Jump to content

Talk:2015–2016 wave of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ISIS

[edit]

I do not think that ISIS should be listed as beligerent since it is not a Palestinian faction and is not a part of this specific conflict but more a threat on a more general level. Agree?

Cleanup

[edit]

This article needs a major cleanup. It appears someone just copy pasted a translated version from the Hebrew page. I'm going to do a little bit of work on it, and I'm not sure how much can be saved. mikeman67 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should focus only on the October escalation. EkoGraf (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EkoGrafI think the article should cover incidents across the entire year, as there hasn't been much prior to September hence that section wont be very big anyway. If unrest continues and develops into an internationally recognised uprising, or intifada, then another article should be set up: Third Intifada detailing the events onwards from September.Prohibited Area (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its a matter of notability (per Wikipedia policy), and the October events are notable enough to warrant their own article. What happened before that earlier in the year can easily be placed in a Background section. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you EkoGraf. Right now the title is way too broad and I think the page should be moved. There aren't additional pages every year for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Not sure what the proper title is though. Way too premature to call it a Third Intifada. September-October 2015 Israeli-Palestinian Violence perhaps? mikeman67 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I did a major cleanup [1] for POV and sourcing. It still needs expansion and sources but I think this is a very hot-button topic. Neutral on ncluding pre-Rosh Hashanah info, but the bulk of the focus should be Sept/Oct.
Although an as-yet small number of sources are suggesting it as Intifada 3.0.Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for purge or deletion

[edit]

This article is a subjective, ridiculous disaster. Referring to the occupied West Bank by the fictional names "Judea" and "Samaria", referring to all Palestinians demonstrating or doing anything as "terrorists", not making any distinction between legitimate targets that're Israeli and otherwise trying to portray them as innocent victims--

"legitimate targets" - please don't try to justify this violence. That's despicable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.206.86 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armed "settlers", IDF soldiers, and Israeli Border Police are all legitimate targets. The violence is completely the responsibility of Israel and especially those Israeli Jews who're active participants in the military occupation and the "settlement" project.
Don't try to pretend that it's meaningless violence where the Israelis are innocent victims. That's a lie and despicable. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More likely it's "West Bank" that's the fictional name, while Judea and Samaria are historically correct for the regions under discussion. As for "IDF soldiers, and Israeli Border Police are all legitimate targets" what does that even mean? Legitimized murder? Is the rationale here that murder is legitimate, as long as someone's wearing a military or police uniform? Would you say the same thing about any other person in uniform, from any other country? Substitute "IDF soldiers" with "United States soldiers" or "Israeli Border Police" with "Dallas Police" and we quickly see you have made an appeal to authority logical fallacy. giggle (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle3 is a sockpuppet of a disruptive guy, no reason to comment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a complete wipe and overhaul or otherwise for the page to be deleted entirely. The kyle 3 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be under the Third intifada. it's been officially declared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who "officially" declares it?
At any rate, ive done a major clean up now (see above).Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

I think everyone agrees the title is horrible (and I had a hard time finding it). So let's suggest new names and discuss a move.

Possibl suggesting is 2015 Temple Mount access-induced political violence. (Not great, but maybe a starting pnint)Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic title needs to be logical and "likely to be searched". I know the sources probably don't support it at the moment but I think Third Intifada (2015) might be a good one. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues (EL, etc)

[edit]

In accordance with EL when links can be cited inline it should be. As such this can, and was, cited inline where it is used (not censored)

Likewise, using a source to quote from the horse's mouth is not POV. It depends HOW the source is used. Here the MFA is not being used to cite Palestinians as "terrorists" or something. Instead it is citing the governments own policy. [2]Lihaas (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional name

[edit]

Can someone add that it is also known as the "intifada of knives"? I really don't know where...

Cheers, --93.137.150.177 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating that the title of the article be changed

[edit]

There already exists a "Israel-Palestine conflict" article in general. I suggest that the article here be changed to something like "October 2015 West Bank unrest" or something similar. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>>> It's not just in the West Bank that there's "unrest". There was a f***ing shooting/stabbing in Beersheba hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of Israeli actions in the occupied West Bank, the situation is spilling over into the Israeli state proper.
The fact of the matter of the Palestinians living in Israel being second class citizens (if not third class) at best is surely something that factors into violent incidents occurring within the state itself as well. The kyle 3 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some people killed in Gaza as well. The violence there has not escalated so far, but who knows what will happen. Also, a trigger of the violence was apparently (who knows these things?) the disturbances related to Al-Aqsa mosque, which happened last month. The alternate title is not accurate, though the current title is not specific enough either. The current title may be the least bad one. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source to help organize stuff

[edit]

I suggest that this article be organized according to this source. It is a nice, respectable source discussing background etc. Some of the WP article already overlaps, it would not be hard to include more details from there. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be added the different terror attacks that happened since beginning October?

[edit]

On the "list of islamist terrorist attacks" article, you see that there have been numerous terror attacks in Israel, shouldn't they be added and detailed or at least mentioned? Or create an article for the major ones, such as the Jerusalem bus attack and the Beersheba bus station attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new titles for this article

[edit]

Discussed

[edit]

G. 2015 Israeli-Palestinian unrest

[edit]

L. 2015 Israeli-Palestinian wave of violence

[edit]
  • Support I'm proposing this because (a) "wave of violence" has been widely used in the media, so this isn't original research (b) it's not euphemistic or overly restrictive in the type of violence that is occurring (b) yes, 2015 is broad, but "wave of violence" qualifies it to only the recent events. I think later on there might be better clarity on what to call this, but right now, I think this best captures the current events. mikeman67 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.m Gregory you are forgetting that Palestinians have been killed by settlers. Hence there is violence on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, actually. I'm arguing that such attacks are rare, not a "wave", making the proposed title misleading in its purported"balance."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know about balance, Gregory? It's hilarious that you think that you can complain about something sounding "biased", especially when we all know that you just don't like seeing the so-called "Jewish state" (it isn't, as it's not the homeland of the Jews) criticized or held responsible in any way. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to topic at hand and WP:AGF.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic at hand, Gregory, is your extreme hypocrisy when it comes to pretending to care about "balance" or "objectivity" when the fact of the matter is that you're all about trying to erase Israeli or Jewish responsibility for the ongoing events or for the conflict in general whenever you can. Stuff the false civility also. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. The Fall 2015 Crisis in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[edit]

The events of September-October onwards were largely foreseen as the following articles, respectively in late June and early September.

I cite the following as an illustration of what the reports of an uptick in Palestinian violence in late September-October do not mention, but which every analyst and top level Israeli security official recognizes, i.e., one of the key hinterlands of the issue, the unreported daily violence that is waged in the West Bank, and the second element, the religious ascendency over politics, as focused on the Esplanade and its symbolism.

In the State of Judea there are hundreds of young people (some no longer that young) who adhere to messianic and/or anarchic and anti-authoritarian ideologies.Among those hundreds are dozens who each day apply some level of violence or terrorism against the persons or possessions of Palestinians. Among them are dozens who would be willing, without hesitation, to apply violence and terrorism against their Jewish brethren should their idea of the sanctity of the land ever be put to the test.

The events are linked to a structural crisis, identified variously by Nathan Thrall and others as the stagnation in resolutive talks to obtain statehood, and the perceived increase in perceived Israeli challenges to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa status quo

O. 2015 rise/spike of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It could be another version of it: 2015 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict' --Midrashah (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[edit]

Support better put. --Midrashah (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see 2015 Israeli-Palestinian wave of violence (L) above. Victor Punta (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly the same. The nuance is different. Your title attaches responsibility for both sides, and my title doesn't blame any side, simply saying there was violence that occurred. --Midrashah (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does it attach responsibility? It's just putting the adjectives before the noun. This is better than your other suggestion but it's unnecessarily long. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its obious how. It claims both sides did violent acts(2015 'Israeli-Palestinian wave of violence) , while mine simply states there was violence as part of the conflict in 2015. --Midrashah (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference, I claim (along with the Jews of Israel) it is one sided but no consensus on that, saying it is a wave of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that Israelis and Palestinians are involved in the wave of violence. The 2015 Israeli-Palestinian wave of violence or Israeli-Palestinian wave of violence (2015) is shorter and better. I personaly still think that "Israei-Palestinian unrest (2015) is the best. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point there, although i'm having second thought if we even need to change the title at all...--Midrashah (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RS usually call this "Terror wave" (Mainly in Israel), "Knife Intifada"/"[word/third]] Intifada" (Mainly in Israel and pro-Israeli/pro-Hamas media), "Wave of Violence" and "unrest" (by most netural sources). The last two are the most netrual and I personally like unrest because it is short and clear, Israeli-Palestinian unrest. --20:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The current title is the most netural, but I have no objection to "Wave of Violence" and "unrest" either, if people wanna make the title less general. --Midrashah (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. Israeli-Palestinian unrest (2015)

[edit]
Therefore, I suggest this name because it is shorter then 'wave of violence' and many sources use it. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThere is no trace of any indication that this deals with the whole year. All the material deals with September-October, and therefore some indication that a specific period of the year is the object of the article is indispensable. If you look at the detailed chronology pages, incidents have been of daily occurrence throughout the year, of varying intensity, and the annual scope is covered already. It is true that unrest is used often. To my eyes, this is just a wishy-washy term suggesting that the normal daily violence Diskin referred to is not 'unrest'. Unrest is chronic, and not limited to this outburst of extreme violence by state and non-state forces on both sides. It is an 'uptick' that started in early September and hasn't yet a name, for the simple reason no Palestinian political group is managing it, because they can't and it would mean a substantial loss in income for the corrupt elite in Ramallah were they to do so. Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are already in November, violence continue. This unrest occures in 2015, if it will continue to 2016, we will move it to Israeli-Palestinian unrest (2015-16). Israelis have an almost official name which is "wave of terror", Palestinians vary between "[insert location/character] Intifada" to no name at all and the world, mostly has a 'wave of violence' or 'unrest', therefore, I suggest the shorter one of the two. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli "!wave of terror" is inappropriate of course, since that, as usual focuses on what Palestinians have done, and ignores what Israeli troops and settlers have been doing, for some 5 decades, with a spike registered this year before the stabbing wave. Look at the statistics from June onwards. And by the way, a large number of these incidents are suicides, i.e., walking into being shot dead (Rasha Muhammad Oweisi), when not, as with the execution of Tharwat al-Sharawi the other day, sheer murder, as the video shows. You probably need a list of the dozen cases of Palestinians shot dead where no evidence has been forthcoming that they posed a threat to anyone. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, I didn't offer the "wave of terror". I still think calling a "Wave of violence" is a bit strange since IDF actions are not "wave of violence", they are armed actions, some of which are claimed to be illegal. If it was a scenario in which there would be 100 terror attacks of Palestinians and 20 terror attacks of Israelis I would say it is a wave of violence but it is far then that, all of the dead Palestinians were killed in relation to attacks, over half of them perpetrated them and the rest are violent rioters, with two civilians killed in an arial attack on Gaza and another four civilians whose death is not confirmed. The UN say those are extra-judicial executions, but to be executed, you need to do something - but why does this matter? It seems that Wave of violence have the most support as an NPOV and I am ok with that. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

[edit]

A. October 2015 West Bank unrest

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

B. Late 2015 Israeli–Palestinian unrest

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

D. Knife intifada

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

C. October 2015 Israeli–Palestinian unrest

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

E. Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) (Status Quo)

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

F. Third Intifada

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

H. Autumn 2015 spate of Palestinian attacks

[edit]
no consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

M. 2015 Palestinian unrest

[edit]
no consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support This urest immidiatly started after Israel banning some islamist groups from al-Aqsa when Palestinians started protesting. Just like the first and second Intifada, this is an unrest of Palestinians. No one disputes that the Palestinian Intifadas should be re-named because also Jews attacked Arabs, this unrest begun as a rage of Palestinians against Israel and therefore, it is a Palestinian unrest. This name doesn't blaim Palestinians for the violence, just like the Intifada (lit. "Uprising") that was coined by Palestinians, who today call this recent violence "Intifada" (Mainly Hamas). Again I say, this does not blaim the Palestinians, but this is mainly an unrest of Palestinians (since there were 75 attacks against Israelis, folllowed with over 1000 rock throwing incidents while there were up to 4 attacks of Israelis against Palestinians). --Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am Netural I still support but I don't think it can be the title per concerns given below.
  • Oppose Name should contain both parties... Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is that the name depends on the degree of the unrest and also requires some degree of acceptance among the commentariat. The first and second intifada were widely accepted names, and the unrest there was much bigger. So, it would not be good to name it like this, which simply names one side. I also do not know how you are counting stuff, but it is much much bigger than 4 attacks of Israelis against Palestinians. There have been 2600 Palesinians injured in the unrest, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. I have been meaning to add lots of stuff to this article but I am lazy and was engaged elsewhere. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Exactly. The unrest is from the part of the palestinians, with some palestinian even calling it Intifada. --Midrashah (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I want to support based on what I know, but am worried that it wouldn't be a neutral title. Palestine blames Israel, and Israel blames Palestine for starting it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article title and its content must be neutral as to the two sides. The casualty rate among Palestinians this year is the highest on record since the UN started statistics (2005). What's unrest mean? Not keeping quiet while the occupation, into its 48th year, gathers momentum? Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Succinct. Descriptive. Accurate. Neutral. Fact is, there is an unusual groundswell of Palestinian unrest this fall. Life in Israel goes on as normal. Israeli police and security forces respond to the unusual number of Palestinian stabbing, car ramming, and shooting attacks attacks on Israelis, and to the uptick in Arab riots, including assaults on security fencing. But this is the normal response of security forces to violence. Israelis are not picking up knives and guns to attack random Arabs. Neutrality requires that we describe reality. This title does that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There has been several attacks by Israelis on Palestinians during 2015.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I. Fall 2015 Palestinian attacks, riots

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose The 'attacks' are all in response to Israeli policies regarding the occupied Palestinian West Bank and typical Israeli abusiveness on a regular basis for years on end, as was what laid the groundwork for the previous intifadas. This proposed title tries to blame the Palestinians for "spontaneous" attacks and the violence, which in reality is overwhelmingly incited and made worse by Israel and Israeli Jews. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like all .E.M.Gregory's IP work, the title is framed to focus on one side of the issue, and structurally ignore the other reality or context, and thus violates WP:NPOV. All sources link this to a long series of incidents concerning a perceived attempt by Israeli authorities to change the status quo of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and the lead up to the outbreak in October was marked also by systematic violence by the other party to the dispute.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The "Fall" doesn't fit here. The "attack, riots" also isn't good enough --Bolter21 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too mush of a complex title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Nameless Intifada

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


K. Late 2015 Palestinian unrest

[edit]

K. Fall 2015 Palestinian unrest

[edit]
No consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have come up with four titles so far, and want to do a consensus poll here on what the article's possible new title will be. Please state Support or Oppose below each suggested title. Editors may add additional titles if they wish.





Discussion

[edit]

The title should accede t the date AND that violence is both sides. A s such L or B sounds reasonable IMO.Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

User 72.161.204.190 inserted blatantly biased and judgemental language into the article, such as the line "whom lack critical thinking skills" in reference to the Israeli term "Wave of terror". I have reverted his edits, and would suggest that he be barred from editing articles on this issue. 96.52.193.71 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user reinserted the vandalism, editing the main page rather than undoing my removal. It has since been removed again, but this should be referred to arbitration. 96.52.193.71 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A separate user has since reverted my removal. This appears to be developing into an edit war. 96.52.193.71 (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about me? Because all I have done is add the word "Israelis" wrote more attacks into the article, and edited some wording? Who are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge the "Silent Intifada" page with this one

[edit]

Related to the debate on what to call this, shouldn't we just rename it to "Israeli-Palestinian unrest, 2014-15"? There have been other attacks in between the "Silent intifada" events and the attacks happening now?

To me it seems a bit illogical to create a new page for each little spike in violence, and not show that it's part of a bigger trend since last year.

At least, we should put most of the contents from the Silent Intifada page into the background of this one, and keep it how it is. Unless anyone has other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September or October?

[edit]

In the infobox it shows October 2015 the beginning of the unrest. Yet there were incidents that led up to the current unrest in September (such as the stash of bombs found in Al-Aqsa Mosque). Shouldn't it be rather "September 2015 - present (1 month)"?--134.219.227.29 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources reported not a 'stash of bombs' but either that in the homes of some youths who frequented Al Aqsa pipe bombs were found or that (b) a couple of pipe bombs were found in Al-Aqsa. The general analyses now emerging point to an incremental rise in violence from both sides after July. Most of the violence is reported from East Jerusalem, where the poverty line has risen 10% in 9 years, and is now 75%, where the rubbish is not collected, where there are 5 clinics serving 300,000 people vs 24 for Jews, where 1000 school rooms calculated as necessary have not been been built, where building permits are impossible, where house demolitions are now more frequent, where the drop-out rate of Palestinian youth is 4 times what it is in Israel for Arabs and in the West Bank. All of this is unremarked when 'calm' and stasis is secured. It is being looked at as the sociological context by analysts, as part of several facts which, once the status quo at Al Aqsa seemed to be undergoing a change - documented by a ministerial boast that under his jurisdiction Jewish visits were increasing and Palestinian visits were declining, as the area was being ruled off limits to many categories of East Jerusalem worshippers - that being a 'trigger' for the explosion of rage and violence. If the idea is to frame this as a 'Palestinians began terrorist acts' article you're on the wrong site.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There are five immidiate sources I could find to support this claim:
  • Source from Haaretz - "Residents of Armon Hanatziv have complained in the past about feeling unsafe, a situation that grew worse after the death of a motorist, Alexander Levlovich, who lost control of his car after Palestinian assailants threw rocks at the vehicle while he was driving in the neighborhood last month. The incident was followed by a wave of violence that spread across Israel."
  • Source from Times of Israel - "Ten Israelis have been killed and dozens wounded since the start of the cycle of violence, when Alexander Levlovich died after a rock attack on his car in mid-September."
  • source from US News - "And tensions were heightened with the death of Alexander Levlovich who crashed his car in a stone-throwing terror attack. "
  • Source from the algeminer - "Levlovitch, 64, died on September 14...As the first fatality in the current terror wave, he has come to represent the start of what some Palestinians are calling the “third intifada.”"
  • Finally we have this source from Haaretz with a timeline. We can see that according to it, the first day of the violence in the 13 September when police raided al-Aqsa and the death of Alexander Levlovich occured in the 14 September (Midnight after 13 September).
Therefore I suggest changing it to 13 September - Present --Bolter21 10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same point was made on the Al-Aqsa article years ago. A soldier was killed a day or two before Sharon's walk, and therefore at the time it was regarded as the start by a few sources. No one takes that seriously now. To always 'start' an intifada with some Palestinian murder is rather pointless. There was definitely an uptick in early/mid-September, and it has two aspects: an upsurge in Palestinian protests and acts by Israel, starting on Sept 9 perceived as attempts to change in the stato quo. Israel declared it had sovereignty (which in law, it does not), and barred Palestinian guards there (no negotiation), then, as youths heeded calls to defend the Haram Sharif, it was raided on the 13th, fight broke out, and the place was shut down for Palestinian worship.

Clashes at the Temple Mount are nothing new, particularly around the Jewish High Holidays. The latest round broke out following Israel’s decision on Sept. 9 to bar an Islamist protest group from entering the site. Israel said the group, known as the Murabitat, and its corresponding men’s faction have been yelling at Jewish visitors and throwing stones at them.

The official statement accompanying this said Israel had ‘sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif’. That was heard all over East Jerusalem.
Since the Jewish “high holidays” began in mid-September, Palestinian youth have been throwing stones and firecrackers at the Israeli police to prevent the entry of groups of religious Jews, who have been ascending the Esplanade with the intention of changing the current arrangements at the site. Palestinians, who have suffered the desecration of many mosques and holy sites since 1948, feel like they have seen this movie before and fear where it ends.Ofer Zalzberg, 'The Crumbling Status Quo at Jerusalem’s Holy Esplanade Crisis Group,' 7 October 2015
The International Crisis Group's late June report also concluded that trouble was already stirring by mid-year, precisely with regard to tensions on the Temple Mount. So starting with one side's first fatality is pointless, while it is true that the simmering came to a boil around mid-September, with increased tensions and provocative acts by both sides.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violene has been going on quite reugularly, but this spacte was mostly in regards to the Temple Mount restricyions. (Jordan has also warned on that). We can add background of the accusation of "judaisation" f the area that's been happening last few years.Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

[11]Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Intifada

[edit]

@Mhhossein: Following the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third intifada, some of the information of that article was removed. I propose adding the relevant information to this article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed:Are you proposing to have a subsection entitled "Third Intifada"? --Mhhossein (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to move that information to this article. In addition you can make a section for the discussion about the nomination of the urrent violene as third Intifada. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a new section and tried to restore the related materials from the The Third intifada. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the background section

[edit]

Some usuable sources from Reuters for the 'Background' section:

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

, marked by Palestinian terror cell charges

[edit]

What does this curious phrase mean? Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries

[edit]

Why isn't the 8,262 Palestinian injury figure placed in the infobox?--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance service say 8000, Health Ministry say 3000, the health ministry is always prefered in sources, including Israeli sources and Al Jazeera. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]

A month on, we see RS converging on September. Boston Globe "The shooting was part of a wave of violence that began in September over tensions surrounding a Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims." [19].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is? --Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have any point. That's only to be expected. 70.27.163.22 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2015 (I)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: closing this one so it can all be discussed in one thread below. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) → Israeli–Palestinian wave of violence (2015–present) – Gained more support in the previous section, this one is with (2015-present) since the conflict havent ended yet. Supported by many sources:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 December 2015 (II)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Although there seems to be general agreement the current title is not ideal, there was nothing close to a consensus for any of the proposed alternatives. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) → Israeli–Palestinian unrest (2015–present) – Although other name got more support, this one is also shorter and also has sources. Unrest also indicates the demostrations

@Bolter21: - first of all the nominator is automatically considered a supporter, unless specifically said otherwise. More importantly, however, is that making two WP:RM proposals at once is disruptive. Please close one of them unless you wish to be targeted for disruptive editing by users who might not like it. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 21:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a way to merge two proposals into one double proposal if I recall correct, anyway, I won't really be able to fix this in the next day or so.. Also it seems that we are not getting any consensus or even any opinions of proposals since October and I still think that "Wave of Violence" is wrong even though gained most support. I don't know, since no one responded in ten days, I guess you might as well close both proposals and reopen a new organized discussion on it. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09 I have seen two parallel proposals before, precisely in such cases, where there is more than 1 plausible alternative. To call this "disruptive" is factually incorrect, and not nice. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per comment results:
Comments: The way I see it; 1)- It is alright to separately list support but should be Support (as nominator): if making additional comments. 2)-Per Greyshark09; there are issues that can have serious consequences if someone does bring up the issue of two RM's if they are concerning the same thing. 3)- No comment(s) is considered as consensus by silence as long as there is not any restrictions like sanctions that may come into play. 4)- A nominator can withdraw a nomination.
Concerning the adding of (–present) I do not see how that matters. This is 2015 (the year listed), for a couple of more days, and "present" is ambiguous to changing daily per any "recent" edits. I have not looked but what about adding (2015–) or waiting until Jan 1 and list (2015–2016) then make a RM in 2017 if the conflict is still on-going.
However, as far as changing "conflict" to "unrest": One place in the article states, "21 Israelis and one Jewish American were killed by Palestinian violence.", and to me that seems like a potential move to down-play things. "Unrest" could be something as simple people upset, the unrest before the election, the unrest after the trial, rally's, protests, and the like. "Unrest" is not generally associated with 21 people being killed, that usually elevates things.
  • Unrest: a disturbed or uneasy state : turmoil, and agitation in a group of people, typically involving public demonstrations or disorder.
  • Conflict: fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
This has led me to oppose the RM with valid reasoning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: @Otr500: "Unrest" is indeed the situation. Conflict is really general, there is already an "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" along with "Israeli-Syrian conflict", "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" and others, togather forgeing the "Arab-Israeli conflict". This is not a war, there were no battles or fights. The maximum were clashes between Israeli security personal and Palestinian rioters. 23 Jews and two others were killed during Palestinian attacks (for the sake of this conversation I won't say 'terrorist') and most of which were perpetrated by individuals, "lone wolves" (the sources are in hebrew). Also over 70 arab perpetrators were killed during those attacks. The 3,000-15,000 injured and the other 50+ killed arabs are predominantly violent rioters (most of whom were hurt by tear gas). There is no guerrila fighting or organized insurgency. This is simply a civil unrest, with fuel coming from current events and incitement. Israeli media call it "Wave of Terror" but already in November I recall seeing news broadcast of channel 10, who already calls it the "Individual Intifada". Hamas, since the beginings of the clashes in al-Aqsa, already called this period the "al-Quds Intifada" (Jerusalem's Uprising). IDF is now calling this a "Limited Uprising" but eventually, most sources agree on "violence", "wave of violence" and "unrest" while "unrest is the most encyclopedic of all. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Term: how about "violence" ? Unrest meansCivil disorder, which implies demonstrations of riots, while what he have in reality is a series of violent incidents. I agree that conflict is an overused term and is not suitable here.
Time: present is too vague. For now vast majority of events happened in 2015, so it can remain "2015 Israel-Palestine violence/unrest" for a couple of months, and if things don't end by say April we can call it "2015-2016 ...", and then keep updating it every year if necessary. “WarKosign” 19:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disagreement over extrajudicial killings

[edit]

I received the following message from User:Bolter21

Among the things I removed, were things that are not in the right location of the article, suggestion unsourced claims, like for example that the death of alldged Palestinian assailent in 22 September was followed by an esculation but acually, the esculation occured in 1 October and sources in the article agree with that. So self revert your edits or be reported for breaking rules.

I find it very difficult to take this argument seriously, although I have reverted the changes pending discussion. WP:NPOV doesn't require every statement to be scientifically "true", but

which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

The article currently has a strong editorial bias in the lead and other sections, which including the text I have done about the killing of al-Hashlamon has started to give a little more balance to, representing POVs about causes to the violence with more depth. Currently, the article is only giving the pro-Israeli narrative, that what constitutes a "wave of violence" is when Israeli settlers are killed, ignoring any notable Palestinian deaths.

As for the accusation that the death of al-Hashlamon on September 22 wasn't "followed" by an escalation - the lead sentence states that the increase of violence started early in September, escalating to the wave of lone wolf attacks and protests by October 1. So something which occured on September 22 can easily be a trigger for the violence, even if it's not immediate! Elsewhere in the article, incidents over the Temple Mount from September 13 through to late September are attributed as motivating violence; sources certainly attribute an increase in violence to those incidents, so perhaps they should be reflected in the lead, in order to meet WP:NPOV standards, as well as WP:CREATELEAD

In that case, the killing of al-Hashlamon deserves its location in the section "Events leading to the escalation" - as many published sources, including those already referenced, mention that Hebron was an epicentre in the wave of violence and protests, and that killing establishes important chonology for incidents in the city. TrickyH (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is killed because they are perceived as terrorists, that is not extra-judicial killing, that is thwarting a threat. Look up the term extra-judicial killing perhaps. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked that hyperlink, and what do you know, "it is practiced by Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank,[35]and abroad". Regardless, what you just wrote violates WP:NPOV. A variety of published sources, such as international and Israeli human rights bodies, have published statements calling what has currently occured a wave of extra-judicial killings, and this POV is already included in the article, as well as PM Netanyahu's response to them. Your role as editor isn't to decide what these killings should be called; it's to "fairly, proportionately and without editorial bias" represent published opinions about them. The fact that you're resorting to these kind of responses suggests you know as much as I do that the article needs to be changed to meet WP:NPOV and you're arguing simply for the sake of defending a single POV.

TrickyH (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel say: "not an extrajudcial killing" UN say: "may have been extrajudcial killing" rights' organizations say: "seem to be extrajudicial killing" Palestinians say: "extrajudicial killings".

The death in 22 September was not the event to esculate the violence from riots to "wave of terror"/"intifada" or whatever youd like to call it. The esculation occured following the West Bank attack in 1 October. As sources tell. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, and I'm now arguing that the lead needs to include a little more depth on the Temple Mount incidents in September to meet WP:CREATELEAD and WP:NPOV, and rewording of the lead to indicate that the Henkin killings were the attested start of the wave, rather than the previous wording which suggested they were the cause. However, the 22 September death is a relevant event preceeding the escalation and helps to explain why there have been a high number of violent incidents in Hebron, so it belongs in section 1.1, as does more explanation of the Temple Mount aggravations through to late September.
This could be achieved with some sentence edits, especially the sentence: "Commentators have variously analyzed the phenomenon as the consequence of either a viral social-media campaign that may have influenced and motivated the Palestinian attackers," - to clarify that the "social media" campaign which sources report was about the Temple Mount incidents through September.

TrickyH (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool down please, will you, TrickyH. I have no POV. I am just saying the term is used incorrectly. I never said that we shouldn't use it even if sources do. Where is your WP:AGF? Debresser (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So since you haven't presented any arguments against it, have we reached consensus on changes to the lead as I've suggested or similar, or to including the al-Hashlamon killing in section 1.1? TrickyH (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful to give fair representation to all points of view. If one says it is, another two say it maybe is, and a third says it is not, then that should be specified. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up lists in sections 2.1 & 2.2

[edit]

In addition to this tag:

There's a strong WP:NPOV issue here, in that every attack or alleged attack by a Palestinian on an Israeli has been listed, but there is no mention of Palestinian deaths in this section, despite sources in the lead attesting that there has been a higher number of Palestinian deaths and injuries.

I propose that the section is rewritten into prose from the list format, breaking down into subsections based on each month - ie violence in October, violence in November, etc - which will also allow the addition of Palestinian deaths or injuries, protests, etc, without creating yet another list. TrickyH (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the section is "Attacks by Palestinians". I have created a a section for the extrajudicial killing.
Anyway, I suggest removing most incdients and leaving only the significant ones with a link the violent incidents--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good solution re the lists. I'll get started on a comprehensive edit to merge 2.1, 2.2 and 2.21 and reduce the number of lists, along with the link.
If the article is going to be structured in that way, the extrajudicial killings section will need significant expansion, however - to include the already referenced injuries and deaths of Palestinians at protests, as well as the killing of knife attack assailants, or alleged or suspected assailants. Perhaps an additional section on Palestinian protests would be clearer? TrickyH (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I remind editors here

[edit]

That neither Wikipedia (Israeli/French or otherwise) is a reliable source, nor is the IDF blog. These are ruled out by WP:RS, and the latter, given it is a military participant in the conflict, with a system of classification of what is 'terrorism' and what not that is a POV rather than a dry neutral factual analysis, is absolutely out of place.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, please look at the weekly technical breakdowns the UN does on the conflict, available here.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, then there are quite a few more sources which are so POV we should exclude them. The IDF blog might actually be reliable, at least about facts and the way the IDF sees things. The same can not be said about some other sources, which are not reliable as to either. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDF blogs are not usable. UN sources are. The UN does not have combatants on the field.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already suggested to kick away most of the incidnets in the giagentic list (I expanded cause I couldn't see it unfinised) and stick back to mostly news reports of all sides. I am also removing content from the lists of the attack including the "list of videos" which are not really encyclopdic and somewhat not legitemate (else it was a pro-Israeli blog)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a video game; Infobox is shameful

[edit]

- Putting victims of terror attacks and killed attackers on same level, be it targets of extrajudicial killings, is disgusting.
- Same in regard to Palestinians shot dead while demonstrating.
- Dropping non-Israeli victims into lower-set box - ibidem.
- M. Abbas under "Commanders and leaders" next to Mashal & Co. - are you crazy?
DON'T TRY TO APPLY INFANTILE PROCUSTUS-BED PATTERNS TO COMPLEX PHENOMENA, it's not a video game, people are dying for real, others are wrongly accused of being morally guilty. Please hold back when editing such painful topics. WP standard matrices such as "infobox" are not god-given, show some decency & sensitivity.
Attacking unarmed civilians is terrorism, period, according to any definition. Attacking security personnel during occupation is generally not; the Geneva Conventions gives the qualifications. Using minors is at least immoral. Etc., etc. Try to put all this into square boxes and you'll fail. Arminden (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

מצטער שנעלבת... תתמודד
No body is putting attackers and civilians on same level. Palestinians who are shot dead in demonstrations are indeed shot dead in demonstrations, the Israeli victims are at 25, MFA source lists all terror vitcims, not only Israeli, Abbass and Mashal are leaders indeed. Do you know how many people were killed yesterday in Libya in a single attack? Do you know how many people were killed in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Mexico or Yemen since the violence in Israel begun? Take your bullcrap Jewish Home/Likudnic agenda and throw it on the Hebrew Wikipedia, in the English Wikipedia we have sources and this article is based on sources, you do not oppose them--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: You didn't understand a thing. My French is far too poor to attempt to write in your own language, but I have the decency not to try. Me, with Bennett & Netanyahu? Can you even tell white from black if written in English? Forget the language, if logic is so unattainable for you, you better leave this activity to others. PS: Maybe you want to add Zan Tabak too, he's also a leader.Arminden (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and USA

[edit]

I find it odd that USA is calling knife attacks as an acts of violence and Germany calling it as terrorist acts. Should we highlight this in the article as before these knife attacks anything a Muslim did in the context of war USA called it as a terrorist act and Germany was always on the sidelines. Twitteristhebest (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like your own interpetation and I would say POV. Also I am certain that in some point in the recent four months the US called the attacks "Terrorist attacks". It seems you are trying to achieve your agenda on terrorism which I can't really understand what is your point.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enlightened us with your source or sources where USA has called these attacks "Terrorist attacks". My views are based on sources mentioned in the international responses section. Another odd thing I found out today is that I am being attacked with ad hominem on Wikipedia. Twitteristhebest (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't get your agenda or your point. Sorry.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't take you seriously as you have provided no source to backup your claim. Twitteristhebest (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim I have is that I don't understand what do you want.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So when did in recent four months US called the attacks "Terrorist attacks"?. This is your claim in the first reply. Provide the source and this debate will be over. Twitteristhebest (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The United States harshly condemned the attack. “We condemn these terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in the strongest possible terms,”--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should add that to the International Responses section as John Kirby has not called it a terrorist act but only acts of violence. Twitteristhebest (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian wounded numbers

[edit]

The source isn't a good one at all.

Plus it should note that the vast majority of the wounded are from smoke inhalation during riots/protests as not noting this (very light injury) is misleading to the intensity of current flare up in violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:181:8880:BC90:AE6F:C861:4DE7 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was previously led to believe that a number of the Israelis classified as "wounded" were simply in a state of shock or some such thing. Otherwise not actually physically hurt. Excessive smoke/tear gas inhalation most probably comes closer to being "wounded" then "going into shock" or suffering from hysteria.
And no, it's not the "vast majority" on the Palestinian side. It's probably around 2/3, which is a majority but not a vast majority. Over 5,000 have been more directly physically wounded by occupation soldiers and police forces. Shah massoud (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know who changed "wounded" to "injured" on the Palestinian side, but it should be reverted for as long as the Israelis hurt or "wounded" are described as being "wounded". Shah massoud (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this phase over?

[edit]

According to this source from 12 February, the level of violence have reached the lowest since July (the wave started in September) the the esculation is over. What do you think? Should we say the escualtion ended in January? I am going to add the source just to cite the obvious, that the the levels of violence went down.

On the inclusion of Daesh/ISIS/ISIL

[edit]

I'm going to nominate the notion that Daesh ought to be included in a third party box if it's going to be included at all. Daesh isn't a fan of Palestinian nationalism, with the majority of the Palestinian parties in the conflict being strictly nationalist, and also considers hybrid Islamist-Nationalist groups like Hamas to be apostates or heretics for not being at the least radical Salafi Jihadis or wahhabi-takfiris. Those handful of Palestinians who claimed to be in allegiance to Daesh certainly haven't brought up the issue of Israeli actions in Palestine or of Palestinian nationalism when it comes to their rationale for whatever they end up doing, also. Shah massoud (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Also, who the hell added the "intervention against ISIL" category to this page? This conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Daesh or the intervention against that organization in either Iraq or Syria. Seems to me like someone's trying to make false equivocations between Hamas and other Palestinian groups in general, and the likes of Daesh, simply because two or three people pledged allegiance to that group before they carried out an operation or attack.
It goes without saying that I nominate for the deletion of that category. Hasbara style propaganda doesn't equate to real life. Shah massoud (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


ISIL is increasingly involved in inciting violence, and we have seen several operatives making attacks or being arrested by Israeli security and by Hamas. It might be that the Palestine police in the West Bank has also made arrests, but i'm not familiar with this. Regarding your concern - I agree to put ISIL in third column, since it is obvious that ISIL is both against Palestinian national parties (Fatah, Hamas, PFLP) and against Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am for deleting the category and removing the organisation from the list of belligerents completely. The two sources don't substantiate inclusion - one is about Palestinian men who were arrested trying to leave to join ISIS, not commit any kind of attack inside Israel, while the other is a blatant POV source. TrickyH (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This phase of violance has nothing to do with ISIS except for some Palestinians being inspired by ISIS, at least according to some analytics. There were two incidents belived to be inspired by ISIS, the one is the attack in Beer Sheva and the other as a recent attack in Ashkelon, perpetrated by a Sudanese migrant. ISIS in the Gaza Strip fired rockets on Israel, some were after the clashes in al-Aqsa but the rest are part of the conflict against Hamas rather than the conflict against Israel. I don't think ISIS should be a beligerent in this article, but it can be in a category I want to add and it is "Supported by" and add Palestinian factions who supported the so called uprising and other groups such as Hezbollah who announced they support the uprising. Fatah (Tanzim or al-Aqsa martyers) and PFLP didn't really perpetrated any attacks, while Hamas perpetrated but all are included in the beligerent (which I added them in the past and now I regret).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the publication of investigation on June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting, this looks a more serious connection - though the perpetrators were not "official" ISIL representatives or acting on their specific orders, it was revealed that one of them was a staunch ISIS supporter and both photographed with ISIL flag prior to executing the attack. It was hence a local Palestinian independent ISIL-inspired cell.GreyShark (dibra) 14:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you include the fact they also claimed to support Hamas and one of them was a member of the movement, that's not black and white ISIS-related attack.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the description of "attackers"

[edit]

In regards to the Palestinians killed so far. I'm going to bring up the notion that it should be changed to "alleged" attackers because the only people claiming as much in every instance are in the army of occupation and the Knesset, and they're not, strictly speaking, the most objective of all people when it comes to talking about Palestinians dead at their hands. I believe in at least a number of the cases where Palestinians have been shot dead, other Palestinians have come forward with a different story then the one put forth by the IDF PR people. In light of that, you either call the Palestinians "liars" in general, I suppose, or otherwise you have to take it into account and acknowledge the fact that the occupation army and police both have absolutely no problem with outright murdering Palestinians and trying to lie about the acts after the fact. They've done it to a considerable degree before this unrest and it's clear that they don't seem to have a problem extra-judicially executing people who pose no threat in broad daylight for all to potentially see as it is. Shah massoud (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the source says "assailant" it's an assailant. When the source say "suspected assailant" it is a suspected assailant. We are working with sources and so far I tried to bring the claims of both sides but I barely have any time to work on this. The claim of extra-judically killing is super contrevercial, as some of the events were called "Extra-judicial killing" while sometimes Israel denied the use and sometimes Israeli officials condamned the security personal who made those actions. The incident in Hebron I"m your you heard of, when a soldier shot a Palestinina assailant who was lying for six minutes on the groud, saw the condamnation of all IDF officials and Israeli authorities except for far right wing parties and their supporters. The incident with the policeman who shot and killed the teen who attacked a man with scissors also brought statements from IDF officials saying it was a use of excessive force. I am planning to expand the "Extra-Judicial killing" section with sources of both sides and remind you that this is a conflict of two parties and not only the Palestinians. So far, I know around six incident of suspected use of excessive force or extra judicial killings that cause rage among Palestinians and some of them are already in the article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the extra-judicial killing in al-Khalil

[edit]

Widespread condemnation amongst Israeli Jews? More like an unprecedented wave of support for the act, carried out by a proud Kahanist "medic". Netanyahu blathered about the IDF being "most moral" as per usual and lyingly decried Palestinians fighting for their own home as "bloodthirsty murderers"-- hilarious accusation when you consider the entity that Netanyahu is commander in chief of, and its actions in Palestine and Lebanon, in the context of those wars. The point is, I think we should be careful on that. The most notable things have been the level of apologia on the Jewish, Zionist street when it comes to what's an extrajudicial execution at "best". Shah massoud (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is a big WP:POV.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop abusing that term. In reality, a substantial percentage of Israeli Jews seem to agree in full with extra-judicial murder of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. After that, the rest of them seem to be overwhelmingly apathetic-- sipping lattes in tel aviv is more important, unless the unrest actually comes to tel aviv. Nutty and his minions are very supportive of "soldiers" of the IDF whenever they end up murdering Palestinians for doing what anyone in the Palestinian position would be doing.
The point is that it's important not to create a false impression. "Crying while shooting" was always an Israeli lie, but at this point you have Jewish and Zionist elements lauding people who shoot wounded people in the head on the street. Shah massoud (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


"In a poll done by the Israel Democracy Institute, a majority of Jewish Israelis (53%) said they agreed with the statement that "any Palestinian who has perpetrated a terror attack against Jews should be killed on the spot."[115][116]"
Considering that they think engaging the army of occupation and the land-stealing, Palestinian-hating "settlers" as "terrorism" no matter how militarily legitimate the Palestinian operation in question is-- this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. Contrary to "widespread condemnation" it appears that over half of the Jewish Israeli camp advocates for extra-judicial murder. Shah massoud (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your language here is a very strong POV language.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop abusing that term. Do you see me editing that sort of thing into the article itself?
I mean, it is true about the "settlers" and indeed many Israeli Jews in the state proper who hold the "Zionist dream" to be a good thing. That is clearly indisputable, as can be seen from alleged Jewish attitudes to the actions of the army of occupation over the past 6 months, and the alleged 95% approval amongst Jews for the assault on Gaza back in 2014, which killed mainly non-combatants and civilians.Shah massoud (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't accuse you of anything, just talked about your language. There is no where to go with that language.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest casualty figures?

[edit]

Have the casualty and death figures been update for both sides in the infobox? Also, shouldn't someone add the 1 Israeli death and 30 Israeli injured from the Jerusalem bus bombing, to the casualty figures?--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the wounded figure accorging to the Israeli MFA source. The man who died was a young Palestinian from Bethlehem, according to Hamas he was one of its members. So he will be added once a new source for Palestinian casualties will be added.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the format of the article

[edit]

TrickyH, do you have any idea how we can improve the format of the violence section? Right now it is a long list and I hate it, it doesn't bring any vital information and also somewhat POV. I thought about making it a paragraphed section that looks more like Second Intifada sections. The best sources I have for such thing are this which is quite pro-Israeli, or the [www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Reports/Pages/ReportE0616.aspx Shin Bet] which although an Israeli official organization, it is much more objective than most pro-Israeli sources out there and OCHA which also has weekly updates. What do you think?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also the soure of the Shin Bet is good to replace the existing list of incidents becuase it contains details on the number of attacks. Also we need to put more information on the reactions to alledged extra-judicial killings (like Hadeel al Hashalmun) and "Days of Rage"s that were declared back in October and November.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from bullet points to prose seems logical for this article, since we already have List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 and equivalent for this year, which cover each of the bullet points listed on this page, often in greater depth. I think following the month-by-month format that is currently in use makes sense, summarising the key incidents of that month as well as the overall casualty/incident figures given by OCHA and Shin Bet (highlighting any discrepancies or POV conflict between different sources). We could even restructure into 2.1 - September (...), 2.2 - October (...), 2.3 - November (...), integrate the current 2.3 and 3 into a more detailed section covering the missing information you've identified with several subsections, integrate 2.4 into the month-by-month sections completely since it's a fairly short list at present (although there has definitely been some notable instances of settler violence that aren't listed at present), and 4 could probably be integrated elsewhere too, perhaps as a subsection of 6. That's my $0.02, and to save time we could probably edit it down from the list month by month rather than all at once.TrickyH (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had something different in my mind. The origins of this unrest can be traced back to early 2015 with an attack that killed Malachi Rozenfeld and was the motive of the attackers in Duma so we have this until 13 September with the outberst in al-Aqsa, which I planned on making an article about (the three days of clashes in al-Aqsa) and was followed by an increase of riots and than the famous "escalation" in 1 October. So we can have pre Setpember prelogue, with the motive for the attackers in Duma and the Duma attack, then a section for the late September events and a section for the escalation. In January I belive is is not WP:SYNTH to say that the escalation is over, becuase the Shin Bet recorded the lowest number of attacks since July, so we"ll have a post escalation section. Although in my eyes this "wave of terror" is over and we are back to pre July 2014 violence, the Israeli media as well as Palestinians ("Palestinian Islamic Jihad threatened more attacks, saying that the Jerusalem Intifada will continue."). So to sum up, a section for prologue, a for 13-31 September, a section for October-December and a section for Junuary-today. Also, as much as it sounds like an Israeli POV, this article doesn't talk much about Palestinian incitement.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds like a suitable structure, and does help to shape the article into a bit more of a narrative; there's an issue with the question of what is then left under the scope of the "background" section, which we could remove entirely with that structure and perhaps include some as "motivations" or something like that. Alternatively, background could become "Events leading to the Escalation" and include the two sections you've suggested prior to October 1 in addition to that content.
As for not talking much about Palestinian incitment, it seems to me to be more notable that the attacks were almost entirely decentralised, without much say from the leadership of any party (asides from the initial Hamas cell on October 1, and a few other incidents). There could be a lot of comments added from parents of killed assailants who supported their kids actions, for example, but I don't see how that meets WP:Notability. If we want to expand the section of incitement and keep the POV balanced, then we could also include Israeli figures and leaders who called for violence to escalate, like the Major of Jerusalem's comments encouragings civilians to shoot suspected assailants currently under "Responses", or those who made inciting comments after the March 24 killing in Hebron for example. TrickyH (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The incitement is mainly attributed to social media and TV and not really a list of events (such as a parant praising his children etc.)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event is long over

[edit]

The main conflict phase finished in January, with some incidents continuing into April and finally a splash of ISIL-inspired violence in June. Need to rename and reshape the article accordingly.GreyShark (dibra) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be about time to change the name to something else.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What name would you suggest?GreyShark (dibra) 06:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I call it a "phase" in the violence, but that doesn't matter. I think it should be something like "Palestinian Unrest". (I remember some people didn't like becuase there were a stagering 2 major attacks by Jews). There's the "wave of violence" which is probably the most neutral and common out there, which can be phrased as "Israeli–Palestinian Wave of Violence (2015–2016)", in a way, that we are referring to "Israeli–Palestinian" as a geographical term, since the violence happened both in Israel and the PT. I like it less, because it wasn't completely a "Wave", since the violence can continue as late as July, based on the claims of Hamas and the PIJ that "the Intifada continues".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Claims of Hamas and the PIJ that 'the Intifada continues'" should be discarded as empty propaganda. IMHO.--Nahum (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 2015-16 Palestinian unrest, which is quite similar in scale to the 2014 Jerusalem unrest.GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the event is over - we're seeing a renewed uptick (approx. 5(?) knife attack incidents (some arrested, some shot, not all with non-attacker casulties)) since 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. This wave has been declared over, mainly by Israeli authorities who want to it to be over, a few times since it began - essentially each time there was a lull. The name should be changed - probably leaving the end open-ended (e.g. 2015-), and changing conflict to something else ("knife intifada" is popular, and is "lone wolf". If we want to be more exact - something that indicates this is an increase in level of violence). The amount of violence in the west bank (gaza - is mostly not part of this) is significantly higher than any period going back a decade - see here tabular results per month and year - [20] (the Palestinian casualty rate in the west bank is a reasonable proxy to the amount of "lone wolf attackers").Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The recent attacks are part of a new escalation. Saying this escalation is part of the October "Wave of Terror" is like saying the October "Wave of Terror" is part of the Second Intifada, which is part of the First Intifada which is part of the 1948 Jewish-Arab civil war.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing event - primarily characterized by Palestinian lone-wolves attacking with knives/axes/cars - with the expectation that there is a high chance they will die (around fifty-fifty). This is a pattern of activity[1] that was less frequently seen before October 2015 - and has been on-going with attackers origination mainly from Judea, Jerusalem, and Sameria. How would you tell the First Intifada was over between 1987 and 1993 (ended on Oslo accords)? In the first Intifada there were also lulls.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lone-wolf attack phenomenon is with us already since 2012. In 2014 and 2015 it became the majority of Palestinian attacks, but it is not part of 2015's unrest which started after a clash in the al-Aqsa mosque and lost its fuel already in January 2016.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Palestinian Terrorism of the Past Year: Causes and Policy Recommendations, Kobi Michael, INSS Insight No.862, October 14, 2016

This article should be unlocked for updates

[edit]

For example, more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis. Since October 7th, Israel have killed 1 in 10 Palestinians. Imagine losing 1 in 10 people you know. This murderous, genocidal, manical so called state, must be brought to it's end.

Nah it isn't. The attacker is also IS inspired.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is. Also, the "IS inspired" thing is a lie straight from Nutty. 76.64.142.227 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to 2015 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[edit]

Propose moving present meaningless, confusing title page to the most neutral and informative of the titles discusses 10 months ago. "wave of..." is something close to Common Name in the press, "wave of violence" "wave of terrorism."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waves

[edit]

Icewhiz, the text previously read "the Wave of Terror". The problem with that name was that none of the sources actually called it the Wave of Terror. It is correct that some sources called it a terror wave, but that is a description of a phenomena, not a name in itself. I.e the lead sentence, 'known as a "Terror Wave"' isn't grammatically correct.

If you want to say that Israeli media described the violence as a terror wave, that can be added, but it doesn't say very much. Israeli media has described Palestinian violence every year since the Second Intifada as a wave of terror, current wave of terror, terror wave, wave of terrorism etc. ImTheIP (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This specific event was referred to as a wave (as opposed to say intifada1 and intifada2 which were not). The name decided in the Hebrew Wikipedia makes this clear - [21] "גל הטרור הפלסטיני (2015-2016" - with the definite article ה. It is still referred to as "גל הטרור" in Hebrew - from Makor Rishon to Haaretz - which is quite clearly the name used in Hebrew - and in English we have various permutations of "the terror wave"[22][23][24] or "wave of terror".[25][26][27] - when we have a piece in 2018 saying East Talpiot in Jerusalem on October 13, 2015 at the height of the wave of terror. - this clearly the name (contrast this with Intifada1/2 were they would be used as names). Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's written on the Hebrew Wikipedia is irrelevant to us here. The first English source you reference (22) contains a quote from an Israeli MK "The terror wave that began in September 2015 and still continues..." hence it doesn't support your argument but contradicts it. Same with the second source (23) "Two years into a terror wave" The Haaretz piece (24) claims that the wave "peaked" in 2016 but doesn't otherwise define the duration of the wave. Times of Israel (25) says "since 2015 wave of terror attacks" and so on.
No source uses "Terror Wave" as a proper noun. It is therefore either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR for Wikipedia to do it. ImTheIP (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language wikis are quite useful for foreign language common names. However, here are English sources - "A summary of the key statistics during the Terror Wave reports that between September"[1], "who also have elevated PTSD symptoms due to the Terror Wave"[2], " Only civilians who were in Israel during the 2015–2016 terror-wave were included in the current convenience sample"[3]Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added cites this Wikipedia page... ImTheIP (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmph. The first one cited above doesn't. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That source writes 'a recent increase in the violence occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict starting early September 2015 and became known locally as the “Wave of Terror.”' attributing the name to 'Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016). Wave of Terror 2015/16. Available at: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx [accessed August 25, 2016].' but if you click on that page, you see that the MFA defines the wave as an ongoing 'Wave of terror 2015-2018'. That is, it doesn't lend credence to the proposition that the period September 2015 - June 2016 was ever known as "the Wave of Terror" ImTheIP (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to look at that page, when it was access in August 2016, to claim a miscitation in the cited journal paper - they're event capitalizing the term ("Terror Wave") - clearly showing this is a proper name.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The burden lies on you. ImTheIP (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cited an academic paper using this term. In caps. This is sufficient. An arguement that the authors of the paper didn't understand correctly the MFA page? That's not really relevant - it isn't really obvious they even took the name from there (as opposed, to, say casualty figures). And really - there really isn't any lack of additional sources referring to this as a "wave of terror" / "terror wave". Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already demonstrated that the other source you tried to insert suffered from citogenesis. The source you now have inserted doesn't even use the term consistently. First it calls it "the Wave of Terror" and then "the Terror Wave". This reduces the source's already low credibility. It is a psych article - not one defining terminology. If it is as you say, not a lack of additional sources, it should be easy for you to find one. ImTheIP (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I weighed in on WP:RSN, I'll say it here, too: Headings that imply a POV or which use emotionally-laden language require strong sourcing showing that it's the primary mainstream term (that is, the one most likely to be instantly recognizable to English-language readers), not scattered sources showing that the term is used by someone somewhere. These sources are nowhere near strong enough for that. I'd also want to emphasize that the WP:POVNAMING standard to use a potentially-POV title requires that that title be the most recognizable name in English, so interpreting Hebrew ones is not useful (and may explain why the Hebrew Wikipedia uses a different name for us, since they're aimed at a different audience for whom a potentially POV title may be the common name.) Finally, while of course WP:BIASED allows us to use sources with a POV (often ones closest to a dispute are the ones most useful to provide perspective on it), the standard for using a potentially non-neutral title is higher; I don't think we can satisfy WP:IMPARTIAL by taking a title sourced only to sources that show use within Israel and treating it as objective fact. (We could potentially have something like "...referred to within Israel as XYZ..." if we have sources for that, but if it's a title that runs up against WP:POVNAMING we would need sources showing that it's the primary term for the topic outside of Israel to make it a section header.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shoshani, Anat, and Michelle Slone. "Through the looking glass: the role of ethnicity and affiliation in responses to terrorism in the media." Frontiers in psychology 7 (2016): 1911.
  2. ^ Hoffman, Yaakov, and Amit Shrira. "Shadows of the past and threats of the future: ISIS anxiety among grandchildren of Holocaust survivors." Psychiatry research 253 (2017): 220-225.
  3. ^ Hoffman, Yaakov. "Who is afraid of ISIS? ISIS anxiety and its correlates." Stress and Health 34.1 (2018): 84-92.

Began in October2015

[edit]

According to the article, the Knife intifada began in September 2015. However, most authoritative sources claim that it began in October 2015. See f.e [28] and [29]. I will update the article accordingly. ImTheIP (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources claim that the first violent act of the Knife intifada was either the killing of two settlers on October 1 or the stabbing of four Israelis in Jerusalem's Old city on October 3. See [30] and [31]. ImTheIP (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't possess any sources in my sleeve to throw at you, but I've edited a great deal of this articles and I remember quite good that the Knife Intifada is considered to have started on 13 September after there were riots in the al-Aqsa mosque. On 1 October there was another major attack by Hamas members who killed two Israeli settlers and after that, there were almost daily attacks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official date to the beginning of the unrest. There was an article by Amira Hess that claimed in the Arab media some view the Duma arson attack, some two months earlier as the beginning of the unrest, while others claim the killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamon sparked the violence. The escalation was on 13 September, during Rosh HaShana, when settlers entered the al-Aqsa mosque and there were big riots, and on a day in which an Israeli was killed in a stone-throwing attack. A larger escalation occurred again on 1 October and caught up the attention of the media. I don't think Wikipedia should have an absolute date for the beginning of the unrest.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! In my opinion, both the Duma arson attack and the Alexander Levlovich stoning are red herrings. There is no indication that I know of that these events triggered Palestinian stabbers. However, the "successful" stabbing on October 1, along with Hamas incitement clearly triggered copycat attacks. I don't insist on a date but I think October 2015 must be "more correct" than September 2015. ImTheIP (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I don't think there should be a fixed date, but the immidiate background to the unrest is clearly 13 September. As far as I remember, this has led to widespread riots all over the West Bank and Jerusalem. The wave of attacks began on 1 October, but the riots on 13 September. But as I don't think I am going to take another look at the article (Which needs a lot of work), I am going to approve "October 2015".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at many more sources it seems you're right. Book sources (e.g [1]) claims that September was the starting month. I'll change it back. ImTheIP (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Hagee (18 September 2018). Earth's Last Empire: The Final Game of Thrones. Worthy. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-1-68397-206-8.

Jabril Rajoub's quote

[edit]
On 17 October, Jibril Rajoub, a senior member of Palestinian Authority ruling party Fatah said in an interview that "These are clearly individual operations, but they require heroism, courage, and a value system, which forces the Palestinian elite and the Palestinian national forces to see in the final words of one of those heroes, written in a blog, a document that could be taught in schools in a lesson about the meaning of martyrdom..."

I could not find a source for this quote other than MEMRI so I took it out. Hopefully, someone can locate a better source. ImTheIP (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) :Excuse me, since when MEMRI is not an acceptable source? There's an open RfC for this. So far there's no clear consensus. Please tell me what else you removed from the article in the last few days. It seems you are restructuring the whole article in a text format instead of a bulleted list, which is a good thing. We can discuss if and how your new content should be added, but removing sourced information that was already in article without notice or explanation is not acceptable. For example, here you removed he wrote: "Kiss their foreheads, and do not forget their hands". It might seem a small change, but you are deleting parts of a quote. Don't do that. I appreciate that you let us know about your removal of Rajoub's comments.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I've worked a lot on the article in the last week. I think the article was in a very poor state with just bullet points not explaining anything. My "idea" is that each month section in the timeline should briefly explain the most important events that month, with details being delegated to companion articles, e.g 2015 Jerusalem bus attack. Clearly, not every little detail should be added to the article so you have to filter.
But how do we know if an event was important? It was covered in multiple international news sources and/or one or more books and/or had a large impact. Such as the killing of Taylor Force which led to the Taylor Force Act.
From that perspective, the comments by Jibril Rajoub are not important. They weren't covered by international news sources and have not been included in any books, nor did they have any obvious impact on anything. In fact, when I search for pieces of Rajoub's quote on Google, I get only a handful of hits other than this Wikipedia page.ImTheIP (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::Rajoub is an important Palestinian official, hence the importance of his remarks.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riyad Mansour's quote

[edit]
Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour said of the cycle of violence and retaliation that the situation was "extremely dangerous" and accused "extremists on the Israeli side" of seeking to "impose a Jewish presence" at the Temple Mount. He warned that such attempts would cause a religious confrontation that would have "ramifications in all corners of the Middle East and beyond. Religious confrontation is what ISIS is dreaming of."

I've been unable to locate proper sources for this quote so I took it out. Arutz Sheva reported on September 15 that he told it "to journalists" but it is not clear when the told it or to whom he told it. Possibly it is a (mis)translation of something he said in Arabic.ImTheIP (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

[edit]

In the October 2015 subsection of the Timeline section, 'Eritrean' links to a disambiguation page, while it should direct to Eritrea instead. Even better would be to instead make the first mention of Eritrean in the Timeline section a link and remove the link from this second mention. Lennart97 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! ImTheIP (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallel Yaffa Ariel Age fix

[edit]

The sentence "On 30 June Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel: a Palestinian stabbed and killed 17-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel" links to a source which says that Hallel Yaffa Ariel was 13 years old. Can this be fixed?2601:249:8180:28D0:3583:8758:4230:714D (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

[edit]

Add elaborative example at the end of the extrajudicial killings section of this article. Namely, the sentence below verbatim from the AL Jazeera article linked below that. This edit helps continue the context and keep the page up to date: 

"On the morning of May 30, 2020, 31-year-old Eyad al-Halaq was making his way to the special needs school he attended inside the Old City of Jerusalem when he was shot and killed by Israeli police. Eyad had severe autism and, according to his parents, the mental age of an eight-year-old"

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/5/30/how-a-palestinian-man-with-autism-was-killed-by-israeli-police AliabualiaRIP (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last two paragraphs in the extrajudicial killings section, there is mention of a government policy tolerating shoot to kill when in suspicion. This edit provides an example of an incident that took place subsequent to that, therefore it adds an elaborative example to what is mentioned in the last two paragraphs. AliabualiaRIP (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015–2016_wave_of_violence_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1252583217"