Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests

Title

Why should we object to describing this event as a "massacre"? We don't reject this term out of hand, there must be dozens of articles in the Category:Massacres and its sub-categories. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

IDF was preventing violent potential illegal immigrants from crossing into Israel. At least 2 of those who were killed were known to Israel as HAMAS operatives. Fighting terrorism is not the same as "massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Crap. The vast majority of those shot dead were killed by trained snipers lying on banks of sand and thus out of range beyond the 300 metre no go zone, and couldn't be even hit by stones, which can be slung by Israeli manual lore on conflict no more than 70 yards. In no civilized country in the world do you gun down protestors or even rioters who are unarmed. It's murder, and when the number exceeds 6, it is a massacre, as La Repubblica and the Vatican's Avvenire, reported when the news broke. 30,000 people showed zero interest in entering Israel. Half of the employed minority are in Hamas, it is the only way to get bread on the table. That doesn't make them operatives. This had fuck all to do with terrorism, since Haaretz and other sources have articles before the event which paint the IDF apocalyptic scenario of an 'existential threat' requiring massive force in the before this event took place, and put in place extreme measures on that paranoid hypothesis.

See for example:

Yaniv Kubovich,Josh Breiner Israeli Army Readies for Hamas March Along Gaza Border on Friday Haaretz 27 March 2018

Peter Lerner, This Friday, Israel’s Tear Gas and tanks Will Confront Palestinian Marchers. But Brute Force Can’0t Be Israel’s Only Answer, Haaretz 25 March 2018

I .e. this was an announced public event, not some secretive plot by Hamas, which did not, by the way, originally organize the event. How you bus 30,000 people with Gaza's buses(!!) to an area about a couple of kilometres from Gaza City, within easy walking distance (I've walked it myself) is a mystery, i.e. pure hysterical IDF agitprop.

I had written quite a few notes on this. But I've pulled a muscle in my back, coughing caused some latent wrench in my back caused by falling 8 feet out of a tree the other day, so I won't be able to edit for a few days. But the temptation to prioritize the Hamas-terrorist Pallywood motive should be resisted - that is simply the usual mendacious spin by the murderers who planned this lesson. The background consisted in a long deliberated move to use the standard Land Day protests as a marker for 5 weeks of pacific events, which aimed, not as such stupid line in our text says, to genetly 'evict' Israelis from their homes c- that is about as absurd as you get (check the source) - but to bring the world's negligent attention to the fact that 64 percent of youth are unemployed, 97% of Gaza's water is undrinkable, 70% go to bed feeling hungry, and the poverty line includes 65% or so of all families there, etc.etc. one snippet of my draft runs:

Conditions in the Gaza prior to the event

According to a January report by Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor, cited by Ghanam and therefore usable and written on the occasion of the 12th year of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, the economy was in a state of collapse with 44% of the population unemployed (62% of the youths),65% of families were sunk in poverty, with 72% unable to secure sufficient food, while 97% of Gaza’s water was not fit for human consumpotion.’

References

So I suggest more work on the background figures, and look at B'tselem 's page as well.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And whose fault is that Gaza is in such a state of deprivation? After all, they receive billions from the world. Maybe because Hamas prefers to build cross-border tunnels and weapons instead of civilian infraestructure? This is what your "peaceful" protest was all about: a cynical camouflage for additional terrorist attacks (not to mention the usual propaganda and the attacker playing the victim card after sending their human shields to die).--יניב הורון (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Way to keep your POV in check יניב הורון. And backing it up with an Israeli military and political cite--because they will somehow be totally unbiased on this issue. Pure genius.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering the POV rant he was responding to, I'd say he did just fine in his response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I recall when Debkafile knew everything about Saddams WMD! LOL! (Needless to say: absolutely none of it true..) Huldra (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Debka is no less biased than the so-called "Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor", but much more reliable and serious. Everything published by Debka is fully investigated, and many times they had no problem criticizing Israel's military and intelligence establishment. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources (such as normal newspapers) to support at least some of their findings.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Whose fault is it that you spout nonsense, copied and pasted from the puerile hasbara outlet for retirees from the IDF and Shin Bet, the Debka file? US aid to Israel in the last financial year was $3.1 billion: their aid to Palestinians has averaged a 7th of that over the last decade, with most going to the PA quisling government in the West Bank. Demographically the Israeli and Palestinian populations are on a par, so the elephantine wastrel sponger in the room is not the government of the Gaza Strip. Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds ought to exercise some care in playing the Palestinian freeloader meme before audiences that acrually study the facts. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about aid given to Gaza by the world, not just the US. But whatever, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not interested in seeing all the usual butthurt in the comments after another staged "humanitarian" provocation.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון take your own advice. One more comment like this--"all the usual butthurt"--and you will promptly see yourself at ANI. Mocking another editor for something you don't like or clearly understand does not fly with me or the respectable part of the community. I will never understand why the most sensitive subjects produces some of the worst editors I have encountered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And you are one of the worst POV commentators on Wiki, Slick. Hypocrisy on here doesn't cut it.50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment – calling this a massacre of of course nonsense, and there is no need to scrape the barrel for sources calling it one (as far as I can tell, even the state-sponsored sources here don't call it a massacre). It is not just a non-neutral term, but it doesn't even describe the events. It seems like a good idea to wait for the events to end in order to get some perspective, but no doubt in the end we will use the most neutral and descriptive title. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Ynhockey has now moved the article to a new title, (in the middle of a discussion) and, AFAIK, used his admin powers to mv the protections too, so that none other than other admins can move it again. User:Ynhockey: using your admin powers in an issue where you are highly involved is not a good thing, me thinks? Huldra (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If anything, I actually fixed a botched move made by other editors, which seemed to create a (technical) disconnect between the article and its talk page.

In any case, it doesn't look like anyone here is actually arguing about policy, it's more of a philosophical discussion about whether it's a massacre or not. I stated my opinion on that issue above (with regards to the discussion), but it's only somewhat relevant to the actual issue of naming the article, which has to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. There is a policy to address precisely this issue, at WP:POVNAMING, and it's so clear when examining this specific article, that there's really no room for interpretation.

Therefore, while it was not my intention to prevent other users from moving the article (technically you still can, in a number of ways), maybe it's actually better because it might make everyone calm down and read the policy. In any case, feel free to open a move request if you have a policy-based argument on why this page should be moved. There are a number of back-and-forth moves in the last 24 hours which is really unhelpful.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ynhockey, no comment on the title as of yet, but how does anyone with a sane mind believe you can be unbiased in this area?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick: I don't think anyone expects anyone else to be unbiased. There is however a policy about loaded terms on Wikipedia, and it's very clear about loaded words in article titles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Ynhockey, I actually do expect others to be unbiased, just as I expect myself. If an editor cannot do that, they shouldn't be editing in the field.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And please fill in your references [1]. Thank you!TheGracefulSliclistk (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If the title was so loaded as User:Ynhockey imply, then surely some admin who was not WP:INVOLVED could have moved it. Ok, if Ynhockey doesn't undo his move, I will report this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've noted on Ynhockey's talk page in response to your comment there, Ynhockey does not appear to have used any admin powers to move the page. Number 57 22:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. At 20:46, 31 March 2018 he deleted 2018 Land Day incidents with the edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move). At 20:52, 31 March 2018 he deleted Talk:2018 Land Day incidents with edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not wrong. That's what it shows in your log when you move pages over a redirect. You have the same in your own log despite the fact you have no admin powers.

21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Talk:Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

It's a shame you've continued with this claim despite me trying to point you to your own log earlier. Number 57 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ynhockey's move was improper because he has a conflict of interest, and one can't figure out if he is actually neutral: since he is both an Israeli and an admin he shouldn't allow for this kind of doubt by undertaking controversial changes in this area while wearing his adminship. His reasoning is dead wrong: we don't call armies, police or whatever shooting significant numbers of unarmed protesters 'incidents' or 'events' or 'protests'. The title must acknowledge people were killed, and we have tons of stuff like Sharpeville Massacre and Kent State Shootings that acknowledge that you don't adopt euphemisms when mass killings are carried out by government order or otherwise. In this case, Israel admits it ordered the army to shoot unarmed people en masse. I know this is just normal routine stuff for many who accept Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements (that is what Zionism is all about), but globally, mass executions are not 'incidents': the army in on record as boasting it could account for every bullet and every person, even women and children, hit by live fire. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

He was reverting a move that could be argued to be controversial. The bits about him having a conflict of interest because he's Israeli is not worthy of Wikipedia and hope will be retracted. The idea that an editor should be restricted in some way when editing a certain subject because of their nationality is appalling. Number 57 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Distortion. An Israeli editor is like anyone else. An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher stanbdards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral. This stands out like dog's balls, and applies to all admins of whatever natiolnality when they are dealing with controversies affecting their homeland.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a very simple test of NPOV: what would the title be if the "sides" were the other way round? Suppose some snipers murdered 16 football fans at a Beitar match. Do you seriously think the title of such an event should be 2018 Beitar incident? --NSH001 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Talking about stupid comparisons... If Beitar was a terrorist organization like Hamas instead of a football team, and they organized a mass protest near a border, which included armed men and human shields to provoke a violent confrontation with the enemy... then, probably yes. Can we move on, now?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to get you to think of the event from the other side's point of view. Please point me to any article on the murder of Israeli citizens that is titled "XXXXXX incident" or "XXXXXX incidents". Or indeed, can you point me to any such article whose title hides or obfuscates what happened to the victims (massacre, killing, shooting, stabbing, whatever)? Because that is what is being, mendaciously, done in the section below.

This is a massacre, and that is what it should be called, though I could live with "murders" or "killings" as a compromise. --NSH001 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests"

I propose that the article be moved back to 2018 Land Day protests, at least for now. This version was the article's names for a brief period [2], amid all the moves :-). "Incidents" is both wp:weasel and vague. "Protests" is much more of WP:COMMONNAME vs "Incidents". See for example Google search. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Attempting to storm an international border is not a protest. Some of the Gazan casulties were from a Hamas squad that in the evening fired at Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) clarified comment. Most neutral sources are using clashes or confrontations to describe this staged event which involved gun fire from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suport Using "protests" vs incident makes ore sense 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs)
• Support The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Aljazeera, CNN, The Guardian, and several other reputable secondary sources call these events protests. Icewhiz put the POV-cap away and look at the sources in front of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  I see confrontations and clashes used more often. The incidents on the day (or rather evening) included a firefight - [3] in the evening between armed militants and the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – actually when I first searched for this topic, I thought it would be called 2018 Land Day protests. However, the article is potentially about a wider set of incidents (border infiltrations, geopolitics, etc.); so I am neutral about this, both titles seem OK to me, it's more of a question of the article's scope. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep it as "2018 Land Day incidents". It's the most neutral and descriptive term. This is not woodstock nor just "protests", but a Hamas-organized rally that included armed attacks.--יניב הורון (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note - it doesn't require a large WP:CRYSTALBALL to see this is slated to be a continuing event (with continuing events during the week, and a big flare up next Friday (and the Friday after that - until perhaps 15 May) - the organizers are declaring this is their intention - so whatever name we end up with probably won't have "Land day" in it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz the organizers dubbed it the "March of Return". Would that be a better compromise than the current recommendation?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Better in the sense that we're following a given name instead of attributing protests by ourselves. I would go presently with 2018 Gaza border clashes (which would cover events at the border beyond the march - e.g. firefights, a series of cross-border infiltrations - e.g. 3 Gazans with grenades and knives captured near army base 20 kms. inside Israel, Israeli Army Defends Erroneous Iron Dome Fire Over Gaza: ‘We Don’t Take Risks’, IDF tanks shell Hamas positions after 2 Gazans start fire near border) - however it is also fairly obvious to me that it is a premature to settle into a name here - this is currently still a continuing event that is likely to develop (even if there isn't a major escalation - and this peters out at 2-3 additional Friday border confrontation - it will still end up with a different title).Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewiz's suggestion of 2018 Gaza Border Clashes seems more in line with how these things are usually named.

• Support: Generally speaking these were protests. There were some incidents, catching a lot of focus, but most of the events were protests. Maybe calling it a "riot" would be better, but it is much better than "incidents".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support—"Protests" doesn't exclude those protesters participating in confrontations with the border guards, though there are three deaths that are peripheral at best to the protests. What it does include, however, is the large numbers of people participating in the protest camps. Conversely, "clashes" may be inappropriate for people not engaging in confrontation, which apparently includes a significant number of those killed and injured.--Carwil (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  All of the deaths are related to clashes near the fence (or in one case - two armed gunmen with AK-47 in the evening) - the whole event would've been probably non-notable had they stayed back in the protest camps - the coverage in the sources is not about that - but about incidents along the border.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I'm open to 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes.--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I'm good with 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes (added plural to protest - it wasn't one on Friday - and there have been more since Friday - and it is likely to be "big" this coming Friday).Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  Agree. Since this is going to be going on for a while, there should be a top level article with a general name, then sub articles (which this one will probably end up as) for daily (or whatever is appropriate) events. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. "protests" would obfuscate the essence (already buried or absent in the article). Title can be more precise: 2018 Land Day shootings when short, or 2018 Land Day massacre. The wording "clashes", notw used on mainpage, is misleading and wrong. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "...and protests" - unwieldy and attempts to shoehorn "clashes" in. I would support 2018 Land Day protests or something like: Great March of Return protests. Compare with Unite the Right rally. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Icewhiz sees "violent riots" everywhere, so I would take his !vote with a grain of salt. Compare with: Talk:Ahed_Tamimi#Use of "riots" is attributed to Israeli authorities where Icewhiz insists that describing what he terms "violent rioting" as "protest" is a BLP violation against IDF soldiers. Strange but true :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. RSes are widely using clashes. Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and AK47 rifles used by the Palestinians are typically not part of protests.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018 Gaza border protests"

I moved the article to 2018 Gaza border protests. It's concise and to the point. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a bad move as the events described include shooting, throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails, protests, cross-border infiltrations, etc. Incidents describes all these events. Protests do not. We should move away from incidents only to a more specific NPOV name, otherwise we move WP backwards. For example, the Palestine News Agency, Wafa, recognizes that these are more than protests, using in this article 0 times "protests" and 3 times "events". gidonb (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope: Include ongoing protest campaign?

It's pretty clear that there will be ongoing, substantial coverage of the Great March of Return protests, including events after the Land Day incidents. For example:

• Ha'aretz profile of protest leader
• Reuters on continuing protests and additional death on April 3
• Washington Post on further protests

Shall we expand the scope to include subsequent days in this protest campaign (which is currently slated to last through mid-May)?--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. These aren't distinct events - but an on-going campaign. Should this escalate to a full-on armed conflict - we should probably delineate this article to the beginning of full hostilities - but as long as it is on the level of 30th March events - we should string them together. For 6th April the Gazans are planning (or at least are saying so publicly and releasing PR to that effect) earth embankments from their side and burning tires for smoke cover - in response to events on 30th March.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Great March of Return

• This seems like a neutral, noncontroversial name for this page. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 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)

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)

Suggested edit of infobox Suggestion

I suggest changing side1 and side2 to add the Palestinian flag and IDF flag. Waddie96 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Waddie96 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

{{Infobox civil conflict
| title            = 2018 Land Day incidents
| subtitle         = 
| partof           = 
| image            = Gaza_Strip_map2.svg
| caption          = Map of the Gaza Strip
| date             = 30 March 2018
| place            = [[Gaza Strip]], near the [[Israel|Israeli]] border
| coordinates      = 
| causes           = 
| goals            = 
| methods          = 
| status           = 
| result           = 
| side1            = {{flag|Palestine|name=Palestinian protestors}}
| side2            = {{flag|Israel|tsahal|name=Israeli Defense Force}}
| side3            = 
| leadfigures1     = 
| leadfigures2     = 
| leadfigures3     = 
| howmany1         = Tens of thousands
| howmany2         = 
| howmany3         = 
| casualties1      = 
| casualties2      = 
| casualties3      = 
| fatalities       = 17 
| injuries         = 1,416 <small>(Gaza Ministry of Health estimate)<small/>
| arrests          =
| detentions       =
}}

Personally I don't have any objections.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise this as I have no experience of Wikipedia. But the suggestion that there are parties to the confilct is extremely misleading. This is a protest organised by Palestinian Civil Society as reported in http://mondoweiss.net/2018/04/great-return-history/. Not an armed conflict. The political parties/resistance groups/militants/terrorist groups, whatever the designation, have not been party to the organisation of this protest, except through giving verbal support and the participation of individual members who are known afilliates, in the context of people from all sections of Palestinian society. </ref>

Using the phrase "parties to the conflict" gives the impression of war and a parity that is patently not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif3000 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arif3000: I see your point, however, the template used to create the infobox is

{{Infobox civil conflict}}

and thus is appropriately used. Also, the political parties/resistance groups/militants/terrorist groups are parties in the conflict as you have said yourself if it a multi-partied conflict with multiple groups involved. Waddie96 (talk) 13:52, 2 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.[4].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)

Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health

The addition of "Hamas-run" seems unnecessary, as here:

• The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health ...

References

I had originally removed the qualifier not because it's not Hamas-run, but because we don't say "Israel-government-run Ministry of Health..." or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We do when sources mention it explicitly, like they do here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Specifying Hamas-run is appropriate, per the use in the sources. It is not trivially obvious to the casual reader that various organizations in the Gaza strip are controlled by the Hamas and not by the Palestinian authority.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Not saying who is running may lead to people thinking its a government agency when it is not. CsikosLo (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2018

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below; reliable sources may eventually settle upon a common name, but until that time, a descriptive title appears to be the best option, and the current title encompasses all the events dealt with in the article. Please feel free to continue discussion about suitable descriptive titles as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return protests – I performed the last move, so I'm starting this RM. I'm not even sure that the current name is the right one as there's technically not a "border" between Israel and Gaza, as Gaza and Israel are not two sovereign states. Please see this insightful commentary by an English language professor: The bare facts about the Gaza demonstrators are correct, but the rest of the story is missing, LA Times. In such a case, with many conflicting narratives, it's hard to come up with the "right" descriptive name. It's better to have the proper name as the title of the article; compare with Unite the Right rally. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Most countires in the world recognize Israel within the 1967 line, so by all means this is a border. --Midrashah (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous names of the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To illustrate the dilemma, here are the previous names, in reverse chronological order, between 6 April and 30 March: 2018 Gaza border protests 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes 2018 Land Day incidents Land Day massacre 2018 Land Day incidents 2018 Land Day massacre 2018 Land Day protests Land Day demonstration 2018 Land Day massacre 2018 Land Day riots 2018 Land Day massacre Some names appear several times as the article was moved back and forth. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved in from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

• This section of the discussion was formerly at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---

• 2018 Gaza border protests: Kind & formal request: undo [5], no consensus in sight. Afterwards, it was protected by an admin: [6]. I protested at article talkpage btw (undiscussed move, especially in contentious topic; admin spiking without sound reasoning). - DePiep (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is now a move discussion running at Talk:2018 Gaza border protests#Requested move 14 April 2018. Leaving pings for User:K.e.coffman and User:Number 57 that their actions are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes but that Move "discussion" is gaming the system. Did you notice it was started by an opponent (you just pinged) some 10 minutes after I pointed to their behaviour in this? I say: revert the non-consensus name, say to the involved and absent admin they were wrong, and maybe let the Move talk run. With or without that new Move talk: the revert can be done. -DePiep (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And ping EdJohnston. Using the occasion: why would that non-consensus name be kept? You can revert and still 'see what the talk brings'. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not planning to undo the action of User:Number 57 just on the evidence presented here. If you believe the revert is so important you don't wish to wait a week for the discussion you should probably try ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's good. I did not ask for that. Did you read my Q at all? (admin User:Number 57 only spiked the page right after the Move). I asked to revert the move itself (by K.e.coffman). Thank you, EdJohnston, for being so careful with a serious question. - DePiep (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that DePiep realises that if his request goes through, the name restored would be 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes as that's then name I moved the article from, not 2018 Gaza border protests and Israeli shootings, which he may prefer. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) (re EdJohnston) Sigh. What is wrong with the 'evidence'? I say: where is the consensus? - DePiep (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support as nominator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• ~ better than before Oppose. (duh how easy) However, Israeli violence should be included. There is no 'dilemma'. Israel shoots at and kills unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. So, even better is: "Palestinian Land day/Great March of Return protests and Israeli murderous violence" (all 32+ deaths and wounded were one-sided). - DePiep (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I oppose, because this is a red herring title. Why remove "Palestine" from the title? Why not include Isreali murderous violence in the title? DePiep - 01:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And stop fucking with my opinion [7]. -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very few sources call it "Great March of Return". Some do note that's what the Palestinians call/called it. It's certainly not the COMMONNAME and privileging what one side calls something would be an NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• See Unite the Right rally, First Intifada, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the Unite the Right thing, but I have no doubt "First Intifada" is the COMMONNAME, as opposed to "Great March of Return". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Moral support - A neutral and accurate title that will not see consensus. Too many editors here would rather call it 2018 Gaza border attacks or 2018 attempted invasion of Israel. Unarmed protesters are being gunned down and thousands of Gazans are described in the same breath as militants in the article to excuse the killing and create one of the worst POV cesspools I have seen. I actually had high hopes of returning to this article and working toward GA. That will never happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the common name. most mainline sources are using clashes or violence. The border between Gaza and Israel is on the 1967 line and fully fenced - it is a clear border and referred to such in all or just about all sources - in the title. An neutral name would be 2018 Israel-Gaza border violence. Great march of return was used by a facebook page and some minor pre event coverage. It has not been used since 30 March almost at all, and it seems that on the ground organization is done by other people, the Facebook page operators feuding with Hamas over actual tactics.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This clearly a POV one sided title and not WP:COMMONAME The title should be 2018 Gaza border protests and Clashes as most NPOV title as it was clearly violence from both sides of the conflict and not only protests.--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the title should be '2018 Gaza border protests and clashes' as there is violence from both sides. The suggested page move title is POV and limits the article purely to information about this so called 'Great March of Return'. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Only Western sources call it "Gaza border" protests while Middle Eastern Journalists call it the "Great March of return" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowtow849 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose The current title "2008 Gaza Border Protests" is succinct, descriptive, and uniquely identifies the incident, so we should stick with it. We should not use names that were generated for propaganda purposes as the title, which would show only one side's point of view. Any more elaborate sort of description added to the title (i.e. adding claims to the article title like "Israeli soldiers shot innocent Palestinians" or "Palestinian attackers stormed border to commit terrorist attacks") would be likely to be controversial as well as too long. OtterAM (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per No More Mr Nice Guy The Kingfisher (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per No More Mr Nice Guy, etc. March of Return is extreme POV. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose OtterAM put this very succinctly. Per Crowtow89, Is using Arabic naming sources over English-language daily newspapers etc. standard practice in the English Wikipedia? (I do not know the answer to this q uestion).Tentonne (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Definitely not the common name. - Galatz^Talk 13:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Great march of return" is extremely POV and not supported by most reliable sources.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "2018 Gaza border protests" is a broad, neutral, and easily recognizable title. "Great March of Return" obviously has issues with POV and not being used much in English media. Codyorb (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Note the "English language professor" is a pro-Palestinian activist known for fudging facts. See http://fathomjournal.org/anti-zionism-and-the-humanities-a-response-to-saree-makdisi/. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is too long. We don't have "Unite the Right rally and vehicular homicide and helicopter crash", for example. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is too long you say? Then propose "[[2018 Israel shoots unarmed protestors in Gaza]]". -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note the "English language professor" is a pro-Palestinian activist known for fudging facts. See http://fathomjournal.org/anti-zionism-and-the-humanities-a-response-to-saree-makdisi/. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• He's still a professor, right? See: UCLA profile. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems to be writing as an activist, but what difference does it make, really? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I glanced: "Seems to be writing as an activist". Had to check: is it about K.e.coffman or No More Mr Nice Guy? Could not tell the diff: argument vacuum. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• This was about my comment in the nomination: "Please see this insightful commentary by an English language professor: The bare facts about the Gaza demonstrators are correct, but the rest of the story is missing, LA Times. " K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• What fth is "Moral support"? We are building an encyclopedia here, do you understand? -DePiep (talk)

Damn, DePiep, this whole time I thought we were building the perfect sandwich!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Simultaneously (same minute apparently), I have formally requested that the previous no-consensus Move be undone [8]. -DePiep (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• I get this serious impression: K.e.coffman and Number 57 are gaming the system. Why would coffman propose a Move (red herring distraction) just 10 minutes after I pointed to their strange behaviour? Why would admin Number 57 act swiftly back then supporting coffman, but not respond afterwards at all? Or take responsability? - DePiep (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The article was on my watchlist after noting the incorrect accusation of abuse of admin powers above. I saw it being moved repeatedly (four times) during one day so protected it from further moves. Whatever title it was at would have been the wrong version. As for the accusaion that "I did not respond afterwards", I notified others of the protection in a section above. I have no problem "taking responsibility" for what I did and I've set out clearly why I did it. It would be appreciated if you could withdraw your accusation of me "gaming the system" as I have not, as far as I'm aware, had any previous interaction with K.e.coffman. Number 57 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Most of the Palestinians who were shot dead ...

According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at least 20 of the dead were identified as members of terrorist organizations, most of them belonged to Hamas. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/great-return-march-interim-report-updated-april-9-2018/ MathKnight 07:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an WP:RS source. It is a politically-backed organization, with a particular agenda. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As BTZELEM and HRW --Shrike (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

ITIC is a perfectly good WP:RS for ITIC's report. Of course their interim or final conclusions must not be stated as a fact in WP voice but attributed to the organization. If there are other estimates of number of terrorists killed in the riots, it should be reported as well. “WarKosign” 15:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: how can you possibly justify obfuscating the identity of this advocacy group from readers? They are making an unproven claim against the "other side", hence we attribute them in line, albeit their organization has a neutral-sounding name. Expecting a user to click into other articles for this kind of key information is not how Wikipedia works. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• this edit, I think the entire statement is undue. Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center appears to be getting their information from the Israel Defense Forces. Isn't IDF position already stated in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

For the same reason we do not write "Human Rights Watch, which is allegedly biased against Israel, stated ..." From the ITIC report itself: "The Gazans killed were identified according to information from sources of varying reliability", which means IDF is not the only source. “WarKosign” 07:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

ITIC is independent, and is a well regarded think tank. It is not saying the same as the IDF, and we are definitely not giving enough space to the Israeli side here. Presently significant chunks of the article is devoted to Palestinian views and to organizations that are sympathetic to the Palestinians.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add edit summary

Sorry, forgot to add edit summary to my latest edit which added Iran as supporting Palestine. Diff here. Article here. Quote which proves support: Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi condemned the “savage massacre of a large number of Palestinians by the armed forces of the Zionist regime (Israel)”. -- Waddie96 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a mere condemnation - rhetoric - not actual material support to Gazans in the conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious that this quote means Iran's support for Gaza in this conflict? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Iran certainly supports Hamas in this conflict, but so far the sources indicate only moral/verbal support which is not sufficient to warrant a mention in the infobox. “WarKosign” 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-violnet and mostly unarmed

Some of the sources such as [9], [10] and [11], tend to use "nonviolent" or "peaceful" as a description for the gatherings and we don't have it on the lead. Moreover NYTimes calls it "Israeli soldiers unleashing lethal force against mostly unarmed Arab protesters," which can be used to neutralize the lead by insisting on the "mostly unarmed" term. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Other sources describe the events as violent riots. Hamas calls these "peaceful" protests, yet some of the participants are armed or throw rocks and Molotov cocktails. This article is not Hamas propaganda tool, let's stick to the facts. “WarKosign” 14:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Palestinians - who stayed back in the encampments several hundred meters away from the fence were unarmed and non-violent - however they did not garner much coverage. What is being covered - are the clashes on the fence - in which Palestinians try to storm the fence, throw Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs, and in the last week fly kites laden with firebombs across the fence.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I explicitly noted in the second paragraph of the lead that most demonstrators remained far from the border and were non-violent, while small groups approached the fence and were violent. I think we could possibly move that to the first paragraph if we have some sources that note the same thing for the other days as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WarKosign: What do you mean by saying "propaganda"? This article is not Israel, or other parties, propaganda tool, too. So what? Can you figure out that those sources are all western? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should stick to the facts and avoid using NPOV descriptions, even if they appear in some of the sources. "Hamas and Iran described the protest as peaceful" is fine, "the protest was peaceful" is not. “WarKosign” 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy: Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration

Can someone explain the reasons for arbitration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

About what? A customer and a car dealership? Details of what you are talking about, SVP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

@WarKosign: What would be wrong if readers get to know that Meir Amit center is closely affiliated with IDF? Why are you and the other Israeli user, Yaniv, evading this well established fact? Pinging other users for attention; Carwil, Waddie96, Onceinawhile, DePiep, No More Mr Nice Guy. What's your opinion regarding this edit? Note that the description is supported by the cited source. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Closely affiliated would be overstating it. How about this - if we state this here, we shall state the long standing position regarding Gaza/Israel of every single figure and body we quote. Good?Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat that for "every single figure and body". The title, i.e. "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", sounds as if it's an international body. That would make it much more accurate and neutral if its affiliation is determined. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't normally put these kind of descriptors in articles. You can just wikilink to Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and interested readers can pursue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If include qualifier about Meir Amit we should include qualifier about HRW and Btzelem. For Btzelem left-wing group and hrw anti-Israeli would do--Shrike (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me propose the following neutral descriptions, since there's clearly some POV suggestions here:

• ITIC: "an Israeli security establishment NGO"
• HRW: "a US-based human rights group"
• B'Tselem: "an Israeli human rights group" or "an Israeli organization monitoring human rights violations in the Palestinian territories"

In general, I don't think either including or excluding such descriptions is inappropriate. What's really at issue is whether the independent expertise of the organization is making the report more reliable. For example, the HRW report cited here isn't based on on-the-ground investigation, so we're not citing it to say "HRW reported that XX people were shot by live ammunition." They did in fact report that, but relied entirely on other sources. However, we do (and should) say that HRW said that shooting protesters is a violation of human rights standards. Since I haven't seen the Meir Amit ITIC report, I can't comment on whether they are offering some value added (i.e., they have access to confidential sources or files on the dead Palestinians) or they are just tabulating media reports (i.e., they are relying on IDF allegations made elsewhere). If it's the former case, then saying they are "an Israeli security establishment NGO" helps explain why they are a (imperfectly and partially) credible organization on the topic. If it's the latter, we should just leave them out and report directly on IDF/Shin Bet claims, assuming there's a media source we can quote. There is of course a third possibility, that the ITIC itself has been keeping files (not provided by the IDF/Shin Bet) on thousands of Palestinians and matched up the shooting victims, but that seems highly unlikely.--Carwil (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Carwil, I agree with your proposal. We should have descriptors for all three, and those read fine to me. A good Wikipedia article should stand alone, and not rely on other articles or sources for explanation of attribution. We could also do the same for Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is double standard. You want to add a disclaimer to ITIC, yet do not bother to add one for B'Tselem, HRW, AI, etc. If ITIC needs one, so do all the other NGOs. In fact, I can't find any complaint on objectivity of ITIC, while there are many claims that the other NGOs are biased; so if we are adding disclaimers lets begin with them. “WarKosign” 20:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree calling given criticism of hrw bias calling "a US-based human rights group" is clearly a pov violation--Shrike (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that visiting the Wikilink will allow the reader to explore any POV biases. However, I also think we should insert a short statement which clearly conveys the POV bias the following statement might have. Hence, I agree that, as discussed above by Carwil, we should add additional short statements which clearly convey the POV biases of all media sources from both the Gaza Strip and Israel. Obviously, international and WP:RS can be omitted in this such as The New York Times. Yes, Onceinawhile, "We could also do the same for Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel" and we will. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Such descriptions are very POV-prone, it will be very hard to achieve consensus on how each NGO should be described. It is much easier to avoid this problem - first mention of each NGO leads to its own page where a consensus determines how it is described, in whatever level of detail that is deemed appropriate. “WarKosign” 21:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would encourage editors not to use edit summaries such as "rv POV push. Please gain consensus for this additions before adding it again". Because other edits can do it too :-) [12]. That aside, it's unclear to me why the centre's opinion needs to be included. Does IDF / Hamas not discuss the numbers? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What really not clear to me why HRW and BTZELEM opinion should be included?--Shrike (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The IDF releases spokeperson stmts on ongoing events, it rarely (if at all) releases analysis. ITIC actually analyzed and collated the numbers here.Icewhiz (talk) 05

06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think for an organization connected to a party in the conflict (IDF) it is better to mention is, just as we would presumably mention it if it was an organization with close ties to Hamas or another party to the conflict.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

ITIC page says in its lead that it has close ties with IDF, yet the only source cited is an article by Taghreed El-Khodary, a Palestinian journalist. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL such a statement needs to be attributed to whomever makes it, or needs to have far better sources. There are some allegations of close connections, but the other NGO's are accused of bias as well. “WarKosign” 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is from the New York Times, one of the world's leading journalistic publications, and the article was coauthored by Anglo-Israeli journalist Isabel Kershner. @WarKosign: your description above is one of the most misleading I have ever seen from you. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the co-author. Isabel Kershner has been accused of bias (in both direction), so I'm not sure whether she helps or hinders credibility of this article. Still, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies - if ITIC indeed has close relations with IDF surely there are other good quality sources that support it. ITIC itself states that it gets part of its data from IDF, so obviously they have some relation, but whether it should be described as close is a matter of judgement. HRW often uses data provided by Hamas (via Ministry of Health), does it mean they are closely related? “WarKosign” 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that your edit re-inserted a statement that has been reverted and that clearly does not have a consensus (yet), while there is an ongoing discussion. Please see WP:BRD, pay attention and next time leave the article as it was while there is discussion. “WarKosign” 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I just want to second that sources affiliated with parties to the conflict should be described as such. If we can identify the Gaza Ministry of Health with Hamas (and we do, in the lead), we can identify the IITC with a simple, factual description. --Carwil (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we can say that HRW was scolded by it founder for Anti-Israeli bias [13]--Shrike (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Carwil's point. We've already done that for Gaza Ministry of Health. Btw, see The Jerusalem Post says: "...it has ongoing connections to current military intelligence and is filled with top former Israeli intelligence officials." I think there's no reason to avoid that description. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Shrike: Are you going to make original research by using a 2009 source with no direct connection to this article? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY source brought doesn't mention the article too--Shrike (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which NY source do you mean? Btw, did you see the JP source? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The JP source saya it "has ongoinng connections" (a good thing ifnyou want intel and information) - not that it is connected.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We can just say "founded by employees of Israeli intelligence" [14] and let readers decide for themselves if that is a good thing.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System: That's better, I think, and since the The Jerusalem Post makes connection between this article and the origination of Meir Amit center, there's no concern over the SYNTH aspect and we can then use the description. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The same article also says that ITIC "is viewed as unusually credible". No cherry-picking. “WarKosign” 06:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The article does not say that? Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Jerusalem Post article says "The Meir Amit Center, located near Glilot, north of Tel Aviv, is viewed as unusually credible because it has ongoing connections to current military intelligence and is filled with top former Israeli intelligence officials." We could paraphrase the whole statement (too long and awkward imo), but we can't use only part of it to discredit ITIC as overly close to IDF while silencing the part that calls it unusually credible. “WarKosign” 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a different article, the article we are talking about doesn't say anything like that. One is a verifiable fact, the other is a vague opinion from a single news article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I still think no qualifiers are needed at all anyone can enter the relevant article and read about it.--Shrike (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Using the same argument, one can simply remove the description for the Gaza Ministry of Health from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Gaza Ministry of Health is part of Hamas government. ITIC has some degree of connection with IDF. “WarKosign” 04:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this ITIC report reliable?

I'm going leave this "methodological note" from the ITIC report here for people to think through how WP:RS and WP:BLP might apply to conclusions it reaches. I'm definitely sure we could not use it on individual pages of dead people (e.g., Yaser Murtaja), per BLP.

• "As noted, this is an initial analysis, and more information may be added in the future.
• "The Gazans killed were identified according to information from sources of varying reliability. In some instances the information indicated they belonged to one of the terrorist organizations, and in others circumstantial information linked them to the terrorist organizations."

--Carwil (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That they admit that the identification, in some cases (but far from all, and they list how on each one), is circumstantial only shows that they are reliable in representing the accuarcy of their report. Reporting this in a statistical summary fashion, without names, is not a BLP issue rowards the unnamed dead (and, we should note, it is not amcrime in Hamas controlled Gaza to be associated with Hamas). Leaving out this report actually has BLP implications towards the Israeli soldiers and officers whom, without presenting the Israeli side, we would be saying that the civilian status of the casullties is uncontested.19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There are non-circumstantial identifications listed here, and some verifiable claims of affiliation that are undisputed. (Not only is it not a crime to be in Hamas in Gaza, but clearly Hamas members are participating, and have died; the question is how many, and whether ITIC helps clarify that.) I've made the qualifications that I think are essential in the article, but if a less partisan source is available, we should prefer it.--Carwil (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Peter Beinart 'American Jews Have Abandoned Gaza — And The Truth,' The Forward 26 April 2018 provides a sense of the realities on the ground, beyond the incessant POV pushing that this is all about managing a 'terrorist' threat. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Video

There are some very good videos from Ateyah Behar of the protests on youtube. For example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icKgkQNLbzo
I'm not sure how we would incorporate something like this, though. Maybe a video gallery? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy: Have you checked their licensing status? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging (mostly) Casualties into Timeline

At present, we have two timelines in the article - one in the timeline section and one in the casualties section (and at times editors, myself included, have added non-casualty timeline info to the casualty section). Is there opposition to (mostly) merging the two? I suggest removing most names (per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and given the growing list of names) - leaving in names that were discussed in greater detail - and noting casualty figures (and other notable details) for each major conflict/protest in the timeline. I suggest we do keep a casualties section - however it should discuss total casualties and demographics thereof - not a week by week list.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for merging the two timelines together, although I would recommend keeping the summary statistics (currently right under the Casualties), Descriptions of casualties, and any summary analysis about the affiliations of people killed in a separate section from the timeline.

However, I disagree with pulling the names. I've tried to be scrupulously focused on describing the circumstances of death, without memorializing the victims' lives. This is a complex event where no more than twenty deaths have occurred on one day, typically one to five. It's also an event where the cause of death varies, from military-militant engagement to death during protest (and where sometimes that categorization is disputed). There is wide RS coverage of the deaths, their circumstance, the actions of those killed, the nature of fire being used, membership in protected groups (youth, the disabled, journalists), organizational affiliation, and the rules of engagement involved. When generalizations are made (such as claiming the dead were "part of a largely peaceful crowd," "attempted to cut the fence," "were terrorists," or "were posing no danger to the soldiers") readers should be able to look to the facts to independently evaluate them. The clearest and easiest way to approach that, for now, is to list the deaths individual with relevant facts.

In addition (and this is matter that just helps the editing process), we have messy situation where people are dying one to fifteen days after they are shot. In order to keep the timeline updated, it's extremely valuable to have the names there when someone like Abdullah Shamali is added to the death toll.--Carwil (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If we merge even without cutting down NOTMEMORIAL - it will be a definite improvement. I agree we should have summaey statistics (from various disagreeing sources) in a separate casulties section.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, There's a pretty clear local consensus for hosting this level of detail on Wikipedia per these two AfDs.--Carwil (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In a list - maybe - usually off the main article. Generally - my impression is that usually the consensus is not to keep (even the list). The two AfDs of "list of strikes" - probably scraped by not because of the named casulties but because each rocket strike and each air strike was covered by RS. In general - the longer these lists get, the less traction you get to keep them (definitely in the main article and not in a "list of") - and you have opposition even for small lists. In any event - if we are agreed on a merge - I suggest we do so. I do suggest we keep the names off in a separate section (e.g. in casulties - as a subsection - "list of names") - and not name individuals in the text unless the name is significant or repeated (e.g. Yaser Murtaja should obviously be named).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The general practice on I/P articles is to list meticulously the names of victims of mass deaths/massacres if they are Jewish, and no one I know of has fussed over WP:NOTMEMORIAL in the many articles that do so.

• Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
• Dizengoff Street bus bombing
• Coastal Road massacre
• Avivim school bus massacre
• Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
• Beit Lid massacre
• 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market Bombings

At the same time, every attempt to replicate the practice when Palestinians are the victims is AdFed or subject to vigorous POV protests on the relevant talk pages. One can't have it both ways, per WP:NPOV and WP:Systemic bias. Since it is an accepted convention for Jewish Israeli victims, the same must apply to the other party in the conflict, Palestinian victims. The material as edited so far in respective sections has no need to get some hypothetical 'traction' (what does that mean?). It simply does justice to the multiply-sourced factual data.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is a uniform practice - but can we at least, for now, separate the list out into a separate subsection containing only the list?Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this video be added to 27 April subsection

Should this video be added to the 27 April subsection? Would it give info as to what was done at the border. As can be seen in the video Palestinian protestors, who breached the barbed-wire fence, have approached the true Gaza-Israel barrier and are planting a Palestinian flag, burning tyres and throwing rocks at an armed IDF van; the IDF then retaliated with live ammunition and tear gas as mentioned in the text under the subsection. IDF Spokesperson claims: "The rioters approached the security fence, hurled rocks and firebombs, and tried to light the fence on fire. In response, IDF troops operated in accordance with the rules of engagement & thwarted the attempted infiltration."

The other option is to add this image. The image has a clearer view of what is happening and is static and quick to view.

Note: both the video and image are under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain as it was taken by IDF and released to public domain by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit.

Which should, if any, be added? Waddie96 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

​​​​​​ Pinging involved editors for comment. Waddie96 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with both - assuming copyright issues are all squared away - there is no lack of space at the moment for images/videos at the moment - we're loong on text, short on these.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I added an image for 27 April and video for 29 April. Waddie96 (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone can find any pictures of IDF soldiers to make the photo coverage more equal that would be great. Currently the only public domain photos I've been able to get a hold of are those from the IDF Spokesperson's Unit; which are only of Palestinian protestor's. Waddie96 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The first paragraph of the lede needs to state clearly that 1.) the goal of this protest is to tear down a border barrier and enable mass illegal entry into a sovereign state. and 2.) that this is a violent protest in which pistols are carried, fire bombs launched over the border by kite, slingshots fire projectiles at border guards and Molotov cocktails are thrown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: the first addition sounds POV and please provide reliable sources supporting these additions. Waddie96 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Palestinian civilian deaths in Prior violence

Should these civilian deaths be included in Prior violence subsection:

On 11 January 2018, Amir 'Abd al-Hamid Msa'ed Abu Masa'ed (15) from [[Deir al-Balah]] was shot and killed in the armpit by Israeli forces. B'tselem states that the boy was 50 to 70 meters from the border and not involved in hostilities, though stones were thrown at soldiers by other youths.

On 16 February 2018, Ahmad Muhammad 'Abd Rabo Abu Hilu (18) was shot in the back of the head while standing 15 meters from the border fence. While stone-throwing occurred, Hilu is said by B'tselem not to have been involved in hostilities. He died of his wounds on 21 February 2018.

...

On 17 February, Abdallah Ayman Suliman Irmeilat (14) and Salem Muhammad Suliman Sabah (16) were shot dead despite the fact, according to B'tselem, they were not engaged in hostilities but were trying to cross the border to search for work in Israel.

On 25 February, Isma'il Saleh Muhammad Abu Ryalah (18) was shot dead in his fishing boat from fire that came from from an Israeli naval vessel in pursuit. He had, the same NGO claims, not been involved in hostilities.

On 3 March, Muhammad 'Ata 'Abd al-Mawla Abu Jame' (58) died of Israeli gunshot wounds to his buttocks, as he was working his plot of land 200 meters from the perimeter fence without engaging in hostile activities.

If so, then a longer list will have to be created for all deaths (including Israeli civilian deaths caused by Palestinians) as per the cited source used. But my feeling is the above should be deleted as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I think it should just mention Palestinian protestors killed by IDF in hostilities and IDF soldiers killed by Palestinian protestors involved in hostilities; otherwise the list will be far too long.

Additions that then should be made (note they are copy-pasted from cited source) if above is kept:

A soldier killed on 7 January 2011 when struck by a mortar shell soldiers fired at armed persons near the Gaza perimeter fence.

Six Israeli civilians and a member of the Israeli security forces who were shot to death on 18 August 2011 in an attack near Eilat. According to the IDF Spokesperson, eight of the attackers were also killed. Their identity is not yet known.

A soldier killed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel in a shooting attack at the Beersheba Central Bus Station on 18 October 2015. The assailant, who was later killed by police gunfire, and a foreign national, who was mistakenly shot by a bus station security guard, was beaten by passersby and died several hours later.

Two Israeli civilians shot to death in a Tel Aviv pub and another Israeli civilian, a taxi cab driver, who was also shot dead by the shooter, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, as he fled - on 1 January 2016. A week later, the shooter was shot dead by police in ‘Ar’arah.

Two Israeli police officers fatally shot by three Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the al-Aqsa compound and at one of its entrances, and the three gunmen, who were fatally shot by police inside the compound on 14 July 2017. According to media reports, another police officer sustained mild gunshot wounds

An Israeli soldier who was stabbed to death on 30 November 2017 by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship while waiting at a bus stop in the city of Arad.

An Israeli civilian who was stabbed and critically injured by a Palestinian citizen of Israel on 5 February 2018 while waiting at a hitchhiking post at the entrance to the settlement of Ariel. He succumbed to his wounds later that day. The assailant was run over by a military officer and fled the scene.

Let me know your thoughts. Waddie96 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani:

The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event. The title means what it means -listing events that were violent in the months preceding the March. For a month, on the rare occasions I could check in, I waited for someone to add the balancing data of violence against Palestinians for this same period. No one did: no one, yourself included (?), thought the highly partisan selective list improper. Now that I can edit, I added the corresponding details of violent incidents affecting Gazans to the schema. It is called WP:NPOV. Yet, suddenly, we get an objection. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue has been addressed, and much of the material you cite just above my reply deals not with the specifics of Gaza Border incidents, but events in the West Bank. Their inclusion would be WP:OR. You can't have it both ways: silently accepting in the text Israeli reports of earlier border incidents of Palestinian violence, while immediately objecting when the parallel details of violence to Palestinians on the border is added for neutrality. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: How would the above additions be no original research? They are from the exact article you cited [15] which is WP:RS. I thank you for your additions in an attempt to make WP:NPOV, I am not questioning you, but whether the additions are not assisting in improving the article as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and want to get an opinion from fellow editors before removing the additions. Waddie96 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be an elementary confusion here. Your material was not so much a reductio ad absurdum but its corollary which would be dilatatio ad absurdum.The material you cite comes from the same reliable source I used, yes, but the items do not deal with events of this year prior to the Great March occurring on the Gaza border.

• (1) Deals with an incident of an Israeli friendly fire death on 7 January 2011 on the Gaza border.
• (2) Six Israeli civilians and a member of the Israeli security forces shot to death on 18 August 2011 in Eilat. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents
• (3) A soldier killed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel at the Beersheba Central Bus Station on 18 October 2015. Nothing to do with Gaza border
• (4) Two Israeli civilians shot to death in a Tel Aviv pub by a Palestinian citizen of Israel, Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
• (5) 2 Israeli police officers fatally shot by three Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the al-Aqsa compound on 14 July 2017. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
• (6) An Israeli soldier stabbed to death on 30 November 2017 by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship in Arad. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
• (7) An Israeli civilian who died after being stabbed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel on 5 February 2018 at the entrance to the settlement of Ariel. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.

You appear to have missed the point I made above, in writing:’ The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event.' The prior background on wikipedia articles deals with the immediate past, not with anything or everything from Methusaleh onwards.

The incidents regarding Palestinian violence in the Prior section all refer to events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. In English 'prior' here implies historical recency. I mirrored this choice by the editor who wrote this section by supplying the corresponding examples of Israeli violence in events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. The parallel is perfect, per WP:NPOV. If you want the Israeli detail, you must accept the Palestinian detail for the same period in the same area. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A source must link these events to the topic of this article otherwise including this stuff here is OR regardless of where they happened or if editors think they're relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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,[16] 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 [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. 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)

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.[23]. 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)

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 [24] 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)

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)

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 [25]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Instrumentos_de_paz_en_Campamento_PNUD%2C_05Abr14_%2813976845937%29.jpg

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)

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)

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)

15 may, ERROR

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

Spelling error

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

Damage to fence and fields as a “casualty”

Our infobox currently shows damage to the fence and fields as a “casualty”; the word is normally used for people only, per Casualty (person).

The question of physical damage raises a second question - what physical damage took place on the Palestinian side?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about burning of large swathes of land, and damaging a rather expensive installation. Note we usually include material losses in the infobox - e.g. Battle of Kursk, Yom Kippur War, or Battle of Jutland as random examples. As for the Gazan side - it seems the Gazans burned down the Kerem Shalom border crossing[26] from the Palestinian side a few times causing millions of dollars of damages and halting/slowing imports of good to Gaza - it probably should be in the infobox, but being a "joint property" of sorts (straddling the border) - it is an interesting question where. I am unsure of any source covering material losses on the Palestinian side (and I'm unsure there were significant material losses - in the incidents along the border probably not, possibly yes in the airstrikes) - we would need some RSes to insert this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We did not put the fact that 99,000 houses in Gaza were razed or damaged by Israeli bombing in the 2014 Israel-Gaza war casualties section, and likewise we should not put it out that damage to fences and fields are casualties. I got a great laugh out of the bit about some Palestinian damage 'halting (Israeli) imports to Gaza' (in 2016 total exports and transfers of goods from Gaza remained less than 20% of what it had been in the first half of 2007), a reduction similar to the import statistics. Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So I've removed it

Damage to border fence, burning of hundreds of dunams of crop fields, and forest.

There was another problem. The source is not RS.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: the non-human losses in these infoboxes are normally restricted to materiel losses. If we wanted to expand it to loss of crops, food or similar, we would need to add up all the lost snacks and drinks in the hands of those people who dropped them as they fell on the ground after having their skulls blown open and lives drained from their bodies by snipers' bullets from 500 meters away. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hadashot (TV series) - the news organization of Israel's leading television channels (at the moment - jointly for 12 and 13 - the former 22) - formerly known as Channel 2 News - is most definitely a WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a source for lost snacks - bring it - and we'll discuss. As for the fires - this is not just "loss of crop" - but massive fires - over a thousand dunams of totally burnt land - both crops and forest. This belongs in the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a precedent for listing damages as a casualty, which I haven't seen, it should be removed or relabeled. Drsmoo (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

See here: "property damages worth an estimated half a million shekels". Definitely notable material damage. “WarKosign” 12:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Half a million shekels is about $0.1m, or approximately the cost of three missiles shot by the Iron Dome. You couldn’t buy a single apartment in Tel Aviv for that, probably not even a bathroom. It is a tiny fraction of what the IDF are spending on their response to the protests. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That just one fire (of a forest - low economic damage, very high environmental damage). The total damage is estimated to be "flaming kites into Israel and caused millions of shekels in damage to fields belonging to communities along the border."[27].Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent to listing material damage as a casualty? I haven't personally observed this. Drsmoo (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Should stay removed: property damage does not qualify as "casualties". Casualty (person), a person who is killed or rendered unfit for service in a war or natural disaster. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 16 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)

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)

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 - [28][29][30]) 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)

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LEAD:

HAMAS ADMITS THAT 50 OF THOSE 62 KILLED ON 14-15 MAY WERE MEMBERS OF THEIR ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION. SOURCE:[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:4F8F:31BD:7345:960E:A011 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Already added - but the English source is better - and I will replace the current source.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be added to the LEAD. Like: "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][16] with at least 50 of whom were confirmed by Hamas to be members of the Islamist group". It should be in the lead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:4F8F:31BD:7345:960E:A011 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll hold off with the lede - we'll get a better tally. The admitted 53 (Hamas 50, Islamic Jihad 3) out of 62 - in this big event - which is what is really significant (85%) - I wouldn't dilute it by comparing to 110 - as the Hamas speaker was talking about the 14th of May.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So fix it at least to: "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][16] with dozens of whom were confirmed to be members of various Palestinian militant organizations, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, internationally-recognized terrorist groups". And without the "Israel said", even HAMAS said.

"Claimed" not "confirmed". I watched the interview on the IDF twitter feed; it looks loose at this point.

Also, per our Hamas article: "It has a social service wing, Dawah, and a military wing". Let’s not obfuscate this please.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Source from AL Aqsa Voice, which I believe is Hamas run. http://alaqsavoice.ps/news/details/203028 Drsmoo (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please hold back with the capital letters. Claimed =/= confirmed, and Times of Israel is not a neutral source. The POV-charged soapboxing here is blatantly obvious. This (literally) shouts "It's okay that they were killed because Israel Times says they're militants and everyone needs to know this on the leading paragraphs so they don't feel bad for Palestine!!!" Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Is New York Post reliable enough for you ? There seems to be very little doubt that a senior Hamas official said this. “WarKosign” 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading through that suggests that Hamas claims that most of the protesters killed identify with Hamas, not that they've all committed terrorism as the screaming IP editor suggests. Hamas has a military wing, but Hamas is also a political party (and the incumbent one at that). I've never seen a clearer example of a bad faith proposal. Sure, we can mention somewhere that Hamas says that most of those killed are part of Hamas, but I don't think that's even noteworthy; that's predictable when Hamas is the largest political party in the Gaza Strip. To suggest that these people are also terrorists or Jihadists is so blatantly POV-charged and inaccurate that it can't be called good faith by any stretch of the imagination, and any editor that does deserves nothing less than discretionary sanctions. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Salah Bardawil said 50 of the 62 protesters killed by Israeli Defense Forces were members of the Iranian-backed group". At International positions on the nature of Hamas you can see Hamas as a whole is considered terror organization by US, UN and several other countries. “WarKosign” 21:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The UN? The article you just linked me to refutes that. The US says they're a foreign terrorist organization, China does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, and Australia says that the military wing alone is a terrorist organization. It's just factually incorrect to say that all members of Hamas, which has a majority of seats in the unicameral legislative council, are automatically terrorists and the only reason why someone would push for unilaterally declaring them all terrorists is motivated by one's point of view (just the fact that we'd be going off of what the US says but not what Australia or China say is evident of this) and is wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well said. Finally a sensible news organization has picked up the story: See quotes from CNN's article below:

• "Hamas spokesman Abdel Latif Quanau, in a phone conversation with CNN, would not confirm or deny the number of fatalities linked to Hamas. "I do not have specific numbers but all the factions have participated in the demonstrations, and they are all being targeted," Quanau said."
• "Ahmed Abu Artema, widely credited as the person who brought the latest wave of demonstrations into being, cast doubt on Hamas' claims. "I personally doubt the number," he told CNN in a phone conversation. "This is rhetoric, I don't believe [al-Bardaweel] has confirmed the number; the reporter provoked him with his question." But, he added, "even if the number was right, the [political and military] factions are a part of our society."

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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)