Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022

Speculation and developing stories

@User:Dunutubble Don't you think it would be best to omit adding certain events until there are more developments to the story? I was going to add a little phrase about the shooting in Ariel, but then I had second thoughts. Chances are the assailants are Palestinian, and the motive is terror, yet there is always a sliver of doubt. Should we be including suspected terrorist attacks only a few hours after they have taken place, when the identity of the assailants and their motive remain unknown? It's a bit speculative. Mooonswimmer 00:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Credibility of January 6th's Sources

I looked at the sources for "A 25-year-old Palestinian was hit and killed by a settler vehicle at the Beit Sira checkpoint. The driver reportedly turned himself in to authorities." and found in the first sentence of the source Middle East Monitor[1] the words "Two Palestinians were killed this morning by Israel in separate occasions in the occupied West Bank." Referring to a vehicle death caused by an Israeli civilian as "by Israel" strikes me as weasel-wording and makes me question the credibility of the source. The Wikipedia edit as-is mentions the driver turned himself in to authorities but doesn't mention the driver was on his way to work, which leads me to believe the death may have been accidental. In fact, the only other source from OCHA[2] refers to the incident with the more neutral "hit" rather than "ran over" the previous source uses. OCHA also brings up another incident from January 5th that isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all, where "in Umm al Kheir (Hebron), an elderly Palestinian man was critically injured after being hit by an Israeli police truck that was confiscating unregistered vehicles; according to Israeli sources the truck had been stoned at the time of the incident." - EricSpokane (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The death of the victim in the latter incident is recorded at January 17. Tell me exactly what you would like to change and I will change it, the victim is dead either way. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor Edit Suggestions

Hi all, since Selfstudier pointed out that I do not meet the minimum number of edits for editing AI conflict related pages I will keep a running list here of minor edits I think should be considered. (For major edits, I will create individual requests.)

1. Top box currently says "just short summaries neutrally worded together," better way to say this is either to write "just short neutrally worded short summaries" or you can emphasize need for neutral tone and balanced high quality references in a subsequent sentence. This depends on what you want the objective of that box to be.
2. March 15 typo in sentence "Israeli forces said they came under attackafter" -- should read "attack after"
3. May 20 wiki page link for Masafer Yatta is redundant given link exists for it under May 4, a date and event that is directly referred to in this May 20 update.

Thanks! theraefactor (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

2 and 3 are done, maybe try 1 again? "just short neutrally worded short summaries" has short twice. I tweaked it a bit. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding

1. Yes, sorry for the typo. I see you understood my intended correction. Thanks!
2. I saw you made an additional change, which I think removes context. Israelis were conducting raids/arrests based on recent terrorist attacks. Therefore, the context for the arrest of the two Palestinians should probably be left in, i.e. that two were arrested on suspicion of terrorism.
3. Great edits. Thanks!

theraefactor (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why they were being arrested, they weren't shot. In case you are not aware, Israeli based sources including their newsorgs routinely refer to every Palestinian as terrorist, you should pay no attention, I could just as well write instead that they were being arrested for resisting occupation, the point on which everyone will agree (and maybe not always even then) is that they were arrested. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. theraefactor (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New development regarding Abu Akleh Killing

Not sure if this is something to add to the timeline, feel free to opine and edit: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-57-u-s-lawmakers-demand-fbi-state-dept-investigate-shireen-abu-akleh-killing-1.10812248 -- theraefactor (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If things are already in main articles (for instance, some of the Masafer Yatta material was material that I had added at that article quite recently) then I think there is no need as long as there is a link out to the detailed article. Idk how exactly you look at this page, for me it is an aide memoire because I always forget smaller items and waste time looking for them all over again later to add to an article or to create a new one. Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

I fail to see why details about a Palestinian who did something else in March and which is already included in the article for March 29 are at all relevant to the killing of a Palestinian on June 1. That the Israeli forces were there to carry out a punitive demolition is relevant because that is why the Israeli forces were at the location but the reason for that demolition is completely irrelevant (there is no causal chain that leads to the current killing). Or to put it another way, if one was writing up the fact of the demolition in the Bnei Brak article (it's not in there atm), would one include a statement to the effect that while the Israeli forces were doing the demolition they killed a Palestinian? Also see the top of the page "Nor do entries require a great amount of extraneous detail, just short neutrally worded summaries and good references". Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning as it highlights the cycle of the violence with one event leading to another. Alaexis_¿question? 08:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I mean by causality, I don't see how the June 1 killing is "caused by" (or lead from) the Bnei Brak event (unless the suggestion is that it was revenge, which does not appear to be the case). One could simply say that all events are caused by the AI conflict, right? Or one could highlight the fact (also in the sources) that all punitive demolitions are considered illegal by the international community and that's the reason for the killing, or the cause can be (pick a cause from 1917 to now). Do you see what I mean? That stuff is just journalist infill taking advantage of the fact that the demolition was of the house of some other Palestinian who had earlier committed a crime but otherwise has nothing to do with the current killing afaics. The exact circumstances of the killing are not even clear at this point, that information would be preferable.Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The note about "when they came under fire" should possibly still be in there, or at least something about a fire fight breaking out (if reliably attested), but explaining the cause of the punitive demolition is undue and makes it less neutral, and would in turn require counterbalancing with an explanation of Israel's policy on enacting forms of collective punishment. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That "Palestinian who did something else" deliberately killed passersby for being Jewish. The Bnei Brak attack was the reason IDF were there in the West Bank. Even a pro-Arab ref mentions that in the opening sentence. If it's described earlier in the article, doesn't forbid it to be mentioned again. This page is about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022, and if a story has new developments it's worth mentioning. Replacing this information with "punitive home demolition" changes the meaning to imply that they came to demolish a random house for collective punishment. And, of course, the information about the killing of a Palestinian would be relevant in the Bnei Brak attack article. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are other related facts, selectively adding information is what is Orwellian. To reiterate, there is literally no need to write an entire article in this timeline but if needs be that can be done and not only for this particular killing. I have added undue tag for causally distant information and added material to balance the cherrypicking.Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is what you did adding a regulation that's not mentioned as important to this story in the sources. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, an editor insists on putting stuff in because it's in the sources but then takes stuff out that's in the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And says "keep it short" after first making stuff unnecessarily longer.Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's described earlier in the article, doesn't forbid it to be mentioned again. when adding something and Jenin raids are mentioned above. when removing. Double standard much? Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerning your edit,

You added that "Israel conducts near-daily raids" for one particular event when those raids are already right there on this page, visible to anyone. It's just a word clutter that doesn't provide any valuable information at all. Yabad is not that close to Jenin, anyway.

The source mentioning the 2021 regulation is about different incident the next day. The sources for this demolition and killing don't mention this regulation.

As for demolitions being "condemned by critics" – this belongs to Israeli demolition of Palestinian property article. There are no specific condemnations of this demolition in the sources, and even if there were, it doesn't belong here, unless very notable, because otherwise this list of events would be cluttered with trivial reactions. There are three instances of demolitions on this page, and you can't just add this generic message to them all. There's no criticism or reactions in other events on this list. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, these unwarranted additions to short summaries as required by the userbox at the top the article were started by yourself because you wanted to include additional information that you approve of and you added it even though the addition was being disputed in talk. Well, other editors can follow the example and start adding things that they approve of, can't they? Having it both ways isn't an option. If you want to return to the short summaries that were normal in this article prior to your intervention, we can do that or we can have a POV free for all, your choice.Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't "started by me", but by two other editors. You alone reverting the three of us. The Bnei Brak attack was a relevant addition that increased the text from 238 to just 315 characters, keeping it concise inline with the rest of this page. Your irrelevant false-balance self-admitted-POV info increased it to 902, making it the single largest such incident on the list by far, despite not being close to the most important. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite happy to await the views of others. The first editor was non ecp so that's not a revert, the second was a revert, my first. Your first edit to this page, ever, was to show up two days later to revert me and I did not revert you. The next revert is also yours, again another edit of mine.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What is this? Three editor came to add the info, you alone remove it.

And why did you add the 2021 regulation, for example? How's that relevant? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, with diffs, who it is doing the edit warring (how you described it in your linkouts to the projects). At the time of your first revert, myself and one other editor had expressed the view in talk that the material being added was undue but you ignored that discussion and imposed your POV instead (in other words, you edited against consensus, 2 to 1 at that time).(Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It's me against consensus?! Three editors adding information, you alone removing it. If we count talk page, that's 3 to 2 for adding. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Non ecp editor doesn't count, what you should have done per WP:ONUS (on those wishing to include disputed material) is to record your opinion in talk and then waited to see what other editors might say (onus also says material may not be added until there is a consensus). Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the demolition was carried out against the home of a terrorist who murdered five innocent people merely due to their non-Arab identity is relevant. Can't omit that if you say there was a demolition!חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It isn't omitted, it is still in the article. Because I don't edit war. It shouldn't be in the article because it has no relevance to the killing on 1 June. None. It's OK, the POV game is open to be played by more than one person as I said above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

June 3 entry

Delete the following:

"Recent notable news stories demonstrate the potential for tension around Palestinian flags. Israeli police assaulted pallbearers carrying the coffin, draped in a Palestinian flag, of the Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Aqla, shot dead while covering an Israeli army raid in Jenin refugee camp on 11 May. At her funeral, Israeli officers took Palestinian flags from mourners and smashed the window of the hearse to remove a Palestinian flag. Israeli soldiers have been filmed removing Palestinian flags and protecting Jewish settlers doing the same in Huwara which is under PA administration. Palestinians cheered a drone flying a Palestinian flag over Damascus Gate in response to Israeli flag waving during a nationalist Jerusalem day flag march."

Self-explanatory that there is a debate and tension surrounding the flag of Palestine within Israel by the Knesset vote and NGO action. This added detail is not necessary for a specific date timeline entry.

-- theraefactor (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See my reply re your point 2) below. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June 9 entry

Please remove the following:

"Israeli forces routinely carry out such raids that often lead to the killing or injury of Palestinians. In 2022, Israeli forces have killed at least 62 Palestinians in the West Bank, according to the Ministry of Health."

Two issues with this content. (1) This is biased POV commentary. (2) This is not a place to keep a running tally/count. This is a place where only an individual date/event should be catalogued.

In truth, coming back to this page after taking a brief break, I am discouraged. The edits on the main article page, especially recently, have been biased. This includes edits by long standing editors. This is inappropriate for something as sensitive as the I/P conflict. I would make changes but I am constrained by the 500 edits needed for editors to work on this page so when I have the time I will point out specific instances on here, on the talk page.

-- theraefactor (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the panel at the top of the page to reflect the recent reality that editors to the page do not consider themselves to be bound by the removed part. This I think deals with your point 2). In regards to point 1) you say it is "biased POV commentary". On what do you base this opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that really doesn't answer my questions or resolve the issues I mentioned. I also think that the top box didn't need adjustment.

I still think these details should be eliminated and I explained very clearly why. As for this specific instance of POV bias, there is so much context that needs to be discussed surrounding Israeli raids that this is a throwaway statement on a random date/raid event (this can be said after the first raid of the year, or the 5th or the 10th or the 100th...etc.) and it does not enlighten anything about the specific event on June 9th, rather simply aims to cast Israel in a bad light. I think anyone reading this page can see the numerous raids carried out and read about the consequences. Please note: I am not saying the raids are net positive or net negative. I am not defending the raids. I am merely pointing out that this is a one-sided statement randomly inserted into a timeline.

I am happy to make the edits myself if I get permission to do so. Otherwise, will someone who has enough edits make them for me? --theraefactor (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, just provided another personal opinion. Instead of trying to find reasons for removing properly sourced material and accusing editors of bias, why not try to find properly sourced material to add to the article which casts Israel in a good light, if that's your primary concern? Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

ummm. no.I did answer the question and I am saying this isn't specific to the event and paints a single perspective in one sided broad stroke. I honestly do not care who looks good or not. I am trying to keep this timeline a mere factual reporting of events, ie a timeline. theraefactor (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

a mere factual reporting of events What you are saying is your intention was my intention to start with and I edited that way. However if you look at the section immediately above your two edit requests you will see that the argument in that respect was lost. Editors that wanted to add in extraneous material obtained a consensus for doing so. It makes no difference to me personally, I can edit one way or the other way. For that matter there are events included in the timeline that I do not myself regard as particularly significant or notable but they are there just the same until someone feels like removing them. I notice you didn't ask for those to be removed so it seems you have some particular idea about what ought to be removed and afaics, it is things that you assert are biased/portray Israel in a bad light. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this is exactly the sort of related information reliable news sources present when there's a prominent example of something? If not at such a point, when? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

what? sorry, I don't understand your point. please clarify. theraefactor (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

When, if not in an article about a prominent killing, is bringing up statistics on the pattern of killings more useful? Where would you prefer to keep a tally? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this comment. If instead the aim is to include deaths of Israelis at the hands of Palestinians I have no problem with adding that, bring a source covering an event that contains such a tally and we can add it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

These tallies are superfluous as they are added randomly on some events and not the others, are redundant, and are given only for Palestinians and not for Jews. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We will use the OCHA protection of Civilians Report and provide these tallies every time, for both, problem solved.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

These tallies include the number of attacks by Israeli settlers (which you added to this page) and Israeli military incursions into Gaza, but ignore the number of attacks on Israelis and rockets from Gaza. A more balanced source is needed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

June 18 entry

This appears to be about a (one!) rocket, the usual disproportionate Israeli response and a house getting injured by a machine gun. How is this news? Selfstudier (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It is covered by significant sources, like NPR. It is also the first rocket attack in a long while. Compare this to all the entries you add based on very local Palestinian sources of no weight. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS In some days no-one will remember this and it will never be reported again. If you have a complaint about any entry I have made, feel free to tag instead of using it as a dubious defense when your own edits are critiqued. Selfstudier (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No, this rocket fire breaking a months long peace is significant. This was actual armed hostilities directed at peaceful civilians sleeping in their beds and was reported all over the world.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If you were to include this information in an article, which article would it go in? Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Only we two appear interested in this issue, I edited and removed the tag. If you don't agree, we can get a third opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

June 19 edit

A tag has been added. Tags require an explanation in talk, where is it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It was explained in the tag: "Routine shooting at attacker, no wide coverage".חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Be so kind as to explain why the killing of a Palestinian by Israeli forces is undue for this article. Are we now supposed to excise all the killings of Palestinians because a WP editor thinks they are "routine"? Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The killing of a Palestinian who was tearing down the border fence to illegally enter Israel. Where is the wide coverage of this event? Who will remember this in two weeks?חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I am going to give other editors the opportunity to respond to this.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

While we are waiting, added ToI, Aj, Reuters and Swissinfo (Swiss Broadcasting Corp) refs.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag because you showed Reuters carried it.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Revert

I noticed that you've removed ([3], [4]) links from 'See also', stating that they're "Not relevant", although they obviously are. I'd like to remind you that you don't WP:OWN this page. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What I saw on my talk page is more evidence of your WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Why did you remove the links for the third time? '2022 in Israel' and '2022 in the State of Palestine' have direct relevance to this page. People reading about a conflict between two countries in a given year may be interested in reading about events in each of those countries the same year. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The question is not why I am removing them the question is why are you restoring them after they were removed without getting consensus for that per WP:ONUS or at the very least citing some grounds for maintaining them.

You added 2022 in Israel & Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (the latter is already in the article hatnote so was unnecessary anyway)

14 June I removed as not relevant

You have added back along with a redlink

WP:MOS "..the section itself is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one". A simple timeline article certainly doesn't need it.

"articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." & "...section should not include red links.... section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."

Anything in 2022 Israel that relates to the IP conflict is probably already in the article, so it's not necessary either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Also please read WP:TALKHEADPOV "Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious" You might wish to apologize for a) Doing it in the first place and b) Doing it again after I altered it without taking you to task for doing it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Links in 'See also' doesn't have to be related to the conflict. '2022 in Israel' and this page have "2012" and "Israel" in common, which makes them related. And it's just a matter of time when '2022 in the State of Palestine' link turns blue. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am restoring, as it couldn't be more relevant.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You restored a redlink. I assume you did not read what I wrote above, WP:MOS "...section should not include red links". Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, the redlink can be removed.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert

In the previous section it was decided to make use of the see also section. Therefore links were added per WP:MOS "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article". The links added are related and ongoing, including in 2022 (that a see also link has to relate to 2022 specifically is patent nonsense). Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, these are general and broad. This is not a place for a collection of links.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Which WP policy is that? I have quoted WP:MOS "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article". They are. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the see also section is being misused per above discussion and that in the preceding section, I have tagged the section for POV.Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

'See also' section is misused by your spamming of it with vague and POV links. MOS:SEEALSO: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." The articles Israel, State of Palestine and 2022 are also "related to the topic of the article," but this doesn't mean that they should be linked in 'See also'. There's already a link at the top of the page to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict for a historical overview. I've reported you at WP:ANI#User:Selfstudier. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I really value your overall contributions, but don't you see that what you are doing here is wrong?Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Snce ANI declined to act on the complaint by Triggerhippie4, supported by yourself, I don't see that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Selfstudier: stop your disruptive editing on this page: [5]. How does your addition has any notability? It talks about nonconsequential event and people who are barely known. Secondly, you removed a link to a developing article about a notable current incident. If you disagree with its title, this does not give you the right to remove a link to it. You can address the issue on the article's talk page, not remove the link. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RM/POV tagged at the other page + linked to this page. Reverting POV edits is not disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article that was linked to is not developed enough, and the Jerusalem Post story on efforts by the UN to de-escalate the situation with the PIJ is notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A POV tag in an article does not allow anyone to remove links to it. And an article can not be unlinked on the basis of being "not developed enough" (what does this even mean?). On the contrary, a new article needs to be linked more to draw attention to it. The article is fine for an event that happened a few hours ago. As for the two paragraph story about some meeting which wasn't reported anywhere else, it's of course not notable. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please change the section heading from disruptive editing followed by a ping to my name. We have had this discussion previously.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post says otherwise, and that organization, unlike you, is a reliable, secondary source and an actual arbiter of what is notable or not. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post publishes something about the conflict every day, but that doesn't mean we need to add it all here, otherwise this page would be the longest on Wikipedia. Also, WP:Avoid personal attacks. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that removing the link was disruptive.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not IP related

I removed the Beersheeba/Hadera attacks because they did not involve Palestinians. Nor does OCHA include Israeli fatalities in their count unless oPt residents are responsible. (that's why they are showing 11 and not some higher number). Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship of participants does not change the attacks being a part of the I/P conflict in essence. And the fact that OCHA ignores incidents depending on citizenship is another argument against using this source. OCHA also includes the number of attacks by Israeli settlers and Israeli military incursions into Gaza, but ignores the number of attacks on Israelis and rockets from Gaza. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The level of disconnection is greater than this in this instance. These are Islamic State attacks not even clearly tied to Palestinian identity politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no argument against using OCHA as a source other than I dontlikeit. The UNSC, the press, everyone relies on them for accurate data, see https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties How on earth do you assess Israelis killing Israelis as part of the IP conflict ("in essence")?? Shall we start including all the Arab Israeli killings in Israel and blame the Israeli police for it so therefore part of the IP conflict? Ridiculous. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

November 14 Ra’anana incident

Would the shooting of an Israeli man by an IDF soldier after he was mistaken for a Palestinian terrorist merit inclusion in the article? Mooonswimmer 13:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Imo, no. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Ibrahim Al-Nabulsi

Can we put in the age of Ibrahim Al-Nabulsi, who was 18 years old at the time of his assassination? Pladero (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Mooonswimmer 00:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)