Misplaced Pages

Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:50, 15 April 2018 editDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits →top: add {{WikiProject Palestine}}. What a shame, enwiki← Previous edit Revision as of 18:55, 15 April 2018 edit undoIcewhiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,036 edits Removed duplicate wp Palestine - kept it on topNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPBS| {{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Palestine|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=C|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Israel|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=C|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} {{WPMILHIST|class=C|Middle-Eastern=y|Asian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=C|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{ITN talk|date=2 April 2018}} {{ITN talk|date=2 April 2018}}

Revision as of 18:55, 15 April 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
In the newsA news item involving 2018–2019 Gaza border protests was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 April 2018.
[REDACTED]
Misplaced Pages
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload


Title

Why should we object to describing this event as a "massacre"? We don't reject this term out of hand, there must be dozens of articles in the Category:Massacres and its sub-categories. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

IDF was preventing violent potential illegal immigrants from crossing into Israel. At least 2 of those who were killed were known to Israel as HAMAS operatives. Fighting terrorism is not the same as "massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Crap. The vast majority of those shot dead were killed by trained snipers lying on banks of sand and thus out of range beyond the 300 metre no go zone, and couldn't be even hit by stones, which can be slung by Israeli manual lore on conflict no more than 70 yards. In no civilized country in the world do you gun down protestors or even rioters who are unarmed. It's murder, and when the number exceeds 6, it is a massacre, as La Repubblica and the Vatican's Avvenire, reported when the news broke. 30,000 people showed zero interest in entering Israel. Half of the employed minority are in Hamas, it is the only way to get bread on the table. That doesn't make them operatives. This had fuck all to do with terrorism, since Haaretz and other sources have articles before the event which paint the IDF apocalyptic scenario of an 'existential threat' requiring massive force in the before this event took place, and put in place extreme measures on that paranoid hypothesis.
See for example:
Yaniv Kubovich,Josh Breiner Israeli Army Readies for Hamas March Along Gaza Border on Friday Haaretz 27 March 2018
Peter Lerner, This Friday, Israel’s Tear Gas and tanks Will Confront Palestinian Marchers. But Brute Force Can’0t Be Israel’s Only Answer, Haaretz 25 March 2018
I .e. this was an announced public event, not some secretive plot by Hamas, which did not, by the way, originally organize the event. How you bus 30,000 people with Gaza's buses(!!) to an area about a couple of kilometres from Gaza City, within easy walking distance (I've walked it myself) is a mystery, i.e. pure hysterical IDF agitprop.
I had written quite a few notes on this. But I've pulled a muscle in my back, coughing caused some latent wrench in my back caused by falling 8 feet out of a tree the other day, so I won't be able to edit for a few days. But the temptation to prioritize the Hamas-terrorist Pallywood motive should be resisted - that is simply the usual mendacious spin by the murderers who planned this lesson. The background consisted in a long deliberated move to use the standard Land Day protests as a marker for 5 weeks of pacific events, which aimed, not as such stupid line in our text says, to genetly 'evict' Israelis from their homes c- that is about as absurd as you get (check the source) - but to bring the world's negligent attention to the fact that 64 percent of youth are unemployed, 97% of Gaza's water is undrinkable, 70% go to bed feeling hungry, and the poverty line includes 65% or so of all families there, etc.etc. one snippet of my draft runs:

Conditions in the Gaza prior to the event

According to a January report by Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor, cited by Ghanam and therefore usable and written on the occasion of the 12th year of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, the economy was in a state of collapse with 44% of the population unemployed (62% of the youths),65% of families were sunk in poverty, with 72% unable to secure sufficient food, while 97% of Gaza’s water was not fit for human consumpotion.’

References

  1. Cite error: The named reference Ghannam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. http://euromedmonitor.org/en/gaza/ Gaza -12 Years of Blockade <references></references>Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor January 2018
So I suggest more work on the background figures, and look at B'tselem 's page as well.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And whose fault is that Gaza is in such a state of deprivation? After all, they receive billions from the world. Maybe because Hamas prefers to build cross-border tunnels and weapons instead of civilian infraestructure? This is what your "peaceful" protest was all about: a cynical camouflage for additional terrorist attacks (not to mention the usual propaganda and the attacker playing the victim card after sending their human shields to die).--יניב הורון (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Way to keep your POV in check יניב הורון. And backing it up with an Israeli military and political cite--because they will somehow be totally unbiased on this issue. Pure genius.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering the POV rant he was responding to, I'd say he did just fine in his response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I recall when Debkafile knew everything about Saddams WMD! LOL! (Needless to say: absolutely none of it true..) Huldra (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, Debka is no less biased than the so-called "Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor", but much more reliable and serious. Everything published by Debka is fully investigated, and many times they had no problem criticizing Israel's military and intelligence establishment. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources (such as normal newspapers) to support at least some of their findings.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Whose fault is it that you spout nonsense, copied and pasted from the puerile hasbara outlet for retirees from the IDF and Shin Bet, the Debka file? US aid to Israel in the last financial year was $3.1 billion: their aid to Palestinians has averaged a 7th of that over the last decade, with most going to the PA quisling government in the West Bank. Demographically the Israeli and Palestinian populations are on a par, so the elephantine wastrel sponger in the room is not the government of the Gaza Strip. Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds ought to exercise some care in playing the Palestinian freeloader meme before audiences that acrually study the facts. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about aid given to Gaza by the world, not just the US. But whatever, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not interested in seeing all the usual butthurt in the comments after another staged "humanitarian" provocation.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
יניב הורון take your own advice. One more comment like this--"all the usual butthurt"--and you will promptly see yourself at ANI. Mocking another editor for something you don't like or clearly understand does not fly with me or the respectable part of the community. I will never understand why the most sensitive subjects produces some of the worst editors I have encountered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And you are one of the worst POV commentators on Wiki, Slick. Hypocrisy on here doesn't cut it.50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment – calling this a massacre of of course nonsense, and there is no need to scrape the barrel for sources calling it one (as far as I can tell, even the state-sponsored sources here don't call it a massacre). It is not just a non-neutral term, but it doesn't even describe the events. It seems like a good idea to wait for the events to end in order to get some perspective, but no doubt in the end we will use the most neutral and descriptive title. —Ynhockey 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment Ynhockey has now moved the article to a new title, (in the middle of a discussion) and, AFAIK, used his admin powers to mv the protections too, so that none other than other admins can move it again. User:Ynhockey: using your admin powers in an issue where you are highly involved is not a good thing, me thinks? Huldra (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I actually fixed a botched move made by other editors, which seemed to create a (technical) disconnect between the article and its talk page.
In any case, it doesn't look like anyone here is actually arguing about policy, it's more of a philosophical discussion about whether it's a massacre or not. I stated my opinion on that issue above (with regards to the discussion), but it's only somewhat relevant to the actual issue of naming the article, which has to be in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. There is a policy to address precisely this issue, at WP:POVNAMING, and it's so clear when examining this specific article, that there's really no room for interpretation.
Therefore, while it was not my intention to prevent other users from moving the article (technically you still can, in a number of ways), maybe it's actually better because it might make everyone calm down and read the policy. In any case, feel free to open a move request if you have a policy-based argument on why this page should be moved. There are a number of back-and-forth moves in the last 24 hours which is really unhelpful.
—Ynhockey 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ynhockey, no comment on the title as of yet, but how does anyone with a sane mind believe you can be unbiased in this area?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick: I don't think anyone expects anyone else to be unbiased. There is however a policy about loaded terms on Misplaced Pages, and it's very clear about loaded words in article titles. —Ynhockey 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Ynhockey, I actually do expect others to be unbiased, just as I expect myself. If an editor cannot do that, they shouldn't be editing in the field.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And please fill in your references . Thank you!TheGracefulSliclistk (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
If the title was so loaded as User:Ynhockey imply, then surely some admin who was not WP:INVOLVED could have moved it. Ok, if Ynhockey doesn't undo his move, I will report this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
As I've noted on Ynhockey's talk page in response to your comment there, Ynhockey does not appear to have used any admin powers to move the page. Number 57 22:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. At 20:46, 31 March 2018 he deleted 2018 Land Day incidents with the edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move). At 20:52, 31 March 2018 he deleted Talk:2018 Land Day incidents with edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Not wrong. That's what it shows in your log when you move pages over a redirect. You have the same in your own log despite the fact you have no admin powers.
21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Talk:Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
It's a shame you've continued with this claim despite me trying to point you to your own log earlier. Number 57 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ynhockey's move was improper because he has a conflict of interest, and one can't figure out if he is actually neutral: since he is both an Israeli and an admin he shouldn't allow for this kind of doubt by undertaking controversial changes in this area while wearing his adminship. His reasoning is dead wrong: we don't call armies, police or whatever shooting significant numbers of unarmed protesters 'incidents' or 'events' or 'protests'. The title must acknowledge people were killed, and we have tons of stuff like Sharpeville Massacre and Kent State Shootings that acknowledge that you don't adopt euphemisms when mass killings are carried out by government order or otherwise. In this case, Israel admits it ordered the army to shoot unarmed people en masse. I know this is just normal routine stuff for many who accept Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements (that is what Zionism is all about), but globally, mass executions are not 'incidents': the army in on record as boasting it could account for every bullet and every person, even women and children, hit by live fire. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
He was reverting a move that could be argued to be controversial. The bits about him having a conflict of interest because he's Israeli is not worthy of Misplaced Pages and hope will be retracted. The idea that an editor should be restricted in some way when editing a certain subject because of their nationality is appalling. Number 57 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Distortion. An Israeli editor is like anyone else. An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher stanbdards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral. This stands out like dog's balls, and applies to all admins of whatever natiolnality when they are dealing with controversies affecting their homeland.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a very simple test of NPOV: what would the title be if the "sides" were the other way round? Suppose some snipers murdered 16 football fans at a Beitar match. Do you seriously think the title of such an event should be 2018 Beitar incident? --NSH001 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Talking about stupid comparisons... If Beitar was a terrorist organization like Hamas instead of a football team, and they organized a mass protest near a border, which included armed men and human shields to provoke a violent confrontation with the enemy... then, probably yes. Can we move on, now?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to get you to think of the event from the other side's point of view. Please point me to any article on the murder of Israeli citizens that is titled "XXXXXX incident" or "XXXXXX incidents". Or indeed, can you point me to any such article whose title hides or obfuscates what happened to the victims (massacre, killing, shooting, stabbing, whatever)? Because that is what is being, mendaciously, done in the section below. This is a massacre, and that is what it should be called, though I could live with "murders" or "killings" as a compromise. --NSH001 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests"

I propose that the article be moved back to 2018 Land Day protests, at least for now. This version was the article's names for a brief period , amid all the moves :-). "Incidents" is both wp:weasel and vague. "Protests" is much more of WP:COMMONNAME vs "Incidents". See for example Google search. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Attempting to storm an international border is not a protest. Some of the Gazan casulties were from a Hamas squad that in the evening fired at Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) clarified comment. Most neutral sources are using clashes or confrontations to describe this staged event which involved gun fire from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Aljazeera, CNN, The Guardian, and several other reputable secondary sources call these events protests. Icewhiz put the POV-cap away and look at the sources in front of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    I see confrontations and clashes used more often. The incidents on the day (or rather evening) included a firefight - in the evening between armed militants and the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – actually when I first searched for this topic, I thought it would be called 2018 Land Day protests. However, the article is potentially about a wider set of incidents (border infiltrations, geopolitics, etc.); so I am neutral about this, both titles seem OK to me, it's more of a question of the article's scope. —Ynhockey 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep it as "2018 Land Day incidents". It's the most neutral and descriptive term. This is not woodstock nor just "protests", but a Hamas-organized rally that included armed attacks.--יניב הורון (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - it doesn't require a large WP:CRYSTALBALL to see this is slated to be a continuing event (with continuing events during the week, and a big flare up next Friday (and the Friday after that - until perhaps 15 May) - the organizers are declaring this is their intention - so whatever name we end up with probably won't have "Land day" in it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Generally speaking these were protests. There were some incidents, catching a lot of focus, but most of the events were protests. Maybe calling it a "riot" would be better, but it is much better than "incidents".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support—"Protests" doesn't exclude those protesters participating in confrontations with the border guards, though there are three deaths that are peripheral at best to the protests. What it does include, however, is the large numbers of people participating in the protest camps. Conversely, "clashes" may be inappropriate for people not engaging in confrontation, which apparently includes a significant number of those killed and injured.--Carwil (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    All of the deaths are related to clashes near the fence (or in one case - two armed gunmen with AK-47 in the evening) - the whole event would've been probably non-notable had they stayed back in the protest camps - the coverage in the sources is not about that - but about incidents along the border.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'm open to 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes.--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'm good with 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes (added plural to protest - it wasn't one on Friday - and there have been more since Friday - and it is likely to be "big" this coming Friday).Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    Agree. Since this is going to be going on for a while, there should be a top level article with a general name, then sub articles (which this one will probably end up as) for daily (or whatever is appropriate) events. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "protests" would obfuscate the essence (already buried or absent in the article). Title can be more precise: 2018 Land Day shootings when short, or 2018 Land Day massacre. The wording "clashes", notw used on mainpage, is misleading and wrong. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Icewhiz sees "violent riots" everywhere, so I would take his !vote with a grain of salt. Compare with: Talk:Ahed_Tamimi#Use of "riots" is attributed to Israeli authorities where Icewhiz insists that describing what he terms "violent rioting" as "protest" is a BLP violation against IDF soldiers. Strange but true :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
NPA please. RSes are widely using clashes. Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and AK47 rifles used by the Palestinians are typically not part of protests.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018 Gaza border protests"

I moved the article to 2018 Gaza border protests. It's concise and to the point. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think this is a bad move as the events described include shooting, throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails, protests, cross-border infiltrations, etc. Incidents describes all these events. Protests do not. We should move away from incidents only to a more specific NPOV name, otherwise we move WP backwards. For example, the Palestine News Agency, Wafa, recognizes that these are more than protests, using in this article 0 times "protests" and 3 times "events". gidonb (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope: Include ongoing protest campaign?

It's pretty clear that there will be ongoing, substantial coverage of the Great March of Return protests, including events after the Land Day incidents. For example:

Shall we expand the scope to include subsequent days in this protest campaign (which is currently slated to last through mid-May)?--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. These aren't distinct events - but an on-going campaign. Should this escalate to a full-on armed conflict - we should probably delineate this article to the beginning of full hostilities - but as long as it is on the level of 30th March events - we should string them together. For 6th April the Gazans are planning (or at least are saying so publicly and releasing PR to that effect) earth embankments from their side and burning tires for smoke cover - in response to events on 30th March.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Great March of Return

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

word choice

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change 'will overrun the fences' -> 'to overrun the fences' 89.240.143.247 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Also just spotted 'March of Return,' should have a full stop, not a comma. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Done, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
...I'm so sorry to be such a PITA (ty for dealing with it) but I've also spotted 'then stomach' -> 'the stomach'. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Done! Huldra (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Chart

Is there a chart that could possibly house the names of the victims? I am not very savvy in that regard, but I believe I have seen such things at various articles on shootings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Reactions to the incident

Is it possible to add (international) reactions to the incident? Multiple states and other organizations have released statements reacting to what happened. A non-exhaustive list of international reactions and references for them:

Proposed section: International reactions

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Based on the above I've drawn up the following to include in the article:

The ] Secretary-General ] and ] High Representative Federica Mogherini both called for investigations, while UN deputy head of political affairs ] said "Israel must uphold its responsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law".<ref></ref> A statement from the ] called for both sides to work together to end the violence,<ref></ref> as did the ]'s ambassador to the UN and the ] foreign office.<ref></ref><ref></ref> The ]n Foreign Ministry criticised what it termed "the indiscriminate use of force against civilians" by Israeli forces.<ref></ref>

Please check this over and add it or something similar. I've nominated this article for WP:ITN so it's important it's the best it can be. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


I certainly agree that international reactions should be added. If nobody does it tonight, I may do it myself tomorrow. Here are additional references for reactions:

BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

List of victims

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The list is unreferenced. Either orange tag the section or better yet, remove it.

--LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to apply. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's questionable notability, and without refs it'll never get on ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
In the IP area, all articles dealing with considerable numbers of Israeli/Jewish victims of violence list the people, their names and ages. Palestinians get the same treatment, and the list is required because once btselem has done its legwork we will have material on the eyewitness testimonies re each person killed, which naturally are meat and meet for this article. Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
There are no sources. Please tag the section "refimprove". It's a WP:BLP vio to have it unreferenced. If you have examples of other articles with a list of the dead, please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
While the possibility of using it to create prose later sounds good in principal, the present form is just a list of names and isn't encyclopaedic. It's also unsourced. It needs removed in its present form. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the list should be cited; otherwise, what if it's incorrect? I suggest that the uncited names be commented out for now (keep those that have citations). If someone wants to add citations, they could comment out the names after adding citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed now. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not "fixed"

Nishidani, Huldra, Ynhockey, Shrike,K.e.coffman,LaserLegs, Icewhiz, and Mhhossein (if I missed a major contributor, ping them) I do not think this issue is resolved. The list assumes the IDF report on the Hamas killed is the absolute authority. There seems to be too many conflicting reports on the dead, who they were, and how they were affiliated to have a definitive list that accurately portrays the situation; in addition, the individuals were not independently notable. How about we remove the list, construct a well-developed paragraph or two on the conflicting reports, and ultimately improve the article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the list. Should be a tally per both (or more) sides - IDF says X Hamas, Y other militants (list), Palestinians say Z Hamas, W other militants.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of tragic losses of life come through "In The News" and have never seen a list of victims. It's encyclopedic value is suspect. Strongly urge removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree that it's a good idea to remove the list itself. There is actually less disagreement about who the killed were than it first seems—both the IDF and Hamas confirm that exactly five of the killed belonged to Hamas's military wing. Both the IDF and PIJ confirm that one of the killed was in the PIJ military wing. There isn't even disagreement (AFAIK) about the other Hamas members being Hamas members—the only disagreement is classification. The IDF considers all Hamas members to be legitimate military targets, while Hamas claims that members of its "political wing" are civilians. —Ynhockey 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Having any list of victims would be very much POV. It smacks of POV. I agree that it should be removed. Loknar (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Loknar! Why is it "very much POV"? Can you please elaborate on that? --Mhhossein 13:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

1416 civilians in the lead

I didn't found this number in the sources.--Shrike (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This article reports that "758 were wounded from live fire, 148 from rubber-tipped bullets, 422 from inhaling tear gas and 88 from other causes". That adds up to exactly 1416. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Other cited sources mention "some 1400" or "over 1400", the Haaretz one cites that exact number. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest sticking to deaths in the lead - that is what the attention is on, and there is little dispute around deaths (so far! Both side seem to agree when someone dies). However the number of wounded is always in dispute, has to be attributed (e.g. Gazan health ministry), tends to be inflated with minor injuries and even psychological trauma, and is often inconsistently tallied across multiple events (e.g. this coming Friday). Note that calling those on the Palestinian side civilians is also disputed - as much of the turnout (which was lower than what the organizers hoped for) were Hamas apartus members who were instructed to show up.Icewhiz (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere it says that all of them civilians also the claim should be clearly attributed.--Shrike (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Impact

I reverted the reactions that reiterated some countries condemning the violence. While I very much support a sentence or two expressing the international community's disappointment in Israel's use of force, I do not believe writing paragraphs of run-of-the-mill condemnations is productive. I have seen too many articles on recent news events waste space on countless "thoughts and prayers" and " condemns the violence" instead of providing readers with actual substance. We can do better, I hope. Please, let us discuss meaningful reactions with impact here instead of creating another "condemn the violence" article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Turkey is possibly significant - this is turning into a 2 way spat and has potential ramifications regarding Syria, Cyprus, as well as the (usual per lately) questions regarding Turkey's regional and treaty alignment (vis a vis the upcoming Iran, Russsia, Turkey summit).Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz yea, I was just reading about their "war of words". Several sources are describing how it represents the overall growing criticism of the Israeli military so I will work on incorporating it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

POV selection of material

Despite the inclusion of a background section of this article, the article does not provide significant weight to Israeli warnings in the days leading up to the incident that Hamas was bent on a violent confrontation. This included warnings to civilians to stay away.

In the lead, the article does not mention that several of the people identified by Israel as Hamas gunmen, have also been admitted to be members by Hamas. OtterAM (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

OtterAM how does Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings issued by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone not provide weight to Israeli warnings? How does The Israeli military accused Hamas of using the protests as a guise to launch attacks against Israel not give weight to their belief that Hamas was using the protests for violence? You needed to read the article to find those sentences. It isn't something that needs to be repeated several times to "gain weight" in the article. The lede does need work, but a drive-by POV tag doesn't accomplish anything: editing does.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm too cynical here, but it's maybe because usually (in other countries) a government doesn't really get credit for practically saying "Don't protest because we might shoot you?" 12:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
You're not being cynical, you are being inaccurate. A peaceful protest AWAY from the border would have been ignored. When violence occurs directly in front of a security fence, the prudent thing to do is to defend one's lives and properties.50.111.3.17 (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Only Israeli description of the casualties appear in the lead?

I don't understand this removal of HRW's description of the casualties from the lead: . Human Rights Watch is not a fringe organization and its statement about the civilian nature of the some of the casualties provide a counter-point to the Israeli statements about some casualties being Hamas members. If we only highlight the Hamas aspect but not the civilian aspect, wouldn't it be one-sided? Also, I don't understand the objection of HRW as "polemical source". It's often critical of Israel, for sure, but it is an acclaimed organization, and its claim in this particular occasion is reported by third party sources, e.g. . Also, if HRW is "polemical", wouldn't IDF statement be more problematic because it is the party that did the killing and thus have motivation to emphasize the non-peaceful aspect of the victims? HaEr48 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

HRW does not belong in the lead - it is always critical of Israel. Furthermore, we have NPOV issues when we describe those killed as "protesters" in Misplaced Pages's voice when there have been claims that some of them were armed with AK-47 rifles.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: It's "always" critical of Israel in the sense that it's "always" critical of many other organizations or governments - it's because its job is criticizing human right violations. It is even more critical of Hamas, for example, , . And anyway, even that shouldn't be a reason to exclude it. For example, the IDF is "always supportive" of Israel, but we shouldn't exclude IDF statements. We should provide them, along with their counterpoints. HaEr48 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
HRW has a long history of leftist bias - don't paint them as altruists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The Hamas claim too appear in the lead.I don't see any POV problem--Shrike (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
What Hamas claim? Do you think Hamas is a better source than HRW? HaEr48 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"Claims from Hamas set the number of injured at 1,416..."--Shrike (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is HRW a high quality source for articles in general, but not for articles about Israel? Seraphim System 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

This edit request to 2018 Land Day incidents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article is biased. Most of the cited sources are Zionist. 173.48.49.142 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please make edit requests in the form "Please change X to Y". Iffy★Chat -- 12:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox to the article, it may require further work.--Jamez42 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit of infobox Suggestion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest changing side1 and side2 to add the Palestinian flag and IDF flag. Waddie96 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Waddie96 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 
{{Infobox civil conflict
| title            = 2018 Land Day incidents
| subtitle         = 
| partof           = 
| image            = Gaza_Strip_map2.svg
| caption          = Map of the Gaza Strip
| date             = 30 March 2018
| place            = ], near the ] border
| coordinates      = 
| causes           = 
| goals            = 
| methods          = 
| status           = 
| result           = 
| side1            = {{flag|Palestine|name=Palestinian protestors}}
| side2            = {{flag|Israel|tsahal|name=Israeli Defense Force}}
| side3            = 
| leadfigures1     = 
| leadfigures2     = 
| leadfigures3     = 
| howmany1         = Tens of thousands
| howmany2         = 
| howmany3         = 
| casualties1      = 
| casualties2      = 
| casualties3      = 
| fatalities       = 17 
| injuries         = 1,416 <small>(Gaza Ministry of Health estimate)<small/>
| arrests          =
| detentions       =
}}
Personally I don't have any objections.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Waddie96 (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"protests and clashes": wtf

I am ashamed that Misplaced Pages, I contribute to, ends up saying this is a true article title. - DePiep (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should call a spade a spade. AK47s and pupe bombs are not part of a protest. The Washington Post is using clashes..Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


You are ashamed they are not using your biased language on a website that is supposed to be neutral?Crowtow849 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Endless moves

As the article has now been moved four times today, and several times previously, I've added full move protection to the article to stop this going on. Any further moves need to be done via the WP:RM process. Cheers, Number 57 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I'm finding these two sentences problematic:

  • "The protests soon turned violent. Israeli forces killed 18 Palestinians."

References

  1. Kershner, Isabel; Abuheweila, Iyad (30 March 2018). "Israeli Military Kills 15 Palestinians in Confrontations on Gaza Border". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  2. Fares Akram and Karin Laub, AP (2 April 2018). "Gaza toll rises to 18, Israel rejects excessive force claims". Retrieved 6 April 2018 – via washingtonpost.com.
  3. "Israeli army kills 17 Palestinians in Gaza protests". aljazeera.com. Retrieved 3 April 2018.

This seems to suggest causation: protests turned violent --> Israel killed 18 protestors as a result. "Violence" suggests that there were casualties on both side, which does not appear to be the case. Any feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "violence" suggests there were casualties on both sides, only that violence was employed. Which it was. I also don't think the two sentences necessarily need to be set up like this, but "the protests soon turned violent" - which is a direct quote from NYT - does need to be there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I reworked the two sentence as follows: revised one sentence; moved another into next para w/o changes. The two sentences in question now read:
  • The situation soon turned violent, with Isreali forces opening fire on protestors. Israeli forces killed 20 Palestinians. According to Israel, eight members of Hamas...

References

  1. Kershner, Isabel; Abuheweila, Iyad (30 March 2018). "Israeli Military Kills 15 Palestinians in Confrontations on Gaza Border". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  2. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/20-palestinians-killed-gaza-since-friday/
  3. Fares Akram and Karin Laub, AP (2 April 2018). "Gaza toll rises to 18, Israel rejects excessive force claims". Retrieved 6 April 2018 – via washingtonpost.com.
  4. "Israeli army kills 17 Palestinians in Gaza protests". aljazeera.com. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
The mention of fatalities seem to go better with the descriptions of who was killed. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. I explicitly said I object to removing the direct NYT wording but you just went ahead and did it anyway. I reverted. Your change completely changes the meaning of the sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
We should emphasize this was instigated by the Palestinians, who attacked the border fence, attempted to breach it, threw pipe bombs and molotov cocktails, and caused significant health and environmental effects by burning 10000 tires. In addition, a few armed gunmen with ak47 were involved. Coverage of the death toll should come after coverage of themactions leading to these deaths.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, the wording suggests that the protestors turned violent necessitating an IDF response. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree with the concern raised. As far as I know (and happy to be disproved), any Palestinian violence was directed against the fence. An inanimate object. Not against civilians, nor soldiers, nor private or commercial property. The sentence should be clear so as not to give the wrong impression. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    Protecting state property is also a concern, however per Vox "smaller groups of predominantly young men have rolled burning tires and thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at nearby Israeli troops.". Per NYT "But as some began hurling stones, tossing Molotov cocktails and rolling burning tires at the fence". Per the IDF "The IDF asserted that many protesters threw Molotov cocktails and rocks at its soldiers, opened fire on them, attempted to infiltrate Israel and set tires on fire. Videos shared on Facebook and Twitter appear to show some protesters participating in violent actions, while several others did not." . There are also reports of pipe bombs, as well as gun men who attacked at night during the week.Molotov cocktails are deadly implements, capable of destroying (lightly) armored viehcles.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Presumably we should source the Molotov cocktail claim to the IDF. It’s surprising to me that there is no video evidence of this, considering the prevalence of GoPros and other cameras amongst IDF personnel. Fortunately no Israeli soldier has required as much as a band-aid, so it seems difficult to imagine that the ground forces were dodging hails of Palestinian fire. All the reputable sources concur that Palestinian violence was limited, and our article should imply the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources say this in their own voice, not attributed. I think there are also some photos/videos, though I do not see how that is required. As for the lack of IDF injuries - well perhaps they've been shooting the assailants prior to them getting close enough to mortally harm the IDF soldiers.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: you removed properly sourced material and replaced it with your opinion ("As far as I know"? "It's hard to imagine"? Neither of those sound like a policy based argument). We now have a second source that supports the language that was in the article. Do the right thing and self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead was fine as it is and followed the sources now its not--Shrike (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment According to FAIR, there was (as of 2 April) “no independent evidence firebombs were used, much less used before any sniper fire from Israel.“ (See
  • The two gunmen in the evening/night last week were never claimed to be during the distubance at the fence - this was after the main event per both sides - it was at the same fence. The NYT and Vox are using their own voice in describing firebombs. FAIR is not a jeutral source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Who says FAIR is not neutral in Arab-Israeli matters? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the source says "witnesses said". You can't change that to "according to Israeli sources" just because you think that jives with something an activist group and an opinion piece says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So FAIR is not a neutral source, while IDF/Israeli newspapers are? Nice one. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I noticed the same. The ToI is not a neutral publication when it comes to Arab-Israeli matters; it was set up with the explicit purpose of taking a pro-Israeli line for Israel on the global stage. Their “witnesses said” could mean just about anything. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Israeli newspapers can be neutral (in fact, Haaretz is actually pro-Palestinian on these events per their main editorals for the past week+). However, why would you call NPR, NYT, or Vox (all mentioning firebombs in their own voice) Israeli?Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You envision the spectrum incorrectly. Haaretz sits in the middle - it stands for balance. Pro-Palestinian looks very different.
Those other publications are sometimes lazy; hence here they fail to disclose where they got that information. We both know the answer though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Footage for rocks and firebombs is not hidden. Here is AP for April 6 - "WHY HAVE THE PROTESTS TURNED VIOLENT? While thousands of Palestinians have gathered for what are billed as nonviolent protests, dozens of young men have approached the border and thrown stones, firebombs and burning tires toward the border fence. - clearly placed and preceeding Israeli mobilization.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That the Telegraph article claim so many things that other people contradict (“seized control of Gaza from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas“ …lol, when his time was up a decade ago) . The Telegraph also claim that this is all a Hamas organised, to quote FAIR: as if “Palestinians have no organic reasons for wanting to protest the occupation of their homes; the whole thing was a top-down decree from “the militant group” Hamas.“ And there are no pictures of any firebombs…only one guy with a slingshot. (Which was taken when?)
And Vox I don't know, but NPR was dealt with in that FAIR article I linked above. And I have yet to read anything unbiased from Isabel Kershner in the NYT. (Actually, it is rather fascinating: NYT have so many absolutely excellent articles about, say, US affairs....but whenever they write about the ME situations, it looks as if it is written by someone with an IQ of 65. Sigh.) And, AFAIK, all of the above (NPR, NYT, or Vox, The Telegraph) had their information from....Israeli sources. Or have you heard that they had their own journalists on the ground? Huldra (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, please don't get sucked into this ridiculous argument. TOI is a reliable source per[REDACTED] standards, and anyone who doesn't like that is free to challenge it at the RSN board. Until that time, we stick to what the RS said, and editors are forbidden from SYNTHing multiple sources or putting their own personal opinion about stuff in articles. Neither Huldra or Onceinawhile have supplied reliable sources to back the changes they made in the article. Focus on that, not on rebutting their SOAP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"although independent estimates are unavailable."

Wow ARBPIA articles are fun. Anyway, the lead makes the statement " although independent estimates are unavailable." but none of them explicitly state "independent estimates are unavailable". Source it or kill it please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the statement with this edit. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health

The addition of "Hamas-run" seems unnecessary, as here:

  • The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health ...

References

  1. Wainer, David; Arnold, Michael; Ramadan, Saud Abu (2018-04-07). "Palestinians Clash With Israeli Troops for Second Week in Gaza". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2018-04-08.
  2. Gross, Judah Ari; Frydberg, Tracy; AFP; Agencies; Gebeily, Maya; KHERA, Jastinder; Schwartz, Yaakov; Murphy, Peter; Toameh, Khaled Abu (2018-04-01). "Hamas: 11 Palestinians injured by IDF in fresh Gaza protests". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2018-04-08.

I had originally removed the qualifier not because it's not Hamas-run, but because we don't say "Israel-government-run Ministry of Health..." or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We do when sources mention it explicitly, like they do here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Specifying Hamas-run is appropriate, per the use in the sources. It is not trivially obvious to the casual reader that various organizations in the Gaza strip are controlled by the Hamas and not by the Palestinian authority.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"A second wave of large protests began on Friday, 6 April 2018. Palestinains brought large numbers of tires to create smoke shields for the protests. According to witnesses, Palestinians used stones and Molotov cocktails, while the Israeli military used tear gas and live ammunition." should be "A second wave of large protests began on Friday, 6 April 2018. Palestinians brought large numbers of tires to create smoke shields for the protests. According to witnesses, Palestinians used stones and Molotov cocktails, while the Israeli military used tear gas and live ammunition.". 108.245.173.217 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious, but both sentences look the same to me? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The original says "Palestinains" instead of Palestinians. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

30 March injuries

Is it more accurate if the lead says "more than 1400 people were injured on 30 March"? Then we don't need to write unnecessary details such as "The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health" details in the lead. Any ideas? --Mhhossein 18:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health is not a neutral source and must be attributed. As for accuracy - this number is inflated by very minor injuries (bruises, tear gas inhalation, even anxiety). The fatality count, on the other hand, is not disputed. I think we should omit the GMH injuries all together from the lead - from past experience tallying this over a number of weeks leads to OR issues besides the underlying reliability issues.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I was suggesting to remove the report of Gaza Ministry of Health. There are some other independent sources reporting a close figure (I just cited one in previous comment). --Mhhossein 13:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You cited CNN which was citing Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations - who is not a neutral soource and is probably parroting the Gaza health ministry.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
That's right, the CNN is citing Riyad Mansour. Is there any independent source regarding the injured individuals? --Mhhossein 19:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian

This edit request to 2018 Gaza border protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Palestinian)) to ((Palestinians|Palestinian))

 Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Not "border protests", but "land reclaim protests". Also: omitting Israeli violence

Again: these are not "border protests", Misplaced Pages. These are "Land reclaim protests", and "Israel responds with live fire". Misplaced Pages is insincere twice: it is not about the 'border' (duh), and is omitting the Israeli one-sided violence. - DePiep (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article shows (with sources) that the violence was not one-sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What "contrary"? I state that Misplaced Pages misrepresents the issue. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages follows the sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
These are not protests at all, but clashes. In today's events they flew molotov cocktails connected to kites (attempting to hit Israeli positions) and carried a number of bombs as well - some thrown to the Israeli side, but one did go off prematurely and injured a number of Palestinians who were around the fellow carrying it.Icewhiz (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy POV pushing, Icewhiz.
re No More Mr Nice Guy: no, this Misplaced Pages does not. The article title and Main page ITN are both wrong, by Misplaced Pages choice (these wordings are not enforced by any source). Not any independent source says so. Again: Misplaced Pages picking the key word "border" is, eh, POV (and repulsive, and cherrypicking sources). - DePiep (talk)
"Border protests" here means "protests on the border" not "people protesting the border". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you say, really? As in: you don't understand it? BTW, did you see that red herring walking over there? Duh. The point is, again: that-does-not-describe-the-issue. Not in article title, not on main page. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Enforced article title without consensus

First this move by serial involved editor K.e.coffman, then fixing & freezing the pagename by admin Number 57 wthout any discussion. That is a trespassing of good editorship (and abuse of admin rights by Number 57). No consensus is available. I invite both editors to start an open questioned "Move to ..." proposal. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have formally requested that the Move be undone: - DePiep (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: Please withdraw your accusation of me abusing my admin rights. I have no involvement in this article beyond pointing out another incorrect accusation above and the protection was solely to stop the article being moved repeatedly (it had been moved four times in one day at the time I protected it). Thanks, Number 57 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: The #Title discussion started on March 31. You entered that discussion , leaving a controversial Move untouched while you knew it was controversial, and while the discussion was on. IOW, supporting a disputed move (by not acting, this time).
Then you move-protected the page on April 6 (after four moves that day), without any reverting. I call this action skewed, because you knew it was controversial, and you knew a discussion was going on. Then move-protecting the page without reverting to any previous (pre-discussion, or pre-controversial) title is not balanced. And it turned out twice, you rewarded the last editor to have their way, ignoring the discussion completely. - DePiep (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I entered the discussion to note that an accusation of abuse of admin powers was unfounded. I have no opinion on the article title and any title this article has or is locked at will be controversial to someone (see WP:WRONGVERSION). Either withdraw your accusation of abusing admin powers (and that of gaming the system that you made below) or report me at ANI. Number 57 11:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2018

It has been proposed in this section that 2018–2019 Gaza border protests be renamed and moved to Great March of Return protests.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2018 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return protests – I performed the last move, so I'm starting this RM. I'm not even sure that the current name is the right one as there's technically not a "border" between Israel and Gaza, as Gaza and Israel are not two sovereign states. Please see this insightful commentary by an English language professor: The bare facts about the Gaza demonstrators are correct, but the rest of the story is missing, LA Times. In such a case, with many conflicting narratives, it's hard to come up with the "right" descriptive name. It's better to have the proper name as the title of the article; compare with Unite the Right rally. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous names of the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To illustrate the dilemma, here are the previous names, in reverse chronological order, between 6 April and 30 March:

  1. 2018 Gaza border protests
  2. 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes
  3. 2018 Land Day incidents
  4. Land Day massacre
  5. 2018 Land Day incidents
  6. 2018 Land Day massacre
  7. 2018 Land Day protests
  8. Land Day demonstration
  9. 2018 Land Day massacre
  10. 2018 Land Day riots
  11. 2018 Land Day massacre

Some names appear several times as the article was moved back and forth. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved in from Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests

  • Yes but that Move "discussion" is gaming the system. Did you notice it was started by an opponent (you just pinged) some 10 minutes after I pointed to their behaviour in this? I say: revert the non-consensus name, say to the involved and absent admin they were wrong, and maybe let the Move talk run. With or without that new Move talk: the revert can be done. -DePiep (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
And ping EdJohnston. Using the occasion: why would that non-consensus name be kept? You can revert and still 'see what the talk brings'. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's good. I did not ask for that. Did you read my Q at all? (admin User:Number 57 only spiked the page right after the Move). I asked to revert the move itself (by K.e.coffman). Thank you, EdJohnston, for being so careful with a serious question. - DePiep (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

  • ~ better than before Oppose. (duh how easy) However, Israeli violence should be included. There is no 'dilemma'. Israel shoots at and kills unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. So, even better is: "Palestinian Land day/Great March of Return protests and Israeli murderous violence" (all 32+ deaths and wounded were one-sided). - DePiep (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I oppose, because this is a red herring title. Why remove "Palestine" from the title? Why not include Isreali murderous violence in the title? DePiep - 01:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
And stop fucking with my opinion . -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very few sources call it "Great March of Return". Some do note that's what the Palestinians call/called it. It's certainly not the COMMONNAME and privileging what one side calls something would be an NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support - A neutral and accurate title that will not see consensus. Too many editors here would rather call it 2018 Gaza border attacks or 2018 attempted invasion of Israel. Unarmed protesters are being gunned down and thousands of Gazans are described in the same breath as militants in the article to excuse the killing and create one of the worst POV cesspools I have seen. I actually had high hopes of returning to this article and working toward GA. That will never happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the common name. most mainline sources are using clashes or violence. The border between Gaza and Israel is on the 1967 line and fully fenced - it is a clear border and referred to such in all or just about all sources - in the title. An neutral name would be 2018 Israel-Gaza border violence. Great march of return was used by a facebook page and some minor pre event coverage. It has not been used since 30 March almost at all, and it seems that on the ground organization is done by other people, the Facebook page operators feuding with Hamas over actual tactics.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This clearly a POV one sided title and not WP:COMMONAME The title should be 2018 Gaza border protests and Clashes as most NPOV title as it was clearly violence from both sides of the conflict and not only protests.--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that the title should be '2018 Gaza border protests and clashes' as there is violence from both sides. The suggested page move title is POV and limits the article purely to information about this so called 'Great March of Return'. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Only Western sources call it "Gaza border" protests while Middle Eastern Journalists call it the "Great March of return" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowtow849 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title "2008 Gaza Border Protests" is succinct, descriptive, and uniquely identifies the incident, so we should stick with it. We should not use names that were generated for propaganda purposes as the title, which would show only one side's point of view. Any more elaborate sort of description added to the title (i.e. adding claims to the article title like "Israeli soldiers shot innocent Palestinians" or "Palestinian attackers stormed border to commit terrorist attacks") would be likely to be controversial as well as too long. OtterAM (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per No More Mr Nice Guy The Kingfisher (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

This is too long you say? Then propose "]". -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I glanced: "Seems to be writing as an activist". Had to check: is it about K.e.coffman or No More Mr Nice Guy? Could not tell the diff: argument vacuum. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What fth is "Moral support"? We are building an encyclopedia here, do you understand? -DePiep (talk)
Damn, DePiep, this whole time I thought we were building the perfect sandwich!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Simultaneously (same minute apparently), I have formally requested that the previous no-consensus Move be undone . -DePiep (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I get this serious impression: K.e.coffman and Number 57 are gaming the system. Why would coffman propose a Move (red herring distraction) just 10 minutes after I pointed to their strange behaviour? Why would admin Number 57 act swiftly back then supporting coffman, but not respond afterwards at all? Or take responsability? - DePiep (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The article was on my watchlist after noting the incorrect accusation of abuse of admin powers above. I saw it being moved repeatedly (four times) during one day so protected it from further moves. Whatever title it was at would have been the wrong version. As for the accusaion that "I did not respond afterwards", I notified others of the protection in a section above. I have no problem "taking responsibility" for what I did and I've set out clearly why I did it. It would be appreciated if you could withdraw your accusation of me "gaming the system" as I have not, as far as I'm aware, had any previous interaction with K.e.coffman. Number 57 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Palestinians who were shot dead were terrorists, not peaceful protesters

According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at least 20 of the dead were identified as members of terrorist organizations, most of them belonged to Hamas. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/great-return-march-interim-report-updated-april-9-2018/ MathKnight 07:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an WP:RS source. It is a politically-backed organization, with a particular agenda. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As BTZELEM and HRW --Shrike (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

U.N. human rights

@Icewhiz: What you just removed was supported by reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Reuters, Independent and probably some more sources. Can you restore it? --Mhhossein 08:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It was cited to a primary source. Beyond that the unhrc is a partisan source with littke weight. We already have the secretary general as well as states and the EU.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That characterization / defamation of the UNHRC, and other UN organizations, is common in Israel, but from a global perspective it is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You got it backwards. The UNHRC (where the worst human right abusers often sit on the council not to mention chair it) is considered a joke by everyone except anti-Zionists. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Criticism of UNHRC is quite wide - far beyond Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights is not the same as the UN Human Rights Council. No nations sit on it or chair it, contra No More Mr Nice Guy. The current occupant, a diplomat from the Jordanian royal family, doesn't appear to have a problematic past, though his country of course has its own human rights abuses. The Commissioner seems to have widely criticized countries over human rights issues far beyond Israel.--Carwil (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was talking about the UNHRC, but the OHCHR, currently manned by the brother of the hereditary dictator of Jordan and voted in by a bunch of autocrats, shouldn't exactly be a badge of pride for the UN either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The UN High Commissioner is personally selected by the Secretary General after a qualification process, and ratified by the entire General Assembly. See: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, . In any case, the professional opinion of the UN's leading human rights body is intrinsically a notable fact.--Carwil (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. You are aware most UN members are not democracies, I'm sure? Buy I agree his opinion can be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/gaza-protest-latest-updates-180406092506561.html
Categories:
Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests: Difference between revisions Add topic