Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 days ![]() |
![]() | Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2021. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 days ![]() |
Requested move 13 May 2021
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis be renamed and moved to 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
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)
Support a crisis suggests decision and resolution. This situation has been tolerated to smolder or occasionally to flame since 1948. To mark the situation as a crisis is wishful thinking, at best proven in time to be a lucky guess. 77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- Nominator comment 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)
- No one was arguing that RS is less important than OSE—this thread was centered around the understandability of page titles, which is all I commented on. RS is a separate matter Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 14 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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".[1] The Times uses "clashes".[2] The New York Times varies between "conflict" and "crisis",[3][4] sometimes using "dispute".[5] 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)
- 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)
- 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.[1] AustroHungarian1867 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Holmes, Oliver. "Israel ground troops begin attack on Gaza Strip, military says". Microsoft News. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
- 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. FlalfTalk 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 16 supporting and 12 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1
- Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support this is clearly more than just a crisis, conflict would better describe the situation. User3749 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, as this is more than simply a crisis and it appears to be an active military conflict. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- To extent this a little bit, I'm increasingly seeing a WP:COMMONNAME argument develop based off of reporting on the issue. International media appears to widely be terming this a
conflict
(NYT WaPo, NBC, CNN, WSJ, BBC, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, DW, France 24, etc). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- To extent this a little bit, I'm increasingly seeing a WP:COMMONNAME argument develop based off of reporting on the issue. International media appears to widely be terming this a
Oppose:Ground forces have not crossed the borderThe element of internal riots and such holds ambiguity, as in some cases it involves exchanges of gun fire, on other cases it is merely protests and clashes with police.The whole event is composed of very different sub-events, such as the Mosque police clash, disorder in towns such as Lod, et cetera, and also the Gaza hostilities - which are of a different vain and more describable as a conflict rather than crisis. The fact that this event composes these different elements is a good argument for keeping the title as crisis. --Ester9001 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)This editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Too early to decide. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Multiple reliable sources have begun calling it a conflict or something similar, facing criticism since "clashes" and similar terms have been deemed too neutral. For people saying it is too early or too soon, I point to this: multiple sources already say this conflict is worse than 2014. And what is the 2014 conflict article called? It's called 2014 Gaza War. With thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, dozens of Palestinians dead, Israel using chemical weapons, and a ground invasion of Gaza looking not too fictitious, I feel like this is worthy of being called a conflict, and fear it escalating into something much worse. In addition, crisis refers to something that has the potential of escalating into something much more dangerous, and, in this case, the content being covered seems to be a crisis of the second degree. (Al-Aqsa storming + Sheikh Jarrah eviction/protests being the crisis -> The current situation being a conflict/second-degree crisis signalling a war -> A potential war similar to that of 2014). I believe we have entered the "conflict" stage, and support this move. My only misgiving is the potential confusion with Israeli–Palestinian conflict. AccordingClass (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is turning out to be a war. Its more than a conflict or a crisis. At the worst its a civil war. I mean, they're launching rockets and missile and each other! UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This is going to escalate into a war very soon. It is likely to be called the Israel-Palestine war soon. The military intervention of Lebanon and Syria exacerbates all this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/14/israel-says-rocket-attacks-from-syria-in-the-north-amid-gaza-fighting-in-south/?sh=3c909c645c2d --AmazonBooker (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — AmazonBooker (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, the editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested moves per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)<- Support - Far beyond a crisis at this point. Temeku (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - while there is now extreme armed conflict, the article describes numerous things besides just military conflict including the assaults on palestinians and the protests and police suppression. Crisis is a better term for now and we should bide our time to change that. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)The editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)- See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_RandomCanadian for why the above should be allowed to stand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am counting 17 yea and 13 nay. This is good to change. Some recent opposes are now calling it a war, which is the next step after crisis->conflict->war. Albertaont (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Albertaont: I just struck some comments from editors who were not extended-confirmed (who, per WP:A/I/PIA, cannot participate in internal project discussions). Were you including these individuals in your count? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Formal discussions are not decided solely on the basis of a votecount, I suggest we just wait for a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still too early for that. If I was pressed for a close at this point the only thing I could do was say "no consensus" because all of the above !votes are statements of personal preference and there's very little external sources or Wikipedia policy (which is available at WP:CRITERIA) used to show the alleged change in usage (the few sources presented are unclear whether they refer to "conflict" as in the current situation or as in the already existing situation - one can just as easily find sources which use "crisis" Beebs or which don't use either term Grauniad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is more fitting to say this is a crisis or standoff phase that is obviously a part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With context, you can't really have an Israeli–Palestinian conflict within an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The way I see this title changing in the future is if this series of events eventually spirals into what can officially be called a Third Intifada or, more likely, something like the 2014 Gaza War, which saw a similar environment of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. With the way things are going between Hamas and the IDF, I'm expecting this crisis to be dubbed as a full-scale war. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Seeing the footage of missiles and air strikes, as well as civilian casualties, it seems more of a conflict than a crisis to be honest. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support definitely not a crisis anymore, I've seen more and more sources describing it as a conflict. However, this might become a war so we should still wait to change the title in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Count Update : The current number of people supporting the article name being changed is 18 and the current number of people who do not want the article name changed is 14. BigRed606 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I second this. Some more name ideas would be useful to add to this discussion. Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: The 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict began the morning of January 1st 2021, but this article is only about more recent events. I would wait for sources to give this a name or change to something more appropriate like 2021 War on Palestinians, although that is a bit risky as sources may be scared of being bombed if they don't give a pro-Israeli name to the violence. Of 19 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it does down, it may be seen in hindsight as being less than a crisis, if it regatta further (I hope not!) it will end up being teenaged war. I day wait and see and don't be too hasty and to discussed about selecting the perfect name. Dovid (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has its own article; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades. When there are notable escalations, they receive their own article titles that clearly distinguish them as a more notable period of escalation within the overarching, elongated conflict. Calling this article "the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict", then, implies a disconnect between the other article and this article - as if this is a new conflict when in fact, this is an escalation of a conflict which was ongoing prior to this and likely will be ongoing after this escalation has ended. For this reason, the proposed title is misleading, and "crisis" is much better suited. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
* Count Update: Support:- 18, Oppose:-17 Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Commentary: The oppose camp would require 2 more votes to make it in the lead Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Commentary: This might not be a setback or a gunshot in the arm for Support Camp as the Support Camp is expected to get few more votes in their favour to retain a healthy lead Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Struck per 500-30 requirement and because of WP:NOTAVOTE RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Clearly beyond 'crisis' at this point. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support This is well beyond the point of "crisis" now. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- Count Update: 22 votes 'Support', 14 votes 'Oppose' as of 17 May. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- How many times do people need a pointed to WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? I'm not sure I'm uninvolved on the request (since I've done a wee bit of clean-up here and there), so I won't boldly close this as no consensus, but neither side has presented much beyond personal opinions. And I can't understand the difference between the two latest conflicting counts given, anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, which implies this is no longer a crises but a a full-blown conflict. --Saqib (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- War between two countries is one thing. Here we have a combination of (a) a civil uprising against the occupying power in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; (b) internecine riots between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities in Israel, and (c) a war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In previous cases, when (c) broke out we rightly called it a war (2008/9) 2014 etc. In this case, we are placing (a) and (b) as aspects of a larger state of war. War refers to a situation where both sides, with their respective armies and militias, are engaged in exchanges of deadly firepower, which is not the case in (a) and (b) The support votes are inadvertently making a category error by confounding three different types of conflict, which are handled differently. Israel is not bombing the West Bank or East Jerusalem, nor is the disarmed population there or its 'leadership' in Ramallah countering with mortars and the use of its military to fight back. Idem for the internal situation in Israel. To conflate the three under one rubric is to characterize (a) and (b) as wars, which civil disturbances put down by police forces (Palestinian and Israeli) are not, technically. Indeed, according to Nathan Thrall, the PLO security forces are actively engaged in repressing the upsurge in protests in the West Bank, wherever they have some measure of jurisdiction.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support More and more news organizations are using the word "conflict" to describe the situation. NBC News [6] Politico [7] Newsweek [8] NY Times [9] . Seeing as how we are tasked to follow their lead, I think that we should do so. BirdValiant (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support, as various news networks refer it as conflict rather than crisis. Elishop (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- Support, as per all above. I'd just be repeating points. GyozaDumpling (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Arbitrary Break 2
- Comment: REMINDER
- Please make sure your account is extended-confirmed (30/500) at WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED before expressing your approval/disapproval of the request. Click the aforementioned link and check if the blurb says "Your account is extended confirmed." A registered editor becomes extended-confirmed automatically when the account is both at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits (including deleted edits). In addition, please refrain from posting "Count Updates" and the like, since Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for consensus. Finally, editors who have already expressed their opinions regarding the request are encouraged to engage in conversations with other users, since consensus is built and not expressed. AccordingClass (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It does not make sense to call this the "2021 Israel-Palestine conflict" even if it turns into "more than a crisis". Someone needs to come up with a better name. The Israel-Palestine Conflict article already exists. UserTwoSix (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, this is lot more than just a crisis; it's a conflict. ☎️ Churot DancePop 05:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support It has evolved into a conflict, and it may become an even bigger one. Jjfkasd kka sdjf kksadf (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)6 edits does not meet the 30/500 requirement. Seemplez 09:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- Oppose: Looking at the definitions provided by Oxford Languages on Google for both conflict and crisis, it seems that crisis fits better as the definition for conflict is "a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.", where crisis is "a time of intense difficulty or danger." I wouldn't call under two weeks "protracted", which is a word I'd normally apply to time periods on the order of several months. Seemplez 09:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support, I believe it has at least escalated into one. Mynamz (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- Comment It might now be worth assembling a section of say 10 top sources and see what they are calling it on a day to day basis, not in the headline but in the body of the source. Ideally we want more analysis type articles rather than the short news cycle type (latest atrocity, etc).Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support: It has evolved into a conflict, and it could become even worse. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC).- Strong oppose Since I feel too involved, let's at least give my 2 cents. WP:CRITERIA tells us that titles need to be recognisable, unambiguous, concise and consistent. As far as precision and recognisability are concerned, I'm not convinced by any of the statements of personal opinion that "this has evolved into a conflict". If anything, this is a flare-up of a pre-existing conflict. Sources seem to be ambiguous on this, using both "crisis" and "conflict" [10][11]. I note that many sources, beyond the headline, don't seem to mention either term (for ex. the Grauniad uses "hostilities"). This brings us to our internal policies regarding concision and consistency. Neither of the proposed variants is more concise than the other so that's that. It leaves us with consistency. Noting that the existing articles on the broader dispute are already at Israel–Palestine conflict and Gaza–Israel conflict, using 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict for this would be misleading (implying there are two different "conflicts" when in fact one is just an episode of the other) and inconsistent (note that articles on previous outbreaks of this tend not to use either "conflict" or "crisis"). Therefore, the proposed title is not an improvement. I'd strongly support a move-moratorium until the dust settles and reliable sources have had more time to write, with calmer heads, on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Reliable sources name this as a conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - this battle is a component of an entity we call a conflict (Israel–Palestine conflict), we should use a different noun here. Animal lover 666 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What about "2021 Israel–Palestine clashes"? Just a thought. — Goszei (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Been there, done that, that's how it started, then "violence" and then "crisis".Selfstudier (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Let's re-visit this in 10 years when there is an actual scholarly consensus on the name. I'd caution against editors weighing in their own interpretations of semantics of various terms. Suez Crisis is called that because historical scholarship calls it that. Ditto for Malayan Emergency. Discussions like this two weeks into the events are not very insightful. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A search among major news outlets use the term conflict. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html, https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44124396 and https://apnews.com/hub/israel-palestinian-conflict. If major news outlets are using this term, wouldn't it be prudent to use the same term in the article which is relying upon citations from these same new outlets to support the information in the article? Jurisdicta (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's true that some sources are using "Israeli-Palestine conflict" but that's because they always have referred to "the conflict" as that and we have an article, Israel-Palestine conflict, partly for that reason. The difficulty in the proposed renaming implies that there is a different conflict when it is merely another round of the same larger conflict. Then we have 2021 in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict where there is a series of these year by year (proposed to be renamed (Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020#Requested move 15 May 2021). All in all, there is confusion for the general reader.Selfstudier (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Support to Third Intifada. - As some news source like Scroll.in started to coin this recent event as that name. As shown here https://scroll.in/article/995100/israel-palestine-conflict-are-we-witnessing-the-early-stages-of-a-third-intifada, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210519-in-occupied-west-bank-palestinians-cry-resistance. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Arbpia- Comment This is escalating to the level of the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War which among other this were parts of the near century long (at least since the 1948 war) Israeli–Palestinian conflict (much like the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and all other wars between those countries were part of the Kashmir conflict that too is going on since the 1940s to present). there is already one source that calls it war [12], so I urge patience, because I believe unless a ceasefire is forcefully enforced, more sources will report it as a war, and it will be classified as a war, so please have patience until more WP:RS starts calling it a war, then we can name it the 2021 Israel-Palestine war, just another phase of the century long conflict. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (For Now) - We appear to be witnessing several things at a once, as stated above, in terms of not just armed conflict between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants but also widespread civil unrest within Israel proper as well as a diplomatic rupture going on between Israel as a government versus other nations. This is additionally a situation that appears to be changing by the day. In these circumstances, it seems best to leave the title alone and revaluate it all later. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support This a an all-out armed conflict, like the 2014 Gaza war (I AM EC)Mausebru (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose While this has become serious, it causes confusion, as "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" would be seen as separate from just "Israel–Palestine conflict" when one is just a part of the other. This breaks WP:CRITERIA's requirement of precision. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument either way. Moreover, it's an ungoing event: let's wait until the dust has settled once it's over and decide on a proper name afterwards.
- Furthermore, have a look at the article names of similar events (see List of wars involving Israel), e.g.
- Michael! (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict is confusing. There's a gigantic article covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are also more shades to this conflict than just "war," with riots and protests across Israel and the West Bank. Moreover, if you can characterize the Suez Crisis as a "crisis" and not a war, certainly a 10 day firefight between Israel and Hamas is not a "war." Dunnowy123 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021Oppose I do agree that this event it is not a 'crisis'. That being said 'conflict' is not an agreed upon name by sources which is what Wikipedia relies on and I agree with above that the proposed name is unnecessarily confusing with the already existing and more prevalent Israel-palestine conflict. Wait until an agreed upon name is established by sources.Yeoutie (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)- Support per above. Dan the Animator 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
War?
Isn't this technically a war? This is certainly more than a conflict if they are launching rockets at each other.
- Considering there has been no formal declaration of war, no. The broader Arab–Israeli conflict was punctuated by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Suez Crisis, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and so on. Until there is an official declaration of war (or equivalent authorization of a "policing action" or somesuch) this should remain a "conflict". Alternatively, when WP:RS start calling it a war, so will we. The current name of "crisis" I think will serve until such time, as this is a flashpoint of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well what's the difference between crisis and war? A declaration? They're launching rockets. This is clearly more than a simple crisis, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Are there many sources calling it a war? I'm guessing not. Considering this conflict is (so far) less intsense than many previous ones that aren't considered wars, this one is not a war (yet). “WarKosign” 07:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Technically speaking there cannot be a "war" between occupier and occupied because occupation is the result of war, there can only be "resistance" to occupation which is the case here and not only in Gaza. That is also a reason why we also refer to the IP conflict as a conflict even though it has gone on for so long, it is not technically a war because there is an occupation. The only annexed part, East Jerusalem and a part of the rest of the WB, is not legally recognized outside of Israel so that is also an occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Claims of occupation are actually irrelevant. Definition of war is "a state of armed conflict between *different nations or states* or different groups within a nation or state". Since this conflict is between a state and a terrorist organization, it cannot be called a war. “WarKosign” 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "claim" of occupation, it is an established fact. The state of occupation negates it being a war without the need for any further explanation, discussions about declarations or anything else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for demonstrating how people make this claim. It's a pointless discussion, we agree that this article shouldn't have "war" in the title and the reason is less important. “WarKosign” 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "diferent Groups within a nation of state". Arabs vs jews? Israel (country) vs Palestine (Territory)? Now that there is ground troops going in gaza, Im surprised they haven't declared it yet! UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- There aren't ground troops in Gaza: [13]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not all Wars have a formal declaration, it was more of a 17th C to 20th C thing, most 21st Century wars like Tigray War are happening without formal declaration as did past wars such as Hundred Years' War of the 14th-15th C. With that says this should only be classified as a war like the 2014 Gaza War was when WP:RS started calling it a war. Opinions of Wikipedia editors is irrelevant in this regard, if WP:RS starts calling the 2021 conflict a war like the 2014 war, the 2021 conflict should also be called a war. it fits the definitions of wars, but we have to wait for WP:RS to call it here, after a possible WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is nonetheless of interest that a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considered as a "war" but that the entire thing is a "conflict". The press seem at 6's and 7's when it comes to describing what is happening now because the events are not restricted to Gaza.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- So because Israel, Palestine, and wikipedia doesn't call it a war, neither should we? Hmm. Alright when IS it a war then? Is this a major conflict because it does not seem like a crisis. Its a crisis for the people.
- It seems AP has begun to refer to the conflict as a war [14]; "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled the fourth war with Gaza’s Hamas rulers would rage on."
- So because Israel, Palestine, and wikipedia doesn't call it a war, neither should we? Hmm. Alright when IS it a war then? Is this a major conflict because it does not seem like a crisis. Its a crisis for the people.
- It is nonetheless of interest that a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considered as a "war" but that the entire thing is a "conflict". The press seem at 6's and 7's when it comes to describing what is happening now because the events are not restricted to Gaza.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not all Wars have a formal declaration, it was more of a 17th C to 20th C thing, most 21st Century wars like Tigray War are happening without formal declaration as did past wars such as Hundred Years' War of the 14th-15th C. With that says this should only be classified as a war like the 2014 Gaza War was when WP:RS started calling it a war. Opinions of Wikipedia editors is irrelevant in this regard, if WP:RS starts calling the 2021 conflict a war like the 2014 war, the 2021 conflict should also be called a war. it fits the definitions of wars, but we have to wait for WP:RS to call it here, after a possible WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- There aren't ground troops in Gaza: [13]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- "diferent Groups within a nation of state". Arabs vs jews? Israel (country) vs Palestine (Territory)? Now that there is ground troops going in gaza, Im surprised they haven't declared it yet! UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for demonstrating how people make this claim. It's a pointless discussion, we agree that this article shouldn't have "war" in the title and the reason is less important. “WarKosign” 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "claim" of occupation, it is an established fact. The state of occupation negates it being a war without the need for any further explanation, discussions about declarations or anything else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Claims of occupation are actually irrelevant. Definition of war is "a state of armed conflict between *different nations or states* or different groups within a nation or state". Since this conflict is between a state and a terrorist organization, it cannot be called a war. “WarKosign” 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Technically speaking there cannot be a "war" between occupier and occupied because occupation is the result of war, there can only be "resistance" to occupation which is the case here and not only in Gaza. That is also a reason why we also refer to the IP conflict as a conflict even though it has gone on for so long, it is not technically a war because there is an occupation. The only annexed part, East Jerusalem and a part of the rest of the WB, is not legally recognized outside of Israel so that is also an occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Are there many sources calling it a war? I'm guessing not. Considering this conflict is (so far) less intsense than many previous ones that aren't considered wars, this one is not a war (yet). “WarKosign” 07:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well what's the difference between crisis and war? A declaration? They're launching rockets. This is clearly more than a simple crisis, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me, the Gaza War I recently voted to change it to that from conflict. I didn't have any choice because so many RS were describing it like that. However, logically speaking it makes no sense to call the larger problem a conflict while describing an interim event as a war.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly! Now that its escalating its more than a crisis by all accounts and almost into a war. A lot of people are speculating that its going to turn into a war and I already assumed it was and they just never said. Oh, and there is ground troops in Gaza or at least they're going to. I've seen a lot of videos saying that. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- We will DEFINITELY call it War after WP:RS calls it war, but as of now there are no WP:RS calling it war, before editing please learn WP:RS policy, opinions of editors are irrelevant, it will definitely however be called a war ONLY AFTER WP:RS starts calling it a war, as was the case with 2014 Gaza War. It definitely reached the point of a war, but KEEP IN MIND, Original Research is not allowed here and you can change the title to 2021 Isreael-Palestine War only when WP:RS calls it war. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- While I understand that I can't use my opinion to edit wikipedia, it might be a while before that will happen as currently we have no idea what the status of the conflict will be like going forward. It's only a matter of time before something happens. But if its not a war yet, its really not a crisis or a conflict so I don't know what to call it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did think violence was OK (and it is supported by some sources as well) but it was not to be.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- If violence is the answer to this problem, so be it. I think they should go to war without nukes. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- My above point wasn't solely directed at you UB Blacephalon , but all editors who wan't to call it war, sure enough, it will be much like the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War when Wp:RS starts calling it as a war, we just have to wait till WP:RS says it is a war, and if they do, indeed we should name it as a war. Wikipedia's guidelines are the real deal, and we will call the event a war when WP:RS starts doing it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- If that's the case why don't people trust Wikipedia if were THIS strict? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- My above point wasn't solely directed at you UB Blacephalon , but all editors who wan't to call it war, sure enough, it will be much like the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War when Wp:RS starts calling it as a war, we just have to wait till WP:RS says it is a war, and if they do, indeed we should name it as a war. Wikipedia's guidelines are the real deal, and we will call the event a war when WP:RS starts doing it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- If violence is the answer to this problem, so be it. I think they should go to war without nukes. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did think violence was OK (and it is supported by some sources as well) but it was not to be.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- While I understand that I can't use my opinion to edit wikipedia, it might be a while before that will happen as currently we have no idea what the status of the conflict will be like going forward. It's only a matter of time before something happens. But if its not a war yet, its really not a crisis or a conflict so I don't know what to call it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- We will DEFINITELY call it War after WP:RS calls it war, but as of now there are no WP:RS calling it war, before editing please learn WP:RS policy, opinions of editors are irrelevant, it will definitely however be called a war ONLY AFTER WP:RS starts calling it a war, as was the case with 2014 Gaza War. It definitely reached the point of a war, but KEEP IN MIND, Original Research is not allowed here and you can change the title to 2021 Isreael-Palestine War only when WP:RS calls it war. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources have to first call it a war before we rename it to that, I think it’s better if we split this article to one for Palestinian protests against Israel in the west bank, and one for the ongoing intensifying conflict between Gaza and Israel. Some sources seem to be calling the ongoing intensification between gaza and israel a major conflict. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this a Third Intifada?
Some of the news source like Slate and Al Jazeera start calling this event the Third Intifada.
Example of it: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/israel-palestine-third-intifada.html CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is speculation by some that the events could lead to that. But that's all it is at the moment, speculation. It's a good headline to hang an analysis on.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- All right then we will wait till there is more to this recent event. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- See 2014 Jerusalem unrest, some sources refered to it as "Third Intifada". Does it make current events the fourth intifada? “WarKosign” 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Intifadas are a prolonged period of conflicts, and Palestine is nowhere near what it was when Arafat was alive, the last Intifada lasted for half a decade in the early 2000s and since its end in 2005, every year since 2006 there have been claims whenever there were such tensions that a 3rd Intifada could arise. Palestine no longer has the capacity for that and I am sure a ceasefire will be in effect in days or even months at most, however it can be classified as a small duration war like the 2014 Gaza War, but that is ONLY WHEN there are sufficient WP:RS stating it as such. However it is true there are numerous WP:RS besides the slate source you mentioned that claims this could possibly trigger a "3rd Intifada", and tensions are indeed highest since 2005. So I will just mention that "some have feared that this could trigger one", whether it actually does or not would take years to determine, my views are irrelevant, its what WP:RS says that goes, however if senior editors wish to remove that addition, I will not add it back either simply because its too early, though the fact that some feared the crisis could lead to one per WP:RS can be mentioned I think. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that whole last paragraph is UNDUE for the lead, it's also not in the article body. Btw, sputnik is a deprecated source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Selfstudier All right feel free to remove it then, I agree its too early, to term it as Intifadas we should wait for years or at least till WP:RS mentions it confirmatory rather than just as a possibility. Now all of them just says it could trigger one as opposed to actulayy triggering one, WP:Too Soon applies too besie UNDUE, I approve your removal. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like to revert things if I can avoid it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Another set of events in 2015 were claimed as 'the third intifada'. That never caught on, though the time span was far longer. One can only speak of a 'third intifada' retrospectively, if sources concur after the event, which means it is far too early.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Selfstudier All right feel free to remove it then, I agree its too early, to term it as Intifadas we should wait for years or at least till WP:RS mentions it confirmatory rather than just as a possibility. Now all of them just says it could trigger one as opposed to actulayy triggering one, WP:Too Soon applies too besie UNDUE, I approve your removal. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that whole last paragraph is UNDUE for the lead, it's also not in the article body. Btw, sputnik is a deprecated source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- All right then we will wait till there is more to this recent event. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source is speculative (
Is This the Third Intifada?
); it doesn't state that it is, it says that it might become it, and specifically lists some reasons why it might not. Definitely not enough to call it that in the article voice yet, and clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead as long as it's just speculative. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is Qatari state news, and Qatar is involved first as the Hamas activities are commanded from Doha. And Doha provided safeheaven for Hamas operations and operatives. Obviously Al Jazeera should be taken as the least serious source of information. https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/15/05/2021/Foreign-Minister-meets-head-of-Hamas-Political-Bureau-in-Doha --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that my request that the text citing the view 'The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s' be removed was closed immediately as foruming. It wasn't. The rationale was obvious: anyone looking at the 2014 Gaza War's length and casualties knows that.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since when do we judge a conflict by his casualties though.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that my request that the text citing the view 'The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s' be removed was closed immediately as foruming. It wasn't. The rationale was obvious: anyone looking at the 2014 Gaza War's length and casualties knows that.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Recently Scroll the Indian news source also coined the term the Third Intifada.
https://scroll.in/article/995100/israel-palestine-conflict-are-we-witnessing-the-early-stages-of-a-third-intifada CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the casualties infobox:
In the right-hand side, under "Gaza", "change 20–130 militants killed" to "20–130+ militants killed", per the BBC source provided.
In the right-hand side, under "East Jerusalem", add "1 Palestinian Killed"
In the left-hand side, add a new section "East Jerusalem", containing "6 Israeli's Injured".
Per Reuters. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) It's already 150+ anyways.(ps. They keep Israel data low for criticsm ;-) that s why they cite Hamas so much, but when it comes to Israel they have more doubts than philosophers.) --Rectangular dome (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 160 militants were reported killed. It's hard to keep up, I prefer to wait for the operation to stop and then update with stable numbers. “WarKosign” 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why at the same time the Hamas figures keeps being updated, and here people need to ask many times for a change. (Ps. flagrant double standard for me).--Rectangular dome (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- When I tried to find figures I found it far easier to find data on Gaza figures than Israeli ones. Far more sources report the former, and include it in a paragraph on tangential reporting on the event, whereas they often do not include Israeli casualties in the same articles. That may explain why the data is harder to keep updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why at the same time the Hamas figures keeps being updated, and here people need to ask many times for a change. (Ps. flagrant double standard for me).--Rectangular dome (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: These numbers are generally out of date by the point someone looks at the edit request. Feel free to put the updated numbers and sources on the talk page, but there's no need for an actual edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reopened for now. What you are saying about the Gaza figures makes sense, though my concern was more about the discrepancy between the cited source and our figures. However, that is not why I am reopening - I think in the general babble you missed the request for the East Jerusalem figures, and the supporting Reuters source. These are considerably more stable, so I don't think you were applying your reasoning to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: See also WP:NOTNEWS. In conflicts with fast-moving escalation such as this, attempting to keep an "accurate" accounting of deaths is impossible. Better to not have it than try to sort out the competing claims. Whether the east Jerusalem attack should be included can be decided in a month or two when there are better ways to determine the figures. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: WP:NOTNEWS. See above. Run n Fly (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (4)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Diplomacy section, please add note of the statement from the USA and UK, saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israel-has-right-to-respond-to-rockets-palestinians-have-right-to-safety/ Ester9001 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Individual stances by states are in the International reactions to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. We arent going to include only those supportive of Israel when it is a tiny minority and we arent going to include all the statements in support of the Palestinians or opposing Israel's actions as it will overwhelm the article, so we have them all in a child article. nableezy - 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The US and UKs support is the only thing which has blocked united security council resolutions to call for end of hostilities.
- It is relevant.
- Ester9001 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, it is the US only, 14 to 1. The right to self-defence is just a truism. The reason given by the US for blocking a ceasefire call was that it might disturb their behind the scenes efforts to calm the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Truism smuism. Every man and nation has a right to defend itself, and the US and UK and Germany made those statements about the right to defense before the United Security Council blocks, a week before at the start. --Ester9001 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you agree with me.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Follow up on the ruse?
There has been very little coverage as far as I can see in the foreign press of the outcome of the ruse (and it was, from a purely military perspective very shrewd in its potential for a winning blow) concerning an imminent invasion. We have 3 sources (St atesman) saying it was a major success but now note Maariv states that it was subsequently judged to have been a failure or to have fallen far short of its aims. [15]. Worth keeping an eye out for some reliable report in English on this.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It could have been an honest mistake. And no, I'm not WP:FORUM baiting, it's a piece of information that should be mentioned in the article. “WarKosign” 17:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've checked and we do now mention it. Deception is a standard war tactic the world over so is neither a surprise nor 'morally' objectionable. 'Honest mistakes' doesn't ring right, though. It appears so far that the tactic failed to achieve their aim (Aluf Benn, is Israel’s most failed and pointless Gaza operation ever. It must end now Haaretz 18 May 2021 'Israel’s land forces have been consigned to the marginal role of deceiving and confusing the enemy into descending into tunnels in the hopes of trapping them through airstrikes. Even this doesn’t seem to have succeeded – large numbers of Hamas fighters were not inside the tunnels that were bombed.') Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Mentioning children casualties in the infobox
I noticed that children Palestinian casualties keeps getting removed from the infobox. But on the Israeli side we have a breakdown by both nationality (mentioning Indian and Thai) and breakdown by ethnicity (mentioning Arab-Israeli). I think we are going to do a demographic breakdown we should be consistent, otherwise we should only breakdown by combatant and non-combatant.VR talk 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mentioning children is especially important as we otherwise don't have reliable figures in the breakdown of civilians and militants killed on the Palestinian side. Its is also WP:DUE as nearly every news source mentions this. Pinged EkoGraf.VR talk 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, returning it. nableezy - 16:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Expanding slightly, if you want to break down military vs civilian casualties for Israel, including those suffering from anxiety in the count and not even saying so, because the sources do, well the sources also break down the Gaza casualties by age and it is just as DUE to include in the infobox. nableezy - 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Casualties" has a well defined meaning, which usually only includes those physically wounded or killed. Social and psychological effects (anxiety, ...) can be mentioned somewhere in the article, if the sources mention it, but not in the infobox, lest we confuse our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry. I see EcoGraf's edit rationale states that infoboxes don't make that distinction normally. His argument certainly holds for the infobox of the 2014 Gaza War where as here a quarter of those killed in Gaza were children (ca.515).Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hamas ofcourse controls the hospitals and ministry of health which publishes the death certificates and has been accused by Israel of fabricating and inflating number of child deaths. Perhaps that is why it was removed? Ester9001 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nableezy First, regarding your comment, "we break down civilians/military for israel but not palestine", this is incorrect. Based on the available sources we have, we have provided an overall toll of civilian and military dead among the Palestinians and broke that down to the lower (per Hamas/PIJ) and higher (per Israel) estimate of militant dead. Wikipedia infoboxes customarily contain the overall numbers of dead and/or a breakdown between civilian and military, with sometimes a breakdown in nationalities. However, the infoboxes do not contain a breakdown among male, female and children. This is information, like I said, that is more appropriate for the main body of the article. If we include the numbers of children for one side, we would have to include the numbers for the other side as well, which gradually leads to an overinflation of the infobox and WP policy/guidelins state we should avoid overinflating the infobox. Finally, regarding your comment about Israelis suffering from anxiety, there has already been a discussion on that issue during both this and the 2014 Gaza conflict and consensus is the infobox includes only physical casualties that are directly a result of the conflict. As RandomCanadian has said, those suffering from anxiety can be mentioned in the main body of the article, but they have no place in the infobox. Vice regent infoboxes sometime contain breakdowns between nationalities, however, as you pointed out, the figure on the Israeli side also contains the mention of the two Arab-Israelis, which is an ethnical breakdown, which I think should be removed from the infobox. In principle, I agree with your proposal that maybe it would be best to do a combatant/non-combatant breakdown, while mentioning the rest of the information in the main body of the article. So, I would kindly ask Nableezy that you cancel your edit here [16] until a clear consensus can be reached on the figures that would be included or excluded from the infobox as per WP guidelines so an edit war could be avoided. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- What guideline? And yes, we do breakdown civilian/military for Israel and not Palestine, saying that is incorrect is dumbfounding given the infobox is readily available for anybody to look at. We include that 11 civilians and 1 soldier was killed on the Israeli side, but amalgamate those two things together for the Palestinians. Yes, we include what each side says is the "militant" death toll in Gaza, but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed. I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit. nableezy - 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Any suggestion that the Palestinian Ministry of Health inflates child death figures is an anti-Palestinian conspiracy theory. Think how many people would need to be in such a conspiracy to allow this to happen. People who don’t understand the region seem to think that every person in the Gaza administrative bureaucracy is somehow a Hamas militant.
They publish names, locations, ages etc on a regular basis. This type of information is very difficult to fabricate.
If you want additional evidence, note this desperately sad tweet from the Norwegian Refugee Council today:[17] We sadly confirmed today that 11 of over 60 children killed by Israeli air strikes in #Gaza over the last week were participating in our programme helping them deal with trauma. All of the children between 5 and 15 years old were killed in their homes
. If just one NGO had been treating 11 of the children, it is entirely reasonable that another 50 children had died given the scale of Gaza’s population. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nableezy "What guideline?" WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONS. "I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit." The question here is not if it should be removed, but instead if it should be included. And a clear consensus does not exit in this regard at this point. You inserted the information after the discussion regarding its inclusion was started and did not wait for the discussion to reach a conclusion, as guidelines require us. "but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed" We don't say it because there are no sources (either Israeli or Palestinian) that say how many of the dead are actually civilians, only claims by both sides how many are militants. Also, please stick to WP:GOODFAITH. In any case, I still think Vice regent's proposal may be the best solution. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Im sorry, but my reverting your revert doesnt make my revert editwarring and yours not. I have made one revert here, I have not edit-warred and do not intend to. You have likewise made one revert here (that Ive taken the time to count at least, have not checked the history). The guideline I asked for was what says children should not be listed in the infobox. Cus WP:DUE would seem to say it should be when every source that discusses numbers seemingly includes that material. No, I did not insert the information after the discussion was started, I returned the material that had been remove by you without any discussion at all. Also, the UN yesterday said 116 civilians, including 61 and three pregnant women have been killed. I'd be fine including civilians without breaking down children in the infobox like that. nableezy - 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nableezy Thank you very much for providing the source on 116 civilian dead and I agree that it should be included in the infobox, while moving the children figure to the main body of the article. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Im sorry, but my reverting your revert doesnt make my revert editwarring and yours not. I have made one revert here, I have not edit-warred and do not intend to. You have likewise made one revert here (that Ive taken the time to count at least, have not checked the history). The guideline I asked for was what says children should not be listed in the infobox. Cus WP:DUE would seem to say it should be when every source that discusses numbers seemingly includes that material. No, I did not insert the information after the discussion was started, I returned the material that had been remove by you without any discussion at all. Also, the UN yesterday said 116 civilians, including 61 and three pregnant women have been killed. I'd be fine including civilians without breaking down children in the infobox like that. nableezy - 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nableezy "What guideline?" WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONS. "I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit." The question here is not if it should be removed, but instead if it should be included. And a clear consensus does not exit in this regard at this point. You inserted the information after the discussion regarding its inclusion was started and did not wait for the discussion to reach a conclusion, as guidelines require us. "but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed" We don't say it because there are no sources (either Israeli or Palestinian) that say how many of the dead are actually civilians, only claims by both sides how many are militants. Also, please stick to WP:GOODFAITH. In any case, I still think Vice regent's proposal may be the best solution. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reminder All information must be based on WP:RS. It's beyond our remit to criticise sources as "palestinian" or "israeli" propaganda. Ideally, we have independent reliable sources to confirm the numbers. If they disagree, then we need to report all significant viewpoints per WP:NPOV, cited to reliable sources. See for ex. 2014 Gaza War, where competing counts are given in the infobox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Has Israel or any other major player disputed Palestinian figures for either total killed or number of children killed? As Onceinawhile pointed out, this information is hard to fabricate. Since RS's take both of these figures from Gaza MOH at face value and since no one disputes it, we don't even need to attribute it and can state it in wikivoice.VR talk 19:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- NYT says the numbers cannot be independently verified. So they should remain attributed. ProcSock (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The numbers were backed by the UN per WSJ: United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. So shouldnt just be attributed to the MOH. nableezy - 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source says:
In total, 212 people, including 61 children and 36 women, have been killed in Gaza since last Monday, according to the Palestinian health ministry. ... United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. ... A spokesman for the Gaza health ministry denied manipulating figures, saying it has the names of everyone killed in Gaza and could verify those with international organizations.
UN doesn't seem to verify MOH's figures. I guess we could give both sets, however, but I imagine they will be verified once it stops being a current event so don't see the point. Or just attribute separately. ProcSock (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source says:
- Which country's casualty statistics do get independently verified? I am not aware of any country which arranges third party audits of these statistics. I could see the "wounded" statistics might benefit from an audit, as there can be subjectivity there, but counting death certificates entails no subjectivity. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The numbers were backed by the UN per WSJ: United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. So shouldnt just be attributed to the MOH. nableezy - 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be included, perhaps with attribution if other editors feel like it is warranted. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute. 18 May 2021 (7)
All disputes of neutrality is highlighted in a Bold Italic.
In 2.4 (Arab communities in Israel), it states "In Acre, a Jewish man was attacked and seriously injured by an Arab mob armed with sticks and stones while driving his car. In Bat Yam, Jewish extremists attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians. An Arab motorist was also beaten in the street, an incident which was caught live by an Israeli news crew. An Israeli soldier was severely beaten in Jaffa, and two civilians including a paramedic and a police officer were shot by Arab assailants in Lod and Ramla. An Israeli news crew was attacked by Jewish extremists in Tel Aviv, and a Jewish family which mistakenly drove into Umm al-Fahm was attacked by a mob before being rescued by other local residents and police."
Usage of "Arab mob" or "Arab assailant" is a possible dispute of neutrality. Using the word Arab could impose that the editor is an anti-Arab. I suggest that "Arab-extremist" be used instead of just using "Arab" as for it sounds as if all Arabs are extremists.
— Chxeese (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be because Judaism is a religion so one may be a Jewish extremist, but Arabian is an ethnicity, one cannot be an extremist of his ethnicity. Muslim-extremists would fit. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jews are also an ethnic group, ethno-religious.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not all Arabs are Muslims. That is like saying all Americans are Christians. Additionally no Muslim-extremist claimed responsibility for the attack, making it unfitting. -- Chxeese (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. The Israeli were police, may have contain (if proportional to the national population) 20% arab, 20% Russian, christian / athiest / whatever. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Broken record here, go by the sources. That JP/ToI would report on this way does not surprise me so best thing would be to see if there is are alternative sources saying it differently.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 'Arab-extremist' just does not sound right to me, surely it should be either Islamic-extremist, or arab far-right or some such terminology. That is all I was trying to say really. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
“Evictions”: is the term neutral?
I’d like to suggest changing “evictions” in the second paragraph of the intro to any of “forced removal”, “forced displacement” or “dispossession”. Terms like “eviction” and “property dispute” are sanitized to the point of being misleading, and don’t adequately portray the facts on the ground or the legality of the situation. The fact that these terms are strongly preferred by one party (the occupying power) should give us serious pause re: WP:NPOV.
I have a number of sources to support this change, generally endorsed by WP:RSP:
From the International Court of Justice: “Israel: ICC must investigate forced displacement of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and attacks against civilians in Gaza”
From CBS News: “The United Nations Commission for Human Rights has called the forced removal of Palestinian families a potential war crime. Israeli officials have called it a ‘real-estate dispute between private parties.’”
From Al Jazeera: “Sheikh Jarrah residents speak out on Israel’s forced expulsions”
From Haaretz: “Democrats Urge U.S. to Act Against Israel's 'Abhorrent' East Jerusalem Evictions: Several Democratic lawmakers are calling for an investigation on whether Israel’s ‘forced displacement for Palestinians’ violates U.S. laws”
I do not want to start people foruming, I just think this merits discussion and probably a change. I think “forced removal” is a more accurate legal description; “eviction” is better suited to a more banal dispute over residential tenancies.WillowCity (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- A detailed description of the circumstances is already present. This is just highly inflammatory language that would bias the article in favor of one side. We can use banal words, then lay out the entirety of the facts in the article, and let the readers decide on what they think of it.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is accurate, not inflammatory. With the utmost respect, it sounds like you are saying that banal language that would bias the article in favour of one side is preferable to bold language that runs a risk of the same.WillowCity (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Banal language, just dryly describing the bare facts, is not bias. People can read the rest of the description and reach their own conclusions.--RM (Be my friend) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should describe the the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 as "a large wave". As well, "forced removal" is an equally dry description, it just reflects international as opposed to Israeli domestic legal opinion.WillowCity (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The criteria is a balance of sources so if most sources are saying eviction we should go with that. I need to check about "property dispute" and similar phrasing, that sounds a bit off to me but I could well be wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- NYT says "which Israeli officials dismiss as "a real estate dispute," so I think we might avoid that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The criteria is a balance of sources so if most sources are saying eviction we should go with that. I need to check about "property dispute" and similar phrasing, that sounds a bit off to me but I could well be wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should describe the the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 as "a large wave". As well, "forced removal" is an equally dry description, it just reflects international as opposed to Israeli domestic legal opinion.WillowCity (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Banal language, just dryly describing the bare facts, is not bias. People can read the rest of the description and reach their own conclusions.--RM (Be my friend) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is accurate, not inflammatory. With the utmost respect, it sounds like you are saying that banal language that would bias the article in favour of one side is preferable to bold language that runs a risk of the same.WillowCity (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- From the WP page on Eviction: "Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. In some jurisdictions it may also involve the removal of persons from premises that were foreclosed by a mortgagee (often, the prior owners who defaulted on a mortgage)". As the families being removed are neither tenants being removed by a landlord nor being foreclosed on by a mortgagee, the term eviction is not only biased, but wholly inaccurate. Eviction is not "dryly describing the bare facts", it implies fault on those being removed. "Forced removal" is much more accurate as far as "bare facts" go. But if the "forced" part is really too biased, we could go with "removal of six Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah". "Removal" is the most neutral you can get, it implies no fault or reasoning, just the bare facts. --eduardog3000 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I sympathize with this view especially since forced displacement has been the UN view for quite some time but if rs are mainly calling it eviction(s), then we're sort of stuck with it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here OHCHR is calling it "forced evictions" as well as IL violation.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- According to the court ruling the families had no legal right to occupy the properties, hence they were Squatting. The article on squatting uses "eviction" to describe removal of occupants from the properties for which they have no legal right. It has nothing to do with mortgage or rental. “WarKosign” 15:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article that is quoted to suppor the Palestinian POV also uses the term eviction, once with and once without 'scare quotes'. “WarKosign” 15:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's true from an Israeli law standpoint. There are several problems with the application of Israeli law in an occupied territory (according to international law), not least differing ethnicity based evidentiary standards. That is the explanation for some sources, if not a majority, referring to it as forced displacement or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sheikh Jarrah property dispute article uses 'eviction' 19 times, 'displacement' once and not even once 'forced displacement' or any other expression with 'force'. It makes sense: so far no force has been used (except in protest against planned eviction) and nobody can be certain that eventual eviction, if it will happen, will be forceful. “WarKosign” 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isnt a reliable source, and a biased Wikipedia article isnt an argument for language in another article. What are reliable sources however, such as al-Jazeera, Reuters, NYTimes, Washington Post do indeed use expulsion and expelled. Eviction is also used, but it is not the only phrasing used and it should not be the only phrasing used here. nableezy - 16:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair portrayal of at least NYT (haven't checked others). They use eviction as many times as expulsion in that article. In other articles like this they overwhelmingly use eviction. In their header, on your very link, they use "Palestinian evictions". ProcSock (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I said evictions is also used. But that it is not the only term used, and we should likewise also be using expulsion. nableezy - 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Forced displacement" is another one of those expressions like "belligerent occupation", it can be a bit misleading if one just assigns ordinary meanings to the individual words. FD includes displacement not only due to conflict/violence but also due to persecution or hr violations generally.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair portrayal of at least NYT (haven't checked others). They use eviction as many times as expulsion in that article. In other articles like this they overwhelmingly use eviction. In their header, on your very link, they use "Palestinian evictions". ProcSock (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isnt a reliable source, and a biased Wikipedia article isnt an argument for language in another article. What are reliable sources however, such as al-Jazeera, Reuters, NYTimes, Washington Post do indeed use expulsion and expelled. Eviction is also used, but it is not the only phrasing used and it should not be the only phrasing used here. nableezy - 16:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sheikh Jarrah property dispute article uses 'eviction' 19 times, 'displacement' once and not even once 'forced displacement' or any other expression with 'force'. It makes sense: so far no force has been used (except in protest against planned eviction) and nobody can be certain that eventual eviction, if it will happen, will be forceful. “WarKosign” 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's true from an Israeli law standpoint. There are several problems with the application of Israeli law in an occupied territory (according to international law), not least differing ethnicity based evidentiary standards. That is the explanation for some sources, if not a majority, referring to it as forced displacement or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- From the WP page on Eviction: "Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. In some jurisdictions it may also involve the removal of persons from premises that were foreclosed by a mortgagee (often, the prior owners who defaulted on a mortgage)". As the families being removed are neither tenants being removed by a landlord nor being foreclosed on by a mortgagee, the term eviction is not only biased, but wholly inaccurate. Eviction is not "dryly describing the bare facts", it implies fault on those being removed. "Forced removal" is much more accurate as far as "bare facts" go. But if the "forced" part is really too biased, we could go with "removal of six Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah". "Removal" is the most neutral you can get, it implies no fault or reasoning, just the bare facts. --eduardog3000 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Small edits
Second paragraph should read 'right-wing' as opposed to 'Far-Right' Jewish nationalists - it is a large march which encompasses Jews from various levels on the spectrum. Does source specifically say 'far-right'?
First sentence of third paragraph reads as if Israel should have been expected to accept the ultimatum issued, perhaps consider restructuring the sentence.
Finally please change 'airstrikes on Gaza' to 'on targets in Gaza'. Israel didn't 'strike Gaza', that surely breaches impartiality guidelines. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Two of the three sources specifically mention 'far-right. " David O. Johnson (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Caferoma (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah David, two left-wing sources and a third which I've noticed doesn't qualify as a reliable source. The editorial position on this page is quite frankly ridiculous. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that Haaretz and NYT are left wing, personally I think NYT is somewhat right wing. Intercept is also green in RSP although it might need attribution sometimes. The usual thing, rather than complaining about sources used, is to seek out some that take a contrary position and then we can perhaps see about some sort of edit.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Or we could try using sources that aren't generally anti-Israel when referring to Israeli events... That may also work. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Historic dispute section unclear
There is a sentence that does not make sense as follows; can a qualified editor please fix "The land was taken and destroyed by the Jordanian government following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[66]" land has not been destroyed. Perhaps they mean the buildings on the land were destroyed. The Irish Times article cited says the land was "razed". The meaning of that is also unclear but it might mean buildings on the land were razed. The Irish Times article goes on to say "The Palestinian families facing eviction moved – also legally, according to the Jordanian government – into the houses before Israel took East Jerusalem in 1967." So if the buildings were "razed" or destroyed" were new buildings built after 1948. If there are no answers to the questions the sentence could simply be removed. Caferoma (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The same fellow reports for the FT and there is an article today on the same subject. In that, it says "Palestinians were first housed in Arab districts in East Jerusalem by Jordan, which controlled that part of the divided city for 19 years after the birth of Israel in 1948." but otherwise doesn't refer to razing or destruction. I will take a look around see what else I can find.Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good grief! How on earth did that get in? Thanks for noticing it. The error arose because newspaper reporters apparently don't take time to read the history. The Ottoman Jewish area rose up with the purchase of property around the Shimon HaTzadik|Shimon HaTzadik tomb. There were two trusts involved, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, and they jointly chipped in to buy the revered sage's cave and 4 acres of land nearby. The Sephardic portion lay next to the tomb, by the Nablus road, that of the Ashkenazis further south, where a vacant compound was marked off. It was on the latter portion that Jordan built 28 units for refugees. The Ashkenazis during the British mandate eventually built on that particular stretch, but land on the Jaffa road. S further Jewish area was at Umm Haroun (now called Nahalat Shimon), west of the Sephardi site. All of these, and a further site, have been the subject of the legal disputes at Sheikh Jarrah since the 1970s. The details are in the Sehikh Jarrah Affair paper, which I see has been questioned as the output of a 'think tank' and less preferable than newspapers. It is a sided but excellently documented sifting and analysis of the historical documents, far superior in quality to all of the newspaper sources we have used. I'm short on time but will fix this, unless someone else reads up and does it.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- This detailed report says that "Under contention are approximately 28 residential structures, currently housing descendants of 27 of the Palestinian families who arrived in 1956 (about 500 people) and 5-6 settler groups (about 30 people)." and notes "28 houses were built for the original Palestinian residents of the neighborhood in 1956. Since then, some units have been joined and others subdivided and expanded." So that clears that up, I think. Just the razing/destruction bit to sort out, perhaps although it seems clear there was new construction.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ir Amim is very strong on the post 67 occupation history (and logic), whereas Reiter and Lehrs (2010) go into far greater historic depth. I am perplexed that it could be tagged as unreliable because it was published by a 'think tank'. Lior Lehrs for one has cooperated with Palestinian scholars on writing about the history of East Jerusalem, has suggested that Area C (60%) of the West Bank be redefined as an area jointly under Israeli-Palestinian management, and thus wrested from the Oslo interim definition as purely under Israeli control. The scholarship is of a high order. Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I can't find any other references anywhere to razing/destruction but since "razing" is sourced I think we can use that and then add the fact of subsequent construction, that should be OK?Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- If it is a single newspaper's claim, then it comes under 'extraordinary' and requires other good sources (not involved in journalistic meme reproduction as is often the case) before it can be mentioned, I would think. Of course I'm 'Irish' and very wary therefore of such sources:)Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since the same author, I'm thinking that the Irish paper allowed some things that didn't make it past the FT editors.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- If it is a single newspaper's claim, then it comes under 'extraordinary' and requires other good sources (not involved in journalistic meme reproduction as is often the case) before it can be mentioned, I would think. Of course I'm 'Irish' and very wary therefore of such sources:)Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I can't find any other references anywhere to razing/destruction but since "razing" is sourced I think we can use that and then add the fact of subsequent construction, that should be OK?Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ir Amim is very strong on the post 67 occupation history (and logic), whereas Reiter and Lehrs (2010) go into far greater historic depth. I am perplexed that it could be tagged as unreliable because it was published by a 'think tank'. Lior Lehrs for one has cooperated with Palestinian scholars on writing about the history of East Jerusalem, has suggested that Area C (60%) of the West Bank be redefined as an area jointly under Israeli-Palestinian management, and thus wrested from the Oslo interim definition as purely under Israeli control. The scholarship is of a high order. Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- This detailed report says that "Under contention are approximately 28 residential structures, currently housing descendants of 27 of the Palestinian families who arrived in 1956 (about 500 people) and 5-6 settler groups (about 30 people)." and notes "28 houses were built for the original Palestinian residents of the neighborhood in 1956. Since then, some units have been joined and others subdivided and expanded." So that clears that up, I think. Just the razing/destruction bit to sort out, perhaps although it seems clear there was new construction.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good grief! How on earth did that get in? Thanks for noticing it. The error arose because newspaper reporters apparently don't take time to read the history. The Ottoman Jewish area rose up with the purchase of property around the Shimon HaTzadik|Shimon HaTzadik tomb. There were two trusts involved, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, and they jointly chipped in to buy the revered sage's cave and 4 acres of land nearby. The Sephardic portion lay next to the tomb, by the Nablus road, that of the Ashkenazis further south, where a vacant compound was marked off. It was on the latter portion that Jordan built 28 units for refugees. The Ashkenazis during the British mandate eventually built on that particular stretch, but land on the Jaffa road. S further Jewish area was at Umm Haroun (now called Nahalat Shimon), west of the Sephardi site. All of these, and a further site, have been the subject of the legal disputes at Sheikh Jarrah since the 1970s. The details are in the Sehikh Jarrah Affair paper, which I see has been questioned as the output of a 'think tank' and less preferable than newspapers. It is a sided but excellently documented sifting and analysis of the historical documents, far superior in quality to all of the newspaper sources we have used. I'm short on time but will fix this, unless someone else reads up and does it.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request for 19 May 2021
Gaza-Israel Fatalities timeline
- 10 May: Gaza 28/ Israel 3
- 11 May: Gaza 4/ Israel 1
- 12 May: Gaza 21/ Israel 4
- 13 May: Gaza 34/ Israel 2
- 14 May: Gaza 39 / Israel 0
- 15 May: Gaza 13 / Israel 1
- 16 May: Gaza 53/ Israel 0
- 17 May: Gaza 20 / Israel 1 [203]
Can we please make this into a table? Frankly, using slashes as delimiters is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. Also keep a reference column so we can always verify the reference(s) for each day, as references for Gaza and Israel may be separate. Also, add a total to the bottom that aligns with what we are showing on the infobox. If the war continues for multiple weeks, we could turn this into the basis of a new article just for casualties. ItsGrrreat (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- (a) I don't know how to do tables. I'd be happy if someone could do that. (b) There is only one reference for all the data (assembled by a team of NYTimes journalists from all reports available - the NYTs is particular about multiple checking to get the stats right), so the table needs only that one source.(c) It's too early to add a total to the bottom, though it could figure as a empty slot, since we only have this data from the NYTs for 8 days, and lack figures for 18-19-20th, and other days if the rumoured ceasefire doesn't come into effect tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Gaza | West Bank | Israel | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Jewish Israelis | Palestinian Israelis | |||
10 May | 28 | ? | 3 | |
11 May | 4 | ? | 1 | |
12 May | 21 | ? | 4 | |
13 May | 34 | ? | 2 | |
14 May | 39 | ? | 0 | |
15 May | 13 | ? | 1 | |
16 May | 53 | ? | 0 | |
17 May | 20 | ? | 1 |
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks indeed Onceinawhile. I'll edit that in.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if differentiation between Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis is meaningful, as some Arab-Israelis that were killed were killed by Gaza rockets, while one was killed during protests against Israel. Also, three of civilian casualties in Israel were not Israeli citizens. I think this table should focus more on where they were killed, rather than trying to establish affiliation. ItsGrrreat (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good points. Obviously improvements can be made. It's late here, and not my area of expertise. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Dar Yusuf Nasri Jacir for Art and Research
The Dar Yusuf Nasri Jacir for Art and Research suffered extensive damage caused by a raid of Israeli forces. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- That of course cannot be mentioned here, since, to date, this is only attributed by the Jacir family to the IDF and the claim requires independent confirmation. In any case, I have wikified the article and provided some further sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
RfC: Infobox image
![]() |
|
What image(s) should be used for the infobox? Other options are welcomed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
-
A (current image)
-
B
-
C
-
D
-
E
- I don't particularly see a reason to change things compared to where they are now? In the future, I suppose, it may be wise to create a composite image featuring both the damages caused by Israeli military strikes as well as the violence from unrest within Israeli itself (and, likely, something illustrating Palestinian rocket attacks could be a part of that as well). However, the article appears fine right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- In 2014 we settled on using two images side-by-side, one for each side. “WarKosign” 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- As things stand now is fine (clarify, A), but 1:1 would be very much a violation of WP:DUE in that it would pretend that the devastation were equal here. Neither reality or the sources bear that out. nableezy - 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. “WarKosign” 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we. nableezy - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. “WarKosign” 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is what RS say the subject is, and they have largely focused on the damage in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes. DUE demands we give that same weight to that aspect of the story. Not pretend things are equivalent. Whatever, I voted A, would like to stop engaging with you for no apparent reason now plz. nableezy - 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. “WarKosign” 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we. nableezy - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. “WarKosign” 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the old image, B. A is quite grainy and low res, B is much more high def. C doesn't really show anything (just looks like smoke), D is just a bit strange. Probably a better image will come around at some point more in the fashion of A but less low res, and we'll end up using that, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- A, seems the most involved. B just shows soldiers in the street, C shows just smoke. D is also a good image that shows the aftermath. From those, A seems the most logical to me Gorebath (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I vaguely recall some procedure or request mechanism for pix, we could do with a few more.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- A - Don't really "like" any of these pictures. "A" seems least bad. Would be nice to have a usable image of people actually in conflict (e.g. this)NickCT (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Rocks thrown onto Western Wall Plaza
The article (section Escalation-Temple Mount) does not mention the fact that around 8:00–9:00 am on the 10th of May 2021, several rocks were thrown from the Temple Mount plateau/Haram al-Sharif onto the Western Wall Plaza. At the time, the Jewish morning prayer was being held there by students of various Religious Zionist Yeshivot (religious colleges). In my opinion, the mention of this incident, which I have personally witnessed, could add some relevant background information to the police intervention in the al-Aqsa compound. Here are two news reports referring to the event: https://fox40.com/news/national-and-world-news/palestinians-israel-police-clash-at-jerusalem-site-53-hurt/ https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/hundreds-of-palestinians-injured-in-israel-c-2799130 Elendil 03 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- You do know that your second source there is dated the 9th? I can't access the other source, it is one of those closed to Europeans.Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The closest thing in the source was "Police said protesters hurled stones at officers and onto an adjoining roadway near the Western Wall", so nothing there backs up what the editor is suggesting even if we uncritically believe one side's account of the clashes. Of 19 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend adding much on this in the context of the Israeli Police on the Temple Mount. There are quire a few links of stones stored in the al Aqsa mosque for the purpose of throwing on Jews at the Kotel down below. For example on Friday May 7, 2021 the police were there to stop the Arabs from trying to kill the Jews. The next night since there was outrage over the police action, some rocks made it over and the Kotel was evacuated. If anyone wants to gather the sources I think it would help even out the article.Saxophonemn (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- There may be "quite a few" sources but I assume you haven't any? Especially citing "for the purpose of throwing on Jews at the Kotel down below"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- This article (not a RS) mentions several historical precedents and says that "worshipers were actually stockpiling rocks to rain down on the Western Wall plaza". Stockpiling rocks is supported by other sources, intention is hard to prove. Probably no hurdling rocks down at the plaza took place; if it did there would probably be a lot of reports attesting to it. “WarKosign” 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
questions needing review on the subject of Rockets Fired By Gaza & Israel
Why is there not a single picture of a rocket shot from Gaza to Israel (the ones that actually made it to the ground)? Why is there only a picture of the media building, which was used as a human/status shield for Hamas (to fire rockets right next to the building, knowing full well that Israel would be reluctant to conduct an air strike on it because they would get backlash)? The caption reads "Aftermath of Israeli bombing of a building in Gaza, 14 May 2021" in the causes it says " - Planned decision by the Supreme Court of Israel on the eviction of four Palestinian families in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah." " - Closure of the Damascus Gate by Israeli authorities" And " - Storming of the al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli police"
Why can't it explain that the main reason it was bombed was that Hamas was firing rockets right next to the building(!)?
- Source? Also please remember to sign.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reason for the crisis is mostly the Hamas firing rockets onto Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 188.64.207.189 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 08:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- A war start with a beligrant attack, not with an excuse. Germany also had a motives to attack Poland, still the war began when Germany attacked, not when they payed reparations and they were 'collectively' mad. It's like writing on WWII article, the violence started when Germany was angry and when Poland occupied their land, or citing a diplomatic incident on the border of Germany.
So I can recommend adding the hostility were initiated by Hamas launching hundreds of rockets, which is well documented for anyone who read the press. And you can add, Hamas justify its attack on a b & c. Anything else is Stockholm syndrome. :-)--Rectangular dome (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arguments about "who started it" generally lead nowhere. The best one can do is identify proximate causes and events but the conflict itself, this being merely another episode in it, began a long time ago.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021 (2)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Lebanon and Syria" subsection of "Escalation", within the first line, the words 'from' and 'the' do not have a space inbetween them.
On 13 May at least three rockets were fired fromthe coastal area of Qlaileh just South of the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidieh in the Southern Lebanese district of Tyre across the Israeli–Lebanese border, landing in the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah denied responsibility for the rocket launches and Lebanese Army troops were deployed to the area around the refugee camp, finding several rockets there. Change to: On 13 May at least three rockets were fired from the coastal area of Qlaileh just South of the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidieh in the Southern Lebanese district of Tyre across the Israeli–Lebanese border, landing in the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah denied responsibility for the rocket launches and Lebanese Army troops were deployed to the area around the refugee camp, finding several rockets there. zer0talk 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Phrasing - third holiest site vs sacred in Judaism
...the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, located on the Temple Mount, which is sacred in Judaism
Why does this sentence clarify the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the third holiest site in Islam, but simply says the Temple Mount is 'sacred in Judaism'? It is the holiest site in Judaism. I believe the article should say the cite is sacred for both faiths, or clarify both parties' relationship with the location. 2A10:8002:83AE:0:C455:1029:DB39:1637 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are correct, no reason for this discrepancy. Fixed. “WarKosign” 13:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, "third" is a fabrication, all the refs refering to it as the third are baised and not well addressed, and certainly not Islamic in nature. For Shia it's certainly not the third, and for Sunni Hajj places are more sacred. Wikipedia has became a place for folk science.
Btw you can also add positive stories in your cover. Eg, the Jew killed by "protesters", who gave his kidney to an Arab woman. Or the Arab paramedic who saved a Jew stabbed and lynched in Tamra last week. https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-riot-victims-kidney-gives-new-lease-of-life-to-arab-woman/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The original request is Done. Another one for a different subject may be added in the usual way.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Let's update the status of the mosque here after you were able to change it at Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- Regarding positive stories, we certainly should include them in the riots section. Let's wait for the events to stop unfolding and higher quality sources to start summing everything up. “WarKosign” 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Schools, hospitals
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, the allegation against Israel of damaging schools and hospitals is unfounded. Firstly, only the first ref of the long list of refs say so ( the others are there for decorating), and it's actually a quotation from an un envoy, not a forma statement. Secondly Israel has alleged, and provided footage, that some of the rockets fall short (≈25%)... Blaming Israel doesn't respect the NPOV.
Please change it to " according to an UN envoy hospitals and schools have been damaged, by Israeli airstrikes, which Israel deny, and accuses jihadists groups of carelessly shooting rockets from civilan area and falling short on palestinan area". This is supported by many declarations.
Eg : " The IDF says some of the Gaza civilian fatalities were killed by the terror groups’ own rockets falling short and exploding in Gaza." https://www.timesofisrael.com/rocket-fire-from-gaza-halts-for-8-hours-then-renews-as-idf-continues-airstrikes/amp/
--Rectangular dome (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The claims are not unfounded; the provided sources that mention damage to schools and hospitals (The Guardian and Al Jazeera) are both considered generally reliable as seen on the list of Perennial sources. Also, the source you provided doesn't mention damage to hospitals or schools at all. TimSmit (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Gaurdian and Al Jazera are both bi-ased. Exactly ZERO schools have been hit by Israel airstrikes. OBVIOUSLY, why would they hit a school, you people... incorrigible delinquents.
- (and he did link source, don't you see the blue writing?)
- --Ester9001 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is extensive accounts of IDF counter claim that rockets fall short :
"More than 800 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza since Monday, the IDF said, adding that 150 fell inside the Strip, and another 200 were intercepted by the Iron Dome." https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/cogat-announces-closure-of-gaza-border-crossing-over-rocket-fire-667730/
"Since the latest war erupted last week, Palestinian militants have fired more than 3,200 rockets at Israeli cities. Most were intercepted or fell short, in Gaza, but hundreds made it through." https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-israel-palestinian-conflict-e57afb90dbc60ceda6c6cfa6888a4c5b
So far some 1,750 rockets have been fired at Israel, of which 300 fell short in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military said. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/biden-expects-spiralling-israel-gaza-conflict-end-soon-2021-05-12/
Since then Israel has attacked hundreds of targets in Gaza, causing earth-shaking explosions across the densely populated territory. Gaza militants have fired 1,800 rockets into Israel, including more than 400 that fell short or misfired, according to the military. https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210514-israel-pounds-gaza-with-air-strikes-paving-way-for-potential-ground-invasion
"Hamas continued to launch rockets almost continuously into the southern part of the country. The Israeli military said more than 2,000 rockets had been fired from Gaza since the fighting began Monday, with about 400 of them falling short and landing in Gaza itself."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/14/israel-gaza-conflict-latest-updates/%3foutputType=amp
Hamas bombed the Gaza strip with hundreds of rockets, it's important to mention that, instead than partially take blind accusations whitout counterclaims.
Add "allegedly" on claims against Israel. There is absolutely no certainty on that information, it's an allegation (for now). NPOV obliged to not take side on allegations coming from both parties and their supports. --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Ceasefire, approved by Israel gov
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-20-2021/
--Ester9001 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Fingers crossed there's no backsliding.Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- It will continue, (tommorow, next week, next month, next year,...) simply because rocket attacks is it's raison d'être. Wikipedia should include Hamas ideolgy of " destroying Israel and kill the Jews" has a motive in the context. --Rectangular dome (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Predicting the future is a dicey business.Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- We'll see if there will be a ceasefire, then we can update the page. Colin Zhong (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Predicting the future is a dicey business.Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- It will continue, (tommorow, next week, next month, next year,...) simply because rocket attacks is it's raison d'être. Wikipedia should include Hamas ideolgy of " destroying Israel and kill the Jews" has a motive in the context. --Rectangular dome (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
"Caused by" section of the info box biased?
Is the "Caused by" section of the info box biased? From reading the current three causes is seems the Israeli side caused the crisis alone. I think this needs to be expanded with the referenced information in the section "Background". For example the often delayed election dates in the Palestinian areas could be mentioned. What do you think? 2001:56A:F868:D500:8001:CCDB:C527:D60 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was already discussed several times, the consensus up to now is that while it could well be a minor contributing factor (along with failed Israeli elections and other things as well), there seems little evidence for direct causality. The only event that sources consistently mention for (proximate) causality is Sheikh Jarrah and things escalated from there. Of course, there is a deeper causality but not of a proximate nature.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- The box is rather arbitrary IMO, and has no clear inclusion criteria with a sound basis in policy. If the standard used were WP:DUE, ie amount of coverage in sources, then yes that could be mentioned. It's questionable to exactly what degree it did matter. I'm not sure I'd say it's "biased", however, and think this is just a peril of current events. It will probably be improved once we get some scholarly analysis. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the timing of the conflict from:
- 6 May 2021 – present
(2 weeks and 1 day)
To
- 6 May 2021 – 21 May 2021
(2 weeks and 1 day)
Because the conflict has been ended with armstice 182.1.16.166 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Already done by Euro Know. Animal lover 666 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Update killed per Israel in the infobox
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Israel has said it killed at least 225 militants during the fighting" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57195537.amp
The number of militants killed hasn't been updated for days in the infobox. Change "150" to "225+" --Rectangular dome (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is an error. The figure is based on adding up 200+,including 25 senior commanders, as if they were distinct. WP:OR aside from dumb math. Secondly, it came from a speech by Netanyahu and is patently ridiculous. We do know for certain that 66 children were killed, and, together with women, we get to a figure of over 100 for civilian casualties. That would mean a maximum of 143 militants if every male figure over 18 were treated as a Hamas militant (nonsense: we know the names of 2 doctors who weren't Hamas militants, and a 100% Hamas proportion for all males killed is obviously ridiculous). I have attributed to Netanyahu, but we need an official source (IDF), not some wild pseudofactoids in a campaign pitch by the PM. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021 (2)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The ceasefire has been broken by Israeli Defence Force 105.154.145.39 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source?Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- They would appear to be correct [18] [19] [20] BSMRD (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- The ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is for the conflict in Gaza. Biden called it 'unconditional', meaning there are not conditions regarding Jerusalem or anything other than Gaza. Also, even if it was part of the ceasefire, those articles you gave said "Israeli police reportedly threw stun grenades and drove out worshippers after Palestinians threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at troops stationed in the area.", so it it's true, it's the Palestinians would have been the ones who broke the ceasefire. 84.229.154.9 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- They would appear to be correct [18] [19] [20] BSMRD (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Need to Add New Section about Egyptian Involvmenet.
So, In sort, Egypt brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Palestine. Here is the full text for said deal https://www.haaretz.com/the-egyptian-cease-fire-proposal-1.5255539
- Which was accepted
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210520-israel-confirms-unconditional-gaza-ceasefire-agreed-with-hamas Also, Egypt was enacting alot of pressure on Israel and the United States https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/biden-netanyahu-relationship/index.html there are already 2 committees from Egypt as of now monitoring the situation, This is a very good win for Egypt and I think it should be mentioned, because they insisted that the Ceasefire would come into effect at 2 o'clock the same exact hour where Egyptian Forces overran the Bar Lev line and inaugurated the New Suez Canal, it is clearly meant to be a message, also, the amount of medical aid sent via the Rafah Crossing should be mentioned as well as Israel tried to shut it down, but Egypt refused.
All in all, I think the part of Egypt should be acknowledged in this.
- Could be mentioned in the diplomacy section, maybe. Of course the pressure for a ceasefire was coming from a lot of places but Egypt is a long time arbiter between these two since Israel/US won't actually speak to Hamas directly.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Egypt's involvement is easily supported. Egypt also credits Biden: [21]. Bar Lev line and alleged attempt by Israel to shut down the Rafah crossing fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and need really good sources. “WarKosign” 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that it MUST be mentioned in the diplomacy section, Because Egypt in the more detailed article is very empty, and the last thing that came from it is I think the 13th of May, but how so if the major participant and the ones who sponsored, created, and provided this ceasefire proposal is Egypt? I mean, its mentioned by France24, like I linked, and the UN Chief https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1092372
As for the Rafah Border Crossing, the best I got for that is only some local Arab Sources and Anonymous Secruity personeel, however, I think it is verified that an Israeli and Egyptian committee did meet to discuss the border and the fact that the Rafah Border Crossing can provide logistical support to Hamas must be met with force, Egypt apparently had its committe leave and said that there would be no Border Crossing that being shut, it is now indefientnly open, and as for the 2 O'clock thing, while it could be a coincidence, I think its too specific for that, because Apparently the Egyptians insisted very much on it being on 2, a weird and specific time for that, but it could be a message.
- Here's a good source for Egypt's involvment: [22]. Rafah crossing needs a very good source, so far there is none. Regarding time I can speculate that it's because 2:00 Israel (and Gaza, which uses the same time zone) is 0:00 GMT - but I unless there are sources attributing any signficance to the exact time I don't think we should.“WarKosign” 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we put supporting countries?
There's countries that support one side over the other, the U.S supports Israel, Iran supports Palestine, etc. Should we put those in the parties to civil conflict? Countries that have actually done something in support of one of the parties should be placed imo, not just people who says Israel has a right to self defense or Palestine has a right to exist. For example, to clarify anything, the United States sold $750+ million dollars of weapons to Israel during this conflict and supports Israel, so they can be placed under Supported (Israel) or something. Austria, which just said they support Israel but haven't gotten involved, is not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:381:6820:310B:5AF5:1204:9F40 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Lead figures
Is there any reason to mention police chief Kobi Shabtai and not the cabinit member in charge of the police (Amir Ohana)? Animal lover 666 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Casualties for the airstrikes on the 'metro'
We should update the infobox for Palestinian casualties as more information is being published regarding people who are buried in Gaza tunnels, most likely already dead. It seems IDF wasn't exaggerating when they talked about hundreds of Hamas fighters that died inside their tunnels during the Israeli airstrikes on the 14th. I thought it was a bluff by Israel but now the ministry of health in Gaza is admitting it. Please pay attention to this. I could update the infobox myself but I prefer to wait for the final number to come out. So far they talk about 320 dead in total, which would mean only dozens were killed in the Israeli airstrikes on the 'metro' instead of hundreds (maybe around 80). We should specify the number in text body as well. Also I would like to hear from other editors. Any thoughts on this?--SoaringLL (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021 (3)
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
I think the decision to "close" the conflict with the ceasefire was a bit over-eager, even if the Gaza ceasefire continues to hold, violence is clearly still occurring. I think the article still needs to read as though conflict is still ongoing until we can get at least 24 hours of peace, moving to past tense seems very premature. BSMRD (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes it seems BSMRD is right here.There was just a new raid of the same type that triggered the conflict to begin with, this needs to be reopened. 146.115.75.143 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
New raid on Al-Aqsa & possible violation of the ceasefire
There has been a new violent raid on Al-Aqsa mosque. if this is counted as a violation of the ceasefire it could me renewed fighting. Check citation[1] 146.115.75.143 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Abdellatif, Latifeh. "Al-Aqsa Mosque: Israel police storm the complex following Gaza ceasefire". Retrieved 21 May 2021.
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- C-Class Law enforcement articles
- Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Requested moves
- Wikipedia requests for comment
- Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests