Talk:2011 Israeli border demonstrations

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Palestine C‑class

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Israel C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

A news item involving 2011 Israeli border demonstrations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 June 2011.

Wikipedia

Sources

NAKSA Day Snippet

Hi everyone, I am a bit troubled about the following statement in the paragraph describing the incident on June 5, "News coverage of the incident clearly shows the Israeli troops being attacked." The reason that it bothers me is that this is not cited and I cannot discern whether this is the viewpoint of the contributing editor or of officials within Israel. Can this be cited/clarified? Thanks!FWest2 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the statement with the "citation needed" tag because if is obviously important and the editor who inserted it failed to provide any citations, and because it seems to contradict at least some of the media sources cited in the section. Mimson (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also not (yet?) verified: "On 5 June 2011, following the killing of 125 Syrian protester by the Syrian police, Palestinian and Syrian rioters were ordered by Syrian officials to try and breach the Golan Heights border with Israel. The article the phrase is linked to doesn't say anything about "orders".JerseyCommie (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC) And is reformsyria.org, i.e. the Reform Party of Syria, a valid source for the last paragraph? I'd like some independent confirmation here.JerseyCommie (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused of the flamewar between introducing and not introducing the original Naksa Day article in the June 5th article. I am for introducing the article in the beginning of the 5th june article, but it's dumb to include and than remove the link again and again.--Mardas90 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that's just vandalism, the link should be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all at border

Not all of the demonstrations were at the border. The Lebanese ones (on June 5) were far from the border. Many Palestinians also protested in the West Bank at checkpoints, and it is contentious to call that the "border".

We should move towards a title that's something like "2011 Palestinian protests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheatsing (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting suggestion but would make the scope of the article much larger. Some of the wider protest is discussed at 2011 Nakba Day and Naksa Day. Do we want to enlargethe scope of this article? Or create an overview article on protests in 2011 around the isse of Palestine?Tiamut^talk 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should. At the end of the day, these protests are deeply tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Wheatsing (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of title and scope of article

I don't think "demonstrations" is appropriate. The word "demonstration" implies a peaceful expression of one's viewpoint. Crossing a border without a visa, (probably) in hopes of provoking a forcible response, goes beyond this. It's not neutral to call this sort of incident (aimed at provoking violence) a "demonstration".

But I could be wrong: maybe the whole point is that "refugees" are merely returning to "their" homeland, and the point of the article should be that while in "peaceful" pursuit of their rights, these "innocent" people were cruelly slaughtered by violent "occupiers".

If there is thus a dispute over which side is peaceful, maybe the best thing is not to takes sides in this dispute: i.e., call these border crossings and related occurrences "incidents".

So I'd like the admin who undid my page move to move it back. Especially because he's not an uninvolved admin but is editing a lot. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. If you want to move the page, you should open a section to discuss that and follow the procedure outlined at WP:RM. Your move should have editor consensus. A suggestion for an alternate name has also been made above. It needs to be discussed as well before decisions are taken. Tiamut^talk 20:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Protests" would be the best term. This is usually a broad term and has been applied to most other 'protests' during the Arab Spring.Wheatsing (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the article where it is. It's not worth distracting everyone from writing it, just to wrangle over renaming it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration does not necessarily mean non-violent/peaceful. You're applying a specific meaning to a general term. One need look no further than Wiki's own bit on demonstration. Or, if you prefer, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstration. IN no place can I find it defined solely as a peaceful gathering, nor do I see any reason to believe that this is the common assumption of the word such that it provokes a POV in using it. It's a fairly general word, not implying peaceful or violent.204.65.34.101 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on second thought, you may be right. Demonstration (military) is a kind of show of force - many military exercises are intended less to sharpen one's skills than to make a point to one's enemies. Although Demonstration (people) "normally consists of walking in a mass march formation and either beginning with or meeting at a designated endpoint, or rally, to hear speakers." --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings

I'm also concerned with the reasons that any security forces shot or killed "demonstrators" (one side's word for them). Did any of them cross a border (disputed or otherwise)?

In other words, were they shot because they were protesting (doing what in the USA would be called "exercising their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly"), or because they were deemed "infiltrators" or "illegal aliens" or maybe just "rioters"?

Did anyone warn them (this is another Western concept of justice), as in, "Don't climb that fence / cross that line, or we've been ordered to shoot you"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given none of them actually succeeded in crossing the border I don't think that really applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr, the article said the Israelis dug a trench and told the protesters in Arabic (with megaphones) not to cross the trench. Protesters who crossed were resisted with tear gas and when that didn't work, shot in the feet. I highly doubt this trench was on the Syrian side. Hence presumably they did cross. Benwing (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wasn't the trench on the far side of the border fence? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)~~ (Should learn to read) The sources I read said they didn't succeed in crossing the border. Its perfectly possible that the trench was in "neutral" territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well please try crossing the EU and/or Schengen space border (on foot/ground -- arriving on boats doesn't apply) anywhere illegally and see what happens. Let's imagine a mob of Belarussian marxists insisting on crossing into Poland. Dead-brainer. Of course they'd be stopped. Obviously Belorussians are not marxists, don't wanna cross into Poland etc.

Non-violence and stone throwing

Since when is throwing stones considered non-violent? My (admittedly spotty) knowledge of Middle East history and customs tells me that it's a common (if not primary) way of executing a criminal who has violated a moral code (see Stoning). Is there any sense, say a judicial one (or in international law), where throwing a (big enough) stone at someone is considered a deadly assault? (Oh, we don't have an article on deadly assault.) I mean, is there a general sense that stone throwing justifies self-defense, perhaps with lethal force? I started a Use of force article a long time ago, but I having checked it for updates recently.

Palestinians from a burgeoning new youth movement convened seminars on strategies for non-violent resistance to prepare for a May 15 march on the Qalandia checkpoint separating Ramallah from Jerusalem, and ... 100 Palestinian protesters engaged in a standoff with Israeli forces over the next seven hours, throwing stones, as Israeli troops fired tear gas and rubber bullets

Are the ones who threw stones the same ones who attended the non-violent resistance seminars? Is rock-throwing considered non-violent? If so, whose POV is that? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article cited. It really helps if you do that before adding fact tags or asking questions that can be answered therein. Tiamut^talk 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One side has guns one side has stones, while it is dishonest to call the side with stones entirely non-violent, using guns against stone throwers is totally disproportional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, and may I say, I appreciate your contributions to the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this considered major enough news to go on the front page?

This hardly made the front page on NYT or many other newspapers, so why is it on the front page of Wikipedia? It looks strongly to me like certain pro-P editors are trying very hard to draw attention to a fairly minor event that (according to the newspapers) was staged by Syria in an attempt to distract attention from its very bloody crackdown on its own citizens. Given that evidently the Palestinians themselves are trying to make a major issue of this, I think it's a serious neutrality violation for pro-P editors to try to trump this up by adding it to the WP front page.Benwing (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did make the front page and the 6 o'clock news in several other non-Arabic parts of the world, even in western countries. (I also note that "hardly made the front page" is still an acknowledgement that it did make the front page.) I was rather surprised that it made the cut at all for some of those, not because it was not relevant (especially in the context of an "Arab spring" also originally organised through Facebook), but because some of those sources generally try to avoid any stories whatsoever about Israeli border or disputed region enforcement action. To give an idea of what I mean, those same sources have reported only one other story about Israeli border clashes in the entire past year - the boat incident. - Tenebris 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.109 (talk)

Actually, "hardly made the front page" is not an acknowledgement at all, it was meant as "wasn't even close to making the front page". At least, it didn't make the front page anywhere I looked. Keep in mind that many sources, Palestinians too, think that this was a sham protest organized by the Assad government (hence the article I mention directly below about 14 Palestinians killed when some mourners protested being made pawns of Assad).

Here are a couple of other things reported in the NYT from the same part of the world that you'd think would be at least as significant:

14 people killed in an intra-Palestinian fight at a refugee camp in Syria [1]
Up to 120 people killed in a major violent conflict in a Syrian border town [2]

Granted, neither of these involve Israelis, so they don't fit an "Israel is the source of all evil in the Middle East" narrative. But both of them are front-page news on the NYT right now, and yet neither is considered "important" by whoever decides what to put on the WP front page. BTW from an objective standpoint, the second one is far, far more important than any of these Palestinian incidents because it's a major development in what is shaping up to be a civil war in Syria, while both of the others are mere side incidents to this same civil war. Well over 1,000 people have been killed by the Assad govt in the last few months; why didn't this make the front page?

On top of that, Israel says (see the first NYT article I quote) that at least 10 protesters at the border incident were killed by their own firebombs -- why isn't this mentioned in this article?

Benwing (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is covered on Wikipedia's front page is because it was considered worthy of posting at WP:ITNC, maybe we don't always pick stuff brilliantly, and maybe we are a little slow sometimes, but that's the judgement that was made.

It was certainly on the front page of the BBC.

With regards to the Arab Spring it has been extensively covered on the front page, while maybe not every incident has been covered there has been substantial coverage of it as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to canvass too much the 120 people dead has actually been nominated - see Wikipedia:ITNC#Jisr_ash-Shugur_massacre. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab spring?

This article should not be part of the Arab spring although it occurs during this time. The article is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TP69 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, "Isareli" needs correcting. 12.19.144.98 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Bility (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly were events involving Syrian-based demonstrators?

I see references to the demonstrations being on the Israeli border. Were they unequivocally so? Or were they on the border between the Syrian-controlled and the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights i.e. away from the internaitonally recognised Israeli borders?Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist-controlled Golan; illegal, unjust, unethical and definitely not recognized by anyone except Zionist-influenced USA. Nutmegger (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]