Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016

ISIS

(This incident is ISIS motivated; not involving Palestinians or Palestinian-related conflicts) This itself is not cogent, since ISIS and Palestinian terrorism can feed into each other, taking on each other's rhetoric. I don't know where the truth lies, probably the motivation, given the sketch of his background, is multiple. A personal revenge element against doesn't exclude a nationalistic factor since many suicide bombers and 'terrorists' generally in the I/P come from family backgrounds where relatives have been killed by Israeli forces. Only future sources can tell us what at least the official version will be, and so far the security people are calling it terrorism (which it obviously is) by an Israeli Arab whose victims were Jewish Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

For information

Someone has started another article on this topic, so I have nominated it for deletion. Any useful content there can be merged here if necessary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. --NSH001 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew sources

As some of you (Nishidani and.. who?) saw, I have cited several Hebrew sources where I couldn't find any English sources. I belive that no one doubts Ynet and Haaretz who are two of Israel's most read news website who both have versions in English, and also Walla! which does not have any but still one of the main sites.. Just wanted to make sure no one is going to cry that "Hebrew Sources" are not reliable, I could always translate an article for you if you really boubt it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Where the news is not available in English at ToL, Haaretz, JPost, and Ynet, then I see no objection to using Walla. Hebrew sources of course should not be used if the information is available on those or other RS English sites, on the basis that readers must be allowed to verify where possible the reports. For the benefit of English speakers it is best practice, to translate, not the whole article, but the section on which you base an edit.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

K i"ll remember that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apropos the following two

Palestinians from Beitin hurled rocks toward cars and buses in a road connecting Beit El and Givat Assaf, causing damage to some vehicles.

Palestinian rioters and IDF troops clashed in the at the western entrance to the Palestinina refugee camp and town al-Fawwar, south the Hebron. Palestinians hurled rocks at troops who responded with crowd-control weapons.

Arutz Sheva is not reliable for facts by a general consensus over the years. The second one has no mention of harm or injuries. You'll note that I've kept reports of people arrested on suspicion for perhaps intending an attack or harm so far for the same reason, i.e., that suspicions or incidents where no damage is mentioned don't fit the criteria. If the walla report does mention damage Aand you just overlooked that, by all means reinsert it. If Walla! mentions the Beitun incident you cite from A7, idem. Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about the point on the Walla! source. Why is Arutz Sheva not a reliable source? Not that I use it on everyday cause I am not a settler but it doesn't lie, it's just the last resort.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of a "violent incident"

@Nishidani: An incident including a riot (which is violent) without any reported casualties was removed. According to Direct_action#Violent_direct_action, "Violent direct action is any direct action which utilizes physical injurious force against persons or property" (source). Therefore an incident that is violent, doesn't mean that it caused an injurey. If a rock it thrown, it is a violent incident no matter what is the outcome.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand that 'riot' is an Israeli government term used to describe any 'clash' or 'confrontation' between an occupying army and an occupied people. (2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should stop this article.

This article has no importance. I am saving many incidents to add to the article but I still ask my self what is the point? There is a deep obsetion with Israel and Palestine and it is ridiculous. 915 people were killed in last 19 days in Iraq, and probably over a thousand in Syria as well. 60+ people were killed in a single attack in Libya alongside others. 19 people were killed today in a university in Pakistan], 10 were killed in a suicide bombing and another 6 in an IED bombing yesterday. 10 were killed in Yemen on the 17 of January and 30 on 16 January. Those incidents get 5% of what every single wounded person in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict get. There are protests in Burundi as well.. 200,000 refugees were created there since April. This article takes "Israeli is shit" incidents and call them "violent incidents". For example, there was an incident including a Palestinian teen who was sentenced to prison, violent? There was a report on 11,000 Palestinians whose work permits were banned after several attacks, is this violent? This whole list is too spesific and overly obsessed with the conflict, that I also live in. This whole article is just transferring Ma'an into a wikipedia article. If people want to read Maan, they sould do it in Maan, not in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As you are the author of one of the most disastrously inept pages added to the I/P area in recent times (Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present), an article wholly dedicated to showcasing Israeli victims of Palestinian violence, I don't think these considerations merit a serious reply, other than noting that this page continues a long series whose format has been stable since 2014a, in which all kinds of violence from both sides are neutrally presented.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I was the one to ask to remove the list and replace it with proper sections describing only the most significant events, such as the 'day of rage' somewhere in early October, in which seven Gazas were killed in less then a day during clashes. I will get to that eventually, maybe even today since the "11,000 workers" thing got me so mad..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with that article. Its choice of material and limitation of conflict to predominantly Israeli casualties of (1) stone throwing (11) car ramming (3) stabbings is not only offensive but a pronounced violation of NPOV. I don't even include here, by contrast, such devastating things as the drenching of Palestinian villages with huge amounts of tear gas, something that in UNWRA records, has consistently led to miscarriages, and deaths. The article series I find myself continuing are lists and don't allow any margin for selective presentation of evidence. The details are lined up, and anyone can draw conclusions. Israeli standard reportage does not cover a huge amount of violations of human rights that occur on a daily basis. A violation of a basic human right is, as the word 'violation' declares, 'violent': one is denied a fundamental dignity underwritten in international law.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Go make a list of human rights' violations in Syria, and in Iraq, and in USA, and in Iran, and in Pakistan, and in India, and in Burma, and in Russia, and in Hungary, and in Ukraine, and in Afghanistan, and in Egypt, and in Libya, and in North Korea.. I already expalined to you what is a violent action. Don't try to be a smartass just to put your anti-Israeli agenda in an article soely focused on violent incidents. You want to change this to "List of human rights' violations in the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Then try to get a consensus for that, but don't add whatever content you want becuase it is good against Israel. If I will add every time the Palestinian TV interview's a relative of an assailent who say he is proud of him, like the killer of the women few days ago in Otniel, you"ll probably remove it. You will also remove every incident of Hamas sentencing alledged or not alledged spies. You will just put all of Maan in the aritlce, that's all.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop that hasbara meme. I do the wikiwork on this I/P area. That does not oblige me to do similar articles on similar violations in countries around the world. I(t's a bit like complaining to an editor that writes articles on the Florentine school, that they are biased because they haven't done work on Indian temple paintings, or cave art in China, which are underworked. Silly. And I haven't got an anti-Israel agenda. I only deal with what Israel has done for a half a century in devastating another country and its population. Once the troops and settlers stop looting that country, and violating that people's rights, I will, if (unlikely event) still around, never have occasion to mention it.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

1) The fact you are editing in Israeli-Palestinian related article is great. I said that this article is too much, and as it stands right now, it is just a bounch of MAAN reports. My claim against this article is not that it is anti-Israel, since I came here to fixed the bias that was in that article, but when I saw that you regard a freeze of work permit as a violent incident and use international law as an excuse, I understand that the main agenda of this article is to put "Israel is shit" events.

2) "Hasbara", is somethings anti-Israelis say more then Israelis. Most Israelis laugh when people mention this word. Just for you to know.

3) Your comment and your whole userpage is a pure anti-Israel agenda, but that's not I am here to talk about.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My user page notes that I have an interest in populations subject to the destruction of their identity and the theft of their land (Tibet and Palestine being showcased). I have no anti-Chinese agenda in editing articles on Tibetan history, and likewise no anti-Israel agenda in documenting Israel's colonial violence in Gaza and the West Bank. If you keep repeating I have an 'anti-Israel' agenda I will report you for a violation of WP:AGF. In any case, you find nothing wrong with having a pro-Israeli agenda, as your edits consistently show, reporting Israelis mildly scratched by a stone while removing mentions of vast property theft.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

At times it is unfortunate, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia exists to summarize other sources. If people write nothing about something, we can't have an article; if they write reams and reams of nonsense, well, we have Pokemon and its thousand bastard offspring. This is somewhere in between. If you have the sources and you have the editors, there's no third component needed. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Demolitions and property damage cannot be removed

This article is the third in the series, and the definition of what goes in is set forth on the first page. List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 reads:

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including civilians killed or injured during protests, Israeli search-and-arrest operations, traffic incidents involving both parties whether deliberate or from as yet unknown causes, property damage and expropriation,

That definition has held for over a year, Bolter, and your ignoring it to remove entries regarding the bolded data flies in the face of the stable page definition for inclusion.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I am against this list even though I continue to add data on filthy inhumaine murderous nazi-like colonialists aka Russian settlers who are being injured.. I did not see the lead section of another article as this article's lead. One thing is sure, the title, according to this agenda, is misleading. There is a clear definition of violence unless you prove me wrong, with sources. Again, this list is absolutly needless and as long as it still exsits, I can't really make sure it won't be biased cause I"ll probably loose my sanity sitting for hours adding incidents that are not even reported on English-Israeli media and if this list cannot be unbiased, I don't see a reason for it to exist at it's current form. This list currently is Ma'an news quoted in Wikipedia, limiting it to "deaths in the Israeli Palestinian conflict" will make it a B'tselem quoted in Wikipedia. There are many things in the Israeli-Palestinian related articles that can be balanced, this list is not one of them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hang on there. 'filthy inhumaine murderous nazi-like colonialists aka Russian settlers'!!! This is the third page in a 15 page set of wiki articles, the third that actually tries to document both sides of the story, in terms of what either side considers violence. This form of neutral documentation arose when an article created by a POV-warrior since disappeared on the Silent Intifada, just documented harm to Israelis while ignoring harm to Palestinians. When I began to edit it for balance, the details were so extensive it was split and the first in this series was created, not by me. The definition is set forth in that first article, and despite some niggling has stood the test of time. Now you are saying, at this late point, that the 3rd article shouldn't exist. I suppose you mean all 3 articles shouldn't exist? because they meticulously document every cause for grievance arising from perceived harm/violence. I could triple the amount of detail were I to use Wafa, as you use Makor or Ma'ariv by the way, but I have a sense of proportion. If your house, and all of your visible goods, are bulldozed, in winter, and you are left homeless with your children, you are saying that this is not violence, but at the same time a scratch on a bus driver is, and that is absurd. As to media reportage, I scour 4 Israeli newspapers everyday, and find almost nothing reported of what happens to Palestinians in the West Bank, while every detail of what happens to settlers is meticulously followed up. I can understand that it's bad for circulation to note that 'they' have real existential, legal complaints and grievances - more people will read Arutz Sheva and Israel HaYom because it improves the comfort zone, but Wikipedia has a principle of neutrality which includes a sensitivity to WP:Systemic biasa and my impression is that what you find deplorable here is that some attempt at comprehensive even handedness is programmatic here. Please note that the 'man' your source reported as a 40 year old and slightly injured by a Molotov, appears to be an Israeli policemen on duty over the border in Palestinian sources. That, if so, and if not reported in the Israeli source, is a small index of the huge problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just like being shot in the face is not rape, getting your house demolished is not a violent incident. Clashing with the soldiers who do it, if violent. And I am not trying to only add Israeli related incidents (although last time I knew you"ll add the Palestinian side anyway and look! took you less then four hours). And about Maariv not reporting the man was a security personnal, there is an avarage of around 10 incidents per day involving Palestinian rioters, I do not expet Israeli media to cover all of them and if they did, today party like Kach will be in the government... (Which is the target audiance of Arutz Sheva or HaKol HaYehudi). To be honest, most of the reports in Israel are on the government, car accidents, sport, economy, crime.. you know, life in general.. Therefore I think that the format of this list is too spesific. Maybe a summery of all incidents may be better. Making a list of violent incidents 2016, and making a table with the number of violent incidents, reported Palestinians and Israeli casualties and maybe also classify it by types, such as "stone throwing" or house demoloshment. I"ll try to make an illustration in my sandbox..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There, on the top of the sandbox. A suggestion to an alternative format.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stopped listening because you cannot see that a violation of a fundamental human right, to have a roof over one's head and for one's children is interpretable as violence. To you, seeing a lifetime's savings destroyed by an army of occupation in a time of peace, or to undergo what people undergo in Nuaman is not problematical, normal, I guess. To the rest of the world and international law, it is criminal, and crimes are acts of violence. Israel is entitled to its point of view, that in smashing another people's worlds it is ensuring its own future, and only applying the law, which in this sense means only applying the law to non-Jews. Palestinians are entitled to think that enterprise in all of its relentless persecution, is a form of systematic violence, what Avishai Margalit calls the 'intricate machine' of the occupation's hallucinating violence. That POV is duly registered here for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not violent. In criminology, violence is not when an authority, legitimate or not, take away your house. Just or injust, it's not violent. But there is no point in continuing this argument, this whole article is a needless mess based on the fact editors cannot list every single violent incident except for those who reach English media.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The bulldozings are very interesting detail, which really brings the issue into focus. You could put them in a new article, but ... that would be dumb. We have room here; we understand it is a significant issue - the only question is whether the article title needs a tweak to let it stay. Also, as I suggested below, I think all the different types of incidents might have section headers, rather than sorting by date; this allows them to be kept out of the way of the others, and if a split for size is needed after all, it would be easy to do that way. Wnt (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspection is enough?

Should this be included because there is a suspection? link--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is other coverage that treats it as an arson, e.g. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/207639 - while it may not be 100% sure it was an arson, it looks 100% sure it was an incident. P.S. presuming you're knowledgeable about what this tent with a synagogue inside is, it would be great if you could provide some background detail for those of us who don't know Israel. I mean, I assume this isn't the kind of tent you buy for $40 at Wal-Mart and it didn't have a campfire going outside, but honestly I wouldn't know that. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Drive by revert by Plot Spoiler

this ignores the explicit statement, standing for 2 years, on what this series of articles will document. See List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 where such demolitions are included. This has nothing to do with the false edit summary insinuation the inclusion was WP:SYNTH. So it has to be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Then change the damn title of the article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You made up criteria Nishidani as to what qualifies as "violent". This is all WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Home demolition is violent, from the verbally and physically violent eviction of the occupants (or neglecting to evict them before collapsing the house on them), to the process of demolition itself, and the physical and psychological effects in the aftermath of the demolition. IjonTichy (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Home demolitions in the context of the I/P conflict are undoubtedly violent. There is nothing worse you can do to a family, short of murdering a family member. Suppose, Plot Spoiler, that I turn up at your house with a bloody enormous bulldozer, backed up by some of my mates in the Army, all carrying guns, possibly also an APC, and proceed to flatten your home and everything in it, possibly putting the lives of some of your family members at risk. Meanwhile you can admire my noble, courageous bravery at making women and children homeless. Actually, just calling it "violent" is understating the horror of the event. --NSH001 (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Left out 23 Feb

• Zainab Rashida (60) and her daughter as Fatima Abdul Yassin (30) were hit by a car allegedly driven by an Israeli settler. The elderly woman died, It is not clear whether the collision was accidental or deliberate, nor is the identity of the driver known. >

This is an allegation, like much of what we include. But I still have doubts over its inclusion. One of the problems is, that it falls under Israeli investigative jurisdiction which means, if there is anything to it or not, will probably not emerge.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

14 February left out

this report says that bullets were found in an apartment in Beit El. The family living there said "terrorists from Jalazoon" shot at the house and it is said the IDF is investigating=there is no confirmation. Also no injures were reported (and no spesific report on where the bullets hit). So this is left out although it is the main focus of the source, which cites two other incidents.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a possible case, if bullets were found. Unfortunately, this is early news, a breaking report. It may be true, but one has to be careful of a report coming from a settler source implicating a neighbouring Palestinian village as well. If it is used it would have to be used with attribution to make that clear. I've generally fallen into the habit of delaying most news posted here for a day or two, just to see if later reports improve. As I am reading all this, preliminary reports from the IDF army, various newspapers, are particularly erratic and self-contradictory about details. Several reports I've added indeed make no sense to me once visualized as sequences. This also applies to Palestinian outlets. I'd leave it out, but leave it to your good sense to decide.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend to add this one anyway..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

should we include this incident?

@Nishidani: this report says: "Fire this evening toward Beit El, apparently from the Palestinian village Jalazoon. No injuries but hits on a playing field were spotted. IDF is searching the area" (sorry for the very literal translation)

The source does say it was apparently Palestinians. The do not report any damage, but they say that there were hits in a playground, which is significant. Should we add?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I leave about 50% if not more of incidents affecting Palestinians. I never mention the daily reports of intoxication from the huge quantities of gas fired on crowds unless in the context of wounding. I never mention the frequent firing at fishing boats off the Gaza coast, unless there is damage or injury. I never mention that about 20 people are rounded up every night or during the day in raids, interned and deprived of their liberty, without legal warrant. One could argue that this is a violent denial of legal rights under occupation, disruption of work, etc., on the basis of a n investigatory fishing expedition to ascertain suspected information. But I don't include it. I never mention the daily firing of rubber bullets towards crowds unless someone is hit, etc.etc. For the same reason, I excluded the case you mentioned. Like the IDF shootings, no material or physical damage was caused (no doubt the rubber bullets kick up dust or concrete, when fired in a monitory manner), and the report was too vague. Your translations are fine, don't worry about that, and thanks for the effort in that regard.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Border police

I reverted only the part about the police. The Israeli border police is a branch of the Israeli Police. It doesn't really matter where they are stationed, they are part of a special unit called "Border Guard" in literal translation and Border Police in English. They are always refferd as border police and not just police.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I know. I wqas making a ce. You repeat the same term twice, which one doesn't do. Your edit here is completely garbled English (reread it slowly) and the text you erased was simply straightforward English for the same content. You fucked it up, I don't know why. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition (2) border policewoman was lightly injured during riots in Isawiya in which Palestinians threw stones and Molotov cocktails at Border Police This error of using the same word 'border' twice at the head and end of a sentence is acceptable in a certain kind of rhetorical art in the 16-17th century, Shakespeare for example, but is damn repetitive and dysfunctional in modern prose.

Well I"ve expected Ynet to have good English, but yes I made a mistake in the edit. Anyway can I just bring back the "border" to the damn sentence? Or should I just write "Magav" insteed? It is the name of the unit, just like Yamam are called Yamam and not policemen, even though they are a branch of the police.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't ask me permission. I don't own the article. As I said, one reference to Border guard in a sentence is sufficient. I'd let a third party decide that. I'll go along with whatever Plot Spoiler decides, if he's still following the page. To me it's only a stylistic issue.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh screw it.. There are more important things to do.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've linked her to Israel Border Police so that the point is implicit, though evident from the last words. That ought to fix the problem.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Get, let's carry on. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mashhour Jumaa

For 4 March. The Ma'an source initially includes him as one of two shot, other than the boy he picked up. A still photo gives the impression he is being targeted by an Israeli soldier. However the video accompanying the report does not appear to support the inclusion of Jumaa as someone wounded in the incident. He clearly falls, it looks like he slipped. He runs away showing no visible sign of injury. The brief sequence inside the ambulance clearly indicates the boy was wounded, but at a glance I could not tell if the other person in there (Jumaa) was being treated. If any Hebrew source throws light on this, it would be useful.Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

On a second examination, it looks like he too was treated in the ambulance. The boy has no trousers, and the following sequence(3:00 minutes into the video) shows someone being treated around the knee, as his trousers, with the same colour as Jumaa's in the running scene, are being lowered. There is also a double stain on the trousers at knee height as he runs away. Either it is a grazing wound, or caused by his fall. So it's best left attributed, unlike the boy's case.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a violent incident?

Egypt alledgedly flooded a tunnel between Gaza and Egypt and eight people were trapped. SOURCE--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Confiscations again

Bolter. This article is guided by the definitions set forth and observed through 3 articles in the first of the series, from 2015 Jan. This has frequently been discussed, but no one recently has objected to the many entries regarding land confiscations, which are a subtraction from Palestinians of land and resources traditionally used by them, for the purposes of providing Israel with more settlement and development. (Apart from the violation of international law, since no assertion of 'state lands' has validity in occupied territory, such acts self-evidently damage the local population).Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still not violent incidents and should not be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This, like all I/P articles, is obliged to represent 2 perspectives. In official Israeli terms, confiscating Palestinian land is a government right exercised over 'state land' beyond Israel's borders. In Palestinian terms (and in international law), it is theft, one that furthermore denies a livelihood, and it is undertaken by force of arms, and thus 'Israel's policy of violent landgrab' is, for them, just that. 'Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the work of economic forces . .It is the result of military and political effort. Founded on violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone'. I don't think Israel's policies as seen from those affected by them in the territories should be exempt from a general law of history, accepted in all studies of colonial land-grabs. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first source is obviously talking about war rather than confiscation and the second doesn't even mention Israel, it's talking about agricultural aristocracy gaining land. It is BLUESKY that making a deceleration is not a violent act. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the Palestinian perspective. Please talk to that. An article like this is not written from either an Israeli or a Palestinian POV. It embodies both. Elide the Palestinian perspective and you allow an 'Israeli' (i.e.) an official government perspective by an occupying power to prevail over the viewpoint of the other side.(And, no, it's 'not obviously talking about war, or an agricultural aristocracy ('Landed' aristocracies are created by land theft, they don't preexist it, as any Irishman who knows what thugs from England did in dispossessing their native aristocracy.) Dozens of sources I didn't care to mention say the same thing of colonial dispossession as violence in Algeria, Canada, the US, Australia.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

According to some Israelis, the fact Palestinians exist is an occupation of Jewish land while some Palesitians think Jews are an embodiment of Satan. I usually support a highly objective NPOV rather than the subjective opinions of both sides.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hang on. You (and I) have both edited in any notice that comes to our attention, of a bottle or rock hitting an Israeli bus and causing slight damage to the vehicle. You however think that property confiscations, the theft of land and livelihood, is less important than a grazed bus. I've tried to be coherent, you haven't.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Never said anything about "less important", this is probably much more significant than most incidents with wounded and even killed, I just don't see why this is listed in a 'violant incidents' list. I think that the nature of having a "list of Israeli land confiscations" is mainly not NPOV so I would deeply support a rename to "Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2016" which will include everything listed now, and also political advances, such as Hamas conducting operations to arrest Salafists, or Hamas banning a-Sabarin group from Gaza, or the attempts for Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process, or the French initiative to end the conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To repeat for the umpteenth time, for Palestinians this constitutes violent behavior, as it does in many works on violence. Being dispossessed of land your family and village has worked for generations, an act conducted under military threat is universally (see any history of colonial practice) described as a form of violence. You accept scratches on Israeli property as 'violence'. Relook at the material you edited in, which I didn't object to. You rebuff the idea that confiscating Palestinian land is violent. That is a legitimate POV, but it is only one side of the argument. Those who are dispossessed of land by force of arms, see it differently, and NPOV requires this also to be registered as the alternative point of view. Dispossession is regarded as a form of violence by theorists of the subject- it's called 'forceful dispossession, which is qualified as violence', or 'political violence' or 'violent enclosure' and your failure to perceive the other POV is not 'objective', but discriminatory: if the property is Israeli, fine, it gets included. If the property is Palestinian, it is excluded. That stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not something the sources support without the string of SYNTH you produce above. Who said this announcement that they are going to do something is a violent act? It's certainly not obvious to at least two editors here, kindly supply a source for how these words are violent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Focus please. (a)'Israel's policy of violent landgrab' is a source representing a POV, the Palestinian one editors appear to object to while inserting the Israel one. (b)I asked you to address the NPOV issue. (c)I illustrated with several sources, the use of violence to cover this kind of act,that is not WP:SYNTH: it is informing the page of what nuances the word implies in the literature on this topic. (d)I noted this has been used as a criterion for 15 months in the compilation of these pages. (e)It is in the definition of what the page will note. Kindly reply to these points, rather than talk past them. Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be the one who needs to focus. It would be a very long stretch to say that the source you fished a couple of words from is explicitly related to the current (or even similar) issue. You have yet to demonstrate an NPOV issue since you have yet to supply a single source that say that announcing something is going to happen is a violent act. The page says it's a list of violent acts. This is not a violent act. That you have been able to browbeat other editors into allowing inclusion of stuff that's obviously outside the scope of this article does not mean this must continue forever.

I just had a re-read of the source, and putting aside you completely falsified what it said (not only did the Israeli civil administration not announce it was confiscating 1200 dunams, it said that rumor was untrue), as is your wont, it said they said they are planning to do something, barring appeals etc. Kindly provide a source that says that planning to do something is a violent act, otherwise your claim of an NPOV violation has no legs to stand on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(A)you completely falsified what it said

I wrote:

The Israeli military administration of the West Bank announced it was confiscating 1,200 dunams (296.5 acres) of Palestinian land from the Nablus governorate villages of al-Laban, As-Sawiya, and Qaryut.

The source 'Israel to confiscate 1,200 dunams of land in Nablus governorate,' Ma'an News Agency 21 March 2016 states)

The Israeli Civil Administration is planning to confiscate 1,200 dunams (296.5 acres) of land from Palestinian villages in the northern occupied West Bank district of Nablus, a local monitor said Monday. Ghassan Dhaglas, who monitors settlement activity in the northern West Bank for the Palestinian Authority, told Ma’an that Israeli authorities gave Palestinian residents of the villages of al-Lubban al-Sharqiya, al-Sawiya, and Qaryut an official notice to confiscate 1,200 dunams of land.

Since it is a very serious charge to accuse an editor of falsifying sources, please indicate where I did so above.

not only did the Israeli civil administration not announce it was confiscating 1200 dunams, it said that rumor was untrue

That arguably is falsifying the Ma'an source which says.

A spokesperson for Israel's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT)‪ said in response: The claim that 1,200 dunams were confiscated is incorrect. As part of examining the State lands' borders in the village of Alli [Eli settlement] it has been found that 541 dunams should be subtracted from area as 612 dunams should be added since they there were assessed as State lands. "The status of the subtracted lands will be determined in accordance with the protocols as the thing has been brought to the public's attention in case residents are interested in appealing the Civil Administration, are able to do so."

What this means in English is unfathomable since it is neither grammatical nor coherent, and that is why I didn't add it. All one sees is the use of the past tense, suggesting that Ma'an said the land had been confiscated, which would be incorrect. But Ma'an and its source said no such thing. It said the confiscation was a planned future act. So the COGAT spokesman is creating, if the translation is precise, a strawman argument.

541 dunams are said to be subtracted (from what?) since 612 dunams should be added to (what?). (a) if this is a reference to the settlement of Eli, then in English it would mean 612 minus 541 = 71 dunams are being added to Eli. (b) if the subtraction refers to the lands of al-Lubban al-Sharqiya, al-Sawiya, and Qaryuta (541)and if the addition refers to the size of the expansion planned for Eli, and these 2 parcels are unrelated, then we have 1,530 dunams (not quite 1,200).

The Cogat response is, as you see so garbled, no reader can have a clue to what is meant, which may be the fault of Ma'an, or the fault of COGAT. Any attempt to interpret is would be WP:OR. Your attempt to construe the issue as a 'rumour' when the Palestinian source says 3 villages were served with notices their land is up for confiscation, is mere spin.

Other sources ('Israel to confiscate more land in northern West Bank,' Middle East Eye 21 March 2016.) corroborate independently the Ma'an report (adding for example that 'The villages Lubban al-Sharqiya, Qaryut and Sawiya, which all lie in the Nablus governorate, were given 45 days’ notice before the confiscation is set to take place.')

I'd therefore appreciate you striking out your insinuation I falsify sources, a very serious WP:AGF infraction (once more from you. This animosity is getting tedious).Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your source said "X said Y told him that Z announced something", and later it said that "Z said the claim is incorrect". You put "Z announced something" in the article, dropping the history of transmission and the denial, your appeals to semantics notwithstanding. I'm glad you later found another source (activist, no byline, but whatever) which you think supports what you said earlier. You falsified the source you used and I'm not going to strike that true statement out. As usual, do feel free to report me.

All this does not change the fact you have no source that says this is a violent act and therefore it is still outside the scope of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anybody can play that game: Z said Y

I removed it from the article, regardless of the claims above, since it didn't happen yet it doesn't belong in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pointless arguing here, since this is a numbers racket, and you all have the numbers. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please AGF, and "we" certainly don't have the numbers. As for your edit, an announcement of something that might happen is not a violent incident. If it happens we can revisit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What game? You can't state as fact in Wikipedia's neutral voice something your source said someone claimed he was told by a 3rd party, even if they're Palestinian. You can't ignore a rebuttal your source notes even if it comes from Israelis. It's called NPOV. Once again I suggest you check your confirmation bias.

You have yet to provide a single source that says this or similar announcements are violent acts, therefor this incident is outside the scope of this article, your whinging notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. An official monitor for the Palestinian Authority,Ghassan Dhaglas, referred to Ma'an newspaper that a notification of confiscation was delivered to 3 Palestinian villages affected. Ma'an published the report, together with what a COGAT spokjesman said. This is what all newspapers do: they receive information from an official source concerning an incident, and report it. If your sand-in-the-face tactic of creating a A said B re Z is supposed to insinuate there is something abnormal in this source, go apply it to every newspaper report, which contains the same structure, and, if you are coherent in your confirmation bias, you will see no newspaper article used to source anything in Wikipedia is usable. Sheesh. But enough. I see the usual symptoms here indicating that any serious negotiation is pointless here.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah indeed. Where is the COGAT response in the text you put in the article? Where was it indicated this is a PA claim? If you can't see these problems you shouldn't be editing here.

Serious negotiation is indeed pointless until you provide a source that shows this incident is within the scope of this article.

And could you kindly stop sticking your posts in the middle of other people's posts? It's not that difficult to see where one ends (hint: there's a signature). Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And again, regardless of claims of confiscations, it didn't happen yet. This article only lists things that happen. So even if you say that this is a violent incident, wait until it happens and then discuss it. Right now you're just really acting uncivil and not AGF. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article could broaden its focus to cover these interactions, but I'm not sure it needs to. I have an impression about this from something I read but I don't know it's true: if someone told the Israelis that a protester was inside the building to be demolished, how would they respond? I think everyone agrees that if you take a wallet from someone at gunpoint, that's a violent incident, even though no bullet was fired; the same is true of a house. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This article should be sorted

This is a great article, full of the kind of detail that engenders a better understanding of the issues. However, I find the date-based sorting not to be very useful. I understand that sometimes it may be possible to make a connection between one of these events and another that was done in retaliation, but I see little if any of that here.

One way would simply be to make new section headers in terms of attack type. Knife attacks, obviously, and contested bulldozings, and shootings with rubber-coated steel bullets. There will always, of course, be need for an "Other". Due to the nature of the data, I don't think separating out the sections by side is needed since most attacks of a given type seem to be done by one side.

Another option would be to go to a full wikitable sortable format, with a column for everything.

What do you think? Wnt (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you make an example that shows what you mean? Your idea probably is good, but it is hard to say without a demo! ImTheIP (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Incident in Tel Aviv

The incident was not in the context of the IPC. He was suspected to be an illegal resident but that doesn't make it part of the conflict, that's just racism. I had dozens of incidents where Jews and Arabs in East Jerusalem fight each other based on ethnicity (for example, two arab teens attacked a jewish teen in the Old City of Jerusalem last April, two incidents of a bus and a taxi driver who were beat up by jews, 3 arabs who attacked a jew with a crawbar in the old city last March, jews who beat up an arab municipal worker while shouting "death to arabs" etc.). The media always make a difference between "racial" motives and "nationalist" motives. This incident was classified as "racial" while other incidents such as the teen who stabbed two beduins and two palestinian workers in Dimona last year were classified as "nationalist".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. A lot of our entries concern illegals being shot as they climb or straggle through the Separation Barrier. We include these customarily. Since the victim in question was an Israeli Bedouin taken for a West Bank illegal, and the reason he had the shit beaten out of him was because the cops, according to editorials and eyewitnesses, mistakenly took him for a Palestinian, it perfectly fits the I/P conflict dynamics. 'racism' is intrinsic to the whole area: I'd have to check, but I think I added the case of an Israeli Arab soldier being beaten up in Haifa last year because he was overheard speaking Arabic in a public local, not to speak of similar incidents in Jerusalem. The Israeli media distinction between 'racial' (ugh!) and nationalist crimes is very peculiar, -it reflects a local Israeli legal classification for crimes, doesn't it?-since nationalism invariably confuses those two elements. A Palestinian stabber chooses his victim by identifying him as a 'Jew' not as a nationalist, etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So I guess I"ll add racial violance from now on.. Anyway, as much as I personally dispise the incident, the current tongue is a bit biased when the first sentence is "Two undercover Israeli policemen beat up a Palestinian employee". This is why I always support writing the incidents chronologically (And I supported the same in the list of terrorist incidents).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, by all means re-edit according to your lights. I think the Haaretz editorial said 3 policemen not 8 as first reported by the way. Another reports state that they weren't undercover, but off-duty, and in civvies. I'm having computer woes so can't fix it. If you have improvements go ahead by all means. As to the racial/nationalist diff. I really have great difficulty in making that distinction. My only criterion is giving coverage to anything where, as a result of one of the 2 parties' actions, damage occurs or harm is done. Motivation is a dubious thing to raise, which however is what an 'is it racial' or ' is it nationalistic' distinction creates. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We should not be adding or ascribing every incident of racism or other attacks to the IP conflict. If a Jewish person gets robbed on the street by an Arab is that now also part of the IP conflict since the Arab picked the Jew and not another Arab walking down the street? If a cop beats up an Arab, that's racism, it doesn't have anything to do with the IP conflict, especially if it's in Tel Aviv. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is different. We by consent, and I from the beginning, have never included crimes like theft, holdups or possible homosexual cruising killings etc., which happen to occur between Israelis and Palestinians, in this list. Nor are, as you imply, examples of cross-ethnic police violence (beating up Israeli Palestinians) included, nor examples of a killer taxidriver murdering a woman passenger (can't remember the name of the woman). Since we do include every incident in which a bottle, or stone, hits an Israeli bus or car, it would be extremely odd to exclude incidents where physical violence contextualized in terms of suspicions about the victim's identity is featured in reportage.Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

settler vehicles

The source says:'reportedly fired shots at two Israeli settler vehicles in the area, and an Israeli settler returned fire.' Bolter, Sir Joe. I gather you are not native speakers of English. You are objecting to perfectly normal usage. See here, here, here, here etc.etc.etc. So it goes back. You both are making hard weather of a triviality, that happens to be correct Englilsh.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of correct English, it's a matter of the emphasis of everything related to settlers mainly in Palestinian reports or pro-Palestinian reports (like OCHA)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to remind you, Palestinians are one half of the I/P equation and must per WP:NPOV be given their due and equal representation on all Wikipedia articles regarding their conflict with the other side. License plates distinguish Israeli settler and Palestinian cars and vehicles. Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I really think Maan is not reliable. One mark of a RS is issuing corrections or apologies. Even al-Jazeera apologized/corrected their account of Israel flooding Gaza with invisible non-existent dams. Also, a vehicle can be driven by a settler but "Settler bus" makes no sense. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To better understand the concern.. You can say a "millitant vehicle" when referring to a jeep held by Kurdish milita in northern Iraq for example, but when you say "settler car", it's like the car settler-affiliated, as if "settler" is an entity. The political usage behind the term is obvious, just like some sources that say "palestinian rocks", which is nonsense. And about the reliability of Ma'an, I think Ma'an is partialy reliable, as they are equivelent to Artuz Sheva in Israel and I know how to extract the information from Arutz Sheva without copying POV while I don't know how to do it with Ma'an. A website that sound objective in English but praises "martyrs" in Arabic supposed to raise concern. I don't oppose the usage of Ma'an, but it needs to be much more carefull.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not native speakers of English if you reject this usage. What coiunts on Wikipedia is reliable source indications as to usage, and I have provided several examples, I'd give more but you are forcing me miss key episodes in The Double as it is.

I don't think most Israeli sources are reliable, personally. They don't offer corrections of numerous errors I, for one, spot. Still, I use them, because on Wikipedia, they are RS. Ma'an's reportage is pared down to a minimum. It has none of the excessive settler POV pushing typical of Arutz Sheva. This is not a subjective difference of opinion, but a matter of English usage, and the correct application of wiki rules. A "settler bus" is as standard as "settler vehicle" and can refer to buses only settlers are allowed to use, or small private buses used to transport settlers around the West Bank, like Veolia's 109 and 110 bus services from West Jerusalem to settlements in the West Bank,m or generally any bus carrying settlers only. This is not negotiable, because you are both expressing personal opinions about the use of a language which happen to be incorrect.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As to martyrs, all of the terrorists in the Irgun became honoured figures in Israel, and their families now dominate Likud. In any case, this is wholly irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

And who did the Irgun "target" in their actions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The occupying power and Arabs.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Irgun and Lehi terrorists (funny how people forget that the Lehi was much more hardline than Irgun, but becuase Irgun is Likud.. better for propaganda) worked until 67 years ago, at the time Americans who raped french girls were considered heros beuase their friends liberated France. Today you don't see many mainstream sites called Meir Etinger a hero, or praising Amiram Ben Uriel or Meir Kahane. But you should also be angry at the Jews celebrating the genocide of Amalek some 3000 years ago.. Anyway we are talking about today and today it is not a accepted to praise a murderer of civilians just like praising someone who shot a motionless assailant in the head, which I havent seen mainstream Israeli sites doing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't justify any murderers, of whatever ethnic stripe. You are an unreliable source for how Israeli sources report these matters many public figures have openly defended the execution at Hebron, the executioner has been glorifed in many towns and 66% of Israelis polled thought of the coldblooded murder as a positive thing, and only 5% of the Israeli public think it was murder.Naftali Bennett,Avigdor Lieberman,Oren Hazan etc. jumped on the bandwagon, as did many religious leaders This defense of killers is exactly what you deplore among Palestinians.

To return to the point. The usage you both dislike is normal, is backed by independent sources, and is not a Palestinian POV. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody claimed you justify anything, I was talking about Ma'an, a source used in Wikipedia. You have shown me the number of idiots in Israel, but this doesn't reflect the lack of reliability in an Israeli newspaper/website.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We have two Palestinian news outlets that are accepted on wiki, Ma'an News Agency and Wafa, and 4 Israeli outlets, Haaretz, Ynet, Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel. Ma'an provides skeletal reports: it has 'illegal' before 'Israeli settlements' and other routine jargon, but its reportage is pared to the bone, more so than the other Israeli sources. So we have 2 POVs, represented by 2 Palestinian, and 4 Israeli sources. A newspaper is reliable in my personal view if it provides all perspectives, and all relevant facts considered as such by the affected communities. In this sense all these newspapers have shortcomings, one remarkable one is that the Hebrew versions are far more 'democratic' in providing details which never get into their English versions: it is pointless our singling at Ma'an. It is particularly pointless questioning Ma'an's use of a term that is current in English, used by Human Rights Watch and other organizations and frequent in both reportage abroad. No native speaker would find anything odd about using the word 'settler' as a denominal adjective in these contexts. I cited some examples, and both of you just talked past the 'evidence' to attitudinize. Everything, even usage, is done here by evidence, nothing else. To elide 'settler' and write Israeli wrongly tells the reader that there is no informational difference between an Israeli in Israel and an Israeli abroad, in the West Bank. That may work for some Israelis, but the distinction is important to everyone else.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't refer to the West Bank as part of the State of Israel nor do I want it to be, and I call settlers "settlers" and not just "Israeli citiznes" (just like I call Palestine a "de-jure" state and not a "state"), but to me saying "settler bus" is like saying "millitant vehicle", as if the bus is affiliated with the settler enterprise. Many buses, for your general knowlege, start in Israel and end in the West Bank. I can take a bus from Tel Aviv to Ariel, is this a settler bus? The violance is indiscriminate, rock throwers have also stoned buses of human rights organizations and terrorist (or millitants..when I am Reuters) shot travelers from the green line. The violence in the West Bank is not aimed at settlers, it is aimed against all Israelis as foreigners. If I were to be injured in the West Bank, I wouldn't be surprised of Ma'an will say I was a settler. And you forgot Walla!, recently I"ve descovered this website to be just between Ynet and Haaretz in their reports.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a nicety of English grammar which, understandably, your analogy ignores. 'Settler' in 'Settler vehicle' is a denominal adjective, that is, it is a noun functioning as an adjective, like 'pioneer' in 'A pioneer wagon', 'tourist' in 'tourist car', or 'migrant' in 'migrant boat'. In all these cases, the collective noun preceding the other noun defines the use to which the object qualified by that second noun is put (vehicle used by settlers, wagon used by pioneers, car used by tourists, boats used by migrants (it is not the boat that migrates etc)). the 'Militant' in 'militant vehicle' began its life as an adjective, and retains that primary force, meaning the development of its secondary use as a substantive doesn't interfere semantically with its primary function. A 'militant attitude' doesn't mean 'the attitude of a militant': a 'settler car' does mean 'a car used by settlers'. That's the formal explanation, but the distinctions are hallmarks of native Sprachgefühl, and that is why it is commonplace to see 'settler' used in this combination, but not so words like 'militant'. You're welcome to your remark that 'The violence in the West Bank is not aimed at settlers, it is aimed against all Israelis as foreigners,' but it is wholly immaterial to this question, while inept: the 'violence in the West Bank' is not a phrase that can be restricted to what Palestinians do: it extends to all acts of violence by any 'actor' there, be they Palestinian, settlers armed to the teeth, or the army of occupation defending the former, and the state's usurpation of land it has no international legal title to.Nishidani (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not about English, it's about the needless emphasis. If a "settler" was wounded, no problem. If a "settler" threw stones, no problem. But I think that saying a bus is "settler" is needless, not because of English, but because of the emphasis. And if it hurts you so much, "Palestinian violence in the West Bank...". Just like Sir Joseph's remark on the Irgun's targets, you are missing the point and go into pity arguments. All I say is, I don't think we need to state that the bus is "settler", regardless of grammar.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is unacceptable because subjective. One goes by usage. I have proven that the usage you two object to is well documented, and normative. You have shown an inability to graspa na sound distinction in English use. Your only argument is distaste, which has no weight on Wikipedia. Further, your own preferred version 'Israeli' (bus) is itself as neat way of burying the distinction between Israelis in the West Bank, where they are occupiers, and Israelis in Israel, normal citizens going about their own business with absolutely no prejudice to others. I don't hurt: I edit articles about hurt regardless of the ethnicity of those damaged.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

ps. I didn't answer Sir joe's remark about the Irgun because it was a meaningless question.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Talking about how settlers are mostly normal people minding their own business and how there are as many racists within Israel as there are in the West Bank will start exactly what I said in my last comment, a pity argument. Have it your way, I didn't start the discussion, I just removed the Ma'an language from the article, and OCHA? not a neutral source to be fair.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no 'neutral' sources, note. Wikipedia does not require that sources be neutral, but that we write up our articles fairly, with due regard to competing claims or perspectives. I don't want to 'have it my way'. I like rule-guided judgements, where there is common ground to achieve a rational consensus, rather that clashes of adventitious subjectivities. I know the real world is not 'rational' but merely a huge circus of elbowing claims, like porcupines squeaking 'Geddoudda me way, or you'll hurt yourselves.' Neutral description is, for that reason, a good mental exercise, and the precise use of language, mastering its intricacies, is indispensable to that end. The rules of grammar, and the customary niceties of usage are givens, not subjective. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Than have it what ever way you want. This is just an argument that mixes claims breaking WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let the cars in a shithole somewhere in the Middle East be called "settler".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I try to pay particular attention to this issue, keeping an eye out to check as far as possible whether the cars/buses/vehicles hit by rocks were driven by settlers or by Israelis who, for whatever reason, happened to be driving there. As far as I am concerned, one should never describe the latter as 'settlers' and if I found, checking several sources as I usually do, that Israelis from Israel were involved, even if Ma'an or other sources described them as 'settlers' I would find the use of that word incorrect, and withhold it from the text. I'm sorry if I give you the impression this is ideological. For me, it isn't. It is a matter of ascertaining precisely what happens, and reporting each instance neutrally.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't blame you for ideology. I just don't like it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the world, except as a natural phenomenon. But until grace intervenes to make me cark it, I just have to put up with it. It's the same with stuff like this. No advice intended. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do so many people come to English Wikipedia to write about I/P rather than stick to their native languages...a rhetorical question. I've corrected the entries to "a bus for settlers". Sepsis II (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Becuase the Hebrew wikipedia is equivelent to anal cancer.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just their passive aggressive way to insult people without actually insulting them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ma'an's bullshit starts to get on my nerves.

There is no way a single car can kill 25 sheeps. You are going to have a large jeep for that and you can't do it in a single run, in order to kill 25 sheeps he would have to drive in circles, making a Grand Theft Auto styled massacre on the poor sheep, which will force him to get off the road and chase the sheep on the sandy terrain of the Jodan Vally. There is no way on earth, a single man can do such thing and it won't make sense as I don't belive even a jeep would not be damaged by such impact of much more than 25 sheep so it"ll be ridiulous to do such thing and then spend thousands of shekels to repair your car. (as not all are killed in the impact). The avarage weight of a sheep is between 40 to 160km. I don't think someone will want the equivelent of much more than 25 dumbbell weighting over 40kg thrown on his jeep. This report that was added recently is one of the things that should never include without questioning. Just another attempt to dehuminze settlers and Israel with not even fact distortion, but lies.
Ma'an is lying. Here is an example, they say Israel is flooding Gaza, which THEY FABRICATED. They have also published the same fabricated story in 2013.
This dumb, obviously fabricated/extremely exaggerated story was only reported by Ma'an, all other sources I found were those dumb anti-Israel/Western minor websites that quoted Ma'an.

This is not late 18th century Eastern Europe.

I remove this incident and declare Ma'an an unreliable source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani Since I can't revert twice, please read this and understand why I deleted the incident, which you reverted--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For similar episodes see 38 sheep killed after 'drunk' woman ploughed into them in hit-and-run crash.(2) 20 sheep killed in Dedoplistskaro as police car plows into flock (3) Twenty sheep killed as car ploughs into stray flock Car can indicate anything from a Fiat500 to a SUV. I know it's hard, but the first principle of survival here is to learn to be detached, and not emotionally involved, however passionate one's private feelins and beliefs may be. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, just to be humourous and calm things down, it was I guess a slip of the pen but you made a wonderful pun in English by a slight (rushed no doubt) misspelling today in stating 'The problem is the Romans and Greeks have ruined historical etymologoy'. Not even James Joyce could have thought that witty gloss up. Marvellous. Thanks (zero irony. I'm serious). Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, any source which reports on Israeli's causing damage towards Palestinians is a lying, antisemetic, unreliable source and is a continuation of the century old pogroms. FFS, I wish all those involved in the IP conflict where all instantly topic banned. Sepsis II (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to stoke the fire, Sepsis. All we need is people willing to read sources, evaluate them, and plunk in the gist. Reality's upsetting, but arguing about it is pointless, as opposed to describing what occurred, when, and how, in minimal detail. Leave the rest to the reader.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my voice to the idea that we don't cleanse stories based on an editor's ideology. Sepsis II (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And why isn't Btselem flaming? You see how stories of 20+ sheeps massacred reach the news. Btselem make reports on soldiers who take pictures of kids, why weren't they, or any other source reported this incident insteed of the reality fabricating Ma'an News agency? If only Ma'an reported this, it can't be in the article. I still don't belive a driver would ran over 25 sheep for fun and no one report it except for Ma'an. I don't trust Ma'an and I don't belive Ma'an and I brought a proof for their repetitive fabrications. And to Spesis, a source that report twice in two years about Israel opening imaginary dams to flood the Gaza Strip is all the above you mentioned. And if you want to ban all IP involved people (Which include you) you are free to ask for it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no relation to Israel or Palestine. Ma'an is reliable; reliability is not based on your personal appreciation of their work. Sepsis II (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

They fabricated Israel's flooding of the Gaza Strip, twice.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, I actually read about that incident. Too funny.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has a huge overreliance on ma'an in general. It even uses it for attacks on israelis.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

They confused damns spilling over with opening, I'm surprised they weren't arrested for incitement, they really should send their articles to the Israeli Military Censor before publishing. They also wouldn't make the mistake of describing rubber coated steel bullets as rubber coated steel bullets if they did that. Sepsis II (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You really think there is rule of law in the West Bank?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as in any hostile military occupation, but please this is not a forum. Ma'an is as reliable as any other newspaper. Sepsis II (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

any other newspaper?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

When one says 'reliable' one does not underwrite the idea that what is reported is true. We use the term for newspapers that take care to check with their sources, and exercise editorial control over content to ensure accuracy. Ma'an does this. It's not well known, but Hamas closed its offices down in the Gaza Strip in mid-July, I think, 2013 and they remained closed, as it was thought to disturb public peace by reportage Hamas thought critical. Most mainstream newspapers have rot in them, the New York Times had a long history of underplaying everything from the genocidal famine in the Ukraine, to the unfolding Holocaust, and even in the post war, reports on Jewish suffering. It then went the other way, and buried every report of Palestinian suffering in the back pages, or the small print. Everybody with a minimal interest in details who read Judith Miller's reportage of the year of events leading up to the Iraq war of 2013, knew she was funneling a mother lode of partisan crap into the paper. Protests were made for 2 years, and ignored. The scam was finally exposed, and they apologized, but long after the damage was done. This sort of thing happens frequently in Israeli newspapers (in newspapers all over the world as well): the English version of Haaretz frequently censors its Hebrew content as translated into English, burying details considered too 'sensitive' for the diaspora or foreign readers. All err by consistent omission. If you wrote the I/P conflict only from Haaretz/Jerusalem Post/The Times of Israel/Ynet, you would miss 90% of what affects Palestinians. Ma'an has its problems, but it is the one basic source we employ from a Palestinian perspective while accepting 4 Israeli mainstream sources. The statistics are therefore in favour of na n Israelocentric POV slant. I don't complain, and I don't think those with a pro-Israeli perspective have any other grounds than distaste for objecting to it.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rubber coated steel bullets are called rubber bullets. Most rubber bullets are actually just rubber coated. Saying "rubber coated steel bullets" makes it seem like they are some nefarious new technology. Oh, and ma'an is not as reliable as any other newspaper. It has published proven fabrications, for example, the "flood libel"--Monochrome_Monitor 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC) --Monochrome_Monitor 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you dont get to declare Ma'an an unreliable source. They are routinely cited in other sources such as the NY Times, The Guardian, BBC, and al-Jazeera among others. Maan is perfectly acceptable to use as a source per WP:NEWSORG. Being considered a reliable source by the NY Times and the BBC for citing to them trumps random people on the internet's dislike for including a Palestinian source in articles that have an abundance of Israeli ones. nableezy - 20:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet Arutz Sheva is deemed non reliable from you? Ma'an repeatedly makes up stories, so I don't get the anger at Ma'an being called a non reliable source. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ma'an is a highly POV source, and I personally do not consider it reliable. That having said, there is a difference between "not reliable" as in "I don't believe anything they say just because they said it", and "not reliable" as in WP:RS. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Those claiming Ma'an is reliable are the same people claiming ynet/A7, etc. is unreliable. We don't need to accept a bad source just because "the other side" needs to have a source. Find a reliable source. For me, a redline is a source that does not issue corrections. When all other sources, including Al-Jazeera corrected their water libel, Ma'an still has the original story. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No one editing these pages claims Ynet fails WP:RS. To have the Israelocentric Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Ynet and the Jerusalem Post as the mainstay of reportage on the I/P conflict, while excluding the one independent Palestinian news source, is a patent endorsement of WP:Systemic bias. Compare Muhammad Faisal Abu Sakha's case, the detention of a circus performer, as some “ threat to the security of the region,”, as reported by Ma'an with Haaretz, and The Times of Israel both have essentially the same content unhysterically delivered for this. It is ignored by the English versions of Ynet, JP (and Arutz Sheva) while the Algemeiner, like Pamela Gellner, rave about this 'terrorist clown'. The simple fact, as Time reported, is that this 'terrorist clown', supported by many Israeli circus performers, is in all probability (caution: no one can be 100% certain) no more a ticking bomb than most of the others who get this treatment. The Shin Bet statements on Administrative Detention always have that phrasing 'a security threat to the region' (i.e. making kids laugh), lock people up, and then release 95% of them after 6 months or a year, with no indictment. Farces like that would get hysterical coverage if a Jew was the object of this Kafkian nightmare: Ma'an gives, in fairly clear, neutral language, the facts of the case, as do Haaretz and The ToL, and will follow up the case, which will be dropped in Israeli mainstream newspapers. The whole incident is a replay of the Khalida Jarrar case, and will probably have the same effect. As her detention as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine expires, they nabbed another fellow with some connection to the same organization (though in these cases it is usually some Palestinian informer, jealous rival or the PLO who creates the whispers' Shin Bet acts on). I read several articles in all 5 outlets everyday, treating the same 'events' and the reportage in Ma'an is consistently low key, and predominantly factual. If you dislike it, go to RSN, and make a case. This is not the page for such a discussion.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This list makes heavy use of the Ma'an News Agency; many listed incidents are sourced exclusively to Ma'an. Like other new sources controlled by political parties and authoritarian governments in territories that, like the Palestinian Authority territories, lack a free press, Ma'an can be used to source government statements, and - with extreme caution - on other matters. But it cannot be used as the sole source supporting facts or establish that an incident took place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's especially interesting in that on the Israeli side, certain sources are not used and the only reason for allowin Maan is because you need to balance it out. That is not a reason to allow unreliable sources into an article. BTW, Maan still has up about Israel "flooding" Gaza with dams, a claim even Al-Jazeera removed. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You would. No article on the I/P conflict can be written neutrally using only Israeli sources, or foreign mainstream sources drawing on them. That is why we use Ma'an. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And that's a problem, we don't just use a source because it's opposite another source. It has to be a reputable, reliable source, and Ma'an is not that. You don't allow Artuz Sheva because it's unreliable, yet it's far more reliable than Ma'an. If there are no reputable, reliable Palestinian sources, then that is not the problem of Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires a source to be reputable, not just opposite another POV source. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ma'an if you read it, constantly cites the Israeli press for its facts, in the Hebrew version. Arutz Sheva doesn't cite Palestinian media versions. That's the difference. Take it up on a board. It's pointless repeating one's distaste here. And notify me if you do.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• The point is that we cannot have facts (alleged incidents) sole sourced to a single, unreliable source. The alleged incidents sources exclusively to Ma'an need to have a second source, or be deleted. Note that in addition to the problem of using an unreliable source as the source for a fact in an encyclopedia, it is obvious that if the only source that something occurred is Ma'an News, then that thing is not notable enough to be in this encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That's your point. You have an impression Ma'an is not reliable: give me evidence. Otherwise it's just an opinion. If you read Ma'an regularly it does what the English Israeli papers don't do, provides first vs second reports based on the Israeli press. The bullshit spin is below the factual details, and I never read it. I don't think you have any familiarity with it.Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, its the opinion of the Reliable Source Notice board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp proposal

I think it would be awesome if all listed incidents were sorted and prefixed with an approximate timestamp in the local timezone. No idea what the best format would be (am/pm vs. 24h clock anyone?), but I'm thinking of something like:

1 January

• 09:00 - 11:30: Two rockets fired from the Gaza Strip hit ...
• 13:32: A Palestinian TV reporter, Anal al-Jadaa, was shot in the leg by ...
• afternoon, 18:20 - 20:00: An Israeli Arab, Nashat Milhem (29) of Ar'ara shot dead ...
• late night, 23:00 - 02:00 Mahmoud Kabaha, a Palestinian taxi driver ...

Often this data is available with timestamp information down to the minute. It would be great if Wikipedia published it! ImTheIP (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I don't think we have enough information for that + it will take more than 10 hours to include hours in the current article, which has 500+ incidents right now.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bolter. One must go by sources, and most sources are vague. I n the last episode registered Haaretz said 4 am., 2 other sources said 2 a.m., etc. I went for 2 a.m. because a hospital bulletin spoke of them being treated at 2.0 am. This is when we have time-stamps. For most of the preceding, we have 'before dawn' 'this morning', 'yesterday', etc. Nothing specific.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention different timezones in different reports.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. ImTheIP (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not for inclusion but

This shows how tremendously reportage can differ depending on whether the incident involves a Palestinian or not. I considered it for conclusion, but then decided it certainly does not qualify. Jonathan Ofir, 'Israel’s ‘mistaken identity’ embarrassments Israel/Palestine,' Mondoweiss 21 June, 2016 Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't add this. And as the nature of Mondoweiss, there is a misinformation between the NRG article that the writter cites, and the information that is in the Mondoweiss article, as the NRG didn't say anything about a lynch, but that the man was pulled violently out of his vehicle by bystanders and then treated by MDA. Anyway I wouldn't add this beucase unlike Zerhom who was killed in last November, during an actualy WP:TERRORIST attack in Be'erSheva after some monkies thought he was the terrorist, this poor man was not beaten during a WP:TERRORIST attack.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Counting words

Article contains text like:

2 Palestinians were shot, a third suffered bruising and 4 Israeli soldiers suffered

My understanding of English is that for counts less than or equal to twelve, counting words should be used. So it should say "Two Palestinians were shot, a third suffered bruising and four Israeli soldiers suffered ..." Do you agree with me or is there a reason digits are used? ImTheIP (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree, Nishidani on the other hand...--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the issue. It's just faster to type 4 than four. Anyone who has that extra nanosecond of time can alter it.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I chose to contribute to the English Wikipedia rather than the Hebrew Wikipedia. Working on the English one is producing the same amount of work in double the time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, my English teachers at school were emphatic that numbers should not begin sentences - either spell them out, or re-work the sentence so that it doesn't start with a number. For numbers elsewhere the decision isn't so clear-cut; for comparing counts of deaths and other casualties, it's probably better to leave them as digits. There are other exceptions as well, see WP:NUMERAL --NSH001 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacing article's main image WP:NPOV

I am replacing the article's main image because the map states that Gaza is "Under Israeli occupation since 1967". The image/map is extreme POV-pushing, considering that debate is ongoing and highly contentious with arguments falling sharply on both sides, generally based on pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian viewpoints. Few articles better define the divide and debate than this Washington Post article. Because the question of the occupation of Gaza is ongoing and unresolved, a map with one viewpoint in the debate should not be used in the article in general, nor as the article's main image in particular. That violates WP:NPOV. KamelTebaast 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You want to stop having the same argument on multiple pages? Cus we can discuss it on one page and implement whatever consensus emerges there at all the other places if a consensus to change the map emerges. As it is, I object to the removal based on the faulty premise that Gaza is not occupied territory, a position that the UN continues to hold. nableezy - 17:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Regarding this edit. We all know Ariel (city) is a settlement and a city. Neither of them is relevant to the sentence. In other words, if it would have been a village and in Israel, the idea would have been precisely the same. Therefore I think we should remove "settlement and city". Per WP:NPOV we should refrain from pushing points of view where such is not relevant. Debresser (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

for the record, Bolter violated discretionary sanctions when he reinserted that into the article.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant to the Palestinian position to note that incidents are related to settlements. Bolter was quite correct, even though he broke IR, to restore the fact that Ariel is a settlement. That is not a POV, but a fsct. You Debresser must not presume to think that what 'we' all know is what all readers know. Were that the case, there would be no role for us in writing here, since we are telling people what they already know.

Could some of you chaps read closely POV, 'point of view', which several recently have confused as if it mean 'alternative facts' (Israel POV for Israeli facts, Pal POV for Palestinian facts!). E.g.

An Israeli soldier went up and finished off with a shot to the head a Palestinian man who had been lying wounded for 12 minutes, while a dozen soldiers walked about him, and medicos bandaged a few scratches on a soldier’s arm. The soldier was sentenced to 18 month prison for manslaughter.Uri Avnery commented that the length of the sentence for what was an execution of an unarmed enemy was identical in length to what a Palestinian stone-thrower can get if arrested, and if his stoner never injured anyone

How is this a POV-push? Point of view means an opinion. What Avnery cited was a known fact, not a point of view. He drew an analogy between the two facts bearing on sentencing criminal behavior. Numerous Israeli newspapers made the same point. Haaretz reported the victim's Palestinian family saying:

"The sentence he received is less than a Palestinian child gets for throwing stones."Azaria was sentenced Tuesday to 18 months in jail, .To put the family's comments in context, in September, 2015, Israel's security cabinet set a 4-year minimum sentence for stone and firebomb throwers, an order the prime minister's bureau said would remain in effect for three years. Jack Khoury Hebron Shooting: 'Palestinian Kids Get Harsher Sentences for Throwing Stones' Haaretz 21 February 2017

Removing this was removing a perfectly legitimate statement of facts contrasting two realities, and one common in the reportage. The facts were not POV, their removal was. Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am used to think 1RR applies for reverting the same information. I forgot it forbids reverting anything more than 1 time. So I'll self revert. Anyway, if the word "settlement" bothers anyone, you have two options: appeal to the UN to call for a new international consensus regarding the status of Israeli localities in the West Bank, or otherwise appeal to the Israel government in demand for an annexation of the West Bank or Ariel. Until then, Ariel is a settlement, regardless of how this place developed. (Not to mention Ariel shouldn't be a city since it has less than 20,000 residents, so it should actually be a town, but I am not the one who decided there are no Jewish towns in the world, only cities and "local councils??")

To editor Nishidani: You said "it is a fact that the punishment for the execution(=an opinion by the way) is the same as the punishment for stone-throwing even if not harmful). Yeah this is a "fact". It is very convinient to innocently write "what is the problem here? I only stated a fact". The "fact" you wrote in text, has a context, and this context represents a point of view and a very clear point of view. It has a place in the article of the shooting, but not in a list of "facts". So even if "it is a fact", the subtext is pure POV push, that Israelis receive light punishments for harsh actions while the Palestinians het harsh punishments for light actions. Very interesting thesis, put it in whatever article that refers to the subject.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani 1. If you say that "it is relevant to the Palestinian position", then you admit it is POV! So we shouldn't have it. 2. I fail to see the relevance even from a Palestinian POV. Ariel is only the place where they were taken for detention. 3. It is linked: Ariel (city), so everybody can click it and look up where it is located, what its status is, how many people live there, and anything else that might interest them. We don't usually repeat all information from a linked article. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser-. You've made over 90,000 edits and should have learnt along way that Wikipedia is composed by balancing POVs, not by their elision, or the elision of one and the retention of the other (as you proposed). Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The previous version was one-sided, not a compromise. Please also notice that you have not replied to any of my points. May I understand that I convinced you? Debresser (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bolter was following the universal practice on West Bank articles of noting that a place colonized by Israelis is a settlement. Every page does this. This is no exception. I don't care about town/city though Bolter as usual understands the technical anomaly of calling it a city in Israeli terms. Bolter made the correct call, and all of your points, exactly one, were answered.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all I dispute that such is common practice. Certainly not a Wikipedia guideline! And most certainly not when it is not relevant. On a sidenote, Ariel is mentioned a few times in this article, and the fact that it is a settlement does not need to be repeated every time. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you can 'dispute' but you need evidence. Your word, like mine, counts for nothing., I made a statement, that it is a common practice. It is a common practice because on the 5 occasions Ariel was mentioned for 2016 (the others are March 3, March 17, July 5, August 24), it was always 'the Israeli settlement of Ariel'. Bolter knew that. I knew that. Bolter thus restored the reading which is customary. If you have evidence for your assertions, that show both Bolter and I are incorrect, give it. Otherwise you are one person challenging with a private opinion the veracity of what 2 editors maintain with evidence.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically, this dispute is divided between the usual sides. Nevertheless, I think I have a point here regarding the lack of relevance in this case. Let's ask for some outside input from a neutral place. Any proposals where to go? Debresser (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It is not a POV divide. Bolter and I disagree on most things ideologically, but concur on this point, and you alone are challenging a longstanding convention. The point is page practice. You have yet to show why, when this category of wiki page overwhelming notes that Israeli places in the West Bank are settlements, we must make an exception for the settlement of Ariel. Why make an exception for it? Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree as the source is extremely biased.I don't think we should use this source at all but if we do we should report it without poisoning the well so the word settlement is irrelevant in this context.--Shrike (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll be greatful if people will not speak on my behalf. The comment on the length of the sentence represents a POV and even if not, it has no place in the encyclopedic article on the violent incidents that occured in the first half of 2016. I don't think there is a way to twist it around into a consensus, the content just doesn't belong there. According to my opinion Ariel should be annexed to Israel but that doesn't change the fact that the definition of Israeli localities in the West Bank, by Israelis and Goyim alike, is "settlements". If you wish to remove the word "settlement" it implies that you don't like this definition, maybe because you support the existance of this settlement or because like me, you think "settlement" has a bad connotation. I know "settlement" has bad connotation, but removing it is simply POV. Those who don't call it a settlement obviously support its existance, while those who do not support or are indifferent (<-me) just call it a settlement, because this is the term for all the Israeli localities in the West Bank, which by the way, in a different status than the Israeli localities in the Green Line.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Its clear that Ariel is a settlement.The only question should we mention it in the contest of the attack or no.In my opinion is not relevant to the attack any can enter the article and check the legal status of the city if they want to.--Shrike (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Bolter. I did not speak on your behalf. I paraphrased what you wrote, after Debresser failed to understand it. It's is absolutely normal to do this, esp. when, before Shrike's comment, there was a clear 2/1 decision that settlement is the appropriate term. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter I don't understand what the length of the sentence has to do with this? I also fail to grasp your argument for inclusion of the word "settlement". Nobody here disputes its accuracy, like you seem to be claiming, just its relevance. Would you care to comment on its relevance? Debresser (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani 2:1 is no "decision". Debresser (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to reply to my point. I'll repeat it.

On all five pages of the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since 2014, Israeli built towns/sites in the West Bank are introduced as 'settlements'. For just the page where you removed that description (2016), Ariel was referred on 4 other occasions (the others are March 3, March 17, July 5, August 24), as 'the Israeli settlement of Ariel'. Why are you making an exception of the 2 February instance? Remember, this is a question based on (a) evidence (b) logical editorial consistency.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because I am commenting to both Dovid and Nish in the same paragraph, I probably failed to make it clear to whom I am referring at which sentence. Every settlement is a settlement. Ariel is also a city, but that doesn't change the fact it is a settlement. There is no reason to remove the fact that Ariel is a settlement, and this is what we had here. I don't expect anyone to "go to the article and check for themselves", because that's just trying to hide the fact Ariel is by all definitions, an Israeli settlement. If we refer to somewhere in the Green Line, we don't call it a settlement, that's the whole point of using the word settlement. And I don't think everyone knows that the settlements include towns and cities, so I don't suppose I can just remove the word "settlement". Anyway it feels like the urge to remove that word is because it bothers you personally, not the readers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter21 I heard your bad faith assumption the first time you made it. No need to repeat your mistakes.

@Nishidani In this specific case it is redundant. I am not here to improve everything at once. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, please consult the word 'redundant'. The 'Israel settlement of Ariel' is not redundant. This is kindergarten level understanding of English.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it is. In addition, may I remind you that you were warned in a WP:ARBPIA discussion to change your tone. Your continuous denigrating comments are insulting, and no more will be accepted. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Elor Azoria sentencing likened to stone throwing sentences (copied from my page)

The removal of the comparison made by Avnery haa zero merit. The comparison is all over the world mainstream press. I.e. Text

The sentence he received is less than a Palestinian child gets for throwing stones.”

• Uri Avnery 'The Great Rift,'Gush Shalom 25 February 2017
• Bethan McKernan Five children who got longer sentences for throwing stones than Israeli soldier who shot incapacitated Palestinian dead The Independent 23 February 2017.
• Jack Khoury Hebron Shooting: 'Palestinian Kids Get Harsher Sentences for Throwing Stones' Haaretz 21 February
• Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights cited UN human rights office raps ‘excessively lenient’ Azaria sentence The Times of Israel 24 February 2017
• Peter Beaumont, 'Israeli soldier jailed for killing injured Palestinian attacker ,'The Guardian 21 February 2017.
• Reuters, 'UN rights office decries Israeli sentence as excessively lenient,' Ynet 24 February 2017
• Josef Federman, 'Sentencing of Israeli soldier in shooting deepens fissures,' ABC News/Associated Press 21 February 2017

• Just for context. Azaria shot a terrorist. There is a little difference between the comparisons. And look at how democratic and civil and just Israel is. It had a trial for one of its own and it was open and transparent. I wonder how the PA handles trials? I do know they handle executions fairly well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Joseph your comment doesn't mean anything in our context. That's just your opinion. Nish, it doesn't matter how many sources you bring, it doesn't change the fact that it is POV. If you want to write that the punishment was "...deemed "excessively lenient" according to some domestic and international commentators", this may be neutral enough, but I still don't think it should be in the article. One thing is sure, when you write "the punishment is the same as poor palestinian kiddos", you push a pov, regardless of whatever way you find to paraphrase it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Stav. Everything is a POV if that is how you define it. I didn't write that crap about the punishment is lighter than that given poor Palestinian kiddos, which by the way nicely puts shit on any idea that one can have sympathy for them, while for months a vast outcry of distress, angst, grief, outrage flooded Israeli newspapers over the cruelty of putting Azaria on trial. The point is simple. Many newspapers in Israel and abroad noted the disparity of Azaria's term for manslaughter with the term given Palestinians for throwing stones, even if no one is hit. That there is a disparity is a fact, not a POV. It is an editorial POV to try to keep that comparison/fact off the page, a mere blip in this screed, because it might generate a feeling in the reader. All facts generate feelings. By the way, just between you and me: two Palestinians were shot for assaulting I soldier with a knife or knives. I only ever heard of one knife. I know that particular area of Hebron is covered by army surveillance cams 360 degrees. Was that evidence, the whole filmed incident of the attack, and response,ever produced in court?Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The fact is, "some commentators" or if you want, "many commentators said the punishment was excessively lenient". I don't give a shit about whatever your or Joseph's opinions are. We are writing a Wikipedia article. Your opinion, whether mentioned in sources or not, worth absolutely nothing. There is only one neutral encyclopedic way to put it, and it is that commentators deemed it is too light. You can't write "the punishment is too lenient" so you instead hint it by saying "this is the same punishment that stone throwers get". This is POV pushing, you can't go and throw statements such as "everything is POV". It is very simple to accept the fact that stating the point of view of many people is still a point of view even if a billion Uri Avneries agree with you. A billion Ilan Peppes agree that Israel is an apartheid state. So? If you think the punishment is too lenient, it doesn't change anything. If you think it has a different context because Azaria shot a terrorist, it also doesn't change anything. There is only one fact: Azaria was given 1.5 years in prison, and many commentators saw it as excessively lenient. You want to expand? Write a blog.

And before you jump and demand to include the fact this is the same punishments given to the kiddos, you also need to face the fact we are talking about a completely different context here and this means we will have to put POVs in a neutral way and this is not a thing that belongs to this article. Does it belong to the incident's article? Yes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your intemperance is getting the better of your judgement. You are saying that one can use the cited sources to note Azariya's sentence was considered too lenient, but you cannot phrase this in the language used by those sources, that compared to what Palestinian stone throwers get, it was lenient. So, the POV is all in your back yard. You wrote a blog answer, I am sticking to the protocols, one of which forbids me from writing 'many commentators saw it as excessively lenient' because it would be WP:SYNTH, ass you need a tertiary source overview of what many commentators state to justify such an edit. This is a wiki ABC editing rule.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Its WP:UNDUE this article is not about Azaria.Anyhow its seems you don't have consensus to add it here please gain one.--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We have an entry on Azaria, covering the incident, the trial, the verdict and, now, people with one group/national POV are objecting to a well documented one line assessment. Consensus has meaning only if the people involved understand wiki protocols, which some have recently shown you do not, by using false or spurious edit summaries to revert material, ignoring the advice of people who tell you to pull your socks up, and then persisting in saying no by playing the numbers game. Please desist, and try and make intelligible policy objections, if you have any. On several pages the same group turns up, and vetoes quite innocuous simple additions I make, and there is no visible policy rationale. Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFC? WP:DR/N?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's sensible. How does one put up a RfC request for this issue? I can't find the template.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you looked at WP:RFC?--Shrike (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding a court sentence on an Israeli coonvicted of manslaughter and its comparison in sources to sentences given to Palestinians caught throwing stones

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several sources state that the sentence given by an Israeli court to Elor Azaria, 18 months for manslaughter after he shot a neutralized Palestinian assailant dead, was more lenient than the penalties given Palestinian children for throwing stones at traffic or soldiers. Is it fair to include the comparison, or should the text simply state the length of the sentence without reference to the comparison?Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Agree I see nothing wrong with a short and neutral mention of this fact. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two different contexts and since this is an a list of violent incidents, it should remain a list of violent incidents. There is an article on the incident and the trial, it has a place there, not here. For this article, the fact that the punishment is deemed too lenient by many sources is completely fine, but not the comparison.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• oppose this is a list and should only include incidents. If a user wants to learn more, there is the article.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is the article? Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hebron shooting incident Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have linked 'Hebron shooting incident'. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sir Joseph's comment, which is essentially identical to my previous "short and neutral" comment. Debresser (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose Given that the main article is now linked within the opening sentence, the "this is a list" argument now makes sense, without such a link, that argument makes no sense at all. Again given that link, the present text could probably be edited down somewhat to the esentials, which I would say are the facts of the incident and investigation, the existence of controversy, and the verdict/sentence. There is no point in duplicating in full the content of the main page. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I get the distinct feeling this will end up in every drama board Wikipedia possesses, then create a few in its wake. So I vote to nip it in the bud. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Objections to the addition of one line containing a comparison made by numerous sources, simply because it contrasts a known disparity in treatment between Palestinians and Israelis in Israeli military law are themselves POV, one that suppresses without any policy basis, merely from distaste for mentioning one more fact.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The two are exclusive, and I agree with lazyges.L3X1 (distant write) 13:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose court proceedings fall outside the scope of this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The bot sent me. Since this is a list article, it should be succinct and only include the incidents. The comparison doesn't belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The arguments given, that this lists incidents and nothing else, ignore the plain fact that throughout the several articles on 'incidents' since 2014, comments on the incidents are regularly added, where available. Just for January in this one article we have:-

• Jan 7 A day afterwards, the Palestinian Authority denounced the killings of the Sa'ir youths as summary field executions done without any attempt at arresting the youths
• Jan 9 According to a detailed follow-up investigation by Gideon Levy and Alex Levac published in Haaretz, al-Wafa, reportedly a wealthy businessman running his family's import-retail business, was shot 11 times while still behind the wheel.
• Jan 31 According to Edo Konrad, Sukkar's act reflected exasperation, as a Palestinian security official, carrying out policies that abet the occupation. Living was pointless "as long as the occupation oppresses our souls and kills our brothers and sisters.

What I did was not anomalous, but in keeping with the practice adopted on thess pages for 3 years. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here says that the fact the punishment is deemed too lenient shouldn't be in the incident's entry, and I see no problem with the inclusion of the three other ones you stated here, as they are directly related to the incident. What is done with stone throwers is not directly related to Elor Azaria. I think the only problem is the usage of the comparison, and I think both Joseph and Debresser will agree with me, though I am not sure.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no policy basis given so far for the rejection. In any case, I would like comments from unpredictable third parties, since what I or the others in this area say is subject to the suspicion that judgments are affected by partis pris.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just like your opinion is predictable, so please... Debresser (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I stated above that both my opinion and those of yourself, Shrike and Sir Joseph could be taken as predictable. Please try and read correctly. There is no need to twist my balanced statement to make out I was hinting that I was uniquely free of the bias many editors here show.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I was just pointing out the obvious. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I take language very seriously ('so please' bears the implication I noted, i.e. 'so please stop it:)Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete Fair enough. However, the list page has many incidents not covered by individual articles, and essentially when the incident is notable, is careful to give a succinct, but comprehensive overview in a few sentences. The verdict is there, and the reaction by the injured party I added (since removed) merely summed up in a few words the Palestinian and international response. It is not meant to replicate the other page, but synthesize it.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but in this instance, there IS a main article, so it is only necessary to cover the outline/overview IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.