Open main menu

Contents

Article should be splitEdit

It would make since to split the timeline into another page, and make an overview of the events on this one, the reasoning behind this is that this page has become very long, and to my understanding qualifies for size splitting. As it is currently 223.961kbs. Which is double the rule of thumb.

Also for pages about conflicts in general the actual timeline is usually split, for example, the Timeline of the Winter War. ShimonChai (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree this page is too long. That is why I created a page called 2018 Gaza-Israel conflict, but the editors were being disruptive and eventually shut it down. I wanted a page that focuses on the fire kites, the damage they caused and other incidents. This page is supposed to be about the border, according to the title. But if you want all the incidents to be on this page (even if you add more pages) shouldn't the title change?--Jane955 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The name "2018 Gaza border protests" makes sense in theory, but the page currently does not seem like it is just covering the protests, for example "Several houses in the Israeli city of Sderot were hit by machine gun fire from Gaza, causing damage but no injuries." Doesn't fall under "protests" in any sense of the word. Originally the wording made sense, but that was months ago, and this page, and the border situation, have both expanded to encompass conflict that both sides could agree is more than just protests. It would make sense to make a page dedicated to the current conflict in general, and keeping this page to cover the actual protest aspects of the current conflict. If that's controversial to anyone, then "Timeline of the 2018 Gaza border protests" would also make sense, and it would allow for making the article a reasonable size, also I wouldn't object to a page about the fire kites as they have caused tons of damage to forests and fields around that area, and have also greatly escalated the conflict. But right now it seems better just to come to an easy agreement with both sides to fix the article size problem. ShimonChai (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start a new RfC in which we suggest that the article be renamed to "2018 Gaza border conflict." What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That has been done a few times, as soon as this article was created there was a debate about the word protest vs conflict. I wouldn't object to it, given the current state of the article, but it doesn't address the size issue. ShimonChai (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, this specific name was never suggested. Rather, they had previously debated a change of name entitled "2018 Gaza border clashes." As for the size-issue, it can still be condensed or broken-down into two separate articles.Davidbena (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I looked back at the archives, it seems you are right, it was the "Gaza Border Incidents" that the naming debate was about before.ShimonChai (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
2018 Gaza border conflict - ? Now it seems to be even more exact name as "Clashes". --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── ShimonChai think the rule of thumb applies to readable prose - not including wikimarkup and references. According to this tool, the article is a little over 9,000 words with a readable prose size of 56Kb, so we really aren't in urgent need of a split. I agree that it's unwieldy, but the timeline of events section almost certainly needs to be trimmed to prose form or spun out to a separate article - if we do that, we can easily address size concerns without having to worry about re-hashing an already contentious argument about the article title. Nblund talk 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: If the timeline is summarized and cleaned up it would probably fix the readability issue without having to make a new page, also the "Casualties and damage" also seems fairly unorganized in terms of structure. The bulletin list would be much smaller, and make much more sense as a table. ShimonChai (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. The article shouldn't be split, a lot of information must be summarized. I raised this issue back in May and shortened some of the sections, by 5000 bytes. The article is a list of events, and in my opinion should be more like a story.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned the issue of the scope of the article in a section just above. The article is now even more a dumping ground for "latest developments in Gaza". If the idea of the article is really to be about "latest developments in Gaza", it shouldn't arbitrarily start in March. Kingsindian   12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It should either turn into "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes", which will include the two phases of this conflict (the protests and the artillery battles), as they are connected. This choronolgy, sadly only available in Hebrew, shows how the protests, the kites, the talks and the artillery battles are linked together as part of the same event, centered around Hamas' attempt to lift the blockade.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Bolter21 that the best remedy for this article is to rename it "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes." It has moved beyond a mere protest.Davidbena (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If it is to turn into 2018 Gaza-Israel clashes (why not just have a separate article for that?), it should cover events prior to March. The blockade is more than a decade old, after all. Kingsindian   13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It is because here, in this case, we're talking about a chain of events which had its beginnings from 30 March 2018; events that precipitated from a planned weekly (Friday) march along the Israeli-Gaza border, and which obviously got out-of-hand.Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
T he chain of events is endless. The title demands a restriction to the theme of specific events occasionerd by the formal decision to undertake a series of protests. 'Clashes' is a non-starter, for the simple reason that a series of protests involved hundreds of thousands of people whose presence was anywhere from a kilometer to 1 metres from the fence had a 'front line' close to the fence where clashes occurred, and statistically most of the 155 dead were killed, in 'clashes'. Several attempts have been made to alter 'protests' to 'clashes' to reflect that Israeli defrault perspective and have failed. Sometimes one does well to accept that one cannot persistently try to n rechallenge a consensus. To call 'clashing' numerous incidents where people were shot or gassed without throwing a stone is question-begging. The Hebrew Wikipedia is, like Israeli newspaper reportage, for internal Israeli consumption, and is light-years away from neutral. I agree with Kingsindian that one should create another article if one wishes to deal with events that involve no protests, but rather open military conflicts that have come to the fore in recent days, and restrict this page to coverage of events which are programmed basically for each Friday. Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This escalation in Gaza, which began in March 2018, and has roots both in 2014 and 2005 is another episode in the Gaza conflict, which has no official or common name. The Haaretz article called it "the events of recent months". Many news articles talk about the things that changed in the last four months, most notable in Israeli media is that "Israeli deterrence is gone". It is all the same event and shouldn't be split but maybe summarized more. A list of kite attacks and protests for each day of a month can be summarized to "In [month] there was a [rise/decline] in kite attacks and [number of ] Palestinians were killed, of them [number] were targeted while launching kites and [number] during protests.[sources, sources, source] And then maybe a few special events that happened that month. As long as the details of every single incident do not contribute anything important for the understanding of the whole thing, there is no need to go into detail. And lists of incidents are the most boring thing to read. I bet less than 1% of people actually read the entire list, and these 1% exclude myself. Not a valid argument, but from the point of view of an Israeli soldier, the army also views the last four months as a distinct period in the conflict, and all of the events are linked together.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are correct that a synthesis is required, and the prior work you did was a healthy contribution to the page. My personal view is that one should synthesize when adequate statistical work and analytical historiography is available, and (2) avoid the temptation in a précis of disappearing all of the relevant sources on specific incidents down the Orwellian memory hole. The truth is in the details, historically, and a bird's eye-view rigorously summing up, as often as not, simply denies the curious reader an opportunity to click through and read of what actually occurred with any one incident. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, I think that, here, the old consensus is being re-evaluated because of ever-changing events. Even if we should use the more precise title of "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes," we can point out in the lede paragraph that the entire episode started out as mere border protests. Truthfully, I don't think that there is anything quintessentially "Israeli" about relating to these disturbances as "clashes," although they may have started out as protests.Davidbena (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that when you start and end a story changes the framing of the story. And it is not value-neutral. The events of March-May were certainly important in changing the circumstances of an ongoing conflict. But is it really proper to view them all as a continuation? I talked about a very simple measure above: how many tents are there now, compared to pre-May 15? How many people are there, compared to pre-May 15? As far as I can determine, it's probably a difference of an order of magnitude. That's a pretty sharp break. Kingsindian   14:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a clear distinction between the long series of border protests, and the recent outbreak of hostilities between Israel and groups in the Gaza Strip. If I am present at a demonstration and shot a couple of hundred yards away from the front line, perhaps while driving an ambulance, I am not, except in Israel's unique vocabulary, engaged in clashing with anyone. There are far too many incidents of this type to permit the POV screwing /spinning of this as 'clashes'. That word in English doesn't cover such 'events'.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The whole four month campaign have nothing to do with "return". No one can reasonably say that the true aim of the Gazan protests is to give Blue identification cards to over a million Palestinian second and third generation refugees. The whole campaign, including the protests, including the kits, including the rockets, is with Hamas' struggle to remain in power and to lift the Israeli blockade and not make Gaza a humanitarian death camp. You seem to be trying to emphasize "Israeli brutallity" and "war crimes", but as much as the life of gazan suicidal protesters, terrorirsts and ambulance drivers are important, there is a bigger picture. The death of a pregnant woman is notable, but have no importance whatsoever in understanding last day's clashes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you might be replying to Nishidani, in which case you might want to add another indent. The issue is not whether the organizers of "The Great March of Return" were sincere in their motivations or not. The issue is whether that period (March to May) can be treated as a distinct event in this overlong saga. Nobody is claiming that the events in this period weren't connected to the past or the future. But I tried to give a simple measure which suggests that one should have a sharp break at May 15. My second point is that if this article is indeed to become a dumping ground for everything, it should indeed contain everything, not just the events post-March. Kingsindian   14:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Bolter. The simple answer is, take that ethnic bar-chatting, buddy-yarning POV and use the same principle in re-editing pages like the Bar Kokhba revolt or Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A conscientious editor with an interest in real history, and not local newspaper blarney would feel obliged, even with gritted teeth to read, for example Norman G. Finkelstein,Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018. Unlike journalists who are hired to feed the masses tripe and spin, he was fired because he examined minutely the details of everything done in, or said about, this conflict.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, we do not know that. Perhaps there was intelligence that a couple of hundred yards away from the security fence there was a group of armed militants en route to the fence. You see, we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that everything here is connected one way or the other.Davidbena (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I was raised never to give my government the benefit of the doubt, and, when the Vietnam War broke out, the sober understanding of how consensus, like that Bolter exhibits, with the national narrative is just a lazy lockstep obeisance to stay happily in a comfort zone was vindicated by history. No historian reads the reportage of that war through daily newspaper accounts, since it has been proven endlessly to have been a continual scam of propaganda. Anyone shooting an unarmed person tens to hundreds of yards away from a comfortable position behind a sand berm with an ultra-precise sniper rifle is a murderer, engaged in criminal conduct. Or is so if one subscribes to a concept of law, and ethics, as opposed to lawfare and ethnics. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, you've made it clear where your sentiment lies. Can we at least edit this page without inserting our own bias? I'm not sure that that's possible, but at least we should try.Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not my bias. It is that of Sir Stephen Sedley, who knows more about international law, and Judaism, than anyone here.*Sir Stephen Sedley, 'Short Cuts,' London Review of Books vol 40 No 9, 10 May 2018 re 'a major crime'. Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Nish, murderer or not, this is not a report on Israeli war crimes, and there is such a bigger picture than the war-crimes. Every person who launches an incendiary kite towards the general direction of a civilian region is also a terrorist. But we don't sit here and try to list every kite attack and their impacts on kindergardens. There is a political conflict, about the lives and security of millions, not the unfortunate deaths of a few noncombantants in a suicide protests, or the death of some corn. I don't wish to continue this discussion, it does not lead to anything productive.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Logic. A Gazan who sends an incendiary kite into Israel that burns kibbutz fields is a terrorist. A settler who (google it: hundreds of pages detail the practice, it is almost a weekly event) sets fire to Palestinian fields and olive groves is not a terrorist. I.e. your premise is ethnic. The ethnicity of the agent determines how the act is to be defined, as sanctionable by execution or just ignored. I have no interest in pursuing this either. To me it is all tediously obvious. I've heard these comments endlessly for decades, since the 1960s and arguing is pointless, since the 'arguments' are rarely premised on either sound logical principles, clear definition of terms, or careful impartial evaluation of the evidence. Keep well.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"A settler who (google it: hundreds of pages detail the practice, it is almost a weekly event) sets fire to Palestinian fields..." - this is Nishidani's "truth" what he's fighting for here. Not according to 1: so, according to 2: opposite.
And his endless not-NPOV series Lists of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an excellent example of such "facts" here in Wiki :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
See Denialism.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
As well as Fake news: "a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media... is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically".
Both them are suitable either for mainstream media regarding to PIC (BBC above is only one such example) or for your Lists of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's version. That's the pity but that some editors aren't able (or do not want) to understand that such not-NPOV approach only damages Wikipedia's reliability. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
85% - at least - of this thread went off TP guidelines into WP:FORUM - Administrators, please, step in early and often. This whole topic is very touchy anyway, and POV-editors can drag the TP off course easily. Thanks for future diligence. 50.111.4.123 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sons of ZouariEdit

I made a page about the Sons of Zouari which is a group that legitimate media sources have reported is responsible for the flaming kite/balloon attacks on Israel. I wanted to write more because there are a ton of citations but every time I make a typo and try and go back to correct it the cursor glitches out and starts overwriting the next character making it hard to correct things. ShimonChai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

AI summary report on the Great March of ReturnEdit

Here's an Amnesty International report on the situation so far. The total casualty figures (from Al Mezan) cited there are:

According to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, since the start of the protests, over 150 Palestinians have been killed in the demonstrations. At least 10,000 others have been injured, including 1,849 children, 424 women, 115 paramedics and 115 journalists. Of those injured, 5,814 were hit by live ammunition. According to Israeli media, one soldier was moderately injured due to shrapnel from a grenade thrown by a Palestinian from inside Gaza and one Israeli soldier was killed by Palestinian sniper fire near the fence that separates Gaza and Israel outside of the context of the protests.

I've added some of the material to the article. I may do more when I get some time. Kingsindian   06:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I don't understand the edits removing the Al Mezan reference and simultaneously attributing the statement to Al Mezan. Kingsindian   07:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I left the Amnesty International report which summarized Al Mezan and Israeli media. If you really want to cite Al Mezan as well - you could for the first part (not for the Israeli casualties - which Amnesty attributes to a different source - Israeli media) - but I don't think you need this - as we can trust, I think, Amnesty to quote/summarize Al Mezan. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You could have just moved the Al Mezan reference to the end of the previous sentence. I like to provide direct links as much as I can (for instance, to UN reports by OCHA). Anyway, doesn't really matter. Kingsindian   08:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ITICEdit

Icewhiz, as written previously "ITIC is very closely affiliated to (and staffed by) Israeli intelligence. There's no way it can be treated as independent. And certainly not in the infobox. It can sometimes be used with attribution."

It is customary for articles to describe non-obvious organization names with one or more adjectives. Eg. we write "The Palestinian Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in the Gaza Strip stated ..." and not "Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights stated ..." ITIC should be described in the same way. Note that I didn't change the description of ITIC that you object to, it was that way before Shrike updated it due to the missing source. ImTheIP (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The source we were citing - the NYT says "independent research group" - which was omitted for some odd reason..... At present we mention Al-Mezan several times in the article - all save one without even mentioning they are Palestinian. Here we went even farther than simply placing a national affiliation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't be held responsible for every error in every Wikipedia article. The right way to introduce sources is to name them and describe them by adjectives and affiliations. This is to be done once when the source is first mentioned. In subsequent references to the source it is enough to refer to it by name. I have updated the article so that Al Mezan is handled in that way.
ITIC and other sources should be handled in the same way. In ITICs case, it is relevant that the org is Israeli, receives government funding and that it has close ties to the Israeli military. The part about the AJC, I agree is perhaps superfluous. Describing a source's affiliations is not "source-smearing." ImTheIP (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The way this was done - was source smearing. If we are to label sources in the article (as opposed to wikilinking) - it should be done consistently and fairly throughout the article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It's relevant that Al-Mezan is Palestinian, does not disclose the source of its funding and several times provided unreliable statistics originating from Hamas-run ministry of health. Shall we add this description ? WarKosign 10:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The cited JPOST source also mentions that that ITIC is mostly staffed by former members of the Israeli military. I think there's a problem here with placing this assessment alongside more notable findings from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, since this report appears to have received limited coverage.
I'm also a little concerned that the wording sort of takes ITIC's definition of "terrorist operative" at face value when it includes a lot of groups that most people probably wouldn't consider to be terrorist organizations - their definition of "terrorist operative" appears to include basically anyone with any affiliation with a Palestinian political party. Whether you think Fatah is a terrorist organization or not, I think it's worth clarifying exactly what they mean by "terrorist affiliate" here. So maybe it could be reworded to say that: "By 15 May, the center wrote that of 112 Palestinians killed by that date, 93 were affiliated with Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, DFLP, or PFLP, groups which they state are terrorist organizations" Nblund talk 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The same article also calls ITIC "unusually credible". No WP:CHERRYPICKING please. WarKosign 08:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz and WarKosign, the discussion has already been had on this page. It is not WP:SYNTH, it is WP:MOS. I also note that the text read "with ties to the IDF and the American Jewish Congress, published an "initial analysis"" before this edit war was started. ImTheIP (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Omitting "unusually credible" from the cited source, while adding other content, is... a rather large misrepresentation of what the source is saying. a stable version is not an excuse for SYNTH or misrepresenting sources. Nor is it an excuse to single this organization out from others in terms of how we describe it in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You are confused, the source in the article, [1], didn't use the phrase "unusally credible". No organization is singled out. I did, at your request even, change the description of Al Mezan. In the other article we have been quarreling about, Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), I wrote "the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network" and you have, at least not yet, objected to the "Hamas-affiliated" adjective. Describing source affiliations is just good writing and not controversial. ImTheIP (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It's not cherrypicking. "Unusually credible" is a judgement that illustrates the editorial bent of Jpost, but the ITIC's connection to the Israel (and Israeli intelligence in particular) is a well-documented fact that reliable sources usually mention when they have cited this organization in the past:

  • BBC -"an Israel-based non-governmental organisation which has close ties to the Israeli Defense Force"
  • Reuters "...think-tank, which is located next to the headquarters of Israel’s main foreign spy services and draws staff from them"
  • Washington Post "A think tank with ties to Israel's Defense Ministry"
  • Haaretz "a 'pipeline' for information and assessments that the Military Intelligence research division does not want directly associated with it."
  • UPI [an organization] "...which the intelligence community uses to release declassified materials"
  • Politifact "an Israeli think tank considered close to the country’s military and intelligence sector"
  • The New York Times Review of Books - "an Israeli nongovernmental organization created 'in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community' and staffed by its former employees"
  • NYTimes (weakest mention) "Israeli group that analyzed the first Palestinian deaths"

Ultimately, I suspect the primary reason we don't have lots of additional sources that note ITIC's connection to Israel and Israeli intelligence in relation to this specific report is because the mainstream press didn't bother covering this report in the first place. Thus, citing this at all is probably inconsistent with WP:DUE weight, and insisting that we need additional sourcing here really makes it seem like a bit of an end-run around WP:NPOV. Honestly, does this really seem consistent with the goals of Wikipedia to cite this without giving any information on it's origins? Nblund talk 00:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF. The sources certainly can be (and probably are) used on the article ITIC. Since these sources do not mention events that happened on the Gaza border in 2018 it is WP:SYNTH to use them here. We certainly must disclose the information's origin by mentioning ITIC and per MOS:LINKSTYLE should link to its article so the reader can better understand what the organization is. It is cherry-picking, if we only take parts of these quotes that can be used to show that ITIC is potentially biased but don't take the parts that show it's reliable and has more access to classified military information than other NGOs. The point is moot since it's WP:UNDUE to give a proper and balanced description of ITIC. If you want to discuss how each of the NGOs mentioned in the article should be described, go ahead. No reason to single out ITIC. WarKosign 05:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The policy says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The charge that the clause with close ties to the Israeli military violates WP:SYNTH therefore fails on two accounts. 1) It is not a conclusion. 2) The close ties to the Israeli military are explicitly stated by the Jerusalem Post article. ImTheIP (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Then we should add that they credible as per source --Shrike (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely not synth to define a term or describe a source. We do this all the time when we describe the position on a source in-text (e.g. "Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."). It's pointless to give in-text attribution to ITIC if we aren't going to say who they are, and we don't need to require readers to click a link in order to read see relevant context. It's also not cherrypicking to report a widely-cited fact while ignoring a statement of opinion - Wikipedians do this all the time when drawing factual information from biased sources. As for the other NGOs: if there are specific sources that you believe need additional context, I'm open to it, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to address non-specific other stuff before accepting a specific change. Nblund talk 16:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Shrike, in addition to Nblud's excellent arguments, I think you are being a little obtuse here. That ITIC is used as a source in the article clearly implies that it is a credible source or else it wouldn't be used... ImTheIP (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I accept that WP:SYNTH does not apply. The rest of the argument still stands - there is a lot of NGOs mentioned in the article and apparently there is no need to mention their affiliation, so there is no reason to treat ITIC any differently: Adalah, Al Mezan, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Shurat HaDin. Al-Haq is the only exception I see, it's described as "Palestinian". We could add to each of these a description sufficiently long and detailed not to violate WP:NPOV, but such level of detail is just undue here. WarKosign 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Al Mezan is already described as Gaza-based but I added an additional mention that describes it as a Gaza-based human rights organization. It's probably not necessarily to say this every time Al Mezan is mentioned, but I don't see any problem with saying it in places where it is prominently cited if reliable sources typically do the same.
  • Adalah is mentioned only once. I don't think there's any problem with describing it as an organization that lobbies for Arab-Palestinian minorities in Israel, but I suspect its orientation here is probably kind of obvious because it's mentioned as a party involved in suing the Israeli government.
  • The same story goes for Shurat Ha-Din - I don't have a problem with saying it's an Israeli org, but it's suing Hamas in the ICC, so I don't think readers are going to be confused about where it stands
  • B'Tselem is Israeli, and Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch are relatively well-known international human rights organizations. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to mentioning where these groups are based, but I think that mentioning where they are based lends more credibility, not less.
I think it's unnecessary to mention affiliations for some of these groups, but I don't think it's undue and I'm open to adding some if they are well-sourced. The ITIC does stand out here because it is being cited alongside respected independent human rights organizations for a claim of fact rather than an opinion, and because its name and orientation probably aren't obvious to readers in the way that HRW might be. Nblund talk 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to describing ITIC as "Israel-based", it's an objective fact. "Close ties" or "unusually credible" is a matter of opinion and thus can't be used in wikipedia voice. WarKosign 07:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF.
Yesterday you wrote "These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF." Have you changed your mind? I have added attributions to almost all claims in the article with the exception of Amnesty and Doctors Without Borders because the average reader already knows about these organizations. The ITIC claims are now the only ones not characterized in the same fashion. ImTheIP (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they prove that ITIC has ties, and they also prove that it's reliable. WarKosign 17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Read the source closely. It doesn't use the word "militant". If we are to use this low-quality source in the article, then we should describe it properly. It claims that 26 "killed were terrorist operatives affiliated with terrorist organizations" but the in the table starting on page 27 [2] it claims that several of the victims were affiliated with Fatah, DFLP or members of the Palestinian police force. Those are generally not considered "terrorist groups". In the group of 26 "terrorists killed", several are also listed as "possibly" (!) or "apparently" members. ImTheIP (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that over-broad definition of "terrorist organization" is part of the reason that we really need to be careful about describing this study. Ultimately I think it is probably WP:UNDUE and should just be removed, but I realize that might be a bridge to far here. Barring that, i'm wondering if we need to mention all three reports they released since they all drew basically the same conclusion and used roughly the same approach. If we just mention the final report, then we can give an explicit breakdown of how they define "terrorist organizations" without being overly-redundant. Nblund talk 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
ITIC's reports update and elaborate each other, so the most recent one is the one that we should use, unless we are discussing a specific point in time. We can use the mellow term "militant" or we can directly quote or otherwise show that "terrorist organization" and "terror operative" are ITIC's terms, but we can't arbitrarily decide to change it to "Palestinian" - it completely contradicts the spirit of the report. Without this report we have only one set of numbers regarding casualties, those provided by Hamas via their ministry of health, and this is completely unacceptable. WarKosign 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── We shouldn't treat ITIC's claims as facts and I don't think most reliable sources would describe Fatah as a militant or a terrorist organization, so quoting/attribution is definitely preferable here - I'm not sure if you're saying that in response to my edit here, but I hope that's a reasonable compromise.
Do ITIC's figures contradict the figures from Gaza's ministry of health? It looks like they found and confirmed 124 of the 127 fatalities. The article discusses the IDF's claims that many of the protesters were militants, so that part of the debate is still receiving coverage, but this particular report doesn't appear to have received any coverage (at least in English language press) beyond this mention in the Times of Israel. I think this is problematic, in part, because I suspect if it had received additional coverage then we would be able to cite editorials that offered a counter-argument. As it stands, however, the report is so obscure that we can't really cite "both sides" of a debate around these figures. That seems problematic to me. Nblund talk 20:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to introduce a breakdown of those killed here [3]. But the way the report groups the victims is just really weird and confusing. WarKosign is likely right, that the "spirit" of the report is 26/32 dead are "terrorists", but that is not what the contents of the report say. I guess the "point" of the reference is to represent the Israeli POV: "Most of those killed are militants/terrorists/etc" but there gotta be better ways to do that. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

AgesEdit

I like that articles are detailed, but I think that mentioning the ages of the casualties is to much. The age is almost always irrelevant, unless it is someone very young like a baby or perhaps someone very old. Names are of course also almost always irrelevant, but they can sometimes make the chronology easier for the reader to follow. Thoughts? ImTheIP (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Already talked about it a while ago in Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests/Archive_2#Issues_with_the_article_that_must_be_solved_ASAP.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the bullet-pointed lists of fatalities are excessive in general. I think that it would probably make sense to simply eliminate most of these (unless they are particular notable) and just give a rough count of the number of fatalities. I removed some mentions of age ranges - this was a point the IDF made, but it seems to be contradicted by reports from Palestinians. I'm not opposed to including it with in-text attribution to an IDF spokesman. I assume that implication is that these people were in the demographic age range for militants, but unless we come out and point that out, then it reads like a bit of a non-sequitur. Nblund talk 18:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree in a way. But otoh, other articles elaborate on the circumstances of every single Israeli casualty. So it could be seen as unfair to summarize dozens of Palestinian casualties in short paragraphs. Perhaps we could create a sibling article, for example Timeline of the 2018 Gaza border protests, and move the detailed timeline there? ImTheIP (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ideas for further workEdit

Background section is really long and to detailed. I think some of it could be cut out, like "In January 2018, it was reported that 97% of the territory's tap water was undrinkable" or summarized in some way. Most of the stuff from the timeline should be moved to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2018, except for the demonstrations on Fridays because they were significantly larger than other weekdays. More information is needed on the flotilla demonstrations which appear to have been held once per week on Mondays. A lot of information about Ahmed Abu Ratima and the original organization of the protests are missing. Like, how did he start it? Also the article needs an External links section, imo. Then the references has to be checked because I have moved paragraphs around so it is possible they have been confused. ImTheIP (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019Edit

Add this citation: http://www.mezan.org/en/post/23230/Seven+Protesters+Killed%2C+Two+of+Them+Children%2C+and+257+Injured+at+Friday+Demonstrations+in+Gaza To this sentence: According to Al Mezan as of October 2018, over 150 Palestinians have been killed in the demonstrations, including 30 children, one woman, two journalists, three paramedics, and three persons with disability. At least 10,000 other Palestinians have been injured, including 1,849 children, 424 women, 115 paramedics and 115 journalists. Of those, 5,814 were hit by live ammunition.[citation needed] Tmc3000 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No. This is useless, and inaccurate, since it doesn't have a scientific breakdown. See the section below, for an independent chart of statistics.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Note: Marked as answered since another editor has replied to this request and there was no objections to response. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

StatisticsEdit

The following UN document by an independent international commission of inquiry has very precise figures and reportage that should be used to revise the page here. Namely,

In particular the graph on p.6 should be reproduced.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Aviv LeviEdit

Apropos this revert, ShimonChai, you didn't read the source, and you misunderstood the point. No one could possibly doubt Aviv Levi was killed near the border.

The source for zero killed is Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Human Rights Council 25 February 2019

And it states:-

  • One Israeli soldier was killed on a Friday while demonstrations were ongoing but outside the protest sites; see para. 90. P.7, note d
  • Para 90. On 20 July, a Palestinian sniper shot Staff Sergeant Aviv Levi of the Givati Brigade while he was near the separation fence opposite Kibbutz Kissufim. According to Israeli sources, he was shot from the first line of houses in Gaza.p.17

So you have a source conflict based on different methodologies. Israeli reports counting this killing as part of the 2018 Gaza Protests. The UN Commission excludes it because he was killed not by a protestor, but by a sniper far away from the protest sites.

Now, if I had a choice in making a report, I would probably include him as a casualty of the protests, since he was there to perform a function of repressing the protests, and died in the line of duty. But if an independent source states that he is not to be counted in that way because the sniper who killed him did not take part in the protests, but shot him at a long distance from a house in Gaza, the under Wikipedia rules I am obliged to register this. Put it the other way round, 4 Hamas men were killed in the bomb strikes that followed, bombs that did not hit protestors, and therefore they would not be counted as casualties in the protests, because they were outside the protest sites. NPOV requires us to give all versions. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the WP:OR that registers people hurt by shrapnel in Sderot as victims of the Border Protests either, though you need a secondary source to register that this is appropriate. There is no evidence I know of that connects the rocket attack with protestors at the fence. How 6 military men injured is arrived at rather than 4 is again, apparently WP:OR, unless you have an official Israeli sources stating that 6 soldiers were injured. 6 have been injured, 2 this year by my count, but the sources we used predate 2019Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The commission should only be use attributed, HRC is very much an involved party here. Reporting on the shooting clearly places it in the context of the border riots (which are all across the gaza border). Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
External organizations don't become involved parties by conducting investigations. Zerotalk 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2018 Gaza border protestsEdit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 Gaza border protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNHRC":

  • From United Nations Human Rights Council: "Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea". UNHRC website. 2015-06-08. Retrieved 2015-06-09.
  • From Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War: "Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-2/1, p. 26" (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. November 23, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-06-17. Retrieved 2007-07-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to "2018 Gaza border protests" page.