Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests/Archive 1

Formatting error
Theres a formatting error on this section of the article.

(I don't know how the talk pages work at all so don't try responding to this because i don't know how to see any notifications or even reply back.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ivo Pingas Robotnik (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

word choice
Please change 'will overrun the fences' -> 'to overrun the fences' 89.240.143.247 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Also just spotted 'March of Return,' should have a full stop, not a comma. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...I'm so sorry to be such a PITA (ty for dealing with it) but I've also spotted 'then stomach' -> 'the stomach'. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Huldra (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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


 * United Nations Secretary General: The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for an independent inquiry into Friday's violence.


 * United States Department of State spokeswoman: We are deeply saddened by loss of life in #Gaza today. We urge those involved to take steps to lower tensions. Int'l community is focused on taking steps that will improve the lives of the Palestinians and is working on a plan for peace. Violence furthers neither of those goals.


 * European Union High Representative: Federica Mogherini calls for an investigation and for and end of the closure of Gaza


 * Russia Foreign Ministry: Moscow has condemned “the indiscriminate use of force against civilians”


 * United Kingdoms UN ambassador: "The UK is appalled by the deaths and injuries suffered during today's events on Gaza's borders. There must be an immediate end to the violence and we call for calm and restraint."


 * German Foreign Office: (in german) The German Gov is concerned about the clashes and calls on all parties to stop anything that would escalate the situation. The incident shows how necessary it is both sides to restart negotiations. Tontag (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed section: International reactions
Based on the above I've drawn up the following to include in the article:

The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and European Union High Representative Federica Mogherini both called for investigations, while UN deputy head of political affairs Taye-Brook Zerihoun said "Israel must uphold its responsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law". A statement from the US State Department called for both sides to work together to end the violence, as did the United Kingdom's ambassador to the UN and the German foreign office. The Russian Foreign Ministry criticised what it termed "the indiscriminate use of force against civilians" by Israeli forces.

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


 * Personally I don't have any objections.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Waddie96 (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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


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

List of Palestinian civilian deaths in Prior violence
Should these civilian deaths be included in Prior violence subsection:

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

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

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


 * The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event. The title means what it means -listing events that were violent in the months preceding the March. For a month, on the rare occasions I could check in, I waited for someone to add the balancing data of violence against Palestinians for this same period. No one did: no one, yourself included (?), thought the highly partisan selective list improper. Now that I can edit, I added the corresponding details of violent incidents affecting Gazans to the schema. It is called WP:NPOV. Yet, suddenly, we get an objection. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue has been addressed, and much of the material you cite just above my reply deals not with the specifics of Gaza Border incidents, but events in the West Bank. Their inclusion would be WP:OR. You can't have it both ways: silently accepting in the text Israeli reports of earlier border incidents of Palestinian violence, while immediately objecting when the parallel details of violence to Palestinians on the border is added for neutrality. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event. The title means what it means -listing events that were violent in the months preceding the March. For a month, on the rare occasions I could check in, I waited for someone to add the balancing data of violence against Palestinians for this same period. No one did: no one, yourself included (?), thought the highly partisan selective list improper. Now that I can edit, I added the corresponding details of violent incidents affecting Gazans to the schema. It is called WP:NPOV. Yet, suddenly, we get an objection. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue has been addressed, and much of the material you cite just above my reply deals not with the specifics of Gaza Border incidents, but events in the West Bank. Their inclusion would be WP:OR. You can't have it both ways: silently accepting in the text Israeli reports of earlier border incidents of Palestinian violence, while immediately objecting when the parallel details of violence to Palestinians on the border is added for neutrality. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * How would the above additions be no original research? They are from the exact article you cited which is WP:RS. I thank you for your additions in an attempt to make WP:NPOV, I am not questioning you, but whether the additions are not assisting in improving the article as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and want to get an opinion from fellow editors before removing the additions. Waddie96 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There appears to be an elementary confusion here. Your material was not so much a reductio ad absurdum but its corollary which would be dilatatio ad absurdum.The material you cite comes from the same reliable source I used, yes, but the items do not deal with events of this year prior to the Great March occurring on the Gaza border.
 * (1)	Deals with an incident of an Israeli friendly fire death on 7 January 2011 on the Gaza border.
 * (2)	Six Israeli civilians and a member of the Israeli security forces shot to death on 18 August 2011 in Eilat. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents
 * (3)	A soldier killed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel at the Beersheba Central Bus Station on 18 October 2015. Nothing to do with Gaza border
 * (4)	Two Israeli civilians shot to death in a Tel Aviv pub by a Palestinian citizen of Israel, Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
 * (5)	2 Israeli police officers fatally shot by three Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the al-Aqsa compound on 14 July 2017. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
 * (6)	An Israeli soldier stabbed to death on 30 November 2017 by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship in Arad. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.
 * (7)	An Israeli civilian who died after being stabbed by a Palestinian citizen of Israel on 5 February 2018  at the entrance to the settlement of Ariel. Nothing to do with Gaza border incidents.


 * You appear to have missed the point I made above, in writing:’ The section 'Prior Violence' was written up by somebody, listing only events characterized by Israeli military and government sources for the period 2018 on the Gaza-Israel border leading up to the event.' The prior background on wikipedia articles deals with the immediate past, not with anything or everything from Methusaleh onwards.


 * The incidents regarding Palestinian violence in the Prior section all refer to events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. In English 'prior' here implies historical recency. I mirrored this choice by the editor who wrote this section  by supplying the corresponding examples of Israeli violence in events on the Gaza border in 2018 directly prior to the Great March planning and events. The parallel is perfect, per WP:NPOV. If you want the Israeli detail, you must accept the Palestinian detail for the same period in the same area. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A source must link these events to the topic of this article otherwise including this stuff here is OR regardless of where they happened or if editors think they're relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

IDF was preventing violent potential illegal immigrants from crossing into Israel. At least 2 of those who were killed were known to Israel as HAMAS operatives. Fighting terrorism is not the same as "massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Crap. The vast majority of those shot dead were killed by trained snipers lying on banks of sand and thus out of range beyond the 300 metre no go zone, and couldn't be even hit by stones, which can be slung by Israeli manual lore on conflict no more than 70 yards. In no civilized country in the world do you gun down protestors or even rioters who are unarmed. It's murder, and when the number exceeds 6, it is a massacre, as La Repubblica and the Vatican's Avvenire, reported when the news broke. 30,000 people showed zero interest in entering Israel. Half of the employed minority are in Hamas, it is the only way to get bread on the table. That doesn't make them operatives. This had fuck all to do with terrorism, since Haaretz and other sources have articles before the event which paint the IDF apocalyptic scenario of an 'existential threat' requiring massive force in the  before this event took place, and put in place extreme measures on that paranoid hypothesis.
 * See for example:
 * Yaniv Kubovich,Josh Breiner Israeli Army Readies for Hamas March Along Gaza Border on Friday Haaretz 27 March 2018
 * Peter Lerner, This Friday, Israel’s Tear Gas and tanks Will Confront Palestinian Marchers. But Brute Force Can’0t Be Israel’s Only Answer, Haaretz 25 March 2018
 * I .e. this was an announced public event, not some secretive plot by Hamas, which did not, by the way, originally organize the event. How you bus 30,000 people with Gaza's buses(!!) to an area about a couple of kilometres from Gaza City, within easy walking distance (I've walked it myself) is a mystery, i.e. pure hysterical IDF agitprop.
 * I had written quite a few notes on this. But I've pulled a muscle in my back,  coughing caused some latent wrench in my back caused by falling 8 feet out of a tree the other day, so I won't be able to edit for a few days. But the temptation to prioritize the Hamas-terrorist Pallywood motive should be resisted - that is simply the usual mendacious spin by the murderers who planned this lesson. The background consisted in a long deliberated move to use the standard Land Day protests as a marker for 5 weeks of pacific events, which aimed, not as such stupid line in our text says, to genetly 'evict' Israelis from their homes c- that is about as absurd as you get (check the source) - but to bring the world's negligent attention to the fact that 64 percent of youth are unemployed, 97% of Gaza's water is undrinkable, 70% go to bed feeling hungry, and the poverty line includes 65% or so of all families there, etc.etc. one snippet of my draft runs:

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


 * So I suggest more work on the background figures, and look at B'tselem 's page as well.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And whose fault is that Gaza is in such a state of deprivation? After all, they receive billions from the world. Maybe because Hamas prefers to build cross-border tunnels and weapons instead of civilian infraestructure? This is what your "peaceful" protest was all about: a cynical camouflage for additional terrorist attacks (not to mention the usual propaganda and the attacker playing the victim card after sending their human shields to die).--יניב הורון (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Way to keep your POV in check . And backing it up with an Israeli military and political cite--because they will somehow be totally unbiased on this issue. Pure genius.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the POV rant he was responding to, I'd say he did just fine in his response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I recall when Debkafile  knew everything about Saddams WMD! LOL! (Needless to say: absolutely none of it true..) Huldra (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Debka is no less biased than the so-called "Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor", but much more reliable and serious. Everything published by Debka is fully investigated, and many times they had no problem criticizing Israel's military and intelligence establishment. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources (such as normal newspapers) to support at least some of their findings.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whose fault is it that you spout nonsense, copied and pasted from the puerile hasbara outlet for retirees from the IDF and Shin Bet, the Debka file? US aid to Israel in the last financial year was $3.1 billion: their aid to Palestinians has averaged a 7th of that over the last decade, with most going to the PA quisling government in the West Bank. Demographically the Israeli and Palestinian populations are on a par, so the elephantine wastrel sponger in the room is not the government of the Gaza Strip. Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds ought to exercise some care in playing the Palestinian freeloader meme before audiences that acrually study the facts.  Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about aid given to Gaza by the world, not just the US. But whatever, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not interested in seeing all the usual butthurt in the comments after another staged "humanitarian" provocation.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * take your own advice. One more comment like this--"all the usual butthurt"--and you will promptly see yourself at ANI. Mocking another editor for something you don't like or clearly understand does not fly with me or the respectable part of the community. I will never understand why the most sensitive subjects produces some of the worst editors I have encountered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And you are one of the worst POV commentators on Wiki, Slick. Hypocrisy on here doesn't cut it.50.111.3.17 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – calling this a massacre of of course nonsense, and there is no need to scrape the barrel for sources calling it one (as far as I can tell, even the state-sponsored sources here don't call it a massacre). It is not just a non-neutral term, but it doesn't even describe the events. It seems like a good idea to wait for the events to end in order to get some perspective, but no doubt in the end we will use the most neutral and descriptive title. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Ynhockey has now moved the article to a new title, (in the middle of a discussion) and, AFAIK, used his admin powers to mv the protections too, so that none other than other admins can move it again. User:Ynhockey: using your admin powers in an issue where you are highly involved is not a good thing, me thinks? Huldra (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, I actually fixed a botched move made by other editors, which seemed to create a (technical) disconnect between the article and its talk page.
 * In any case, it doesn't look like anyone here is actually arguing about policy, it's more of a philosophical discussion about whether it's a massacre or not. I stated my opinion on that issue above (with regards to the discussion), but it's only somewhat relevant to the actual issue of naming the article, which has to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. There is a policy to address precisely this issue, at WP:POVNAMING, and it's so clear when examining this specific article, that there's really no room for interpretation.
 * Therefore, while it was not my intention to prevent other users from moving the article (technically you still can, in a number of ways), maybe it's actually better because it might make everyone calm down and read the policy. In any case, feel free to open a move request if you have a policy-based argument on why this page should be moved. There are a number of back-and-forth moves in the last 24 hours which is really unhelpful.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , no comment on the title as of yet, but how does anyone with a sane mind believe you can be unbiased in this area?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone expects anyone else to be unbiased. There is however a policy about loaded terms on Wikipedia, and it's very clear about loaded words in article titles. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No,, I actually do expect others to be unbiased, just as I expect myself. If an editor cannot do that, they shouldn't be editing in the field.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And please fill in your references . Thank you!TheGracefulSliclistk (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the title was so loaded as User:Ynhockey imply, then surely some admin who was not WP:INVOLVED could have moved it. Ok, if Ynhockey doesn't undo his move, I will report this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've noted on Ynhockey's talk page in response to your comment there, Ynhockey does not appear to have used any admin powers to move the page. Number   5  7  22:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. At 20:46, 31 March 2018 he deleted 2018 Land Day incidents with the edit notice: (G6: Deleted to make way for move). At 20:52, 31 March 2018 he deleted Talk:2018 Land Day incidents  with edit notice:  (G6: Deleted to make way for move) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not wrong. That's what it shows in your log when you move pages over a redirect. You have the same in your own log despite the fact you have no admin powers.
 * 21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Talk:Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
 * 21:37, 19 December 2017 Huldra (talk | contribs | block) deleted redirect Huj, Gaza by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
 * It's a shame you've continued with this claim despite me trying to point you to your own log earlier. Number   5  7  22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ynhockey's move was improper because he has a conflict of interest, and one can't figure out if he is actually neutral: since he is both an Israeli and an admin he shouldn't allow for this kind of doubt by undertaking controversial changes in this area while wearing his adminship. His reasoning is dead wrong: we don't call armies, police or whatever shooting significant numbers of unarmed protesters 'incidents' or 'events' or 'protests'. The title must acknowledge people were killed, and we have tons of stuff like Sharpeville Massacre and Kent State Shootings that acknowledge that you don't adopt euphemisms when mass killings are carried out by government order or otherwise. In this case, Israel admits it ordered the army to shoot unarmed people en masse. I know this is just normal routine stuff for many who accept Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements (that is what Zionism is all about), but globally, mass executions are not 'incidents': the army in on record as boasting it could account for every bullet and every person, even women and children, hit by live fire. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He was reverting a move that could be argued to be controversial. The bits about him having a conflict of interest because he's Israeli is not worthy of Wikipedia and hope will be retracted. The idea that an editor should be restricted in some way when editing a certain subject because of their nationality is appalling. Number   5  7  22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Distortion. An Israeli editor is like anyone else. An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher stanbdards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral. This stands out like dog's balls, and applies to all admins of whatever natiolnality when they are dealing with controversies affecting their homeland.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a very simple test of NPOV: what would the title be if the "sides" were the other way round? Suppose some snipers murdered 16 football fans at a Beitar match. Do you seriously think the title of such an event should be 2018 Beitar incident? --NSH001 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Talking about stupid comparisons... If Beitar was a terrorist organization like Hamas instead of a football team, and they organized a mass protest near a border, which included armed men and human shields to provoke a violent confrontation with the enemy... then, probably yes. Can we move on, now?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm trying to get you to think of the event from the other side's point of view. Please point me to any article on the murder of Israeli citizens that is titled "XXXXXX incident" or "XXXXXX incidents". Or indeed, can you point me to any such article whose title hides or obfuscates what happened to the victims (massacre, killing, shooting, stabbing, whatever)? Because that is what is being, mendaciously, done in the section below. This is a massacre, and that is what it should be called, though I could live with "murders" or "killings" as a compromise. --NSH001 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest moving from "Incidents" vs "Protests"
I propose that the article be moved back to 2018 Land Day protests, at least for now. This version was the article's names for a brief period, amid all the moves :-). "Incidents" is both wp:weasel and vague. "Protests" is much more of WP:COMMONNAME vs "Incidents". See for example Google search.  --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Attempting to storm an international border is not a protest. Some of the Gazan casulties were from a Hamas squad that in the evening fired at Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) clarified comment. Most neutral sources are using clashes or confrontations to describe this staged event which involved gun fire from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Suport Using "protests" vs incident makes ore sense 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs)
 * Support The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Aljazeera, CNN, The Guardian, and several other reputable secondary sources call these events protests. put the POV-cap away and look at the sources in front of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see confrontations and clashes used more often. The incidents on the day (or rather evening) included a firefight - in the evening between armed militants and the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – actually when I first searched for this topic, I thought it would be called 2018 Land Day protests. However, the article is potentially about a wider set of incidents (border infiltrations, geopolitics, etc.); so I am neutral about this, both titles seem OK to me, it's more of a question of the article's scope. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep it as "2018 Land Day incidents". It's the most neutral and descriptive term. This is not woodstock nor just "protests", but a Hamas-organized rally that included armed attacks.--יניב הורון (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - it doesn't require a large WP:CRYSTALBALL to see this is slated to be a continuing event (with continuing events during the week, and a big flare up next Friday (and the Friday after that - until perhaps 15 May) - the organizers are declaring this is their intention - so whatever name we end up with probably won't have "Land day" in it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the organizers dubbed it the "March of Return". Would that be a better compromise than the current recommendation?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Better in the sense that we're following a given name instead of attributing protests by ourselves. I would go presently with 2018 Gaza border clashes (which would cover events at the border beyond the march - e.g. firefights, a series of cross-border infiltrations - e.g. 3 Gazans with grenades and knives captured near army base 20 kms. inside Israel, Israeli Army Defends Erroneous Iron Dome Fire Over Gaza: ‘We Don’t Take Risks’, IDF tanks shell Hamas positions after 2 Gazans start fire near border) - however it is also fairly obvious to me that it is a premature to settle into a name here - this is currently still a continuing event that is likely to develop (even if there isn't a major escalation - and this peters out at 2-3 additional Friday border confrontation - it will still end up with a different title).Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewiz's suggestion of 2018 Gaza Border Clashes seems more in line with how these things are usually named.


 * Support: Generally speaking these were protests. There were some incidents, catching a lot of focus, but most of the events were protests. Maybe calling it a "riot" would be better, but it is much better than "incidents".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support—"Protests" doesn't exclude those protesters participating in confrontations with the border guards, though there are three deaths that are peripheral at best to the protests. What it does include, however, is the large numbers of people participating in the protest camps. Conversely, "clashes" may be inappropriate for people not engaging in confrontation, which apparently includes a significant number of those killed and injured.--Carwil (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the deaths are related to clashes near the fence (or in one case - two armed gunmen with AK-47 in the evening) - the whole event would've been probably non-notable had they stayed back in the protest camps - the coverage in the sources is not about that - but about incidents along the border.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to 2018 Gaza border protest and clashes.--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm good with 2018 Gaza border protests and clashes (added plural to protest - it wasn't one on Friday - and there have been more since Friday - and it is likely to be "big" this coming Friday).Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Since this is going to be going on for a while, there should be a top level article with a general name, then sub articles (which this one will probably end up as) for daily (or whatever is appropriate) events. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "protests" would obfuscate the essence (already buried or absent in the article). Title can be more precise: 2018 Land Day shootings when short, or 2018 Land Day massacre'''. The wording "clashes", notw used on mainpage, is misleading and wrong. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose "...and protests" - unwieldy and attempts to shoehorn "clashes" in. I would support 2018 Land Day protests or something like: Great March of Return protests. Compare with Unite the Right rally. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Icewhiz sees "violent riots" everywhere, so I would take his !vote with a grain of salt. Compare with: Talk:Ahed_Tamimi where Icewhiz insists that describing what he terms "violent rioting" as "protest" is a BLP violation against IDF soldiers. Strange but true :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NPA please. RSes are widely using clashes. Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and AK47 rifles used by the Palestinians are typically not part of protests.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018 Gaza border protests"

 * I moved the article to 2018 Gaza border protests. It's concise and to the point. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I think this is a bad move as the events described include shooting, throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails, protests, cross-border infiltrations, etc. Incidents describes all these events. Protests do not. We should move away from incidents only to a more specific NPOV name, otherwise we move WP backwards. For example, the Palestine News Agency, Wafa, recognizes that these are more than protests, using in this article 0 times "protests" and 3 times "events". gidonb (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope: Include ongoing protest campaign?
It's pretty clear that there will be ongoing, substantial coverage of the Great March of Return protests, including events after the Land Day incidents. For example: Shall we expand the scope to include subsequent days in this protest campaign (which is currently slated to last through mid-May)?--Carwil (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha'aretz profile of protest leader
 * Reuters on continuing protests and additional death on April 3
 * Washington Post on further protests
 * Yes. These aren't distinct events - but an on-going campaign. Should this escalate to a full-on armed conflict - we should probably delineate this article to the beginning of full hostilities - but as long as it is on the level of 30th March events - we should string them together. For 6th April the Gazans are planning (or at least are saying so publicly and releasing PR to that effect) earth embankments from their side and burning tires for smoke cover - in response to events on 30th March.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Great March of Return

 * This seems like a neutral, noncontroversial name for this page. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)