Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Formatting error

Theres a formatting error on this section of the article.

(I don't know how the talk pages work at all so don't try responding to this because i don't know how to see any notifications or even reply back.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ivo Pingas Robotnik (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Chart

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

word choice

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

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

Edit Request: Reactions to the incident

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

Proposed section: International reactions

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

The [[United Nations]] Secretary-General [[Antonio Guterres]] and [[European Union]] High Representative Federica Mogherini both called for investigations, while UN deputy head of political affairs [[Taye-Brook Zerihoun]] said "Israel must uphold its responsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law".<ref>[https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/42323/statement-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-following-yesterdays-events_en Statement by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini following yesterday's events in Gaza</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43603199 Gaza-Israel violence: Israel warns of action inside Gaza]</ref> A statement from the [[US State Department]] called for both sides to work together to end the violence,<ref>[https://twitter.com/statedeptspox/status/979867831176134657 We are deeply saddened by loss of life in #Gaza today. We urge those involved to take steps to lower tensions. Int'l community is focused on taking steps that will improve the lives of the Palestinians and is working on a plan for peace. Violence furthers neither of those goals.]</ref> as did the [[United Kingdom]]'s ambassador to the UN and the [[Germany|German]] foreign office.<ref>[https://twitter.com/UKUN_NewYork/status/979873001486340098 "The UK is appalled by the deaths and injuries suffered during today's events on Gaza's borders. There must be an immediate end to the violence and we call for calm and restraint." @AmbassadorAllen at #UNSC meeting on Gaza.]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/AuswaertigesAmt/status/980022590688432128 Wir sind besorgt über die Lage im #Gazastreifen + rufen alle Beteiligten dazu auf, weitere Eskalation zu vermeiden. Der Vorfall zeigt, wie dringend nötig die Wiederaufnahme von Verhandlungen ist.]</ref> The [[Russia]]n Foreign Ministry criticised what it termed "the indiscriminate use of force against civilians" by Israeli forces.<ref>[https://www.rt.com/newsline/422855-moscow-condemns-israeli-force/ Moscow condemns Israeli use of force during protests on Gaza border]</ref>

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


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

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

Impact

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

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

1416 civilians in the lead

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

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

POV selection of material

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

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

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

Infobox

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

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

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

Endless moves

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

"although independent estimates are unavailable."

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

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

Lead

I'm finding these two sentences problematic:

  • "The protests soon turned violent.[1] Israeli forces killed 18 Palestinians.[2][3]"

References

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

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

I don't think "violence" suggests there were casualties on both sides, only that violence was employed. Which it was. I also don't think the two sentences necessarily need to be set up like this, but "the protests soon turned violent" - which is a direct quote from NYT - does need to be there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I reworked the two sentence as follows: revised one sentence; moved another into next para w/o changes. The two sentences in question now read:
  • The situation soon turned violent, with Isreali forces opening fire on protestors.[1] [ Para break ] Israeli forces killed 20 Palestinians.[2][3][4] According to Israel, eight members of Hamas...

References

  1. ^ Kershner, Isabel; Abuheweila, Iyad (30 March 2018). "Israeli Military Kills 15 Palestinians in Confrontations on Gaza Border". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  2. ^ http://www.palestinechronicle.com/20-palestinians-killed-gaza-since-friday/
  3. ^ Fares Akram and Karin Laub, AP (2 April 2018). "Gaza toll rises to 18, Israel rejects excessive force claims". Retrieved 6 April 2018 – via washingtonpost.com.
  4. ^ "Israeli army kills 17 Palestinians in Gaza protests". aljazeera.com. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
The mention of fatalities seem to go better with the descriptions of who was killed. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. I explicitly said I object to removing the direct NYT wording but you just went ahead and did it anyway. I reverted. Your change completely changes the meaning of the sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
We should emphasize this was instigated by the Palestinians, who attacked the border fence, attempted to breach it, threw pipe bombs and molotov cocktails, and caused significant health and environmental effects by burning 10000 tires. In addition, a few armed gunmen with ak47 were involved. Coverage of the death toll should come after coverage of themactions leading to these deaths.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, the wording suggests that the protestors turned violent necessitating an IDF response. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree with the concern raised. As far as I know (and happy to be disproved), any Palestinian violence was directed against the fence. An inanimate object. Not against civilians, nor soldiers, nor private or commercial property. The sentence should be clear so as not to give the wrong impression. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    Protecting state property is also a concern, however per Vox "smaller groups of predominantly young men have rolled burning tires and thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at nearby Israeli troops."[2]. Per NYT "But as some began hurling stones, tossing Molotov cocktails and rolling burning tires at the fence"[3]. Per the IDF "The IDF asserted that many protesters threw Molotov cocktails and rocks at its soldiers, opened fire on them, attempted to infiltrate Israel and set tires on fire. Videos shared on Facebook and Twitter appear to show some protesters participating in violent actions, while several others did not." [4]. There are also reports of pipe bombs, as well as gun men who attacked at night during the week.Molotov cocktails are deadly implements, capable of destroying (lightly) armored viehcles.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Presumably we should source the Molotov cocktail claim to the IDF. It’s surprising to me that there is no video evidence of this, considering the prevalence of GoPros and other cameras amongst IDF personnel. Fortunately no Israeli soldier has required as much as a band-aid, so it seems difficult to imagine that the ground forces were dodging hails of Palestinian fire. All the reputable sources concur that Palestinian violence was limited, and our article should imply the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources say this in their own voice, not attributed. I think there are also some photos/videos, though I do not see how that is required. As for the lack of IDF injuries - well perhaps they've been shooting the assailants prior to them getting close enough to mortally harm the IDF soldiers.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: you removed properly sourced material and replaced it with your opinion ("As far as I know"? "It's hard to imagine"? Neither of those sound like a policy based argument). We now have a second source that supports the language that was in the article. Do the right thing and self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The two gunmen in the evening/night last week were never claimed to be during the distubance at the fence - this was after the main event per both sides - it was at the same fence. The NYT and Vox are using their own voice in describing firebombs. FAIR is not a jeutral source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Who says FAIR is not neutral in Arab-Israeli matters? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the source says "witnesses said". You can't change that to "according to Israeli sources" just because you think that jives with something an activist group and an opinion piece says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So FAIR is not a neutral source, while IDF/Israeli newspapers are? Nice one. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I noticed the same. The ToI is not a neutral publication when it comes to Arab-Israeli matters; it was set up with the explicit purpose of taking a pro-Israeli line for Israel on the global stage. Their “witnesses said” could mean just about anything. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Israeli newspapers can be neutral (in fact, Haaretz is actually pro-Palestinian on these events per their main editorals for the past week+). However, why would you call NPR, NYT, or Vox (all mentioning firebombs in their own voice) Israeli?Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You envision the spectrum incorrectly. Haaretz sits in the middle - it stands for balance. Pro-Palestinian looks very different.
Those other publications are sometimes lazy; hence here they fail to disclose where they got that information. We both know the answer though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Footage for rocks and firebombs is not hidden. Here is AP for April 6 - "WHY HAVE THE PROTESTS TURNED VIOLENT? While thousands of Palestinians have gathered for what are billed as nonviolent protests, dozens of young men have approached the border and thrown stones, firebombs and burning tires toward the border fence. [5] - clearly placed and preceeding Israeli mobilization.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That the Telegraph article claim so many things that other people contradict (“seized control of Gaza from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas“ …lol, when his time was up a decade ago) . The Telegraph also claim that this is all a Hamas organised, to quote FAIR: as if “Palestinians have no organic reasons for wanting to protest the occupation of their homes; the whole thing was a top-down decree from “the militant group” Hamas.“ And there are no pictures of any firebombs…only one guy with a slingshot. (Which was taken when?)
And Vox I don't know, but NPR was dealt with in that FAIR article I linked above. And I have yet to read anything unbiased from Isabel Kershner in the NYT. (Actually, it is rather fascinating: NYT have so many absolutely excellent articles about, say, US affairs....but whenever they write about the ME situations, it looks as if it is written by someone with an IQ of 65. Sigh.) And, AFAIK, all of the above (NPR, NYT, or Vox, The Telegraph) had their information from....Israeli sources. Or have you heard that they had their own journalists on the ground? Huldra (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, please don't get sucked into this ridiculous argument. TOI is a reliable source per wikipedia standards, and anyone who doesn't like that is free to challenge it at the RSN board. Until that time, we stick to what the RS said, and editors are forbidden from SYNTHing multiple sources or putting their own personal opinion about stuff in articles. Neither Huldra or Onceinawhile have supplied reliable sources to back the changes they made in the article. Focus on that, not on rebutting their SOAP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

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

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

Palestinian

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

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

30 March injuries

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

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

Only Israeli description of the casualties appear in the lead?

I don't understand this removal of HRW's description of the casualties from the lead: [6]. Human Rights Watch is not a fringe organization and its statement about the civilian nature of the some of the casualties provide a counter-point to the Israeli statements about some casualties being Hamas members. If we only highlight the Hamas aspect but not the civilian aspect, wouldn't it be one-sided? Also, I don't understand the objection of HRW as "polemical source". It's often critical of Israel, for sure, but it is an acclaimed organization, and its claim in this particular occasion is reported by third party sources, e.g. [7]. Also, if HRW is "polemical", wouldn't IDF statement be more problematic because it is the party that did the killing and thus have motivation to emphasize the non-peaceful aspect of the victims? HaEr48 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

HRW does not belong in the lead - it is always critical of Israel. Furthermore, we have NPOV issues when we describe those killed as "protesters" in Wikipedia's voice when there have been claims that some of them were armed with AK-47 rifles.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: It's "always" critical of Israel in the sense that it's "always" critical of many other organizations or governments - it's because its job is criticizing human right violations. It is even more critical of Hamas, for example, [8], [9]. And anyway, even that shouldn't be a reason to exclude it. For example, the IDF is "always supportive" of Israel, but we shouldn't exclude IDF statements. We should provide them, along with their counterpoints. HaEr48 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
HRW has a long history of leftist bias - don't paint them as altruists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The Hamas claim too appear in the lead.I don't see any POV problem--Shrike (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
What Hamas claim? Do you think Hamas is a better source than HRW? HaEr48 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"Claims from Hamas set the number of injured at 1,416..."--Shrike (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is HRW a high quality source for articles in general, but not for articles about Israel? Seraphim System (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Enforced article title without consensus

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

I have formally requested that the Move be undone: [10] - DePiep (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: Please withdraw your accusation of me abusing my admin rights. I have no involvement in this article beyond pointing out another incorrect accusation above and the protection was solely to stop the article being moved repeatedly (it had been moved four times in one day at the time I protected it). Thanks, Number 57 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: The #Title discussion started on March 31. You entered that discussion [11], leaving a controversial Move untouched while you knew it was controversial, and while the discussion was on. IOW, supporting a disputed move (by not acting, this time).
Then you move-protected the page on April 6 [12] (after four moves that day), without any reverting. I call this action skewed, because you knew it was controversial, and you knew a discussion was going on. Then move-protecting the page without reverting to any previous (pre-discussion, or pre-controversial) title is not balanced. And it turned out twice, you rewarded the last editor to have their way, ignoring the discussion completely. - DePiep (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I entered the discussion to note that an accusation of abuse of admin powers was unfounded. I have no opinion on the article title and any title this article has or is locked at will be controversial to someone (see WP:WRONGVERSION). Either withdraw your accusation of abusing admin powers (and that of gaming the system that you made below) or report me at ANI. Number 57 11:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

U.N. human rights

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

It was cited to a primary source. Beyond that the unhrc is a partisan source with littke weight. We already have the secretary general as well as states and the EU.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That characterization / defamation of the UNHRC, and other UN organizations, is common in Israel, but from a global perspective it is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You got it backwards. The UNHRC (where the worst human right abusers often sit on the council not to mention chair it) is considered a joke by everyone except anti-Zionists. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Criticism of UNHRC is quite wide - far beyond Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights is not the same as the UN Human Rights Council. No nations sit on it or chair it, contra No More Mr Nice Guy. The current occupant, a diplomat from the Jordanian royal family, doesn't appear to have a problematic past, though his country of course has its own human rights abuses. The Commissioner seems to have widely criticized countries over human rights issues far beyond Israel.--Carwil (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was talking about the UNHRC, but the OHCHR, currently manned by the brother of the hereditary dictator of Jordan and voted in by a bunch of autocrats, shouldn't exactly be a badge of pride for the UN either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The UN High Commissioner is personally selected by the Secretary General after a qualification process, and ratified by the entire General Assembly. See: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, [13]. In any case, the professional opinion of the UN's leading human rights body is intrinsically a notable fact.--Carwil (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. You are aware most UN members are not democracies, I'm sure? Buy I agree his opinion can be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If we have the Secretary General's comments, then we do not need the comments of lower ranking UN individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

On the contrary, the article shows (with sources) that the violence was not one-sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What "contrary"? I state that Wikipedia misrepresents the issue. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
These are not protests at all, but clashes. In today's events they flew molotov cocktails connected to kites (attempting to hit Israeli positions) and carried a number of bombs as well - some thrown to the Israeli side, but one did go off prematurely and injured a number of Palestinians who were around the fellow carrying it.Icewhiz (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy POV pushing, Icewhiz.
Just as you push YOUR point of view, constantly on here.50.111.41.216 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
re No More Mr Nice Guy: no, this Wikipedia does not. The article title and Main page ITN are both wrong, by Wikipedia choice (these wordings are not enforced by any source). Not any independent source says so. Again: Wikipedia picking the key word "border" is, eh, POV (and repulsive, and cherrypicking sources). - DePiep (talk)
"Border protests" here means "protests on the border" not "people protesting the border". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you say, really? As in: you don't understand it? BTW, did you see that red herring walking over there? Duh. The point is, again: that-does-not-describe-the-issue. Not in article title, not on main page. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health

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

  • The Hamas-run[1][2] Gaza Ministry of Health ...

References

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

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

We do when sources mention it explicitly, like they do here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Specifying Hamas-run is appropriate, per the use in the sources. It is not trivially obvious to the casual reader that various organizations in the Gaza strip are controlled by the Hamas and not by the Palestinian authority.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Concur. Not saying who is running may lead to people thinking its a government agency when it is not. CsikosLo (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add edit summary

Sorry, forgot to add edit summary to my latest edit which added Iran as supporting Palestine. Diff here. Article here. Quote which proves support: Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi condemned the “savage massacre of a large number of Palestinians by the armed forces of the Zionist regime (Israel)”. -- Waddie96 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a mere condemnation - rhetoric - not actual material support to Gazans in the conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious that this quote means Iran's support for Gaza in this conflict? --Mhhossein talk 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Iran certainly supports Hamas in this conflict, but so far the sources indicate only moral/verbal support which is not sufficient to warrant a mention in the infobox. “WarKosign” 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-violnet and mostly unarmed

Some of the sources such as [14], [15] and [16], tend to use "nonviolent" or "peaceful" as a description for the gatherings and we don't have it on the lead. Moreover NYTimes calls it "Israeli soldiers unleashing lethal force against mostly unarmed Arab protesters," which can be used to neutralize the lead by insisting on the "mostly unarmed" term. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Other sources describe the events as violent riots. Hamas calls these "peaceful" protests, yet some of the participants are armed or throw rocks and Molotov cocktails. This article is not Hamas propaganda tool, let's stick to the facts. “WarKosign” 14:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Most of the Palestinians - who stayed back in the encampments several hundred meters away from the fence were unarmed and non-violent - however they did not garner much coverage. What is being covered - are the clashes on the fence - in which Palestinians try to storm the fence, throw Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs, and in the last week fly kites laden with firebombs across the fence.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I explicitly noted in the second paragraph of the lead that most demonstrators remained far from the border and were non-violent, while small groups approached the fence and were violent. I think we could possibly move that to the first paragraph if we have some sources that note the same thing for the other days as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
WarKosign: What do you mean by saying "propaganda"? This article is not Israel, or other parties, propaganda tool, too. So what? Can you figure out that those sources are all western? --Mhhossein talk 18:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying that we should stick to the facts and avoid using NPOV descriptions, even if they appear in some of the sources. "Hamas and Iran described the protest as peaceful" is fine, "the protest was peaceful" is not. “WarKosign” 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy: Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 18:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Palestinians who were shot dead ...

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

This is not an WP:RS source. It is a politically-backed organization, with a particular agenda. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As BTZELEM and HRW --Shrike (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
ITIC is a perfectly good WP:RS for ITIC's report. Of course their interim or final conclusions must not be stated as a fact in WP voice but attributed to the organization. If there are other estimates of number of terrorists killed in the riots, it should be reported as well. “WarKosign” 15:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: how can you possibly justify obfuscating the identity of this advocacy group from readers? They are making an unproven claim against the "other side", hence we attribute them in line, albeit their organization has a neutral-sounding name. Expecting a user to click into other articles for this kind of key information is not how Wikipedia works. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For the same reason we do not write "Human Rights Watch, which is allegedly biased against Israel, stated ..." From the ITIC report itself: "The Gazans killed were identified according to information from sources of varying reliability", which means IDF is not the only source. “WarKosign” 07:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
ITIC is independent, and is a well regarded think tank. It is not saying the same as the IDF, and we are definitely not giving enough space to the Israeli side here. Presently significant chunks of the article is devoted to Palestinian views and to organizations that are sympathetic to the Palestinians.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration

Can someone explain the reasons for arbitration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

About what? A customer and a car dealership? Details of what you are talking about, SVP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below; reliable sources may eventually settle upon a common name, but until that time, a descriptive title appears to be the best option, and the current title encompasses all the events dealt with in the article. Please feel free to continue discussion about suitable descriptive titles as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Most countires in the world recognize Israel within the 1967 line, so by all means this is a border. --Midrashah (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Previous names of the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

Discussion moved in from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

  • 2018 Gaza border protests: Kind & formal request: undo [17], no consensus in sight. Afterwards, it was protected by an admin: [18]. I protested at article talkpage btw (undiscussed move, especially in contentious topic; admin spiking without sound reasoning). - DePiep (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes but that Move "discussion" is gaming the system. Did you notice it was started by an opponent (you just pinged) some 10 minutes after I pointed to their behaviour in this? I say: revert the non-consensus name, say to the involved and absent admin they were wrong, and maybe let the Move talk run. With or without that new Move talk: the revert can be done. -DePiep (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
And ping EdJohnston. Using the occasion: why would that non-consensus name be kept? You can revert and still 'see what the talk brings'. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not planning to undo the action of User:Number 57 just on the evidence presented here. If you believe the revert is so important you don't wish to wait a week for the discussion you should probably try ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's good. I did not ask for that. Did you read my Q at all? (admin User:Number 57 only spiked the page right after the Move). I asked to revert the move itself (by K.e.coffman). Thank you, EdJohnston, for being so careful with a serious question. - DePiep (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) (re EdJohnston) Sigh. What is wrong with the 'evidence'? I say: where is the consensus? - DePiep (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

  • ~ better than before Oppose. (duh how easy) However, Israeli violence should be included. There is no 'dilemma'. Israel shoots at and kills unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. So, even better is: "Palestinian Land day/Great March of Return protests and Israeli murderous violence" (all 32+ deaths and wounded were one-sided). - DePiep (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I oppose, because this is a red herring title. Why remove "Palestine" from the title? Why not include Isreali murderous violence in the title? DePiep - 01:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
And stop fucking with my opinion [19]. -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very few sources call it "Great March of Return". Some do note that's what the Palestinians call/called it. It's certainly not the COMMONNAME and privileging what one side calls something would be an NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with the Unite the Right thing, but I have no doubt "First Intifada" is the COMMONNAME, as opposed to "Great March of Return". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support - A neutral and accurate title that will not see consensus. Too many editors here would rather call it 2018 Gaza border attacks or 2018 attempted invasion of Israel. Unarmed protesters are being gunned down and thousands of Gazans are described in the same breath as militants in the article to excuse the killing and create one of the worst POV cesspools I have seen. I actually had high hopes of returning to this article and working toward GA. That will never happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the common name. most mainline sources are using clashes or violence. The border between Gaza and Israel is on the 1967 line and fully fenced - it is a clear border and referred to such in all or just about all sources - in the title. An neutral name would be 2018 Israel-Gaza border violence. Great march of return was used by a facebook page and some minor pre event coverage. It has not been used since 30 March almost at all, and it seems that on the ground organization is done by other people, the Facebook page operators feuding with Hamas over actual tactics.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This clearly a POV one sided title and not WP:COMMONAME The title should be 2018 Gaza border protests and Clashes as most NPOV title as it was clearly violence from both sides of the conflict and not only protests.--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that the title should be '2018 Gaza border protests and clashes' as there is violence from both sides. The suggested page move title is POV and limits the article purely to information about this so called 'Great March of Return'. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Only Western sources call it "Gaza border" protests while Middle Eastern Journalists call it the "Great March of return" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowtow849 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/gaza-protest-latest-updates-180406092506561.html
  • Oppose The current title "2008 Gaza Border Protests" is succinct, descriptive, and uniquely identifies the incident, so we should stick with it. We should not use names that were generated for propaganda purposes as the title, which would show only one side's point of view. Any more elaborate sort of description added to the title (i.e. adding claims to the article title like "Israeli soldiers shot innocent Palestinians" or "Palestinian attackers stormed border to commit terrorist attacks") would be likely to be controversial as well as too long. OtterAM (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per No More Mr Nice Guy The Kingfisher (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per No More Mr Nice Guy, etc. March of Return is extreme POV. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose OtterAM put this very succinctly. Per Crowtow89, Is using Arabic naming sources over English-language daily newspapers etc. standard practice in the English Wikipedia? (I do not know the answer to this q uestion).Tentonne (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely not the common name. - GalatzTalk 13:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Great march of return" is extremely POV and not supported by most reliable sources.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "2018 Gaza border protests" is a broad, neutral, and easily recognizable title. "Great March of Return" obviously has issues with POV and not being used much in English media. Codyorb (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

  • This is too long. We don't have "Unite the Right rally and vehicular homicide and helicopter crash", for example. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is too long you say? Then propose "[[2018 Israel shoots unarmed protestors in Gaza]]". -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems to be writing as an activist, but what difference does it make, really? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I glanced: "Seems to be writing as an activist". Had to check: is it about K.e.coffman or No More Mr Nice Guy? Could not tell the diff: argument vacuum. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What fth is "Moral support"? We are building an encyclopedia here, do you understand? -DePiep (talk)
Damn, DePiep, this whole time I thought we were building the perfect sandwich!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Simultaneously (same minute apparently), I have formally requested that the previous no-consensus Move be undone [20]. -DePiep (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I get this serious impression: K.e.coffman and Number 57 are gaming the system. Why would coffman propose a Move (red herring distraction) just 10 minutes after I pointed to their strange behaviour? Why would admin Number 57 act swiftly back then supporting coffman, but not respond afterwards at all? Or take responsability? - DePiep (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The article was on my watchlist after noting the incorrect accusation of abuse of admin powers above. I saw it being moved repeatedly (four times) during one day so protected it from further moves. Whatever title it was at would have been the wrong version. As for the accusaion that "I did not respond afterwards", I notified others of the protection in a section above. I have no problem "taking responsibility" for what I did and I've set out clearly why I did it. It would be appreciated if you could withdraw your accusation of me "gaming the system" as I have not, as far as I'm aware, had any previous interaction with K.e.coffman. Number 57 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Video

There are some very good videos from Ateyah Behar of the protests on youtube. For example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icKgkQNLbzo
I'm not sure how we would incorporate something like this, though. Maybe a video gallery? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy: Have you checked their licensing status? --Mhhossein talk 14:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging (mostly) Casualties into Timeline

At present, we have two timelines in the article - one in the timeline section and one in the casualties section (and at times editors, myself included, have added non-casualty timeline info to the casualty section). Is there opposition to (mostly) merging the two? I suggest removing most names (per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and given the growing list of names) - leaving in names that were discussed in greater detail - and noting casualty figures (and other notable details) for each major conflict/protest in the timeline. I suggest we do keep a casualties section - however it should discuss total casualties and demographics thereof - not a week by week list.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for merging the two timelines together, although I would recommend keeping the summary statistics (currently right under the Casualties), Descriptions of casualties, and any summary analysis about the affiliations of people killed in a separate section from the timeline.
However, I disagree with pulling the names. I've tried to be scrupulously focused on describing the circumstances of death, without memorializing the victims' lives. This is a complex event where no more than twenty deaths have occurred on one day, typically one to five. It's also an event where the cause of death varies, from military-militant engagement to death during protest (and where sometimes that categorization is disputed). There is wide RS coverage of the deaths, their circumstance, the actions of those killed, the nature of fire being used, membership in protected groups (youth, the disabled, journalists), organizational affiliation, and the rules of engagement involved. When generalizations are made (such as claiming the dead were "part of a largely peaceful crowd," "attempted to cut the fence," "were terrorists," or "were posing no danger to the soldiers") readers should be able to look to the facts to independently evaluate them. The clearest and easiest way to approach that, for now, is to list the deaths individual with relevant facts.
In addition (and this is matter that just helps the editing process), we have messy situation where people are dying one to fifteen days after they are shot. In order to keep the timeline updated, it's extremely valuable to have the names there when someone like Abdullah Shamali is added to the death toll.--Carwil (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
If we merge even without cutting down NOTMEMORIAL - it will be a definite improvement. I agree we should have summaey statistics (from various disagreeing sources) in a separate casulties section.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, There's a pretty clear local consensus for hosting this level of detail on Wikipedia per these two AfDs.--Carwil (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
In a list - maybe - usually off the main article. Generally - my impression is that usually the consensus is not to keep (even the list). The two AfDs of "list of strikes" - probably scraped by not because of the named casulties but because each rocket strike and each air strike was covered by RS. In general - the longer these lists get, the less traction you get to keep them (definitely in the main article and not in a "list of") - and you have opposition even for small lists. In any event - if we are agreed on a merge - I suggest we do so. I do suggest we keep the names off in a separate section (e.g. in casulties - as a subsection - "list of names") - and not name individuals in the text unless the name is significant or repeated (e.g. Yaser Murtaja should obviously be named).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The general practice on I/P articles is to list meticulously the names of victims of mass deaths/massacres if they are Jewish, and no one I know of has fussed over WP:NOTMEMORIAL in the many articles that do so.
At the same time, every attempt to replicate the practice when Palestinians are the victims is AdFed or subject to vigorous POV protests on the relevant talk pages. One can't have it both ways, per WP:NPOV and WP:Systemic bias. Since it is an accepted convention for Jewish Israeli victims, the same must apply to the other party in the conflict, Palestinian victims. The material as edited so far in respective sections has no need to get some hypothetical 'traction' (what does that mean?). It simply does justice to the multiply-sourced factual data.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is a uniform practice - but can we at least, for now, separate the list out into a separate subsection containing only the list?Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

@WarKosign: What would be wrong if readers get to know that Meir Amit center is closely affiliated with IDF? Why are you and the other Israeli user, Yaniv, evading this well established fact? Pinging other users for attention; Carwil, Waddie96, Onceinawhile, DePiep, No More Mr Nice Guy. What's your opinion regarding this edit? Note that the description is supported by the cited source. --Mhhossein talk 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Closely affiliated would be overstating it. How about this - if we state this here, we shall state the long standing position regarding Gaza/Israel of every single figure and body we quote. Good?Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to repeat that for "every single figure and body". The title, i.e. "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", sounds as if it's an international body. That would make it much more accurate and neutral if its affiliation is determined. --Mhhossein talk 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't normally put these kind of descriptors in articles. You can just wikilink to Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and interested readers can pursue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If include qualifier about Meir Amit we should include qualifier about HRW and Btzelem. For Btzelem left-wing group and hrw anti-Israeli would do--Shrike (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me propose the following neutral descriptions, since there's clearly some POV suggestions here:
  • ITIC: "an Israeli security establishment NGO"
  • HRW: "a US-based human rights group"
  • B'Tselem: "an Israeli human rights group" or "an Israeli organization monitoring human rights violations in the Palestinian territories"
In general, I don't think either including or excluding such descriptions is inappropriate. What's really at issue is whether the independent expertise of the organization is making the report more reliable. For example, the HRW report cited here isn't based on on-the-ground investigation, so we're not citing it to say "HRW reported that XX people were shot by live ammunition." They did in fact report that, but relied entirely on other sources. However, we do (and should) say that HRW said that shooting protesters is a violation of human rights standards. Since I haven't seen the Meir Amit ITIC report, I can't comment on whether they are offering some value added (i.e., they have access to confidential sources or files on the dead Palestinians) or they are just tabulating media reports (i.e., they are relying on IDF allegations made elsewhere). If it's the former case, then saying they are "an Israeli security establishment NGO" helps explain why they are a (imperfectly and partially) credible organization on the topic. If it's the latter, we should just leave them out and report directly on IDF/Shin Bet claims, assuming there's a media source we can quote. There is of course a third possibility, that the ITIC itself has been keeping files (not provided by the IDF/Shin Bet) on thousands of Palestinians and matched up the shooting victims, but that seems highly unlikely.--Carwil (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Carwil, I agree with your proposal. We should have descriptors for all three, and those read fine to me. A good Wikipedia article should stand alone, and not rely on other articles or sources for explanation of attribution. We could also do the same for Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem is double standard. You want to add a disclaimer to ITIC, yet do not bother to add one for B'Tselem, HRW, AI, etc. If ITIC needs one, so do all the other NGOs. In fact, I can't find any complaint on objectivity of ITIC, while there are many claims that the other NGOs are biased; so if we are adding disclaimers lets begin with them. “WarKosign” 20:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree calling given criticism of hrw bias calling "a US-based human rights group" is clearly a pov violation--Shrike (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that visiting the Wikilink will allow the reader to explore any POV biases. However, I also think we should insert a short statement which clearly conveys the POV bias the following statement might have. Hence, I agree that, as discussed above by Carwil, we should add additional short statements which clearly convey the POV biases of all media sources from both the Gaza Strip and Israel. Obviously, international and WP:RS can be omitted in this such as The New York Times. Yes, Onceinawhile, "We could also do the same for Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel" and we will. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Such descriptions are very POV-prone, it will be very hard to achieve consensus on how each NGO should be described. It is much easier to avoid this problem - first mention of each NGO leads to its own page where a consensus determines how it is described, in whatever level of detail that is deemed appropriate. “WarKosign” 21:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I would encourage editors not to use edit summaries such as "rv POV push. Please gain consensus for this additions before adding it again". Because other edits can do it too :-) [21]. That aside, it's unclear to me why the centre's opinion needs to be included. Does IDF / Hamas not discuss the numbers? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
What really not clear to me why HRW and BTZELEM opinion should be included?--Shrike (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The IDF releases spokeperson stmts on ongoing events, it rarely (if at all) releases analysis. ITIC actually analyzed and collated the numbers here.Icewhiz (talk) 05
06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I think for an organization connected to a party in the conflict (IDF) it is better to mention is, just as we would presumably mention it if it was an organization with close ties to Hamas or another party to the conflict.Seraphim System (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
ITIC page says in its lead that it has close ties with IDF, yet the only source cited is an article by Taghreed El-Khodary, a Palestinian journalist. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL such a statement needs to be attributed to whomever makes it, or needs to have far better sources. There are some allegations of close connections, but the other NGO's are accused of bias as well. “WarKosign” 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is from the New York Times, one of the world's leading journalistic publications, and the article was coauthored by Anglo-Israeli journalist Isabel Kershner. @WarKosign: your description above is one of the most misleading I have ever seen from you. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't noticed the co-author. Isabel Kershner has been accused of bias (in both direction), so I'm not sure whether she helps or hinders credibility of this article. Still, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies - if ITIC indeed has close relations with IDF surely there are other good quality sources that support it. ITIC itself states that it gets part of its data from IDF, so obviously they have some relation, but whether it should be described as close is a matter of judgement. HRW often uses data provided by Hamas (via Ministry of Health), does it mean they are closely related? “WarKosign” 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that your edit re-inserted a statement that has been reverted and that clearly does not have a consensus (yet), while there is an ongoing discussion. Please see WP:BRD, pay attention and next time leave the article as it was while there is discussion. “WarKosign” 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I just want to second that sources affiliated with parties to the conflict should be described as such. If we can identify the Gaza Ministry of Health with Hamas (and we do, in the lead), we can identify the IITC with a simple, factual description. --Carwil (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we can say that HRW was scolded by it founder for Anti-Israeli bias [22]--Shrike (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Carwil's point. We've already done that for Gaza Ministry of Health. Btw, see The Jerusalem Post says: "...it has ongoing connections to current military intelligence and is filled with top former Israeli intelligence officials." I think there's no reason to avoid that description. --Mhhossein talk 18:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Shrike: Are you going to make original research by using a 2009 source with no direct connection to this article? --Mhhossein talk 18:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The NY source brought doesn't mention the article too--Shrike (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Which NY source do you mean? Btw, did you see the JP source? --Mhhossein talk 19:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The JP source saya it "has ongoinng connections" (a good thing ifnyou want intel and information) - not that it is connected.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
We can just say "founded by employees of Israeli intelligence" [23] and let readers decide for themselves if that is a good thing.Seraphim System (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System: That's better, I think, and since the The Jerusalem Post makes connection between this article and the origination of Meir Amit center, there's no concern over the SYNTH aspect and we can then use the description. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 06:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The same article also says that ITIC "is viewed as unusually credible". No cherry-picking. “WarKosign” 06:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The article does not say that? Seraphim System (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"Jerusalem Post article says "The Meir Amit Center, located near Glilot, north of Tel Aviv, is viewed as unusually credible because it has ongoing connections to current military intelligence and is filled with top former Israeli intelligence officials." We could paraphrase the whole statement (too long and awkward imo), but we can't use only part of it to discredit ITIC as overly close to IDF while silencing the part that calls it unusually credible. “WarKosign” 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That is a different article, the article we are talking about doesn't say anything like that. One is a verifiable fact, the other is a vague opinion from a single news article.Seraphim System (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I still think no qualifiers are needed at all anyone can enter the relevant article and read about it.--Shrike (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Using the same argument, one can simply remove the description for the Gaza Ministry of Health from the lead. --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Not the same thing. Gaza Ministry of Health is part of Hamas government. ITIC has some degree of connection with IDF. “WarKosign” 04:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this ITIC report reliable?

I'm going leave this "methodological note" from the ITIC report here for people to think through how WP:RS and WP:BLP might apply to conclusions it reaches. I'm definitely sure we could not use it on individual pages of dead people (e.g., Yaser Murtaja), per BLP.

  • "As noted, this is an initial analysis, and more information may be added in the future.
  • "The Gazans killed were identified according to information from sources of varying reliability. In some instances the information indicated they belonged to one of the terrorist organizations, and in others circumstantial information linked them to the terrorist organizations."

--Carwil (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That they admit that the identification, in some cases (but far from all, and they list how on each one), is circumstantial only shows that they are reliable in representing the accuarcy of their report. Reporting this in a statistical summary fashion, without names, is not a BLP issue rowards the unnamed dead (and, we should note, it is not amcrime in Hamas controlled Gaza to be associated with Hamas). Leaving out this report actually has BLP implications towards the Israeli soldiers and officers whom, without presenting the Israeli side, we would be saying that the civilian status of the casullties is uncontested.19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
There are non-circumstantial identifications listed here, and some verifiable claims of affiliation that are undisputed. (Not only is it not a crime to be in Hamas in Gaza, but clearly Hamas members are participating, and have died; the question is how many, and whether ITIC helps clarify that.) I've made the qualifications that I think are essential in the article, but if a less partisan source is available, we should prefer it.--Carwil (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Peter Beinart 'American Jews Have Abandoned Gaza — And The Truth,' The Forward 26 April 2018 provides a sense of the realities on the ground, beyond the incessant POV pushing that this is all about managing a 'terrorist' threat. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this video be added to 27 April subsection

Should this video be added to the 27 April subsection? Would it give info as to what was done at the border. As can be seen in the video Palestinian protestors, who breached the barbed-wire fence, have approached the true Gaza-Israel barrier and are planting a Palestinian flag, burning tyres and throwing rocks at an armed IDF van; the IDF then retaliated with live ammunition and tear gas as mentioned in the text under the subsection. IDF Spokesperson claims: "The rioters approached the security fence, hurled rocks and firebombs, and tried to light the fence on fire. In response, IDF troops operated in accordance with the rules of engagement & thwarted the attempted infiltration."

The other option is to add this image. The image has a clearer view of what is happening and is static and quick to view.

Note: both the video and image are under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain as it was taken by IDF and released to public domain by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit.

Which should, if any, be added? Waddie96 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

​​​​​​ Pinging involved editors for comment. Waddie96 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd go with both - assuming copyright issues are all squared away - there is no lack of space at the moment for images/videos at the moment - we're loong on text, short on these.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I added an image for 27 April and video for 29 April. Waddie96 (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If anyone can find any pictures of IDF soldiers to make the photo coverage more equal that would be great. Currently the only public domain photos I've been able to get a hold of are those from the IDF Spokesperson's Unit; which are only of Palestinian protestor's. Waddie96 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The first paragraph of the lede needs to state clearly that 1.) the goal of this protest is to tear down a border barrier and enable mass illegal entry into a sovereign state. and 2.) that this is a violent protest in which pistols are carried, fire bombs launched over the border by kite, slingshots fire projectiles at border guards and Molotov cocktails are thrown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: the first addition sounds POV and please provide reliable sources supporting these additions. Waddie96 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit of infobox Suggestion

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

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

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise this as I have no experience of Wikipedia. But the suggestion that there are parties to the confilct is extremely misleading. This is a protest organised by Palestinian Civil Society as reported in http://mondoweiss.net/2018/04/great-return-history/. Not an armed conflict. The political parties/resistance groups/militants/terrorist groups, whatever the designation, have not been party to the organisation of this protest, except through giving verbal support and the participation of individual members who are known afilliates, in the context of people from all sections of Palestinian society. [1][2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>

Using the phrase "parties to the conflict" gives the impression of war and a parity that is patently not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif3000 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arif3000: I see your point, however, the template used to create the infobox is 
{{Infobox civil conflict}}
and thus is appropriately used. Also, the political parties/resistance groups/militants/terrorist groups are parties in the conflict as you have said yourself if it a multi-partied conflict with multiple groups involved. Waddie96 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Palestinian civilian deaths in Prior violence

Should these civilian deaths be included in Prior violence subsection: 

On 11 January 2018, Amir 'Abd al-Hamid Msa'ed Abu Masa'ed (15) from [[Deir al-Balah]] was shot and killed in the armpit by Israeli forces. B'tselem states that the boy was 50 to 70 meters from the border and not involved in hostilities, though stones were thrown at soldiers by other youths.

On 16 February 2018, Ahmad Muhammad 'Abd Rabo Abu Hilu (18) was shot in the back of the head while standing 15 meters from the border fence. While stone-throwing occurred, Hilu is said by B'tselem not to have been involved in hostilities. He died of his wounds on 21 February 2018.

...

On 17 February, Abdallah Ayman Suliman Irmeilat (14) and Salem Muhammad Suliman Sabah (16) were shot dead despite the fact, according to B'tselem, they were not engaged in hostilities but were trying to cross the border to search for work in Israel.

On 25 February, Isma'il Saleh Muhammad Abu Ryalah (18) was shot dead in his fishing boat from fire that came from from an Israeli naval vessel in pursuit. He had, the same NGO claims, not been involved in hostilities.

On 3 March, Muhammad 'Ata 'Abd al-Mawla Abu Jame' (58) died of Israeli gunshot wounds to his buttocks, as he was working his plot of land 200 meters from the perimeter fence without engaging in hostile activities.

If so, then a longer list will have to be created for all deaths (including Israeli civilian deaths caused by Palestinians) as per the cited source used. But my feeling is the above should be deleted as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I think it should just mention Palestinian protestors killed by IDF in hostilities and IDF soldiers killed by Palestinian protestors involved in hostilities; otherwise the list will be far too long.

Additions that then should be made (note they are copy-pasted from cited source) if above is kept: 

A soldier killed on 7 January 2011 when struck by a mortar shell soldiers fired at armed persons near the Gaza perimeter fence.

Six Israeli civilians and a member of the Israeli security forces who were shot to death on 18 August 2011 in an attack near Eilat. According to the IDF Spokesperson, eight of the attackers were also killed. Their identity is not yet known.

A soldier killed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel in a shooting attack at the Beersheba Central Bus Station on 18 October 2015. The assailant, who was later killed by police gunfire, and a foreign national, who was mistakenly shot by a bus station security guard, was beaten by passersby and died several hours later.

Two Israeli civilians shot to death in a Tel Aviv pub and another Israeli civilian, a taxi cab driver, who was also shot dead by the shooter, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, as he fled - on 1 January 2016. A week later, the shooter was shot dead by police in ‘Ar’arah.

Two Israeli police officers fatally shot by three Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the al-Aqsa compound and at one of its entrances, and the three gunmen, who were fatally shot by police inside the compound on 14 July 2017. According to media reports, another police officer sustained mild gunshot wounds

An Israeli soldier who was stabbed to death on 30 November 2017 by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship while waiting at a bus stop in the city of Arad.

An Israeli civilian who was stabbed and critically injured by a Palestinian citizen of Israel on 5 February 2018 while waiting at a hitchhiking post at the entrance to the settlement of Ariel. He succumbed to his wounds later that day. The assailant was run over by a military officer and fled the scene.

Let me know your thoughts. Waddie96 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani:
The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event. The title means what it means -listing events that were violent in the months preceding the March. For a month, on the rare occasions I could check in, I waited for someone to add the balancing data of violence against Palestinians for this same period. No one did: no one, yourself included (?), thought the highly partisan selective list improper. Now that I can edit, I added the corresponding details of violent incidents affecting Gazans to the schema. It is called WP:NPOV. Yet, suddenly, we get an objection. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue has been addressed, and much of the material you cite just above my reply deals not with the specifics of Gaza Border incidents, but events in the West Bank. Their inclusion would be WP:OR. You can't have it both ways: silently accepting in the text Israeli reports of earlier border incidents of Palestinian violence, while immediately objecting when the parallel details of violence to Palestinians on the border is added for neutrality. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nishidani: How would the above additions be no original research? They are from the exact article you cited [24] which is WP:RS. I thank you for your additions in an attempt to make WP:NPOV, I am not questioning you, but whether the additions are not assisting in improving the article as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and want to get an opinion from fellow editors before removing the additions. Waddie96 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be an elementary confusion here. Your material was not so much a reductio ad absurdum but its corollary which would be dilatatio ad absurdum.The material you cite comes from the same reliable source I used, yes, but the items do not deal with events of this year prior to the Great March occurring on the Gaza border.
  • (1) Deals with an incident of an Israeli friendly fire death on 7 January 2011 on the Gaza border.
  • (2) Six Israeli civilians and a member of the Israeli security forces shot to death on 18 August 2011 in Eilat. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents
  • (3) A soldier killed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel at the Beersheba Central Bus Station on 18 October 2015. Nothing to do with Gaza border
  • (4) Two Israeli civilians shot to death in a Tel Aviv pub by a Palestinian citizen of Israel, Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
  • (5) 2 Israeli police officers fatally shot by three Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the al-Aqsa compound on 14 July 2017. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
  • (6) An Israeli soldier stabbed to death on 30 November 2017 by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship in Arad. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
  • (7) An Israeli civilian who died after being stabbed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel on 5 February 2018 at the entrance to the settlement of Ariel. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
You appear to have missed the point I made above, in writing:’ The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event.' The prior background on wikipedia articles deals with the immediate past, not with anything or everything from Methusaleh onwards.
The incidents regarding Palestinian violence in the Prior section all refer to events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. In English 'prior' here implies historical recency. I mirrored this choice by the editor who wrote this section by supplying the corresponding examples of Israeli violence in events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. The parallel is perfect, per WP:NPOV. If you want the Israeli detail, you must accept the Palestinian detail for the same period in the same area. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A source must link these events to the topic of this article otherwise including this stuff here is OR regardless of where they happened or if editors think they're relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Title

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

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

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

Conditions in the Gaza prior to the event

According to a January report by Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor, cited by Ghanam and therefore usable and written on the occasion of the 12th year of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, the economy was in a state of collapse with 44% of the population unemployed (62% of the youths),65% of families were sunk in poverty, with 72% unable to secure sufficient food, while 97% of Gaza’s water was not fit for human consumpotion.’[3][4]

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/gaza-refugees-call-return-mass-protests-180330154419077.html
  2. ^ http://mondoweiss.net/2018/04/great-return-history/
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ghannam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://euromedmonitor.org/en/gaza/ Gaza -12 Years of Blockade
    <references></references>
    Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor     January 2018
So I suggest more work on the background figures, and look at B'tselem 's page as well.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And whose fault is that Gaza is in such a state of deprivation? After all, they receive billions from the world. Maybe because Hamas prefers to build cross-border tunnels and weapons instead of civilian infraestructure? This is what your "peaceful" protest was all about: a cynical camouflage for additional terrorist attacks (not to mention the usual propaganda and the attacker playing the victim card after sending their human shields to die).--יניב הורון (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Way to keep your POV in check יניב הורון. And backing it up with an Israeli military and political cite--because they will somehow be totally unbiased on this issue. Pure genius.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering the POV rant he was responding to, I'd say he did just fine in his response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I recall when Debkafile knew everything about Saddams WMD! LOL! (Needless to say: absolutely none of it true..) Huldra (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, Debka is no less biased than the so-called "Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor", but much more reliable and serious. Everything published by Debka is fully investigated, and many times they had no problem criticizing Israel's military and intelligence establishment. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources (such as normal newspapers) to support at least some of their findings.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Whose fault is it that you spout nonsense, copied and pasted from the puerile hasbara outlet for retirees from the IDF and Shin Bet, the Debka file? US aid to Israel in the last financial year was $3.1 billion: their aid to Palestinians has averaged a 7th of that over the last decade, with most going to the PA quisling government in the West Bank. Demographically the Israeli and Palestinian populations are on a par, so the elephantine wastrel sponger in the room is not the government of the Gaza Strip. Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds ought to exercise some care in playing the Palestinian freeloader meme before audiences that acrually study the facts. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about aid given to Gaza by the world, not just the US. But whatever, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not interested in seeing all the usual butthurt in the comments after another staged "humanitarian" provocation.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
יניב הורון take your own advice. One more comment like this--"all the usual butthurt"--and you will promptly see yourself at ANI. Mocking another editor for something you don't like or clearly understand does not fly with me or the respectable part of the community. I will never understand why the most sensitive subjects produces some of the worst editors I have encountered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And you are one of the worst POV commentators on Wiki, Slick. Hypocrisy on here doesn't cut it.50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment – calling this a massacre of of course nonsense, and there is no need to scrape the barrel for sources calling it one (as far as I can tell, even the state-sponsored sources here don't call it a massacre). It is not just a non-neutral term, but it doesn't even describe the events. It seems like a good idea to wait for the events to end in order to get some perspective, but no doubt in the end we will use the most neutral and descriptive title. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment Ynhockey has now moved the article to a new title, (in the middle of a discussion) and, AFAIK, used his admin powers to mv the protections too, so that none other than other admins can move it again. User:Ynhockey: using your admin powers in an issue where you are highly involved is not a good thing, me thinks? Huldra (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I actually fixed a botched move made by other editors, which seemed to create a (technical) disconnect between the article and its talk page.
In any case, it doesn't look like anyone here is actually arguing about policy, it's more of a philosophical discussion about whether it's a massacre or not. I stated my opinion on that issue above (with regards to the discussion), but it's only somewhat relevant to the actual issue of naming the article, which has to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. There is a policy to address precisely this issue, at WP:POVNAMING, and it's so clear when examining this specific article, that there's really no room for interpretation.
Therefore, while it was not my intention to prevent other users from moving the article (technically you still can, in a number of ways), maybe it's actually better because it might make everyone calm down and read the policy. In any case, feel free to open a move request if you have a policy-based argument on why this page should be moved. There are a number of back-and-forth moves in the last 24 hours which is really unhelpful.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ynhockey, no comment on the title as of yet, but how does anyone with a sane mind believe you can be unbiased in this area?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick: I don't think anyone expects anyone else to be unbiased. There is however a policy about loaded terms on Wikipedia, and it's very clear about loaded words in article titles. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Ynhockey, I actually do expect others to be unbiased, just as I expect myself. If an editor cannot do that, they shouldn't be editing in the field.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And please fill in your references [25]. Thank you!TheGracefulSliclistk (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
If the title was so loaded as User:Ynhockey imply, then surely some admin who was not WP:INVOLVED could have moved it. Ok, if Ynhockey doesn't undo his move, I will report this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
As I've noted on Ynhockey's talk page in response to your comment there, Ynhockey does not appear to have used any admin powers to move the page. Number 57 22:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. At 20:46, 31 March 2018 he deleted 2018 Land Day incidents with the edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move). At 20:52, 31 March 2018 he deleted Talk:2018 Land Day incidents with edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Not wrong. That's what it shows in your log when you move pages over a redirect. You have the same in your own log despite the fact you have no admin powers.
21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Talk:Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
It's a shame you've continued with this claim despite me trying to point you to your own log earlier. Number 57 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ynhockey's move was improper because he has a conflict of interest, and one can't figure out if he is actually neutral: since he is both an Israeli and an admin he shouldn't allow for this kind of doubt by undertaking controversial changes in this area while wearing his adminship. His reasoning is dead wrong: we don't call armies, police or whatever shooting significant numbers of unarmed protesters 'incidents' or 'events' or 'protests'. The title must acknowledge people were killed, and we have tons of stuff like Sharpeville Massacre and Kent State Shootings that acknowledge that you don't adopt euphemisms when mass killings are carried out by government order or otherwise. In this case, Israel admits it ordered the army to shoot unarmed people en masse. I know this is just normal routine stuff for many who accept Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements (that is what Zionism is all about), but globally, mass executions are not 'incidents': the army in on record as boasting it could account for every bullet and every person, even women and children, hit by live fire. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
He was reverting a move that could be argued to be controversial. The bits about him having a conflict of interest because he's Israeli is not worthy of Wikipedia and hope will be retracted. The idea that an editor should be restricted in some way when editing a certain subject because of their nationality is appalling. Number 57 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Distortion. An Israeli editor is like anyone else. An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher stanbdards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral. This stands out like dog's balls, and applies to all admins of whatever natiolnality when they are dealing with controversies affecting their homeland.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a very simple test of NPOV: what would the title be if the "sides" were the other way round? Suppose some snipers murdered 16 football fans at a Beitar match. Do you seriously think the title of such an event should be 2018 Beitar incident? --NSH001 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Talking about stupid comparisons... If Beitar was a terrorist organization like Hamas instead of a football team, and they organized a mass protest near a border, which included armed men and human shields to provoke a violent confrontation with the enemy... then, probably yes. Can we move on, now?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to get you to think of the event from the other side's point of view. Please point me to any article on the murder of Israeli citizens that is titled "XXXXXX incident" or "XXXXXX incidents". Or indeed, can you point me to any such article whose title hides or obfuscates what happened to the victims (massacre, killing, shooting, stabbing, whatever)? Because that is what is being, mendaciously, done in the section below.
This is a massacre, and that is what it should be called, though I could live with "murders" or "killings" as a compromise. --NSH001 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests"

I propose that the article be moved back to 2018 Land Day protests, at least for now. This version was the article's names for a brief period [26], amid all the moves :-). "Incidents" is both wp:weasel and vague. "Protests" is much more of WP:COMMONNAME vs "Incidents". See for example Google search. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Attempting to storm an international border is not a protest. Some of the Gazan casulties were from a Hamas squad that in the evening fired at Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) clarified comment. Most neutral sources are using clashes or confrontations to describe this staged event which involved gun fire from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Suport Using "protests" vs incident makes ore sense 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs)
  • Support The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Aljazeera, CNN, The Guardian, and several other reputable secondary sources call these events protests. Icewhiz put the POV-cap away and look at the sources in front of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    I see confrontations and clashes used more often. The incidents on the day (or rather evening) included a firefight - [27] in the evening between armed militants and the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – actually when I first searched for this topic, I thought it would be called 2018 Land Day protests. However, the article is potentially about a wider set of incidents (border infiltrations, geopolitics, etc.); so I am neutral about this, both titles seem OK to me, it's more of a question of the article's scope. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep it as "2018 Land Day incidents". It's the most neutral and descriptive term. This is not woodstock nor just "protests", but a Hamas-organized rally that included armed attacks.--יניב הורון (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - it doesn't require a large WP:CRYSTALBALL to see this is slated to be a continuing event (with continuing events during the week, and a big flare up next Friday (and the Friday after that - until perhaps 15 May) - the organizers are declaring this is their intention - so whatever name we end up with probably won't have "Land day" in it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz the organizers dubbed it the "March of Return". Would that be a better compromise than the current recommendation?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Generally speaking these were protests. There were some incidents, catching a lot of focus, but most of the events were protests. Maybe calling it a "riot" would be better, but it is much better than "incidents".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support—"Protests" doesn't exclude those protesters participating in confrontations with the border guards, though there are three deaths that are peripheral at best to the protests. What it does include, however, is the large numbers of people participating in the protest camps. Conversely, "clashes" may be inappropriate for people not engaging in confrontation, which apparently includes a significant number of those killed and injured.--Carwil (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    All of the deaths are related to clashes near the fence (or in one case - two armed gunmen with AK-47 in the evening) - the whole event would've been probably non-notable had they stayed back in the protest camps - the coverage in the sources is not about that - but about incidents along the border.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'm open to 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes.--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'm good with 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes (added plural to protest - it wasn't one on Friday - and there have been more since Friday - and it is likely to be "big" this coming Friday).Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    Agree. Since this is going to be going on for a while, there should be a top level article with a general name, then sub articles (which this one will probably end up as) for daily (or whatever is appropriate) events. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "protests" would obfuscate the essence (already buried or absent in the article). Title can be more precise: 2018 Land Day shootings when short, or 2018 Land Day massacre. The wording "clashes", notw used on mainpage, is misleading and wrong. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Icewhiz sees "violent riots" everywhere, so I would take his !vote with a grain of salt. Compare with: Talk:Ahed_Tamimi#Use of "riots" is attributed to Israeli authorities where Icewhiz insists that describing what he terms "violent rioting" as "protest" is a BLP violation against IDF soldiers. Strange but true :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
NPA please. RSes are widely using clashes. Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and AK47 rifles used by the Palestinians are typically not part of protests.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018 Gaza border protests"

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

Scope: Include ongoing protest campaign?

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

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

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

Great March of Return

  • This seems like a neutral, noncontroversial name for this page. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests/Archive_1&oldid=1185162129"