Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Cause of the conflict

Postpone of the Palestinian elections: The Palestinian Elections were postponed by Mahmoud Abbas in the end of April, Abbas justified is actions by stating that Israel didnt say it would allow to have the Elections in East Jerusalem - which would cause that its Palestinian residents would have to go to the West Bank to vote, Although Israel also didnt say it wouldn't allow having elections there and many belive that Abbas thought he would lose the elections. Preior to the postponing of the elections Hamas stated that Israel "will pay a price" if the elections will be postponed. , Many researchers see it as one of the main results to the conflict. , , Militants from Gaza fired rockets preior to the events in Jerusalem as a warning to Israel if the elections will be postponed, and later rocket fire as a "protest" for Abbas postpone of the elections , Hamas called himself the protector of El Quds, and called for arab Israelies and Palestinians to resist with vilonece to Israel.

Discussed above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis#%22Caused_by%22_section_of_the_info_box_biased? Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

well considering it a minor cause is biased, since Hamas fired rockets prior to this "crisis" , said it would "punish" Israel for the postpone of the elections, and called Palestinians to rise viloenece against Israel, many experts of the conflict says that its not only no minor cause, but the main cause of this "crisis". also disputes like Sheikh Jarah and Jerusalem between Palestinians and Israelies happened many times, like in feburay 2021 and Rammadan 2020, while Hamas didnt intervent, the events in Jerusalem according to them are more like an excuse to attack Israel, or by others, it was the straw that broke the camel's back Nahnieli (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Save me a bit of work, which experts said it was the "main cause"?Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

, , . most of this "experts" are Israelies, cant cite all since most speaks on media on why they think its the main cause.Nahnieli (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the first one and I don't see anything like that in there so I think I am going to ask you to provide quotes where an expert said that the failure to hold Palestinian elections was a main cause of the recent flareup.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

got 2 more better Articles, saying to the authors opinion, that the Palestinian elections are the maim cause, if needed I can find videos but only in hebrew, if need translation to the articles just tell me. Nahnieli (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

so I think there should be addition of Palestinian election postpone as one of the main causes.Nahnieli (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel Victory

Shouldn't this be an Israeli victory? Israel has the stronger military and only lost 11 people and did more damage to buildings.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Both sides claimed victory. That status will be updated once reliable sources (particularly academic scholarship) analyse the event and come to their own conclusions. In the meantime, it is not the place of Wikipedians to decide who 'won the war'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Victory has several aspects, and to reduce it to 'military victory' distorts the outcome. Hamas knew before it took the decision to fire missilesthat the Gaza Strip and much of its military infrastructure would be razed . Its ostensible purpose was (a) assume political ascendancy in the Palestinian narrative over the PLO by demonstrating that the latter, widely viewed as a quisling government, did not protect the core Muslim institution of Jerusalem, nor protect the endless run of evictees in East Jerusalem. (b) emerge scathed but unconquered/unbowed - invasion of the Strip is offlimits to the IDF, too costly and ineffective, (c) position itself as a party that must be brought to the negotiating table as a legitimate representative of Palestinians (d) disembowel any prospects that the PLO might win future elections in the West Bank.(e) gain world sympathy for the ongoing situation of 2,000,000 people being confined to a contaminated prison. They knew they would loose the military battle, but that wasn't their goal. They may be Islamic militants but, like Hezbollah, they are not stupid. They calculate the costs and prospective benefits very closely, a c/b analysis that excludes victory on the ground, which, it is a foregone conclusion, Israel will always win. Were it interested in inflicting massive casualties and infrastructural damage, rather than making displays of mainly ineffectual firerocket power to intimidate Israelis, it would adopt the obvious strategy of concentrating its firepower on the kibbutzes a few hundred yards or kilometres from its missile sites. One unforeseen consequence of the choices made both by Israel and Hamas was the, for the moment, reintegration of a common identity among Palestinians fragmented into 156 bantustans (West Bank), 1 prison camp (Gaza), and the discriminated minority in Israel of Palestinians who constitute 20% of that country's population. Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Speculation on speculations. "Very nice"--Rectangular dome (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (2)

Add in the introduction after the paragraph relating Hamas and UN envoy numbers that doesn't specify sources of Israel : " Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished, completely or partially: 18 buildings including four high-rise towers, 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp.[39][40][41][42][43][44] In addition, at least 19 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment.[45] By 17 May, the United Nations estimated that Israel had demolished 94 buildings in Gaza, comprising 461 housing and commercial units.[46] "

Please, 1 change the line in the introduction to precise "according to an UN envoy" and 2 add " according to Israel hundreds of rockets have fallen short in the Gaza strip" ( 500 rockets could explain civilan casualties, so it's an important information)

refs proposed:

There is extensive accounts of IDF counter claim that rockets fall short :

"More than 800 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza since Monday, the IDF said, adding that 150 fell inside the Strip, and another 200 were intercepted by the Iron Dome." https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/cogat-announces-closure-of-gaza-border-crossing-over-rocket-fire-667730/

"Since the latest war erupted last week, Palestinian militants have fired more than 3,200 rockets at Israeli cities. Most were intercepted or fell short, in Gaza, but hundreds made it through." https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-israel-palestinian-conflict-e57afb90dbc60ceda6c6cfa6888a4c5b

So far some 1,750 rockets have been fired at Israel, of which 300 fell short in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military said. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/biden-expects-spiralling-israel-gaza-conflict-end-soon-2021-05-12/

Since then Israel has attacked hundreds of targets in Gaza, causing earth-shaking explosions across the densely populated territory. Gaza militants have fired 1,800 rockets into Israel, including more than 400 that fell short or misfired, according to the military. https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210514-israel-pounds-gaza-with-air-strikes-paving-way-for-potential-ground-invasion

"Hamas continued to launch rockets almost continuously into the southern part of the country. The Israeli military said more than 2,000 rockets had been fired from Gaza since the fighting began Monday, with about 400 of them falling short and landing in Gaza itself." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/14/israel-gaza-conflict-latest-updates/%3foutputType=amp

Hamas bombed the Gaza strip with hundreds of rockets, it's important to mention that, instead than partially take blind accusations without counterclaims. --Rectangular dome (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You wish to change:

Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished, completely or partially: 18 buildings including four high-rise towers, 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp.

to

Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished, completely or partially: 18 buildings including four high-rise towers, 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp, according to a UN envoy. According to Israel hundreds of rockets have fallen short in the Gaza strip.

using one or more of the refs you supplied. Is that right?Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, using the more recent refs is more appropriate.--Rectangular dome (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a non-controversial request (it will require consensus of some form), since it involves NPOV, so I've marked it as closed. As to the proposed content, the best way to go forward would be to give preeminence to the view of parties independent of the involved combatants, especially if these are accepted in other reliable sources (so, mentioning the statement of the UN envoy first) while giving WP:DUE weight (since reliable sources also mention it) to the Israeli claim that the damage was caused by rockets falling short. Although we do have sources which explicitly confirm some buildings were actually destroyed purportedly by Israel (for ex. the media building housing the AP, Al Jazeera and others), so that complicates the matter... Maybe something like "Israeli military sources have claimed [or maybe a better verb] that some of the damage was caused by rockets falling short in Gaza itself."? Although that would of course be something of a WP:MANDY nature: of course they would deny it, wouldn't they? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is basically to say that when it comes to Israel quote : " while giving WP:DUE weight"), it shouldn't be said for npov purpose (quote :" since it involves NPOV, "). I don't think its appropriate not to mention information that comes from Israel. And no, I don't open a request for it to be closed with no due process :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a non-controversial request, so stop marking it as an edit-request. Edit requests, per the instructions (Wikipedia:Edit requests), are for uncontroversial changes like fixing typos or adding a well sourced paragraph on something that's been missed. Not for getting extra attention on it (and "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial"). Read further than the first sentence: I said that mentioning the Isreali viewpoint requires we carefully weight WP:DUE (it seems that, since sources mention it, that it is probably due for a mention) while also avoiding making the obvious (WP:MANDY) "Israel denied it" (is there any other source, beyond the Israeli military, which claims that the damage was caused by rockets falling short?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That the 500 bombs of hamas exploded in gaza killed someone or not is not part of the request. ( I anticipated that maybe they killed no-one, with the help of allah) --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For controversial claims

In the introduction : The al-Jalaa Highrise, housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera as well as 60 condominiums, was destroyed on 15 May, prompting outcry; Israel's military said without evidence the building contained "Hamas military intelligence".

delete "without evidence" :

• it is not per ref 1
• Wikipedia do not judge if its necessary to have a prima facie against Israel
• The evidences have allegedly been shared with US allies and in the Israeli authorities, and the Israel army said they are willing to share as soon as possible ( sensitive operational information)
• Information on operations is a question of legality or of state level, not a necessity for an army to give to the (foreign or national) press. No army in the world is geld accountable by press, who judge the validity of operations.
• "Evidences" is genuinely used in a legal case to prove a legal act, but not for the press, Israel may share informations with foreign press, it may not, and it may do it in a year from now in a complete assessment. The term imply a bias against the operation, as if every shot should be proven under the accord of "the press"( which is basically impossible).
• The use of "without evidence" can also be applied to Hamas, who do not provide evidence. Actually the press also rarely declare their sources.

--Rectangular dome (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: But for entirely different reasons (and ignoring entirely the WP:OR arguments). The lead is supposed to be a summary, and well putting in context everybody's claims on the matter would simply take too long and be excessive in the lead. Feel free to improve the coverage lower in the article, where I assume this must already be covered to some extent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The IDF spokesman who commented on the strike that day, stated it was used by Hamas. Several journalistic sources added that no evidence of the connection with Hamas was provided. This was in several sources used - if they have been disappeared, go back to the original edit and check. The fact that the IDF did not give evidence then caused embarrassment and an official Israeli claim that this had been provided to the White House, which appeared not to be correct etc,.etc.,Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a bias to add bias against source of information that doesn't suit your narrative. But, indeed it's a nice story, I imagine Israel being so embarrassed [ps: the journalists said to their best knowledge]. I heard also another nice story, the journalists didn't know all the officies in the building, or were afraid to talk about it. But what is for sure, is that Hamas had it's military infrastructure in the city center? Isn't it true? :).--Rectangular dome (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that is too much details for the lead, so we can just avoid mentioning it there directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As the person who added this sentence in: I added the second part of the sentence (Israel's response) in fact anticipating someone would otherwise criticize just saying Israel destroyed the building ("but they said it was Hamas!") However, like many of the statements at the page Donald Trump, it would be disingenuous to just let that highly dubious and widely refuted claim stand by itself. Many of the sources on the page Al Jalaa Highrise say directly Israel did not have evidence for this claim. They have not yet come forward with any evidence, instead saying "I have evidence, but only America can see it" (see: "I have a girlfriend, but she goes to another school"). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please try to refute my criticism point by point.

To write allegations or guts feelings isn't helpful to us, nor to your girlfriend. And btw your argument is unsupported, and you used a false comparison (I can also compare Hamas to Nazi Germany based on their ideology, etc ), please provide proof "that highly dubious and widely refuted ", and it is anyway, not even the subject of my criticism.--Rectangular dome (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

no comment

In the introduction there is much case of damage in the Gaza strip, but no words about the damage in Israel.--Rectangular dome (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the former has been widely noted, and the latter awaits an official report.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"They say" :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Since most sources focus on the damage in Gaza (which, owing to the disparity in forces, appears to be far more extensive), that is how we describe the situation too, per WP:NPOV. Your comment seems to be inaccurate, also, since the lead (and I would assume the rest of the article would contain similar statements where appropriate) does contain the following: "Palestinian rocket fire has killed 12 in Israel,[5] including one child.[7]"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I talked about the material damage not the casualties. npov is about representing pov, not about reading what's in the source you choose obviously :). It's a remark, take it or leave it --Rectangular dome (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (4)

In the introduction, I found another bias against Israel :)

change the misleading

"On 10 May, Hamas gave Israel an ultimatum to withdraw security forces from the Temple Mount complex and Sheikh Jarrah.[38] On the same day, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school"

to

On 10 May, Hamas gave Israel an ultimatum to withdraw security forces from the Temple Mount complex and Sheikh Jarrah.[38] On the same day, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing hundreds of rockets on Israel's civilian areas, continuously, from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school.

numbers matters

the target matters

the duration matters

--Rectangular dome (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That is all your opinion. Some statements ("continuously") would require reliable sources. And note that WP:NPOV says to avoid judgemental or sensationalist language, so not sure this would be an improvement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

what is my opinion? the hundreds missiles? falling on sderot, tel aviv and ashkelon? for a week? :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's your opinion as far as it being "misleading" and "bias". WP:NPOV states we should avoid editorialising. A factual statement, that Hamas fired rockets into Isreal, which hit residences and schools, is better and more concise than one which editorialises this by adding adjectives like "continuously". We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

the quantity of missiles fired on Israeli towns is my opinion. --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, your opinion is that this is "misleading" and "biased against Isreal". Your proposed changes, however, are needless editorialising. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not the edit request, it's the first remark, then you can see the edit request :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying, since apparently I wasn't clear enough: (IMHO) the requested edit is needless editorialising. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Hundreds of missiles" could be factually correct, given there are good sources that support it. The introduction could use a number of rockets, but it has to be somewhat accurate; "hundreds" could mean any number about 200.

"Continuosly" means that there was not a moment when the rockets weren't being fired, and it's obviously not true. Some description of fire being heavy and frequent could be used, but only if it's supported by sources. See MOS:IDIOM.“WarKosign” 21:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC) " Gaza militants fired 470 rockets during the first 24 hours "

"they’ve unleashed larger salvos of up to 137 rockets within five minutes."

Eg. https://www.theconversation.com/amp/gazas-enhanced-rocket-technology-challenges-israels-defences-160853 --Rectangular dome (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The end of the crisis ?

The crisis didn't really come to an end, the Palestinians' protests in Israel, West Bank and East Jerusalem are still on going, the main issue (Sheikh Jarrah evictions) isn't solved yet. What really ended is the bombardment between Gaza and Israel not the crisis. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's true and you can see from the Diplomacy/Aftermath sections that the parties are now gearing up to see what comes next, the ceasefire/truce simply opens up a space where that can happen (provided it holds).Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Change "kidnap soldiers amd civilians" to "kidnap soldiers and civilians" in the "Gaza" section. Hb2007 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (3)

Change "The United Nations said that more 72,000 Palestinians" to "The United Nations said that more than 72,000 Palestinians" in the "Gaza" section. Hb2007 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah term "eviction"

I believe that you shouldn't have used the term "Eviction" in the article, as eviction suggests that the displacement of Palestinians in the area is legal, but under International law and backed by the United Nations, it is not legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraganosUAE (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The term eviction is wildly used, including by those who disagree with Israel's legal position: [1]. “WarKosign” 07:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue of what to call this is being discussed at the article Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, when it is sorted out there, then it will get sorted out here.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian view/Israeli view

Enthusiast puts it that way. The Palestinian view is identical to that of International law. To represent this as a 'Palestinian' viewpoint subjectivizes as an ethnic opinion what is actually the lay of the law in international perspective. The contrast is between Israeli and International law. The word 'neighbourhood' is a pathetic synonym thrown around to describe collectively nice suburban subdivisions with wonderfully modern infrastructure (Jewish settlements in the area beyond the green line) and degraded slums (Palestinian) which are notoriously deprived of investment (10% of Palestinian paid city taxes are reinvested back in their areas, most going to improvements in Israeli-Jewish infrastructure). They are lawless, hoodlum dominated redoubts, not neighbourhoods in the sense preferred by the Israeli municipal authorities, I suppose to give the impression of some cosy little world all over EJ. Ghettos are not neutrally 'neighbourhoods'. The term here is not NPOV, let alone objectively descriptive. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Which edit is this about? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

this series though I've seen several others that are problematical One can't barge into pages, do them top to bottom, and never explain any thing on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus at the current time. In six to nine months, I imagine the common name will be much clearer. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis → 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict – Articles say it escalated into a conflict, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/israel-palestine-conflict-live-updates-a-scary-night-for-all-as-gaza-and-israel-strikes-escalate-9277851.htm/amp, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-sending-official-to-tamp-down-soaring-israel-palestine-conflict/2239163, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091852 Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support a crisis suggests decision and resolution. This situation has been tolerated to smolder or occasionally to flame since 1948. To mark the situation as a crisis is wishful thinking, at best proven in time to be a lucky guess. 77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Nominator comment The conflict is spread throughout Gaza, Israel and east jerusalem so 2021 Gaza conflict doesn’t sound preferable if we’re going to use that name. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose confusing with the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict. Putting 2021 in front makes it seem strange, like possibly this article is about all events relating to said conflict in 2021, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also your sources, for the most part, aren't HQRS. While "crisis" is probably not the best title, this proposal doesn't seem much of an improvement and at minimum isn't supported by the given evidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There is an article for the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is apart of the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and an article called 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict as there is another article called Iraqi–Kurdish conflict so your argument is flaw Ridax2020 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • PR's argument is not flawed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—those articles you mention are just as confusing already. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Your opinion doesn't count alone, you can't dictate till discussion ends, its what WP:RS says that counts. WP:NOR is a bigger violation than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and there are separate articles of Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War which just like this were prominent phases of the half a century of crisis. Either ways WP:RS calls it a conflict and that's what matters most and let's see what the consensus leads to. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

          No one was arguing that RS is less important than OSE—this thread was centered around the understandability of page titles, which is all I commented on. RS is a separate matter Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It started out with clashes, then I moved it to violence and then someone else moved it to crisis. I would agree that, in general, this is a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict and we also have articles like Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2021 where, in theory, material from here could end up in those other articles at some point. Although the events here are exceptional enough, I don't think it yet rises to the status of the main Israel-Palestine conflict in the sense of that having gone on for a long time, crisis is sufficiently expressive for the time being imo.Selfstudier (talk)

There is a sustained campaign of bombardment by both sides that has lasted for several days, it is not intermittent skirmishing but now a full blown armed conflict between the parties. See also my comments below, the use of the proposed title is the normal manner in which these sorts of articles are titled until they are given more formal names by sources outside wikipedia. For examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict pages.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If sources begin referring to these events in some consistent way, I would be happy to follow them. Meanwhile, what is the hurry? It's been a week.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is the common way of describing conflicts such as this until a proper formal name is established the sources. For recent examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the same manner how this conflict at issue here is part of the greater overall Isreali-Palistinian Conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:OSE, and if I remember correctly (having closed one of the RMs related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) the widely attended discussions tend to be quite weak on actual policy arguments. I wouldn't look in that direction for inspiration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The results of the requested move discussions you referenced resulted in the current title that the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has and the resulted in labeling the 2020 conflict there as a war. So that "direction" is a perfect example. I know, because I too was involved in both move discussions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This is a full blown conflict, exactly like the case of 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was a part of the greater overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict per XavierGreen. To call this a crisis is WP:EUPHEMISM. Albertaont (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This a an all-out armed conflict, like the 2014 Gaza war Mausebru (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting, for the record, that per WP:ARBPIA4 non-EC editors may not participate in internal project discussions in the topic area. And per this ARCA that prohibition extends to requested moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Usual to strike in such cases, I have done so.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO “crisis” refers to the entire situation: violent police actions against protestors, evictions in East Jerusalem, Hamas attacking Israel, Israel attacking Hamas, the violent rioting in Israeli cities that some are describing as pogroms or civil war, violence in the West Bank. The scope of events extends far beyond just the armed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli government. I think it’s worth waiting to see how events develop before changing the name, and to my knowledge it is inconsistently referred by RS due to just how much has happened over the last week. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 16:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to fact that the crisis become an full-blown military conflict. I initially proposed the article to indefinited synsop move protected but i don't think so it can be archive. 36.65.44.100 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per Arbpia restriction, non ec editors cannot participate in formal discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly not just a "crisis".--Sakiv (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too early. The conflict is itself the longest in modern history, and this, so far, is the latest bloody blip. The conflict is perennial/continuous, lowscale warfare and lawfare, and these explosions are usually restricted to particular moments, which is what 'crisis' precisely refers to. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Definitely not a crisis anymore. Elserbio00 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Not just a crisis anymore. And some sources even calling it a "war". EkoGraf (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this article refers to a very specific series of events; "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" makes it sound like its an overview of the Israel–Palestine conflict during 2021. Besides, no reliable sources have been presented for such a move. Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  https://abc7.com/amp/israel-palestine-conflict-airstrikes-vs-what-is-happening-in-jerusalem/10619354/, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/world-leaders-call-for-restrain-and-peace-talk-as-israel-palestine-conflict-escalates-9285841.htm/amp, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/israel-palestine-conflict-biden-speaks-to-netanyahu-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself/amp_videoshow/82594971.cms, https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/delta-united-and-american-suspend-flights-to-israel-because-of-israel-palestine-conflict-01620911890 Ridax2020 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Touché. Either way, the move implies that skirmishes or conflicts earlier in 2021 would not be under the 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict, but would be under the Israel–Palestine conflict—which really makes no sense. Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  None of these are HQRS. Given that every single top RS has covered these events from The New York Times to CNN, The Times (UK), BBC, etc., the sources you can provide are MarketWatch and local affiliates of CNBC and ABC? IMO your own evidence shows this is not the WP:COMMONNAME and might be WP:Original research. RS are inconsistent and have not settled on a name, so the point of this RM seems confusing. BBC currently seems to most consistently be using "Israel-Gaza violence".[2] The Times uses "clashes".[3] The New York Times varies between "conflict" and "crisis",[4][5] sometimes using "dispute".[6] Some lower quality sources use "war". The closer may note that any evidence provided by the supporters who provided something is from relatively low quality sources, and most supporting editors don't appear to have checked for sources at all. Sources haven't settled on a name yet; we can only do so when they do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support changing it to the 2021 Israel—Palestine Conflict since “Crises” would be the wrong terminology to describe the current evident taking place.BigRed606 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP conflict has been going on for decades, this event is not occurring out of thin air, it is the continuation of the IP conflict. I would wait for RS to give this a name. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Like ips saying support gets striked out as ips are not allowed to vote, so this ip saying oppose should be striked out too. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is a full on war. From my point of view, I believe that the current events going on in the Israeli-Palestinian territories do not accurately reflect a "crisis". Xpërt3 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly more than just a crisis. PaleoMatt (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The breaking point has been crossed. AustroHungarian1867 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose What is currently happening is a renewal of a decades long conflict. It is a "crisis" until further updates. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support The 2008-9 and the 2014 wars were also renewal of decade long conflicts Gaza War (2008–2009), 2014 Gaza War, every country has crisis, like India - Pakistan, Russia-Georgia, but it escalates to a war after certain boundaries are crossed, e.g. Kargil War, Russo-Georgian War. Now it hasn't crossed the thresholds of war but its more than a crisis, there are battles, bot sides are incurring loss of lives, etc. the crisis exists since 1948, and its a new part of it that deserves its own conflict article. Most importantly WP:RS calls it conflict, not the term crisis, so its pure WP:NOR to call it by aa term based on the judgement of a few editors, hope to prioritize WP:RS over everything. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a crisis of a larger conflict. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

​ You can only !vote once. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - certainly not a conflict, the umbrella framework is the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is still a minor event, largely having to do with the failure of 2021 Palestinian elections and fallout of the Hamas-Fatah conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 11:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes was a part of the larger Kashmir Conflict going on since 1948, the same time as the Gaza-Israel conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which also have spawned separate articles on the Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2014 Gaza War, Gaza War (2008–2009) and so on, this is another prominent phase of it with significant Notable coverages, significant death toll on both sides, significant international diplomatic concern, missile strikes (as someone pointed out below) and the vast majority WP:RS calls it conflict, its pure WP:NOR to use the original term crisis here, we should use the terminology supported by WP:RS rather than that of few individual editors, and the most widely used term in WP:RS is a conflict and we should stick to that but yeah whatever is the outcome of the consensus, I will accept that. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-Support I believe that this would be more of flare-up than a conflict, but yeah a missile strike is a "conflict" DXLBandLokiBlaster 12:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as there is no question calling it a conflict Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think this 'crisis' has gone into a full blown conflict by now. God'sNotDead (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbpia, non ec editors may not participate in formal discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - wait I think we should really see what direction this is heading in, and whether it will escalate more or not. Naming conflicts is always controversial, and I think for now we should keep as is. Flalf^Talk 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this isn't conflict, what is? Nerguy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note if anyone wants to know the number of people opposing this article name being changed and the number of people supporting the name being changed, its 16 supporting and 12 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support While it is also a humanitarian crisis, it is also way more than that. An 11 or something days battle is probably a conflict. RealKnockout (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Arbpia, non ec users not permitted to participate in formal discussions

Arbitrary break 1

• Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is clearly more than just a crisis, conflict would better describe the situation. User3749 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as this is more than simply a crisis and it appears to be an active military conflict. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To extent this a little bit, I'm increasingly seeing a WP:COMMONNAME argument develop based off of reporting on the issue. International media appears to widely be terming this a conflict (NYT WaPo, NBC, CNN, WSJ, BBC, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, DW, France 24, etc). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • Ground forces have not crossed the border
    • The element of internal riots and such holds ambiguity, as in some cases it involves exchanges of gun fire, on other cases it is merely protests and clashes with police.
      • The whole event is composed of very different sub-events, such as the Mosque police clash, disorder in towns such as Lod, et cetera, and also the Gaza hostilities - which are of a different vain and more describable as a conflict rather than crisis. The fact that this event composes these different elements is a good argument for keeping the title as crisis. --Ester9001 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC) This editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early to decide. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Multiple reliable sources have begun calling it a conflict or something similar, facing criticism since "clashes" and similar terms have been deemed too neutral. For people saying it is too early or too soon, I point to this: multiple sources already say this conflict is worse than 2014. And what is the 2014 conflict article called? It's called 2014 Gaza War. With thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, dozens of Palestinians dead, Israel using chemical weapons, and a ground invasion of Gaza looking not too fictitious, I feel like this is worthy of being called a conflict, and fear it escalating into something much worse. In addition, crisis refers to something that has the potential of escalating into something much more dangerous, and, in this case, the content being covered seems to be a crisis of the second degree. (Al-Aqsa storming + Sheikh Jarrah eviction/protests being the crisis -> The current situation being a conflict/second-degree crisis signalling a war -> A potential war similar to that of 2014). I believe we have entered the "conflict" stage, and support this move. My only misgiving is the potential confusion with Israeli–Palestinian conflict. AccordingClass (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is turning out to be a war. Its more than a conflict or a crisis. At the worst its a civil war. I mean, they're launching rockets and missile and each other! UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is going to escalate into a war very soon. It is likely to be called the Israel-Palestine war soon. The military intervention of Lebanon and Syria exacerbates all this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/14/israel-says-rocket-attacks-from-syria-in-the-north-amid-gaza-fighting-in-south/?sh=3c909c645c2d --AmazonBooker (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — AmazonBooker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, the editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested moves per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)<
• Support - Far beyond a crisis at this point. Temeku (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - while there is now extreme armed conflict, the article describes numerous things besides just military conflict including the assaults on palestinians and the protests and police suppression. Crisis is a better term for now and we should bide our time to change that. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_RandomCanadian for why the above should be allowed to stand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am counting 17 yea and 13 nay. This is good to change. Some recent opposes are now calling it a war, which is the next step after crisis->conflict->war. Albertaont (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Albertaont: I just struck some comments from editors who were not extended-confirmed (who, per WP:A/I/PIA, cannot participate in internal project discussions). Were you including these individuals in your count? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Formal discussions are not decided solely on the basis of a votecount, I suggest we just wait for a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Still too early for that. If I was pressed for a close at this point the only thing I could do was say "no consensus" because all of the above !votes are statements of personal preference and there's very little external sources or Wikipedia policy (which is available at WP:CRITERIA) used to show the alleged change in usage (the few sources presented are unclear whether they refer to "conflict" as in the current situation or as in the already existing situation - one can just as easily find sources which use "crisis" Beebs or which don't use either term Grauniad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is more fitting to say this is a crisis or standoff phase that is obviously a part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With context, you can't really have an Israeli–Palestinian conflict within an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The way I see this title changing in the future is if this series of events eventually spirals into what can officially be called a Third Intifada or, more likely, something like the 2014 Gaza War, which saw a similar environment of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. With the way things are going between Hamas and the IDF, I'm expecting this crisis to be dubbed as a full-scale war. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Seeing the footage of missiles and air strikes, as well as civilian casualties, it seems more of a conflict than a crisis to be honest. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support definitely not a crisis anymore, I've seen more and more sources describing it as a conflict. However, this might become a war so we should still wait to change the title in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Count Update : The current number of people supporting the article name being changed is 18 and the current number of people who do not want the article name changed is 14. BigRed606 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

      Comment I second this. Some more name ideas would be useful to add to this discussion. Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict began the morning of January 1st 2021, but this article is only about more recent events. I would wait for sources to give this a name or change to something more appropriate like 2021 War on Palestinians, although that is a bit risky as sources may be scared of being bombed if they don't give a pro-Israeli name to the violence. Of 19 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it does down, it may be seen in hindsight as being less than a crisis, if it regatta further (I hope not!) it will end up being teenaged war. I day wait and see and don't be too hasty and to discussed about selecting the perfect name. Dovid (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has its own article; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades. When there are notable escalations, they receive their own article titles that clearly distinguish them as a more notable period of escalation within the overarching, elongated conflict. Calling this article "the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict", then, implies a disconnect between the other article and this article - as if this is a new conflict when in fact, this is an escalation of a conflict which was ongoing prior to this and likely will be ongoing after this escalation has ended. For this reason, the proposed title is misleading, and "crisis" is much better suited. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

* Count Update: Support:- 18, Oppose:-17 Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Commentary: The oppose camp would require 2 more votes to make it in the lead Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Commentary: This might not be a setback or a gunshot in the arm for Support Camp as the Support Camp is expected to get few more votes in their favour to retain a healthy lead Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Struck per 500-30 requirement and because of WP:NOTAVOTE RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly beyond 'crisis' at this point. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is well beyond the point of "crisis" now. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Count Update: 22 votes 'Support', 14 votes 'Oppose' as of 17 May. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  How many times do people need a pointed to WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? I'm not sure I'm uninvolved on the request (since I've done a wee bit of clean-up here and there), so I won't boldly close this as no consensus, but neither side has presented much beyond personal opinions. And I can't understand the difference between the two latest conflicting counts given, anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, which implies this is no longer a crises but a a full-blown conflict. --Saqib (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

War between two countries is one thing. Here we have a combination of (a) a civil uprising against the occupying power in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; (b) internecine riots between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities in Israel, and (c) a war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In previous cases, when (c) broke out we rightly called it a war (2008/9) 2014 etc. In this case, we are placing (a) and (b) as aspects of a larger state of war. War refers to a situation where both sides, with their respective armies and militias, are engaged in exchanges of deadly firepower, which is not the case in (a) and (b) The support votes are inadvertently making a category error by confounding three different types of conflict, which are handled differently. Israel is not bombing the West Bank or East Jerusalem, nor is the disarmed population there or its 'leadership' in Ramallah countering with mortars and the use of its military to fight back. Idem for the internal situation in Israel. To conflate the three under one rubric is to characterize (a) and (b) as wars, which civil disturbances put down by police forces (Palestinian and Israeli) are not, technically. Indeed, according to Nathan Thrall, the PLO security forces are actively engaged in repressing the upsurge in protests in the West Bank, wherever they have some measure of jurisdiction.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support More and more news organizations are using the word "conflict" to describe the situation. NBC News [7] Politico [8] Newsweek [9] NY Times [10] . Seeing as how we are tasked to follow their lead, I think that we should do so. BirdValiant (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as various news networks refer it as conflict rather than crisis. Elishop (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as per all above. I'd just be repeating points. GyozaDumpling (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

• Comment: REMINDER

Please make sure your account is extended-confirmed (30/500) at WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED before expressing your approval/disapproval of the request. Click the aforementioned link and check if the blurb says "Your account is extended confirmed." A registered editor becomes extended-confirmed automatically when the account is both at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits (including deleted edits). In addition, please refrain from posting "Count Updates" and the like, since Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for consensus. Finally, editors who have already expressed their opinions regarding the request are encouraged to engage in conversations with other users, since consensus is built and not expressed. AccordingClass (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It does not make sense to call this the "2021 Israel-Palestine conflict" even if it turns into "more than a crisis". Someone needs to come up with a better name. The Israel-Palestine Conflict article already exists. UserTwoSix (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, this is lot more than just a crisis; it's a conflict. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 05:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support It has evolved into a conflict, and it may become an even bigger one. Jjfkasd kka sdjf kksadf (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 6 edits does not meet the 30/500 requirement. Seemplez 09:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Looking at the definitions provided by Oxford Languages on Google for both conflict and crisis, it seems that crisis fits better as the definition for conflict is "a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.", where crisis is "a time of intense difficulty or danger." I wouldn't call under two weeks "protracted", which is a word I'd normally apply to time periods on the order of several months. Seemplez 09:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, I believe it has at least escalated into one. Mynamz (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It might now be worth assembling a section of say 10 top sources and see what they are calling it on a day to day basis, not in the headline but in the body of the source. Ideally we want more analysis type articles rather than the short news cycle type (latest atrocity, etc).Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: It has evolved into a conflict, and it could become even worse. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC).
• Strong oppose Since I feel too involved, let's at least give my 2 cents. WP:CRITERIA tells us that titles need to be recognisable, unambiguous, concise and consistent. As far as precision and recognisability are concerned, I'm not convinced by any of the statements of personal opinion that "this has evolved into a conflict". If anything, this is a flare-up of a pre-existing conflict. Sources seem to be ambiguous on this, using both "crisis" and "conflict" [11][12]. I note that many sources, beyond the headline, don't seem to mention either term (for ex. the Grauniad uses "hostilities"). This brings us to our internal policies regarding concision and consistency. Neither of the proposed variants is more concise than the other so that's that. It leaves us with consistency. Noting that the existing articles on the broader dispute are already at Israel–Palestine conflict and Gaza–Israel conflict, using 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict for this would be misleading (implying there are two different "conflicts" when in fact one is just an episode of the other) and inconsistent (note that articles on previous outbreaks of this tend not to use either "conflict" or "crisis"). Therefore, the proposed title is not an improvement. I'd strongly support a move-moratorium until the dust settles and reliable sources have had more time to write, with calmer heads, on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources name this as a conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this battle is a component of an entity we call a conflict (Israel–Palestine conflict), we should use a different noun here. Animal lover 666 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. What about "2021 Israel–Palestine clashes"? Just a thought. — Goszei (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Been there, done that, that's how it started, then "violence" and then "crisis".Selfstudier (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Let's re-visit this in 10 years when there is an actual scholarly consensus on the name. I'd caution against editors weighing in their own interpretations of semantics of various terms. Suez Crisis is called that because historical scholarship calls it that. Ditto for Malayan Emergency. Discussions like this two weeks into the events are not very insightful. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support A search among major news outlets use the term conflict. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html, https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44124396 and https://apnews.com/hub/israel-palestinian-conflict. If major news outlets are using this term, wouldn't it be prudent to use the same term in the article which is relying upon citations from these same new outlets to support the information in the article? Jurisdicta (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's true that some sources are using "Israeli-Palestine conflict" but that's because they always have referred to "the conflict" as that and we have an article, Israel-Palestine conflict, partly for that reason. The difficulty in the proposed renaming implies that there is a different conflict when it is merely another round of the same larger conflict. Then we have 2021 in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict where there is a series of these year by year (proposed to be renamed (Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020#Requested move 15 May 2021). All in all, there is confusion for the general reader.Selfstudier (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support to Third Intifada. - As some news source like Scroll.in started to coin this recent event as that name. As shown here https://scroll.in/article/995100/israel-palestine-conflict-are-we-witnessing-the-early-stages-of-a-third-intifada, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210519-in-occupied-west-bank-palestinians-cry-resistance. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Arbpia
• Comment This is escalating to the level of the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War which among other this were parts of the near century long (at least since the 1948 war) Israeli–Palestinian conflict (much like the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and all other wars between those countries were part of the Kashmir conflict that too is going on since the 1940s to present). there is already one source that calls it war [13], so I urge patience, because I believe unless a ceasefire is forcefully enforced, more sources will report it as a war, and it will be classified as a war, so please have patience until more WP:RS starts calling it a war, then we can name it the 2021 Israel-Palestine war, just another phase of the century long conflict. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (For Now) - We appear to be witnessing several things at a once, as stated above, in terms of not just armed conflict between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants but also widespread civil unrest within Israel proper as well as a diplomatic rupture going on between Israel as a government versus other nations. This is additionally a situation that appears to be changing by the day. In these circumstances, it seems best to leave the title alone and revaluate it all later. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This a an all-out armed conflict, like the 2014 Gaza war (I AM EC)Mausebru (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While this has become serious, it causes confusion, as "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" would be seen as separate from just "Israel–Palestine conflict" when one is just a part of the other. This breaks WP:CRITERIA's requirement of precision. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument either way. Moreover, it's an ungoing event: let's wait until the dust has settled once it's over and decide on a proper name afterwards.

Furthermore, have a look at the article names of similar events (see List of wars involving Israel), e.g.

• Gaza War (2008–2009)
• 2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip
• 2014 Gaza War

Michael! (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict is confusing. There's a gigantic article covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are also more shades to this conflict than just "war," with riots and protests across Israel and the West Bank. Moreover, if you can characterize the Suez Crisis as a "crisis" and not a war, certainly a 10 day firefight between Israel and Hamas is not a "war." Dunnowy123 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021
• Oppose I do agree that this event it is not a 'crisis'. That being said 'conflict' is not an agreed upon name by sources which is what Wikipedia relies on and I agree with above that the proposed name is unnecessarily confusing with the already existing and more prevalent Israel-palestine conflict. Wait until an agreed upon name is established by sources.Yeoutie (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. Dan the Animator 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dantheanimator: "per above" what, exactly? If you think there is a policy based rationale for the suggested move, you better give it more directly, since "per above" (without even referring to a particular comment) is entirely unhelpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian per XavierGreen and Albertaont's points on precedence and wp:euphemism, respectively. My original support was longer and had a justification connected to the Falkland wars but I had to take it out because it was wrong. I was then going to re-expand it later but alas I forgot to. Sorry! — Dan the Animator 22:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dantheanimator: Both of these seem to be inappropriate comparisons with other pages. There are plenty of others who note that the real "conflict" here refers not to the current episode (which is a flare-up) but to the whole saga (Israel–Palestine conflict) which has been ongoing for nearly a century... Using "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" would make it seem as though this were a separate thing (it isn't). My advice is that, instead of having multiple editors pitching in with their personal opinions on what is a conflict and what is a crisis - as we can see from the plethora of viewpoints presented, everybody has their take on it - we instead strictly follow WP:NOR (so no original research as to whether this is a war, conflict, crisis, or whatever) and also that we keep in mind WP:NORUSH (there's no rush to change this - we can let the dust settle down a bit, and once reliable sources have picked up a more stable naming convention, we can put that instead, without acting like we're covering some form of breaking news story (WP:NOTNEWS covers that point)). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: hence why this page will be called 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict, not Israel-Palestine conflict. I am not saying that you don't have a point; I actually think you make an excellent point tbh. But reading through this discussion, and weighing in on each side, I personally support the change. There's no reason we can't start a move discussion to move it back to "crisis" if all the rs's start calling it that. However, looking at FOARP's excellent comment bellow, it seems that a great deal of rs's (still) use "conflict" over "crisis." Whether you think this change is "rushed" is quite subjective naturally (I honestly feel time goes slower at present than in retrospection but that's just me). Unless some more convincing arguments are given (and you don't have to be the one to give them), I firmly stand by my support. Best regards, Dan the Animator 19:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support: By all definitions this was an Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the sense of war between two territories. It also involved clashes between Israelis themselves (Arabs and Jews) but they were not as severe as the Gaza War or the West Bank clashes. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "2021 Israel–Palestine conflict" just doesn't sound right to me. The current title makes it much more clear to readers what this is about. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Conflict" - I think "crisis" lacks accuracy - it is a crisis but it is more than merely a crisis. An example of a classic "crisis" would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, which nonetheless did not break out into all-out war. "Conflict" is more accurate and therefore should be preferred per WP:CRITERIA. "Conflict" (or similar language) also appears to be favoured by high quality reliable sources. For example:
  • "Both sides in Israel-Gaza conflict lay groundwork for victory narratives" - The Guardian
  • "Israel-Palestinian conflict: Aid arrives in Gaza as ceasefire holds" - BBC News
  • "Gaza-Israel conflict in pictures: 11 days of destruction" - BBC News
  • "‘Hello! This is Israeli intelligence’: The text message igniting fears of a crackdown when Gaza war ends" - The Independent
  • "Israel-Gaza conflict: Girls killed in airstrike had told parents 'we're going to die, we're scared'" - Sky News
  • "Before the conflict erupted, the prime minister was days, perhaps hours, away from being ousted from his post." - Washington Post
  • "Gaza-Israel conflict shakes foundations of Middle East coexistence" - Nikkei
  • "Gaza-Israel Conflict: 213 Palestinians Killed in Strikes, Including 61 Children" - Haaretz
    
• However "Israel-Palestine" seems less accurate. The conflict does not involve the largest entity in the Palestinian territories - the West Bank territories controlled by Fatah. Perhaps 2021 Gaza-Israel Conflict might be better? It also appears closer to the formula favoured by reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Scope is broader, for example protests in the West Bank, and the actions in the Old City. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  The reasons why "2021 ... conflict" is actually inaccurate is that this is all part of the pre-existing Israel-Palestine conflict (which has been ongoing for quite a while), so using "conflict" for two parts of the same thing would be misleading; and inconsistent with our existing similar articles on the topic (neither of the articles on previous flare-ups uses "conflict" or "crisis"). COMMONNAME is just one part of the considerations about making article titles. Moving to "Gaza-Israel" would also be inaccurate as this includes events outside of the military confrontation. As I said, my suggestion is to let the dust settle down a bit and revisit this in a few months when we've had more sources give a less "breaking news" type of coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  There can be a conflict within a conflict. I won't describe sporadic short-term clashes or protests between a few people here and there every second day as a real conflict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed the RM and tried to open a split request to divide this article into one for the west bank protests and one for the gaza conflict, but i was requested to reopen this back since it was deemed inappropriate according to wikipedia guides. Ridax2020 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. In general, I support "conflict" over "crisis" because I believe this was a full-blown conflict. There is a problem, however, with the suggested name. It's awfully similar to Israeli–Palestinian conflict and then one could think that this refers to any Palestinian-Israeli dispute or hostility over the entire year. This ambiguity also causes media to prefer crisis. I think a solution could be to be more specific in the rest of the title, something along the lines over 2021 Sheikh Jarrah Conflict but I did not see that in common use either. I'm open to suggestions that work. gidonb (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Opppse. We need to see how this conflict is refered to in sources now that it seems to be over. "Conflict"? "War"? "Flareup"? There is no point in renaming the article right now only to rename it again in a month or two. “WarKosign” 05:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 00:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This "conflict" has been going on for decades. This "crisis" is right now. Making it conflict would be confusing Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021: Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists, Third Edit Request

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

---

Hello. This is my third attempt to submit an edit request. (Second attempt; first attempt.) In this request, I will repeat anything that's in need of repeating, for the sake of completeness. Please excuse me if this is too cluttered or long.

The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening: (Now "had happened"...) The following text, taken for example from the lead section, is considered an NPOV work-in-progress with serious holes that paint Israel in a seriously negative color by omitting crucially important context:

On 10 May, (...) Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished (...): 18 buildings (...), 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp. In addition, at least 19 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment. The al-Jalaa Highrise, housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera as well as 60 condominiums, was destroyed on 15 May, prompting outcry. By 17 May, the United Nations estimated that Israel had demolished 94 buildings in Gaza, comprising 461 housing and commercial units. As a result of the violence, at least 248 Palestinians were killed by Israeli bombardment in Gaza, including 66 children. Palestinian rocket fire has killed 12 in Israel, including one child. On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces said that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, and also said that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip. As of 20 May 2021, the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 1,900 Palestinians, while as of 12 May Israel reported at least 200 injured Israelis.

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, (...) Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip targeted at Israeli cities and civilized areas, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against targets in Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished (...): 18 buildings (...), 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp. In addition, at least 19 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment. The al-Jalaa Highrise, housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera as well as 60 condominiums, was destroyed on 15 May, prompting outcry. By 17 May, the United Nations estimated that Israel had demolished 94 buildings in Gaza, comprising 461 housing and commercial units. As a result of the violence, at least 248 Palestinians were killed by Israeli bombardment in Gaza, including 66 children. Palestinian rocket fire has killed 12 in Israel, including one child. On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces said that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, and also said that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip. As of 20 May 2021, the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 1,900 Palestinians, while as of 12 May Israel reported at least 200 injured Israelis. (...) The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. Gaza casualties being higher than Israeli casualties could be explained by the air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system (that are) operated by the IDF. The IDF operates various defense systems that protect Israeli civilians from rocket attacks, including air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens and nor aerial defense systems that are intended to protect its civilian population. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate.

The article omits the context behind the actions and the intentions of both sides in the conflict, Israel and the Palestinians. By omitting this extremely important context, the article is conveying a negative image of Israel and is considered an NPOV work-in-progress. My proposal aims to fix that. This is not about trying to give Israel "equal weight". This does not break neutrality by showing Israel's side more positively: the proposal itself is neutral; if it makes Israel looks better, it is just a side effect (that I desire to achieve, in this case, which does not make the proposal break the neutrality principle, either). While I did synthesize multiple secondary sources, this does not make the proposal original research, it is just the way by which an encyclopedia is formed. The sources don't just quote the IDF or Israel's leaders, they assert facts and report information. All of the text I've explicitly requested to add in the format of "A->B" is attributable to high-quality secondary sources. I've consulted Wikipedia's list of perennial sources while drafting my edit request (and it took a few hours straight to do this), and the "miscellaneous" sources I've listed at the bottom of my proposal are there just for reference, to be present in the talk page. The IDF press releases are intended to enhance, not replace, the reliable secondary sources. The sources directly support the information, and they're used in the context as secondary sources, not primary, and are therefore not "a mouthpiece for the IDF". The point about Hamas and human shields is a minor point that can be addressed by minimal rephrasing; it does not make this entire proposal lose its stand. Maybe the lead section is not the best place to put the information - I'm not objecting to that; but it's better to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia by including the important context, and later on the information can be reorganized in a better way. (Maybe I could also help with that.) It's better for Wikipedia to present more neutral articles by including crucially important context - especially when it makes the reader see the whole picture in different light, and even if it's not organized as ideally as it should be - rather than omitting that context. As said in WP:NPOVT#Space and balance, "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it". And although the sources might be "outdated" by now, they're still relevant if only to break the barrier of getting the information into the article. Wikipedia articles can always have more sources added or better ones replacing worse ones. Having relevant but outdated sources for this recent event still doesn't justify leaving this important information out. I've done my best to address all of the concerns raised by the previous discussions. Please, this proposal has been waiting for much too long. Be bold.

I'm saddened to see the entire world going against us without understanding the complexity of the situation and without knowing the context, and without understanding the measures the IDF takes to avoid casualties while Hamas and other terrorists fire rockets at Israeli civilians in order to kill them (and mind you, 20% of Israel's population is Arab). Even if there are Gazan casualties, it still doesn't negate the efforts of the IDF. There's no political reason that can ever justify firing rockets with the explicit intent of killing innocent civilians.

I'm busy most of the time. I request the help of anyone who can help me to get this edit request to be accepted. I can't do this alone, it's tiring. If you decide to help me, please stay focused on the intent of this proposal; if you want to improve Israel's portrayal in the article, please submit a different edit request. I don't accept dismissive criticism. If you see substance in my edit request but think that it cannot be accepted as it currently is, please write suggestions instead of bashing me, my country, or the IDF. I might not always be able to respond, but I sure do read your responses here.

The sources below aim to back the following information: (*) Hamas aims at Israeli civilians. (*) The IDF aims at terrorists, not civilians. (*) The IDF takes measures to prevent harm to Gaza civilians.

The following sources aim to exemplify the following claim: Israel has lower casualties because, partly and primarily, of the anti-missile system Iron Dome.

The sources below aim to back or link to the following information: (A) Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit, a soldier. (B) Hamas official praising kidnapping of three teenagers in 2014 as a "heroic operation". (C) Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and operates from dense civilized areas deliberately. (D) IDF alerts civilians before striking. (E) Roof knocker bombs.

IDF press release:

Extended content

"Operation Guardian of the Walls—Here's Everything You Need to Know About What's Happening:" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 17, 2021. What's going on in Israel and Gaza?—Last week, violent clashes erupted in East Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. This week the violence escalated, with Palestinian terror organizations launching rockets from Gaza into Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired over 1,750 rockets toward Israel. These rockets have killed 7 Israeli civilians & injured over 523, and hit a school, hospital, bus, and multiple homes. In response, the IDF has struck over 650 terror targets in Gaza, including rocket launch sites, 10 attack tunnels, and killed over 100 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives.—Why are there more casualties in Gaza than in Israel? Of the 1,750+ rockets that they have fired since Monday, 300 misfired and exploded inside Gaza, killing and injuring innocent Gazans in the vicinity. This is because Hamas and Islamic Jihad deliberately place rocket launchers and military sites within densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. In addition, when the IDF warns Gazan civilians to evacuate, Hamas and Islamic Jihad encourage civilians to stay instead. But in Israel, the IDF does everything it can to protect Israeli civilians, and the Iron Dome Aerial Defense System has successfully intercepted over 90% of rockets fired at Israel.—What's unusual about this week's attacks? Jerusalem, Israel's capital, came under rocket fire for the first time since 2014. Hamas and Islamic Jihad also launched hundreds of rockets at Tel Aviv and the surrounding cities in central Israel, sending millions of people running for cover. Additionally, Anti-Tank Missiles have been repeatedly launched from Gaza at Israel, killing an IDF soldier, Staff Sgt. Omer Tabib.—In response to the ongoing attacks, the IDF has taken action to eliminate these sources of terror: (1) ROCKET LAUNCH SITES. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have placed rocket launchers throughout Gaza. And when they fire rockets at Israel, they are doing so in close vicinity to Gazan civilians. The way to eliminate the launch sites - and prevent the terrorist organizations from firing rockets at Israel - is through military air strikes.—(2) TERRORIST OPERATIVES. The IDF targeted and neutralized dozens of top Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and terrorists. Among them were: Bassem Issa: As the Gaza City Brigade Commander, he held senior positions in Hamas' weapons production system & was involved in many attacks on IDF soldiers. Khazem Khatib: He was the Head of Research & Development of Hamas' Production Division. Juma Tahla: He was a senior Hamas research & development official, and had advanced knowledge of surface-to-surface missiles. Wail Issa: He was the head of the counter-espionage department in the Hamas Military Intelligence. Hassan Kaogi: He was the Head of the Hamas Military Intelligence Security Department. Samech Mamluch: He was the head of Islamic Jihad's rocket unit.—(3) TERROR TUNNELS. Hamas terrorists have dug tunnels from Gaza into Israel. The IDF has been exposing Hamas tunnels since 2014, and has already exposed and targeted 10 new ones this week. If these tunnels were not neutralized, Hamas would be able to carry out one of its goals of infiltrating into Israel and kidnapping Israelis.—The fact that there aren't more casualties in Israel does not mean that Hamas isn't trying to kill Israeli civilians. It simply means that the IDF is preventing them from doing so at an incredible level. The Iron Dome Aerial Defense System and easily-accessible bomb shelters all over Israel have saved thousands of lives. IDF troops will continue to work 24/7 to defend Israeli civilians at the highest level possible and minimize Gazan casualties wherever possible. "IDF strikes multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to Hamas military intelligence" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck a multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization. The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site. "Evidence of Hamas' Abuse of Civilian Infrastructure" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. Fighting a terrorist organization that operates within civilian areas isn't easy. Watch as IDF pilots call off a strike because children were there: Hamas deliberately and systematically places military targets within the civilian population, exposing their citizens to danger. In contending with this, the IDF, and the Air Force in particular, attach paramount importance to accuracy and reducing harm to civilians. When planning a target, the IDF devotes significant time and resources to preparing the attack and where feasible, uses various tools, including advance warnings, roof knocking, street knocking, target clearing operations and a variety of professional calculations carried out by the Operations Analysis Directorate and the Planning Directorate. The use of these means varies depending on, among other factors, the type of target, the expected collateral damage, and the resources available at the time. Despite Hamas' aims to endanger its own civilians, the IDF will continue to make efforts to minimize harm to civilians while continuing to attack Hamas terror targets. "Context is everything: What You Need to Know About IDF Strikes in Gaza" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. What you need to know about IDF strikes in Gaza. Introducing: Context—Here's some important context to the headlines you're seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip—Hamas has turned residential areas in Gaza into military strongholds. Let's take a closer look at... (1) Hamas' rocket launchers; (2) Hamas' tunnel systems; (3) Hamas' military buildings.—Hamas fires rockets at Israel from densely-populated neighborhoods in Gaza like these. (In the background is a photo of a rocket launch from Gaza showing many civilian buildings around the launch site.) The IDF must strike these rocket launchers in order to prevent Hamas from firing more rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, over 360 of Hamas' rockets have already misfired and landed short in these same civilian neighborhoods.—Hamas has an expansive network of underground tunnels: (A) Tunnels that Hamas digs under the border to try to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap Israelis; (B) Tunnels that Hamas operatives use to maneuver around Gaza. This is an expansive network that Hamas uses to store its weapons, conceal its militants, and move freely around under civilian areas in order to carry out their military activity. With one being being (sic) a danger to Israeli civilians, and the other being a hiding spot for dangerous terrorists, both are legitimate military targets.—(A photo with the following writing added on top: "This is the entrace to a tunnel in Gaza (...) and one block over is a kindergarten and a mosque".)—Hamas uses multi-story buildings all over Gaza for multiple military purposes, including: * intelligence gathering; * planning attacks; * command and control; * communications. Unfortunately, other units in the buildings are often used by civilians who may or may not know what's going on down the hall. But when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, the building becomes a lawful military target.—The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings recently, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed. Whenever possible, * We called the buildings' residents and warned them to evacuate. * We sent SMS messages. * We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. * We gave civilians enough time to evacuate.—Again, when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law. All the buildings targeted by the IDF were used for military purposes. The fact that they're located in civilian areas is a Hamas tactic to hide from the IDF and maximize the damage when the IDF strikes them. For Hamas, an Israeli death is more valuable than a Palestinian life. The IDF will continue to take as many precautions as possible to avoid civilian casualties in the fight against Hamas terrorism. "מוסתרים בין משרדי תקשורת אזרחיים: מטוסי קרב תקפו יעדי מודיעין של חמאס - צפו בתיעוד" [Hidden Among Civilian Media Offices: Fighter Jets Attacked Intelligence Targets of Hamas - Watch the Recording] (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. מטוסי קרב של צה"ל תקפו מבנה רב-קומות הכולל נכסים צבאיים השייכים למודיעין הצבאי של ארגון הטרור חמאס. בבניין אלג׳אא פועל המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס, וכן משרדים המשמשים את חמאס ואת גא״פ. בבניין יושבת יחידת המחקר והפיתוח של המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס האחראית בין היתר למספר פעולות חבלניות שבוצעו נגד ישראל. היחידה מורכבת ממוקדי ידע שמהווים נכס ייחודי לארגון הטרור, העושים שימוש בציוד טכנולוגי ערכי ביותר של חמאס נגד ישראל. היחידה השתמשה ביכולות אלו נגד ישראל במספר אירועים, בכדי לנסות לחבל ולשבש את פעולות צה״ל והאזרחים שבמרחב הסמוך לעזה. בבניין קיימים משרדים של כלי תקשורת אזרחיים, אשר ארגון הטרור חמאס מסתתר מאחוריהם ומשתמש בהם כמגנים אנושיים. ארגון הטרור חמאס ממקם במכוון את נכסיו הצבאיים בלב האוכלוסייה האזרחית ברצועת עזה. טרם התקיפה, צה"ל הזהיר את האזרחים ששהו בבניין ונתן להם שהות מספקת להתפנות מהמבנה.

YouTube videos. Not for use as citations or sources as they are (maybe only after replacing the links with non-partisan sources providing the same video segments), but listed only for reference in the talk page. Naftali Bennett is an Israeli parliament member and Israel's former defense minister. Below are various videos, including of him presenting facts to interviewers from international media in order to defend Israel. There's also Tom Aharon, an Israeli comedian. Obviously biased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUASDZhUVuU (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__r8vtk8XBc (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELCp6Eo4_Zw (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2JCZu9K_bw (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy-bPEy-RIY (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXN5FtlRLE (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN0-wCWlxPU (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdRw7UogCE (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064zdUWnQV4 (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxuCW8r4lkw (A segment of a TV interview of Naftali Bennett with foreign international media, taken from Naftali Bennett's partisan YouTube channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81jhypLzUc (A serious-humourous monologue by Tom Aharon, who raises rational arguments with which I agree, also biased)

Other miscellaneous sources I've gathered, listed here for reference (but I've not had the time to examine them):

Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC) 85.64.76.29 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Problem here is that you are trying to do way too much at once and taking your request out of the usual guidelines. If you really want people to do something about this, I suggest you break this down into bite-sized pieces and put them up one at a time. My 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with accepting all of the context at once. My proposal is indeed long, but if you notice, the heart of it is the "A->B" at the very beginning, with URL citations appearing later, marked very clearly what pieces of information they are intended to be attached to.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. If I got this right, besides some wording changes here and there, you want to add:

Extended quote

The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. Gaza casualties being higher than Israeli casualties could be explained by the air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system (that are) operated by the IDF. The IDF operates various defense systems that protect Israeli civilians from rocket attacks, including air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens and nor aerial defense systems that are intended to protect its civilian population. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate.

This is basically uncritically repeating claims from the Israeli military (including some disputed ones, such as the claims of Gaza using human shields [which in your proposal is stated directly in WIkivoice...] or "military targets in civilian areas" - This, from the AP, seems to give a more balanced view on things), and the sources you give are too many for me to go through all of them to verify how secondary sources react to these claims. Please follow regular formatting by using {{cite news}} (or others, where appropriate) to simplify the task, and make sure that this doesn't read like a PR release from the Israeli military ("The IDF uses...", "The IDF has expressed...", ...)? Ideally, this should all be based on well respected reliable sources which are independent of either Israel or Palestine (I assume that if either side has made a significant claim, it would have been reported in secondary sources by now). In the current state, it spectacularly fails WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE and uncritical pre-eminence to one side's claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But is it controversial that the islamist groups use civilian infrastructure? To store, shoot missiles, conduct operation and hide under it in tunnels. I wonder who deny this though, even Hamas doesn't deny it... Are you saying that some people think they do not do that, and conduct their operations hiding under rocks and trees?

She (or he) literally gave you dozens of refs, and you just said "press release of Israel"... --Rectangular dome (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CITE and WP:V requires inline citations, not an unannotated WP:CITEBOMB for me to go through. I didn't say it wasn't controversial (it actually is, which throws this being accomplished via edit request out of the question, but nevermind, I've repeated that enough times). I said that what was presented was a one-sided view which basically reads like a press release from the Israeli military (and your fellow did provide a whole section of "sources" consisting solely of, you guessed it, Israeli PR releases...). Read the AP source I gave which shows this isn't as one-sided as the suggested text... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a failure of NPOV for reasons mentioned above, but if you would genuinely like help with getting your edits accepted it would be helpful if you made an account, so that users could contact you via talk page. Alternatively, you could get yourself extended-confirmed the old fashioned way, and start working on less controversial articles to rack up some edits. BSMRD (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do I really need to provide quotes? "Civilians in Israel and the Gaza Strip endured a third day of deadly rocket attacks and airstrikes on Wednesday, (...)" Literally the first sentence, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-gaza-hamas-idf-rockets/2021/05/12/7989b49c-b28e-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html. Another one: "Palestinian militants launched dozens of rockets from Gaza and Israel unleashed new air strikes against them early Tuesday, in an escalation triggered by soaring tensions in Jerusalem and days of clashes at an iconic mosque in the holy city." Again, first sentence. https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-jerusalem-076a9ec7e2bd9c065882c64a4ab820a1. These are fact assertions, not an IDF press release. These are just a few examples, not gonna provide further. Everything is in the sources. I have countered every single argument you've raised, but you keep pushing the same mantra over and over again. No, the sources aren't just quoting the IDF. Yes, my entire proposal is intended to improve Israel's image, but no, that doesn't make my proposal non-neutral. I've already said this. Everything is already said but you keep ignoring. I'm having none of this bullshit anymore. I'm posting to the NPOV noticeboard.

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.

injured count for Israeli civilians

Is there a reason why the infobox only shows a partial assessment of Magen David Adom, citing exclusively shrapnel wounds? Other wounds aren't wounds? Maybe Accute anxiety can be considered psychological, but someone who isn't hit directly by the missile but is still injured?

Secondly Magen David Adom is one body, there is other services that provide paramedic services and the hosptials. The numbers seems very baised.

So firstly selected based on the type of wound?! Then only MDA? And not updated...

isn't it appropriate to precise that by bombing cities, Hamas and Islamic jihad target civilians? An obvious war crime--Rectangular dome (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have better sources than MDA, why won't you provide them? “WarKosign” 04:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Its likely because the number of wounded reported by MDA include such things as tripping while running to a bomb shelter and anxiety. nableezy - 14:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes if an old woman is wounded trying to find cover, she is a victim of the war criminals, who are you to judge?--Rectangular dome (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM, I can honestly tell you that your personal opinion is not something I would like to spend any more time considering. But to the point, there's no comparable figure for Gaza injured. Imagine the numbers if "anxiety" were included consistently across the infobox. But if you want to include numbers of those stricken with anxiety at the very least it will have to include that this number includes the anxious. nableezy - 00:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are YOU to judge? See WP:NOR. Content in the article must be based on reliable sources, not the judgement of editors. Now the sources (including the one in the article to support the number of killed civilians) say "There were 10 people who were killed from direct hits or shrapnel wounds and two who died of injuries sustained during a rush to a bomb shelter."; so that is what we write. As for war crimes, a section on that, as reported in reliable sources, would be a welcome addition. There's this about the damage to the health system (with the last few paragraphs at the end noting outcry from NGOs about the protection of medical facilities; there's this from the AP which gives a clear and nuanced take, noting that while Hamas's targeting (or rather, indiscriminate firing of unguided rockets) is a clear violation, Israel's actions are also questionable; and this from the NYT, which notes that "Human rights groups, however, say that Israel routinely pushes the boundaries of what might be considered proportionate military force, and that it has frequently breached the laws of war. “There’s been an utter disregard for civilian life that stems from the decades of impunity,” said Omar Shakir, Israel director for Human Rights Watch."; (also corroborated by this from Amnesty.org). Most sources seem to give more weight to a discussion about Israel than the rather clear cut case of Hamas. Further sources: WaPo; Times of Israel (I'm not sure whether that's the most neutral source, but anyways). Further reading: this interesting account in NBC. And of course the hard to ignore ICC investigation, although that might not really be relevant here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I came for the injury count, and I received demagogy. As you can read, the arguments I gave do not relate to the content of your thesis. --Rectangular dome (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion about improving the article. You noted, correctly (although based on your own personal opinion), that the acts committed by Hamas are widely described aas war crimes. Since only mentioning Hamas seemed non-neutral (notably, due to global protests and more specifically the recent outrage over the destruction of a media building), I went looking for sources to see if there was enough to justify adding something to the article (there is). You're welcome. The issue about injury count appears to be resolved (reliable sources back up the numbers currently given in the article, and you haven't proposed anything besides your personal opinions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Unimpressed, I also can do a google seach, so your comments are not to the point. And no its not resolved, it's ignored.--Rectangular dome (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bolding the article title in the first sentence

Usually we lead off with the article title in bold. MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."

This could be taken to mean that if the name isn't commonname or formal then no bolding. Personally, it doesn't really bother me but I noticed that it has been the subject of frequent editing, bolding, unbolding/rewording.

Is there a clear cut rule, anyone know? @Surtsicna and Enthusiast01: (and some others I don't remember). Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there isn't a formal or widely accepted name, we have picked a descriptive title. MOS:AVOIDBOLD says that one reason bolding descriptive titles in the lead is to be avoided is because it distorts the lead sentence. The supplement (WP:BOLDITIS) gives another reason that I personally find more compelling – that it gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage. — Goszei (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek

Yardena Schwartz Israel's alt-right is now mainstream—are lawmakers doing enough to stop it? Newsweek7 March 2018

When did Newsweek fail RS, as the edit removing it suggests?Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A while back, it got bought and went downhill. See WP:RSP for the notes. But it should be evaluated on a case by case basis, it isnt just unreliable full stop. I think the author here gives reliability to be included. nableezy - 21:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When we have so many sources there already, I don't think we need to debate on whether this article is an exception to the general quality of Newsweek or not (though skimming over it, I do think a case can be made for that). We have ample existing sourcing, better just to use good sources where we have them. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly I'm out of touch with developments. Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For anyone older, they may remember Newsweek as one of the "Big 3" U.S. print newsmagazines, especially in the days pre-Internet, on par with Time and U.S. News & World Report. They are not that anymore. As noted, the property was bought and they are largely a churnalism and news aggregator source, and their "actual journalism" is mostly non-existent. Any actual news that gets reported out of Newsweek is largely of the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" type; which is to say it is purely accidental and not through any real effort to be a good journalism source. Because of that, we should mostly avoid it for current events. As noted, any story covered in Newsweek is already covered by other, actual reliable sources, making it redundant, and in the case where Newsweek is the only source, it isn't trustworthy enough to use alone. --Jayron32 11:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In general sure, but Yardena Schwartz is a fine source if she wrote something on her personal blog. nableezy - 14:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but what is written in this post that needs to be cited because it cannot be found anywhere accept this one source? --Jayron32 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

This resulted in (last para of the lead)-

"As a result of the violence, at least 248 Palestinians including 66 children.[12] and 13 in Israel,[5] including one child."

which is not English. Someone want to have a go at fixing it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)  Done