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
→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021: Specifics of request for specifics in regards to reason for "Not done"
Line 156: Line 156:
::Sorry [[User:RandomCanadian]], can you be a little more specific in regards to your objection? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry [[User:RandomCanadian]], can you be a little more specific in regards to your objection? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::I've told you exactly what the problem is. You could have also spared the huge copy-paste and just put in the relevant sentence. As I said, putting attribution in the middle of the sentence is both clumsy writing and a clumsy attempt at hiding it. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::I've told you exactly what the problem is. You could have also spared the huge copy-paste and just put in the relevant sentence. As I said, putting attribution in the middle of the sentence is both clumsy writing and a clumsy attempt at hiding it. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
::::While it may be clear to you [[User:RandomCanadian]], it unfortunately isn't clear to me; my edit request contains two distinct alterations, the first involving the attribution of casualties, and the second involving the attribution of the claim of rockets falling short. Both of these follow the general grammatical rule of most general to most specific, and so I do not believe either is "grammatically odd".
::::The accusation of it being a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is false, and thus unusable in determining which alteration you are referring to.
::::Additional information on what alteration you are referring to, why you believe it is grammatically odd, and why you believe it is a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is needed, as while you clearly know what you are referring to others, including myself, do not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021 ==

Revision as of 06:22, 20 June 2021

In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 10, 2021, and May 22, 2021.


RfC: Infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Picture B: 5 for A, 7 for B, 4 for D, 1 for C. ExcutientTalk 16:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What image(s) should be used for the infobox? Other options are welcomed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A (current image)
    A (current image)
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D
  • E
    E
  • I don't particularly see a reason to change things compared to where they are now? In the future, I suppose, it may be wise to create a composite image featuring both the damages caused by Israeli military strikes as well as the violence from unrest within Israeli itself (and, likely, something illustrating Palestinian rocket attacks could be a part of that as well). However, the article appears fine right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2014 we settled on using two images side-by-side, one for each side. “WarKosign” 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now is fine (clarify, A), but 1:1 would be very much a violation of WP:DUE in that it would pretend that the devastation were equal here. Neither reality or the sources bear that out. nableezy - 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. “WarKosign” 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we. nableezy - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. “WarKosign” 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is what RS say the subject is, and they have largely focused on the damage in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes. DUE demands we give that same weight to that aspect of the story. Not pretend things are equivalent. Whatever, I voted A, would like to stop engaging with you for no apparent reason now plz. nableezy - 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of damage has come from the Israeli side. Using a photo of a Palestinian attack as the lead image would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the damaged targets in Gaza were military targets or adjacent to military targets. The Hamas, in contrast, fired indiscriminately at cities. The Hamas probably fired more projectiles (thousands) at Israel than the Israeli air force dropped on Gaza, just because they were intercepted or not effective is not an issue for image selection. Besides, D is verifiable, whereas the A image is not.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Israel says they were mostly firing at military targets, but this is widely disputed, even by the United States. Regardless, a building being blown up is far more important than a car being blown up, and that shouldn't have to be a political statement. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Excutient: Please take a look at WP:NOTAVOTE, and amend your closes in consequence... Otherwise I'm likely to take a look on the RfCs myself and bring it up to AN for overturning if it looks like you got it wrong because you just counted !votes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Background

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
9 Oppose versus 5 Support. ExcutientTalk 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Background section include the following?

During the 1980s, Hamas sprang from the Muslim Brotherhood, through the 1990s, Hamas evolved as an armed force. After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas is opposed to two-state solution, the map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza, every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine.[1]

Infinity Knight (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dutt, Prabhash K (21 May 2021). "Israel-Palestine conflict: What is Hamas? Who represents Palestinians?". Outlook in India. New Delhi. Retrieved 22 May 2021.

Survey

  • Oppose per While perhaps a brief background on Hamas might help with a reader’s understanding of the article, by this reasoning we would also need to include a ‘brief’ background on the State of Israel, and the conflict in general. It can’t be done, and it wouldn’t be reasonable anyway. Readers will just have to click on the respective wikilinks to learn more. Source not great either (one non-HQRS for a whole section?) which speaks to this probably being UNDUE too. ProcSock (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In case people are wondering where this appeared from, the discussion (RFCBefore) back up the page entitled "Hamas background section" refers. I don't have anything further to add to what I said there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is inexact or misleading it all of its details, i.e., question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The background section for this article should focus on the background of the event (as it currently does), not on the background of any specific group involved in the event. If a reader were interested in learning more about Hamas, this isn't the page to do so. Rovenrat (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (conditionally; nb brought here by RFC request). Short background on one of the belligerents is worthwhile. An article on the event without the background necessary to understand why Israel is and has been fighting disconnects the conflict from rational action. That said, for these claims, a better source ought to be put in hand. Ifly6 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with Ifly6, a short background to Hamas, as one of the two parties involved in the crisis, puts it in context and is helpful for the user. Makes sense to me, and as long as its NPOV. I think we can assume people know what the state of Isreal is.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding political context : In Political science "ideolgy" is certainly a key factor of any analysis. Hamas policies of warfare should certainly be mentioned, particularly "Destruction of Israel for an Islamic state", is a good summary of its purposes and goals.--Rectangular dome (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Arbpia, not permitted to participate in formal discussions)[reply]
  • Support There is value in having background information in the article about Hamas. At the same time, it would be helpful to have a brief background about Israel in the article as well, both to inform the reader and to provide a balance of information about both groups. In-depth information could be obtained by including wikilinks to Hamas and Israel in the article, allowing the reader to obtain more information without detracting from the main subject of the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a reasonable summary. Melmann 10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it is one sided, the background to the crisis is as complicated as the whole history since the mandate. --Almaty✉✎ 10:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a, the coup was from the other side (see for example here), b, the language is, sorry, silly ("every time Israel and Palestine fight" may work in a low quality source but it isnt encyclopedic), and c. no matter what you include you will be leaving out something that somebody finds pertinent. We have an article Hamas. Thats where you go to learn about Hamas on Wikipedia. nableezy - 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The summary is good for the reader's understanding but its only one sided. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As it provides relevant background info about one of the parties involved. There's a lot of background info about Israel already included; this addition won't make the text one-sided. - Daveout(talk) 12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To have that plashed into the text is to invite an edit war as editors tweak it for balance, and editors who like it as it stands, a pastiche of disinformation by caricature, respond by adding more of the same.
  • 'Hamas evolved as an armed force.' No. it evolved as an Islamic charity.
  • 'After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel.' I.e., Hamas reacted to peace accords by resorting to terrorism. No context. No mention that, in their view Israel terrorized Palestinians (look at the casualty numbers for the First Intifada)
  • 'Hamas is opposed to two-state solution.' It accepts a two state solution as the first step in the cessation of hostilities, an interim move. The dominant political consensus of Israel's major parties rejects a two state solution, and de facto has achieved a one-state non-solution.
  • 'The map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.' Israeli maps of the country blur the borders of the 3 in the same way that Hamas maps of the ideal result do.
  • 'Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza'. It was a counter-coup, since it is well documented that Abbas, with the US and Israel, were caught preparing their coup.
  • 'every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades.' No. Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have been at war. 'Palestine' is an empty word here. Violent military means have been used every week in the West Bank for over two decades.
  • 'Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine.' I.e., all of the Palestinian territories are in the hands of terrorists. There is no Palestine to speak off, and political elections to gauge support haven't been conducted for 15 years, and won't be for the forseeable future.
In short, this is incompetently selective skewing of a very complex picture, and is more or less the standard Israeli view or POV unacceptable in an encyclopedia dedicated to equidistance between the conflicted parties. A click will get anyone onto the Hamas page where everything is explained by sections in relatively succinct detail.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, excessive reliance on a single source whose limited reputation and focus makes it WP:UNDUE. We can't frame the entire topic using just one source like this, especially in such a controversial topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I echo the response by Aquillion, relying upon a single source is not a solid approach given the controversial nature of the subject. Perhaps if there was more citations to support what is being suggested I would be more amenable to support the Rfc. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Rename to "Third Intifada"

As the recent conflict started to heat up again news source like Jacobin and counterpunch started to coin the event before the second flareup in June.

So should we rename it? CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it is not even close to an intifada even if the ingredients for one are present. That would be a sustained uprising not a short term flareup as this turned out to be.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

From:

After the ceasefire, UN and Gaza Health Ministry sources stated that 256 Palestinians had been killed,[1][2] including 66 children and 40 women, and almost 2,000 wounded, of whom over 600 were children, and 400 women.[2] Four of the killed women were pregnant.[3] Israel claimed that of those killed at least 225 were militants,[4] while according to Hamas 80 Palestinian fighters were killed.[5] One of the children killed was claimed by a militant group to be a member of its Al-Mujahideen Brigades.[6]

According to Israel, approximately 640 Palestinian rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip, resulting in casualties.[7][8][9] It is disputed whether some of the first victims on 10 May died as a result of an Israeli airstrike or an errant Palestinian rocket.[10][11]

To:

After the ceasefire, UN sources stated that 256 Palestinians had been killed, [1][2] including 66 children and 40 women. Around 243 of these, including 63 children, were seemingly killed by Israeli Defense Forces. Collectively, almost 2,000 were wounded, of whom over 600 were children, and 400 women.[2] Four of the killed women were pregnant.[3] Israel separately claimed that it had killed at least 225 militants,[4] while according to Hamas 80 Palestinian fighters were killed.[5] One of the children killed was claimed by a militant group to be a member of its Al-Mujahideen Brigades.[6]

Some Palestinian rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip,[12] and according to Israel approximately 640 did so, resulting in casualties.[8][13] It is disputed whether some of the first victims on 10 May died as a result of an Israeli airstrike or an errant Palestinian rocket.[10][11] BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference USsecretary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference OHCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b 'Flash Update #02: Situation in the occupied Palestinian territory,' Archived 24 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine OCHA 24 May 2021
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference cease was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference 80fighters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rasgon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Sullivan, Becky. "30 Palestinians, 3 Israelis Reported Killed As Violence Escalates". NPR. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
  8. ^ a b Al-mughrabi, Nidal; Saul, Jonathan; Ayyub, Rami (20 May 2021). "Israel and Hamas both claim victory as ceasefire holds". Reuters. Archived from the original on 26 May 2021. Retrieved 27 May 2021.
  9. ^ Wrobel, Sharon. "Failed Hamas Rockets Falling Short in Gaza Killed 17 Civilians in Monday Incidents Before IDF Airstrikes, Says Security Official". The Algemeiner. Archived from the original on 23 May 2021. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference MoreThan300 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Sullivan, Becky. "30 Palestinians, 3 Israelis Reported Killed As Violence Escalates". NPR. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
  13. ^ Wrobel, Sharon. "Failed Hamas Rockets Falling Short in Gaza Killed 17 Civilians in Monday Incidents Before IDF Airstrikes, Says Security Official". The Algemeiner. Archived from the original on 23 May 2021. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
 Not done: Putting the attribution in the middle of the sentence is both odd grammatically and a clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:RandomCanadian, can you be a little more specific in regards to your objection? BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you exactly what the problem is. You could have also spared the huge copy-paste and just put in the relevant sentence. As I said, putting attribution in the middle of the sentence is both clumsy writing and a clumsy attempt at hiding it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be clear to you User:RandomCanadian, it unfortunately isn't clear to me; my edit request contains two distinct alterations, the first involving the attribution of casualties, and the second involving the attribution of the claim of rockets falling short. Both of these follow the general grammatical rule of most general to most specific, and so I do not believe either is "grammatically odd".
The accusation of it being a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is false, and thus unusable in determining which alteration you are referring to.
Additional information on what alteration you are referring to, why you believe it is grammatically odd, and why you believe it is a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is needed, as while you clearly know what you are referring to others, including myself, do not. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

In the infobox

Change: In the infobox, right hand side, Gaza strip section From: 256 people killed, 2,000 wounded (per Gaza MOH/UN)[1][2]

To: 256 people killed, 2,000 wounded (per UN)[1][2]

Reason: Sources do not mention the Gaza MOH.

Add: In the infobox, left hand side, in the West Bank section 6 civilians wounded[3] BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b "US Secretary of State announces aid to Gaza". RTE. 25 May 2021. Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 25 May 2021.
  2. ^ a b "Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt): Response to the escalation in the oPt Situation Report No. 1: 21-27 May 2021" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2021.
  3. ^ Richardson, Alex (2021-05-16). "Palestinian killed after ramming car into 6 Israeli police in Jerusalem - police". Reuters. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
I've removed the first error, which has been continually re-introduced against sources.
The 6 injured, probably slightly (no excuse of course), in your source were not civilians, but border police. One must be very careful of these standard reports. In that kind of incident, in the police handouts, if a car accelerates out of a checkpoint and the wheel grazes a toe (in one such case) or a shard from a smashed headlight hits you, this kind of thing is summarily listed as a 'wounding'. Still the figure must be reported. Proper reports should reflect hospitalized care.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I did not realize it was Border Police rather than regular. However, could you add the reference as well? I notice that you missed including that in your edit, and it means the figure is unsupported by sources in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis&oldid=1029472993"