This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
November 2018 Gaza鈥揑srael clashes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab鈥揑sraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Khan Younis clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "slained" to slain. WoofersSCW ( talk) 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss it here. I have no preference whatsoever but frequent page moves back and forth becomes distracting. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
诪讬谞讜讝讬讙 ( talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Shalom:
I am the the Wikipedian who translated this article to the Chinese Wikipedia. Currently, the article says that in the initial clash in Khan Yunis, 7 Palestinians were killed. And according to the "Subsequent exchanges of fire" section, 3 Palestinians were killed on 11/12, and another 3 on 11/13. So it seems that in total, the number of Casualties on the Palestinian side is 13. However, in the infobox (and the source cited), the number is 11. It would be great if someone could fix this inconsistence. Thank you very much! -- Wikimycota锛 talk锛 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz:, I see that you have deleted large swathes of content from the page citing the "UNDUE" policy. My question is why? Citing the lead of the policy, it says "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I do not think the content, primarily authored by me, violated that policy. If you think that some viewpoint is not fairly represented why not add that viewpoint to the article? The article is only 30kb long, tiny by Wikipedia standards, so there is ample room to add much more information to it. ImTheIP ( talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
In one of the Jerusalem Post articles, the soldier is identified as a 41 year old Druze father of two. A blurred picture of him has even been tweeted by an Israeli MK. He also has a Facebook page so it is trivial to verify that the name provided is correct. In addition to the blog post, he has also been identified here [2]. I haven't sifted through the policy you cite in detail, but isn't it reasonable to publish his name given the "overwhelming evidence?" It's not like Wikipedia is bound by the will of the Israeli military censor.
Should we act similarly regarding the names of the deceased Palestinians? I suggest not, because the names makes it easier to keep track of what happened and when. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Israeli injury figure includes those treated for shock, panic and other non-physical wounds. But "injury" is only for physical trauma so the figure is not correct. Any ideas on how to handle the inconsistency? Because it is an apples to oranges comparison. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"More than 800 people are now known to have suffered physical and psychological injuries after the Manchester bombing, police have said."(bold mine). I'm giving Manchester as an example as it was really the extreme spectrum here (including not just hospitalized immediately afterwards (e.g. the 112 hospitalized there included a fair share of psych injuries), but people police tallied (increasing over time - e.g. the BBC source with the 800 is a year after the event!) from other sources over time). Note we have such inconsistencies on fatalities elsewhere - e.g. Hurricane Maria (64 killed during the event, but there are estimates (currently used by us) of indirect death based on excess mortality (e.g. due to lack of electricity, poorer health services, etc.) following the event). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The media's figures are all over the place. killing one man and injuring close to 100 others, at least 108 people wounded, One civilian killed by Gaza rockets, Some 70 said injured (but then 53 cited from MGA), killing one person, injuring dozens, wounding 27 people, including three severely, killing one and wounding at least 20 others, Twenty Israelis have been wounded in the latest bloodshed ImTheIP ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Al-andalusi, can you please clarify why you think the section violated the UNDUE policy? Afaik, the UNDUE policy is for situations in which multiple viewpoints are involved but that is not the case here. The media coverage around the soldier is extensive (eg he might be granted a medal posthumously https://www.jns.org/idf-officer-who-died-in-gaza-may-receive-armys-top-medal/) so details surrounding him are notable. Sadly, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers are routine. But Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinians only happens once every for years. Therefore the latter garners much more media coverage than the former. ImTheIP ( talk) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that part is speculative and should be removed unless we can find more substantial reporting. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
While the fragile cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is in effect, the violence apparently continues. https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-riot-along-gaza-border-idf-responds-with-tear-gas-live-fire/ Given the broad scope of the article title, this content should be included in it. But perhaps it is better to limit the article to only the covert op and the related clashes as todays clashes seem unrelated? If so, what would be an apt title for the article? ImTheIP ( talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hamas has published photos of the "wanted" Israeli operatives and their vehicles used. [4] They are easy to find on the internet, but controversial since they are censored in Israel, which of course makes them extra notable. Should we use them to illustrate the article? [a] ImTheIP ( talk) 10:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Random todo list of stuff that should be improved (Note: my plan is to update this todo-list)
ImTheIP ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
How on earth can it be a "transient trivial detail" that every single article the Israeli media writes about this event has to be pre-approved by a military censor?! ImTheIP ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
"At the time of writing". You can source from TOI that what they were saying was correct specifically when they wrote it - but you need to spell that out in the text. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on what a proper name for this article would be now that it seems like the conflict is over. Hamas has actually coined a quite fancy name for the conflict, but as of yet there is no English translation of it yet. It is of course doubtful that it will stick in Western media. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This page is ostensibly about a botched covert operation and firefight, so not sure if "clashes" really sums up the material appropriately. Incursion, operation, etc. all seem more appropriate.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
07:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref聽group=lower-alpha>
tags聽or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template聽or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
November 2018 Gaza鈥揑srael clashes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab鈥揑sraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Khan Younis clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "slained" to slain. WoofersSCW ( talk) 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss it here. I have no preference whatsoever but frequent page moves back and forth becomes distracting. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
诪讬谞讜讝讬讙 ( talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Shalom:
I am the the Wikipedian who translated this article to the Chinese Wikipedia. Currently, the article says that in the initial clash in Khan Yunis, 7 Palestinians were killed. And according to the "Subsequent exchanges of fire" section, 3 Palestinians were killed on 11/12, and another 3 on 11/13. So it seems that in total, the number of Casualties on the Palestinian side is 13. However, in the infobox (and the source cited), the number is 11. It would be great if someone could fix this inconsistence. Thank you very much! -- Wikimycota锛 talk锛 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz:, I see that you have deleted large swathes of content from the page citing the "UNDUE" policy. My question is why? Citing the lead of the policy, it says "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I do not think the content, primarily authored by me, violated that policy. If you think that some viewpoint is not fairly represented why not add that viewpoint to the article? The article is only 30kb long, tiny by Wikipedia standards, so there is ample room to add much more information to it. ImTheIP ( talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
In one of the Jerusalem Post articles, the soldier is identified as a 41 year old Druze father of two. A blurred picture of him has even been tweeted by an Israeli MK. He also has a Facebook page so it is trivial to verify that the name provided is correct. In addition to the blog post, he has also been identified here [2]. I haven't sifted through the policy you cite in detail, but isn't it reasonable to publish his name given the "overwhelming evidence?" It's not like Wikipedia is bound by the will of the Israeli military censor.
Should we act similarly regarding the names of the deceased Palestinians? I suggest not, because the names makes it easier to keep track of what happened and when. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Israeli injury figure includes those treated for shock, panic and other non-physical wounds. But "injury" is only for physical trauma so the figure is not correct. Any ideas on how to handle the inconsistency? Because it is an apples to oranges comparison. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"More than 800 people are now known to have suffered physical and psychological injuries after the Manchester bombing, police have said."(bold mine). I'm giving Manchester as an example as it was really the extreme spectrum here (including not just hospitalized immediately afterwards (e.g. the 112 hospitalized there included a fair share of psych injuries), but people police tallied (increasing over time - e.g. the BBC source with the 800 is a year after the event!) from other sources over time). Note we have such inconsistencies on fatalities elsewhere - e.g. Hurricane Maria (64 killed during the event, but there are estimates (currently used by us) of indirect death based on excess mortality (e.g. due to lack of electricity, poorer health services, etc.) following the event). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The media's figures are all over the place. killing one man and injuring close to 100 others, at least 108 people wounded, One civilian killed by Gaza rockets, Some 70 said injured (but then 53 cited from MGA), killing one person, injuring dozens, wounding 27 people, including three severely, killing one and wounding at least 20 others, Twenty Israelis have been wounded in the latest bloodshed ImTheIP ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Al-andalusi, can you please clarify why you think the section violated the UNDUE policy? Afaik, the UNDUE policy is for situations in which multiple viewpoints are involved but that is not the case here. The media coverage around the soldier is extensive (eg he might be granted a medal posthumously https://www.jns.org/idf-officer-who-died-in-gaza-may-receive-armys-top-medal/) so details surrounding him are notable. Sadly, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers are routine. But Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinians only happens once every for years. Therefore the latter garners much more media coverage than the former. ImTheIP ( talk) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that part is speculative and should be removed unless we can find more substantial reporting. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
While the fragile cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is in effect, the violence apparently continues. https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-riot-along-gaza-border-idf-responds-with-tear-gas-live-fire/ Given the broad scope of the article title, this content should be included in it. But perhaps it is better to limit the article to only the covert op and the related clashes as todays clashes seem unrelated? If so, what would be an apt title for the article? ImTheIP ( talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hamas has published photos of the "wanted" Israeli operatives and their vehicles used. [4] They are easy to find on the internet, but controversial since they are censored in Israel, which of course makes them extra notable. Should we use them to illustrate the article? [a] ImTheIP ( talk) 10:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Random todo list of stuff that should be improved (Note: my plan is to update this todo-list)
ImTheIP ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
How on earth can it be a "transient trivial detail" that every single article the Israeli media writes about this event has to be pre-approved by a military censor?! ImTheIP ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
"At the time of writing". You can source from TOI that what they were saying was correct specifically when they wrote it - but you need to spell that out in the text. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on what a proper name for this article would be now that it seems like the conflict is over. Hamas has actually coined a quite fancy name for the conflict, but as of yet there is no English translation of it yet. It is of course doubtful that it will stick in Western media. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This page is ostensibly about a botched covert operation and firefight, so not sure if "clashes" really sums up the material appropriately. Incursion, operation, etc. all seem more appropriate.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
07:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref聽group=lower-alpha>
tags聽or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template聽or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).