent it's armed men to the tunnels to prepare for the Israeli fighters, However, the announcement was a ruse by the IDF, who had intelligence on the location of Hamas's tunnels, called "The Metro", and proceeded to attack with air strick and Artillery the tunnels, while Hamas armed men were hiding inside. (https://www.foxnews.com/world/live-updates-israel-calls-up-9000-reservists-ahead-of-a-possible-ground-invasion/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/13/middleeast/israel-palestinian-violence-intl/index.html/ https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1393082846324088833). In the cordinated attack, IDF has sent 160 Aircrafs and Fierd 450 bombs on "the metro" in under 35 minuts. it is not clear how meany Hamas armed men were killed, however The IDF estimates houndreds of armed men are killed, and the Rocket manufacturing infestructure Was severely damaged, No infentry was involved, and IDF did not send any ground forces at all. (https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/BybX5Giuu / https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2021_q2/Article-178966fb8e96971026.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=1898243326). Dotan il89 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd better rewrite that with spellcheck and a grammar. It's garbled.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As explained below proposing a social media section, it is too early to evaluate this item. Thye Haaretz piece states that the IDF apologized to media for erroneously stating it had already invaded, and that after the retraction, social media then speculated that it was a deliberate deception. Social media speculation is one thing. Fox et al., picking up rumours another. We should know what to write when the Gaza casualty list is published in a day or two, and solid sources confirm, if any, the link.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

INCORRECT INFO IN INFO BOX

The info box current says that eight civilians were killed in Israel, but the cited article does not support this claim (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). Indeed, the article itself says that a total of 8 people have been killed including at least one solider, which means that all certainly cannot be civilians. Recommend mirroring what ix on the Palestine side and writing "8 civilians and militants killed." Dhawk790 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The edit now reads "7 civilians killed" but the ABC article does not support this either (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). It only confirms that one of the dead was six years old and another was 87, in which case they are civilians, but that means that only a total of 2 civilians are confirmed, not 7. If we followed that practice, the Palestine side would need to be update to subtract the number of militants killed from total dead to produce number of civilians. I do not think this is a good practice, because of the ambiguity. Instead, I recommend using the same practice on both sides of the info box. Present total number dead (including civilians and soldiers) and then provide the breakdown when there is individual info about some of the deaths. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (3)

Please revert "...a neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which had been annexed by Israel in 1980, though the legality of the annexation is disputed." to "... a neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The area in question, effectively annexed by Israel, remains under international law a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation."

International law is unequivocal on this point. Once again, this change was made without discussion or consensus. I really wish people would familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV and especially WP:FALSEBALANCE before making inane edits in service of a partisan political agenda. WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, and someone should restore the earlier text. It is a cliché here that everything is 'disputed' as if there were some parity between the parties, when only one party, against international consensus re law, 'disputes' the obvious. There is a learned paper by Lustick that shows no formal law has ever passed the Knesset 'annexing' East Jerusalem, and international law is umambiguous. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

done.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The Israeli courts have interpreted the 67 and Jerusalem Law together as an effective annexation, I would think that because Israeli law has been applied there. None of it is recognized by anyone other than Israel and while they are free to dispute whatever pleases them, it is of no legal consequence.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Nishidani — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Sentence?

In "April-May 2021 Ramadan events" It says the following sentence twice:At the start of Ramadan in April 2021, Israeli police blocked off access to the Damascus Gate where Muslim worshippers usually congregate during the holiday once at the beginning of the paragraph and at the end of the paragraph. Should I remove the last instance? LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 13:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Social Media section

A significant number of the events has been driven by the inflaming impact of social media, and the content can be divided into two types (which are already the object of analysis in a few sources) From April's TicToc scene onwards, we should prefer, at this stage, thematic concentration rather than a blow by blow chronology as is normal with breaking news pages initially.

• (A) False, staged disinformation to achieve a propaganda impact.

Sources

(1)Sheera Frenkel, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/technology/misinformation-israeli-palestinian-conflict.html 'Lies on Social Media Inflame Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,' New York Times 14 May 2021

• (B)Real-time shocking stuff that is captured on phones and duly circulated then on Youtube, twitter and other media.
• (C) A third element, strategically placed disinformation to draw the enemy into a trap, as has been reported for the Israeli ground invasion, said to be diffused in order to get Hamas operatives to concentrate in tunnels in preparation for defense, so they can been annihilated en masse, possibly should be distinguished from (A), which deals with deliberate government fraud for achieving a political consensus about who to blame.

Sources

Amir Tibon, Allison Kaplan Sommer, 'Israeli Army Tells Foreign Media It Has Ground Forces in Gaza – Then Apologizes for Misleading Them,' Haaretz 14 May 2021

Editors are invited to use this section to notify each other of sources that analyse this aspect. Since the usual news outlets, in their haste print whatever crosses their desks, are all too frequently complicit in the disinformation that always accompany warfare, it is best to limit the sourcing to references written by competent analysts. Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Socialist lawyers

This edit showcases (because she is a socialist and therefore unreliable?) the opinion of one housing expert, when she is not the only person holding that view. The edit thus in singling her out, makes the challenge, no doubt one with several figures engaged in the court proceedings, idiosyncratic, ergo POV pushing. Alsaafin for example states this:

Khalil Toufakji, a Palestinian cartographer and expert on Jerusalem, said he travelled to Ankara in 2010 to search in the Ottoman-era archives for a document that negates any Jewish ownership of Karm al-Jaouni.“I found the deed and presented it to the Israeli district court, which promptly rejected it,” Toufakji told Al Jazeera. After more digging, Toufakji found out in 1968 that Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, issued a decree – signed by the finance minister at the time – which stated Israel was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement. “This fact is what has been raised to the Jerusalem High Court on behalf of the Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah,” he said, but added there is little reason to believe the court will rule in favour of them. “Israeli courts – judge, jury and legislation – are all in the service of the Jewish settlers,” he said.

So, the statement should be anonymous, in the passive voice, as before, adding the Alsaafin ref.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(2) The mention that a decree of the Knseet in 1968 confirmed Israel recognized it was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement (if so rendering later legal developments suspect) ought to be followed up and if confirmed, entered in the background section.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement shouldn't be made in wikivoice unless it's generally accepted. That claim should be attributed absent better sourcing IMO, per WP:INTEXT. If it's a widely held opinion surely more sources can be found? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how the earlier text was not neutral.

the authenticity of these documents has been questioned

That simply states a fact that the authenticity is challenged, and we have two sources for it. The passive voice is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That statement implies it's generally questionable. Especially if only one person questions it, attribution is better IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No.in English it does not imply 'general questionable'. Grammatically it just states the fact which the following details elucidate, i.e., that on several occasions it has been questioned.

During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the authenticity and accuracy of the documents used by the Jewish Committees and the Nahalat Shimon Company to claim ownership of much of the land in Sheikh Jarrah. The lawyers informed the delegation that these doubts are not being considered properly by the Israeli courts.'Enforcing Housing Rights; The Case of Sheikh Jarrah. Report of the fact-finding mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,' Avocats Sans Frontières May 2011 p.13

In October 2009, the Hijazi family commenced further proceedings seeking a declaration that the land was in its ownership, or in the alternative, was not owned by the Committees.124 During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman-period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the Committees original primary registration in 1972 and the accuracy of the documents used in that registration.In April 2010, two weeks after the death of Mr Hijazi, the District Court found that the claim had already been adjudicated on in the original 1997 case, that the new documents did not reach the relevant threshold to reopen the case whilst further noting that the new material would not lead to a different result from that originally determined by the court.pp.44-45

Further, the attribution we have now is incorrect in assigning the view to one lawyer of the Haldane Society, when she was writing a summary of the information available to several prominent lawyers in a fact-finding mission, commissioned from the Haldane Society's lawyers by Avocats Sans Frontières and financed by Belgium. They are not 'socialists'.

That makes three sources, referring to three different cases regarding the area, in three different years, attest to the fact that the authenticity of the 1876 documents has been repeatedly challenged in Israeli courts. I don't know where the truth lies: that is not my remit here. I only know that falsification of land title documents by settlers has been frequently documented, even in Israeli courts, over the last decades, and, since we have strong external testimony that such doubts exist, this should be noted as a fact. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling East Jerusalem a "belligerent occupation"

This 100% ignores the US, Kosovo, Guatemala, and others openly declaring Israel the unified capital. International law is not some unified anti-Israel fiction.

I think that the term should be used carefully and only be applied in cases where covering perspectives or opinions, analogous the "reception" section of a film article. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree.

The view of a handful of countries, including the one violating customary international law and international treaty law, does not suffice to change the unequivocal international consensus. Likening international law to a film's critical reception is, if not in bad faith, a gross mischaracterization. This is not a matter of differing perspectives or an area open to interpretation on which reasonable people can disagree. Annexation is prohibited under the UN charter and under customary international law. This is not a matter of conflicting interpretation, it is a matter of settled legal fact. There is no grounds for changing this. WillowCity (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This was already dealt with in a section back up the page. It's a standard phrasing without implications. Also recognition of capital and recognition of sovereignty are not the same thing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Riots in the Al Aqsa Mosque

The section in the summary on Israeli police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque negates to mention their reasoning: Their were Molotov cocktails being thrown at them and put in Islam's third holiest site. "Riot police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque, where Molotov cocktails where being thrown at Police by Palestinian rioters" makes more sense.

Relevant sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant sources saying that, Palestinians had Molotov cocktails at Al Aqsa Mosque

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-on-high-alert-after-palestinian-riots-in-jerusalem-gaza-rocket-fire/
• https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1434077/Palestine-mosque-news-al-aqsa-mosque-east-Jerusalem-israel-EVG
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-clashes-palestinians-turn-deadly-jerusalem-tensions-spread-n1266906
• https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/eid-al-fitr-thousands-of-palestinians-at-al-aqsa-after-night-of-clashes-668032
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57053074
• https://vietnamtimes.org.vn/violence-escalated-between-palestine-and-israel-31536.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/jerusalem-spiralling-violence-amid-spike-in-west-bank-revenge-attacks-2021-5

Shalom, 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (4)

The start of this round of conflict began on April 15th 2021, with videos of Palestinian teens assaulting innocent Jewish people, for tiktok views, which led to Israeli extremist youths to exact revenge. Non-the-less, the page begins with events on May 6th 2021. This is misleading and should be updated to fit the reality of this horrific and gut wrenching conflict.

"On 15 April, a TikTok video of a Palestinian teen slapping an ultra-orthodox Jewish man went viral, leading to several copycat incidents."

Thank you for your time, and may we see peace in our lifetime. 24.114.68.45 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 14:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Lomrjyo

Reliable sources

• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-police-arrest-dozens-after-night-violence-anti-arab-chants-n1265039
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/east-jerusalem-man-indicted-for-slapping-haredi-jews-on-light-rail-filming-it/
• https://news.sky.com/story/jerusalem-police-use-water-cannon-and-wrestle-with-protesters-in-second-night-of-clashes-12285290
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/east-jerusalem-teenager-arrested-on-suspicion-of-slapping-haredi-boys-on-train/
• https://www.ynetnews.com/article/SyFU7k0IO
• https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2021/04/23/ramadan-nights-see-israeli-police-and-palestinians-face-off-in-jerusalem.html

212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That has been in the article for some time. Do you read articles before suggesting edits? Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but can't you read that Lomrjyo asked for reliable sources. -- 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

West Bank

I added a sec for this as it appears also to be escalating. with 4 deaths reported today. The infobox shows 10 deaths, idk whether that includes those 4. Can someone pin down how many deaths/injured since the 6th? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)