Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Revert

Iskandar323, could you clarify why you have removed this? Which errors have you referred to? Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a very dubious tabloid that appears to simply reiterate verbatim the claims of an organization that included, among its 'research' efforts, some online stalking. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Maariv (newspaper) is a tabloid, and if you believe that it cannot be trusted the onus is on you to demonstrate that it fails WP:RS criteria. I have no problem with attributing the statement. Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest going to WP:RSN with this one and asking whether Maariv is reliable for the statement (it looks a bit dodgy to me, why is it not reported anywhere else?) We need a translation too, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the standard format for RSN when raising the question of the applicability of a single source for a specific statement still those four basic options? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's for a general review of a source, this is straightforward, give the name of the publication any other relevant details and just ask for an opinion on whether the source is considered reliable for the statement it is covering in the article. Give your own thoughts as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing Maariv's reliability here or at WP:RSN. So far no proof of publishing falsehoods has been produced. As to the translation, here is the google translation [1], the claim in question is in the beginning of the Nationalist Fermentation section. Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim in question is, if I am following the translation right, attributed to Ariel Kahana, a columnist at Israel Hayom. Beyond that, the entire article does not read as reporting, it reads as opinion. Beyond that, as always, the onus for inclusion is consensus, not reliability. Removing absent that consensus. nableezy - 03:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I got wrapped up in the language and sourcing, but now that you point it out, yes, it has all the hallmarks of an opinion piece. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Though I'm looking at a piece, which says column at the top actually, by one 'Kalman Liebskind', so still opinion, but wires crossed. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This specific claim is not attributed to Ariel Kahana, what the article is saying is that some time ago he published the warning of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar who said that 40% of those involved in certain types of violence were the descendants of family unions. The two-thirds claim is sourced to the Israeli Cities Organization (ערי ישראל) and this claim was also reported on by The Jewish Press. This seems like pertinent information, so I'd like to hear policy-based arguments on why it should not be mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish Press is not a reliable source for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are you kidding me? This comes from the "Israeli Cities Organization", a group of private citizens trawling through Facebook posts to see if some name matches some other name and then determining their level of commitment to the Palestinian cause? And you think that should be included in an encyclopedia? The fact that the sourcing you have for it is a, an opinion in Maariv making explicit calls to cut off the ability of Israeli citizens to marry who they choose, and the Jewish Press, a Brooklyn based local paper that has previously pushed overtly racist propaganda (eg here they promote a book Amazon shortly removed as a racist tripe) shows that this race-baiting claim is a, based on a wholly unreliable source, and b. has no weight given to it in independent reliable sources. Hows that for a policy based argument? Cannot believe this is being pushed here. nableezy - 15:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They are citing Maariv and then go on to say "The folks at “Cities of Israel” went through more than 120 arrest cases and indictments of Arabs on suspicion of committing acts of violence and terrorism in Lod and Ramla alone." But our article says "On 3 June, the police announced the completion of arrests, of 2,142 arrested, 91% were Arab. As of May 2022, around 90% of 600 people indicted are Arabs." So leaving aside that that most of the arrests were of Arabs (what a surprise), that sounds like cherry picking anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably we need to request external feedback. Reliability concerns are misplaced - do you really think that Maariv and The Jewish Press misrepresented the findings of the Israeli Cities Organization? If you think that the findings themselves are incorrect then you need to provide sources criticising them. You could also argue that it should not be included per WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the Maariv piece is editorial, and does not establish any weight, and I think the Jewish Press is a garbage source for the I/P conflict, and it is just silly to say that a small paper based on Brooklyn is reliable for arrests in Lydda. But no, I do not think they misreported what the "Israeli Cities Organization" claims. But what the "Israeli Cities Organization" claims has no weight to be included in our article, and that is why it should be excluded. Im pretty sure I already argued it is a weight issue (see the comment above where I say shows that this race-baiting claim is a, based on a wholly unreliable source, and b. has no weight given to it in independent reliable sources.), and that the source for the figures is an unreliable citizen group trolling Facebook and has no business being anywhere near an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't think it sounds kinda, well...sleazy? This "Israeli Cities Organization", looking for evidence to support a preconceived idea? I don't have evidence for my opinion but it does feel like that, it's just too pat and leading up to the debate over that racist bill in the Knesset. Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on mentioning the provenance of protestors

Should we mention that the majority of those arrested and indicted for participation in the riots are descendants of mixed marriages between Palestinians residing in Israel and West Bank?

• Option A Yes
• Option B Yes, with attribution
• Option C No

Alaexis_¿question? 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Malformed RFC: Your question assumes that the statement that the majority of those arrested and indicted for participation in the riots are descendants of mixed marriages between Palestinians is demonstrated to be correct be a reliable source, when the entire discussion above raises serious questions about source reliability. If you think these reasons are wrong, you should hash it out at WP:RSN. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Option B (mention with attribution). This information is pertinent to the topic of the article. Its origin is a report by a certain "Israeli Cities Organisation" and it is discussed by Maariv (newspaper) (in Hebrew) and The Jewish Press (in English). The sources are likely to be biased but it doesn't make them unreliable per WP:RS. The fact itself is hardly controversial - as in it hasn't been controverted, to the best of my knowledge. From the common sense point of view, it's hardly surprising that the individuals who have family connections in the West Bank would have more anti-Israeli sentiments. Alaexis_¿question? 17:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option C on steriods. First the RFC states as a fact something that is not confirmed as a fact, so it is invalid. Second, RFCs cannot override core policy, and if an almost unknown "Zionist resident's organization" reported in an opinion piece satisfies WP:V then we should close up shop. Third, even if the claim is true and the details of it are clarified, we are not obliged to buy into the obvious unsavoury motivation that is written all over the Maariv article. Fourth, how does a minor activist group get hold of the private family details of indicted people? How did they distinguish between the large number of Palestinians with the same names? Fifth, when one news outlet (eg. Jewish Press) reports a claim by another news outlet (eg. Maariv) without any checking of their own, we sometimes take this as supporting notability but we never take this as supporting reliability. So the predictable mention in Jewish Press adds nothing. Zero^talk 04:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option C and this is truly absurd. a certain "Israeli Cities Organisation" is an interesting way of framing this, this is a private Facebook group making claims that it cannot possibly be considered a reliable source for. Thousands were arrested, but this private group supposedly analyzed 100 or names and then attempted to determine how many of them were from marriages that were covered under the family reunification law, giving no evidence for any of that, simply making a claim. The Maariv piece cited is an editorial, and the Jewish Press is a small paper based in Brooklyn that has a history of promoting overtly racist propaganda, it is not a reliable source for arrests in Lydda and no argument that it is has even been offered. An absolutely absurd justification for the inclusion of material that is nowhere near the base minimum requirement of being given any weight in third party reliable sources, as the claims of this organization appear in not a single third party independent reliable source. Additonally, the statement in this RFC is bogus, it is not true that " the majority of those arrested and indicted for participation in the riots are descendants of mixed marriages between Palestinians residing in Israel and West Bank?", that is material for which not a single reliable source says is true. It is a claim of a group of Israeli civilians, not a fact. nableezy - 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option A. This is also from official statistics, not Libskind himself. For instance this source, which covers the Negav riots and also the 2021 riots and says that the Shin Bet chief provided these to the Interior minister. I would write, combining sources, that this is a "large proportion" of rioters, and not Libskin'd particular calculation.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option C For all of the reasons above and below about the RFC's malformed and misleading statement, which presents extremely unreliable information as fact. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, ditto Iskander323. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Discussion

Comment On the face of it, looking at the section preceding this RFC, this seems an end run around the usual RS/consensus procedures. It is notable that the OP has not taken either of Maariv (in Hebrew) or Jewish Press to RSN for an opinion there. The original edit, reverted by an editor, was

"An analysis of Israeli-Arabs who were arrested on suspicion of rioting and indicted for participation in the riots found that most were the descendants of mixed marriages between Israeli-Arabs and West Bank Palestinians.

and this RFC says "Should we mention that the majority of those arrested and indicted for participation in the riots are descendants of mixed marriages between Palestinians residing in Israel and West Bank?" as if that were a fact.

No mention that the "analysis" is compiled by an activist org (ICO) set up by Jews last year following the "riots" (which riots?). There is no explanation for the discrepancy between the already troublesome figures in our article "On 3 June, the police announced the completion of arrests, of 2,142 arrested, 91% were Arab. As of May 2022, around 90% of 600 people indicted are Arabs." and the source/ICO "The folks at “Cities of Israel” went through more than 120 arrest cases and indictments of Arabs on suspicion of committing acts of violence and terrorism in Lod and Ramla alone." So what about all the rest? Is this all the cases in Lod and Ramla? We are not told.

The whole thing appears as an overtly racist hit piece not reported in any more reputable sources and perhaps ought to be seen in the light of Israeli infighting over the renewal of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The discrepancy is easy to explain: more than 2000 people were arrested following the protests/riots, of whom 184 were indicted [2]. The ICO on the other hand only looked at those who were arrested and indicted in Lod and Ramla. Alaexis_¿question? 19:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's also false. May 2022, Of the 616 indictments issued during last year's nationwide wave of violence in Israel's mixed Jewish-Arab cities, 545 were against Arabs. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing more up-to-date numbers. As you can see my link was to the article published in June 2021 when many people were still in custody. At any rate, the Maariv article dates to February 2022 and the ICO report only looks at Ramla and Lod so there is no discrepancy. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So you want to include not only shady research by an unqualified group, but shady research based on already out-of-date material that is quite possibly incomplete? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't live in a perfect world, maybe they or someone else will publish an update and then we'll replace it. Right now this is what we have and it's just your opinion that it's "shady" and "out-of-date." Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the more pertinent opinion at work here is your own: that being the only opinion that this content is in any way tenable, let alone reliable, as information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

And now Makor Rishon, an absolute trash source, is being seriously offered up above. Unreliable sources do not add to any weight argument, and if the only places you can find racist propaganda to be in sources with a history of pushing racist propaganda, then maybe it is just racist propaganda and not material suited to an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 16:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Gaza war 2021

The figthing was pretty huge and this was a full war why can’t this be called as the 2021 gasworks war or 11 days war in Gaza 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:CD2:F864:FB5F:7473 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussions about this, check archives, eg was moved 2021 Gaza War to Operation Guardian of the Walls and then current title the next day. It was because events were not only in Gaza but in West Bank and Israel as well so needed a broader title. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Understand but still this was a big war 204.102.220.137 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The introduction of this page contains a typo; "who then stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compoundl" should become "who then stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound", without the extra "l" at the end. Paljaske01 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Zero^talk 03:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Link

'The Gaza Ministry of Health reported that more than 1,900 Palestinians were injured' in the lede incorrectly leads to the Ministry of Health (Palestine), instead of Gaza Health Ministry. Distinguishing between Gaza MoH and Hamas is also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B7B0:4D70:D170:9FD6:3F28:11F1 (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

In an undiscussed page move, the title of this article was changed from 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis to Gaza War (2021). In doing so, this talk page was disassociated from its archive. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have now reverted this page move, as it was a potentially controversial move, since there has been previous discussion about the name of this article, and there are associated discussion archives that need to be moved at the same time as the page is moved. If this page is to be movedto a new title, then the move needs to be discussed, first. See WP:RMUM for the limited circumstances for making bold page moves. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)