Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parham wiki (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 5 November 2023 (→‎Requested move 12 October 2023). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ideas for further work

Background section is really long and to detailed. I think some of it could be cut out, like "In January 2018, it was reported that 97% of the territory's tap water was undrinkable" or summarized in some way. Most of the stuff from the timeline should be moved to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2018, except for the demonstrations on Fridays because they were significantly larger than other weekdays. More information is needed on the flotilla demonstrations which appear to have been held once per week on Mondays. A lot of information about Ahmed Abu Ratima and the original organization of the protests are missing. Like, how did he start it? Also the article needs an External links section, imo. Then the references has to be checked because I have moved paragraphs around so it is possible they have been confused. ImTheIP (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for " United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission" in the preamble before the contents: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=24226&LangID=E or the report that it refers to. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed-Protected edit request on 01 January 2020

Casualties and Losses listed in info box appear inaccurate.

As this article pertains to a variety of activities which occur at the same time as the Great March of Return it should have the following edit:

Add the 391 injuries from scooter accidents reported between January and September of 2019 ( https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Electric-scooter-injuries-soared-on-Israels-roads-in-2019-608113 ). It should also include the 58 Israelis injured in defensive responses in the 2nd week of November 2019 ( https://www.jweekly.com/2019/11/14/34-palestinians-killed-58-israelis-injured-in-rocket-attacks-this-week/ ), 3 injured in defensive responses in the first week of May 2019 ( https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-seriously-injured-1-moderately-in-rocket-attack-on-ashkelon-factory/ ), 7 injured in defensive responses in the final week of March 2019 ( https://www.gaza48.com/2019/03/25/7-israelis-injured-in-rocket-attack-on-house-north-of-tel-avivin-response-to-the-bombing-of-sites-of-resistance-in-gaza/ ), 6 injured in defensive responses in the last week of May 2019 ( https://ajn.timesofisrael.com/israelis-injured-in-rocket-attack-from-gaza/ ). Importantly it should include the fact that 349 Israelis were killed in traffic accidents in 2019 ( https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/273848 )

The column for what presumably represents Israel in the info box should read: 470 injured, 349 or 350 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorniva (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is clearly a joke, albeit not a funny one. Road traffic accidents have nothing to do with the conflict. Île flottante (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do an easy infobox edit for me please

Hi, I do't have 500 edits yet and don't really know how to work with infoboxes, but the casualties section at the bottom of the infobox seems to be improperly/lazily formatted as it doesn't specify which side suffered which casualties, SOMEONE PLEASE FIX Gromte (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gromte: To this effect, I did find it weird that casualties of 'two sides' are stated without specification of the 'sides' to the civil conflict. I have re-added the belligerents, or 'sides', to the civil conflict that were removed in this edit by Nishidani. Although this isn't a war, it is a civil conflict between Gazans and Israeli government. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede change

I just excised a paragraph from the lede that was added by Enthusiast01 in 2019. [1] The violent/non-violent nature of the protests are already elaborated on in the third paragraph. No need to dupliate it. ImTheIP (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead too long

The lead exceeds the recommended length for article leads by two paragraphs. Nishidani, you criticized my attempt to cut down the lead as removing "duly researched" content. That content should also be in the body of the article, so I am not by any stretch "removing" it from the article. I am removing it from the "lead" because the lead must serve as a concise summary of what is already in the article body. If it isn't, that's another sign that the lead isn't properly written. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also made what the sources say were largely peaceful protests in to something else by first emphasizing violence and then downplaying the non-violent marches to many other protestors where the sources say the vast majority. This game of making drastic POV changes to the leads of articles without apparently even reviewing the articles or sources is getting old. nableezy - 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What occurred was stricken with violence, "mostly peaceful" is not what the body of sources say. See NYT. They might describe a single day or instance as "mostly peaceful" but most of the attention is paid to the violence that took place. Removing or re-writing the portions that gloss over that is not a "game" or "drastic POV." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me again how you arent editing with a POV slant that disregards the sources. Just havent had a good fiction book to read in a while. nableezy - 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a)When one removes large amounts of properly sourced material from any section of an article, one should not excise, and leave it to others to restore here or there. One should roll up one's sleeves and relocate the material oneself. Excision is fraught with possibilities of POV suppression of disliked facts.
(b) As to 'stricken with violence', whose violence are you referring to. The lead can be simplified by giving the data for the first week, and then the final summing up of how many people were shot dead by soldiers sniping at a comfortable distance behind a wirefence and an embankment. Those details are available here,Israeli security forces killed 290 Palestinians in 2018; most were victims of a reckless open-fire policy B'tselem 17 January 2019

In 2018 (during the Great March, Nishidani) As a result of this open-fire policy, 190 demonstrators have been killed – 65% of all Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this year. These include a woman and 34 minors, three of whom were 11-years-old and one 4-year-old.Most of them were unarmed and posed no danger to anyone.

Always rely on the good ol' New York Times to think shooting fish in a barrel is negligible compared to the frantic swimming of the violent targets. B'tselem's summary data for 2018 can substitute for the excess material, if we include also the data for those wounded/crippled by the same relentless sniping, the figure runs into thousands by year's end.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite.Wikieditor, might I suggest you broaden your reading material you will not get a very good overview of things if you only read the Gray Lady, particularly in the IP area.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Hello,

The final line in the intro to this article presents a claim without a citation:

After searching for the citation, I found this UNHCR report: https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/A.HRC_.40.CPR_.2.pdf

I could not find reference in the report to the claim of 489 injuries with 2 legal uses of forces. Nonetheless, on pages 104-107, it is mentioned that of the 183 total fatalities, the overwhelming majority were civilians, and while 29 fatalities had former or current military affiliation, there is no evidence that these individuals were attending in any military capacity or in any contradiction to the stated aims of the protests as peaceful (please see point 410 on p. 107 for this latter claim).

The report is an official UNHCR report, so I see no reason for this not to be updated accordingly.

Thank you Spellchecker1776 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: MOS:LEADCITE - verified in the section "Investigations". Elli (talk | contribs) 04:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Israeli Casusalties

There is one more IDF soldier killed, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Barel_Hadaria_Shmueli 2A00:A040:19F:93EE:187C:F513:AAB3:48DA (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category: invasions of Israel

Does this really count as an invasion? There was certainly violence, but I'm not sure it counts as an invasion. The protests took place on the Palestinian side of the border, and most of the violence from within Israel came from isolated terrorist incidents. I'm wondering what other editors think of the category's placement. Painting17 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that abuse, which consists in confusing the modern state of Israel, est.1948, with historic Palestine. I have also removed the Cat from two oither articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

In the casualties section, it says "killedd;" rather than killed. I wanted to fix this mistake. Rednazfirewolf (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2023


2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – This has been discussed already in 2018 but I want to reopen the discussion as I believe the current naming goes against Wikipedia guidelines.

WP:POVNAME: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use."

Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results! Great March of Return name is used by overwhelming majority of reliable sources including The Guardian, BBC, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, a human rights journal, United Nations, and many scholarly works [2], [3]. The guidelines are clear and the evidence is overwhelming and this should not be a controversial move. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous closure

The result of the move request was:Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close elaboration: After a discussion on my talk, I felt a little more elaboration was due here. First off, WP:COMMONNAME was given as a rationale for the move, but was countered by the point that sources use quotation marks around "Great March of Return", which a couple editors felt was indicative that said sources were attempting to distance themselves from usage of the name as an actual term referring to the events. As COMMONNAME no longer applies in that case, WP:POVNAME also no longer applies.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]
Am I right in saying that these protests continued after 2019? Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, does it matter? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either but if the title is not changed then the current title implies they were only 2018-2019. I am pretty sure I have read about them recurring on and off, I will take a look around, see what I can find. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, even if the current title is inaccurate, the Great March of Return title is still overwhelmingly used by reliable sources, which aligns with Wikipedia naming policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There is a clear WP:COMMONNAME here, and yes, WP:POVNAME is a thing that is permittable when there is a clear common name and no obvious contenders. Here the title being used is an WP:NCE that has extremely limited recognizability, whereas the Great March of Return is extremely widely used to refer to these events by organizations of all types. You can also add UNRWA to the ranks of organizations using this common term. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe that the Great March of Return is a colloquialism were far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. The colloquialism was coined by Hamas to spark support for the protests. No Israeli source called it the Great March of Return and international sources always attributed the Hamas' name to Hamas. Israeli sources would call the demonstrations "border protests" or "border riots." Furthermore, there was no "returning" of Palestinians that came from the border protests. The "march" was parallel to the border, not across it. In conclusion, the Great March of Return is a partisan name that does not accurately describe the events and was attributed in reliable sources to the partisans that coined the partisan name. Closetside (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the UN report calls the events "protests in the occupied Palestinian territory," not the Great March of Return. (Source 1 in article)
[1]
Furthermore, Al Jazeera, a pro-Hamas source, calls the events "protests" and places the "Great March of Return" in quotes, distancing themselves from the Hamas name. [2]
Reuters does something similar. The protesters are called border protesters. "The Great March of Return" is in quotes, which distances Reuters from the name. [3]
These are just a few examples of how reliable sources distance themselves form the partisan name. Wikipedia should follow the trend and call these events "border protests" and not its partisan name, the "Great March of Return." Closetside (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples don't seem to reflect the usage within sources. See Reuters/Haaretz, The Guardian (in quotes, but references no other name), the BBC, the NYTimes, the Associated Press (in quotes, but references no other name), the Washington Post (2), the Lancet, the Times of Israel (in quotes, but references no other name), and Public Radio International. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Source 5 in article
  2. ^ Source 1 in article
  3. ^ Source 3 in article
All of what you just argued doesn't contradict the above-cited Wikipedia guideline "...generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To cite an example against the quotes argument, more than 25 years after The Troubles, they are still being referred to in quotes by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Wikipedia should follow what majority of English reliable sources have used to refer to them, as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:POVNAMING. We have a perfectly suitable descriptive title that makes the content of the article clear to readers; lets use it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani's comment at Talk:2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun#Requested move 8 December 2019 is relevant here, I believe: I don't mind which way this goes, as long as the decision has general force for all articles. I.e. state a principle of NPOV naming and stick to it everywhere. A vote against 'Great March of Return' in short, should lead to a name change on all these articles on exactly the same grounds. A confirmation that IDF brand names for their offensives are okay automatically should require that editors approve of the same with articles using a Palestinian definition.
    The decision there was to not use "brand names" for Israeli articles; we shouldn't use them for Palestinian articles either. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    False equivalency. This is not the name used by Hamas exclusively, this has been the name used by the majority of reliable sources, and this is what is important to Wikipedia guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Closetside: March of Return seems to be far more colloquial than Encyclopedic. While I would support it being mentioned as a name that it is referred to by many (as it currently is on the article), it should not be made the official title of the article beyond a redirect. EytanMelech (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So does Occupy Wall Street and The Troubles sound "more colloquial than encyclopedic". The Wikipedia guideline cited above is clear: the criteria deciding what an article is called is dependent on what the majority of reliable sources have said; and the reliable sources as demonstrated above have overwhelmingly referred to it as the Great March of Return. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am persuaded by the commonname argument that in this instance, the sheer volume of citations raise it above a mere aka.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarding the close from the previous discussion, Makeandtoss makes a great point that names like "The Troubles" are still put in quotes by major news agencies, even when overwhelmingly the common name. But adding onto that, "Great March of Return" appears to be the name used by the vast majority of academic sources on this subject (See this article from the Royal Geographical Society with the IBG, in the BMJ, Health and Human Rights, the Middle East journal, etc. - see also Google scholar results: 78 hits vs 714 hits). Most importantly, these protests are not widely known by any other name. The Jewish Virtual Library, the Times of Israel [4] and the Jerusalem Post also all refer to the collective protests as the "Great March of Return". ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's a very strong reason why the name shouldn't be changed. You're suggesting a name used by Hamas. It violates WP:NPOV. Please refer to a name that upholds neutrality in Wikipedia. Better use a non partisan name which is the current one used. 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAME: "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Definitely not an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME; a google search for "2018–2019 Gaza border protests" returns plenty of (in fact, mostly) results that don't mention a March of Return, or do so only to mention that's what organizers were calling it. Even many academic articles refer to it primarily by the years. I would guess that Google scholar results might appear to skew differently only because there's not one clear, fixed format - e.g., I'm seeing "The 2018-19 Gaza Fence clashes," "The Israeli − Palestinian Conflict in the Gaza Strip 2018 − 19," "mass demonstrations in the Gaza Strip in 2018 and 2019", etc. --Tserton (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first 20 results when searching "2018–2019 Gaza border protests" in an incognito window:
    6 did not mention the March of Return.
    10 mentioned the March of Return in the Title
    4 mentioned the March of Return on the first page, 3 of those in the first paragraph.
    Of the 14 results that mentioned the March of Return, 8 did not use quotations.
    The 6 that used quotations either did so without explanation (as one might to indicate a title) or said "referred to as" or "dubbed" without indicating who was calling the protests "The March of Return" (none of them indicated that it was the organizers specifically using that language).
    I'm not sure why your results would be so different. Perhaps google was serving you preferential results based on your search history or location. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The comparison to "Occupy Wall Street" pointed out by Makeandtoss seems particularly apt here. As stated in the article, the protests were initially organized by independent activists. They first used the hashtag "Great Return March" in early January as described in the New York Times [5]. This article is cited and the grassroots nature of the protests are referenced in multiple additional sources [6][7][8][9]
Hamas used the "Great Return March" language when referring to the protests. So did countless contemporaneous sources including the BBC, NPR, CNN, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The LA Times, Amnesty International as well as those geared towards a Jewish/Israeli audience such as The Times of Israel, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish News Syndicate, Jewish Voice for Peace, and yNet. Even reports from multiple Israeli universities and institutions used the "Great Return March" language [10], [11], [12], [13].
Some of the above sources use quotations and some do not. Either way it seems pretty clear the "Great Return March" language is, and always has been, the widely accepted WP:COMMONNAME. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another comparison worth noting is the page for the Revolution of Dignity. The talk page for that article faced a similar debate and ultimately appear to have decided that common name takes precedence over NPOV. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests&oldid=1183606865"