This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018–2019 Gaza border protests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2018–2019 Gaza border protests at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving 2018–2019 Gaza border protests was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 April 2018. |
A news item involving 2018–2019 Gaza border protests was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 May 2018. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Great March of Return. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The 223 reported killed by the human rights organization surreptitiously matches the number injured Hamas themselves reported, who themselves are unreliable. The article should be updated to estimate the actual number of casualties in neutral language from neutral sources.
https://apnews.com/article/62065d10794d4469a02c4b9d095174eb
Combuchan ( talk) 12:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There is one more IDF soldier killed, see also: /info/en/?search=Killing_of_Barel_Hadaria_Shmueli 2A00:A040:19F:93EE:187C:F513:AAB3:48DA ( talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the casualties section, it says "killedd;" rather than killed. I wanted to fix this mistake. Rednazfirewolf ( talk) 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 7 November 2023. The result of the move review was closure endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. As estar8806 rightly said, the two policies are cannot be applied here. Perhaps, another request can be opened in the next few months. Best, ( closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans ( talk) 11:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
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 [1], [2]. 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)
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)
|
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.
@ W1tchkr4ft 00: This is the interview referenced; as you can see, it was on Al Jazeera Arabic, and translated by MEMRI TV. Further, MEMRI isn't an unreliable source; see WP:RSP, where it is classified as "no consensus" - the same level as other sources used in this article like Mondoweiss. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we not change the title to 'The (Great) March of Return' because that's..... you know... what literally everybody in the world knows it as..
Current seems like a bizarre choice, to call it by it's common names at least makes it instantly identifiable to most, as opposed to '2018-2019 gaza boarder protests', which does not exactly 'roll of the tongue' so to speak. SP00KY talk 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
In the “Palestinian tactics” section, the following is included:
“In an interview with NPR, one young Palestinian preparing to launch an incendiary kite emblazoned with a swastika explained that they used the symbolism and embraced antisemitism and Nazism so that the Israeli's would know "that we want to burn them".”
When I checked the source, it was a Business Insider article (not NPR) which cites an NPR article, but when I clicked that link to the NPR article, this anecdote is nowhere in it. Therefore the above part should be removed.
I don’t have authority to edit so if someone can do so that would be helpful. 98.14.224.109 ( talk) 22:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
we don’t mention the killing of the 15 year old child that the UN Special Coordinator for the peace process condemned.Yes, we do; 2018–2019 Gaza border protests#20 April
It is
requested that an edit be made to the
extended-confirmed-protected article at
2018–2019 Gaza border protests. (
·
history ·
last ·
links ·
protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any
extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
This entire excerpt at the end of the 5th paragraph might be false or made up (it is missing a citation so it's hard to tell) :
"In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of the 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analyzed, only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces. The commission deemed the rest of the cases illegal, and concluded with a recommendation calling on Israel to examine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity had been committed, and if so, to bring those responsible to trial. "
I looked at the UN reports and the press releases, and none of them mention anything regarding "489" cases, or the 2 justified ones. Here are the reports from the UN : https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-iopt/report2018-opt Here are the direct PDFs to the 2 reports : 1. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoIOPT/A_HRC_40_74.pdf 2. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf
I tried googling the 489 number that I saw, and the 2 justified killing number but I couldn't find anything. All of the mentions of the 489 number cite Wikipedia as the source of the claim. I suggest you guys look into this one. Thanks! Borlock ( talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that
2018–2019 Gaza border protests be
renamed and moved to
Great March of Return. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – In this requested move discussion, I am adding even more RS to the overwhelming majority that have already been provided in the last one on 12 October 2023.
Per WP:POVNAME guideline:
“ | 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, including overwhelming majority of RS!
Sources provided earlier: 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 [13], [14].
New sources since then: Vice, The Lancet , The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Sage Journals, Middle East Eye, Reporters Without Borders, Carnegie, Democracy Now, Btselem, Dawn media.
More sources since beginning of discussion: Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post.
Precedent: Only a minority of these RS say Great March of Return in quotes; my response to that counter argument is The Troubles example: they are still being referred to in quotes even 25 years later by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Also Kristallnacht [15]. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Only a minority of these RS [saying] Great March of Return in quotes. Can you link the ones you believe are using the phrase in their own voice?
For it to meet WP:POVNAME it does - see Use-mention distinction. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)As mentioned, RS don't have to use the phrase in their own voice to be counted as a WP:COMMONNAME
as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sourcesBilledMammal ( talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
significant majority of English-language sourcesdo not use those names - discussions on those articles talk pages suggest they do. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
significant majority of English-language sources, and use is even lower in a general sample of reliable sources on this topic. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
called the March of Return,
named The Great March of Return, and
dubbed the Great March of Return- most of your sources are mentions, not uses. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.) is that Amnesty International is safe to use for hard facts – for instance, the number of casualties in a conflict or the details of a certain event. But we should be more careful about adopting its precise wording (as in this case with the name of this protest). Tserton ( talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
not in their own voice or by biased sources, because I see this supposition as plainly in violation of the evidence before the jury. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."Frankly, it's an aberration that it is even considered tentatively GREL with attribution and caution. But more broadly, if the ADL is the best source you have something, you don't have a good source for that something at all. The last thing the ADL should ever be is a standalone go-to source. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
—*Update: New sources on almost a daily basis since this discussion has been reopened; Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post! Some editors are clearly continuing to oppose this move without basing any of their argument on WP guidelines; or providing conflicting sources. Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vice: “another project: weekly Great March of Return protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
The Nation: “organized the unarmed Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Foreign Affairs: “dubbed the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
BBC: “known as the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Middle East Eye: “began the Great March of Return protest movement” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Al Jazeera: “mass protests dubbed the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
The Guardian: "echoes the “Great March of Return” protests" | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Human Rights Watch: “amid the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Amnesty International: “launched the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Médecins Sans Frontières: “injured in the Great March of Return protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
United Nations: “became known as The Great March of Return (GMR)” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Reporters Without Borders: “while they were covering the March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Carnegie: “during the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Democracy Now: “covering Gaza’s peaceful Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Btselem: “Investigations of the Great March of Return Protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Dawn Media: “known as the Great March of Return.” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Forensic Architecture: “known as the Great March of Return.” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Stanford published book: “known as the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bloomsbury published book: “Great March of Return began on” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Science Direct: “injured during the Great March of Return (GMR)” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Sage Journal: “the case of Gaza’s Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
NIH published journal: “The Great March of Return, a mass resistance movement” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
The Lancet: “patients after the Great March of Return demonstrations” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
BMC Psychology journal: “2023 the Great March of Return demonstrations” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Journal of Palestine Studies: “The Great March of Return: An Organizer's Perspective” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Jewish Virtual Library: “The Great March of Return” | ? uses the common name as the topic name | ? Unknown | ||
Jerusalem Post: “the 6th anniversary of the March of Return riots.” | ? uses the name in its own voice; albeit with a POV; “riots” | ? Unknown | ||
March of Return: “March of Return” | ? uses the common name as the topic name | ? Unknown | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs “the organizers of the March of Return announced” | uses the name in its own voice | ✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Summary: 20 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return in its own voice; 10 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return as the common name; 2 Israeli sources uses the common name as the topic name; and eventually and most importantly the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself uses the name in its own voice! The evidence is overwhelming and the WP:COMMONNAME guideline is fulfilled. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The source-assess template was designed for establishing notability of a subject during deletion debates, where the existence of even a few reliable sources with significant coverage is enough to establish notability. I'm not trying to dismiss the work you've clearly put into it, and I appreciate that you're trying to root this discussion in sources, but the approach isn't well suited for establishing a common name, since it's easy to find instances from most of these sources supporting the exact opposite. I've gathered examples from the first nine solidly reliable sources from your list here. (Skipping the governmental websites and human rights organizations, which, let's be honest, are probably going to find it difficult to be neutral on a topic like this – although a couple that I cursorily checked did have some articles not using "March of Return"). My table doesn't prove that "2018 March of Return" isn't a common name – I'm just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of digging up individual sources and then claiming a "preponderance" of sources. -- Tserton ( talk) 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
the name proposed here isn't widely enough used to override POV concernsfallacious. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Tserton
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vice | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
The Nation | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Foreign Affairs | Uses "March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
BBC | Uses "March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Middle East Eye | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Al-Jazeera | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
The Guardian | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Reporters Without Borders | Mentions "Great March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Carnegie Endowment | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018–2019 Gaza border protests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2018–2019 Gaza border protests at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving 2018–2019 Gaza border protests was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 April 2018. |
A news item involving 2018–2019 Gaza border protests was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 May 2018. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Great March of Return. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The 223 reported killed by the human rights organization surreptitiously matches the number injured Hamas themselves reported, who themselves are unreliable. The article should be updated to estimate the actual number of casualties in neutral language from neutral sources.
https://apnews.com/article/62065d10794d4469a02c4b9d095174eb
Combuchan ( talk) 12:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There is one more IDF soldier killed, see also: /info/en/?search=Killing_of_Barel_Hadaria_Shmueli 2A00:A040:19F:93EE:187C:F513:AAB3:48DA ( talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the casualties section, it says "killedd;" rather than killed. I wanted to fix this mistake. Rednazfirewolf ( talk) 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 7 November 2023. The result of the move review was closure endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. As estar8806 rightly said, the two policies are cannot be applied here. Perhaps, another request can be opened in the next few months. Best, ( closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans ( talk) 11:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
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 [1], [2]. 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)
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)
|
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.
@ W1tchkr4ft 00: This is the interview referenced; as you can see, it was on Al Jazeera Arabic, and translated by MEMRI TV. Further, MEMRI isn't an unreliable source; see WP:RSP, where it is classified as "no consensus" - the same level as other sources used in this article like Mondoweiss. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we not change the title to 'The (Great) March of Return' because that's..... you know... what literally everybody in the world knows it as..
Current seems like a bizarre choice, to call it by it's common names at least makes it instantly identifiable to most, as opposed to '2018-2019 gaza boarder protests', which does not exactly 'roll of the tongue' so to speak. SP00KY talk 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
In the “Palestinian tactics” section, the following is included:
“In an interview with NPR, one young Palestinian preparing to launch an incendiary kite emblazoned with a swastika explained that they used the symbolism and embraced antisemitism and Nazism so that the Israeli's would know "that we want to burn them".”
When I checked the source, it was a Business Insider article (not NPR) which cites an NPR article, but when I clicked that link to the NPR article, this anecdote is nowhere in it. Therefore the above part should be removed.
I don’t have authority to edit so if someone can do so that would be helpful. 98.14.224.109 ( talk) 22:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
we don’t mention the killing of the 15 year old child that the UN Special Coordinator for the peace process condemned.Yes, we do; 2018–2019 Gaza border protests#20 April
It is
requested that an edit be made to the
extended-confirmed-protected article at
2018–2019 Gaza border protests. (
·
history ·
last ·
links ·
protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any
extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
This entire excerpt at the end of the 5th paragraph might be false or made up (it is missing a citation so it's hard to tell) :
"In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of the 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analyzed, only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces. The commission deemed the rest of the cases illegal, and concluded with a recommendation calling on Israel to examine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity had been committed, and if so, to bring those responsible to trial. "
I looked at the UN reports and the press releases, and none of them mention anything regarding "489" cases, or the 2 justified ones. Here are the reports from the UN : https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-iopt/report2018-opt Here are the direct PDFs to the 2 reports : 1. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoIOPT/A_HRC_40_74.pdf 2. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf
I tried googling the 489 number that I saw, and the 2 justified killing number but I couldn't find anything. All of the mentions of the 489 number cite Wikipedia as the source of the claim. I suggest you guys look into this one. Thanks! Borlock ( talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that
2018–2019 Gaza border protests be
renamed and moved to
Great March of Return. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – In this requested move discussion, I am adding even more RS to the overwhelming majority that have already been provided in the last one on 12 October 2023.
Per WP:POVNAME guideline:
“ | 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, including overwhelming majority of RS!
Sources provided earlier: 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 [13], [14].
New sources since then: Vice, The Lancet , The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Sage Journals, Middle East Eye, Reporters Without Borders, Carnegie, Democracy Now, Btselem, Dawn media.
More sources since beginning of discussion: Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post.
Precedent: Only a minority of these RS say Great March of Return in quotes; my response to that counter argument is The Troubles example: they are still being referred to in quotes even 25 years later by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Also Kristallnacht [15]. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Only a minority of these RS [saying] Great March of Return in quotes. Can you link the ones you believe are using the phrase in their own voice?
For it to meet WP:POVNAME it does - see Use-mention distinction. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)As mentioned, RS don't have to use the phrase in their own voice to be counted as a WP:COMMONNAME
as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sourcesBilledMammal ( talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
significant majority of English-language sourcesdo not use those names - discussions on those articles talk pages suggest they do. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
significant majority of English-language sources, and use is even lower in a general sample of reliable sources on this topic. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
called the March of Return,
named The Great March of Return, and
dubbed the Great March of Return- most of your sources are mentions, not uses. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.) is that Amnesty International is safe to use for hard facts – for instance, the number of casualties in a conflict or the details of a certain event. But we should be more careful about adopting its precise wording (as in this case with the name of this protest). Tserton ( talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
not in their own voice or by biased sources, because I see this supposition as plainly in violation of the evidence before the jury. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."Frankly, it's an aberration that it is even considered tentatively GREL with attribution and caution. But more broadly, if the ADL is the best source you have something, you don't have a good source for that something at all. The last thing the ADL should ever be is a standalone go-to source. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
—*Update: New sources on almost a daily basis since this discussion has been reopened; Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post! Some editors are clearly continuing to oppose this move without basing any of their argument on WP guidelines; or providing conflicting sources. Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vice: “another project: weekly Great March of Return protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
The Nation: “organized the unarmed Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Foreign Affairs: “dubbed the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
BBC: “known as the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Middle East Eye: “began the Great March of Return protest movement” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Al Jazeera: “mass protests dubbed the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
The Guardian: "echoes the “Great March of Return” protests" | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Human Rights Watch: “amid the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Amnesty International: “launched the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Médecins Sans Frontières: “injured in the Great March of Return protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
United Nations: “became known as The Great March of Return (GMR)” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Reporters Without Borders: “while they were covering the March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Carnegie: “during the Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Democracy Now: “covering Gaza’s peaceful Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Btselem: “Investigations of the Great March of Return Protests” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Dawn Media: “known as the Great March of Return.” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Forensic Architecture: “known as the Great March of Return.” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
Stanford published book: “known as the Great March of Return” | uses the common name | ✔ Yes | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bloomsbury published book: “Great March of Return began on” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Science Direct: “injured during the Great March of Return (GMR)” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Sage Journal: “the case of Gaza’s Great March of Return” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
NIH published journal: “The Great March of Return, a mass resistance movement” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
The Lancet: “patients after the Great March of Return demonstrations” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
BMC Psychology journal: “2023 the Great March of Return demonstrations” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Journal of Palestine Studies: “The Great March of Return: An Organizer's Perspective” | uses the name in its own voice | ✔ Yes | ||
Jewish Virtual Library: “The Great March of Return” | ? uses the common name as the topic name | ? Unknown | ||
Jerusalem Post: “the 6th anniversary of the March of Return riots.” | ? uses the name in its own voice; albeit with a POV; “riots” | ? Unknown | ||
March of Return: “March of Return” | ? uses the common name as the topic name | ? Unknown | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Makeandtoss
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs “the organizers of the March of Return announced” | uses the name in its own voice | ✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
Summary: 20 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return in its own voice; 10 high quality RS uses the Great March of Return as the common name; 2 Israeli sources uses the common name as the topic name; and eventually and most importantly the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself uses the name in its own voice! The evidence is overwhelming and the WP:COMMONNAME guideline is fulfilled. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The source-assess template was designed for establishing notability of a subject during deletion debates, where the existence of even a few reliable sources with significant coverage is enough to establish notability. I'm not trying to dismiss the work you've clearly put into it, and I appreciate that you're trying to root this discussion in sources, but the approach isn't well suited for establishing a common name, since it's easy to find instances from most of these sources supporting the exact opposite. I've gathered examples from the first nine solidly reliable sources from your list here. (Skipping the governmental websites and human rights organizations, which, let's be honest, are probably going to find it difficult to be neutral on a topic like this – although a couple that I cursorily checked did have some articles not using "March of Return"). My table doesn't prove that "2018 March of Return" isn't a common name – I'm just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of digging up individual sources and then claiming a "preponderance" of sources. -- Tserton ( talk) 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
the name proposed here isn't widely enough used to override POV concernsfallacious. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Tserton
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vice | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
The Nation | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Foreign Affairs | Uses "March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
BBC | Uses "March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Middle East Eye | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Al-Jazeera | Does not mention "March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
The Guardian | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Reporters Without Borders | Mentions "Great March of Return" only in quotes | not applicable | ✘ No | |
Carnegie Endowment | Does not mention "Great March of Return" | not applicable | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |