Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Confusion in lead sentences

On Friday 7 May, Palestinians threw stones (a)at Israeli police forces and Jewish protesters at the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque.[32] (b) In pursuit of the stone throwers, police entered the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque[33] and used tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades

(a) has police and Jewish protesters in the compound (b) has Jewish police entering the compound, in contradiction with (a). Could someone please revert to a version before the mess created by the addition of, I believe, (a), or control what the relevant section with its details states as the sequence? Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the reliance on a ToI source (most of which is in turn attributed to an Israeli TV channel) and not even following such source. Stormed has disappeared notwithstanding that being the description in multiple mainline sources (inclusive the doubtful source just mentioned) and even though there was a discussion on here about it. Are we supposed to think they knocked, asked for permission to enter? I fixed it up a bit, is that better?Selfstudier (talk)

I don't think this is verifiable. For this sentence, as worded, to be verifiable, the source needs to say: 1) Palestinians had stones; 2) They threw stones at Israeli security forces; 3) Israeli security forces then stormed the compound. TOI doesn't seem to verify (3) at least. I did a quick search and some sources do verify this series of events, but they attribute the second and third to Israeli police. Do we have any RS giving non-attributed accounts? If so, that's preferable; otherwise we should swap to a source that at least verifies the current prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Which Hebrew Wikipedia article should be linked?

Hebrew Wikipedia has two articles on this, one dealing with Operation Guardian of the Walls in Gaza and another dealing with the Arab rioting in Israel. Currently, where the articles in separate languages are linked to this one on the side of the artice, the article on the Arab rioting is the one linked. I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to link the Gaza operation one as that was the main focus of global attention. Thoughts?--RM (Be my friend) 11:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that this article should be split. It deals with two separate, although of course inter-related, subjects. Current situation creates weird situation where Israeli Arabs appear as casualties on both sides, or that it's implied that there are international reaction to the rioting. When it makes sense to share content (such as background information) between the two articles, in can be transcluded and only maintained once. This way articles can also be given more sensible names and better infobox images. “WarKosign” 11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The protests which caused this to spiral into open confrontation must still be mentioned here as relevant background material, even if we decide to split. I'll note that the article is currently only at 41kb of readable prose, well below the suggested point at which we should start considering that option, so the only concern is whether both topics can be covered concurrently in one article. Given that one is the direct cause of the other, I fail to see why not. The infobox can maybe be clarified or restricted in scope to include only the military confrontation (and the "collateral damage" this caused in Gaza) between Hamas and the IDF, with the prior civilian casualties from protests mentioned below (see the infobox of Iraq war for an example of the formatting I'm thinking off). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the cause of what?

Did the rocket and bombing exchange cause riots in mixed cities? No. At least not entirely.

Did the riots cause the fighting? Also no.

Both can be connected to the same set of triggers (Sheikh Jarrah, cancelled Palestinian elections, Qadr Night, Jerusalem day, temple mount clashes).

In the clashes two Arabs and one Jew were killed and many others wounded. Not in all cases it's clear to which "side" they belong. There is a 12 years old Arab boy in Jaffo that was seriously injured by a petrol bomb. it's currently believed that an Arab attacked his house "by mistake". Which side do the attacker and the victum belong in the infobox?

I think it's better to have two separate articles, one for fighting proper between Israel and Hamas where we know on which side everyone is, and another for (un)civil clashes within Israel where the sides are fuzzy. “WarKosign” 16:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with one article, keep it all together, the "crowd" seemed to like it like that, too, judging by the page views. The name might yet get changed though.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it's well under the recommended length bar. The distinctive feature of this crisis was that it united three crises into one: the Gaza Strip and Israel, the West Bank and Israel; and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and Israel. Splitting it would be not only a technical headache, but would water down the interconnections of a crisis that had several interlocked dimensions. I wish Wikipedia could decide to get rid of the mechanical 'Reactions' bloat: no one reads that kind of empty ritual gesturing and responses.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How do you propose to classify casualties between two sides in an infobox if as you agree there are several different conflicts with different sides? Particularly, there is are two Israeli Arabs who were killed by Hamas rocket, and many (we'll probably never know for sure how many) Gaza civilian residents who were killed by rockets failing. To which side of the conflict do we assign them? Do we divide by ethnicity? Side of the border? Of the attacker or of the victum? “WarKosign” 22:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a slight technical issue in an infobox should have the butterfly effect of chaos theory, and lead to seismic splitting. I view splits, of the kind in the Hebrew wiki, as, in part in these contexts, reflecting a desire to compartmentalize otherwise connected narrative realities, a curious parallel with Israel's official policy of fragmenting Palestinian communities. This may not be intentional as much as an outcome of a standard bureaucratic approach to 'them'. One of the first Latin phrases one learns is divide et impera. Splitting articles so intricately interwoven in their thematics is to mess up the reality of events, and doesn't make for good history. Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I like red, appels are red, I like appels. :( --Rectangular dome (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

All of this is beside the point. I personally favor keeping it as one article, but if we do keep it as one, which article should we link it to in the Hebrew version, or in any other language Wikipedia with separate articles on this for that matter?--RM (Be my friend) 05:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As to which Hebrew article to link to, that's actually not a question/discussion for here, but for Wikidata, because it also depends on the character/nature of the other substantive Wikipedia language articles. If we want to override Wikidata, and locally link to a specific article that is another story. Otherwise the discussion should happen in discussion section of d:Q106775117 Shushugah (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Overview sources

For those who speak or read Italian, Limes, s major European geopolitical journal, will be dedicating a special edition to the crisis, to be published on 11 June. An anticipation of the content may be found here.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (1)

Please change the following. Due to issues with the template that cause all content within the template to vanish if a table has been included, the request is made outside the template. Apologies for any inconvenience.

From:

	Gaza	West Bank	Israel
			Jewish	Arab
10 May	28	?	3
11 May	4	?	1
12 May	21	?	4
13 May	34	?	2
14 May	39	?	0
15 May	13	?	1
16 May	53	?	0
17 May	20	?	1

As of 21 May 248 people have been killed in Gaza, including 66 children, and more than 1,900 others have been wounded. Twelve deaths in Israel were reported, including two children, one Indian woman and two Thai men living and working in Israel.

To:

	Gaza	Israel
10 May	28	3
11 May	4	1
12 May	21	4
13 May	34	2
14 May	39	0
15 May	13	1
16 May	53	0
17 May	20	1

Twelve people were killed in Israel, including two children, one Indian woman and two Thai men living and working in Israel. By May 18, the Magen David Adom ambulance service had treated 114 injuries directly related to rocket attacks, and another 198 indirectly related to rocket attacks.

There are conflicting figures for the casualties in the Gaza Strip. On May 19, the United Nations reported 116 civilians killed, while the Ministry of Health of the Gaza Strip (MOH) reported 217 killed, including 63 children. The MOH combines both militant and civilian casualties in the report. Hamas also claimed that 20 militants had been killed, while Israel claimed that at least 130 had been.

By May 21, the MOH reported 248 killed, including 66 children, and over 1,900 wounded, while Israel reported that at least 225 militants had been killed in the fighting, and Hamas declined to give figures.

During the fighting, some Palestinian rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip. According to Israel, approximately 640 did so, causing casualties in Gaza that have been included in the provided figures.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• I wonder if it would be better to remove the table entirely; it implies a level of certainty that I don't believe currently exists.BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For the moment it lacks the kill count for days 18-21. One should be patient since much of the really important information, allowing for a definitive table, will take at least a month to come on line. In the meantime we need some provisory data.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done also removing the table, till more info is available. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Original search

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had been firing rockets towards Israel from the Gaza Strip since April

This occurs after the original sources, corrected paraphrased in the preceding line of our text were apparently rewritten off the top of an editor's head, without regard to those sources. The statement above is, furthermore, unsourced and simply links to a wiki article listing Gazan rocket attacks on Israel (those articles never mention Israel's missile and artillery attacks on Gaza, and are contrived to make out that those groups (mainly not Hamas) just keep up an unprovoked barrage against Israel). They are not reliable sources for wiki text. So this is clearly POV source contamination, and must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Guess the linked page has references, did you try that? Also see Timeline: How the violence escalated in

Jeremy Bowen (11 May 2021). "Rockets target Tel Aviv after Gaza tower destroyed". BBC. Retrieved 26 May 2021.

Try to not remove content that could be trivially cited. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There are studies dating back to 2008 trying to establish who started any exchange of fire between Gaza and Israel. It is ongoing, complex distinctions are to be made, since Hamas is not, though treated as such, the author of many intermittent rocket firings in periods of relative calm. And the first study of this showed that the usual 'Israel responded' newspaper reports were question-begging. Both sides claim they are 'responding' to provocations. Given that, editors should not go to wiki pages on one's side's rocket firings, and deduce that Hamas started it. It's classic WP:OR. As I noted, the Palestinian rocket pages, must be about 20, never explain context - they are lists of reported firings from Gaza, and there are no comparable pages on Israeli missile/artillery/etc., attacks on that territory which would allow readers neutral perspective. In any case, to poach other articles in order to arrive at a conclusion not in sources immediately dealing with a situation lie this is classic WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please try to stay on the task and be concise and terse. Do you still consider the content above as WP:OR considering the Bowen source? Infinity Knight (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not Bowen. It is an appended timeline attached to his comments, where he makes no mention personally of 1 single rocket fired from Gaza and hitting the desert on April 15 as a precipitating factor in the crisis. One may as well state that rockets fired in January started it.

Rockets are fired from Gaza at Israel, which responds with air strikes after a relative period of calm between Israel and the Palestinian enclave.

One rocket was fired on April 15 by Palestinian militants. Hamas is not mentioned (often Hamas has internal conflicts with several other militant groups who also fire rockets). Israel responded with several attacks on Hamas infrastructure, and that in turn generated further rockets and IDF exchanges. To imply that this commonplace tit-for-tat was a causative factor in the crisis would require several sources. We have read hundreds, and that single incident on April 15 is never mentioned, whereas the overwhelming majority of articles cite the factors at Al Aqsa, Sheikh Jarrah as the flash points precipitating the explosion of a crisis. Therefore this is still WP:OR poached from that Timeline article, which, nota bene, like all the other sister articles never mentions Israeli strikes, adamantly ignores the fact that many of those rocket launches are intertwined with Israeli military actions. Editors can't make up narrative. Key factors for a crisis can't be fished out like that from an extremely thin timeline appendix. They must be grounded in critical commentary on the conflict itself, those parts which reconstruct the relevant events behind the crisis. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel, while the violence escalated, on April 15-16 and on April 24. Would the green text be supported by Bowen? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The proximate causes are universally cited as Sheikh Jarrah and Al-Aqsa. Trying to introduce causality further back in time or to some other events is unproductive. I can just as well say it was Balfour's fault or Israel's fault for creating Hamas in the first place, etc etc. That kind of analysis needs scholarly sourcing, a matter for the historians.Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Idem.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Nearly all the sources say the uptick in violence began with Sheikh Jarrah and al-Aqsa. To say it was something else would require a large number of sources saying otherwise. nableezy - 15:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, @Nableezy you might also find this interesting. The question is Would the green text be supported by Bowen ? Infinity Knight (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw your question. And yea, you're right, it's not a forum.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing foruming in my comment. And yes, partially, that text is supported by the BBC article. It also supports that this follows Israeli restrictions on worshippers at al-Aqsa on April 13. Trying to pick one incident to "start" from when the vast majority of sources say no it is something else is not NPOV. Attempting to frame the conflict as a response to the rockets in mid-April despite sources generally pointing to Sheikh Jarrah and al-Aqsa as the cause is likewise not NPOV. Kindly dont link irrelevant policies like WP:FORUM to me again, thank you. nableezy - 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No comments on the start or the cause. Saying that there is no danger of original research, given the source support. So OR is not a valid reason for removal. Regarding the location of the content on this page, the source puts those events in Timeline: How the violence escalated, the green text (or some variant of it ) seems natural in April–May 2021 Ramadan events. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

This article started out as a page for the Jerusalem clashes which later spread to the rest of the west bank, then turned into conflict between Gaza and Israel as protests continued in west bank. No news article seems to mix the two events, and the conflict with Gaza is over yet the west bank protests are still ongoing. Last time I opened up an RM it was too soon and I attempted to close it.

I propose to split the article in two:

1. "2021 West Bank protests or West Bank protests (2021–present)”: an article for the protests that started with clashes in Jerusalem then spread in the west bank, which is still ongoing

2. 2021 Gaza–Israel conflict or 2021 Gaza war: an article about the conflict between Hamas and Israel which broke out several days after the protests began, and lasted around a week before a ceasefire was signed. I could bring up articles that talk about a 2021 Gaza war or conflict but I think it’s much better if you go on google and search for them yourselves. Ridax2020 (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is being discussed just a couple sections up, there is no real enthusiasm for splitting the article.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think they're too intrinsically linked to split without excessive duplication. That would result in poor value for the reader wishing to learn what happened. If the WB protests continue as a distinct notable event this might be different. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• This seems like an WP:RM disguised as a split proposal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to create a page for the war with gaza and the protests in jerusalem. Ridax2020 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The first one was tried already a couple times if memory serves and ended up back here as redirects. What I don't see myself is any benefit at all in splitting up what is only a short article as it stands. The connectedness of the events would be lost to no useful purpose.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Update death number in Israel and 4300 missiles on Gaza and Israel

The fact that 4300 missiles have been fired isn't mentioned, and should be mentioned in the introduction. That's basically why there was a war...

please add the 12th's civilian death during the Gaza-Israel conflict ( died of injuries) https://www.timesofisrael.com/73-year-old-israeli-woman-who-fell-in-rocket-shelter-dies-of-injuries/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a direct citation for the "4300" number (I need a link to a reputable online newspaper). I've fixed the casualty number, which was already in the given source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

" The Israeli military says more than 4,300 rockets were fired towards its territory by militants and that it struck more than 1,000 militant targets in Gaza."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57195537 Nb: pay attention to "towards Israel", because more than 500 fell short in the Gaza strip

Better ref :

"around 4,360 rockets from Gaza during the conflict, of which around 680 fell short into the Gaza Strip" Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-gaza-challenge-stopping-metal-tubes-turning-into-rockets-2021-05-23/

--Rectangular dome (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We have the rocket numbers from the IDF, with a breakdown of those calculated to have fallen short in the HGaza strip. We still need their data on (a) number of Israeli strikes (b) number of bombs offloaded and missiles fired. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about it's written in the ref "1000 militant targets", and whatever, you use the argument of symmetry when it's suit your case. the number of rocket fired at israel's cities is not the same as the number of bullets and missiles, as the modus operandi isn't the same.--Rectangular dome (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 14:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the controversial claim in my demand?--Rectangular dome (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added this. For a few reasons. Firstly, it's DUE and covered by many sources, and the final paragraph of the lead is being used for significant statistics. Sources also report the significance of the number, for example The official, who spoke to foreign reporters on the condition of anonymity, said that since Monday Hamas and other militants in Gaza had fired over 2,300 rockets, which is five times the total amount of rockets fired at Israel during the whole of 2020..[1] -- the final figure, at double the 2,300 figure, speaks as significant enough for the lead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of Israeli casualties

Number of Israeli civilian casualties are 10, not 12. 2 are Palestinians.

Nadine and Khalil Awaad, killed during rocket attacks on their unrecognized village of Dhamas near Lod, had no way of defending themselves from the rocket fire. Like the other homes in their village, they had no bomb shelter. Their relative, Ismail Arafat, lives there as well and has been part of leading the struggle for recognition of the village.

“We have nowhere to go. We don’t have a bomb shelter here for everyone. For the Thai [migrant] workers they built shelters, but we were not allowed because we are not humans. Nadine and Khalil were in the middle of breakfast before fasting. It seems that he opened the door and that’s how he was hit.”

Source: Israeli media, Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/five-killed-in-israel-as-rocket-barrages-persist-including-father-and-daughter-1.9796809?fbclid=IwAR1oX0IUtM4-T53lOF1QMSthP0QzHDv9IVoUo3Hfz40yFyyRsxkrQkvzFdU 212.106.93.96 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

They were Israeli Arabs (who may or may not have self-identified as Palestinians). They were Israeli citizens and were killed by Hamas. Why do you think they should appear on Hamas's side of the conflict? Is there any reason to believe that they supported the organization in any form? “WarKosign” 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If they are Israeli citizens, they go on the Israeli count. If you want to add properly sourced material in the article at some suitable point about Palestinian Arabs being subjected to discrimination by the Israeli government, you can.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As WarKosign notes, they are Israelis. One point. According to many sources, including Limes forthcoming, Israeli Arabs prefer to call themselves Israeli Palestinians, taking the former as government terminology with a bias of omission from suggesting they are not native specifically to Palestine/Israel.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is to be trusted, most of them self-identify as (Israeli) Arabs and not Palestinians. I've personally never heard an Israeli Arab calling themself a Palestinian - but perhaps they are avoiding the term in conversations with the Jews to avoid tension. “WarKosign” 18:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources overhwelmingly describe these as Israeli casualties, regardless of religious background. Arguments to the contrary seems like pure and unadultered WP:OR which also fails WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A small nitpic: the sources say nothing about religion of these casualties, they only mention their ethnicity. Arab/Jew is ethnicity, Islam and Judaism are religions. “WarKosign” 09:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The two were Israeli-Arabs, while the rest were Israeli-Jews, thus, the two were Israelis (Israeli citizens). EkoGraf (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

These people were Israeli citizens. They were killed by rockets aimed at Israel. The rockets hit their intended target. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hamas considers Israeli Arabs as allies, so maybe it is right to include them as victims of the State of Israel, but to say that this is their goal ... maybe they also want to harm mosques in Israeli territory?§

Military technology

This peice has some great information for this specific section: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/gaza-news/guardian-of-the-walls-the-first-ai-war-669371 2601:601:CE7F:E270:D4FE:B0EB:D875:2D27 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Lehava a Jewish supremacist group?

does Lehava Call themselves a Jewish supremacist group or do they officially say that the Jewish race is superior to any other race? if not they probably shouldn't be called a Jewish supremacist group. Bartlettt4 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What's important is not what they say, but what reliable sources say (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, describing a group as supremacist requires several high quality source. The source currently present in the article does not support this description in Wikipedia voice. It could be attributed to a single person, but the article isn't even signed. WarKosign 11:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Will the NYT do? "an extremist Jewish supremacy group" in the lead paragraph and "the Jewish supremacist organization Lehava" (photo).Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

News aren't high quality sources. Journalists aren't trained for that.--Rectangular dome (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Read up on what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia. Certainly much more reliable than your unsupported opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you to use scholarly sources, that is the answer. Obviously in this context, it's not in the expertise of a newspaper. There is nothing to argue about.--Rectangular dome (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly source: "Lehava is an extremist organization. It promotes xenophobia, racism and nationalism, which is directed against Arab society and other minorities in Israel." Also, do take a gander at WP:RSP. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't read polish, but the introduction in English says 'extremism' and do not specify 'supremacist'. Maybe another one ( and with better peer review) would be better. Faithfully

As I said before, The New York Times saying it is enough. If you disagree, by all means take it to WP:RSN, but I'm telling you here not to waste your time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NB: why won't we call Islamic Jihad and Hamas as supremacist too? --Rectangular dome (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bring your reliable sources to the discussion and we can discuss it. Suggest changing Hamas & Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine first, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:TERRORIST. Such a loaded description needs to be supported by very good sources. There are currently 4 sources: one is a newspaper article, which is not sufficient. Another one is in Polish, so very few people here know exactly what it says (Google Translate is not enough for such nuances). A third one is behind a pay wall. The fourth one does not call the group "supremacist", and again - it's just a newspaper article. Please do not re-instate the edit before gaining a consensus for it. “WarKosign” 21:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevant page of the scholarly article is in English, which you would know if you were bothered to check. I've provided that quote further above. If the issue is really over the distinction between "supremacist" and "extremist" then I'm willing to budge. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well sourced description, and not in a foreign language. nableezy - 21:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources: Foreign Policy: The chief instigators of the extremist mob in Jerusalem were members of Lehava—a Jewish supremacist organization that has become increasingly active in the last decade., Washington Post: But Israeli police said they would not prevent a march Thursday night in Jerusalem led by Lehava, an anti-Arab Jewish supremacist group. nableezy - 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

By the same logic, I can find several newspaper articles calling Hamas a terrorist organization and describe it as such in Wikipedia voice? “WarKosign” 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If not for the fact that most sources dont call Hamas that and no source has been provided disputing that Lehava is a Jewish supremacist group? Do you have any such sources? Are you seriously claiming that Lehava is not a Jewish supremacist group? nableezy - 21:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am not familiar with the group, so I don't have an opinion. I noticed that the group's article doesn't describe it as supremacist group, which implies that the description is not quite fully agreed upon. “WarKosign” 21:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a problem with calling groups "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice inherently, see Boko Haram or Al Qaeda, for instance. I think it would probably be disputed enough regarding Hamas not to do so, but if you think they should get the label you should bring it up there, I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is compelling in this instance. Is "Jewish supremacist" a label disputed by reliable sources? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any sources that dispute the label, but on the other hand it's not applied universally, only few of the sources discussing the group use the term - which suggests that it's not something fully agreed upon. “WarKosign” 21:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The label seems well sourced. If the NYT, WaPo, Foreignpolicy.com (all linked above), also The Times: [2] and Forward: [3] state this matter-of-factly, then we should state it too in WP:WIKIVOICE. I would probably recommend starting a discussion at Lehava about this as well, as it currently makes no mention of that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: thanks for making the edit, though there seems to be a bit of citation overkill going on there now. Any objections to removing the Stosunki Międzynarodowe, Daily Telegraph, and Hareetz sources? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with just one source – but I doubt everyone else in this conversation will be. Lesser of two evils: citation overkill at one part or have editors keep removing correct info. Similar judgments have been made at Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily rigidly opposed to throwing a whole bunch at people, but eight is a bit crazy and it makes it quite hard to read. If you're okay even with one, I'll trim the three I mentioned and presume everyone's still okay with the five still left up on the article (which, to be clear, I would still class as a case of citation overkill). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation overkill is just an essay. I would support bundling the citations and strenuously oppose removing them, since this is a controversial point on which readers are likely to want to pursue their own reading. I don't see any advantage to removing citations that, in the event of further disputes, we may just need to go through all this just to find again; citation bundling allows readers to review them all without taking up much space in the article for people who are less interested. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as it's bundled I think you're right in saying that it's fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here is another academic source. Lately, however, justification of discrimination based biological racism has been picking up, even by members of Knesset. ... A case in a point is Lehava, an increasingly powerful anti-miscegnationist Jewish supremacist group whose activity has not been restricted despite repeated violent incidents perpetrated by its activists. Also, I suggest bundling the citations in a situation like this, where something is extensively cited but has faced repeated challenges regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I've bundled it and added that source. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Now with additional academic sources I think it's well-supported, unless someone can produce high quality sources that argue against the description (seems unlikely). “WarKosign” 06:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is probably not the appropriate venue for this discussion. You should either establish the proper categorization at the beginning of the orginizations' articles (Lehava is currently described as being a Jewish supremacist group, Hamas is not described as being a terrorist organization), or take it to a more general venue, such as RSN. Animal lover 666 (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

just one little point. in the eyes of a real supremacist there is nothing wrong in being a supremacist, so a group that doesn't declare themselves as such probably isn't, the Nazis and the Kkk clearly said that their race is superior. and if you're talking about subconscious feelings of superiority then you're entering into a uncontrolled territory of senseless accusations. Bartlettt4 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt that it is a far-right group, but I think the term "Supremacist" is not right for the context. There is surely linked to supremacism and fascism, but it is a group based on religious fundamentalism rather than race. The race isn't at the core of their ideology, so it is a media terminology or a critical view. I am worried there is a lack of proportion when it comes to Palestinian extremism. Palestinian groups have shown overwhelmingly their antisemitism, jihadism and fit well the definition of terrorism for most scholars and democratic countries ( but the mention isn't there). I see there is also a double standard against Israel's extremist groups.

This ref for example has a really good peer review, which is not the case for the ehava's list of refs ( it seem there is a tendency for quantity over quality of refs). The ref : Hamas: politics, charity, and terrorism in the service of jihad Matthew Levitt Yale University Press, 2008--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Classified reason for destruction of Al-Jalaa tower

For some reason I can't find it in English, only in one (generally considered reliable) Hebrew source: [4]. It says "From the intelligence information transmitted by Israel, it became clear that the tower housed a technological wing of Hamas' military intelligence that, among other things, disrupted GPS reception and developed technology for rocket production, development of weapons, and disruption of other military systems such as UAVs. Several floors of the tower housed the wing where they worked on military research and development." I believe we can use a non-English source. Of course this only can be stated as a claim made by the IDF and not repeated in Wikipedia voice, unless Hamas will be kind enough to confirm it. “WarKosign” 12:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was out there in the wild it would be reported in English language sources. SecState said intelligence received something he couldn't comment on, so if the IDF are willing to explain it to ynet they can give SecState permission to comment. Meanwhile, those in the building deny it, including AP. I would remind you that for a straightforward claim that Lehava was supremacist, you insisted on multiple HQ sources. Seems more than reasonable to insist on the same thing here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think one still needs a strong English source. If that were rocksolid, then why has it as yet received no substantial coverage in the otherwise exhaustive English newspaper mainstream? I suppose it will, and we should wait for it there, not just as an IDF claim, but as assessed by analysts. Since this exposition has no sign of belonging to secret intelligence, not to be divulged for fear of compromising sources on the ground, why wasn't it immediately communicated to the Americans, or even the press at the time?

It may well reflect solid intelligence, but it does conflict with what several contemporary reports from people who worked in the building said, that they were unaware of any Hamas presence. Israel made confusing statements about this for two days, US officials denied they had been given any such intelligence for the same period; now we have a detailed public statement that Hamas was crawling all over 7 stories of the tower? The only thing that looks possible/probable or doesn't invite skepticism, is the mention of GPS reception disruption (I presume the barrage of antennae etc. on the roof could in part contain technology of that kind). Secret technology development (machine shops, and related infrastructure in a building almost assuredly from the outset understood by Hamas to be a prime target for Israel, even without this kind of crisis, when they are known to have several laboratories deep under the city and elsewhere? I don't think IDF or Hamas statements are to be trusted - they just become 'viewpoints'. We need some retrospective analysis of these details, and in English. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, of course this source is not sufficient to say in Wikipedia voice that this is indeed what happened in this tower, only to say that this was the information provided by the IDF. To say it in Wikipedia voice we need several very good sources which we are very unlikely to ever get. “WarKosign” 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Needs more sourcing IMO. nableezy - 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You got ToI (lol).Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

DCIP source for casualties among children on the first evening, incl. deaths from misfire

See this article by the NGO Defense for Children International - Palestine (operating locally in Gaza), in turn referring to local sources. Excerpt:

At least nine Palestinian children are dead in the Gaza Strip following an escalation of violence between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups late yesterday afternoon.

Nine Palestinian children, ranging in age from two to 16 years old, were killed in three separate incidents across the northern Gaza Strip on May 10. An Israeli drone-fired missile killed 15-year-old Mohammad Saber Ibrahim Suleiman shortly after 6 p.m. while he and his father Saber Ibrahim Mahmoud Suleiman were on their agricultural land outside the city of Jabalia, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International - Palestine. Father and son were both killed instantly. Mohammad’s body was subsequently transferred to the Indonesian hospital in Jabalia where doctors reported there were shrapnel wounds throughout his body.

Mohammad’s father was reportedly a commander in Izz Ad-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, a Palestinian armed group and the armed wing of Hamas, according to information collected by DCIP.

In a second incident around 6:05 p.m., initial investigations suggest a homemade rocket fired by a Palestinian armed group fell short and killed eight Palestinians, including two children. The rocket landed in Saleh Dardouna Street near Al-Omari Mosque in Jabalia, North Gaza, according to evidence collected by DCIP. Mustafa Mohammad Mahmoud Obaid, 16, was killed in the blast, and five-year-old Baraa Wisam Ahmad al-Gharabli succumbed to his injuries around 11 p.m. on May 10.

Palestinian security sources and explosives experts indicated the cause of this explosion was a Palestinian armed group rocket that fell short. Another 34 Palestinian civilians were injured in the blast, including 10 children, according to DCIP’s documentation.

-- 217.225.246.179 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert justsecurity

Diff

ie https://www.lawandsecurity.org/ Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law

Are we saying that an attributed opinion from an expert here is inadmissable?

This discussion at RSN suggests this is RS. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think my reading of that thread (thanks for finding it!) is that it looks to be a WP:SPS (albeit a forum for actually fairly decent self-published sources). It seems (from that thread) there is good reason to believe that the authors who publish their work on there are indeed experts in their relevant fields. My concern here would be that, unless an RS has picked up on these claims, that they would not be WP:DUE – the specific claim here seems to be a rather exceptional one, meaning it might not be fine to quell WP:DUE concerns here and include as a more run-of-the-mill attributed opinion from a self-published subject matter expert, unless independent reliable sources picked up on it (or similar opinions), at least as far as I see it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of what goes on in the I/P conflict is 'ìllegal' in international law. I don't see much point in noting this with particular incidents. The source looks good, but we should focus on the bare empirical data as far as possible, and leave opinions to the usual political clowns in the reactions section- Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree to your assessment, the legality debate is impossible to represent, so it shouldn't be mentioned for that reason; everything is 'allegedly' illegal as International law is basically about international relations (Bilateral agreements, UN treaties, etc), except a gross violation of a treaty [that's why a situation may seem to you as illegal or not]. In the case of the IP, Israel has it's own interpretation of the Law code, and there is no consensus against it, that's why you see most of the free world supporting it. International law isn't national law. --Rectangular dome (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Most of the free world" is doing a lot of work there. BSMRD (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Please change the title parameter of the reference with the generic title error to this: "Israeli police step up crackdown on Palestinian protesters". Coolperson177 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ref #272 Infinity Knight (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad Sa'adat

Is there any reason why Ahmad Sa'adat needs to be in the Infobox as a commander? Yes officially he is Secretary-General of the PFLP but he's currently sitting in an Israeli prison, serving a 30-year sentence since 2006. He has no practical command of the PFLP. Why exactly is he in the Infobox as a commander? Given that he could not have served as an actual commander I've removed him from the Infobox pending discussion.--RM (Be my friend) 09:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. More of a general point: for verification purposes, all of these people listed in the infobox should reasonably have citations noting them as being a major commander either for Israel or Palestine in this crisis specifically. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Al-jalaa strike

"Gantz said Israel has shared its intelligence with the US government. But he indicated that Israel has no intention of making the information public, saying it did not want to divulge its sources." https://www.timesofisrael.com/gantz-idf-backpedal-from-claim-that-ap-journalists-drank-coffee-with-hamas/ New comment to add.--Rectangular dome (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't see it in the text or in the history: saying it did not want to divulge its sources; the reason why is omitted --Rectangular dome (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here it is All you had to do was look in the article history rather than posting irrelevant nonsense on my talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

1 my message do not have anything to do with this 2 you are posting "nonsense" 3 you ignored half of the statement, so readers do not know why saying it did not want to divulge its sources --Rectangular dome (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You just changed it, that's why. If you are making an edit request (are you?) then why do you not use the proper way, it will prevent misunderstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1st June 2021 (1)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis#Aftermath it should say "The first arson by incendiary ballon from gaza was confirmed on the 31'st of May".

References

 Not done for now: Is this a significant incident? If so, it will likely get more reports from international sources. Until then this is an isolated incident, and we're not a newspaper or a timeline of all incidents related to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a violation of the ceasefire, hence it's siginifianct (it is similar to is as if Gazans had fired a rocket or a mortar into Israel , or Israel would have retrurned to bomb or fire at Gazans).

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1st June 2021 (2)

In 2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#Arab_communities_in_Israel it should be said that On May 13'th the Israeli Lehava movmemnt warned against violance against arabs in Afula, They had went as much as contacted the police to warn against a group of people who planned to attack Arabs

References

 Not done: Lehava is an extremist movement whose opinions are not worthy of mention here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That so called extrimist movement went AGAINST attacking arabs, and went as far as going to the police to alert about people who planned to attack Arabs. In fact Other mentioning Lehave ARE mentioned in the articale. If Lehave is not important enough it shouldn't be mentioned in the articale at all.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1st June 2021 (3)

In the lead replace "As a result of the violence, 256 Palestinians, including 66 children, were killed." with "As a result of the violence, 256 Palestinians, including 66 children, were killed some by Palestinian fire."

References

The current wording does not attribute to Israel, either, though; it attributes the deaths to "violence." To highlight just one side (whichever one it is) would be false balance. I think for the sake of both conciseness and neutrality, the sentence is OK. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is uncritically repeating claims from the Israel military. Of the sources given, one is in Hebrew and is difficult to verify, while the other has no mention of this at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is worded in a way it attribute it to Israel, in fact the sources are clear about for example "In a second incident around 6:05 p.m., initial investigations suggest a homemade rocket fired by a Palestinian armed group fell short and killed eight Palestinians, including two children." is a direct text from the second link, While it may be hard to read Hebrew other people who can read or use translation can use it.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Lede

The crisis was triggered[30] on 6 May, when Palestinians began protests in East Jerusalem over an anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Israel on the eviction of six Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah . . On 7 May, according to Israel's Channel 12, Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police forces,[

These two lines state the crisis began when (a) Palestinian protested (context of police/settlers in those protests suppressed) at Sheikh Jarrah, and (b) the day after threw stones at police (context repressed, Al-Aqsa)

I.e. a massive outburst of violence of warlike proportions erupted because of two protests by Palestinians. Palestinian protests occur every other day, and have so for several decades, and in 99.9% of the cases, do not spiral into open war. Those sentences must be rewritten to reflect, neutrally, to reflect what the relevant sections state, which speaks of protests and violent clashes by both parties, and not some unilateral provocation by Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting again

this is inept.

°The edit summary talks of inappropriateness because the section lists efforts to obtain a ceasefire. What it replaced was a text in the present tense of efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the UN to get a ceasefire one day into the military conflict. To revert that back is to leave the text, now relating historical events, with a present tense (so far as of May 11). This kind of failure to historicize the text remains, thanks to the revert.

• The initiative by those 3 bodies had zero effect, and therefore the edit summary is again, false. We include initiatives that died in the water, with no result.
• To assert that the organ representing virtually all Christian communities in the area of the conflict, calling for an end to the hostilities, a 'reaction' suitable for the useless page we have on reflex 'reactions' because it does not deal with 'political' proposals is arbitrary.
• To remove text, without troubling, as a serious editor would, to rather cut and paste it to the suggested Reactions page, is lazy.
• The source wasn't read: It continues,

Kairos Palestine pointed to recent Israeli court rulings in favor of settler groups, which threaten to forcibly displace a number of Palestinian families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem from homes where they have lived for decades. “We insist that the latest violence be seen in its broader context,” the statement reads, declaring, “We don’t ask you to take our word for it. Civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch and the highly respected Israeli human rights organization B’tselem have recently declared that Israel is an apartheid state.” In another statement, the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches of Jerusalem (Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem,Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem,Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem) said, “The special character of Jerusalem, the Holy City, with the existing Status Quo, compels all parties to preserve the already sensitive situation in the Holy City of Jerusalem. The growing tension, backed mainly by right-wing radical groups, endangers the already fragile reality in and around Jerusalem.” “These concerning developments,” they write, “whether at the Al Aqsa Mosque or in Sheikh Jarrah, violate the sanctity of the people of Jerusalem and of Jerusalem as the City of Peace.”

This means that the passage deals directly with Christians, as a Palestinian community.

• The logical place for this therefore is not elsewhere, but in the Israeli and Palestinian reactions section. To reduce 'reactions' to politics, and erase any mention of important non-political actors, despite their being representatives of historic communities within Israel/Palestine, is (evangelical?) POV censorship.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the details, but I remember that most reactions were moved to a more specific article. The rationale, given then, proposed that only the most relevant reactions should be kept here. That 'association of church leaders' isn't that crucial, if it were, it would have been added a long time ago. Also, there's no consensus that the source you used is reliable, per rsn discussion. This article is already way too cluttered with trivial information. - Daveout(talk) 11:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is certainly usable,- the facts it reports are linked in the article and immediately verifiable in the primary sources - and has been taken to the RSN board several times by editors who dislike it, not once. The 2015 discussion was only notable for one editor who considers Wikipedia is soft of antisemitics, and a distinguished sockpuppet master's presence all over the place.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Rev 1

Rev 2

That a 1RR vio? Just checking.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't revert even unrelated content? If so, it was an honest mistake and I'll self revert. - Daveout(talk) 11:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is an egregious 1R violation, the earlier case by the same editor gamed the 24 hr limit. This doesn't. I see the editor in question will self-revert. Good. But the problem is, reading sources closely, (b) not chucking 'stuff' out if you think it is on the wrong page and have a 'better' solution for its placement, but rather relocating it, to avoid disappearing cogent details from the record. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have modified the edit they reverted. In the Israeli and Palestinian reactions sections we should have:-

On two separate occasions, Christian groups in Jerusalem issued statements commenting on the outbreak of hostilities. Kairos Palestine attributed the uprising to deprivations suffered, and called for the recognition of the rights of everyone as the only way to break the cycle of destruction. A joint declaration signed by the Patriarchs the Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Catholic Patriarchs of the city, together with prominent Heads of Churches of Jerusalem - who had all earlier (7 May) expressed deep concern for Israeli plans under radical settler pressure to annex unilaterally West Bank land- blamed the growing tensions ‘mainly’ on the destabilizing effects of right-wing settler groups’ on the fragile realities of Jerusalem. Their denunciation was followed up by a similar statement issued on 12 May by the Middle East Council of Churches, representing 28 denominations in the area.

Since the editor is reverting back into a text material I added, (in retrospect , it should have been placed lower) I will in turn modify the reverted material and place the revised text in the appropriate section down page.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is undue, it is sourced to Mondoweiss and a church website, which shows that nobody of note cares about these statements.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Much simpler would have been spending a few more precious minutes on Google trying to find better sources (ex. https://www.google.com/search?q=patriarchate+jerusalem+statement+violence+2021), as I have now done, than removing it. This would have avoided all of this silly reverting and allowed everybody to continue with something more productive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Which proves the point it is undue. The sources you added in the last revision are Vatican News, Greek Reporter, and the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem's website. The church is reliable for reporting on itself, but there is no indication anyone cares about their opinion.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Vatican News is a reliable source for wider issues which affect the church, and is also a secondary source, so shows this has some significance beyond the mere PRIMARY source of the Latin patriarchate's statement. Greek Reporter doesn't seem to be affiliated with the Catholic or the Orthodox churches directly, so would definitively be an independent, secondary source. It's not for us to judge whether anybody cares about their opinion, or whether it had any effect. Only whether reliable sources are reporting on it. Of course, proving a negative is hard, but a cursory google search easily proved the positive, so I don't think there's anything left to argue over. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RC for bringing some good sense to the page. Writing 'nobody of note cares about these statements' is an extremely disconcerting remark for an editor to make, in its assumption that no Christian authorities in their 'Holy Land' are notable.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources provided by RandomCanadian are reliable, and it is trivial to find others (eg Deseret News) reporting on it. nableezy - 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pics

There is almost zero images of damage in Gaza, aa opposed to multiple illustrations of the IDF and Israel police activities. A gross violation of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope and bias (again)

Regarding the following passage in the lede:

"Under international law, the area, effectively annexed by Israel, is a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation. Israel applies its laws there."

Do we really need to get into the whole occupation issue in general? This article should stick to recent events only. (of course the history of the occupation has repercussions to the current crisis, so do many other events throughout the history of Israel and Palestine. This article simply isn't about those). That portion does not summarize anything in the body. The main source is Al Jazeera (very partisan). Also, the people pushing this are curiously against providing background info on Hamas. - Daveout(talk) 10:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been in the article for ages (not being pushed) until you removed it with edit summary "out of scope". This limited amount of material is obviously relevant (and has nothing to do with Hamas, either). If you think AJ is not RS for this material, RSN is thataway.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a good source but too much weight is being given to it. And Hamas has everything to do with it, as a major party involved in the conflict. - Daveout(talk) 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hamas has nothing to do with the material that you removed. I can trivially add sourcing for that material, which is anyway uncontroversial.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Notwithstanding others' concerns, this statement appears in the lead but nowhere else in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. So, compare the lead to the content of the "Background" section. That section does not discuss the status of East Jerusalem under international law; instead, it has hatnotes to other articles that discuss it. So, you can either keep those sentences in the lead and write about the status of East Jerusalem in the background section, or remove those sentences from the lead and rely on the hatnotes linking to other articles for background. If you would like to pursue the former, you will need to obtain consensus that the article should be expanded in this way. --Bsherr (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a properly sourced and obviously relevant sentence to the body of the article which editor Daveout has reverted from there in addition to his reverting it from the lead. Since I don't like to edit war, I will wait and see what other editors have to say, since this sentence was discussed on multiple occasions previously and on each occasion the consensus was to keep it as was and in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Now @Nishidani: has restored it to the lead, by way of uncommenting editor Bsherr who commented it out. So if editor Daveout would like to self revert his removing the material from the body, then we will be all shipshape once more.(ie it will be in the body and the lead).Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignore that, it seems all OK now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Selfstudier added content to the Background section, and Daveout reverted it, which is consistent with WP:BRD, but despite my recommendation that Selfstudier gain consensus here first. You then restored it, and haven't instituted any discussion at all that I can see. Do you want to explain your accusation of edit warring in view of your actions? --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, this was discussed on multiple occasions (it's in the archives), no-one having bought up the "not in the body" argument until you did, it's common in breaking news articles for that to happen. So I did what you suggested and added the material in the body (since there was already consensus for it being in the lead, this seems uncontroversial) and it was reverted again, just outside the 24 hour limit, I might add. So the editor going against consensus is in fact editor Daveout, who is of course free to start yet another discussion about this sentence if he wishes to do so. Frankly, I don't understand his objection to the sentence anyway, it is only logical to explain the International/Israeli law position of Sheikh Jarrah.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: when you say reverted again, when was such text previously reverted after being inserted into the Background section, before Daveout did so? --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

From the lead, it's the same material that previously had consensus in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, so its not the same edit. It's substantively different by reason of where it is placed. My quarrel is not with you. My concern is that Nishidani is deliberately inflaming this by making false accusations of "edit warring", despite Nishidani having made no attempt to discuss here on this talk page. That's Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, and I don't like it. It makes everyone's work harder and more unpleasant. --Bsherr (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This page is under a 1RR, one editor has reverted twice. That isnt an aspersion, thats a fact. nableezy - 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not revert anything twice, please retract yourself. If you count the removal\introduction of different instances of the same text as a double revert, then Selfstudier engaged in 1rr vio as well. (here and here). - Daveout(talk) 18:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Both your removals are reverts, whereas the first addition to the body is not a revert as it did not reverse any previous edit. nableezy - 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This can't be serious. Lol. - Daveout(talk) 18:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Serious as can be. You reverted twice. Again. If you have trouble counting reverts then maybe this is not the topic area for you to be editing. nableezy - 19:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Please see the part about "within a 24-hour period". There is no contravention of the bright-line rule. You can acknowledge that, right? --Bsherr (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed a contravention of a bright line rule, Daveout reverted twice within 24 hours (both on 1 June), here and here. The initial removal is a revert of this initial insertion. nableezy - 19:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, just outside 24 hours sorry. So not quite bright line violation, but certainly edit-warring and gaming a bright line rule. AE has generally found 25 hour reverts to be just as actionable as 24 hour ones. nableezy - 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Will just add to the background section to make that point moot. nableezy - 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And done. nableezy - 17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news articles write the lead before anything else. That sentence was there then subject to editwarring by rapid passingby editors and finally stabilized. Selfstudier added details in the section, so that the lead content was then, as required, a summary. Both that section material and the lead sentence were elided, or got ridden of: that is a bit like gutting a section to make the lead sentence it explains appear unwarranted as self-standing. A cheap trick. The evidence so far is that matter adequately discussed in archives is ignored, and the 1R rule has been dodged at its limits, in order to excise a known fact, that this dispute arose in an area where Israeli law and modus operandi challenge/violate the stipulations of international law. Attempts to bury this are what they appear to be, POV pushing to repress from the readership's awareness of core facts in that historic reality.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

References needing merging

There are quite a lot of duplicated references that need merging. I've done a few, but have run out of time. Here is a list. I suggest that after doing a merge you delete the reference from the list (I know it's bad manners to edit someone else's Talk contribution, but it makes sense here).

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-intl/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-intl/index.html (is dup of previous)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/09/world/middleeast/israeli-court-palestinian-families-east-jerusalem.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/world/middleeast/jerusalem-protests-aqsa-palestinians.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/violence-erupts-al-aqsa-mosque-israel-marks-jerusalem-day-2021-05-10/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-fires-artillery-into-gaza-amid-persistent-palestinian-rocket-attacks-2021-05-13/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-thai-workers-killed-several-people-injured-as-hamas-bombards-southern-israel/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/73-year-old-israeli-woman-who-fell-in-rocket-shelter-dies-of-injuries/

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Great initiative. Better strike it rather than delete entirely. “WarKosign” 14:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Post-crisis events in Escalation section

From Escalation section:

"On 5 June border police forcefully detained an Al Jazeera reporter wearing body armor marked "press". Israeli police said the journalist was detained after she was asked for identification, refused and pushed a police officer.[115] On 6 June Israeli police detained Muna al-Kurd. Her father told reporters that the 23-year-old activist was detained after police raided their home in Sheikh Jarrah and said that the police also delivered a notice ordering her twin brother Mohammed El-Kurd to surrender himself to authorities. He and his sister are running a social media campaign against the expulsions of Palestinians from their homes.[116][117] The pair were later released.[118]"

The crisis ended on 21 May 2021 . This quote should be moved into the Aftermath section or outright deleted from the article.

FortUser (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the top part into aftermath.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sentence Edit

Third paragraph: "Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza"

This should be changed to: "Israel began a campaign of retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Gaza"

As per BBC: Israel approves flag march through Jerusalem's Old City https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57402137 Durdyfiv1 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this before and all the "retaliatory" refs were taken out, there was Hamas retaliating for Israel things and vice versa and it all became nonsense about who was retaliating for what and when so just decided to stick with bare facts.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, before there was the flinging about of propaganda within the context of the historical debate surrounding this. This, on the other hand, is a BBC source about this particular escalation. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

One can consider the initial rocket attacks to be retaliatory as well, right? It's just another way of having the futile "who started it" argument. Also, I don't really see the difference between "against Gaza" and "against targets in Gaza", is there one? Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

eg Diff WK made a number of such changes and after some thought I agreed and removed the other response/retaliatory's as well (WK only removed the Palestinian "responses").Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Did I? I removed all the "responded" and "in response" that I found. “WarKosign” 16:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you can parrot Hamas propaganda/talking points, but this comes from the BBC.

The distinction is quite simple: one implies an entire enclave was targeted i.e. civilians, civilian infrastructure e.g. schools, universities, hospitals, restaurants, factories, leisure centres, sports facilities, bars, nightclubs (oh I forgot, there aren't any of those in Gaza), street-markets, museums, cultural centres (not many there either), synagogues – oops, etc, while the other does not.

Stop being a tool – this is a BBC article. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, if the sources support that the target of the attack was more specific than the whole Gaza strip we should report it.

Similarly, if the sources specify what Hamas attacked in Israel we should write it. “WarKosign” 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, for about a decade I kept reading endless reports which stated 'Hamas fired rockets at Israel' and 'Israel responded/retaliated', wondering why, with each incident, Israeli actions prior to a rocket fired weren't considered provocations to which Hamas 'retaliated/responded'. In 2009 was it, there was an academic statistical analysis of the interactions, concluding that it was a false distinction, since each could be said to respond to the other. Sequence can allow the reader to draw whatever conclusions they wish to draw. After all Hamas's ultimatum was issued saying they would fire if Israel desisted from its actions at Al-Aqsa/Sheikh Jarrah, meaning that from their perpective they would retaliate or respond. So sequence rather than the loaded language of saying who retaliated.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Nishidani, you've been exposed very recently as a professional editor with an agenda when it comes to these topics. We have possibly the most legitimate, neutral source stating that the responses were retaliatory; Wikipedia does not need your Hamas-sympathising. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You should be sorry, for yourself. The statement that I am a professional editor in Hamas's pocket was made several years ago by a sockpuppet. No one but me, and uh, someone like yourself would remember that. So, who are you?, or is it a case that 'great minders' think alike? Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone edits that in, I will edit back in all the "retaliatory" stuff I took out, all equally well sourced. Including the fact that the Hamas strikes were in retaliation for Israeli provocations at Sheikh Jarrah followed by Al-Aqsa. Doncha jus love editors who never heard of NPA? Any more of that and there will be consequences.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I will note that upon cursory glance of that user's talk page, they have been made duly aware of NPA, with no change in behavior. And I must say, if Hamas has enough time and money to dedicate to "professional" Wikipedia editing rather than, you know, rocket attacks, then I'm impressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Claim whatever you want if it suits you – I only said he's been exposed. And please, add in all that you've removed about your misguided Israeli 'provocations', so long as they're cited by a neutral source. AJ, a Qatari-funded MB media outlet which has been exposed numerous times in its reporting on this engagement alone, is not. And now AllegedlyHuman in his charge against me is putting words into my mouth. Don'tcha just love it when one tries to provide a neutral source, revealing the truth, which just happens to support Israel's actions. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

AJ is green at RSP, if you want to try and change that, go ahead.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Not that it's difficult to source elsewhere "Hamas began its rocket assault last Monday after weeks of tensions over a court case to evict several Palestinian families in East Jerusalem, and in retaliation for Israeli police clashes with Palestinians near the city’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/hamas-israel-fighting-abates-as-truce-calls-mount.html as well as plenty others.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I requested that a neutral source be cited and now you propose leftist, anti-Israel organisations be included too. I didn't propose adding anything from right-leaning sources like JPost or TOI, but it seems you too, with your response to mine to editor Nishidani, have seem oddly, unheathily obsessed about viewing Israel's legally legitimate actions negatively. These are all just perceptions, and I have a right to make them as much as you have a right to make them about me. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"In reaction" and "responded" is a bunch of nonsense. Everyone has a reason/excuse/justification/rationalization for whatever action they are taking, and of course it involves something that happened previously, hence absolutely everything can be said to be done in response to something else. It's a matter of POV whether this is truely an inevitable response or a transparent excuse for a vile action. It's better not to litter the article with all these "responses". Unless the source disagree on simple facts, chronological sequence of events is indisputable and if we write just that the readers will decide for themselves which actions where justified and which were not. This interpretation will depend on the reader's predesposition, but it's inevitable in any case. “WarKosign” 19:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well now not only is Nishidani putting words into my mouth (which is what I highlighted he was already doing), but he is also exploiting the fact I don't know how to reply to a specific comment on these talk pages AND hypocritically using a PA against me. Hey Nishidani, try thinking rationally and not, you know... Like leftist-liberalists and Hamas-sympathisers tend to do. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

How will we reflect the latest escalation of the conflict?

As per information from multiple reputable news sources such as Reuters I have edited the lede and infobox to reflect ongoing fighting between Hamas and the IDF as of 16 June 2021. Should I continue with my updating? As in, are we to split into a new article or keep this second flare-up within this article?

Reuters story on the flare-up: https://www.reuters.com/world/hamas-radio-reports-israeli-air-strike-gaza-2021-06-15/ TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: If consensus determines these events are not part of this article subject, I suggest that our coverage belongs at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021. — Goszei (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an aftermath section, I think we might fill in some information there (change of Israeli government, blah) but I don't think these minor issues (flag march, etc) are worth much more than a passing mention, there is no major escalation at this point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/jun/16/israel-mounts-gaza-strip-airstrike-in-response-to-incendiary-balloons-video

Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)