Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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:[1] — 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)

Just because a news organ is located in Israel, is not evidence of it not being neutral or a Reliable Source. You'll need to prove bias in the reporting. 50.111.48.95 (talk) 23:32, 17 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)

A large part of the drafting consists in propaganda spin passed off as facts. As noted, to get a paid job in the administration or its services you are advised to j in Hamas, which is the elected government there. When Israel in the first hour of one of its wars there, blew up a ceremony for police officers being inducted into the force, killing over 47 at one blow, they were described as 'terrorists'. International analyses suggested afterwards that police forces of this kind cannot be legitimately described by association with Hamas as members of its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, and as terrorists. If you work as a janitor in a Hamas-run hospital the odds are you have the party card. It's like shooting into a crowd of Irish protestors in the good old days, and, when challenged, saying a retrospective check of the dead reveals some of them belonged to families with affiliations with the IRA or had parents in that organization, and therefore were terrorists. I think everyone understands this, except the Israeli newspapers and their megaphone sutlers who duly report the IDF version in the media abroad. Irt should also be understood that Hamas claims also reflect a desire to prove that they sacrificed themselves on behalf of the gazans, whereas most of the leadership stands back from the fray. It's a claim that covers their arse politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

I meant the EU, UN is not in the list at all. “WarKosign” 07:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some more sources Agence France-Presse, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Irish Times, Al Araby, France 24. This is being widely covered internationally. It needs to be included. Drsmoo (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is already in the article, under 14 May.

Appropriate balance is needed. One of the sources you just brought says: “Hamas spokesman Fawzy Barhoum did not confirm all 50 were members of the Islamist movement. He told AFP Hamas paid for the funerals for all 50 "whether they are members or supporters of Hamas, or unrelated to the factions." Bassem Naim, another senior Hamas official, declined to confirm or deny the number but said it was a "large movement and has great popular support". It was "natural to see members or supporters of Hamas in large numbers" in such a protest, he said, adding that when they were killed they were "participating peacefully" in demonstrations.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, a senior Hamas member reported that 50 of those killed were from Hamas, that these were the "official" numbers, and no one from Hamas has denied it. Drsmoo (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be more accurate: “a senior Hamas member stated in an interview that 50 of those killed “were Hamas”, without explaining what form of affiliation he was referring to, nor which parts of the organization – which as the sole governing party in Strip spans social services, civil service, political, law enforcement and military, among others – were included in the statement. Other members of Hamas have neither confirmed nor denied the statement, but doubt has been cast on the narrow interpretations suggested by the IDF”. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that would be erroneous, and original research. We'll follow reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We could mention that they Hamas said many of them are from Hamas, but not from "the Islamic terrorist militant group" or whatever the nom is asking. It's not particularly unsurprising, though (nor is it very informative due to the nuances of Hamas as a group) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly a higher ratio of Hamas members than earlier in the protests. Drsmoo (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WarKosign, you meant the EU? Again, other countries in Europe though not in the EU such as UK (withdrawing from it) and Switzerland (not a member state) do not hold the same hardline position as the US. For that reason, again, we'd be unilaterally declaring all of Hamas - its political party, its social group, its supporters that elected it - all of them to be terrorists and Islamists and Jihadists, and why? Because one faction of the world said it, when the international community in reality has many varying views ranging from fully declaring Hamas a terrorist group to not declaring them a terrorist group at all to only declaring the military wing of it to be a terrorist group but not the rest of it. This is why WP:NPOV is a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The UK considers Hamas a terrorist organization.50.111.48.95 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what is the point you are trying to make. A Hamas senior said (and no other senior denied) that out of 62 killed 50 were members of Hamas. Nobody says that we need to write that all 50 were terrorists or even just member of terror organization. We just report this important fact as it is present in the sources. “WarKosign” 13:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Concur. This is clearly important information (and I'll note Hamas's message is different in Arabic than in English - in Arabic they are trying to show they've been pitching into the effort). Editorial opinions on various wings of Hamas are irrelevant - the statement in and of itself is clear - 50 were Hamas, from the mouth of a senior Hamas leader.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, have we any sources on what faction of Hamas? Are they members of the political party? Supporters of the party? Members of the military wing? A combination of all of the above? These would all be very different things with very different implications, and the very reason why this proposal was initially made was as an excuse for the IP editor to have us feature that most of the members were - and I quote - "MEMBERS OF THEIR ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION." It's interesting that WarKosign is questioning what point I'm trying to make after being the one that presented me with an article that supposedly supports the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization period because the US said so. This is a POV-charged proposal and that couldn't be clearer. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As evidenced by the Hamas senior official stmt - the Hamas does make the distinction you are trying to make. Nor do many others. It is a rather clear stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: you made two points against inclusion of the information: the source is unreliable and that Hamas is merely a political organization and being is member is not worth mentioning. Both points obviously not true. Can you think of any other objection ? “WarKosign” 16:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tritomex: please read the paragraph above. I remove your proposed drafting here because it did not include any contextualization per the discussion above. The WP:RS cover this in a balanced manner so as not to mislead. We must do so too, with great caution. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I dont know what you objected here? The numbers and all claims are sourced with WP:RS, and plenty of them. My wording did not imply that those killed were all terrorist,it just mention's the membership in Hamas, both political and military wing. Tritomex (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2018 ("deadly force")

The article contains the following sentence:

On 2 April, "hundreds" of Israelis gathered in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Yad Mordechai to protest the IDF's use of "deadly force" against the Palestinians on Gaza border.

I feel like the quotation marks around "deadly force" should be removed, as quotation marks usually suggest something questionable, while we know for certain that people have been killed, and live ammunition has been used, so it is undoubtably deadly force. BeŻet (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done removed per WP:SCAREQUOTES. Thanks for the heads up. AlexEng^(TALK) 15:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Awful section formatting

" Casualties and damage

As of 21 May 2018, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, the casualty breakdown was as follows:

• Killed = 112
• Injured = 13,190

The injured

• Live ammunition or rubber bullets struck 7,618
• Tear-gas causing symptoms of suffocation affected 5,572
• Critically injured = 332
• Moderately injured =3,422
• Lightly injured= 9,436
• Women injured = 1,029

Amputations =32. Medical personal

• Killed. I paramedic from the Palestinian Civil Defense
• Injured. 223 medics, by either live fire or tear-gas suffocation

Material damage.

• 37 ambulances partly damaged.

Journalists

• 2 journalists were killed.
• 175 journalists were injured."

" Is formatted in a very poor way. If it is even to be here it should be in a table, the "=" format isn't even spaced consistently, the location of the citation is in a weird place too. ShimonChai (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine. As I said in my edit summary, anyone with wikitable competence can tabulate it. This is a collaborative process: sight a problem, and one option is, fix it.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't I don't have 500 edits, and the page is locked. ShimonChai (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a pity. Really, there are a lot of people here who could do it, myself excepted. Perhaps you could post the desired format on this page, and leave it to editors to fleshen out the skeleton? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

Killed	Critically injured	Moderately injured	Lightly injured
Total: 112 Hamas Members: 50 Journalists: 2 Paramedics: 1	332	3,422	9,436

That's the best I could do. ShimonChai (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The 50 hamas member only in last confrontations.There were more in previous.--Shrike (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Shimon Chai. That's a fair start, but it doesn't cover the full data given in the source. Rather, as it stands, it truncates it and uses the dubious 'Hamas members', which suggests terrorists though also covering janitors, service industry people such as hospital personnel, etc., while glozing over the fact that we have figures that distinguish people with some connection to Hamas via kin etc., from people who actually belong to Hamas' military wing (22 if I recall correctly). The text as I wrote it has to stay until we have a table that tabulates all that data.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Like in every I/P conflict there are Israel claims and Palestinian claims we can include those claims per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. You are commenting about something you appear to imagine I implied, and certainly did not write, and the reminder that both claims are presented is like telling granny to suck eggs.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Hamas members" is incorrect. That is not what the original source said. He said "50 martyrs were Hamas". Other Hamas members, who didn't confirm the numbers, explained that this could include family members or other people distantly connected. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a long stretch, do you have a citation for saying that that they weren't members? Since "50 Martyrs were Hamas" doesn't imply family members it implies that each of those 50 people "were Hamas", not that they were family members or that they were "distantly connected". Here is CNN saying that 50 of the deaths were Hamas members. ShimonChai (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hamas spokesperson claimed 50 people killed on May 14th were members. As mentioned elsewhere, Hamas members can be civilian employees. Hamas has incentive to boost their legitimacy with these numbers. Worth reporting, but wouldn't claim it as a verified fact. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/16/middleeast/hamas-members-gaza-deaths/index.html Shushugah (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Bardawil's claim and Hamas "members"

The "50 of 62" claim keeps coming up on this discussion page, and it is referred to frequently as denoting "Hamas members". What he actually said was:CNN

"في هذه المظاهرات، نحو 62 شخصا استشهدوا، 50 منهم ينتمون لحماس، بينما الاثنا عشر الباقون هم من أفراد الشعب الفلسطيني... وهذه الأرقام رسمية."

([Per Google translate:] "In these demonstrations, about 62 people were martyred, 50 of them belong to Hamas, while the remaining 12 are members of the Palestinian people ... These figures are official.")

The key word here is "ينتمون" [transliterated "yantamun"] which google translates as "belong" but is actually a derivative of the Arabic pronoun ‏أَنْتُمْ‎ antum meaning "you (plural)" and equivalent to the Hebrew אַתֶּם atém.

Hence why reputable sources who quote Bardawil directly translate it simply as "were Hamas". For example: "Fifty of the martyrs were Hamas and 12 from the people" AFP

Since Bardawil never used the term "Hamas member", Wikipedia should not use it, particularly since it gives a misleading impression; it doesn't matter how many news organizations parrot the term.

Separately, Bardawil apparently wrote an article on the topic (see below):[2]

البردويل نفسه بالمناسبة طرح ادعاء معاكس: لقد كتب في مقال في وكالة أنباء غزية متماهية مع تنظيمه بأن اسرائيل نصبت للفلسطينيين فخ عندما صنفت "مسيرا العودة" واعتبرتها مسيرات لحماس.

Bardawil, by the way, made the opposite claim: In an article in the Gazan news agency, he wrote that Israel had set up a trap for Palestinians when it was classified as a "march of return" and considered it a march for Hamas. [Google translate]

Could anyone more skilled at searching in Arabic see if they could find the original Bardawil article?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not exactly "50 of them were Hamas". I don't know the word "yantamu" but as it seems the sentence says: "hamseen minhin yantamu lihamas": 50 of whom [yantamu] to Hamas. Seems to me that the word does mean, or the sentence should mean "belong to Hamas".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We should not try to extract more meaning from the original quotation, since it's a primary source and doing more than just quoting it is WP:OR. It's best to rely on secondary sources which tell us the meaning of the statement. In case there are different possible interpretation there will be several conflicting secondary sources with different POVs. “WarKosign” 14:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is important to question secondary sources by looking at the primary sources. But here I trust the secondary sources when they say the meaning of the text is "50 of whom belong to Hamas", even though the the claim it self can be questioned, as I saw in some sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Yantamun is not a derivative of antum, two different words. The quote says "they belonged to Hamas", and it was apparently misquoted for obvious reasons by the media. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: thank you for clarifying. Could you explain further? You say misquoted, but couldn’t “belong” imply membership? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Membership implies direct involvement in Hamas activities, to belong implies to be at least ideologically aligned. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: thank you. The dictionary definition for belong includes a number of meanings, including both softer “to be attached... by allegiance” or harder “to be a member of”. Does “yantamun” have both those meanings as well? From what I can tell it seems to imply a softer connection, but I haven’t been able to confirm. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Arabic is tricky and cannot be interpreted literally the same way as other languages. In this context, yantamun is very vague and implies at least ideological belonging. Not as if the people of Gaza have an alternative to support for their rights. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are digging to deep into this. The man said "50 belong to Hamas...these figures are official". I don't think he means that 50 of these people are officially "ideologically alligned" to Hamas, I think he means that 50 of these are members of Hamas. And being members of Hamas does not mean direct involvmenet in Hamas' activities, especially when he didn't say if they are part of the military wing or the organization it self.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bolter21: “Hamas spokesman Fawzy Barhoum did not confirm all 50 were members of the Islamist movement. He told AFP Hamas paid for the funerals for all 50 “whether they are members or supporters of Hamas, or unrelated to the factions.””[3] [Note: our Hamas article has Barhoum listed as their primary spokesman]

As I understand it, after conflict-related deaths Hamas, Fatah and others tend to rush to the families of the dead in order to be able to appropriate the victims as being supporters of them and offer the families compensation etc.

So paying for the funerals is what Bardawil meant when he said "these figures are official".

Barhoum's clarification is consistent with the realities of Gaza. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Write whatever you want as long as it is backed by reliable sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I asked a Druze friend, and he told me that yantamun in that contexts means "belong".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We report what WP:RS say not make our own WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and we should be precise. We should use the terms which WP:RS use when directly quoting Bardawil, not the terms that attention-seeking editors use for their headlines. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amendments

Our article currently says:

A senior member of Hamas stated that 50 of the dead that day were members of the organization,[168][169] Hamas political bureau member Salah al-Bardawi said that 50 of the 62 killed in the protests of 14–15 May were Hamas members adding that these were "official numbers", though he did not specify whether they were members of Hamas' armed or political wing.[170][171][172] Speaking to CNN, a Hamas spokesman, Abdel Latif Quanau, said he could not confirm or deny these numbers, and that "The protests are peaceful and include all political and military factions."[173] Amira Hass viewed al-Bardawi's statement with skepticism saying that one her friends in Gaza told her that "This (figure of 50) is another typical exaggeration of ours".[174] Islamic Jihad said three members of its Saraya al-Quds military wing were among those killed. An Islamic Jihad official said those killed were unarmed and participating in a legitimate protest.[175] Hamas said of the 60 casualties on the 14 May protests, that 50 out of the 60 shot were Hamas members.[176]

I propose we state the following instead:

Hamas political bureau member Salah al-Bardawi said of the dead in the protests of 14–15 May that day "50 of the martyrs were Hamas" adding that these were "official numbers". Hamas spokesman Fawzy Barhoum said that Hamas paid for the funerals for all 50 “whether they are members or supporters of Hamas, or unrelated to the factions.”” A Hamas spokesman, Abdel Latif Quanau, said he could not confirm or deny these numbers, and that "The protests are peaceful and include all political and military factions."[173] Amira Hass viewed al-Bardawi's statement with skepticism saying that one her friends in Gaza told her that "This (figure of 50) is another typical exaggeration of ours".[174] Islamic Jihad said three members of its Saraya al-Quds military wing were among those killed. An Islamic Jihad official said those killed were unarmed and participating in a legitimate protest.[175]

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any source that says that Bardawil did *not* say that 50 dead were members of Hamas ? "Were Hamas" sounds like same meaning with bad grammar. Statements by other Hamas members do not cancel this one out, but we could include them if they add some value. "Could not confirm or deny" is devoid of meaning. In the same interview where "another typical exaggeration of ours" was said "it’s hard to deny his words in public" was also said. So again, no confirmation or denial, and the person making this statements is an unnamed friend of the reporter. “WarKosign” 10:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know exactly what he said - it is transcribed in Arabic above, sourced to CNN. That one sentence is the sole source of every article on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of a single English-languague source which uses the word “members” when directly quoting Bardawil. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources do not quote him directly in Arabic, they translate and interpret. Perhaps direct translation from Arabic does yield "were Hamas" which has no obvious meaning in English (does it mean they are the whole organization ?) All the sources I checked say that the expression meant members of the organization:

"Were Hamas activists"/" were members of Hamas"

"were our members"/"were members of the Islamist terrorist group"

"WERE MEMBERS"/"were Hamas members"

"were its own members"/"50 members of the terror organisation were among those killed"

Unless you have a reliable source that gives another explanation, this is the meaning we go by. We should not try to obfuscate the meaning behind bad grammar. “WarKosign” 11:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

An English RS, of which we have several, is preferable to personal translations by editors.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. @WarKosign: the quotes you picked from the sources above are misleading. Those same sources include exact English translations of what Bardawil said, and none of those quotes include the word “members”. You cherrypicked the editorialized versions not in quotations.

We must be precise, which means sticking to what Bardawil actually said, as translated by RS in quotation marks. And, per the sources brought by WarKosign, he did not say “members”.

If you want to write that various publications chose to interpret his statement as referring to membership, I am fine with that. But “members” is not acceptable in Wikipedia’s neutral voice, because the word was not used as attested by all WP:RS translations. Plus we have confirmed this above via the original Arabic.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, also this comes off as original research by Onceinawhile considering neutral interpretations have used the term "members" in their reporting (CNN used the term), this really does seem like grasping at straws to get out of using the word "members" when a bunch of legitimate sources have consensus that they were in fact members according to their translation of Bardawil. Also, the only source you are using that "were hamas" doesn't mean members or that it could mean something else / be inaccurate is one of Amira Hass's friends skepticism and it even read like she implied that the statement was that 50 were members, and Amira Hass isn't an official of Hamas, she is a controversial Israeli left-wing (left-wing according to her) journalist for Haaretz. ShimonChai (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: ok. I don’t think there’s any disagreement here. Do you agree that the wording that WP:RS are directly quoting him to have said is the best version we have? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not the best version because "were Hamas" is not proper English. Proper English is provided by multiple sources and it's "were Hamas members" “WarKosign” 19:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an WP:OR interpretation. The WP:RS translated the quote as “were Hamas”. Obviously we cannot change a quote because we want it to say more than it does. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, trying to figure out what "were Hamas" means is WP:OR. Most of the sources use the word "members", so this is what we do as well. Obviously we cannot change this description because we want it to say less than it does. “WarKosign” 20:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, it sounds like we are agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amended text:

Hamas political bureau member Salah al-Bardawi said of the dead in the protests of 14–15 May that day "50 of the martyrs were Hamas" adding that these were "official numbers". This was reported to refer to membership. However, Hamas spokesman Fawzy Barhoum said that Hamas paid for the funerals for all 50 “whether they are members or supporters of Hamas, or unrelated to the factions.”” A Hamas spokesman, Abdel Latif Quanau, said he could not confirm or deny these numbers, and that "The protests are peaceful and include all political and military factions."[173] Amira Hass viewed al-Bardawi's statement with skepticism saying that one her friends in Gaza told her that "This (figure of 50) is another typical exaggeration of ours".[174] Islamic Jihad said three members of its Saraya al-Quds military wing were among those killed. An Islamic Jihad official said those killed were unarmed and participating in a legitimate protest.[175]

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Barhoum is SYNTH, particularly with the however. Quanau says nothing - SYNTHy and just a nothing stmt. And Hess is UNDUE as a fringe opinion. Should be:

Hamas political bureau member Salah al-Bardawi said of the dead in the protests of 14–15 May that day "50 of the martyrs were Hamas" adding that these were "official numbers". Islamic Jihad said three members of its Saraya al-Quds military wing were among those killed. An Islamic Jihad official said those killed were unarmed and participating in a legitimate protest.[175]

Which is short, simple, and to the point.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as I already explained its WP:OR and violation of WP:NPOV for cherry-picking the sources--Shrike (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Reactions section

I see this article has attracted a little flag salad of quotes from world leaders. A direct quote is a primary source and these should be used judiciously. Wikipedia needs to carry a summary of what secondary sources say. This section needs to be rewritten in prose, without the flags and the quotes. --John (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The reactions' sections with flagicons and political quotes have always annoyed me as utterly predictable and I am for the across the board removal of this 'they're on our side' kind of trivia. Individual quotes from highly informed people should be acceptable. I placed this, for example, in the relevant section.

English judge, legal scholar and ad hoc judge on the European Court of Human Rights 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.

And it was removed, merely because of the trailer about the London context upset someone. It is worth having the view of an eminent judge and legal scholar who has sat on the European Court of Human Rights, together with some equally informed opinions, because unlike the flagicon political stuff, it comes from direct experience of the area.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Following this discussion I removed the section as unencyclopedic but I see I was unhelpfully reverted by Wnt. It's better to discuss this in talk than to revert this garbage back in. I'll give it a few hours then re-remove it, unless the consensus has changed. --John (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@John: The flag icon format seems silly, but is widely used in Wikipedia. I cannot comprehend how the version you left, with supranational organizations, NGOs, and individuals, but not state reactions, could have seemed to make any sense to you. Wnt (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Being widely used is not a criterion for inclusion, and neither is your inability to comprehend something. We would need an actual reason to include it. Is there one? --John (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it again, pending a justification for its existence. As I said in the edit summary, there is no prejudice against having a well-written encyclopedic section written in prose and with fewer or no quotes. --John (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Amira Hass's assessment

Amira Hass wrote the following a few days ago:

I checked and was told that the official figure Hamas has is that from the beginning of the March of Return on March 30, 42 people linked to Hamas were among the 120 people killed: members of the movement, well-known activists, members of Hamas families. It seems that about 20 members of Hamas’ military wing were killed, and they were killed not near the protests but under circumstances that still must be clarified. But the rest were unarmed rank-and-file protesters.[4]

This statement gives an entirely different feel versus the current article. Is her assessment less relevant than that of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which appears to have pride of place throughout?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem that AMIT center checked not only Hamas members but militants from other factions so I am not think its comparable. --Shrike (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The AMIT centre is not actually reliable, and it is only because some editors do not apply the extreme exclusionary principle used with sources that describe Palestinian reactions to Israeli sources that it is here. It, like the IDF, is a party to the war and how it is spun: it's called a hasbara outfit, and its criteria for defining what membership of Hamas are stupidly deceptive. It is, as I have remarked, absurd to think that snipers have googles fitted out with a data base to identify the party affiliations of people in their sights, and 'bang' once a Hamas operative is detected amid the tear gas and chaos, they picked him off. The IDF shot people, then retrospectively, when their names were released, came up with a name-link to names in their Hamas register. They didn't shoot them because they were Hamas operatives. They shot people, and then tried to get as high a percentage of them linked to Hamas in order to spin their protesters as terrorists meme, which has been exhaustively shown to be bullshit in the past. I thought I had put Amira Hass's figures in so I guess they were removed, but she is a perfectly good source for this. By all means use the Meir Amit bullshit, but if so, it must be balanced by the kind of analysis Hass provides. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you backup your claim that ITIC is party to the war? If not, your opinion is irrelevant, ITIC is a research organization that reportedly "is viewed as unusually credible". Surely it is biased and should be balanced with sources linked with Hamas, such as Gazan ministry of health.

There is actually no contradiction between Bardawil and Hass. Bardawil said 50, Hass was able to confirm 20 of them. At no stage did she provide any evidence that shows that the 30 others were *not* Hamas members. According to Hass, Bardawil was at least 40% correct. “WarKosign” 21:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

viewed by whom? Because it is filled with top former Israeli intelligence officials? Read the history of IDF and intelligence reports - they have almost zero credibility as neutral observers, and have been found to consistently lie (The Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, used systematic torture against Palestinians and regularly lied about it, according to the Israeli state comptroller, Miriam Ben-Porat (2000 re events 1987-1994); Gidi Weitz, 'New Testimonies on Bus 300 Affair Reveal How Lies Protected Israel's Secret Service,' Haaretz 6 April 2013) re events (Bus 300 affair)in 1984; the Beitsa/Hawara incidents here; GSS (Shin Bet) agents found to lie under oath to Israeli courts; 2017, 2017, etc.etc.etc. It's for this reason that Norman Finkelstein called the ITIC a 'hasbara outfit', and his history of Gaza has massive documentation meticulously testing reports issuing from Israeli government and security sources, duly reflected in mainstream newspapers, which are discredited after the event. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Firefighters are not involved in an armed/civil conflict

The infobox (clearly influenced by the Hebrew version's infobox) says that the Israeli firefighter services are part of this conflict, which is absurd. Icewhiz said in his revert of my edit that they are fighting widespread wheat field and forest fires set by the Gazans, which brings up the conclusion that the hospitals in Rafah and Gaza city should also be included in the infobox because they are treating Gazans shot with live ammunition by the Israelis, or that we simply include actual fighting parties in the infobox.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting the comments of involved editors here, the infobox is probably one of the most important sections of this article: WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Shrike, Nishidani, ShimonChai, Nableezy, יניב הורון, Zero0000, BrendonTheWizard, Drsmoo.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that we should have only have parties that are actually fighting in the infobox, since that seems to be the standard for all infobox's on pages that are about a conflict. However, damage to wheat fields and forest fires should be mentioned as part of the outcome. ShimonChai (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Although its a topic for another discussion, do we include the damage to property in Lebanon in the Second Lebanon War article? I don't think the damage to property is important enough for the infobox here. Israel has done quite a lot of damage to Palestinian property with the number of airstrikes it made in Gaza during this period.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and look for the description of what exactly the outcome section should be in a civil conflict (note that it is actually very different) and the template (civil conflict) says that it is better to avoid using it, so an aftermath section might be better, but it shouldn't be avoided, or played down since it is part of the current conflict. Also, there is a section that talks about the Material damage of the Palestinian side, and a section that goes into detail about the people (there are more words about Ahmed Abu Aqel then there are about the forest fires in Israel), who were killed early on in the protests.ShimonChai (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is more reasonable to keep the infobox to those in direct contact. The list of those whose involvement matters to the conflict includes not only firefighters and Gazan hospitals but also politicians and news media, but it would be better to not put them in the infobox either. Zero^talk 09:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC correctly the firefighting service was here first. Due to the widespread aerial firebombing by the Gazans, the firefighting service had been dealing with widespread fires and handling ordinance from Gaza, and is thus clearly playing a major role on the Israeli side.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They play no bigger role than Palestinian ambulance services. Either way, they shouldn't be included in the infobox of a civil conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Bolter has made a sound point, seconded by Zero. I for one have abstained from adding numerous bulldozing incursions that technically form part of military operations but can uproot farmland, and did not directly inflect the clashes. There's no doubt kitebombs have caused damage and that should figure in the infobox, but if so, one would probably have to list per balance the number of sites within the Strip bombed from the air, or taken out by the artillery. It doesn't matter what goes in and out in the long run, though I think Zero's point that we should deal with only those in direct confrontation (kiterflyers are, they aim to damage; firefighters aren't, they just limit or extinguish the damage, but the damage itself can be listed in the infobox) is the correct call. What matters is (a) that the criteria used for inclusion for one side be applied with equal weight to analogous material re the other and (b) that criterion should nod to Occam's razor,Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine ncessitate, I.e. only add more categories when it is absolutely necessary, be stringent with regard to the temptation to keep multiplying the criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we remove it then?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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[5] 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)

@Onceinawhile: Property Damage is not covered by the IDF, but by the insurance company and National Insurance תקנות מס רכוש וקרן פיצויים , I do not know how the cost of living in Tel Aviv has anything to do with damages to private citizens (and shared ownership in some instances such in the case of Kibutzim in contrast to Moshavim), but as a matter of a fact you can buy an apartment in Tel Aviv for a half million NIS.159.253.248.140 (talk)

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."[6].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)

[7] Not quite casualties, but extensive damage to nature: "100 fires and decimating more than 3,000 acres of wheatfields" "thousands of lives of animals have been claimed, among them reptiles and turtles, which either burned to death or were suffocated." "In addition, millions of shekels worth of damage has been caused to the farmers of the area." “WarKosign” 09:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Humans being hurt, i.e. get killed, wounded or displaced are casualties. Military weapons such as vehicles, tanks, aircraft etc. which are lost also count as casualties. Damage to a border fence is not a war loss. If we include material damage on the Israeli side, we must do it on the Palestinian side, and I don't think that's what we want.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WarKoSign. I think you ought to exercise some awareness of how other people read what you propose. If someone saw Damage (Israel) thousands of animals, reptiles and turtles next to the figure of Damage (Gaza) 120 dead, thousands wounded, they are not going to read that as anything but an exercise is irony, telling against Israel. Nice to see at least that ecological concerns exist there. When I worked precisely in this area in the 60s, every morning as one tractored out into the fields, the first thing one spotted was hundreds of corpses of warblers, passerines and linnets, knocked off by the effect of the pesticides required to get a good yield. As for lizards, I collected them, much to my fellow kibbutzniks' general distaste: one popped out of my pocket during lunch, panic ensued until a soldier stamped it out before I could pick it up.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also break WP:NOTFORUM and tell WarKosign that as an Israeli editor who proudly supports Israel on that issue, I think that rushing to add every single pro-Israeli fact, especially those who are not exactly encyclopedically important (such as the number of acres of land burnt as opposes to over 120 human corpses) hurts the Israeli point of view with ridicule. Wheat being burnt isn't going to convince those who claim Israel is massacring that Israel is fighting a legitimate conflict against violent and murderous (yet frustrated) rioters on its national border. What you do here makes the pro-Palestinian readers question Wikipedia's neutrality and make neutral readers view the Israeli point of view as childish. All of this disract the readers from the pro-Israeli fact that these protests include terrorist attacks of militants (מחבלים) with AK47s and explosive charges. We should work to give neutral and high quality content to our readers and only that will help us Israelis balance Wikipedia with truth about the conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Widespread field and forest fires are a significant outcome. This is a tangible military result of the Gazan kite bombing campaign (a few hundred kites launched so far - a shorter range version of the ww2 Fire balloon launches).Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

But they are not a "casualty" and should not be included next to 120 dead Palestinians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read my comments in this section carefully, I did not suggest any change to the article yet, merely provided some facts for discussion. “WarKosign” 06:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Riots, not "protests"

Please change the title to substitute riots for protests. Thank you. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please kindly keep your POV away. Changing the title from "protests" to "riots" would unilaterally declare everyone involved to be violent or criminal, which is far from accurate. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title to "riots" would precisely observe WP:POV. The term "protests" implies peaceful demonstrations when, in fact, these riots were anything but. Your insistence on pushing your POV of "protests" automatically disqualifies you from any further editing of this highly charged article. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

However, keeping the word "protests" in the title seems like everyone involved in protesting. Especially when the title on WP homepage news section state: "Israeli troops kill more than 50 Palestinian protesters in the Gaza Strip". This is wrong and has no base. Furthermore, kindly check the definition for protest and see whether violent protest involving throwing rocks, shooting guns and sending kids and women to their death is a form of protest. Stop being naive. XiaoSong (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot make a judgment on whether the event counts as a riot based on what happened; it would be personal research if it did so. Instead, we must base it on what reliable sources call it. We cannot call all the people killed rioters because some were peaceful protesters and others were throwing rocks. We also must avoid the pitfall of saying “53 die in riots” and incorrectly implying that the rioters were the ones who killed them. —Leugen9001 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is true that there were riots, but it is also true that the overwhelming majority of those involved were unarmed protesters. Changing it to "riots" would be less accurate and less neutral. "Events" would be preferable to "incidents"/"riots" but I'd say "protests" is still an accurate description; any large-scale (or very-large-scale) protest is almost guaranteed to include varying degrees of violence, but these are a small minority of those that participated and we'd still typically refer to the event as a whole as a protest. Referring to the event as a whole as a riot is dismissive of the vast majority of those involved in favour of the most extreme minority of those involved, which is undue. That being said, I don't take issue with "events" as it is generic and neutral, but I maintain that the current title is fine. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The title indeed became completely irrelevant. There were many different events, some of them peaceful protests, some violent riots (burning of the border crossing), some full-blown terror attacks (throwing fire bombs and planting explosives). I suggest to rename the article to something very generic like "April-May 2018 Gaza border events". “WarKosign” 13:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support change to events or incidents. We had protests, riots, firebombing kites and balloons, IEDs, and shooting incidents.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose whatever your views of who-did-what, and their relative weightings, every single person there was protesting. So protests captures the whole event well. That is why it is the term most commmonly used in the mainstream media. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Riots would be unacceptable, and being way too POV. Zero^talk 17:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if ‘unrest’ would work better. It is used to describe a mix of protesting and violence in Ferguson unrest. The problem is that in this case, most sources, from FOX to HuffPo to CNN to CBC are using “protest”, so something with a more violent connotation might be POV. Leugen9001 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose: should be handled via WP:RM. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but request to move to which title ? I'm thinking to run a formal RfC for a new title. “WarKosign” 04:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

New Total Death Count 118/119 Gazans as of June 2nd

Some injured protesters died days from their wounds and medic was recently shot in chest according to Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza.

Haaretz: 118 Gazans killed
Reuters: 119 Gazans killed
Maan News: 119 Gazans killed

Shushugah (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a single word about the 29'th and 30'th of May events ?!

Why not a single word about the events of the 29'th -30'th ? over 130 explosives that led to three wounded Israelis. What kind of an encyclopedia it is if it fail to cover such events.?!?!

There where enough WP:RS that covered that 1 25.144.60.228 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Death toll at 123, 13672 wounded as of June 3 2018

https://twitter.com/PalinfoAr/status/1003350760518832128

https://www.facebook.com/presspna/posts/1543190045790903

Zooplankton1 (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the death of a 8-month old baby

See links below. Any reason this shouldn't be included?

http://www.businessinsider.com/gaza-protests-an-8-month-old-palestinian-baby-died-from-inhaling-tear-gas-2018-5?IR=T

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-protests-palestinian-baby-dead-tear-gas-israel-soldiers-jerusalem-border-us-embassy-a8351971.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/8-month-old-dies-protests-israel-palestine_us_5afabdc5e4b044dfffb5c420

Rooiratel (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source. The people attributing her death to the tear gas are her family. Doctors in Gaza doubt that it was actually the reason for her death. “WarKosign” 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd trust the collective consensus of Business Insider, The Independent, and the Huffington Post over Times of Israel on the subject of Israel-Palestine any day. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

[8] Then you'd be making a mistake. Actually none of these sources made the claim, they only said that the family members made it. “WarKosign” 10:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then we cite all three sources for a statement that, according to the family of the child, tear gas was the cause of death. It's a wholly uncontested claim by mainstream outlets, and it would give undue weight to a politically-motivated fringe if we were to suggest that the family of the 8 month old baby lied by saying that tear gas is the reason why their child is dead. Even according to the article you cited, the baby died in the midst of violent clashes, and the only information provided by the Times of Israel article as to why that one doctor casts doubt is simply the statement that he "casts doubt" and mentioned that the baby had a preexisting medical condition. Your argument that sources like BI, The Independent, and HuffPo are all quote "unreliable" holds no merit. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course the family members are unreliable, they have financial interest in the matter. If the the baby is considered a martyr by Hamas the family will be paid. The sources are quite reliable and none of them says that the baby was killed by tear gas; only that the family claimed so. If you want to link the baby to the clashes you need to find a reliable source that does so, and even then it will need to be appear together with Hamas's own health ministry removing the baby from the list of casualties. “WarKosign” 09:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Financial interests? By every definition of martyr a baby literally can't be one (it requires advocating for something, which I remind you requires the ability to communicate in some way, which literal babies cannot do). Your counterargument is what's not supported by any of the sources, not the claims that teargas resulted in the baby's deaths. Those arguments are sickening. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hamas has been paying the families of the bereaved - see [9]. In the case of the baby, it seems she was suffering from a "congenital heart defect",[10], and that the Gazan health ministry subsequently removed her from the list of the dead after a week.[11].Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That first source mentioned that the teenager wanted to be a martyr; that situation is not comparable to this one in any way. We've already discussed that the child had a pre-existing condition, and the sources mentioned thus far did not actually say that there's reason to believe that was the cause of death. As for the last source, I did find an article from The Guardian affirming that they did remove the child from the list, stating: “The baby arrived to the hospital dead, and the family said she was there at the border and she inhaled teargas,” he added. “It wasn’t clear in the beginning whether she died because of that or not. That’s why we referred the case.” With that in mind, it's reasonable to say that we should not simply mention that the cause of death was the tear gas, as that is clearly disputed. However, no sources are claiming that the heart failure is absolutely the cause of death. It's best to simply say known facts in a straightforward way, and what is known is that the cause of death is unknown. I don't believe this isn't notable enough to include in the article as long as it doesn't turn into a POV fork, but it also shouldn't take up very much space of the article if included because only so much weight is due as the article is about the protests as a whole and cannot put too much emphasis on any individual incidents. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in Background section

@Bolter21: You added some material to the Background section. It is well sourced, however all the sources except one do not connect this material to the subject of the article. Another editor could pile up well-sourced information about Hamas's allegedly committing war crimes and taking over Gaza by force as background, to imply that this was the reason for the protests. Both cases are WP:SYNTH - the reader is led to a conclusion that is not present in any of the sources (that the border protests are causally connected to the bad condition situation in Gaza or to Gaza being governed by a terror organization). Please find sources linking the situation to the protests, or remove the information. “WarKosign” 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not WP:SYNTH, it is simply the situation in Gaza. Anyway I haven't finished my work there.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Its clearly WP:OR the sources should be " directly related to the topic of the article" as they don't mention the topic they should be removed as irrelevant.--Shrike (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "border"

I believe this article mistakenly uses the word, "border," in reference to the Gaza perimeter imposed by Israel. Reference to the Gaza perimeter as a border negates the fact that the current boundary was established unilaterally by Israel in the 1990's. To establish a political border would require a bilateral process of boundary delimitation between two sovereign nations.

The language used to describe the Gaza blockade perimeter as a, "border," is legally inaccurate. I believe this word should be changed to more accurately reflect the fact that no international or Palestinian organizations recognize the Gaza blockade perimeter as a political border between sovereign nations. Oncontour (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"No international or Palestinian organization recognize the Gaza blockade perimeter as a political border between sovereign nations." Firstly, you made several claims without citations, secondly, It shows a large amount of bias that you say "no international or Palestinian" but don't include Israeli organizations. Here is just one example of an international news organization using the term "border". BBC. ShimonChai (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, just about every organization and nation that recognizes Palestine as an entity, recognizes the pre 1967 border as... a border.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bit petty to me. Technically you can say a lot of things, but calling that line a "border" is both correct and simple. Israel did not impose this perimeter, of course not in the 90s. This is the armistice line between Israel and Egypt from the 1949 agreement. The international community recognizes this line as the border of Israel with the Gaza Strip, which is a defined territory, recognzied by 136 countries as part of a sovereign state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement on 24 February 1949. Article V of the Agreement declared that the demarcation line was not to be an international border. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.91.43 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The border is a border. That's what sources from all perspectives say, that's what international organizations and sovereign states say, and it's accurate to say that. There's a lot of things that people disagree about with regards to the technicalities of the complex relationship between Israel and Palestine, but whether or not a border exists between them is not one of them. The Gaza Strip is not controlled by Israel, therefore the point where Israel's influence ends and Gaza's influence begins is a border. This isn't controversial. Palestine is Palestine and Israel is Israel and their sovereignty exists and there's a border between them and the blockade perimeter is described as a blockade in certain parts of the article, so I'm not really sure what this editor is requesting. It's not true to say that nobody recognizes the border as a border when over 70% of UN member states recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation and the motion to make them an observer state passed 138 to 9 with the rest abstaining. The proposal described would compromise the accuracy of this article, and for a very confusing and unclear reason. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically it is an armistice line. If that is made clear somewhere in the article, it is reasonable to use the word "border" in an informal sense in line with the majority of sources. Zero^talk 05:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont see why not just use boundary instead. nableezy - 06:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Treaties between states regarding the line between them are more likely to use the word "boundary" than the word "border". See the Israel-Egypt treaty, for example. So I don't think it helps. Zero^talk 23:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Spelling error

Mourning is misspelled as "morning" in the section for may 15th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C201:2765:0:0:0:5DC0 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.23

Can anyone create this new article here? - United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.23

• UN General Assembly slams Israeli killing of innocent Palestinians

According to the report, 120 states voted for, 8 against and 45 abstentions that denounced Israel for Palestinian civilian deaths in the besieged Gaza Strip. Countries that voted no are: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Togo, and the United States. ---135.23.145.49 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it could be added to this article as part of the reactions section but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article of it's own. Also why did you link to PressTV?? They are very biased and it is the State media outlet of a State with very negative relations with the country (Israel) they are reporting on in that article. Also, it didn't actually pass. It failed to get the required two-thirds majority to pass. ShimonChai (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading. There was an initial amendment that didn't pass, but then "the resolution passed by a vote of 120-8 with 45 countries abstaining." Zero^talk 06:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that is confusing. ShimonChai (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See below relevant links:

• The resolution: https://undocs.org/en/A/ES-10/L.23

• UN News: https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/06/1012162

• In the press: New York Times and ToI

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A very similar article is at United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.23. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested neutral name for the article

Israeli claim: It was an attempted terrorist invasion, run and prepared by Hamas.

Palestinian claim: It was a a peaceful protest. Israeli soldiers massacred us.

I think a neutral name would be "2018 Gaza borders events", something everyone agrees on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A049:4F8F:E109:64A5:4091:C874 (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see Archive 1. "Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests""ShimonChai (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, more recent, #RFC - new name for the article. “WarKosign” 16:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling this article "2018 Gaza border protests" is unfair. We can see clearly from the article, from the timeline, that there were multiple incidents of people who were killed armed with bombs and guns. Many of the killed were members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. When the reader sees in the lead the "2018 Gaza border protests" and then he sees in the infobox that 123 people were killed, it makes him think directly that Israel has carried out a massacre, which is very, very disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.189.144 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you consider whether you have been reading a balanced assessment of the events. So much propaganda has been thrown around over the last few weeks. Try reading Vice’s debunking of some of it here: [12]

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, for balance, you can read this. “WarKosign” 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You proposed that an investigative journalism organization publishing an article written jointly by an Israeli and a Palestinian should be balanced against an article published by an Israeli propaganda organization? Either this a joke, or your political compass is set to extreme. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Double standards again?

Icewhiz. UNDUE weight to oped.)

This takes out Norman Finkelstein. But you left 106 words from an Israeli journalist whose oped (thus titled) I covered extensively. You appear to be using a double standard, retaining a strongly pro-Israeli op ed, and excising 106 words of what you consider an oped by a critic of Israel, as undue. Explain yourself.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• (2) Secondly, it is in extreme bad faith to remove content, as you just did while the appropriate RSN board has an open discussion on whether it is RS or not, and where there is no evidence anyone (I exclude Strike's mechanical 'vote') external to the dispute agrees one way or another. That is preempting the result of a discussion that has no concluded.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. As long as material is contested, it shouldn't be in the article. Finkelstein's opinions on the New York Times reporting are UNDUE. This article isn't about Finkelstein's opinions about the Gaza border events, but about the events themselves. Having a source for an opinion is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion - we do not include every op-ed. I was considering cutting out Ron Ben-Yishai (or the entire "Media coverage criticism" section) as well, however I thought that the information on the IDF keeping reporters 2kms away from the Israeli side of the border fence was pertinent information - as well as comments on the available footage. I wouldn't call the information in the article from Ben-Yishai as "pro-Israeli" - if at all it describes an Israeli failure, and there are other voices there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not an answer. It's a set of assertions, based on your personal feelings of what's due and undue. Ben-Yishai's article as an Israeli war correspondent thoroughly committed to the IDF viewpoint (Palerstinians who protest are committing suicide on the fence, i.e. no one is shooting them) is an op-ed. The space I gave it is exactly equal to the space I accorded Finkelstein, and it is a blatant use of double standards to find any reason to omit one as undue, and retain the other as due. That's what you did, and your arguments here are just 'I-Icewhiz-think-this-so-it-goes-out-and-as -long-as-I-contest-your-stuff-you-can't-put-it-back.' There's a name for that. You reverted out material that stayed here while a discussion took place, preempting the result. That is not acceptable. Why did you revert when it was under discussion.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume good faith when I see it. You are editing against WP:Undue yet claiming it justifies your excisions which have left 106 words to an Israeli war correspondent's Op-ed POV, and 29 words in the main text to three writers who present the other side's perspective. That is outrageously unbalanced.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is text you added, very recently. WP:ONUS on you to show reasons for inclusions. Following your comment here, I trimmed down the section a bit more, trimming Ben-Yishai as well.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you take policy seriously, I won't take your edits seriously. You are a serial POV reverter of fair and balanced information. WP:ONUS is pointless with editors who refuse the normal procedures of compromise by consensus building, and is only used by appearances, as an instrument to convert into a de facto paralysis, wholly to the advantage of the reverter, pages that require work on them. I.e. you are using that to have the text you want. Period. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a RS, UNDUE does not allow for the excising of any material that somebody feels is not sufficiently Zionist. And not everybody who criticizes the maiming and killing of unarmed protestors is a "critic of Israel" (both a BLP violation and a SYNTH violation). nableezy - 16:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This repeated removal of a reliable source because a set of users dislikes his policy is a violation of NPOV. Claiming BRD as a reason to revert is a violation of WP:CON, you must have policy based reasons for your edits. BRD is not one. WP:RS specifically allows for citing experts in the field. Finkelstein qualifies. WP:RSN has found not one uninvolved user to claim that he doesnt because he so obviously does. People disliking his views is not a policy based reason to remove him from the article. Honestly, this level of game playing calls for an RFC/U and potentially a new arbitration case. nableezy - 21:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:CON supports WP:BRD: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." As long as there is no consensus to include some content, editors should not be attempting to re-insert it by edit-warring. “WarKosign” 06:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BRD says discuss. You reverted without ever appearing here to discuss the issue (2) The text I wrote has been fiddled with since to produce several versions, and in reverting you do not explain why you reverted to the last version, not the version left by Yaniv, nor to the several changes left by Icewhiz. In other words, you restored the text to the last version which was done, against my, for one protests, and in defiance of an on-going discussion at RSN. So you have not adhered to policy or good practice. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am following this discussion and will comment when I have something to add that wasn't said before, since you don't like "mechanical 'votes'". I was under impression that everybody agrees that current "Media coverage" section as being better than nothing, but if it's not the case - let's revert back to before you created "Media coverage criticism" and discuss from there. “WarKosign” 08:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point.Your revert chooses to restore the last version by Icewhiz on 13:43, 17 June 2018‎ performed an hour and a half after I had already opened up a discussion [‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests&diff=846246247&oldid=846223791 on three of Icewhiz’s edits]. Icewhiz just went ahead and made a further substantial removal of material while this was under discussion. So restoring his last edit is not WP:BRD. It is deciding to throw your weight into a version that has no consensus, that was fixed after a discussion was initiated, and the last version still gives an Israeli defense correspondent much more weight than the other two sources, which is stillWP:Undue by Icewhiz's own admission.

Now you suggest we erase the section altogether, and do it here. Well, by all means, roll up your sleeves and provide an alternative to replace it, but wikipedia is not constructed by erasure and endless chat, and further the insinuation I don’t know how to write a section outline is offensive. One cannot restore it to the text prior to Icewhiz’s last edit since he admitted that even that, as I commented here, breaks the very rule he cited for outing Finkelstein’s op ed paraphrase (106 words) and retaining Ben-Yishuv’s op-ed paraphrase (106 words) He admitted here that his edit taking out Finkelstein as an undue oped left the text unduly biased to Ben-Yishai (as it is now), so the only solution to this mess created by hectic editors is to restore the version prior to that, which has Ben-Yishai with 88 words, and Finkelstein with 71. More reason to do so is that only Icewhiz (I discount Shrike’s mechanical edit, which was meaningless policywise) argued against Finkelstein as an RS at the RSN board discussion, while the one external editor backed Nableezy and myself.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to roll back to a stable version, then it will be 08:57, 14 June 2018 - prior to your edits. Please do not put words in my mouth - I admitted to nothing. Finkelstein RSness is disputed, but even if we were to consider his op-ed an RS - it would still be WP:BIASED, and possibly WP:UNDUE (for instance - his comments on the New York Times coverage - is definitely undue). I tried to edit collaboratively here - by constructively modifying your additions. If you want to take an "all or nothing" attitude, and discuss stable versions - fine. If you want to constructively discuss what to include or exclude (and I'm malleable to discussion) - then discuss. Turning this article into a Finkelstein quote farm is a definite non-starter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can revert out, it's lazy. I didn't put words into your mouth. When I noted that you were using double standards in erasing Finkelstein per WP:Undue, while retaining Ben-Yishai, clearly an op-ed, -not like Finkelstein's piece which was analytical, providing verbal evidence of discursive trends in reportage - you then cut back Ben-Yishai, which is an admission that my point was accepted. What you did however, was still to leave Ben-Yishai's story undue compared to what you excised, Finkelstein. In short, you cut kept paring back. There is a substantial amount of material on the 'media war' but even I couldn't edit it in because this excision, then talk page blah blah blah and revert rules made constructive editing impossible. I am not taking an all or nothing approach (a remark I take as meaning you are just going to revert to your preferred version). It is pointless using caricature here, as with stating that a brief paraphrase of one of the foremost scholars on Gaza's history consists in a quote farm. There is no quote, as any donkey on the farm could see. The weird thing about this place is that it's up to me, the 'pro-Palestinhian' arsehole, to add material from Israeli defense sources, mocking Palestinians just to keep the text POV-balanced, whereas my interlocutors just keep erasing legitimate material about the Palestinian POV. I guess word will seep out to those NGOs who supply me with massive funding to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their West bank clients, that I am guilty of collaboration with the enema, sorry, enemy. I'd better keen an eye out for movements in my street for Hamas hit squads, ya never know.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, saying 'If you want to roll back to a stable version, then it will be 08:57, 14 June 2018 - prior to your edits' is absurd. There is no 'stable version' of an article like this, and operatively you are insinuating that things were stable before I edited. Policy and arbitration consistently upholds the principle that editors of good standing do not, as you and WarKosign are suggesting, revert or cancel whole sections of a page without drastic reasons, none of which exist in this case. Check the other war articles. We have media discussions on many, some extensive enough to be forked into independent articles, and what I did was perfectly consonant with I/P conflict article practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by Ben-Yishai stating Israeli journalists were banned from anywhere within 2 kilometres, while Finkelstein wrote he, Halbfinger for the NYTs, was embedded with the snipers. So I checked, and both on Twitter and on the piece I now quote, he writes of driving right up and being among the snipers on the perimeter line. Why this liberty was accorded the foreign reporters but denied Israeli journalists is a mystery, but I have added his text just in case any alert reader may be puzzled as I was.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Finkelstein wasn't embedded (he has entry issues to Israel IIRC), Halbfinger was (on 8 June? That was a quiet one IIRC). The 2km restriction was probably in place only on the first Friday and possibly on 1-3 of the more tense Fridays. The IDF issues a closed military zone in a blanket fashion (usually excepting residents in the zone) - it is not specific to journalists - and I don't remember seeing the notice on most of the Fridays. If a journalist is embedded - then that's a free pass into the zone (with a chaperone). Note that the better Israeli reporters usually have something better to do than to go to a whole day tour of the border (that's for the low ranking camera pool) - particularly when things are rather routine. The foreign press, on the other hand, really has nothing else to report about (the ones that got sent here or are based here) - they are 100% on the task.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a rushed late night edit. Finkelstein is cited as saying Halbfinger was embedded, that's what the text I wrote has in the article ('In particular he mentions articles by David M. Halbfinger, who was embedded.'). Apologies, but I thought that bwas clear, whereas my prose above wasn't. The rest is your guesswork, contradicting Yishai who wrote after 3 Friday protests had taken place, and states quite clearly the ban was in effect for that period. We should only go by what sources say. By the way: Finkelstein doesn't have entry issues with 'Israel' alone. Israel will not permit him to set foot in territory Israel has no right to, beyond its recognized borders. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your puzzlement of this "mystery" - some of what I wrote is indeed OR from knowledge of the area. The observation on the variations on the 2km restriction (which was present only on a few of the Fridays - the more significant high casualty Fridays) is based on my recollection of the sources (the closed military zone notices themselves and reporting thereof each Friday) - these tend to be Hebrew only, they should still be available online if you really want to dig into it.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked around yesterday, and found several things which suggest that this was a policy continued throughout the whole period: for example, Oren Ziv, 'How do Israeli journalists report on a place they can't reach?,' +972 magazine 19 May 2018. This leaves little doubt that Israeli journalists couldn't get, as Halbfinger managed, anywhere close to the Israeli side of the action for the first three weeks at least.

From this distance, however, it is impossible to know what is happening on the other side of the border. The journalists who are reporting from the border are, in fact, far away from the action. Since the siege was put in place, the information that reaches Israelis through the media is always second or third hand.

The mystery is, why would Halbfinger have rights denied local Israeli journalists? My guess is that, as a NYTs reporter (all the news that is,(in our view) fit to report), he is more predictably self-censoring than would be the case with an unscreened group of Israelis. Opinion in Israeli, unlike what is reflected here by editors for Israel, is more diverse than its reflex in the mainstream foreign press, and the IDF, which in planning had specific orders to shoot down a lot of people as a lesson, didn't want local journalists anywhere near the killing squads. Taking photos of snipers in action which could be used later to identify them was the problem. But that's just my guess, and useless.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Are people more or less satisfied with the version as it exists right now? Both Finkelstein and Israeli journalists are quoted, so that the original issue seems to have been more or less resolved?

Unfortunately, I am not clear as to the scope of that section. The only ones quoted are Israelis and Americans. Nobody from the rest of the world. Moreover, the section is too "meta"; it doesn't say how the media in general covered the protests, but immediately launches into a critique.

I have added this Haaretz article surveying the reactions from a somewhat broader cross-section of the media. If anyone has any sources on how, say Asian or African media covered the protests, would be nice to have. The Haaretz article does quote South African media. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this is much more balanced now. I re-arranged it a bit. I would like to see some source saying how much media coverage the events got. “WarKosign” 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

High Anti Israeli POV in this articale

The lack of updates of Israeli casualties (it's 4 not 1) and the fact the event where Palestinians engaged in mortars and rockets attacks not covered (events of late May and June) show the high anti Israeli attitude in the page. The lack of description of kite bombs and arson balloons and describing the daily arson attacks (daily arson attacks) just show how one sided this page is.

JPOST , WSJ , Fox news, AFP USnews have covered last week events. washingtonpost had been describing the arson attacks last week. An entire month of arson attacks is hidden in this page and so are the mortar and rocket attacks. Even the infiltration when Palestinian forces had crossed the border and put IDF position a blaze are not covered.159.253.248.204 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the number of casualties ?

Arson attacks are described in the article, please suggest a specific change that you would like applied. “WarKosign” 08:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WarKosign maybe adding picture of the arson kite or of the damages field. Sokuya (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are you aware of any acceptable images available ? “WarKosign” 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a bunch of Images, the current size of burnt farmland, forests and nature reserves are proximally double the size of Ramat Gan[13][14] Sokuya (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Burnt field near Kibbutz Be'eri
• 
  Burnt crops in a field in the Eshkol Regional Council
• 
  Arson Kite

Hamas paid family to claim Gaza baby was killed by Israeli tear gas

8-month-old Layla Ghandour actually died from fatal blood condition that runs in family and not by tear gas, as mention in the following sources and others:

• "The Associated Press cited an unnamed Gaza-based doctor as saying on Tuesday that the baby had a pre-existing medical condition and that he did not believe her death was caused by the tear gas."

Times, The New York. "Uneasy Calm Falls Over Gaza After Israel Kills Scores at Protests".

• "Gazan doctor, Israel cast doubts over Hamas claim infant died from tear gas".
• "Hamas paid family to claim Gaza baby was killed by Israeli tear gas, says cousin".
• Balousha, Hazem; Holmes, Oliver (24 May 2018). "Gaza ministry removes baby from list of people killed by Israeli army". the Guardian.
• "Gaza health ministry removes baby from border clash death toll".

Sokuya (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph of this section is already dedicated to this case. Anything else ? “WarKosign” 10:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I added more reliable source references to support the section. Sokuya (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It is much more likely that the family brought an already dying child to the protest in the hope of receiving martyr’s payments. The idea that this was someone concocted with the authorities seems to be no more than a politicized aspersion. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but our personal opinions are irrelevant, this is what the sources say. “WarKosign” 12:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add in the lead, after the "59/60 Palestinians were shot dead", the following:

...",A number which included, according to both Israel and Hamas, dozens of members of militant organizations. A Hamas official said that out of the 62 killed, 50 were members of Hamas, and that at least half of those killed until the interview were members of the Islamist group. The IDF said that at least 24 people who were killed in May 14 were members of terrorist organizations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It is already covered in the article and your request is denied. Zero^talk 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you call this article "protests" (LOL) at least be honest, and write immediately after the fact that "Palestinians" were killed the fact that many of them were terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A044:4F8F:B157:72A9:E4:A871 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please keep your comments focused on improving the article. If I understand your intention correctly, you want the lead to say that according to several sources, including IDF and a senior member of Hamas, many (most?) of those killed in the events were affiliated with Hamas. The lead should summarize the main points of the article, the question is whether this is one of these points. I believe it is. “WarKosign” 12:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a main point of the article and in any case it cannot go into the lead without something to balance it. Beyond that, I don't accept ip's comments as being in good faith. Zero^talk 12:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead already is unbalanced; it already gives number of Palestinians killed in the events without context and thus implies that all the casualties were civilians shot during non-violent protests, which is far from truth. The purpose of this statement is to show that there is a dispute regarding nature of the casualties. “WarKosign” 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"This is not the main point of the article", LOL! Like, "All we want is to show people how EVIL Israel is, so don't Let the FACTS confuse us!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign, it should be mention in the lead. Sokuya (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no real dispute regarding the nature of the casualties. An unarmed demonstrator not posing an immediate threat to life does not become a legitimate target by belonging to an organization. That viewpoint (made in many reliable sources) is essential balance. In addition, members of Hamas include doctors and nurses working in Hamas hospitals and teachers in Hamas primary schools; only a fraction belong to Hamas' military wing. So the statement is also unacceptably misleading. By the way, IP, non-extended-confirmed users are only allowed to make non-disruptive comments here. That description does not apply to your comments so far; lift your act or I'll start deleting them. Zero^talk 00:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Do RS say that most of those killed were Hamas members? Then of course it should be in the lead. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I oppose including this information, only because it is incomplete. Hamas has been paying protesters, and if we don't say that in the lead, we shouldn't be saying that many of them were Hamas members, which they were, according to Al Jazeera. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix the first paragraph to:

"On 30 March 2018, a six-week campaign composed of a series of protests was launched near the Israeli border at the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory controlled since 2007 by Hamas, an Islamist fundamentalist organization. Called by Palestinian organizers the "Great March of Return" (Arabic: "مسیرة العودة الكبري"‎), the protests demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel. They are also protesting the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the moving of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, Israel maintains the claim that the blockade is necessary to protect its civilians, and refuses to accept the right of return for fear that it will end demographically the Jewish state. Violence during the protests has resulted in the deadliest days of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 2014 Gaza War."

1. It is very logical that the fact that Gaza is controlled by an Islamist fundamentalist group may have affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers, therefore, it should be mentioned.

2. It should be mentioned also that the two main demands of the organizers of the protests are seem completely unrealistic by Israel, the country which they protest against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.37.123 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers" — are you saying that Israeli soldiers are not acting in accordance with their orders? Zero^talk 00:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is important to detail the background of Israel's response to the demonstrations and why it did so. To write about a military event in Gaza without mentioning that an Islamic fundamentalist organization responsible for the murder of hundreds and thousands of people control it is simply illogical. It would be very logical that if such an organization did not exist, there would be another response. (The fear that terrorists could be among demonstrators capable of murdering Israeli civilians would not have existed in such a case.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A042:4F8F:4182:C6A4:10DE:F16B (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I was interested to learn what no Israeli has ever heard of, that Hamas has murdered several hundred thousand people.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. Perhaps we should add these related third and fourth points:

3. It is very logical that the fact that many senior Israeli politicians frequently position Gazan people as sub-human, advocate collective responsibilty and encourage extreme exclusivist nationionlism, may have affected the behavior of the Israeli soldiers, therefore, it should be mentioned.

4. It should be mentioned also that, forty years ago, the main demands of the organizers of the Soweto uprising were similarly seen completely unrealistic by the country which they protested against.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add on June 20

Please add that Hamas and other groups had fired approximately 45 mortars and rockets from Gaza into Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add that on July first Palestinian infiltrated Israel and burn abandoned army post

On July 1'st 2018, a group of Palestinians had infiltrated Israel and burned and Israeli army post. Palestinians also sent Incendiary kites that started 24 fires. 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

June 2 2018

Please add that on June 2'nd Palestinian started fires in the 'Karmia' Natural reserve destroying 350 dunams 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

June 5'th 2018

Please add that on June 5'th (the Naksa day), Palestinians used arson kites to start 9 fires in the Gaza envelope, starting a fire near the Sapir college 5.144.60.36 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

June 18 2018

Palestinians had been wounded while trying inflatrate into Israel jpost 5.144.60.36 (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)