Jump to content

Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+ readership
Line 230: Line 230:
::::Gianluigi is using Palestinian claims. Since the other parties are just repeating what they say, it's the wrong way. [[User:LéKashmiriSocialiste|LéKashmiriSocialiste]] ([[User talk:LéKashmiriSocialiste|talk]]) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
::::Gianluigi is using Palestinian claims. Since the other parties are just repeating what they say, it's the wrong way. [[User:LéKashmiriSocialiste|LéKashmiriSocialiste]] ([[User talk:LéKashmiriSocialiste|talk]]) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::Add contradictory claims, we will sort it out later.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::Add contradictory claims, we will sort it out later.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Where is the contradiction however? Palestinians never contradicted Israel's toll. The only one making a contradiction is Gianluigi. [[User:LéKashmiriSocialiste|LéKashmiriSocialiste]] ([[User talk:LéKashmiriSocialiste|talk]]) 23:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


== Situation in Lod ==
== Situation in Lod ==

Revision as of 23:18, 11 May 2021

In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2021.


Merging

With another page about the 2021 Jerusalem clashes, I think this page should merge with that one as to not cause confusion and possible misinformation. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong page, remove reply Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the other article as redirect. Feel free to copy from history. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of events

This is not directed to any editor in particular, but I wanted to show what I think is a good summary of events, both for the background and the timeline. Also it looks impartial. In my humble opinion, the events in Sheikh Jarrah with the evictions are just excuses, or at least not the main reason for the unrest. The main reason for what's happening is the decision by Abbas to postpone Palestinian elections because he knew he would lose, which angered Hamas and now both sides in the Palestinian political arena (Hamas and Fatah) are using Israel as a scapegoat to advance their respective agendas, which is one of disturbance but without reaching a full-scale war.--SoaringLL (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that is your opinion, but without a source it is WP:OR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agence France-Presse have an article here suggesting that Abbas "has drawn the ire of some protesters" and that "some east Jerusalem protesters have branded Abbas as a 'traitor'".
However, I would prefer to see a reliable source explicitly link the protestors motivations to the election postponement. It seems more likely that this would be a secondary cause than a main though. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation needed on Times of Israel source

I'm getting paywalled from checking this source, which currently verifies the sentence "Palestinian crowds threw stones, lit fires, chanted "Strike Tel Aviv" and "Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning", paraded Hamas flags and tore down police barricades on the mount.". Can someone check to make sure that info is indeed in the source? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose of the article is very short, but contains:
  • "Palestinian demonstrators also light a trash can on fire on Salah al-Din Street near the Damascus Gate as clashes with police intensify."
  • "“Strike Tel Aviv,” they chant. “In spirit and in blood, we will redeem al-Aqsa.”"
and a link to this tweet. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So no "Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning"? I'm removing that part. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the chant "Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning" whilst holding Hamas flags. Quote will be reverted. JoshRichards98 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you added a quote without a source, based on a video you heard somewhere, and then linked to a paywalled story hoping it wouldn't be challenged. Would it have been more beneficial for the reader to add a link simply saying "Dude, trust me?" Always cite sources, especially with controversial topics such as this. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogies this is an honest mistake and must have accidentally deleted the second source after formatting, however, are you sure the article is paywalled, as it is appearing fine with no restrictions currently? JoshRichards98 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and I apologize. The article was shorter than I expected and ended with an advertisement (in yellow), making me think it was paywalled. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Move

Change this title to 2021 Israeli–Palestinian clashes because the clashes occurred in Jerusalem and Gaza Strip.Cerberon-900 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wave of attacks against Haredi looking Jews had predated the ruling and should be added to the background

The Background ignore the two weeks of violance by Palestinains which was targeted against mostly Haredi looking just a few examples [1][2][3][4][5][6] [7][8][9] At some point it was even described as TikTok Intefada [10] where Palestians would attack Jews and then upload this to TikTok[11], by Ignoring these waves of attacks the articale make it look as if it was appear out of thin air.

While that may be true, twitter is not a source that can be used to justify additions to this or any page as a rule. Wikipedia guidelines prefer to uphold what it views as 'reliability' even if that comes at the cost of factuality. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not like the twitter footage, there are many other sources that describe it and even court rullings which I had linked in my comment. Out of 11 refernces you had only three twitter links 2A00:C281:1804:4500:7093:17CA:887E:BFDD (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kikar.co.il/389818.html
  2. ^ https://www.kikar.co.il/389946.html
  3. ^ https://news.walla.co.il/item/3429569
  4. ^ https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1212534
  5. ^ https://twitter.com/tzvisuccot/status/1382769769049427970?s=20
  6. ^ https://twitter.com/i/status/1386015290518032387
  7. ^ https://twitter.com/ariel_elharar_/status/1384513388378742784?s=20
  8. ^ https://www.hakolhayehudi.co.il/item/security/%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%92_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A1_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A3_%D7%91%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99__-_%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A3_%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D_%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3
  9. ^ https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rkpq7Xmwd
  10. ^ https://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/2021_q2/Article-6d30fe9b485e871027.htm
  11. ^ https://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/2021_q2/Article-6d30fe9b485e871027.htm
I am not disagreeing on the merits of those, but the twitter sources could not be a basis is all I am saying. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error in the lead

The lead says "and over 20 Palestinians being killed" yet , they had been killed in Gaza after Gaza rocket attacks triggered an Israeli retalitation (from the article itself). The same should be put in the casualty box

Missing attribution for EU response

It should be added in the EU Forigen Affair message requested to stop Jewish worshippers from accessing an esplanade the full text is "The situation with regard to the evictions of Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of East Jerusalem is a matter of serious concern. I want to repeat what we have already been saying: Such actions are illegal under international humanitarian law and only serve to fuel tensions on the ground. It is important that everything possible will be done to avoid fuelling tensions. And we note that the decision to stop Jewish worshippers from accessing the esplanade is a positive one that can calm the situation." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C281:1804:4500:7093:17CA:887E:BFDD (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/98259/foreign-affairs-council-press-remarks-high-representative-josep-borrell_en

Lynch attempt should be added to clashes

The Lynch attempt [1] should be added to the clashes part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C281:1804:4500:7093:17CA:887E:BFDD (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or how another source describes it as Israeli settler runs over Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem. Regardless, I dont think that merits mention here. nableezy - 02:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/palestinian-youth-injured-in-car-crash-in-old-city-riot-667743

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

(Add to international reactions)

 Germany – Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said via Twitter that "all sides have a duty to prevent further civilian casualties", and condemned the use of rocket fire on Israeli civilians.[1] Mr. Lechkar (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heiko Maas [@HeikoMaas] (10 May 2021). "Raketenbeschuss auf die israelische Zivilbevölkerung ist durch nichts zu rechtfertigen - und erst recht kein Beitrag zur Lösung des Konflikts, sondern sinnlose neue Eskalation. Alle Seiten stehen in der Pflicht, weitere Opfer unter Zivilisten zu verhindern" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
 Not done for now: We should be working off secondary source coverage of statements, not primary sources like tweets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Clashes"

Several prominent figures have criticized the usage of the word "clashes" in relation to this incident, calling it non-neutral: "This is not a "clash" between two equal sides. This is a straightforward attack by Israel on Palestinians." As of right now, this is the term used by the title of this article. Should it be changed? I want to hear some input first. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's what all the references sources call it. No? | MK17b | (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commondreams is not WP:RS to anything and clearly WP:UNDUE. Also please mind WP:SOAP Shrike (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Common Dreams is not WP:RS to anything" is not currently the opinion of WP:RSP. I also made no assertion about the neutrality or non-neutrality of the current title myself other than to point out that several people have challenged it, as reflected in that article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the guidance at WP:TITLE: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered... [s]ometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
If your issue is that the word "clashes" doesn't take enough of a side in a dispute, that seems like exactly the opposite of the kind of case that might make us override the WP:COMMONNAME used by reliable sources. "Clash" is indeed extremely benign/neutral/milquetoast, I don't see what problem using the same word that reliable sources do introduces here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could it possibly be changed to 2021 Jerusalem Crisis or 2021 Israel-Palestine Crisis? I feel like the events have moved far beyond the clashes in Jerusalem, seeing as people have now been killed in airstrikes and rocket attacks. But I'm not sure what name would be better to more broadly reflect the events of the past several days. I do feel that "clashes" is just insufficient as this develops. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 13:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah possibly, e.g. from the NYT: [1] 20 people were killed in the airstrikes. The escalation followed clashes between the Israeli police and Palestinian protesters. I'm not sure if "crisis" is really used much by reliable sources, but there is possibly a word we can use that's a bit less anodyne than "clashes", which I agree probably does feel a bit insufficient for the way this has developed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True true; I feel that “crisis” is the best descriptor. Even though it’s not the most commonly used by RS, I don’t know anyone on any side who wouldn’t refer to this as a crisis. The events are no longer just the clashes, and no longer just in Jerusalem. I don’t love keeping the current name and think it should be moved ASAP. If anyone has any better name suggestions feel free to add them.Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 16:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you made the move. Seems reasonable for the time being, though I would like to see going forward what reliable sources call this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I think crisis is a bit vague, I'd go for clashes. - Daveout(talk) 20:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Issue with the lede, the sentences claims the police forces "stormed" the mosque. This is highly biased and incendiary language, and is not what the source claimed. Moreover, it should be noted the REASON for the necessary raid, the mosque being the place where protesters/rioters hid after attacking police, as per several Israeli sources. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines at the top of the talk page, please provide a reliable source for the change you want made, and also a more specific wording suggestion. Otherwise, it is unlikely your request will be granted. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IfNotNow

Remove ridiculous reference to IfNotNow, their credibility was only just diminished further by leaving up a tweet praising the desire of Palestinians to "bomb Tel Aviv" for over 24 hours. They are hardly a reliable source. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IfNotNow is not used as a citation anywhere in the article. Your opinion on their credibility is OR and not relevant here, this is not a forum for airing grievances about advocacy organizations. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim in first paragraph of article

"In response, on 10 and 11 May, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired over 400 rockets at Israel,[11]"

[11] is this article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/israel-palestine-rockets-fighting-hamas-evictions

But the citation source contradicts the text in this article. It says "No injuries or damage from the rockets have been reported." It also nowhere cites any number of rockets being fired, let alone 400. This is not an appropriate source for this claim.

Indonesia's Joko Widodo reaction

Indonesian President Joko Widodo expressed his reaction here on Twitter. secondary source in English. NFarras (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPSS Anadolu Agency is not a reliable source for controversial topics or international politics. Do you know of a reliable secondary source for Widodo's remarks? It does not have to be in English. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Causes in Infobox

At the time of writing the causes section in the Infobox reads "Planned decision by the Supreme Court of Israel to evict Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem".

The main article under Background suggests "Palestinian protesters were also frustrated with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas's decision to postpone the 2021 Palestinian legislative election, believing he had done so to avoid political defeat for his party Fatah.[1][2]"

Should the postponement of elections be added as a secondary cause or would this be Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Holmes, Oliver (11 May 2021). "What has caused Jerusalem's worst violence in years?". The Guardian. Jerusalem. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  2. ^ "'Silence is not an option' in east Jerusalem for Palestinians". Agence France-Presse. 9 May 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2021.

Rename

The clashes are not limited, or even centered around on Jerusalem now. With the Gaza crossfire going on, protests around the country, etc., 2021 Jerusalem clashes doesn't really fit the bill. The dead happened in Gaza and Ashkelon. I personally have no opinion on what it should be renamed however. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:6468:4049:4F65:6B1 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, anyone has anything better?Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be hyphenated as Israeli–Palestinian as in other articles, for example Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Arab–Israeli conflict.
Also the name of the linked Commons category should be changed to match any title. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add refs

Hello, please add this event of "cases of Israeli civilians being attacked my mobsters", in TOI, H and JP: https://www.timesofisrael.com/some-280-palestinians-9-cops-hurt-in-latest-heavy-clashes-in-jerusalem/ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/palestinian-youth-injured-in-car-crash-in-old-city-riot-667743 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/video-shows-palestinian-mob-assaulting-jewish-driver-israeli-cop-intervening-1.9789998 Also in NYT, which added this event "The Hadassah Medical Center reported that a 7-month-old girl was treated after being slightly injured in the head by a rock." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/world/middleeast/jerusalem-protests-aqsa-palestinians.html

The event of "fireworks shot at Jewish home in East Jerusalem" : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/video-shows-fireworks-shot-at-jewish-home-in-east-jerusalem/

--Etudes jb (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries

Just so everyone is aware, the pro-Israeli media always inflates injury numbers, for example, many Israelis currently being called injured are injured with anxiety, whereas Palestinians suffering from anxiety are not listed as being injured. Should we remove those with non-physical wounds, and trivial wounds like sprained ankles from the Israeli injury tally as there are no sources tallying the same for Palestinians? Of 19 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Of 19. Anxiety and trivial wounds are not included in Israeli counts. Secondly if you have a news source saying that they are feel free to mention in the article with the appropriate reference. Only verifiable references should be used to keep Wikipedia accurate. Nerguy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the sources such as the jpost article you would quickly know that they are including anxiety and trivial wounds in their count. Why would you state otherwise? Please read the sources before oddly claiming I am wrong and embarrassing yourself. Of 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously stated Of 19, since you believe there is a disparity, feel free to mention in the article with the appropriate references. However we cannot change the numbers that the media have presented. Also, I don't feel embarrassed for disputing something that has not been backed up by verifiable sources. Nerguy (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From JPost: Of those injured on Tuesday, five were children, 26 were in light condition, 13 were suffering from anxiety, one person was moderately injured and two other people were seriously injured. Kinda think that should be spelled out. nableezy - 18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see Nableezy that you have added anxiety. But the Wikipedia article counts the injured at 70, while the JP article you referenced counts them at 90. I will make the appropriate correction. Nerguy (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am removing the 13 suffering from anxiety. It absolutely does not qualify as an injury or casualty, and you will not find one other Wiki article that documents how many people were anxious during a war. I can guarantee you nearly 100% of the millions of people in the region are anxious. I am incredibly anxious over this, does that mean we should add a section of 1 person in the US with anxiety? No. 90-13=77, so I am changing it to 77 injured. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 19:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a great solution either. I obviously agree that reporting "anxiety" as an injury in a civil conflict seems stupid, but taking it out and using 90-13=77 seems worse, and is probably original research. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about a footnote? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there are probably thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who have gotten anxiety from this situation who aren't going to be reported in RS (because doing so is blatantly a tactic to inflate injury numbers in an obviously one sided conflict), I don't really think it's worth mentioning it all. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would honestly prefer to just remove both of the civilian injury counts from the infobox for now. There's a dispute going on over the Palestinian count too, and at this point in time the numbers seem bound to be an inaccurate mess. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include social media coverage

There used to be a mention of social media coverage in the article but now it seems to have been removed[2]. Wouldn't making a new subtitle under "Reactions" labeled "Social Media" be a better way to deal with the content rather than remove it? It is sourced properly and I do not see any problems in its inclusion. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021 (2)

"Which the Times of Israel described as supporting Hamas", there's clear video footage of them holding Hamas flags. JoshRichards98 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico´s governemnt reaction to the conflict

Can an authorized editor please add to the list of international reactions the tweet from Mexico´s Secretariat of Foreign Affairs? It reads "The Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Mexican Government, expresses concern over the recent events in East Jerusalem and the potential eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. Mexico calls on all parties to reject violence and provocation.". Followed by "Mexico expresses its grave concern over the rising violence in Jerusalem and Gaza and in other areas, and calls for a de-escalation from all parties to avoid further harm to the civilian population.", and "Mexico reiterates its support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through direct negotiations and in accordance with international law and the related UN resolutions." I´ll be waiting for your response. Thank you. Stturm (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021 (3)

Change "On 13 May, Israeli airstrikes caused a 13-story residential tower in Gaza to collapse" to "On 11 May, Israeli airstrikes caused a 13-story residential tower in Gaza to collapse" in article summary, last sentence. (13 May is two days in the future). Chaelhen (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Typo on my part, thanks for the catch. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include info criticizing media coverage

Not sure if this source is reliable, but it seems to do a good job at summarizing criticisms of the media coverage of this incident. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 civilians killed?

User:Gianluigi02 you have reverted me without providing any source for your edit of 26 Palestinians civilians and 4 militants being killed. Yet you contradict IDF's claim of the death toll even though they're a party to the conflict and even the Palestinians aren't disputing them. It was clearly said in earlier reports that 26 Palestinians in total have been killed, including nine children and one woman, plus IDF said 16 militants [3]. Later it was said 28 had been killed including 10 children and one woman [4].

I wonder where you are getting your claim of only 4 militants being killed. I believe you're basing your claim on 4 Palestinian militant commanders being killed, but those aren't the only militants necessarily killed. Do not make edits using your own belief or conjecture. Revert your edit please. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a report about one more Palestinian militant being killed, belonging to Palestinian intelligence services per a Palestinian security source. Your claim of 4 militants being killed is clearly wrong and has no basis. [5] LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to NBC 30 Palestinians including ten children have been killed. [6] Neither it nor any source mentions 26 civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 (9 children)was an earlier figure from the Palestinian Health Ministry, it's at least 30 now (10) + 3 Israelis. (Reuters and NBC)Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've clarified that they were earlier or later figures. But no one said 26 civilians or 30 civilians were killed. Not even the Palestinian Health Ministry. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent originally said 26 civilians in Gaza but changed it later to Palestinians.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it changed it as you say then that represents it realised it had wrong information. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always the same, current AP reporting is 28 (including 10 children + a woman) with Israel claiming that 15 of them were militants. Might as well just wait for things to settle down a bit (or not).Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 militants are confirmed dead so far. The other identities confirmed are those of 10 civilian children and a woman. The identity of 15 other victims is not known so far, many are suspected to be civilians, so we should add them among the civilian casualties at least so far. Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 militant commanders are confirmed dead so far by Palestinians. Add another militant killed [7] by Palestinians. You're only using is Palestinians confirming who has been killed. But disregard Israel's claims, even though it can monitor who was killed. That's not the correct way to go and bias for one side is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just because identities of others are not confirmed by Palestinians, does not mean you call them civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See below section, sources from either side at least need attribution and ideally a third party source instead.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gianluigi is using Palestinian claims. Since the other parties are just repeating what they say, it's the wrong way. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add contradictory claims, we will sort it out later.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the contradiction however? Palestinians never contradicted Israel's toll. The only one making a contradiction is Gianluigi. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in Lod

Why is this article referring to them as "Arab mobs" and implying that they're going on a pogrom against Israeli Jews? What's the rationale for that kind of wording and POV? 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I didn't made that edit. Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I belived that this question was on my own talk page.😅 Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article uses that term: "Arab Israeli killed amid violent riots by Arab mob in Lod; Jewish suspect held". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ToI? Think I'll start including WAFA.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is about the source's reliability, that is an issue much larger than any individual article and you should take those concerns to WP:RSN. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from either side need attribution at a minimum, a better source for preference.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis&oldid=1022691618"