Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 4

Neutrality of changing "minors" to "children".
The word "minors" from the cited source was changed to "children" in the casualties section.

It currently says, "As of 14 May, at least 126 people have been killed in Gaza, including 31 children, and more than 950 others wounded; eight deaths in Israel were reported." The source cited says, "Thirty-one of those killed were minors".

I don't think that's a neutral change. Children usually implies a younger age while minor usually means under 18 years old.

Update, 17 May: So someone removed the source that said "minors" and replaced it with sources that say "children". I don't think that fixes the issue. It's still referring to the number of deaths of people under 18, and child usually implies someone under 13. "Minors" is a more neutral term, while "children" is emotionally charged. Al Jazeera lists the names and ages of some of the minors killed, and everyone listed is 13-17 years old, so I think the term "minors" applies better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.109.10 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

173.177.109.10 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve fixed the issue. X-Editor (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this change. If you're not an adult, you're a child. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Typically, many of Hamas militants are technically minors (16-17 years old). I wouldn't call them children. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Minors is correct. The last comment is frankly repellant, a piece of nonsense funneled straight out of the Israeli defense industry's hasbara machine, with its endless insistence that despite the large number of children its operations regularly kill in Gaza, Hamas or the minors' family are to blame for putting them in the 'pinpoint', ethically observant line of fire, the 'line' of fire being ordnance that can create 8,500 degree Fahrenheit fireballs in densely populated zones, stuff like GNU31/MK-84s. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you 'retired' from? You are an active editor. Change your home page.
 * Learn to read, dear Anon. I'm re-tyred.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; It doesn't matter what "wikipedia editors" think, add what WP:RS says, we must not violate WP:NOR using personally prefered terminologies. If WP:RS says children its children, if it says minors, then its minors, saying things like " I wouldn't call them children" is violation of Wikipedia policy. With that said there are WP:RS that uses minor, so let it stay as minors, but be sure to clarify your statements go at par with Wikipedia policy and not personal views. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as we are not quoting but paraphrasing sources, we do need to decide which words to use. Of course this decision cannot contradict the meaning of the source, but since the terms minors and children are largely interchangeable, the decision is in our hands, and I explained why in my opinion "minors" is a more accurate choice. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely not a valid argument, since applying it in this specific context, to the specific numbers, is speculative or WP:OR at best. If you want to assert that the death totals for children include militants, you need to cite a source stating such.  And if you feel that "children" implies otherwise, then you have to confront the fact that there are vast number of sources that use "children", which would seem to disprove your speculation.  As it is, a quick search for "58 children" vs" 58 minors" makes it completely clear that the sources overwhelmingly use "children"; since you've stated your opinion that the terms minors and children are largely interchangeable, there is no reason not to simply go with what the sources say. (On the other hand, if you want to change your opinion and argue that they are not interchangeable, it only becomes more important to do what the sources say.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s no picture of the destruction caused by israeli air strikes
Why there are no pictures of the complete destruction of the buildings caused by the Israeli air strikes on Gaza, as it is clearer and more destructive than the impact left by the Hamas rockets? Moudinho1996 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find and upload free images to wikipedia, then perhaps they can be used. Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictures of damage in Gaza would be helpful. It's often difficult to get freely licensed images early on in current events. We can't use agency/commercial images, and they don't fall under WP:NFCC, which tends to limit what can be displayed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's unlikely we'll get photos inside Gaza for a bit. Maybe a news agency would be willing to release an image via OTRS but I doubt it. Guess we wait. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyright. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Note that for neutrality there should be roughly the same amount of images depicting damage Hamas caused to Israel." That makes little sense, since Israel's airstrikes causes proportionally many times more death and destruction than Hamas rockets do. And now that Israel is purposely targetting outside media offices in Gaza, you can say goodbye to any neutral covering or free photos from the Palestinian side. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. I think in 2014 the war produced 18,000 buildings/houses destroyed by Israel as opposed to one Israeli home destroyed.  Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be noted that the reason for this is the Israeli Iron-Dome defence system, and there is a great deal of shrapnel and such causing injuries and smaller scale damage across Israel, which should be covered in equal extent to the Gaza destruction. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, that would mean we should show less images of destruction in Israel, simply because there is proportionally less. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Iron Dome has nothing to do with it. Compare the strike damage (explosive power) of those Hamas rockets that struck Israeli buildings, with the strike damage of Israel's ordnance on Gaza's buildings, Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True that the explosive damage seems to be greater for the air strikes, however my point was that even though it is much smaller scale, the incidents of damage, even if the damage is minor is still roughly the same in number on both sides, compare for example a building demolished in Gaza to a piece of shrapnel killing a man in israel, or littering towns with debris, and breaking windows in the shockwave. Even though the damage is lesser on the Israeli side, there are still just as many examples and photographs. You would not leave with a false impression, as you would see that the damage is worse on the Gaza side even when there is an equal number of images for each. --Ester9001 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats not what NPOV says as far as proportion of images. Will look for usable images, al-jazeera in the past offered up some under a cc license.  nableezy  - 01:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're going to say that, quote from the NPOV page please. --Ester9001 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be glad to give you some pictures uploaded by the IDF showing the destruction. Note I am an Israeli, and I do not want to display any political opinion here on wikipedia. Nookscoot (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (3)
Add to the section on Al-Jalaa media building that Israel informed the US of the strike in advance, providing evidence that Hamas used the building. Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israel-showed-us-smoking-gun-on-hamas-in-ap-office-tower-officials-say-668303 102.182.123.220 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is meaningless. Yes the US is regularly informed. The quality of the 'intelligence' shared is unknown. We don't know what 'used the building' means concretely. Has it significant military facilities inside that pose a threat to Israel? Or did some branch of its administration,  sanitary services, garbage collection, building permits, have an office to that end? Israel doesn't make this distinction (which is obligatory in international law, i.e., to distinguish between civilian and military functions), unlike several of Western nations that distinguish  its governmental branch from its military wing (they have a certain autonomy apparently) and deem only the latter 'terroristic'. The major point is that we are dealing with a 15 storey structure with, presumably,  scores of distinct offices and functions, and it is a tad improbable that Hamas, fully aware that its structures are regularly bombed, would concentrate its military functions to any significant extent there. (Of course, a 'pro-Israeli eye might say: oh yes they would, human shields etc., a dead meme). The problem with that is that the building was crammed with foreign media offices and reporters, who would not be comfortable working there, if Hamas's military wing had any significant presence. They too calculate the risks.) So, we know zilch; in the fog of wars instrumental disinformation (i.e. the invasion) is commonplace, and the only reliable element in the report is that the US was informed. Of course, the US is a major supporter and funder of the destruction of Palestinian society, if we are to believe the most reputable analyst around, Nathan Thrall. At best the addition would have to use 'reportedly'. 'providing evidence reportedly supporting their view that   Hamas used the building'. That's no big gain. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recognise this is probably an emotional time for many people, but could we please try to stay focused and limit discussion to what is necessary to change article prose? We don't need to start splitting people up into pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli and making political arguments here. It causes more threads to devolve into divisive arguments, as seen in several sections above, and is generally unhelpful. There exist better forums for debate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not at all an emotional thing for me. I've seen and edited through incidents of this kind for 13 years. What is repeatedly déjà vu, the events and the comments justifying or criticizing them, can't make one emotional - just somewhat bored. What I did above was fill in what experienced area readers know. Most editors mightn't share that background. I've noticed many requests for the addition of information placed here which clearly indicate a scarce acquaintanceship with the topic but shoot for some specific detail about some specific episode, the editor(s) feel has been crucially neglected. But it is important that a minimal awareness of the need for detachment in reading our sources: disinformation circulates, in order to be wary. I don't trust for example the statistics from Gaza anymore than I do those from official Israeli sources. I wait until B'tselem which goes out an interviews widely afterwards each victim and witnesses, and assesses the reliability of their memories, makes a call and writes a clinical retrospect. I cited Nathan Thrall because he is thoroughly mainstream, publishes on the NYRB, was an analyst for the International Crisis Center, and an author with a widely praised survey of the quagmire's fundamental problems. 12 minutes listening to some background by an expert, is useful for grasping the perplexing fact, that puzzles so many, as to why a simple eviction notice should lead to a firestorm of missiles smashing up Gaza and Israeli towns and cities. It is needed because many of our sources, mainstream newspapers, never address it, and just spin the events descriptively as 'it's just them again. The ME is like that. What a pity. Let's move on.' So I had no intention of debating. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. Some think I am foruming in comments like the above. No. From all the previous wars I know that much of the 'information' officially put out is reliably sourced but unreliable, serving a persuasive function in the media. It now emerges that indeed my opening comment was borne out by developments. ('However, the U.S. Secretary of State contradicted that assertion and said he had not seen any Israeli evidence that Hamas was operating out of the tower, and that he had asked Israel for a justification for the airstrike.' If this statement is correct, it would imply that the original Israeli communication was a trust test with its ally, expecting that the US would not go public contradicting the claim, though aware of its untruth. Quite interesting. Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass move request for timelines of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
I proposed to rename pages from "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, YYYY" to "YYYY in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Discussion is at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal that would ban any non-administrators from moving a specific Arab-Israeli conflict that received high visible page without consensus. I believe much of page moves like this will be distruptive so i rather agree to move protected a specific Arab-Israeli conflict page that received highly visible page and let only administrator that can have a rights to move the page that must have a consensus from Wikipedia community. Yet having this proposal will be excessive IMO and will be impossible to reached unless IP users also participated and agreed to do it. 180.243.211.58 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to this proposal? The easiest way for IP users to participate in formal discussions under the existing rules is to register and do the 30/500.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
Please change “The area had been annexed by Israel but the annexation continues to be disputed.” to “The area in question, effectively annexed by Israel, remains under international law a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation.” This was discussed earlier on multiple occasions, it keeps being changed without approval. “Belligerent occupation” is a neutral legal term and international law is incontrovertible, people need to stop making this edit.

Also, please revert “The following day, the major Islamic holy site and the holiest to Judaism, known as al-Aqsa Mosque compound or Temple Mount, was stormed by the Israeli police using tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades against firecrackers and stone-throwing Palestinians.” to “The following day, Israeli police stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, a major Islamic holy site." I made this request further up the page but I don’t think it was noticed. The sentence as it exists now is unwieldy, full of irrelevant information, and not grammatically strong. They used stun grenades against firecrackers? No, they used them against Palestinians. Also, the reference to “stone-throwing Palestinians” feels racially loaded. They are Palestinians first. The language is not encyclopedic in its current state. The fact that these edits are constantly being made without discussion or approval leads me to believe that the editors know they are not legitimate or useful edits. WillowCity (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing firecrackers in any of the sources, I will look again. Pretty sure “stone-throwing Palestinians” is used by the source, I'll check. I don't find that racially loaded personally but that's just me. The two names for the same place is a nuisance but what can you do? I just made a change to the occupation business in order to clarify inaccurate prior edit, as long as occupation is mentioned I am not that bothered by the missing "belligerent", although I think people are making too much fuss about that, given that it is a neutral term.Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source, ToI? Per WP:RS the reliability of that source is not established, and I would strongly argue that they have an editorial bias. I don't think we should be quoting them in the lede without serious qualification. Currently, I don't think the language of the lede complies with WP:NPOV, there's definitely a false balance in equating the opinion of some Israeli judges with the consensus of the international legal community. WillowCity (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed firecrackers, can't find that in the sources and as you say it is grammatically in error.Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT "The police fired rubber-tipped bullets and stun grenades at stone-throwing Palestinians." so not ToI.Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The default state of an established WP:NEWSORG is that it's generally reliable. It does not need to be on WP:RSP for that classification. ProcSock (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not equating Israeli judges/Israeli law with international consensus, rather the contrary, it is emphasizing that it is an Israeli position held by no-one else except Israel. As for ToI, we may not just exclude them in general, bias or not.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP also says that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Also, that NYT paywall is unfortunate. Still, I do not think that phrasing is encyclopedic or that we need to repeat it verbatim simply because it is in a source. Perhaps "at Palestinians armed with stones"? Without being too sensitive, the current language seems to play into dominant media narratives of Palestinians as "unruly" and Israeli forces as keeping order. And I don't particularly agree that the current language depicts the Israeli position as isolated, it seems to imply a parity of positions.WillowCity (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember to sign. OK, let's see what others think? And yes, you can go to RSN and ask whether source X is good for statement Y and get an opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stone-throwing is an ancient tradition in that area, predominantly by the powerless. I've linked the phrase to the detailed article we have on the phenomenon, which should explain its complexities.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (b) Willow City 's request is legitimate. The original phrasing should be restored because it was discussed, as noted, and is being repeatedly removed by passing editors without comment. Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I didn't put it back because I would rather avoid reverting if possible. I decided instead to simply clarify the deficiencies of the edit prior.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Selfstudier's edit improves the grammar of the sentence. We could, per RS, include additional details of 'weapons' used by the Palestinians (eg Al Jazeera says mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds), but it makes the phrasing of the sentence awkward as is. If the order is flipped so that stone-throwing isn't used as a modifier (i.e. your suggestion of "at Palestinians armed with...") then the detail could be included more grammatically. But it doesn't make grammatical sense to add additional compounds to the current revision. ProcSock (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * First, (I started writing this before seeing all other comments, took breaks, and need to express) please assume good faith, just as I understand where you come from and also want to improve the article, even though I view your proposed sentence to the mosque as resulting in non-coherent (and from that still not-neutral). Also, I appreciate you now explained what is grammatically incorrect rather then the former dismissive "grammatical mess" as per your upper comment, and as something I worked for hours on thinking how to contribute to my best ability considering an already complex sentence opening (and I didn't wanna override "storming" discussion).
 * As for the Temple Mount / violent actions - That the mount/compound is majorly sacred for both religions gives the understanding of the area's sensitivity and general clashes between 2 entities including at this instance (which I also wrote quite deeply on that edit summary), as well clarifies why there's tight force of Israeli police around this area. Further - the police also guards and handles Jews going to the mount itself to pray as it's open to Jews during specific times. So at this 7th May instance it became such a clash focal to the violence escalation all over Israel and Gaza.
 * I do understand what you mean by connects at this instance to Ramadan and surrounding the mosque itself and Palestinians, and also thought about this which is why I kept the "holy to Islam" first, then pointed Judaism, and the same with the area's Muslim "compound" then Jewish "mount" name, even though its Wikipedia article titled under the later. I also understand your comment to my previous passive phrasing for the weapons uses as sounding not-appropriate; that was just yet another attempt of mine to describe the violent actions themselves and shorten for lead, rather than pointing "Palestinians" and who fired and who threw what weapons. Even though it then resulted in only pointing the Israeli Police. So I was actually satisfied to see who eventually clarified both sides with further detailing the actions and weapons and by that he also fixed your concern of passive presentation. And while I'm an Israeli Jewish myself and suffer from rocket bombings for the past two weeks. So with my explanations to my edits, I hope all that clarifies I'm trying to be neutral as possible and improving the article.
 * The former sentence you want to revert to (which was also just contributed, without special discussion) was also challenged by other editors opining it should be fuller - at least as for the actions. For the first religions part of the sentence - I can even agree with mentioning only Ramadan while then omitting any further mention to either religion. That's also per your view above that it's not relevant to mention the holiness to Judaism as a general status (by the by pointing it now surrounded Ramadan), so then it's also comes out as due-weight to keep the general "major holy site to Islam". It's further exaggerated when followed by "mosque" description (so already clarifies holy to Islam), as well as using the alternate name for the area by adding "compound" (to the mosque's name) while ignoring the synonym "Temple Mount". As for actions, also omitting this seems as if the police just stormed for no specific-local reason, ignores the parallel-following mutual violence which took place there, looking as though the mosque could had been empty and they just captured it or that they just suddenly stormed on quietly praying Palestinians; so both omitting any Israeli-Jewish mention while keeping Islam titles and omitting both-sides violence then looks completely partial and non-encyclopedic.
 * With regards to the religions, I can agree to a shortened description going something like this: "the following day and during Ramadan, the al-Aqsa Mosque (without "compound") was stormed by the Israeli police... Or what I still prefer as to mention both religions for the area's overall sensitivity, but also shorter: The following day, the al-Aqsa Mosque within an area with major holy significance to both Islam and Judaism, was stormed....
 * Again, I apologize as I started writing this comment before all other comments and didn't have the energy to dramatically modify it now, and still wanted to detail my own view for keeping the violent actions as well. Also as most comments above discuss the violent actions and the other international law situation, hope my suggestions for how to include (or not) the religions surrounding the mosque area can be beneficial as well.
 * thank you for your gentle reworks on this sentence while still taking consideration of my former additions. Just to explain that by source for "firecrackers" I meant those at the specific mosque section at the article's body (I wrote on the edit summary) and as the lead is eventually based on the detailed sections. But I do understand now in regards to grammar; I thought it's considered to relate as "firecrackers-throwing" when appearing before "stones-throwing" sorry. I also agree to the proposes above for "armed with" and more detailing for weapons, if we already detailed weapons and as I still think the Palestinians' weapons should also be further detailed beyond just "stones" and to balance the detail of Israel police weapons.
 * And please I just ask again in general to assume good faith and I try my best in this and in neutral editing and want to feel safe and calm contributing and discuss here. אומנות (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your remarks contradict one of the sources we use from a specialst at Soas in Israeli studies, Yair Wallach (and what he says is well documented also in several wiki articles). Not the Al-Aqsa mosque but the whole Haram al Sharif is as it is, the one remaining piece of Palestine not in Israel's hands, because Muslims cleared the rubble left there by Christians hostile to Judaism (allowing Jews back then to return to Jerusalem and pray there), and built the site into the splendor it now is, and it has been the centre of local Islamic worship in the land continuously for 1,300 years. Wallach states that the obsession by rightwing groups to, dunam by dunam, wrest control of it or assert 'equal rights' is new: Judaism's core is centered on the Herodian wall below, not on the Temple and only in modern times has Zionism been inflected with the desire to assert possession over the Arab sanctuary - something that everyone knows would be tantamount to a declaration of war with the Muslim world. For that reason, your reading and the proposals that follow it, are inaccurate and can't be acted on. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your selective points in time are irrelevant as we're talking about what's happening now while still precisely based also on what preceded the Romans which frames both the very beginning of the Mount/Compound monotheistic-sanctity and part of it's present as a sanctity for two monotheistic religions, and my proposals are already acted on even more broadly as describing this fact for both, also explained further under section, and when my proposals now further try to collaborate to minimize this lead reference to simply state something even still (I add now) with compound for mentioning both religions as "stormed the mosque compound, sacred to both Islam and Judaism" or "stormed the mosque area during Ramadan". So I don't see what in describing present circumstances and clash is inaccurate and what can't be acted here.
 * To refer to some inaccurate and/or non-presented historical claims you made, going down the history route the mosques were precisely build there as based on a stone associated around the Foundation Stone as Jewish highest sanctity place which corresponds to the Jewish temple Holy of Hollies, and believed by Muslims too as a sacred stone (as well as Islam having some similar rules and same figures as in the Bible) and based on a later Roman temple, with also archaeological evidences for the 2nd temple - including the lower stones within the Herodian Wall you pointed (among other ancient Jewish streets and monuments before they turned to rubble); And Jews always referred to it as the temple's Western Wall with praying on it facing east to the Temple's holly of Hollies positioned on today's TEMPLE Mount; showing their connection to the mount, and prayed like this throughout history and desired to enter the mount also on different periods in history, that's putting aside of course times they were banished from Jerusalem, slaughtered or pogrom by Christians and Muslims (which you only pointed for when "allowing" them to return to Jerusalem), bringing us back to 2021, with Jews nowadays entering the mount to pray closer to the Holy of Hollies and the general Israel police guarding. And therefore shows that Judaism core is the Holly of Hollies, even though later historical circumstances limited the physical gathering to the Western Wall as the closest available place - to the core of the temple.
 * Also, there were branches of secular and religious Zionism. And just to point there are also Jews who just want to have the ability to pray there as for their Temple Mount sanctuary, so not everyone seek to reclaim it just for Judaism or Israel but can jointly pray there side by side even if still remains controlled by Palestinians. And anyway your point for Zionism wanting to assert possession in modern times again and further shows and explains also the 7th May 2021 situation.
 * If Yair Wallach expresses himself in a passionate opinionated manner, citing him shouldn't be acted upon if there are other more moderated sources to use, as reliable newspapers describing police "storm". In any case, the previous sentence only points violence (and unclear for what) as for "Israel storming" while only pointing holiness for "Islam sanctuary-compound" which can't be followed in a manner that won't destroy neutrality and encyclopedic info in the lead, and my suggestions serve shortened focus with neutrality as corresponding to the then detailing both religions and "Temple Mount" under the specific chapter, also a case in point as acceptable and more deeply explained there. אומנות (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now can someone close this? A clear case of foruming.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your claims with utmost respect even though it's clear - and further clear by your evading response now - that you are here to bait and then ignore and try to upset other editors and disrupt, talking about accusing me of forum. Not only that you try determining what will be acted upon in the article, now you also try to censor my tries to communicate with you and others here... Lovely... And when I presented 2 very collaborative and simple solutions and also my history, Zionism and Yair Wallach views were in connection to share further in regards to the article phrasing and sources editing. If someone wants to look at my 2 alternative phrasing proposals and pleasantly share what they think, I would love to. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the relevant articles on the site on the English Wikipedia. What you are reciting is a meme whose simplicities are undermined by scholarship, some bits of which are duly noted on those articles. It would be easy to show how flawed the vast generalization you make are, but that too would be foruming. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to spend further time reading external material for you as you clearly disrespect me and my time and say yourself it has to do (or your future comments) with generalization unrelated to my comments about the article but rather foruming. That Jews pray facing the Holy of Holies and nowadays enter the mount is a fact, which is what I referred to via history showing your flawed 1300 time-span and physical-gathering focus generalization, and out of intention to keep the lead explanation brief yet coherent and neutral as possible as I view. So again, I have 2 very simple proposals and would love for anyone to pleasantly share thoughts or more proposals. אומנות (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Motti Inbar is one of the world's leading scholars on the Temple's conflicted modern history, not 'external material'. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian losses to be added:
As well, on the Palestinian side -towers were destroyed -houses and commanding centers of Jihad and Hamas's executives -underground terror tunnles, used as bunkers and attacking tunnles -rocket supplies -rockets, anti tank and mortar launchers were destroyed and unmanned aircrafts launched fromnthe strip were shot down and neutralized. Nookscoot (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please ask for changes in the form X -> Y and provide sources. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims of Israeli civilian injury count in infobox are not sourced
At least not sourced with the associated citation. The number should be updated with a valid citation.

Deception Mortality count out of date

 * The number of militant killed is not official and outdated. Please take it off

So here the envoy Wennesland you cite later claim : "These strikes have killed over 100 operatives, including senior commanders, according to the IDF" This is already in contradiction with the Wikipedia selective figures.

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/tor-wennesland-special-coordinator-middle-east-peace-process-2

Here the complete quote of the envoy ( an envoy isn't providing official figures, he gives an assessment, so keep scrutiny ) "As a result of the military operations, seven factories, 40 schools and at least four hospitals sustained complete or partial damage. At least 18 buildings, including four high-rise towers, including one hosting international media outlets, have been destroyed and over 350 buildings damaged. According to the IDF, these buildings contained Hamas military installations."

--Azepap129 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim of schools and hospitals destroyed in the introduction is misleading as it is actually a quotation of Wennesland in The Guardian " Wennesland said 40 schools and four hospitals were completely or partially destroyed ". First the text doesn't cite Wennesland, secondly only the guardian cite it, and the ambiguity hasn't been honestly reported.
 * Tor Wennesland is the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and as authoritative as you get. All the relevant data is collected by the office he presides over, and is regularly quoted by the press. He is not giving his personal opinion. I'll add 'completely or partially .'Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the role of the press isn't to provide official data. So keep scrutiny. Faithfully.--Azepap129 (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can get TW's reports here https://unsco.unmissions.org/documents All the details are in that 16 May one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Already provided in my first ref. I don't cite from my imagination. What about the issue I addressed?--Azepap129 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * His reports are very useful but primary so usually we are stuck with waiting for secondary sources and they frequently are superficial if they come at all.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here he is quoted from the Guardian, so there is no problem in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The new BBC reference is again not correctly cited. In the reference " MORE than 130", and on Wikipedia we get "130" --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway the number is already out of date, now it's "150+"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (2)
Syria should be added to combatants since rockets have been fired from Syria and hit the Golan Heights. GeorgeMemeulous (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of the Golan Heights? Technically, in international law, it is in Syria. Secondly Syria the government or the lawless territory where all sorts of militant groups exist? To attribute to the former and make it an actor in the 'warring' whatever is shot towards Israel would be pointy, unless RS identify the agent as part of the Syrian army under Aasad's control.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have good sources for that, it seems there is not much info about it? Of course, the Golan is not Israeli so is there evidence that the targets were Israeli?Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is one source. Regardless of the legal status of the territory where the rocket fell, the target was obviously Israel and this is what the source says. The source explicitly says that there is no proof the attack is connected to the conflict in Gaza, nor it is known who fired the rockets. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My convince-o-meter is not rising very much with that:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, adding Syria would mean the Syrian government is involved. We would need a source stating that unambiguously - just because someone is firing out of Syria's territory doesn't automatically make them a party to the conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As per consensus above Run n Fly (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Syria militants targeted Israeli targets firing rockets that fell in the Golan heights". --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (3)
In the image caption that goes "OCHAoPT map of Palestinian communities under threat of eviction in East Jerusalem, as at 2016", change the underlined word to "of". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) :✅ Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Correction, not done, I did it and someone change it back again.Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, you changed the file name, not the caption, so another editor undid your change. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  &#124; 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use&#32; on reply) 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Silly me. Back to training school.Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Small mistake
hey, I don't have autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia, this is why I'm telling this on the talk page. I found a small mistake in the article, Roni Alsheikh isn't suppose to be included in the Lead figures parameter of the Infobox, He quit from the police and now he doesn't work at public office, He is just a normal citizen. (sorry about my bad English). Benbaruch (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Analysis section
This speculation seems UNDUE to me. The sources include (a deprecated source) and a BBC news video (not even an article) from 2015!... ProcSock (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparisons to 2nd intifada
"The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s" Really. What donkey brayed that? Suffice it to read the 2014 Gaza War to realize the inanity of that statement. Opinions on history, if patently silly, should be ignored, except if they are made by the political actors directly involved.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Different counting of Israeli and Palestinian injured causing unacceptable bias
Any honest, neutral, non-racist editor, would have to agree that the criteria for listing someone as wounded should not depend upon their ethnicity. We can not keep including Israelis "injured running to bomb shelters" or "suffering from anxiety" among the count of wounded Israelis unless we also begin to include all the Palestinians equally "suffering from anxiety" and "injured while running". As we do not have a source for the latter, and it would likely look silly if included as it could be in the millions, we should treat both groups equally the only way we can which is to only count those who actual wounds. Does anyone know of a source we could use for Israeli wounded that uses the same criteria used for Palestinian wounded? We can not use sources like Jerusalem post as they are well known for dishonestly inflating numbers to push their agenda. Of 19 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We aren't going to decide on using a single source for all figures for some appearance of 'fairness'. We are a tertiary source, we summarise the sources and readers then make up their own minds. As for "anxiety", there are sources talking about the fear caused to both sides as a result, and so it must be included, as it is verifiable and DUE. ProcSock (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we keep the apples and oranges numbers, we need to be very clear that they are incomparable. Otherwise we are being misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the MDA the Israeli stats include:
 * 204 people who felt stress
 * 171 people who tripped on their way to shelters
 * 189 people injured in the riots
 * The first two categories are clearly not included in the Palestinian statistics.
 * The latter category is likely including both Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel, who have been fighting each other in groups. It is clearly misleading to include the Palestinian citizens of Israel who are injured in riots with Jewish ultra-nationalist mobs under the casualties for just "one side" of this conflict.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we are (being misleading, that is). We should report what HQRS say. I don't think the data is 'comparable' in any meaningful sense anyway, given that (according to NYT) the Gaza figures are not independently verifiable. We should give the latest data with attribution and then it's up to readers to make of it what they want. No objection to explicitly breaking down the figures in body by cause of injury, but not a fan of editors second guessing RS and altering the numbers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , what do you think we should do with the injuries to Palestinian citizens of Israel caused by Jewish citizens of Israel in the riots? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know from sources anything about Palestinian stress and anxiety and tripping over while running. Israel alone documents that and adds it to casualty lists. There is, on the other hand an extensive literature on stress under bombing and the open-air prison that is Gaza and the generalized stress level is infinitely higher, a notable percentage of the population.Therefore presenting people with anxiety as casualties is extremely deceptive, and certainly not neutral, since we know that hospitalization registers in Gaza only record people who need treatment for physical injuries sustained through bombings.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The methodology of jurisdictions obviously varies. It's the same as with COVID cases, whereas it's widely documented by sources that India's numbers are significantly lower than actual. We still give India's count per the sources, and then also say what sources say about the issues with the count. Similarly, if you can get an RS that takes issue with Israel's methodology in counting, or the discrepancies, then it can and should be noted, and otherwise not. We can't note it based on a Tweet and some editors' interpretations on what fair comparison looks like.
 * Onceinawhile's concern about Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel is a good one though. I'm not sure. If they're included in Israel's figures, IMO ideally either find a source that gives them separately, or I guess we'll have to wait until this stops being a current event and sources decide to do a more in depth analysis with more broken down figures. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If by "Palestinian citizens of Israel" you mean Israeli Arabs - there are reports of two killed so far. I don't see a reason to list them separately, though, and most (all?) sources don't. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Was their any point in stating the name that Palestinian citizens of Israel prefer not to use? It appears to be a dog whistle, but why do it? There is simply no way you didn't understand whom he was referring to. Of 19 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In previous discussions, I think we settled on the formula Arab citizens that identify as Palestinian. That this is even an issue is a good pointer for the intercommunal conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, on the LHS we have "Jewish Israeli protesters" and on the RHS we have "Arab Israeli protesters". Accordingly, IMO, it doesn't make sense to include dead Arabs - regardless of citizenship - on the other side to which they're apparently a party. ProcSock (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just about Israeli statistics including people hospitalized with anxiety. In 2014 350,000 children in the Gaza Strip were calculated to be suffering from war trauma. That alone should make one very wary of unilaterally registering among Israeli 'wounded' people who suffer with (undoubtedly real) anxiety. There is simply no comparison given the scale of the former. Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Title: Gaza-Israel?
While the discussion over the title's use of 'crisis' is not resolved, should the Israel-Palestine part of the title also come into question? Sources such as the AP and Reuters are emphasizing that this is a conflict between Gaza/Hamas and Israel, not Palestine/Palestinian Authority and Israel, as the fighting is centralized in the Gaza Strip. This would bring it under the Gaza-Israel conflict and in line with the many Gaza-Israel clashes pages such as the Gaza War pages and articles such as these. Not trying to open another title rename discussion right now just wanted another opinion.Yeoutie (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The intense fighting (exchange of rockets and bombing) is indeed between Israel and Gazan militant organizations. The current crisis reportedly began, however, with of a decision of Israel court regarding lands located in East Jerusalem and clashes between Israel police and East Jerusalem residents during prayer on the Temple Mount. These incidents did not involve Gaza. Perhaps the article should be split and renamed accordingly, but while it's a combined article - the current name makes sense. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the 2014 Gaza War article also has the context of the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens and anti-Arab riots etc, which led to a Hamas escalation etc. So I would suggest it gets called 2021 Gaza War or something similar.Vhstef (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. The name of the article typically follows the most common term used by the media, it will take a while to see what it will be. Is there any urgent reason to rename this article right now? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just over a week and we had three titles already and a 4th in discussion. While a press article here or there may describe only the Gaza element (particularly in the headline) as part of the 24hr news cycle, there are a plenty producing analyses of the whole thing, communal, WB, Jerusalem and so on. This situation is qualitatively distinct from prior upheavals. This is not to say that if rs stop talking about everything else and begin talking only about the Gaza aspect then that could be spun out into its own article. Of course, you should record your view in the current RM so that the closer may take it into account.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I see no point to !vote. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I indented that wrong, I meant it as a reply to Vhstef, fixed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

well that's not entirely correct, indeed most of the fighting is in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority is not part of it, there are disorders in many cities in Israel caused (most, but not only) by palestinians, well, whoever consider themselves as one. Nookscoot (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we will just follow the RS.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well Gaza is a part of Palestine I think, even though it has an entirely separate government due to being geographically separated from West-bank. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of confusion over this, it is very easy to get the idea that Gaza is somehow entirely separate. Governance wise, following the 2005/6 elections and subsequent brouhaha, it is and then, insofar as the Oslo Accords amount to anything very much, there is the Palestinian Authority. Finally there is the de jure State of Palestine (better to say it like this than just saying Palestine in this context) which claims the occupied territories, including Gaza and East Jerusalem, so yes, Gaza is a part of (the State of) Palestine in that sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Of-course it could be called Israel-Gaza Conflict, or even Israel-Hamas Conflict, but as there is at least somewhat significant disorder at the border in Jerusalem, calling it the Israel-Palestine Crisis, note 'Crisis' not Conflict, is appropriate. Of-course the state of Palestine, a UN observer state, is not really responsible for (or capable or doing anything about) the actions of Hamas gov in Gaza. Ester9001 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon
I only read of one Lebanese dying in the protests at the border with Israel. I believe the protestor himself was a Hezbollah member. I think it should be changed to reflect that, "One Lebanese protestor" perhaps or something else. And I may add that Hezbollah is NOT part of the conflict, they fired no missiles at Israel, and one member protesting at the border does not count as involvement, that is farcical. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1D2:DEEE:5BB6:814A (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * News are selectively choosen to reflect a certain point of view of the events. Objectively, the "protester" was shot while crossing the border, entering a military zone and destroying a security to create a breach for facilitating infiltration of Militants. But on Wikipedia it's a protester. There is an agenda. --Rectangular dome (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's an objective fact, surely you could provide some RS saying so, and we can update the article accordingly. BSMRD (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems there are "Hezbollah infiltrations" at least every 6 months and the IDF always spots it and prevents it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The IDF identified a group of protesters who left objects near the border that they suspected were explosive devices. Three suspects cut the border fence and crossed into Israel where they were joined by another four suspects; they then started a fire inside Israeli territory, which spread to Lebanese territory."

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/jordanian-protestors-passed-police-barrier-on-way-to-israel-border-668187/amp

You can watch the video when they enter Israel after creating a breach in the fence.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/B1OkCQau00

Maybe selfstuduer can share his Hezbollah data? What do you mean every 6 month? You mean it's a normal practice? --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My sense of humor.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please change "Lebanese protest" to "Lebanese", as described the actions do not amount to a protest, rather inflitration inside Israel and into a military area, destruction of security barrier for more infiltration and militancy. Comparing those belligerent acts to protests is unacceptable and misleading.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You all have missed the point, I don't care what you label the death as. My point is there was only 1 death that day, none other. so there should be one death in the infobox. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1979:4F48:D228:F4C7 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

killed by protest
An Israeli man has died of "protest", citing Wikipedia (not disrespecting victims).

You can update the death count on Israel. insha'Allah https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-seriously-hurt-in-lod-violence-dies-of-wounds/

--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The 'protestors' thing is wikipedia trying hard to remain neutral, there was a discussion earlier about when to refer to things as a protest, riot, et cetera. No conclusion could be made because editors were too catuious about the necessity to refer to each side in an unbiased manner. Obviously if this death is to be written about in descript, it should refer to them as a violent mob not protestors! --Ester9001 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, Hamas is a militant group, that's just one picture about your bias. Using the pretext of neutrality is indeed very convenient. This isn't linked to neutrality, it's liked to a bias accepted by few contributors ( with a majority of Arab militancy here). So according to your views if it's Palestinians they are innocent if not proven otherwise, and so a protester becomes a rioter when he kill, but when the victim do not die from his injury it's called a violent protest. I see a double standard, when you are at the same time easy to use Hamas provided data against the Israeli army whitout double checking or nuancing ( because there is no nuances when it comes to one part :-). Neutrality is describing objects based on their properties, not comforting views or newspaper terminology. Someone engaged in warfare isn't a protester, and using it everywhere show how deep the bias has become. There is no scrutiny, only one side is presented. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Property law
which Israeli law is this? The one the article says is used to reclaim properties and only Jews can utilise? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, PR. 'morning comes to consciousness with faint stale smells of beer' etc., (meaning I don't at this hour twig to the precise edit content (or my connection to it) referred to in your request. IF you could help me focus and lever me out of the fog of dullness I experience at this early hour by  zeroing in on the crux, I'll attend to it.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's nothing that needs changing, I just wanted to know what the laws mentioned in the first para of the "Historic dispute" section were called to do some background reading, and figured you'd know. (I found it out so doesn't matter now; Absentees' Property Laws). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be late on this. Funeral. If you are interested there are several important books, but numerous articles exist (I can pass on the pdfs if needed). Of them, the following a relatively quick overviews:
 * Sabri Jiryis, The Legal Structure for the Expropriation and Absorption of Arab Lands in Israel  Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 2, No. 4 (Summer, 1973), pp. 82-104
 * Raja Shehadeh, Some Legal Aspects of Israeli Land Policy in the Occupied Territories  Arab Studies Quarterly  Vol. 7, No. 2/3, Spring/Summer 1985, pp. 42-61
 * Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement The American Journal of International Law Vol. 89, No. 2 April 1995, pp. 295-340
 * Michael R. Fischbach, Settling Historical Land Claims in the Wake of Arab-Israeli Peace Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 27, No. 1 Autumn, 1997, pp. 38-50
 * Benvenisti's is the best of these. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021: Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists
Hello. This is my second attempt to submit an edit request, after the discussion of the previous attempt was closed because of lack of non-primary sources. In this request, I will repeat anything that's in need of repeating, for the sake of completeness. Please excuse me if this is too cluttered or long.

The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...)

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets from the Gaza Strip targeted at Israeli cities and civilized areas, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against targets in Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...) The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. Gaza casualties being higher than Israeli casualties could be explained by the air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system operated by the IDF. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens and aerial defense systems. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate.

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

This is per the NPOV policy. I welcome suggestions to rephrase or better portray the message, although I would probably not be able to respond in the coming days. I've gathered complete citations from the press release of the IDF. These should go in a "sources" section, and linked to/referenced in the lead section (they're named references). Because of the failure of my previous edit request, I've gathered secondary sources. I've tried to stick to sources considered as generally reliable as much as I could have.

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

The following sources aim to back or exemplify the following claim: Israel has lower casualties because of the anti-missile system Iron Dome.

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

IDF press release:

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

I would like to thank anyone who dedicates time to read this. Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Entirely original research, with a solid helping of low quality sources. This article is not going to parrot IDF talking points. You can keep asking, but the answer is going to continue to be no.  nableezy  - 02:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not original research. The sources directly support the information that I've added. Even if the current Wikipedia article just states facts about numbers, the policies and actions of the IDF and Hamas, both prominent figures in this "crisis" or "war" or whatever, are important and relevant information that cannot be disregarded. It's quite relevant to describe the context of the actions, and not just state numbers (especially when one side has many more casualties), because that's irresponsible on Wikipedia editors' behalf and breaches the WP:NPOV policy. Not low-quality sources: I've mentioned the quality of the sources above. I've actually consulted Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list and based the added information on sources which are regarded as high quality. I took a lot of my free time to find high-quality sources, and adapted my text to the new text in the lead section (as it has changed in the meantime). I don't accept this blind criticism of yours, that's rude. If you still think this is original research, you should back your claim with constructive criticism. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The actors in all conflicts wish articles here showed them in a positive light. However, Our job here is to be neutral. Of 19 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than talking about how neutral this is (it isn't), I'm going to make a more structural critique. This is too much for the lead. The lead should outline content that is reflected by the article, and should be a broad overview of the topic at hand. This gets sidetracked into a discussion of Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties and Hamas's indiscriminate targeting(or lack thereof) which, while a possibly good addition to the article(only if included as an Israeli perspective, many Palestinians and their supporters have a wholly different view, and that needs to be respected), is not fit for the lead. Ideally the lead will not need citations as everything said within is detailed later within the article, if you really want this info in the article I recommend you draft a section for the article proper like "IDF Tactics" or something to that effect, rather than attempting to fit it into the lead. The lead as written uses very even handed language and speaks broadly to avoid ascribing motivations, which is ideal for what the lead is supposed to do, and adding this information into the lead complicates our job of maintaining neutrality dramatically. BSMRD (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder what is specifically not respecting npov in the proposal, except that it support Israel views? The fact that it support Israel views is exactly legitimate, and as you are well able to do, I am sure you will find criticsm. Censoring isn't part of npov.
 * why won't you talk about things that you find "possitive" about Israel military operations? Is npov based on negativity? Obviously the Israeli point of view should be presented. there is absolutely no argument for providing only palestinian point of view. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean that anything bad needs to be 'balanced' with an even amount of 'good'. The coverage in article needs to reflect coverage in RS. Whereas maybe work on NPOV can be done, lengthy regurgitation of IDF press office statements is not it, and does no justice for readers either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. NYT etc isn't idf press. 2. There is no mention of Israel's views, that's a big problem for Wikipedia, noone talked about using the IDF press.! --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposal almost doubles the length of the current paragraph, mostly sourced to attributed statements by the IDF. They are given in news sources, yes, but they are attributed statements of the IDF. AP, for example, has called some of the statements dubious. Further, some of the information is not verifiable, eg it claims Hamas uses civilians as human shields, sourced to our article on it, but our article says this is unproven. I don't have the time to fact check it all, sorry, but generally the lead cannot serve as either an IDF or Hamas mouthpiece; it does not need to be filled with attributed statements of the parties. Many of these are already in the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, while some users on the talk are being clearly over-zealous on the side of Israel, the article as it is does seem to be unfairly biased in favour of Gaza. In example it does not talk about Israeli casualties, much is missing or out of date, 15 citations are from the Guardian while only 5 are from the BBC, why is this the case when the Guardian is politically motivated (clearly) where as the BBC is neutral as matter of policy. Why also are there 11 New York Times citations, and only 3 from the Wall Street Journal (again, the former is politically biased, the later is not.)

Lastly, and most strikingly, it does not make note of the US statement of 'Israel has a right to defend itself' in the Diplomacy section, and makes multiples notes of the other kind of statement from other nations.

Why is this the case? --Ester9001 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 you should do more edit request and ask maybe involve other people than the squad on here. :-) --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Add mortars and 2 deaths
Please add "rockets and mortars"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/amp/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox +"2 foreign civilians". They died under the bombings of Hamas. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-foreign-workers-confirmed-dead-in-mortar-attack-medics/

Thailand nationals https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/rocket-barrage-renews-after-night-of-quiet-idf-continues-striking-hamas-668391

--Rectangular dome (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead figures
As far as I can remember, 3 of the 4 the lead figures listed for Gaza are abroad, whereabouts unknown, i.e.,Saleh al-Arouri, Ziyad al-Nakhalah and Abd Al Aziz Awda. Ismail Haniyeh is formally obliged by Hamas rules to live abroad, but certainly is directly involved. Is there any evidence the other three have a role in directing events from such places as Damascus and Qatar? All decisions on military actions of this type are decided by a joint action committee consisting of Hamas, PIJ and other factional operatives/head commanders in the Strip. In any case, we need documentation for them on this, otherwise the infobox would be based on inference and hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Ministry of Health is run by the Hamas government"
I cannot see any citations for the claim. I don't think it should be there. It should be removed or reliable sources shall be added because this can be controversial and might be self-claim. CyberTroopers (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the term "run" is appropriate in that statement. "Control" as written in both sources you provided would be much appropriates because they both have different meaning. Meriam Webster defines "control" as an "exercise restraining or directing influence over" meanwhile "run" is "to go without restraint". If the ministry is run by Hamas, the ministry itself is a Hamas (citation needed). CyberTroopers (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Thanks WarKosign. It was in the source when I wrote it. If that has been disappeared by anyone of the numerous editors here, suffioe it to retrieve the original edit form. By the way, there is absolutely nothing controversial about the statement. Hamas is the political party running all aspects of the administration in the Gaza Strip and has done so for 15 years. Any of a dozen scholarly studies on its administration will tell you that (see the Hamas page.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Minister of Health of the Gaza Strip redirects to Ministry of Health, Palestine and there is a bit of explanation there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Israeli soldier injury from mortar fire, while assisting in transfer of aid at Gaza crossing
https://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-hurt-by-mortar-fire-while-assisting-in-transfer-of-aid-at-gaza-crossing/

I feel like this is a significant enough story to add to the wiki, especially since no descript is gone into in the casualties section for Israeli casualties.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2)
Add Palestine to the infobox on Hamas's side. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Its already present in the infobox Run n Fly (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (3)
Change "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 people in Israel have so far died in the conflict." to "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 Israelis have so far died in the conflict." 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think they were 12 Israelis? For example, one was an Indian. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * They were not 12 Israelis. They were 9 Israelis, 2 Thais and 1 Indian. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per replies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Breaking out the separate parts into their own articles
It appears that we are breaking out casualties in the info box instead of considering them as separate military actions/civil unrest. For example, the Israel-Gaza conflict has become a separate, though related, operation. According to the IDF, the operations are known as Operations Guardian of the Walls. Per prior Gaza wars, they operations by Israeli forces have their own pages (See Operation Cast Lead or Operation Hot Winter for the two 2008 conflicts). The article itself makes zero mention to "Guardian of the Walls" and the Israeli military operations, despite this designation giving a redirect to this article.

The unrest in the West Bank and Israeli-Arab clashes in Israel have a much different dynamic and can be considered more as "Civil Unrest" than part of the larger conflict with Hamas. The riots have different belligerents: protesters/rioters from both sides, Israeli border patrol/police, and some lone-wolf militant attacks. They are currently lumped together as a single set of belligerents when they are not necessarily allied (think Fatah vs Hamas) or even approaching the conflict with the same tactics as Hamas, PIJ or even Hezbollah.

I am proposing that we create separate articles to separate these two facets of the conflict/unrest in the scope of the wider conflict rather than continuing to lump them together in the infobox under "parties to the civil conflict" and then taking the time (and effort) to separate them in the "casualties" section. This will also help streamline the updates to the body of the article, so we can easily understand the two sides of this operation.ItsGrrreat (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times already even though it's only just over as week since this kicked off. Those separate articles have been created and then redirected here, where there is an ongoing RM that probably ought to be resolved in the first instance. At least for now, editors seem content to keep all the events, which are to some extent connected, together in one place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem, but by having the civil unrest and the conflict in one article it almost validates the initialisation of conflict as response to the civil unrest. Ofcourse the unrest has became much worse during the conflict, and they are obviously inter-related. I do think efforts should be made by the editors to idstinguishe these two elements in the article, to the effort of having an individual section for civil unrest, rather than lumping it all into the 'escalation' section. Which does, in my opinion, seem to legitimise the idea that the conflict was justly instigated by the police incident in Jerusalem and the unrest which has happened in the past week. Efforts should be made to separate coverage of state-state conflict and coverage of unrest in Israel. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Tons of sources connect the two events. It's hard to dispute that Hamas fired rockets in response to the clashes on the Temple Mount; it does not necessarily mean that this response was justified or warranted. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, as I said "The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem".
 * Many in Israeli feel like Gaza use rocket barrages as a means of socio-political protest. Iran has commented in the last few days as saying "Palestine has a good unique way of dealing with Israel" (he since said in a statement he regretted this speech). The point is that one must be careful to separate the issues in terms of articulation to the reader of the wiki, in that the actions of Hamas and social unrest are not conjoined in any legally acceptable manner.
 * In example, a Palestine terrorist in Israel, is not a terrorist with association to Hamas, he is an independent (as far as is known) terrorist. Unless evidence shew otherwise.
 * The only legally acceptable form of protest, is protest which is not in any way in association with Hamas or instigating violence, which is a crime and
 * not a protest but a riot. 
 * Ester9001 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5)
Change "Personnel killed

to "Personnel killed:
 * Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
 * Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"

Basically just add a colon because we are introducing a list. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
 * Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"
 * Yes check.svg Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (6)
It is not Jews against Palestinians. That is extremely offensive. It is Israelis against Palestinians. Jews are people of the Jewish religion and have nothing to do with the conflict. What your doing is inciting hate against Jews. Why not say Jews against Muslims. Or Israelis against Muslims. Because that is equally wrong. Please correct this to Israelis against Palestinians. 86.10.34.111 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I second! The fact that is says, on the first paragraph of the wiki article,
 * acts of mob violence between the Jews and Palestinians
 * is utterly absurb. Possibly anti-Semitic. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * NYT "The violence was the culmination of building tensions between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem and elsewhere over the past couple weeks." Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It then should be 'tensions between Jews and Muslims' or ideally not refer to religion at all.
 * I do not care that it was in the New York Times, that is meaningless! You will find many other sources talking about the same event which do not use such language.
 * Please may an editor change it, otherwise I will file a dispute resolution for it. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite easy to find reliable sources phrasing the events in this way, unless there is a good reason we usually go by reliable sources. Even if one were to resort to the euphemism "intercommunal conflict" I am pretty sure it would be fooling no-one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest using any euphemism, in the first para of the wiki it says: "between the Jews and Palestinians", this is anti-semitic, at the bare min it should be "between Jews and Palestinians".
 * This is outrageous. Change it some editor please.
 * --Ester9001 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Between Jewish and Palestinian-Arab Israelis.' perhaps. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there Palestinians that are not Israeli in East Jerusalem? Residents without citizenship? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has altered it anyway but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may get reverted back (I did change it to "between Jews and Palestinians" earlier but got reverted.).Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

+2 Israeli injured, soldiers. +3 Palestinian dead, armed demonstrators.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-soldiers-shot-in-west-bank-palestinian-killed-by-gunfire-amid-unrest/

Two issues with the infobox
The Infobox lists Roni Alsheikh in the commanders section on the Israeli side. Alsheikh was the Israel Police Commissioner, but that position is now held by Kobi Shabtai. I'm unaware of any command position he holds now, to the best of my knowledge he's retired. Can someone check up on this? Also, in the casualties section, in Israeli casualties, it notes two Israeli-Arab casualties alongside the foreign workers. While we should mention the foreign workers to make clear that they were not Israeli, should we really be categorizing citizens of the same country by ethnicity in the Infobox? That's something for further down in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, there shouldn't be a breakdown by ethnicity. The two Arab-Israelis should be mentioned in the main body of the article, but not the infobox. Someone also raised this issue elsewhere on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice about a new WikiProject Proposal - This article would be a main
Hey editors of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. I recently proposed an idea for a WikiProject for 2021. This crisis (Or conflict depending on the move discussion) started in 2021, and the proposed WikiProject is dedicated to 2021 articles, so this article would be main article for the new WikiProject, especially with over 100,000 views every day this week. So I thought I would drop by and let you know about the proposal. Feel free to drop your opinions here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (7)
In the last paragraph of the subsection entitled "Arab communities in Israel" of the "Escalation" section, I kindly ask that the link to the page 'Cellcom' be edited to direct the viewer to 'Cellcom,' as the current link is not specific to Israel and directs the viewer to more than one page. Ajs2004 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 21:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Avoid bold??
Editors are making a meal out of avoid bold for the opening sentence. Although I agree that a strictly descriptive name probably ought not to be bolded, it does seem that this is being used as an excuse to rephrase and make other adjustments to the lead sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)