Misplaced Pages

Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:50, 12 May 2021 editSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,810 edits →Flip flopping on casualties section← Previous edit Revision as of 09:54, 12 May 2021 edit undoLéKashmiriSocialiste (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,151 edits →Flip flopping on casualties sectionNext edit →
Line 361: Line 361:
::::::Selfstudier just so you know, ToI did say it was Israel's claim that 18 militants had been killed . "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists". Your whole claim of ToI being false is itself false. ] (]) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC) ::::::Selfstudier just so you know, ToI did say it was Israel's claim that 18 militants had been killed . "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists". Your whole claim of ToI being false is itself false. ] (]) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I didn't put the material in and I didn't remove it either. If I edit the article I will source my edits using independent third party sources.] (]) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC) :::::::I didn't put the material in and I didn't remove it either. If I edit the article I will source my edits using independent third party sources.] (]) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::No I didn't say that. But you were wrongly claiming what ToI said was false and it didn't attribute d=number of dead militants to Israel. ] (]) 09:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:54, 12 May 2021

Skip to table of contents

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2021.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCurrent events
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

To-do list for 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Merging

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

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

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

Timeline of events

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

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

Confirmation needed on Times of Israel source

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

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

Suggested Move

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

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

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

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

References

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

Factual error in the lead

The lead says "and over 20 Palestinians being killed" yet , they had been killed in Gaza after Gaza rocket attacks triggered an Israeli retalitation (from the article itself). The same should be put in the casualty box— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c281:1804:4500:7093:17ca:887e:bfdd (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing attribution for EU response

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

References

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

Lynch attempt should be added to clashes

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

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

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

This edit request to 2021 Jerusalem clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(Add to international reactions)

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

References

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

"Clashes"

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

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

Lede

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

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

IfNotNow

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

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

Unsourced claim in first paragraph of article

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

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

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

Indonesia's Joko Widodo reaction

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

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

Causes in Infobox

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

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

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

References

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

Rename

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

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

Add refs

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

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

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

Injuries

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

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

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

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

Remove all of the injury counts. Only list counts for the actual wounded. Dom Zero (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Include social media coverage

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Include info criticizing media coverage

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

26 civilians killed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 militant commanders are confirmed dead so far by Palestinians. Add another militant killed by Palestinians. You're only using is Palestinians confirming who has been killed. But disregard Israel's claims, even though it can monitor who was killed. That's not the correct way to go and bias for one side is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Just because identities of others are not confirmed by Palestinians, does not mean you call them civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
See below section, sources from either side at least need attribution and ideally a third party source instead.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Gianluigi is using Palestinian claims. Since the other parties are just repeating what they say, it's the wrong way. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Add contradictory claims, we will sort it out later.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Where is the contradiction however? Palestinians never contradicted Israel's toll. The only one making a contradiction is Gianluigi. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Tolls from either side are unreliable. Truth first casualty of war, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Then why use Palestinian claims? The claims of how many died are actually all linked to Palestinian statements. Not like any of the journalist went there to count or saw a hospital list of the dead. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't really have anything more to add beyond what I have already said.Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you remember Palestinians never said at least five militants were killed. Gianluigi is thus using his own conjecture. There is nothing to contradict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Situation in Lod

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

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

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

The cited article uses that term: "Arab Israeli killed amid violent riots by Arab mob in Lod; Jewish suspect held". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If we're gonna be putting that in wikivoice we better have a damn good reason. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
ToI? Think I'll start including WAFA.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If your concern is about the source's reliability, that is an issue much larger than any individual article and you should take those concerns to WP:RSN. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources from either side need attribution at a minimum, a better source for preference.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not an issue of "side". The Times of Israel is an independent newspaper, not part of the Israeli government. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. We should prefer third party sourcing (wp:independent).Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Reuters "In the ethnically mixed Israeli town of Lod, near Tel Aviv, witnesses quoted by Israeli media said one or two armed Jews shot at rioting Arabs, killing one and wounding two. The dead man's father told the Walla news site he had been ambushed while on a family visit." See the difference?Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The Times of Israel literally is a third party source! The only COI they have here is happening to be in the same country. I will repeat what I said, which is that I implore you to take this to WP:RSN if you think there's an issue; this is not the correct venue for determining that otherwise, as this issue would surely affect many more articles. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Granny suck eggs, heard of that one?Selfstudier (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine, just don't say it's my fault that the issue you're arguing about won't get resolved when you've been made amply aware of how to actually go about fixing it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Haha TOI is a mouthpiece for the Likud party. It's not neutral, hence the "Arab mobs" claptrap. 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't recall blaming you for anything? And I know how to fix it, just delete it and replace it with a better source (when I am in the mood, it's not that important).Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that it's a "mouthpiece for the Likud Party". It's just an independent news source from Israel. The only legit l claims I could find about it being biased (From Media Bias/Fact Check) were actually that it's left-center leaning (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/). --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a good way to check. Does the TOI repeat the same things as the Likud party? Does it accept what the Likud party and Netanyahu say without question or criticism? They can't even refer to the Palestinians as "protesters" as opposed to "terrorists" in regards to unarmed people demonstrating. 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For controversial matters, we should prefer sources that are uninvolved when editing in IP area. If the material is accurate, it is usually very simple to find such sources.Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Article neutrality

After reading the article and looking at it's recent edit history, I see a clear bias against the Israeli side, or in support of the Palestinian side. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC) For example: https://i.imgur.com/MRTKIiJ.png . This is clearly from a non-neutral point of view

You must be joking. Unless you think that reporting on the events as they occur is "biased towards Palestine". 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to edit using reliable and ideally, independent sources with due weight, etc etc. That usually fixes things after a while.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not allowed to edit this page. Just my observation. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You may ask for edits to be made using an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Clashes section should be organized by location

AllegedlyHuman thanks for reverting my mistake. I think the "Clashes" section should be organized by location. Right now it is hard to follow. I think the main flashpoints have been: Sheikh Jarrah, Lod and Al-Aqsa mosque and we can have a further subsection for "Other".VR talk 23:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead chronology

The lead currently says

In response, on 10 and 11 May, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired over 400 rockets into Israel, hitting homes and a school, killing two Israeli civilians and injuring at least 70 Israeli civilians. Israel responded with airstrikes into Gaza, and according to Gaza officials at least 30 Palestinians were killed, including ten children, and 203 more were wounded. According to the Israel Defense Forces, at least fifteen of those killed were members of Hamas, and many others were killed by Palestinian rockets.

This implies that all the Israeli casualties happened before all the Palestinian casualties. But my impression from the news is that there have been several rounds of both Palestinian and Israeli attacks and the casualties are spread throughout said rounds. So can we phrase this differently?VR talk 00:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Useful article

This article > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/11/dead-in-gaza-after-jerusalem-violence-spreads may be useful. Beeveria (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I've added it to a new further reading section. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need a further reading section with a random article in it. Why highlight this specific article? You can just use it to source prose in the article body. AlexEng 05:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables?

Not sure what making these tables adds, and I thought the previous breakdown of Mideast reactions was helpful as well. Tables also make it so the photos do not go with their respective nations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, can we not start every sentence with the date? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

There's so many reports say that the Israeli civilian casualties increased, but I see no updates in the infobox. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It can take up to several hours for information to be updated in the article; the situation is rapidly escalating and initial news reports can be unreliable. If you have any reliable sources with updated figures, feel free to provide them on the talk page and the article will be updated. Blade Jogger 2049 01:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Due to this being a current event it's going to be moving a bit slowly to update. Misplaced Pages doesn't break news, it follows. If you have any RS's that could help us update the tally that would be much appreciated. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Infobox caption "Skeikh Jarrah"? Grammar fix request Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Sakiv (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mexican government´s reaction to the conflict

Can an authorized editor please add to the list of international reactions Mexico´s reaction to the conflict according to the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs´ tweet? Stturm (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Area vs neighborhood

As I was thinking about cleaning up the article a little bit I ran into a bit of a pickle. One time we call Sheikh Jarrah an "area" and another time we call it a "neighborhood". I don't have any preference for either, but can someone a little more clued in give some advice on which way the article should go.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Sheikh Jarrah uses "neighborhood", so let's go with that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We should use the terminology in the subject's article. AlexEng 05:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

400 rockets?

The only source we had for the claim in the lead that 400 rockets were fired is from the Washington Examiner, which per WP:RSP isn't great: "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." I am having difficulty finding other sources to back this up (keeping in mind WP:CITOGENESIS). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

NBC News says 480 rockets. Feel free to add it if you like. AlexEng 05:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
160 "operations" against Gaza during the same time, at that. Huh.2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I've gone ahead and added it myself and removed the dubious template. AlexEng 05:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Flip flopping on casualties section

Currently the israeli side of the casualties section has swapped from the anxiety claim, to injuries minus the anxieties, to back to 90+ injuries (which includes incredibly light injuries and the anxiety claim that are absolutely not "casualties") the article itself gives the breakdown that "Of those injured on Tuesday, five were children, 26 were in light condition, 13 were suffering from anxiety, one person was moderately injured and two other people were seriously injured." The claim of 90+ casualties at this point is laughably dubious. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On the same note, why are the palestinian non-combatant casualties simply referred to as "palestinian" and not "palestinian civilians" as israeli citizens are in their own section? Paragon Deku (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Injured are injured. Original research over what you consider an injury is not necessary. Besides that, you don't know if the specific determinations (anxiety, light condition, children, etc.) in the article are mutually exclusive. Our job is to provide sourced claims, not speculate ourselves. With respect to specifying casualties as "civilian" or otherwise, I would assume that that distinction is being made on the Israeli side because we have the breakdown of how many casualties are civilians there. If you have a similar breakdown for the Palestinian casualties, please feel free to include it. Don't just guess. AlexEng 06:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's Original research to call into question why anxieties are included in the Israeli injury count and not at all in the palestinian count. I'm sure if we were including "anxiety" we would have about half of the child population of Palestine who reportedly have no will to live. As for not speculating about "sourced claims," I'd like to wonder what the entire point of discussion on the reliability of sources stands for if not to speculate or question the accuracy of statements and what we choose to put in wikivoice. Furthermore, why are you simply assuming why the distinction is being made rather than seeing the sources for yourself, which clearly outline that the injuries are to palestinian civilians? Paragon Deku (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion was held earlier, see section "Injuries". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering the rapid pace at which this talk page and the main article are moving, I wanted to address the specific usage of the term "civilians" and the re-inclusion of the anxiety "injuries" despite lack of consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it is. Assuming that the source is adding people suffering only anxiety into their number of injuries is OR. Doing math to determine the "real" number of casualties is OR. If you have a source with different figures, you're welcome to provide it. You're also welcome to discuss whether a particular source is reliable or not. You're not welcome to change the figures given by a source to fit your opinion on what they should be.
I'm not assuming anything about the distinction being made. The AP source says 35 Palestinians were killed by the air strikes in Gaza. Does it say how many were civilians? No. The Times of Israel piece says the Palestinian health authorities say 32 Palestinians were killed; it also says the IDF claims "at least 18 militants" were killed. You can't synthesize the figures in these sources to determine how many civilians were killed. If you find a source that says how many civilians were killed/wounded and it is reliable, then we can change the data in the casualties section. AlexEng 07:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out . I would argue that it is misleading and undue to report "anxiety" as "casualties", and that doing basic math to remove those suffering "anxiety" isn't OR. BSMRD (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
By all means, let's include Palestinian anxiety victums and civilian vs militants numbers. Just find a reliable sources providing these numbers. “WarKosign” 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
You won't find an RS providing those numbers because cooking up casualties by including "anxiety" is a dishonest tactic used to make the situation seem less one-sided than it is. For the sake of talk page discussions you can put in an iota of self-critique of sources without needing to dredge up RS's for everything. And for the record, I provided an RS that takes UN testimony on the fact that half of Palestinian children in 2008 demonstrated almost no will to live. If we REALLY wanted to go there, we could probably find UN reports on the psychological health of Palestinians and bloat up those numbers nice and easy. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Is reprting 16 or 17 year-old militant casualties as "children" a honest tactic? What you are saying about may be valid claims, but this is original research and has no place on the Misplaced Pages. Once there are sources that provide numbers of Palestinian axiety victums in this conflict - we can use them. 2008 and other historical UN numbers are irrelevant. “WarKosign” 07:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
My point is that including any "anxiety" tally as a casualty is, to be blunt, completely fucking ridiculous. I'm in the boat of removing the casualty section until we have solid reporting on the topic, because as is there's clearly some inflation by "anxiety" that is not including in any other casualty tally on any other wikipedia article. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how else to tell you that you can't just make up numbers. Repeating the same assertion isn't going to make it more valid. Start an RfC if you want, but you're not going to get consensus to subtract 13 from 90 because the source says they "were suffering from anxiety," because you can't prove that the conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. that "suffering from anxiety" was their only injury. Again, I urge you to actually read the Misplaced Pages policy on original research. AlexEng 07:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering the issue has been raised multiple times now, an RfC on the casualties section may actually be warranted, just to get consensus on what to do with it generally. BSMRD (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
BSMRD, while I have you, synthesizing numbers from different parts of the source, used in different contexts, is explicitly against WP:SYNTH and not a "routine calculation": Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. AlexEng 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we just "make up numbers," I'm suggesting the casualty section be removed entirely or reworked to account for this given that the impression it leaves is inaccurate. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The better solution would be to source the claim that injuries are not over 90. Then we can update the figures in the casualty box. AlexEng 08:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I heartily disagree, as I am sure several other users do as well. It's going to be hard to find a reliable source for an ongoing conflict that reports death and injury statistics accurately, and considering that the Jerusalem Post is not the most reliable source to begin with, citing them alone for civilian injuries is a pretty hefty WP:EXTRAORDINARY issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not bring your disagreements into here, base your arguments on facts and policies only. Also do note that one wrong report does not make a website unreliable. That said Jerusalem Post did not claim the cure for cancer claims were definitely a fact . Start a discussion on Reliable sources noticebosard and you'll need to include many examples of consistent deliberate false reporting, not just it being wrong once in a while. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
JP, ToI etc cannot be relied on in this context, claims should be independently sourced. JP was even paid by IsGov to slander BDS and they did.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "do not bring your disagreements into here?" What is a talk page for? My argument is based on the fact that anxiety is not a casualty. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It means do not bring your personal thoughts and opinions here about a subject. We and in fact many news sites do include shocks and traumas or anxieties often in attacks. So not a big deal. This isn't the first time. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there another wikipedia article that counts "anxiety" as a casualty? Paragon Deku (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As for IsGov paying JPost for BDS please provide a link and take it to RS noticeboard because that's ground for banning a source. But ToI is an independent newspaper so there is nothing wrong with it, even if it's Israeli, as long as it's not overused. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim you used them for earlier (ToI blog) already turned out to be wrong. JP situation is well known, look it up. If you use these sources, needs attribution at a minimum and ideally an independent source (stuck record). This is normal for the IP area, I am not just saying it for fun.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, neither ToI nor JD are listed on WP:RSP one way or the other. "Look it up," isn't a valid argument, by the way. Source your statements, please. What claim turned out to be wrong? AlexEng 09:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
They are not RS for IP area because not independent of conflict. The false claim (ToI blog for militants killed) has already been removed from the article so no longer an issue. As I said, JP issue is well known to editors in this area, look it up.Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you tell me which claim from ToI turned out to be wrong. I have also looked up your claim about BDS and JPost, since I couldn't find any I have questioned you. We cannot always have uninvolved information. That's why uninvolved is only preferred and not the only type of source allowed. The Gaza death toll for example is from the Gaza health officials. Not independent claim, and it's not even represented as being (per Gaza health officials/Hamas/Palestinians) to represent it's one-sided claim. But it's wrong if someone uses an Israeli source? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I just told you above, it has been removed, it is right there in the editing history. https://www.972mag.com/israeli-propaganda-bds-jerusalem-post/ "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special". I said that if you use them , it needs attribution at a minimum (so that readers can apply judgement as to validity) and ideally an independent source, I did not say you could not use them.Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, you look it up. By that measure, we can't include Al Jazeera sources either, since they wouldn't be "independent of the conflict." (See WP:RSP.) Of course, that's nonsense. The militant claim did not "turn out to be wrong." Again, please provide a source that says so. The ToI source quoted the Israeli Government, so unless you think they are unfaithfully reporting what the government told them, I don't really see your case for saying it "turned out to be wrong." AlexEng 09:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I am quite happy with the way I do things even if you are not. The ToI source did not attribute their claim to IsGov, they stated it in their voice as as fact (ToI blog). AJ is independent RS (ie not Israeli and not Palestinian). There is little need to rely on these sources when clearly independent sources are plentiful.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
SelfStudier I assume you're referring to Gianluigi deciding to remove number of militants killed per Israel That's actually a disruptive edit by him as he (and you) are selectively establishing yourself who is true or false without proof. Even when the Palestinians never contradicted them. The tactic you used is that Hamas and PIJ haven't confirmed the total number of militants killed, only their prominent members who are worth a notice ie commanders. That does not mean total number of militants killed.
Note also the website you use provides no documentary proof of JPost being paid. What is also to be noted is that +972 Magazine is uniformly anti-occupation of Palestine . It's quite clear you're against Israeli sources here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Also AJ is not independent, it's funded by Qatar which is partial to Hamas and the outlet is often pro-Palestinian. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSP disagrees. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't, actually. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. AlexEng 09:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
You can be as happy as you like, but that doesn't mean that you have consensus to remove sources. You are wrong regarding the ToI source: Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists. The name of the conflict is the Arab-Israeli Conflict per the DS notice right at the top of this page. Al Jazeera is an Arabic news source. Moreover, if you'd read WP:RSP which I have now linked multiple times, it says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. which is more of a consensus than the non-mention of JP or ToI. I've yet to see a "clearly independent source" mention the number of wounded Israelis. If you're hiding one, cough it up, please. AlexEng 09:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Selfstudier just so you know, ToI did say it was Israel's claim that 18 militants had been killed . "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists". Your whole claim of ToI being false is itself false. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't put the material in and I didn't remove it either. If I edit the article I will source my edits using independent third party sources.Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No I didn't say that. But you were wrongly claiming what ToI said was false and it didn't attribute d=number of dead militants to Israel. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Categories: