Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in July–December 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

Ses all such topics at prev. Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 one. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I'd recommend you to make self-revert & to obey the Rules.

"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2015)"

This article is only the technical continuation of the previous one, with all its (including of Demolition issue ; Ma'an as main source, etc.) unresolved problems. It's you who has wrote in it: "For ... the a lead oullining terms of definition of the content see, see List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015". --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ "Biased presentation of some events?" topic in this Talk. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument for placing a NPOV tag. I have noted Dan's points, and suggested (any editor can fix entries to adjust perceived biased syntax. As someone with little time and 99% of the work done here, I can't be loaded with the sole obligation to fix everything, and I am not obstructing sincere editors from improving, according to their lights, this and related pages. This is a summary list of the bare details of reported events, and the so-called NPOV defects consist in differences of opinion that regard minor tweaks. Fix them, if they displease you. Do some work. Don't tag, as if the empirical data were irremediably flawed.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your main obligation is to comply with NPOV, and not to retranslate any spam from Maan to Wiki as you do.
And instead of looking for the janitors who'll clean up after you, try to do it yourself. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and the so-called NPOV defects consist in differences of opinion that regard minor tweaks" (@ Nishidani')
Here are only a couple of current examples of your not-NPOV:
To continue? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Edit to correct. It is quite pointless asking me to do all of the work here. I am fallible like everyone else. Unlike a large number of editors in the I/P? editor, I donp't hang round to revert or tag. I built content, here very rapidly since it's not an article that requires deep research of the kind I prefer. If you see some lapse, or omission, do what all sensible and collaborative editors do on Wikipedia, i.e., don't waste time trying to make a personal attack against another editor. Simply improve the text by adding what appears necessary. You are free to do this, but generally omit to do so, preferring to make me the object of reproval on the talk page, rather than contribute. If the POV tag means 'Nishidani who is editing this is not neutral', it shouldn't be there. If the POV tag means what it should mean, that the text is unbalanced, then balance it. Just tagging is pointless. Problems are to be resolved: they should not becoming nagging points for an endless whine.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I built content... here very rapidly since it's not an article that requires deep research" (@ Nishidany).
So you do build not NPOV, i.e. - false, content, and this is a meaning of a tag.
You are trying to shift your work to others. But they also have their own plans.
Again, if you may only retranslate mass propaganda spam from Maan and aren't able to make a quality article, then do not make it at all.
In their current form, all such articles are only a shame to Wiki. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Ronald Reagan, 'there you go again'. 'Shame'? Look it up. It often means, as opposed to 'conscience', a disagreeable feeling excited by exposure to public view of a hidden source of personal embarrassment which, in so far as no one knows, one can live with, but which causes unease when others perceive it. Notably no one tags the dozen odd articles on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, since they deal only with one party as victim, and the other party as aggressor (For example, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2015). As soon as I began to make lists showing the violence to both sides, i.e., to Israelis and Palestinians, taggers get active. Obviously, if Israel is a victim, no comment. If Palestinians are victims, stating the details is 'shameful'. Such is the average I/P wikipedian's sense of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag restoring

[edit]

I do not see any reason letting you erase a tag.
Moreover, your last edits do remind someone's "POV disaster" definition about these your articles (diff).
It seems me a reasonable to initiate their removing at all, as it's done for such their sisters as List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing & List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone or Molotov cocktail throwing.
Otherwise, somebody has to spend a lot of his own wiki-time to repair a List after your not-NPOV & wp:DIS "I built content... here very rapidly since it's not an article that requires deep research" edits. :(
Meanwhile, I restore a tag. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued in the "NPOV tag restoring - 2" --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased presentation of some events?

[edit]

First, let me preface by thanking and applauding the maintainers of these pages - as an Israeli citizen, I am continuously exposed to media reports for every incident where Israelis are injured, but only rarely to events on the other side of the conflict. These lists make it clear that they are in no way less frequent, and is an important, if depressing, educational resource. However, I'm worried that it might make it a little TOO clear.

Consider the following examples taken from this page:

  • 3 Three Palestinians were shot and injured in a predawn detention raid by Israeli forces on the Duheisha refugee camp, in clashes after 2 young men had been arrested. One of those detained, Waleed Shuhada al-Jafari (23) is the brother of Jihad al-Jafri, shot dead by Israeli forces on 24 February during a similar predawn raid.
  • Muhammad Husam Barakat (38), a bus-driver for the Israeli Kavim transport company, was attacked by two passengers who had borded the vehicle at Beitar Illit, after refusing to pay the fare at journey’s end at Sheikh Jarrah.
  • Shots were fired at an Israeli settler’s car travelling near Duma during the funeral service for Ali Saad Dawabsha. The fire was returned. No injuries were reported.

In these cases the victims of violence are presented at the beginning of the item, as might be expected by someone reading or skimming the article. But now consider the following examples:

  • A Palestinian was shot dead after stabbing an Israeli settler (26) near Ofer who had been filling up his tank at a gas station. The Israeli was lightly wounded. The IDF said there were other suspects who took part in the attack.
  • A Palestinian, Mohammed Badwan from Biddu village east of Ramallah(20) was shot after a suspected hit-and-run attack in which his car ran into 3 Israeli soldiers, leaving 2 with serious injuries, on Route 60 near Sinjil and the settlement of Shiloh.
  • A young Palestinian woman, reportedly a minor, was arrested after lightly injuring an Israeli soldier with a stab wound to his back near the Israeli settlement of Nahliel, north of Ramallah.

In these examples the instigating act is presented only after the retaliation. Someone skimming the article, perhaps with the intention of assessing the ratio between the numbers of Israeli/Palestinian victims of violence would likely read such examples as "A Palestinian was shot dead...", "A Palestinian, Mohammed Badwan from Biddu village east of Ramallah(20) was shot...", "A young Palestinian woman, reportedly a minor, was arrested...", missing crucial context of the events. In fact, I came upon this page today following the first of these events, and when looking for it I initially missed it for this reason, despite knowing the exact date it should appear on.

Likely this issue has been discussed in past iterations of these pages; if you do not wish to rehash the discussion, I would appreciate a reference to such.

Also regarding the recent stabbing: There is nothing in any report I've seen that indicates the stabbed Israeli is a settler, or anything about his identity other than his age. It certainly does not appear in the currently cited source, nor in the one that it replaced (which specifically reads: "It was not confirmed whether the Israeli was a settler living in the occupied West Bank"). I will correct this now. It seems to me that the sourced facts speak volumes on their own without the need for embellishment, though I am sure it is an honest mistake; perhaps more caution should be exercised in the future.

Dan 132.66.40.9 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. As an editor you are free to fix whatever here strikes you as tendentious, unvalidated by sources, or structurally defective. Exercise by all means that right.
As to the specifics of a perceived bias in my presentation, the difference between passive and active voices etc., this was argued at length here. I went back through the pages and did a stylistic analysis to verify is there was some tendency to favour Palestinian victims, and could find no pattern, though subliminally it is a liability any editor, (particularly myself) might be prey to.
Regarding the recent stabbing, you may well be right. The problem (for my bona fides) is that I usually read three or four reports, download onto the page the salient details, and just rearrange to avoid copyright problems by doing a précis. I can remember initial reports speaking of a 26 year old settler, but now see that Ma'an News Agency writes in an updated version:'It was not confirmed whether the Israeli was a settler living in the occupied West Bank.' Either, as a result of some recent private health issues, I am less attentive, or the articles I consulted changed the text. In any case, I will remove 'settler' because it cannot be (so far) verified. My apologies. If you note any other form of errancy please adjust to make the text correspond rigorously to the sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zionist soldiers shot dead a Palestinian young man on Sunday evening over claims that he stabbed a Zionist settler on Road 443 near the settlement of Modi'in, west of Ramallah. A statement issued by the spokeswoman for the occupation police said that the martyr, Anas Montaser Taha, 26 years, tried to escape after stabbing a settler. The police then shot him. The statement added that the Zionist settler, also 26, was slightly injured. Police said the Palestinian is from Kharabtha al-Mesbah village near the operation theater, but the villagers did not recognize the martyr so far.'
This is on Al-Manar. The details about the man's age and village are invaluable but I don't regard that source as meeting the WP:RS highbar, and a defect of many Palestinian reports is to associate automatically an Israeli injured in the West Bank as a settler. So it can't be used.
Thank you for your quick response. It's unfortunate to see that the previous discussion derailed to mostly personal attacks without any clear conclusion. If I find the time, I will try to review and fact-check the page, but I fear such work might be too emotionally taxing for me (and of course, I am not a particularly experienced editor). The phrasing in the Ma'an News article seems to imply that they might have originally reported it was a settler and later corrected it. I fear all media is usually biased, and the best one can do for balance is to source reports biased to opposite sides.
Regarding the recent event, I have found one source in Hebrew which also refers to the attacker. They cite the same name, however it is claimed that he is 20 years old, not 26; and it claims a different place of residence (Kettanah / Kettaneh village; I am unsure, as I am unable to find details of this village online). It also claims that Anas was a released prisoner. The details about the assailant are cited to a proclamation made by Hamas in the west bank, that I have not looked up. It is probably best to wait until more reliable details are released before adding this to the article. I also note that this report, and every other Israeli report I've read, claim the assailant was killed by nearby IDF soldiers, not by policemen.
I also think that your remark that that the stabbing victim "cannot (so far) be verified" as a settler gives too much credit to those who reported him as a settler. Route 443 is one of the two major routes leading to Jerusalem, and the gas station has an extremely convenient location and good prices; I myself used it many times in the past, as I am sure many Israelis do (or perhaps - did), the majority of which are not settlers... And, as mentioned before, no Israeli news report mentioned any detail about the victim other than his age, whereas usually they are happy to point out settlers when possible.
I wish you good health and good luck with the project. Dan 132.66.40.9 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, determining whether we asre dealing with settlers or not is minor, indeed nugatory and negligible. Being a settler doesn't attenuate the gravity of a Palestinian attempt on someone's life. One only mentions it if it is in the source. To get back to your previous point. If you feel there is a pattern of incongruency re passive/active voice etc., you can fix that without checking the sources. All one would need do is rewrite all such entries in one style whether the victim in Israeli or Palestinian, meaning I suppose about a dozen syntactical changes. One can edit lightly without feeling the burden of the daily grind, by just dropping in to fix things in desultory manner from time to time. Editing should always be free and easy, if conscientious, and not a job of tiresome work. RegardsNishidani (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor or not (and I agree that it is), turns out those early reports were correct - the victim was indeed a settler, from Modi'in Illit. However, this last fact I have not been able to find in the English speaking media, only his name. I added his name and place of residence to the article in the meantime, but wanted to ask what the appropriate course of action is - should it be removed, be left there without citation, or should a foreign language citation be added? I found citations both in Hebrew and in French, but not in English. Best regards, Dan 132.66.40.9 (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One can source details to any mainstream Hebrew newssource, and one doesn't have to limit sourcing to English, though it is preferable. Everything in our summaries should be verifiable in some RS. If the word settler is not used in a source, it cannot be used in our text, though it is a logical inference from the Modi'in Illit address. Inferences are not allowed. Alyaexpress is probably not RS for wiki (though I do not doubt the utility of the content re name and address. It doesn't mention 'settler'). In pages I edit I try to insist on an RS highbar, which means half of what I read in Palestinian sources can't be included, but this is an encyclopedia that demands a certain regard for reliable quality source input. Walla! has on the other hand better credentials, and probably passes the litmus test, even though the strict criterion calls for editorial oversight for fact-checking. I think the name and the hometown if in Walla! can be sourced to that. If Walla! doesn't call him a 'settler', then we shouldn't write in that inference. RegardsNishidani (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the clues you gave, I've read and reread several reports, and it would be depressing to see how incongruent the versions are, since from then one can get no clear picture of the timeline. The Palestinian is shot while still undertaking to stab the victim, or his friend in his car, or while he is walking off down the road. The Arabs nearby look on and snicker as he succumbs to several knife slashings, or the Arabs nearby immediately tip off the IDF who then intervened, or rather they intervened when Itay phoned them. That is why, ultimately, only scholarly books which examine the record after a year or several with detached forensic care are reliable, and even they often conflict in their versions of the same incident because they draw on different narratives of the same event. Depressing Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that indicates the stabbed Israeli is a settler..." (@Dan 132.66.40.9 (talk) vs "Really, determining whether we asre dealing with settlers or not is minor, indeed nugatory and negligible..." (@Nishidani)
This is a case when I do agree with Nishidani. :)
but here: "In these examples the instigating act is presented only after the retaliation" - with Dan. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shuroq Salah Dwayat

[edit]

I heard on a foreign language station that Shuroq Salah Dwayat had made an announcement about martyrdom on her Facebook page before the incident. This may be a confusion with another person, or, if correct, needs to be checked out.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by POV tagging again

[edit]

Unless someone can come up with a list of reasons why the article is POV-tilted, and is prepared to argue for this view, I will remove the tag, which is repeatedly added without a follow-up on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of list

[edit]

I am unclear why this page (and likewise the related 2015 page) is limited to July to December. A list's scope should come from an independent source. I'm unaware of any source that discusses violence from July to December 2015 in specific, per WP:NOTESAL. Seems like this was an arbitrary decision to prevent the page from being too long - which I do not believe is a reason for making a page.

Secondly, I think it might be a mistake to make this a simple list without prose. The Wikipedia MOS prefers prose, because it provides context, which this article clearly does not: WP:USEPROSE. mikeman67 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Two articles are needed to cover the year in Archive 4 of Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015. List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 had 380 sources, this will overstep that. People already complained that the Jan-June article was getting hard to navigate. The introductory prose is in the Jan-June article, and each month is or will be headed by a synthesis from sources that analyse things per monthly periods. These articles follow the numerous year by year list articles created in the I/P area (see the 13 Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel , the only difference being that this one lists violence on all sides, rather than cherrypicking.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that compared to the dozens of POV lists in this area, only my own contributions, which adhere to that model but insist on impartial inclusive coverage of all sides ()WP:NPOV), give rise to formal challenges. If I say this in defense, someone will say it is invalid to use an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I'm still not seeing any basis for the arbitrary distinction between the first 6 months and last 6 months of the year. Seems like this is contrary to WP:SPLITLIST. I know you've worked hard on this, but perhaps the page just needs to be summarized or shortened. Anyways, this page is already way too long. It's over 150 kB, which is WP:TOOBIG. mikeman67 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPLITLIST for the technical reason for keeping this as it is. How can a list be shortened? On contemporary events, there is simply no secondary literature that covers synthetically a phenomenon like this, and summarization dooms any editor to WP:SYNTH complaints. One way is to divide as all POV warriors do, significant events along ethnic lines, which means you get a short list, and violate WP:NPOV. Splitting it into sub-articles just means creating another halving, with 3 month periods, and 4 pages instead of 2. That's possible, but the other alternatives are more or less destructive of the page's contents. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will add this as a pointer in favour of comprehensive event-lists, esp. in an area like this one. Composition is one endless edit-war underwritten by a mostly battleground mentality, infused with suspicion, with many tempted to scour for material to buttress their personal political POV to the exclusion of anything else. (b) a large number of the mainstream newspaper RS are skewed by deadline haste and national constituencies which want one version of events favourable to the electorate at large (c) a factual scroll, though tedious, giving the bare bones in sequence of events, without comment, allows the reader an opportunity to walk past the pulling at the heart-strings, biased commentary by nearly all sources, and make up his own opinion. Of course the old problems don't disappear, but it potentially more neutral than the hodgepodge of muddled compromises that most I/P articles become.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV-2

[edit]

This article has a lot of good info which is highly condensed. I don't see any significant POV tone it the content. This article needs some photos, infoboxes, and other additions to improve it. I support removal of the NPOV tag.

This NPOV tagging appears to have been repeatedly adressed. I'll remove it for now since the companion article has no tag. If an editor wishes to replace the tag, please leave a comment here as to why its POV and help us to improve the article. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag restoring - 2

[edit]

See also "NPOV tag restoring" subsection above, and

  • these changes what I have to make (basing on the same RS), only for a very little part of previous not-NPOV edits.

I restore the POV-tag and would propose to someone who wishes to retain this list to make a real work to bring it to a real NPOV status, not "NPOV-disaster". --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani: is it your 26 October 2015 "(updat)" revert - wp:Editwar, wp:Vandal or something else yet?
I restore tag. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are yet examples (for some days only) of not-NPOV edits repaired by me. And how much more is left :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next Nishidani's wp:Editwar - NPOV tag deletion (revert) --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next examples of repaired not-NPOV edits --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like WP:HARASS from you. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's find another place to discuss my person. What can you say about the subject of this and the previous such topics - NPOV? --Igorp_lj (talk).
You have nothing to say to substantiate what you assert, and if you do happen to say something it is in garbled English and so incomprehensibly formatted I have learnt to ignore it. Until I see a rational exposition, with evidence of a POV problem, I will revert you every time. What is obvious is that, when there are POV issues, any editor is entitled to edit and fix them. You don't, so stop whingeing.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not Bully. That said, I am certain you are aware of the 1RR limit imposed on this article and related articles. Due to having seen this, I am now following the article and an infraction of this rule will result in you being reported and possibly banned. Additionally, the NPOV tag is not a big deal, it simply means that some members of the community are of the opinion that the article is slanted. They have the right to express this view and you have the right to discuss it with them on the articles talk page. When a general consensus is reached or if a sufficient amount of change on the article has occurred, then the tag can and should be removed. Jab843 (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider correcting your failure to use an umlaut in writing 'Jab843 ist sehr mude (sic).' Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that when I was 13 and left it as an homage.... I wrote it almost 10 years ago.... Please ask if you have any relevant questions. Jab843 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, document the POV errors of this page, and I will fix them. No one else seems to have noticed any errors of substance, apart from just tagging the page.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, just following up on it as someone mentioned it to me. I see what you are saying though, it is a bit difficult to sort through everything and try and keep a balance. The real world doesn't seem to work like that for some reason.... Please let me know when you have control over world events. You are a very active user, your contributions to the Shakespeare pages is quite extensive. Particularly to this article, I thank you for your dedication to keeping it updated. I will try and do my best in the next few days in trying to help you, more so the article, but it seems as though some people have a certain view in their mind and I don't want us to risk this turning into a revision battle. Just keep the 1RR in mind, I know sometime I can forget it at the last moment. It can be tough. Jab843 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in controlling the world. I regard it as a matter of personal mental hygiene to avoid the world via its media controlling me, that's all. Please don't worry or hurry in helping on a page like this, which is far too intricate. Thanks for reminding me that I and 2 others got the Shakespeare Authorship Question to FA class, and a 1,000,000 plus reader hits a year. It compensates for writing so many pages that have less than a couple of hits a week. If you want to help, just read it through once over to see if there is a POV imbalance in the way each event is described, and eventually jot down a note or two. Don't waste the fine fresh years of youth though on hunting in the sad trivia of history! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issues

[edit]

Is it a BLP violation for us to list the ages of people while also listing their names. I realize that most of the people listed here were killed by the Israeli forces but are we allowed to post the ages of the victims along with their names or does this violate BLP for those victims who are still alive or for surviving family members? 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

If the rising frequency of these incidents continues, one could split the article into (a) July-September and (b) October-December, in particular because it coincides with the major uptick noted from the beginning of October. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that what happens to Palestinians is WP:NOTNEWS, which is certainly not news to my ears, having worked here for 10 years. Unlike the team of POV pushers responsible for dozens of articles on what Palestinians do, I manage both sides. And if the idea seems odd, I wonder why this kind of query never arises with, to cite just one example, the articles which form a precedent for these, i.e,, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, where the premise is, every rocket fired towards Israel is to be listed (but nothing Israel does is to be listed in the same articles). Post the same query on those 13 articles, and your query might obtain a minimal credibility.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is a good example. As I know, these attacks are recognized as war crime by almost all sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irrational

[edit]

For the 27th of October I entered this incident

Hammam Said (23) was shot dead by Israeli forces near the Tel Rumeida area of Hebron. It is alleged that he attempted to stab soldiers.[426

]

An IP undid this with the edit summary:’.’ NY Times is a legitimate source on this incident

Well, so is Ma'an, so that is an erratic excuse for removing the source and the data, which, nota bene, the editor did not introduce elsewhere. Content and source removal.

The NYTs article is dated 25 October and cannot by definition have foreseen the details of a new incident two days later. So it was IP abuse. I reverted it and again was reverted back with the same nonsensical edit summary If you use your open eyes, you'll see that it does If you use your open eyes, you'll see that it does

The source introduced is:- DIAA HADID and RAMI NAZZAL Caught Between Protesters and Israel, Palestinian Security Forces Shift Tactics New York Times 25 OCT. 25, 2015

Secondly, even if the NYTs had mentioned this incident two days before it occurred, that cannot justify the removal of a valid source. The editing here is thus totally irrational, intentionally deceptive and provocative, and therefore, since it comes from an IP can be classified as deliberate vandalism in my view, and be reverted on sight Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV discussion starting on 11/20

[edit]

It appears that the NPOV template has been added once again, please discuss this here as if you look through the article, this template doesn't seem entirely justified. But if it is warranted, please let us know here and how we can help. Jab843 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_in_July–December_2015&oldid=1205709229"