Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

npov

NMMGG You excised the reference to homes, villages and lands on the grounds it was an NPOV violation. That is completely opaque to me, for one. The text is:

The principal demand of the protests is the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their own homes, villages and lands in present-day Israel

The basis for the elided terms is in innumerable sources commenting on the march. So where is the NPOV violation in stating what the declared intentions of the marchers are?Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"their own homes, villages and lands" is not a neutral way of putting it. That's a POV, as you admit above. The way I left it is NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. It is a repeat of an assertion. What exactly makes this non-neutral? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it's arguable wheather they actually own these homes, villages and lands. They demand to return to *what they consider* their own homes, villages and lands - is more NPOV. “WarKosign” 06:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

NMMGG's explanation is not an explanation, but a repetition of an assertion as Oncenawhile observes. So it is not an answer. Removing easily sourced text mechanically because your subjective impression is that the phrasing suggests imnplications you may dislike is not good practice. To the contrary. It is normal for experienced editors to readjust the phrasing. Elision in such cases shows the same vice as the perceived POV bias one dislikes. All one needed to do was tweak it with 'claim, believe, regard' (itself very New York Timesish in its subversion of the obvious. WarKoSign notes this correctly. Even there however numerous sources will tell you that 70% of Gaza's population came from people (descendants included) fleeing their villages either under expulsion or fear of Palmach Haganah cleansing operations in central and southern Palestine. The area along the border is very well documented in this regard: with village after village emptied by deliberate policy. The implication in WKS's suggestion is that people we know were refugees claim, but may not have come from, areas outside Gaza where they may not have had homes, villages, and lands. All those refugees by definition have homes, villages and came from lands they worked. What other option is imaginable. 70% came from somewhere where they were shiftless, homeless and unemployed. In any case, we go by sources, and any number can be supplied to underline the fact that this obvious statement is well documented.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Propoganda covering the alleged motivation of the cross-border attacks in UNDUE, and the connection between events in 1948-9 and 2018 is tangential at best beyond.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was clearly POV violation as it the Palestinian view.Also we should consider if its WP:DUE to include.--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Fa Chrissake, stop the voting show up, which has no value other than documenting numbers stacking without a reasoned argument. It is embarrassing when editors pile in with an 'I agree', thoughtlessly. Icewhiz,Please focus, because the discussion is about WP:NPOV not WP:Undue. To justify a bad edit, (bad because the edit summary indicating the policy motivation is extremely dubious, being neither here nor there) by adducing some new suggestion (itself highly contentious) just adds to the confusion. We are dealing in any case not with 'propaganda' but known historical realities, documented in numerous village histories compiled by the refugees themselves and used by scholarship, as even Israel's authorities know since all the birth registrations in the Strip are under Israeli control. (David Delaney, Territory: A Short Introduction,John Wiley & Sons, 2008 p.116; Rochelle Davis, Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced Stanford University Press, 2011 p.9) etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In short, as you all should known, these issues are resolved , not by contentious assertions, but by attention to sources, such as, to cite just a handful for the moment:-

• They are objecting to Israel’s 11-year-old blockade of Gaza and seeking to revive international interest in Palestinian claims of a right of return to the lands they were displaced from in 1948. David M. Halbfinger, Iyad Abuheweila One Dead Amid Violence in 3rd Week of Protests at Gaza-Israel Fence New York Times 13 April 2018
• By first light yesterday Palestinian preparations for the Gaza “Return March” seemed well underway: tents were being pitched all along the Gaza buffer zone and old men were arriving with banners proclaiming the names of their villages, from which they were expelled as children 70 years ago, never to return. .. Nothing has ever frightened Israel more than the demands of Palestinian refugees for a right to return to their pre-1948 homes. And no group of refugees has a stronger case than those of Gaza who live within a few miles of their former villages. Sarah Helm, The Gaza ‘Return March’ has begun – the refugees won’t stop until their voices are heard.' The Independent 30 March 2018

• In the mass expulsion that both preceded and followed Israel's founding, about 750,000 Palestinians were expelled and forced to flee their homes and become lifetime refugees. 250,000 of those uprooted flooded into Gaza. That was one third of the total Palestinian refugee population. As a result, the population of Gaza, which had numbered 80,000 before the war, tripled overnight. .. Most of the refugees who flooded to Gaza came from towns and villages in central and southern Palestine, and from northern parts as far as Galilee. Those who came from villages around Gaza had to endure the painful spectacle of being displaced within sight of their lost lands and houses. .. The moral calamity was not lost on the Israeli leadership. In April 1956, military leader Moshe Dayan had a rare confession to make: "What we can say against their terrible hatred of us? For eight years, they have sat in the refugee camps of Gaza, and have watched how, before their very eyes, we have turned their lands and villages, where they and their forefathers dwelled, into our home". Seraj Assi,Gaza’s Refugees Have Always Haunted Israel. Now They’re on the March Haaretz 29 March 2018.

If Moshe Dayan, who was there, stated the obvious, editors should not pretend that this is all subjective or POV.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dayan's comments in the early 50s were on-topic and relevant (for the situation back then). They are no longer relevant now. For instance, see how the Washington Post covers this Why Hamas is protesting in Gaza — and why it will continue. "Right of return"? Mentioned in a single sentence as being the slogan for the march. The article (written by a writer who would not be viewed as sympathetic to Israel) then goes on to list all sorts of actual possible present day reasons -

1. Trump and the embbassy.
2. Economic toll of the blockade.
3. Internal Palestinian politics and lack of external support for Hamas.
4. Mentioning lifting the siege, and saying that this movements has "skillfully rechanneled popular grievances".

Likewise - the New Yorker - Hamas and the Mass Protests in Gaza - lists all sorts of actual reasons - stating that "return" is a banner. We should do the same - stating that the declared reason is "right of return" (without getting into details - just linking to it) - and then actually listing present reasons which RS treat seriously. The events in 1948-9 are simply not relevant background material.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

These are all subjective comments, and stating that 'The events in 1948-9 are simply not relevant background material' is absurd, and not worth replying to. It's like saying the Jewish return to the Land is just a 'banner' and not related to any historical background. Try and focus.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Subjective? Backed up by sources (e.g. Imad Alsoos writing in WaPo). I don't see us covering the Jewish right of return in the article - nor do I think we should. There are present day reasons for the present choice, by Hamas, to choose this method of confrontation along the border - which is what we should be focusing on - as do most sources - we really do not need to cover narratives in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In first two sources you just quoted, you missed a few crucial words: "Palestinian claims of" "demands of Palestinian refugees". The third source is an opinion piece by an author apparently agreeing with Palestinian POV. “WarKosign” 09:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is that addressed to? Icewhiz, you add sources re banner that do not conflict with the other evidence I adduced, so your reasoning is beside the point. The point was is adding 'to their (former) homes, villages and lands'(in Israel) an NPOV violation. So far no policy-based argument has been given for that thesis.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So NMMNG used the wrong edit summary - it should've been SYNTH, UNDUE, and off-topic.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It was under your comment and indented one step further - so it was a response to your comment ending with "If Moshe Dayan...". This comment, for example responds to your comment "Who is that addressed to", same as Icewhiz's comment above mine. “WarKosign” 13:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are agreed that the point is, not omission of the datum, but tweaking it - you suggested 'what they consider', for example. The problem with that is that it suggests there is something hypothetical about what the New York Times states was their 'a right of return to the lands they were displaced from in 1948.' They were displaced from their lands by all accounts, and to try to suggest that they consider the places, villages and homes, they were displaced from a subjective Palestinian POV runs against commonsense and the minutely documented record. Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

They (or, in most cases, their ancestors) fled or were expelled from these places, there is no argument about it. There is no doubt that they demand the right to return there. Whether this right is legitimate is a matter of POV, as indicated by the sources that you quoted yourself. “WarKosign” 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether it is 'legitimate' or not. The principle is identical to Israel's claim all Jews have a right of return. If you asked me personally, I would say it is politically impossible to execute, but reasonable because the 'right of return' is what Israel is founded on, and therefore, since principles are supposed to have universal application, this claim endorses the Palestinian right to claim they to have a right to return (which is geopolitically unfeasible in the real world, but which can be a bartering token for practical measures like compensation, or covering relocation costs, etc). The text removed had no reference to the 'legitimacy' of their claim: it referred simply to the principal demand of the protests is the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. A demand to have a right says nothing of the legitimacy of that demand. They want to go back to areas they consider home: stating the obvious is not an NPOV violation. I admire realists like Dayan, because they state the obvious, and do not try to distort the record, as often editors are tempted to do here. Denialism has far more parlous consequences than the simple truths (esp. for the victors), though the latter never has much impact on real world realities.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying that they demand to return to *their own homes* in wikipedia voice implies that these are indeed their own homes and lands and that the demand is therfore legitimate. NPOV requires us not to express an opinion about this demand but only to describe it. “WarKosign” 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign, Icewhiz, Shrike, and No More Mr Nice Guy: this isn't very complicated, and this argument doesn't have much substance to it. If the words "their homes" is good enough for Haaretz in neutral voice without attribution,[1] then it's good enough for us. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't use opinion piece for such statements.--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Since when is Haaretz neutral ? It is unapologetically left-wing. “WarKosign” 06:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

These sources all say the same [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Just search for "return to their".

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WarKosign. You allowed that the facts of displacement are undeniable. Displaced people come from land, villages, and homes, do they not? We do not legitimate a claim by stating this obvious fact. To legitimate a claim the respective individuals and families would have to document with records (as the West Bank example in Israeli military courts insists on) that they have historic proof (wouldn't change anything. They have historic proof of Ottoman possession but are being evicted anyway). And 'left-wing' is inappropriate as a slogan to brand any outlet which has Amos Harel as its military correspondent.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

There again seems to be a fundamental understanding of WP:NPOV (As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.) in the second removal of this reliably sourced statement in a secondary source explaining the reported intent of Hamas to control violence in the crowds. Waddie. NPOV is achieved by expounding both perspectives in balanced fashion. It is not achieved by removing one attributed perspective. This is elementary. If you wanted to improve the point, attribution ('according to the Gaza journalist Muhammad Shehada, of the kind that might supply Israel with an alibi to assert that it was dealing with a 'swarm of terrorists'.') was all that was required.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it still isn't WP:NPOV. It specifically incites an opinion. Wikipedia must remain NPOV. Please request a WP:THIRDOPINION on the matter. Waddie96 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but your personal impressions have no weight in the face of the evidence of multiple sources, which confirm that Hamas publicly asserted their intention to use their people to ensure the protests would be peaceful, whereas Israeli security analysts claimed and still claim 'the marches are a new tactic by Hamas, which rules Gaza, to conduct terror operations in the confusion of the demonstrations.' Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas vows Gaza protests last until Palestinians return to all of Palestine The Times of Israel 9 April 2018. I.e. if The Times of Israel corroborates the statement made by Shehada in Ynet, you must ask yourself why material all Israeli conservative readers are given from separate sources validating the respective positions of the two parties to the conflict cannot be reproduced on the relevant wiki article covering the conflict in question. This is elementary and is what NPOV is about. If you doubt the explicit meaning of policy and prefer your own opinion, it's up to you to consult a third opinion. I might add that I no more take Hamas at its word than I do the IDF or any other official Israeli source. But we are describing what both sides tell their respective publics.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are we keeping the opinion of Muthana al-Najjar at all? He seems to have had no actual effect on what was happening from the Gazan side. We also, in the same paragraph include a dubious stmt (given what I think his age is) that he is from Jaffa.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you any sources for your opinion this is dubious? Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Per this photo in a non RS [8] he appears to be quite a bit younger than 70. Considering the residents left in April 1948 and that subsequent urban development subsumed the former village - he would have to be 70 or older.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Then fix it by adding 'whose family (also) came originally from' or something like that. I thought it was evident from context and the Rteimah example immediately above that we are speaking of the original areas the families of these notable protestors came from. Apparently that was not clear, but the fix is simple. And since he set the example for tenting later adopted by everyone involved, it is obviously an important detail for the background.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've adjusted it myself since I was responsible for the text.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Both should be attributed to the activists claiming so - considering this involves second hand information from multiple grandparents/parents.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wanna screw up the text and bore the readership? Use attribution for every statement there. If 70% of Gazans have origins in what is now Israel, suggesting this kind of statement is an 'extraordinary claim' is tendentious.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

opinion pieces in the lead

@Nishidani: Please explain why you restored two opinion pieces to the lead. These are not reliable sources for facts to begin with, and certainly not in the first paragraph of the lead. At least one of them isn't even supporting the text but is used to promote a POV. You also, in what you would have probably termed "slight of hand", restored some non-neutral (and the sort of bad English you often complain about) language and removed a relevant link to the right of return issue without noting that in the ES. Why? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I see you are the one who added those. You are in violation of the "consensus required" section of ARBPIA. Self-revert or I will report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think 24 hours is passed so he is not in violation anyhow I agree that we shouldn't use one sided POV pieces either bring POV from the other side or don't include them at all--Shrike (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I read this as Shrike does. Your repeated return to editing, mostly reverting material in, these articles only too either complain to AE or threaten me with an AE report, does not look healthy. It looks like a continued policy of personal harassment (water off a duck's back)

Your two edit summaries here and here, i.e. which are not policy compliant, but reflect an assumption not in policy, asserted simply what you did, not the reason for removing material no other editor had thought of removing for six days, despite the fact that several share your POV. They had that option, but did not exercise it. You alone appear to think one cannot have an opinion piece, and as my edit summary shows, your premise is false.

WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Given that, all you needed to do if you object, was to add attribution.

The remark is not quite an opinion in any case, since

(1) Sarah Helm has reliably published history books to her credit (If This Is A Woman: Inside Ravensbruck: Hitler's Concentration Camp for Women (2015), specializes in the Middle East as a journalist, and is stating a fact, that the protestors were proclaiming the names of their villages of origin and their right of return.

(2) Seraj Assi is an Arab citizen of Israel who holds an MA in Middle East History from Tel Aviv University and is a PhD candidate in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, Washington D. He is author of the forthcoming book, The History and Politics of the Bedouin: Reimaging Nomadism in Modern Palestine, Routledge 2018). I e a published scholar in the are, and not reducible to an adventitious opinionist. But jhe is Palestinian hence . . .

(3) Apart from a different emphasis the points made were identical to those made by two journalists. Adam Rasgon, in the Jerusalem Post and Halbfinger in the NYT. So you retained two pro-Israeli editors, and excised two sympathetic to Palestinians because the facts stated by the latter are listed as opinion pieces, while those of the former appear as news articles. Pure POV pushing.

There is a tacit rule here: whenever an editor whose views you agree with is reverted, immediately restore his revert. On this occasion, Icewhiz popped up, but did not use your explanation. He purveyed a different pretext.

• not lede worthy beyond briefly listing

That is an invented pretext: for what Icewhiz removed were sources and footnotes which as footnotes, do not figure in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding on your part. As the original author you are not allowed to restore material you put in the article for 24 hours from the time it was reverted. Read the rule carefully so you can adhere to it in the future.

As for the opinion pieces, you can use them attributed in the body of the article. They have no place in the lead, not to mention the easter egg quotes didn't even support the text. You can't attempt an end run around NPOV using footnotes even if you think they "do not figure in the lead". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy, since few of us, Strike above, myself and admins, appear to grasp the rules. What is the policy you base your judgement on that opinion pieces (and I contest that view) cannot be cited in lead footnotes? What you call 'easter egg quotes' do support the text.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy is RSOPINION and LEAD. You need to attribute these opinion pieces. The lead summarizes the body and is not a place for expanded text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. NMMNG is correct in all the posts in this thread. 50.111.48.95 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NMMGG's recent excision rampage

In your eagerness to gut key parts of this article you do not appear to be examining the sources you remove. Your edit summary for one major excision states:- not a single one of these incidents has a source directly tying it to the subject of this article. removing the whole section per or/synth Dead wrong. You didn’t examine the source. Much of that data is on the same page as OCHA's mention of the projected border protests.

I.e. you removed-

Between the 13 and 26 of March, according to OCHA, tensions escalated in the area of the perimeter resulting in numerous clashes and violence. On the 15th and 17th, Palestinian militants reportedly detonated two explosive devices, targeting Israeli soldiers, none of whom were injured. For this two week period, 43 Palestinian protesters among them 13 children, were injured in 12 incidents of clashing with Israeli troops. 31 of those wounded were hit by Israeli live fire.

On the page I took that data from there is a direct mention of the programmed marches.

The main political parties in Gaza have called for a series of mass protests along the perimeter fence, starting on 30 March, which would entail the marching of demonstrators towards Israel. Several sites along the fence began to be prepared for the erection of tents to host the demonstrators. Although the organizers have called for non-violent demonstrations, there is concern that the events could deteriorate into violent clashes with Israeli forces, resulting in large numbers of casualties. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all “to respect the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression” and called on Israel “to abide by its obligations under human rights law and exercise utmost restraint in the use of force during law enforcement operations”

• (2)

opinion of a lawyer not an expert in international law with some backdoor "jews in the uk lie about antisemitism" removed

English judge and legal scholar Sir Stephen Sedley opined that the use of live fire against unarmed protestors was "without much question a major crime", while maintaining that the issue has been pushed off the front pages of English newspaper by reportage of a campaign to repeatedly accuse the Labour Party, which has espoused the cause of Palestinian rights, of being riddled with anti-Semitism.

This is total misrepresentation. He is a distinguished English judge who served on the European Court of Human Rights, as his wiki bio states. See also this , which adds that he serves as President of the British Institute of Human Rights, 2000-. He is a major English judge with peer recognition for his work on human rights, and commented directly on the Gaza killings which violate them. It is a particularly disgraceful edit also because motivated by a crude insinuation that the material was introduced with ‘some backdoor "jews in the uk lie about antisemitism.' (Ugh)

I’d advise you to restore all the material that is consonant with standard wiki policy, starting with these two bits.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So you're arguing that something written before the event, that mentions the event in one bullet out of many but doesn't actually link any incidents to it, allows you to connect anything else mentioned on that page to the topic of this article? I disagree. You're still SYNTHing.

I read Sedley's page and he doesn't seem to be qualified, but even if he is, that bit about the UK Labour party is completely irrelevant here and just used as a coatrack. If you find my pointing that out "disgraceful" perhaps you should talk to whoever put that in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(a) There is no wiki policy saying a forecast of a programmed event, and, on the same page, a list of casualties in that area for the week preceding the programmed event, are not connected. The statements are in context and on the same page, and there is, ipso facto, no WP:SYNTH. (b) That's just opinionizing. He's qualified in the sphere of human rights, you ain't qualified to judge, unless you have some sense that his peers on the European Court think he's witless about the legal lie of the land. There is no policy basis for what is clearly a distaste for the man and the source, which deals, appropriately, with the border violations. The source is as RS as any other in that list, and your objection is to his critique of those of his denomination )if that is the case) whose lobbying he finds distasteful. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(a) the page lists incidents, past and future. Does it say one is "background" for the other? Please quote if you think it does. You are correct that it's not SYNTH, though. It's OR.

(b) I doubt he's qualified but we are not obligated to include every opinion piece written by every qualified person even if he was qualified. The stuff about UK Labour is completely irrelevant here. As if Israel controls the British news cycle. The only reason to include it here is what I stated in my edit summary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:OR policy quite clear on this "sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" because those sources don't mention the gaza clashes they shouldn't be used --Shrike (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, please stick to discussing edits and not the editors making them. See WP:AVOIDYOU. “WarKosign” 10:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WarKoSign. Please examine the fact that the principle adduced by NMMGG (WP:SYNTH) to excise everything was implicitly challenged by Icewhiz and Shrike in later reverts, all of which reintroduced material predating and not mentioning the border marsh, which NMMGG says is a violation of the rules. And note that the three editors do not address each other to iron out this simultaneous erratic and contradictory excision and readmission of the material. They all revert me, and if they revert each other, there is no problem: all remain mum. So rather than remonstrate with someone who tries to be policy-coherent, have a word with those who couldn't give a stuff about such 'niceties', as long as agreement perdures that I am the problem.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, note that I did not express any opinion regarding NMMGG's edit. It is entirely possible that you are correct content-wise, this is not my point. Naming talk page sections after editors is unacceptable since it violates WP:CIV. Discuss the edits and the content they changed, not the editors. “WarKosign” 15:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIV reads:-

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.

You emphasize the unbolded part. My sense of civility hinges on what is bolded, which is being consistently violated here.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

NMMNG's excision of material with no sourced connection to these border incidents was a correct application of NOR and SYNTH. He was incorrect in that he missed anfew paragraphs that were sourced properly. I for one do not discuss on the TP when a simple edit summary can explain matters concisely and to the point. If there is further disagreement - then talk.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If that is not prevarication, it can only be explained that you reintroduced material, that does not mention the forthcoming border march, without troubling to read it. You restored these:-

David M. Halbfinger,[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-benjamin-netanyahu.html 4 Israelis Hurt by Bomb Set in Flag at Gaza Fence, Igniting Night of Fighting, New York Times,] 17 February 2018 (2) Ori Lewis, Israeli interceptors deployed against machine gun fire, not rockets: army, reuters.com, 25 March 2018; (3) Yoav Zitun,Iron Dome system triggered due to 'system oversensitivity', ynetnews.com, 26 March 2018; (3) Analysis Iron Dome Malfunction Embarrasses Israel as Hamas Seeks Missile Defense System's Vulnerability, Haaretz, 27 March 2018; (4) High alert on Gaza border after string of incursions, Jerusalem Post, 28 March 2018 (5)IDF tanks shell Hamas positions after 2 Gazans start fire near border, Times of Israel, 28 March 2018

At least 3 of those do not mention the future border marches. So you did not agree with NMMGG's interpretation, despite your protestations to the contrary. Secondly, you falsified two sources which explicitly challenge your text, which gives the IDF POV as a fact, whereas those two sources state the fire that triggered Iron Dome had nothing to do with firing towards Israel. You wrote:

On 25 March, the IDF fired some ten Iron Dome missiles to intercept what the IDF sensors intrerpreted to be rockets, but which later turned out to be high-trajectory machine-gun fire from Gaza towards Zikim.

The textual manipulation is blatant, giving the IDF explanation as a fact when it was a POV as two of the sources you cite for the event state that

• Reuters stated:' Heightening tension around the border, Hamas began a military exercise on Sunday in which its fighters set off explosions and test-fired rockets into the sea. Gunfire echoed across Gaza as hundreds of fighters were deployed for the exercise, which is due to continue on Monday, A subsequent army statement said: “Following reports of sirens sounding in southern Israel, unusual machine gun fire towards Israel was identified. (IDF POV)

Here Reuters states that rockets were dircted into the sea, and you repress that.

• The Jerusalem Post article confirms what Reuters states in writing:'The following night the army mistook machine-gun fire in Gaza as rockets being fired into Israel, setting off warning sirens throughout southern Israel and the deployment of 10 expensive Iron Dome interceptor missiles.’

Don't come back on this, because the manipulation is self-evident, and inexcusable.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rocket fire towards the sea is ROUTINE (a weekly-monthly occurance in the past few years) in Hamas drills and experiments. No one suggested there was any connection between this and the Iron dome salvo. I did not repress this - merely kept the text short and to the point.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not an answer. You cited several sources, and cherrypicked the IDF account to assert fire had been directed at Israel while suppressing the accounts that clarify the Iron Dome system had reacted to fire directed into the sea, and not towards Israel. That is manipulation of sources to falsify the factual record in favour of one of two POVs, i.e. the IDF's. You credit a POV, and ignore facts available to you that challenge it. Technically the Zikim incident cannot be included because two sources deny Israel was attacked. Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed any sources that do indeed present other events as "background" for the topic of this article (and not as just a list of things that happened in a certain week). I doubt the Iron Dome stuff can be considered "background" for this event. Think about it this way - these protests have been planned a long time in advance. The fact there was a violent incident a week before doesn't in any way change the protests (unless people actually say it did, which I don't think happened in this case). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether Israel was or was not attacked (and we do not imply that it was, actually) in the Zikim incident is not relevant regarding use of this for background (considering it has been mentioned in the context of the current border incidents) - this was a highly unusual event. The IDF itself was claiming that it fired due to high trajectory machine gun fire and not rockets - no one is claiming incoming rockets.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make a serious answer, read what I wrote. You falsified the data in the reports you cited. Since it is contested in sources that fire was directed at Zikim over the border, the item as a putative but non-existent cross border attack cannot be used for the border march, and has no place on the page.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You have not presented such sources. You presented a source that says rockets were also fired towards the sea.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The source that says rockets were fired into the sea doesn't say Iron Dome was activated to intercept them, while several of the other sources say it was machine gun fire in the direction of Israel that activated ID so Icewhiz didn't "falsify" anything and repeatedly accusing him of such without providing diffs that prove it is a personal attack. But again, this does not seem like background for the later events, just something that happened chronologically earlier in the same general area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The IDF kept changing its explanation. First it was rockets towards Zikim, then machine gun fire; then it was machine gun fire towards Ashkelon, not Zikim; then, the last source in time in the flurry of several used Icewhiz cited states:

Anna Ahronheim, Jpost March 28, 2018 18:30 (i.e. later than all the others) The following night the army mistook machine-gun fire in Gaza as rockets being fired into Israel, setting off warning sirens throughout southern Israel and the deployment of 10 expensive Iron Dome interceptor missiles.

Notwithstanding this update, - which says what other sources state, that Hamas was conducting military exercises throughout and in the Gaza Strip, with no mention of anything aimed at Israel,- Icewhiz pretended that this article supported his text that still insisted Zikim had been targeted, whereas it contradicts it. Blatant manipulation of sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This does not contradict anything. In all the coverage I have seen the IDF has been quite consistent ahout the incident - they might have been unsure in the first few hours regarding what set them off (or the media might have speculated based on air raid sorens) - when all they had to go on was the radar data.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of victims WAY off

The total number of dead have been killed today. It needs to be updated or fixed. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up, the number keeps changing. “WarKosign” 17:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

picture of "Lachrymator"

Why is there no images of the "weapons" used? The article is quite lengthy, and it would be useful to readers to have an picture to gain perspective. They say the protests are peaceful and "unarmed protestors", but elsewhere they say a stone injured a soldier! So the article should have image of spent munitions, I submit one below for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.184.33 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

here is the pic: http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Instrumentos_de_paz_en_Campamento_PNUD%2C_05Abr14_%2813976845937%29.jpg

Just saying

In the Infobox, the Israel Fire and Rescue Services are listed under Parties to the civil conflict. The Red Crescent isn't. Shouldn't both be mentioned, or neither? Moriori (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

May 14 - Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry

The "Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry" come on. The Hamas government was elected by the people of Gaza, it's not a shadowy organization running a disinformation campaign (thats the IDF). Please remove the factually accurate but non-neutral "Hamas run" from that snippet. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That actually is not precise - the inner politics of the Palestinian National Authority are complex (and elections are even more complex) - but Hamas seized control of Gaza by force.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Last elections in Gaza were held 12 years ago, and a year after that Hamas forcefully took over Gaza strip. You described it very aptly - it is a shadowy terror organization running a disinformation campaign, and this fact must be noted whenever it is a source for otherwise unverified information. “WarKosign” 16:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"forcefully took over"? Looks like the Hamas party won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006. I know Israel refused to recognize them ... but LOL, that's not surprising at all. Sorry though. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Read Governance of the Gaza Strip and Fatah–Hamas conflict, specifically how about 600 Fatah and Hamas operatives were killed in the clashes between the two in 2007. Try to learn the facts before forming your "educated" opinions. “WarKosign” 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

LaserLegs has a point. Per the article WarKosign pointed to: "According to the IISS, the June 2007 escalation was triggered by Hamas' conviction that the PA's Presidential Guard, loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, was being positioned to take control of Gaza. The US had helped build up the Presidential Guard to 3,500 men since August 2006. The US committed $59 million for training and non-lethal equipment for the Presidential Guard, and persuaded Arab allies to fund the purchase of further weapons. Israel, too, allowed light arms to flow to members of the Presidential Guard. Jordan and Egypt hosted at least two battalions for training.[24]"

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What does this fact (Hamas thought that Fatah is about to attack it) have anything to do with LaserLegs' point (Hamas is the democratically elected and legitimate government of Gaza) ? “WarKosign” 12:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You tried to undermine LaserLegs with the misleading statement "Hamas forcefully took over Gaza strip". The truth is more complicated, as the paragraph above aptly desrcibes. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the paragraph above explains the background to Hamas taking over the strip by force, but does nothing to prove it wrong. “WarKosign” 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The statement ”Hamas took over the strip by force” is equivalent to the statement “[In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt for the second time in eleven years, and proceeded to] take over the West Bank and Gaza Strip by force”.

You would likely consider that misleading out of context, so please treat words and messages with equal respect in whichever direction they come.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

15 may, ERROR

The article is talking about events that occured on Monday 14! --Couverture aérienne (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Images

Some new pictures. Can someone please assist in translating the Arabic in the two leaflets distributed by IDF? All pics from 14 May 2018. Waddie96 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• IDF jets distributed leaflets warning against approaching the security fence, attempting to sabotage it or to carry out terror attacks. Translation to follow
  IDF jets distributed leaflets warning against approaching the security fence, attempting to sabotage it or to carry out terror attacks. Translation to follow
• IDF jets distributed leaflets warning against approaching the security fence, attempting to sabotage it or to carry out terror attacks. Translation to follow
  IDF jets distributed leaflets warning against approaching the security fence, attempting to sabotage it or to carry out terror attacks. Translation to follow
• Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018
  Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018
• Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018
  Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018
• Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018
  Palestinian protestors as seen at the Gaza-Israel border on the 14 of May 2018

Here's google translate:

"To the demonstrators, you are participating in the violence that is endangering your lives. Hamas is exploiting you to hide its weakness and risk your lives and the lives of your families. The IDF is prepared for every scenario and will act against the attempts to harm the separation fence and the IDF's equipment. Any determination against it and against the citizens of the State of Israel does not allow Hamas to make you a puppet between the two. The IDF will keep your lives and build your future! IDF command"

"Hamas said it would improve the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip "implemented?" Hamas said it would build new health and education centers - implemented? - Hamas said it cares about citizens - Hamas said your participation in demonstrations would improve your lives -"

“WarKosign” 17:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 DoneWaddie96 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is what appears to be proper translation of essentially the same text. “WarKosign” 06:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Israeli casualties and other problems

• this source refers us to one female soldier slightly injured by rock throwing in Abu Dis. What has that got to do with the price of Gaza Border chips? Thn lead has a dead link for the same data to YnetNishidani (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  Someone messed up the citation - when I entered it there was 1 injury, cited to YNET IIRC, but it has been covered elsewhere - e.g. Guardian Until this week, no Israeli had been harmed since protests began on 30 March. An IDF spokesman, Lt Col Jonathan Conricus, said one soldier had been “slightly wounded by shrapnel” on Monday but he did not have details on the source of the injury..Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  I have attempted to rectify this in this diff.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• 'The Israeli military killed at least 58 Palestinians from 30 March to 15 May,[29][30].'

Un true, and the info box states 109. I.e. the lead halves the fatalities.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone update the identify of the killed ?

It should be made clear that Hamas had confirmed that 50 of the dead had been it's members , and a list of the dead had been already released. 5.144.60.66 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani

Why is this section of the TP named after an editor??? How about we have this changed to the topic that this section is discussing. Looks foolish. 104.169.44.141 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. “WarKosign” 21:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You screwed up for once. It was not Hamas that was in a 'dire' situation', but the Gaza Strip.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See here: "...the Palestinian terror group’s “dire” strategic situation...", "... that Hamas, finding itself in an “unprecedented” crisis,..." “WarKosign” 21:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Partial sleight of hand. I referred toi and you altered the prose of Amos Harel's article in Haaretz. Toi justify this by citing the ToI is beside the point. You were correct to refers to Hamas's situation as dire, but incorrect in not notin that the same source states the situation in Gaza is 'dire'.

Hamas is still in dire and unprecedented strategic distress and is currently more open to discussing options it rejected in the past . . .The Israeli army continues to describe the condition of infrastructure in Gaza as dire.

On a point of English usage, to describe 'sending out feelers' as 'poetic' is comical in its unwary insouciance to Sprachgefühl, it being a standard idiom in historical narrative writing (44,000 googler book hits) Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:IDIOM. As far as I know Hamas is not equipped with literal feelers ("animal organ such as an antenna or palp that is used for testing things by touch or for searching for food"), so this is a metaphor that I changed to more straightforward language. “WarKosign” 16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Silly. WP:IDIOM has nothing to do with it. Having a language's stylistic usage at one's fingertips, and familiarity with historical writing is what counts, and, unfortunately, here, you seem to have neither, preferring a silly joke.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with WarKosign that 'feelers' is incorrect language. And yes, it is WP:IDIOM. See [9]. Waddie96 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a matter of both, actually, with bi-directional causation. Hamas is politically isolated of late (due to a number of factors some of which are out of its control (e.g. Egypt and the MB, and Syrian Civil War leading to difficulties for Sunni/Shia collaboration)), and has governance problems in Gaza (going as far as trying to have the PA to take over - something the PA doesn't want to do on Hamas's terms). The Gaza strip itself is in dire straights as well (income, unemployment, and including of course the uninhabitable by year X (moving target) estimates by various bodies).Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Write that way of The siege of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, 1948 or of the siege of Gush Etzion, bearing in mind the Jewish communities were isolated for months, while Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza for 12 years, and you might just twig (I doubt it) what's flawed in your POV.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 90.28.1.189 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

cool. nableezy - 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 90.28.1.189 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Impressive if true. nableezy - 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I redacted personal attacks by an IP. To the IP: please take this to an appropriate noticeboard if needed. Please do not use article's talk pages for personal attacks. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Causality update

Can someone update the causalities please? Only in 14 May, At least 52 people were killed in Gaza.--Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's 55 already, actually. WP:NOTNEWS - we need a source that sums up a day, rather than trying to keep the article updated as the events develop. “WarKosign” 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was considering changing it to 100+ until it stabilizes - which would be more accurate and stable in an unstable situation. However, given we still include the injury count (which alos contains very minor injuries and is near impossible to tally), and ,e not being BOLD enough - I help off.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's updated already. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The only reason it is even in here is so this page can serve as propaganda. I again request that someone put an NPOV banner on this article. Loknar (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Wikipedia had enough sense to remove that massive NPOV list of people who died in the border clashes that also happened to have their personal details and occupations. Loknar (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did Israel pull out of Gaza in 2005?

Editors here might be interested in a related editing discussion at Israeli disengagement from Gaza regarding how best to summarize the Israeli Government’s rationale for the 2005 pull out (which has ultimately led to these protests). Agreed text there can subsequently be brought into the background section here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We need new sources which connect the current incident with what you said. That would be WP:OR, otherwise. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: ask, and you shall receive:

The New York Review of Books, 15 May 2018, What the Gaza Protests Portend: “This March of Return is partly then a story of Gaza, one with deep roots in the Strip’s history and current predicament... This strip of land presents Israel with another, equally insoluble, challenge: demography. In 1967, the Gaza Strip fell under Israel’s direct control as part of the wider occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel’s occupation initially entailed placing 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza under direct military rule, while it settled a mere 4,000 Jews in the Strip. Integrating such a high number of non-Jews under Israeli jurisdiction, which included the West Bank, threatened to make Jews a minority ruling over a majority population of non-Jews. Shortly after the first Palestinian Intifada erupted in Gaza in 1987, Israel initiated measures to correct this problem and began separating the Gaza Strip from the rest of the territories. As the veteran Israeli journalist Amira Hass has reported in detail, stringent crossing requirements and elaborate permit systems were put in place. These measures were expanded against the backdrop of the peace process that began in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). While countless rounds of negotiations wore on throughout the 1990s, Israel gradually reshaped the architecture of its occupation. After three years of the bloody Second Intifada, under the pretext of security, Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, announced his decision in 2003 to formalize Israel’s separation policies toward the Gaza Strip—to “disengage”—while simultaneously strengthening Israel’s hold on the West Bank. In a rapid transition, Israel’s occupation of Gaza morphed from direct colonization into a system of external control.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are now numerous older but more detailed sources, with quotes, in Israeli disengagement from Gaza#Rationale and development of the policy (currently footnotes 14 through 21). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

The last sentence of the lead reads "Israeli military and civilian leaders have praised Israeli troops for their actions, which they describe as necessary defensive measures." The given source, an article from the Washington Post, does not have any mention of civilian leaders praising Israeli troops for their actions, or anything similar to that nature.

Please remove the words "and civilian leaders", or else give a citation for this phrase.

Added the "not in citation given" template Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Medics

@OtterAM: Are you sure this edit was just meant to mention the "affiliation"s? Why did you remove the sentence regarding the medics?--Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some notes

• in the Infobox, please return Hamas to the top, where it has been until today. The editing that brought him down seems suspicious to me. It is clear that Hamas' dominance in the events was much greater than that of the ״Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine״.
• please add Israel's claim that Hamas used people and children as human shields.
• I suggest you to reconsider the name of the article. Maybe "2018 Gaza border protests and clashes" or "2018 gaza border incidents" would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:4F8F:31BD:7345:4641:312 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Background

The following is an analysis of what Saree Makdisi, a notable scholar of the area, considers to be the ideological underpinning behind the techniques for killing Palestinians in the 2018 Gaza border protests. Makdisi links the IDF's use of snipers to kill Gazan protestors to an opinion set forth by an advisor of Ariel Sharon in 2004, shortly before Israel withdrew from the Strip, and then began, with the rise of Hamas, to place it under blockade. The text runs:-

The demographer Arnon Sofer of Haifa University is the architect of the current isolation of Gaza. In 2004, he advised the government of Ariel Sharon to withdraw Israeli forces from within Gaza, seal the territory off from the outside world, and simply shoot anyone who tries to break out. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe,” Sofer told an interviewer in the Jerusalem Post (11 November 2004); “Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.” He added that “the only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.” . . . In response to the current killing and shooting, a senior member of the Israeli parliament, Avi Dichter, reassured his audience on live television on Monday that they need not be unduly concerned. Their army, he told them, “has enough bullets for everyone.” If every man, woman and child in Gaza gathers at the gate, in other words, there is a bullet for every one of them. They can all be killed, no problem. Saree Makdisi, Kill and Kill and Kill Counterpunch 16 May 2018

Since we have a background section, and Makdisi links Sofer's advice to the present border 'clashes' is it appropriate for use on this page? This, unlike the claim in the false edit summary used to remove the quote, is not foruming, but a request that editors consider whether Makdisi's analysis is appropriate for the page background section or not.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the above is a BLP violation (as well as a 1RR violation - diffs - [10][11][12]) you are claiming via, a non-RS, various claims on a BLP - Arnon Sofer - who is being misquoting. The misquoting has been covered by a RS - 'I DIDN'T SUGGEST WE KILL PALESTINIANS', JPost, 10 October 2007.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh youre not allowed to remove somebody elses talk page comment. And you have a very serious misunderstanding of WP:BLP. nableezy - 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting original research on a talk page is using the talk page as a forum. "Everything according to plan?" is a troll post and has nothing to do with 2018 Gaza Border Protests, which is why it was removed. Find a reliable source connecting them and then it can be discussed. Drsmoo (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Um it isnt "original" research, it is Makdisi's. Makdisi is the reliable source. nableezy - 18:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything in the quotation that refers to Sofer is confirmed by the 2007 interview. "I didn't recommend that we kill Palestinians. I said we'll have to kill them." Exactly what Makdisi quoted. The difference between recommending action 1 and recommending action 2 with the understanding that it will lead to action 1 is nothing, zilch, nada. Zero^talk 15:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Makdisi is not 'a notable scholar of the area', he is, as the Wikipedia article says a "literary critic ... specializing in eighteenth and nineteenth century British literature". His opinion on this topic is as notable as yours or mine, which is to say, not at all. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost Type-o

Under journaling of May 14, paragraph 4, sentence 1, word 33: 'no' should be 'not' for this dialect of English. Mouselb (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Background - quote not in citation given and misleading - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

In the background section. The quote in the sentence 'This zone restricts Palestinians from entering "about 17 percent of Gaza's territory, including a third of its agricultural lands", according to Human Rights Watch.[50]' is not contained in the reference given,

 "Israel: Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated". Human Rights Watch. 3 April 2018. Retrieved 9 April 2018.

The zone it a total of 1km wide, most of which is 'high risk zone'. 17% is based on 1km, but according to the map of the access zone that is in the article, farmers have access by foot up to 100m from the fence, and greater access to it up to 300m from the fence. 100m would be about 1.7% of Gaza's territory and 300m would be about 5.1%. OCHA concluded in 2010 that the zone was 500m wide , which would be about 8.5%. So on all those measures, the quote is misleading, since it implies Palestinian lack access to 17% of Gaza.

Please either remove the quote or add the "not in citation given" template to it. Sailfish2 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"protests and clashes": wtf

I am ashamed that Wikipedia, I contribute to, ends up saying this is a true article title. - DePiep (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should call a spade a spade. AK47s and pupe bombs are not part of a protest. The Washington Post is using clashes.[13].Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You are ashamed they are not using your biased language on a website that is supposed to be neutral?Crowtow849 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Most news outlets I've seen call it riots. I and other people tried to change "protests" to "riots" on a different Wiki page and it promptly got reverted back to "protests" every time. They need to do something about left-wing moderators sabotaging politically-charged pages, personally I lost interest editing knowing there is always a chance of wasting my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is nonsense to keep "protests" as most of them are not protesters at all. In fact, "riots" is more suitable for this ongoing scenario. XiaoSong (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Map of the Gaza Strip showing the border proximity restrictions with Israel

In the picture there is another micro map with the title: "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

There is a big debate about the term "occupied".

I suggest deletion in order to avoid favor of one of the sides. XiaoSong (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no debate. Occupied is a technical legal description, and the appropriateness of the word has been confirmed multiple times by all major international organizations of relevance. See footnote 22 in our article Gaza Strip. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Words such as "occupied" and "settlement" are simply legal descriptions; possession of land beyond one's legal borders is considered an occupation of another's borders; this isn't using Wikipedia's voice to take a side. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel has been withdrawn from Gaza, see Israeli disengagement from Gaza, therefore since this time Gaza is officially not an occupied territory.

XiaoSong (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just get rid of this map, there are plenty others in Wikimedia which aren't using this term. I can also edit this current map, remove the micro-map and upload to Wikimedia. How about that? XiaoSong (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ITIC is filled with

@Mhhossein: This edit restores an obviously incorrect and cherry-picked assertion. The source indeed says "filled", but it also says that ITIC "is viewed as unusually credible", why don't we quote this part instead ? You also dropped the word "former" that the source had. Per WP:CLICHE we should avoid figurative expressions. Do you believe that ITIC is literally filled with former intelligence officials, or perhaps there are a few other employees, and perhaps a bit of free space between them ? ITIC certainly employs many former intelligence officials, which makes it very reliable. If we describe ITIC at all (which I don't think we should), we should describe it correctly, matching the sources. “WarKosign” 11:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your discussion attempt is highly respected. In fact, I was trying to stay as close as possible to the source. I think "filled" was used by the source to say that "there are a few other employees" and/or that one may fins plenty of former intelligence officials among the employees. However, your version did determine the presence degree of the former intelligence officials. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: So do you agree that instead of "filled" we should say "which employs many former Israeli intelligence officials and is described by Jerusalem Post as 'unusually credible' ..." ? It is too verbose to my taste, but at least it doesn't misrepresent the source. “WarKosign” 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WarKosign: Thanks for the suggestion, but that's too long. The first part, i.e. "which employs many former Israeli intelligence officials", is a apparently a fact, but there's no need to mention the POV of a dependent source determining the degree of its credibility. I agree with the first part only, which helps the readers understand the affiliation of the center. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else thinks that first part only without balance of the second part is biased ? “WarKosign” 11:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2018

I would like to suggest removing the following fragment:

"Previously, Erdoğan has continued to deny Turkey's Armenian Genocide, and in light of the current hostile diplomatic row, Israel has moved towards officially recognizing the 1915 genocide."

I think it should be removed not because it's not true (it is true) but because it seems like an attempt to delegitimise his statement that precedes this quote and doesn't seem neutral, as we are suddenly talking about something only vaguely related to the original topic of the discussion. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

This page is bias and doesn't reflect neutrality on the Gaza Protests, add a POV template please. Lemonpasta (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the POV concerns so we know how specifically to address them? Cheers. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Partially  Done - I don't know what specifically you're requesting, but I added the POV template after finding that a listed goal was "to 'infiltrate' the border" and the so-called "source" said in its leading paragraph that "the Palestinians want to annihilate Israel" so it's very clear that this article needs work to achieve a neutral POV and a tone/style free of soapboxing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just your personal bias, Wizard. The article is very strongly sourced, and reflects what the sources say.50.111.48.95 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Having sources cited does not necessarily, automatically, or inherently mean that there's no POV concerns; if the problem was sourcing, we'd be discussing the {{refimprove}} template, not the POV template. Again, the reason why I added this was because the source cited was highly problematic. A source that claims in its leading paragraph that they want to - and I quote - "annihilate Israel" completely fails WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Clashes" were in West-Bank, not in Gaza area

Excuse me but the word "clashes" has been inserted into article in a misleading way since the 14th of May. In the W.Bank there were street-confrontations between armed-forces and protestors, which can be termed "clashes". However, this article is about the Gaza based Palestinian protest action; Land Day to Nahkba Day protest camp and Great March of Return. This article is not about West-Bank clashes.

In Gaza, Israeli-controlled border is intact, incursions or infiltrations are documented, without anything that could be defined as a clash. Please remove the term "clashes".126.161.191.155 (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked but only found a couple of instances, which I changed with this edit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Incendiary Kites?

All information on use of incendiary kites is credited to Israeli media which in turn cites the IDF Spokesperson, an unreliable source. This should be tagged as "according to the IDF Spokesperson," rather than stated as fact. The IDF Spokesperson has given false information on several occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmalabi (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

here is a pictuere of a incendiary kites thet flyed too far and ran out of burning materials, thet was found in Eshkol Regional Council. Also - pictures of burnt fields near Kibbuts Be'eri. I am a reporter of [www.davar1.co.il Davar Rishon] news site and pictured them myself. Nizzan Cohen (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

the kite was sended off from Gaza strip with burning object conected to the tip of its tail in purpose to Cause fires in the fields of Eshkol Regional Council

fields of Eshkol Regional Council thet was burnt by fired Caused by fired object thet eas conected to the tip of kites tails, thet eas sent from Gaza strip

fields of Eshkol Regional Council thet was burnt by fired Caused by fired object thet eas conected to the tip of kites tails, thet eas sent from Gaza strip

Note that one of the sources cited in the New York Times which used Palestinian sources for the 4th of May. On the Israeli side - news orgs actually do not rely on the IDF spokesman to report on fires inside Israel - they are reporting this in their own voice - probably after their own reporting in the (burnt) field and speaking to residents and firefighters.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

They are showing proud Palestinian "protesters" lighting their kites and letting them fly on tv here, surely someone can find a RS for that then? 176.11.21.1 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

List of victims

The list is unreferenced. Either orange tag the section or better yet, remove it.

--LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to apply. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's questionable notability, and without refs it'll never get on ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In the IP area, all articles dealing with considerable numbers of Israeli/Jewish victims of violence list the people, their names and ages. Palestinians get the same treatment, and the list is required because once btselem has done its legwork we will have material on the eyewitness testimonies re each person killed, which naturally are meat and meet for this article. Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no sources. Please tag the section "refimprove". It's a WP:BLP vio to have it unreferenced. If you have examples of other articles with a list of the dead, please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

While the possibility of using it to create prose later sounds good in principal, the present form is just a list of names and isn't encyclopaedic. It's also unsourced. It needs removed in its present form. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the list should be cited; otherwise, what if it's incorrect? I suggest that the uncited names be commented out for now (keep those that have citations). If someone wants to add citations, they could comment out the names after adding citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed now. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not "fixed"

Nishidani, Huldra, Ynhockey, Shrike,K.e.coffman,LaserLegs, Icewhiz, and Mhhossein (if I missed a major contributor, ping them) I do not think this issue is resolved. The list assumes the IDF report on the Hamas killed is the absolute authority. There seems to be too many conflicting reports on the dead, who they were, and how they were affiliated to have a definitive list that accurately portrays the situation; in addition, the individuals were not independently notable. How about we remove the list, construct a well-developed paragraph or two on the conflicting reports, and ultimately improve the article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the list. Should be a tally per both (or more) sides - IDF says X Hamas, Y other militants (list), Palestinians say Z Hamas, W other militants.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of tragic losses of life come through "In The News" and have never seen a list of victims. It's encyclopedic value is suspect. Strongly urge removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that it's a good idea to remove the list itself. There is actually less disagreement about who the killed were than it first seems—both the IDF and Hamas confirm that exactly five of the killed belonged to Hamas's military wing. Both the IDF and PIJ confirm that one of the killed was in the PIJ military wing. There isn't even disagreement (AFAIK) about the other Hamas members being Hamas members—the only disagreement is classification. The IDF considers all Hamas members to be legitimate military targets, while Hamas claims that members of its "political wing" are civilians. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with "accurately" portraying the situation". However, as notability is not a criteria for inclusion, I doubt if we can remove them. TheGracefulSlick: How about making a list page? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Having any list of victims would be very much POV. It smacks of POV. I agree that it should be removed. Loknar (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Loknar! Why is it "very much POV"? Can you please elaborate on that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously been added in order to gain sympathy for the demonstrators, which include members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. No other protest page has this, and then again whether it was a protest or not is up for debate. It is highly POV to have such a list on an objective Wikipedia article. I request that someone please remove it, unless we are going start to include the victims of Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians on their respective pages, in which case it will be fine.Loknar (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"No other protest page has this" That's blatantly false. In the Irish Bloody Sunday article all the casualties are listed. I think that's a sufficient precedent and a good model. GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That conflict isn't still live. This is an ongoing conflict and having a list of victims is only useful for propaganda purposes and NPOV. Loknar (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Banner Request

Additionally, I hereby request that someone put a NPOV issue banner at the top of this article. All of this article is written from a pro-Palestinian perspective. The list of victims makes this obvious.Loknar (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Protests ended on May 15?

I think we can say the protests concluded on May 15, specially after Egypt pressured Hamas to stop them. Or perhaps it's only a temporary lull for Ramadan before resuming them...?--יניב הורון (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thought so as well. Last friday saw about a 1,000 Palestinians on the border, which is not far from regular riots in the past years. Next friday, if anything will stay the same, might see even less. But Hamas leaders continue to vocally call for the protests to continue, even though Hamas claimed the protests achieved their goal. We still have the Naksa Day ahead. So for now, it is too early to determine whether the protests concluded.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Issues with the article that must be solved ASAP

In light of the Nakba Day riots which resulted in both the most violent day in the conflict since 2014 and a huge burst of interest in this article, according to Pageviews Analysis there are many issues that must be solved.

The article is too long. It contains too much information. Just look at the table of contents, it's scary. The first thing to do is obviously to summarize the lead section and keep it at around five paragraphs. A reader comes to this article and wants to know what is happening and why is it happening. It is very hard to follow this article. The Timeline section occupies most of the article, and needs the most work in my opinion. As a reader, I won't bother reading what happened in every single day of the protests and the profile of the casualties doesn't really bother me, simply because I came to read why they were killed, and not who they were prior to the riots. This is common in I/P articles, when people like to include the names of the victims, maybe to add some emotion to it, as Israeli and Palestinian media likes to do (I admit, I did it in the past several times). If I'll read an article about unrest in China and I will read a Chinese name, I would probably just skip the letters, bcause I don't know Chinese names and I don't feel like I really need to know the name of that person. So adding Hebrew names like "Shmuel Nechmad" (made-up name) which is a name most English readers won't recognize, or "Abed Yussef Fatah al-Sharif" (another made-up name), is not contributing to the understanding of why and how they were killed. This infobox also needs some work, but I think I can do this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It contains too much information, and the names of Israeli and Palestinian people are hard to read to English-speakers? Please use a change x to y format. Wikipedia writers try to include as much relevant information as possible, and if an article is too long, split-off articles about related subjects are started. We include people's names because they're their names; if you're reading an article about China, expect to see Chinese names that you're unfamiliar with. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I went to 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Burundian unrest (2015–present), Daraa Governorate clashes (2011–13) and July 2009 Ürümqi riots, and I saw not a single name of a dead protester. Nor did I recall seeing a book or an article (outside Wikipedia) about a civil riot or conflict in general that gave so much attention to the names, ages and residence of the casualties. So far on my work on the Land Day riots section, I saw absolutely no reason to state even a single name. The ages were relevent to understand who were killed. The fact those killed are all male between 19 and 32 says something, their names, don't.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In the Irish Bloody Sunday article all the casualties are listed. I think that's a sufficient precedent and a good model. User:GPRamirez5

Not a good example in my opinion. The events of Bloody Sunday took a few minutes (the killings), and not almost two months. It resemble more of a terrorist attack or a massacre, where it is common to have a list of names: Passover massacre, Orlando nightclub shooting, Kandahar massacre#Incident, Mekong River massacre, Ponce massacre#Casualties.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, but this is an WP:OSE argument. So long as there are WP:RS sources confirming the names of those listed, they should be included in the article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? Why are the names of casualties notable?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's notable enough for the source, and the sources are reliable, then I see no policy reason why we shouldn't include them. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, for the reason originally stated. It makes the article too long and hard to read, which I completely agree with. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll thank the anonymous IP user for saying something true here. The sources are mostly newspapers, this is an encyclopedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it's an expansive digital encyclopedia, not a limited print one. See WP:PAPER. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't, and when I limited the first part of the timeline section I didn't think about the number of pages and the price of production, I simply thought about the reading expiriance. It is better to have three paragraphs summerizing the events, rather than a list of the events and the names of each victim and their stories. In WP:PAPER it says: "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size)." I don't think that for the sake of naming each of the 110+ fatalities and every single one of their stories, we should split this article. We will end up many article, about each friday from 30 March onwards. As a reader, you want to learn about what's happening now in Gaza, and needing to open more and more tabs is annoying and severely hurts your attention span. I had this expiriance with many long articles. This is not Quantum mechanics, the exact and complete details of every single minute in this conflict is not important for the understanding of the situation. It does exactly the opposite. Much more WP:WEIGHT should be given to the political background and impact of these riots, rather than the events themselves.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. For individual names to be mentioned they must satisfy notability criteria. “WarKosign” 17:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOTMEMORIAL? The content doesn't say anything about the context. The closest point is "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" which is not relevant here because those mentioned evidently have achieved notability through secondary third-party reliable source coverage of their deaths. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to be trimmed down and summarized better. It's unreadable and meandering. Four or five paragraphs maximum. As for listing the names of the killed, I am not in favour of it. The matter can be summarized. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the programmed period has passed, the time is to remove clutter representing the day by day editing. I.e. it is history, and thus 120+ shot dead, rather than 'by April 5 the casualties were . . .' etc; listing the dead follows Israeli practice, so unless editors citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL to elide the names, accept and wipe out dozens of name lists on articles dealng with mass killings of Jews and Israelis, the argument doesn't hold. Double standards are unacceptable (and please, anyone, drop the predictable reply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is about applying uniformly the same evaluative criteria for articles on Palestinians and Israelis). In the long run, we don't need a complete list of 120, yes, but it would be advisable to compromise by shortlisting individual deaths which received secondary source attention, where the circumstances are known, or categories like journalists and medics shot. That would leave one with 30-40 names (please don't say, name lists are hard to read. Shortly we will have per B'tselem etc., detailed overall reports and breakdowns of the statistics, and a little patience is required.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, list of names is relevent for instant events, such as the Orlando nightclub shooting have a place. If you find a list of names of those killed in the Kfar Qasim massacre, feel free to add it, just like the Arabic Wikipedia did. But here, as I see it, we have a long civil conflict that lasts for months, and more weight should be given to the whole picture. I honestly searched for a reason to name any of the fatalities in the section about 30 March when I re-wrote it, and I really so no reason to. I don't think the reader understands anything different between when he reads "19-years-old Palestinian" and "Abdel Fattah Abdel Nabi (19)". Maybe Jihad Ahmed Fraina, who is a senior member of Hamas' military wing, having the rank of a captain or a major, deserves his name, but when I thought about an instance when an Israeli company commandor was killed in Gaza in 2014, I also don't see a reason to put his name there. And as for WP:OSE, for the most part, I opposed making articles for every single stabbing or shooting attack by Palestinians and there are many articles that exist today that I think shouldn't. If you want to fix that, be my guest.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad wording should be fixed

"In the second incident, the IDF said that two men who had crossed the fence "hurled explosive devices" at IDF soldiers before they shot and killed them."

The use of "they" and "them" at the end of this sentence makes it ambiguous. After perusing the reference, I understand that an improved wording would be:

"In the second incident, the IDF said that two men who had crossed the fence "hurled explosive devices" at IDF soldiers before they were shot and killed."

192.118.27.253 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Kemp's opinion

Under the reactions sections, we cite the opinions of one Richard Kemp. Kemp is a well known Israel firster and anti-Palestinian far-right [redacted as BLP violation] , whose numerous Colonel Blimpish gems including refering to the leader of the opposition in the UK as a "terrorist sympathier" and Irish people in the UK with racist epithets. Also, Kemp is today retired from public roles. If we must give Brits the floor twice, why not Jeremy Corbyn who is the leader of the opposition and has condemned the massacre? Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So far we have in that section four paragraphs of individuals condemning Israel, while only one (Kemp) supporting it. And your adjectives against him tell more about you than Kemp, not to mention it's a clear BLP violation.--יניב הורון (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There have been many reactions to the events, so one has to pick and choose, and it's always a bit arbitrary as to who is chosen. Overall, the "Reactions" section reflects the general reaction around the world, perhaps. Corbyn is not in the government right now; if one added the opinion of the opposition in each of the countries, the list would become even more unwieldy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages too--Shrike (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead and body too long

My 2 cents on this article... I fully appreciate the considerable efforts people are putting into developing this article about a critical subject... however, the lead is too long and the large parts of the body read like a catalog of of every conceivable, verifiable detail. The lead should be 5 paragraphs at most and body needs a good dose of culling per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCATALOG, especially the "Timeline" and "Reactions" sections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Does incident of May 22 belong here ?

@Icewhiz: The source doesn't seem to make any connection between the incident and the protests. Officially "the great march of protest" was supposed to last till May 15. Will we keep adding everything that happened on the Gaza border to this article indefinitely ? “WarKosign” 11:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not over. At least Hamas isn't saying it is. telegraph Hamas plans to continue protests along the Gaza border and hopes to see a mass demonstration on June 5 which will rival the size of this week’s protests, a spokesman said on Wednesday., Haaretz Hamas has already announced plans for a major protest on June 5 – the 51st anniversary of the Six-Day War..Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources should connect the events, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. “WarKosign” 11:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding breaking stuff often doesn't connect the dots. Here - this source does.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

17 May events

On the 17'th of May several fires had started caused by Molotov cocktails attached to kites flown into Israel over the Gaza border..

One of the arrested protester had alleged that The group 'tricks' women, children to enter line of fire.5.144.58.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

International reactions

I just re-added most of a section on reactions by states that had been taken out - it seems absurd to have individual reactions but not government official spokesmen! The person who took it out complained it was wordy, and someone else (I think) had a "quotefarm" tag on it I didn't restore because neither of these issues seem very bad to me. But people might work on both issues to get a more balanced view of the state reactions rather than focusing on single quotes by spokesmen; it's by no means a perfect section, just better than dead air. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

How utterly stupid and unhelpful. There's a section on this already further up the page. Why not join it? --John (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

B'tselem and cancellation of attributed detail

Icewhiz. In a series of edits you are asking that a 'better' source is required than B'tselem. That NGO is perhaps the most thorough even-handed investigative source for all incidents of violence in the I/P area, and marking it as inadequate is patently ridiculous since its reliability has never been seriously challenged in this area. This is nuisance editing because it obliges rational editors to revert it.

Also you elide attributed information from B'tselem, with no adequate reason, other than creating a false POV-pushing viewpoint that the person may have been shot for violent activities. B'tselem does as thorough a background check as any known I/P body, and stating what the results of its investigations were succinctly is normal. They may not be correct - if you get an IDF or other source challenging them add it, otherwise that information must stand.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I understand this topic is controversial and may incite passion, but please try and be civil Nishidani, "This is nuisance editing because it obliges rational editors to revert it" may be interpreted as insinuating that Icewhiz is not rational. Please keep the discussion WP:CIVIL. Waddie96 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Look up instrumental rationality. By 'rational editors' I mean those committed to a consistent application over all issues of a reasoned and rationally acceptable interpretation of policy. As I note below, this is not the case with Icewhiz's editing. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem is not a neutral source (its mission stmt is "ending the occupation" - and it sees Gaza as occupied - which is a perfectly fine POV, but it is also a very clear POV). I summarized some of the information from B'Tselem - and yes - for the instnaces tagged we should use a better source (of which there are some). I'll note that including these incidents are somewhat SYNTHY in their connection to this article without a source tying them in explicitly - I considered removing them all together, which might be a good idea if there are no mentions of them in late-March and onwards coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If you believed that 'these arguments are somewhat SYNTHY --without a source tying them in explicitly, you would have been obliged to flag the 'in February 2018' incidents which cite the New York Times, the Times of Israel and Reuters written just after the incidents, and not linked to this border topic. You let them stand, while tampering with the Palestinian material. That's blatant POV pushing. You ignore your own argument, against, in adding:

'On 25 March, the IDF fired some ten Iron Dome missiles to intercept what the IDF said was high-trajectory machine-gun fire from Gaza towards Zikim.'

That is sourced to contemporary newspaper accounts which do not mention to Border demonstrations that began to take place 5 days later. So0 again it fails the very criterion you use to erase Palestinian material. And you removed the example from B'tselem of the Israeli navy killing a fisherman because in your view it had nothing to do with border events (it is a border event:) and yet in the same breadth, added details of an incident in which somewhere within the Gaza Strip (not from the border) machine-gun fire is said to have threatened a kibbutz 14 kilometres from Gaza's border(!!!!). I'd like a military expert to clarify how machine-gun fire can reach that distance.

Your answer generally just repeats your assertion re neutrality without giving a policy-grounded or rational answer. By that token Ynet, the Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel and even Israel Hayom (!!) which you or someone else just added, since they support the occupation, are not neutral, and therefore must be tagged invariably. None of our sources are 'neutral' in that sense. All of our newspaper sources are biased in their choice of what they will cover or omit.

You are consistently over numerous pages or questions changing your judgement according to whether the source is in favour of an Israeli POV, or against it. You defend with whatever argument thinkable the former, and contest with whatever argument pops up the latter. Re the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center above, you're fine with citing it for the very claims which here you elide from B'tselem's reportage, though unlike B'tselem it does not show any interest in covering both sides, (and in not only my view, is a patent 'hasbara outfit' all of whose nonsensical claims were systematically demolished by the major academic authority on the Gaza conflict. B'tselem meticulously covers Israeli and Palestinian casualties, and in that sense, Btselem's remit underlines a concern for the impartial application to reportage of all incidents of violence regardless of the politics. Editors must distinguish their POVs from their obligation to adhere to consistent interpretation of wiki policies. This is loose cannon editing at its most obvious.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The February 2018 IED incident was covered in the context of the border incidents - and there is a citation to that effect (which I added - to WSJ from April). Likewise, the March incidents in the run up to 30 March were covered in relation to the planned border events - and there are already citations supporting that. I improved sourcing for the some of the incidents involving Palestinians - and yes - they probably will have to go if they are not covered in the context of the border violence (land day and onwards) - however I did not remove them outright since I thought there might be better sources than the PRIMARY and BIASED B'Tselem compilation of every single Israel/Gaza incident. I did remove the naval incident - as while it is possibly classifiable as a border event - it is a separate border from the border fence - and the current events have not included the naval border - so I doubt sources covering this in the context of the current border violence will be found (which is what we should have for inclusion). Regarding the Iron dome incident (which has been in there for quite a while - from around when this article was created (it was in on 1 April, article was created in 30 March) - I added an April 2018 source.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center - their opinion or analysis is covered (and cited as such) by a secondary RS within the context of the post-March border violence. The B'Tselem info you added - is from their primary list of every single incident from 2009, and does not seem to have been covered by a RS in the context of the post-March border violence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.

Reuters, Ynet, Reuters, all of which, your criterion expressed earlier, would be SYNTHY, since they do not mention the 30 March events.

In addition in writing:

‘On 25 March, the IDF fired some ten Iron Dome missiles to intercept what the IDF said was high-trajectory machine-gun fire from Gaza towards Zikim’

you engaged in tendentious misreportage. The Ynet article clarified that it was an automatic trigger reaction to what the Iron Dome system registered as missiles, but which turned out to be machine gun fire within the Gaza Strip which the electronic sensors registered geophysically as in alligment with Zikkim to the north, but which no source I know of states that it crossed the border. Complete distortion by incomplete selective coverage. It is also incompetent. Missiles, Iron Dome or otherwise, cannot 'intercept' machinegun fire. You are making this section of the article uneditable because of these contradictory approaches and careless source control.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the silly assertion B'tselem is a primary source, again, you raise an objection which, were it correct, would automatically oblige you to remove the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center source used in notes 35, 153 (from memory), since it is cited directly and not through, as you assert, secondary sources. This is getting tediously disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There is source that ties the Iron dome fire to current events.[14]. The machine gun fire did cross the border (and Zikim is less than 3 kms from the border (and the beach closer still) - within range of indirect machine gun fire (something, that during WWI, was actually employed in a military fashion)). The Iron dome rockets were sent to intercept whatever was coming in on a ballestic trajectory at an Israeli target - had the IDF known it was machine gun fire - it wouldn't have fired the rockets (which possibly could hit a machine gun bullet - but it would be quite wasteful). In addition to the April source - there are earlier citations I did not remove. As for Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center - we have a citation in the article from JPost (and I believe more sources are available).Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So Gaza has heavy machine guns superior to those in use in the British Army. All the above is not in the public record for this, so it just opinionizing, and ignores the gravamen of my points, which are that your edits here have been unsound policy wise, suppress sources you dislike, careless and disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I can source it all (bullets landing in Israel, and use of high angle machine gun fire in WWI). In terms of policy, you introduced quite a bit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL off topic material sourced to a single BIASED PRIMARY source - which I made efforts to improve sourcing and NPOV wise.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"plunging+fire"+"machine+gun"++yards&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI9qaIlOraAhVMyKQKHbfiARYQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q="plunging%20fire"%20"machine%20gun"%20%20yards&f=false has the vickers .303 effective at up to 4500 yards for plunging fire. IIRC the M2 Browning reaches put to 6500m at 45 degrees elevation. Zikim is less than 3kms from the north of the strip, and the Northern strip (in the place of the evacuated Nisanit, Dugit, and Elei Sinai) - so definitely not implausible (as this is not 14km away as you stated above for some reason).Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• B'tselem is neither a reliable nor a neutral source. It is a political and partisan advocacy organization to which facts should not be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Some but not all news organizations may be more reliable than B'Tselem, but in areas where only it has gathered information, it's a perfectly acceptable source for attributed information. If we can source factual statements "according to the Israeli military," we can definitely source them to B'Tselem. The Israeli military, the UN HCHR, and ITIC all no doubt have opinions as to whether Gaza is occupied. Those legal opinions do not tell us whether the source accurately verifies the information it publishes and corrects its mistakes (as required by WP:RS).--Carwil (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be attributed, but it is still WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the statements at the RS board in 2011 when several authoritative editors/admins remarked on its reliability. One even said it need not be repeatedly used with attribution. The argument here is tendentiously new, and if those pushing it believed it, they would go to the RS board to challenge that old and obvious consensus. They don't. Surely, we can close this sorry episode?Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The objections are innovations to standard wiki IP practice. Having edited here for 12 years, I have seen over numerous article B'tselem cited without agonizing objections in numerous conflict articles. The objections of Icewhiz, and the rote responses by Shrike and Gregory are challenging what has been a long-standing consensus among editors from both sides. This can be seen by the multiple use of B'tselem in

• Gaza War (2008–09)
• Operation Pillar of Defense
• 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

If you wish to overthrow a working consensus so thoroughly evidenced in our articles prior to this one, you have to go to some board. Otherwise, one is engaged in tendentious obstructionism.Nishidani (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In those 3 article B'Tselem is used after an actual WP:RS reports on what B'TSelem wrote - where B'Tselem is used as a source - it is always attributed, and expands on a point previously made be a RS, or contrasting their report with some other report (e.g. B'Tselem vs. PCHR / Al Mezan / Hamas sources). B'Tselem is not a RS - the opinion of B'Tselem is sometimes notable or significant - and that can be assessed by RS reporting using B'Tselem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Before inventing fantasy arguments, read the articles. after an actual WP:RS reports on what B'TSelem wrote is egregiously false, as anyone checking those pages can see at a glance. Please desist, for this is reportage obstructionism.Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In Gaza War (2008–09) we use a BBC report on B'Tselem findings - and we used other such sources reporting on B'Tselem's reports (e.g. AJ). Where we do use B'Tselem directly - it is in the context of the same report reported on by others - and attributed to B'Tselem.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Kindergarten. You open the page (2) you put 'b'tselem' in the search box (3) you click through every mention of that NGO, and (4) you find my statement was absolutely correct, and yours absolutely wrong. Got it?Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever used it as a source, but I also dont think the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is more reliable, nor does being quoted in one jpost article make it inherently more reliable. The only use in this article I am iffy about is the Operation Cast Lead.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We're using ITIC attributed - not as fact. Some of what Nishidani had inserted - was unattributed (and I added attribution now to those I did not find RS for) - see this diff in which multiple WP:BDPs are reported to have died (a BLP issue) in Wikipedia's voice - based on a B'Tselem primary database/list - B'Tselem is mentioned attributed to characterize some aspects of the deaths - e.g. On 16 February X (18) was shot in the back of the head while standing 15 metres from the border fence. - B'Tselem is not attributed for how/where/when this individual died (it is used attributed later) - and it should not be used in this fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Counterfactual rubbish. Plesase desist. We use ITIC attributed, and I used B'tselem attributed. You accept the former which is a notorious partisan hasbara outlet (I haven't objected to), and refuse B'tselem, which covers in details both sides when I meticulously cited B'tselem as the source for all examples added. (2)WP:BDP is a patently spurious, since our page constantly lists recently dead,and adds remarks about their ostensible affiliation sourced to Arutz Sheva, which is, per the RSN discussions, not acceptable for facts. To claim as you imply, that day bgy day Israeli newspaper accounts are more reliable than records produced after weeks and months of investigation in the field by B’tselem, is ridiculous. B’tselem has investigators on the grounds:; our newspaper sources summarise IDF and other outlets as they rush to print.You let that rubbish stand while impeaching an organisation, which despite hostility from the usual suspects, had this said of them:

In an interview with Haaretz in 2009, Military Advocate General Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit praised B'Tselem, saying that they help his office talk to witnesses and clarify complaints. He also said the organization "strives, like us, to investigate the truth".[36][37] The following year, Mendelbit announced the indictment of several officers and soldiers for abuses during the 2008–2009 Gaza invasion. In the announcement, he "voiced his gratitude to the human rights organization B'Tselem, thanking the organization for testimonies its activists passed on to the IDF and for assisting in coordinating the questioning of Palestinian eyewitnesses at the Erez crossing.

You are being obstructive in cavils that falsify the known and verifiable edit records.

You can not have it both ways: uniquely challenge B’tselem, when internationally and within the IDF as well as academically it is regarded as a reliable source, while allowing newspaper sources that repeat in breaking news IDF reports without verifying their reliability, and even keeping mum when a settler propaganda organ is used in our article for attributing to the recently dead an affiliation with Hamas. Thisa is blatant POV selectivism. It is attritional POV-pushing. Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

How about focusing on actual sourcing? At the moment (after I added some sources to improve the situation) we have two incidents in "Prior violence" sourced to a list of all casualties, compiled by B'Tselem, since 2009. Connecting that list to this topic is SYNTHY without someone doing it. The B'Tselem list is definitely PRIMARY, it is also a biased source, and we're debating on whether it is a RS. Has anyone reliable reported on these incidents in our present context (or on the B'Tselem tally from 2009 - which includes some 2-3 wars)Icewhiz 08:09, 4 May 2018 08:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am still awaiting your replies to my comments above. You have introduced or let stands rubbish like Israel Hayom and Arutz Sheva, neither of which are RS, while contesting B'tselem. There is no argument that the evidence of the RS noticeboard is that the consensus of serious editors, when this was raised (which it rarely is because the reply is obvious)(Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 61 here, was that it is RS. If you wish to challenge it, your option is to go there, and not keep repeating your claim here.

The second point is that several of you need to refresh your reading of WP:RS. For you are challenging sources on the grounds they are not neutral.

• B'Tselem is not a neutral source (its mission stmt is "ending the occupation" .Icewhiz13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• B'tselem is neither a reliable nor a neutral source. It is a political and partisan advocacy organization to which facts should not be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

At WP:RS it is clearly stated:-

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

This thread is just a pettifogging filibuster to bury the obvious policy and RS realities under an indigestible mass of instrumental opinionizing. So, for the last time desist from making false claims or trying to deny what is proven (B'tselem is everywhere used without being cycled through another RS, and no amount of huffing and puffing can change that fact).Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I have removed Arutz Sheva and Israel Hayom references, since they are not acceptable for facts.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If Arutz Sheva and Israel hayom are "not acceptable for facts", then neither are Ma'an or Al Jazeera. 90.28.1.189 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

B'tselem is neither a reliable nor a neutral or usable sources, while Israel Hayom and Arutz Sheva are as much reliable as Al Jazeera or Ma'an.Tritomex (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)