Jump to content

Talk:2011 Israeli border demonstrations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Inappropriate content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Untitled

Turkey

Syrian refugees fled to Turkey - they were welcomed with open arms. Syrian refugees fled to Golan - they were shot by evil Jews. Should the article reflect this difference in approaches by the civilized and the barbaric countries? Nutmegger (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coupons

Does anyone wish to include information from the story which report that coupons were the source of this bloody struggle? Multiple sources reported that the Syrians who died each had a coupon book on their person and Israeli troops decided to take what is rightfully not theirs (this isnt the first time, but we're getting close to the 1,000th time, there's likely going to be a celebration then). Obviously international law means nothing to the Israelis, this goes without say and honestly did we expect anything else from Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.221.149 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Israeli troops killed the Syrians to harvest their organs for Shavuot. This is a proven fact. Nutmegger (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Detailed info on events from Human Rights Watch reports, includes interviews with eyewitnesses:

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?Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they'd be stopped, but they'd be stopped in a way that didn't involve shooting them. You don't hear stories about how the US army shot 20 mexicans to stop them crossing their border. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican immigrants don't throw stones at you, lob rockets across the border, blow up buses, or actively encourage genocide by demanding that the United States be driven into the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcvngf (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiamuttalk 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]
Eraserhead1, if you had a choice between getting your skull crushed with a stone or shooting a person who is about to crush your skull with a stone and thus preventing your skull from getting crushed, which option would you choose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcvngf (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what he would choose. This page is for discussing how to improve the article based on the content of WP:Reliable sources. It is not for arguing about how to police borders or what individual contributors think is or is not justified.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:00, 11 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]

I concur. The presence of this piece on Wikipedia's News violates NPOV. It's certainly less notable than other similar events inside Syria (mentioned above) which do not involve Jews and there is this suspicion that it was chosen specifically because it involves Jews. Not Israelis... Jews. We should have none of this, the piece should be removed from the front page. It is clearly less notable than Assam's massacres and I find it TOO difficult to assume good faith regarding the decision of this piece's inclussion in the News section. Omulurimaru (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So update the articles to the required standard and nominate the events for posting on WP:ITNC. Content which isn't nominated and updated cannot be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I believe that the boat incident I mentioned earlier -- from just over a year ago -- was the last time any Israeli military border action made the ITN front page of Wikipedia. Equally as I mentioned earlier, extremely few Israeli military actions are mentioned at all. This particular one happens to have the historical context of the Arab Spring (which it would still have, even if the claims of background organisation and payoff are confirmed) -- and I did not notice anyone objecting to all those other articles about the Arab Spring on the basis that they were posted specifically because they involved Arabs. Yet every single time that any mention of an Israeli military action is made, it is immediately met with claims of bad faith in an anti-Semetic context, such as the one above. It almost seems to me that to mention any Israeli military action whatsoever on ITN would be met with such claims ... but would not such a reaction itself be NPOV? - Tenebris 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The two mentioned in this article were both posted, before that it seems reasonable that the last thing posted was the boat storming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 9 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]

I've answered this below in the section "Part of the Arab spring?" Tiamuttalk 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

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 internationally 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]
    • if using a term such as "line of control" or some other clarification would make it clearer please add it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Nutmegger, this talk page is meant for discussion on improving the article. If you want to post nonsensical anti-Semitic gibberish, I suggest you join Stormfront or Metapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcvngf (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please bear WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in mind. Not every anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic and it should not be implied that editors are the latter unless there is strong evidence.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is bullshit, Cohen. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Do you even know what Zionism is? Zionism is the belief and movement that Jews have the right to return to their historical homeland. If another people were kicked from their land by Romans, of course all these Europeans would be silent if they decided enough is enough, no more persecution by Christians, let's return to our home. But no, these are Jews. Jews don't have a right to return to their home and form a nation of their own. If Jews return to their homeland, they are imperialists and colonialists. Never mind that the Palestinian Arabs conquered the region as part of the Muslim conquests and are thus imperialists themselves! Since Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to return to their homeland, opposition to it means opposition to Jews returning to their historical homeland and is by definition anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerzud (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the subject at hand, where the protestors were, the HRW report [3] states : "Witnesses said that the soldiers, who were firing from behind a fence, shot many protesters who were trying to cross a ditch filled with barbed wire, around 100 or more meters away from the soldiers; in addition, two witnesses said that some Israeli troops crossed over to the Syrian side of the fence and shot at protesters from another location several hundred meters away." It also says: "The AP quoted a 29-year-old man who had been "shot in the waist" as saying, "We were trying to cut the barbed wire when the Israeli soldiers began shooting directly at us." The AP reported that Capt. Barak Raz, an Israeli military spokesman, "confirmed that protesters made it through a first layer of the border fence ... but got no closer than 160 meters away from the final fence."

The first ditch with barbed wire that was breached was built after the events of May 15. (See this article in the Jerusalem Post: "IDF units have dug a barbed-wire-protected trench along the Golan Heights security fence at Majdal Shams, Israel Radio reported." (June 1) and in the New York Times "The Israeli military was not giving out details of its preparations, but television reports showed soldiers repairing fences and bulldozers digging trenches along the borders in the north." (June 4) and the Irish Times "This time the Israeli authorities were determined to stop any protesters getting across the border. The fence was reinforced, new ditches dug, barbed wire placed in position and new mines laid." (June 8) Tiamuttalk 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, "Israeli troops were fixing a coil of barbed wire that protesters had cut through on Sunday to enter a trench in a buffer zone that Israel had dug after an earlier round of border violence three weeks ago." (June 6). It seems that no protestors made it any further than this trench in the buffer zone. Tiamuttalk 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tiamut. A lot of the wording of the sources is rather slipshod. There has been one discussion going on in this page about whether the Israeli soldiers were under threat and your sources seem to suggest that they were not as there was plenty of barbed wire etc. My issue was with whether the border where this was happening on the pre-1967 Israeli border, as our aticle said when I raised the question, or whether it took place on the separation line that followed the '67 and '73 wars which Israel asserts is its border but no other state recognises. Some of the sources you linked refer to the Golan border with Syria and some to the Israeli border.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the Golan border with Syria. AFP refers to them as "armistice line protests". Sources referring to this as the "Israeli border" are using slipshod language or simply unaware that the Golan is Israeli-occupied territory. We should make that more clear in our article. Which the raises the issue of the article title. It is misleading to refer to these as "Israeli border demonstrations". Its also confusing (were Israelis protesting at their borders?). I think the suggestion to rename this article 2011 Palestinian protests (or consider perhaps 2011 Palestinian Spring [4]) is a good one. Tiamuttalk 19:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the arab spring?

Why is this event considered here part of the Arab spring"? I happened during the same period of time, but Israel isn't an Arab country, the demonstators aren't attempting to cause an Israeli revolution. It sould be cataloged as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not of an internal Arab conflict. DGtal (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources cited in the article discuss this event in the context of the Arab spring. Here's another, Palestinian activism energised by Arab Spring; it has a lot of information relevant to the organization and aims of these events that could be added to the article as well. Tiamuttalk 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, one should not paint the whole of the Arab world with a single brush. Most of the individual uprisings throughout the Arab world are part of ongoing issues within *their* own respective countries. "Arab Spring" is a media coinage that links all the current protests together -- and there is no question that inspiration spread like wildfire -- but to assume they all arose from the same roots would be misleading. Without going into in-depth discussion, consider only the extremely different outcomes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia; and consider the roles of existing populist organisations in each of those countries. - Tenebris 21:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Tenebris' comments are certainly true, but even if we use a wide generalization of "Arab Spring" = Anti current leadership - it leaves out the Israeli related activities stated in this article. You can also certainly not dismiss the connection offhand, but we should treat these events as part of the Impact of the Arab Spring - a list of non-arab countries around half the world somehow inspired or connected to the so called Arab spring. DGtal (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinians are not "non-Arabs". As noted here, "Aside from the backing of the various Palestinian political factions, the return to Palestine movement has drawn strength from the grassroots Pan-Arabism that has resurged as the Arab Spring spreads across the region." What's happenening in Spain isnot part of the Arab Spring, but what's happening in and around Palestine, most certainly is. Tiamuttalk 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. It is extremely likely that Palestinian Arabs are supported by Arabs of other areas that support the Arab Spring, and I wouldn't limit it to Pan-Arabism supporters as Jazeera did. Nevertheless, the Israel border demos, are not part of what we currently define in Arab Spring as "a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in the Arab world since 18 December 2010." for two reasons. It is not a "revolutionary wave" - I haven't heard calls to remove Netanyahu from office. Also, Israel is not considered part of the Arab world. I certainly agree the events are connected, inspired and maybe eevn triggered by the revolutionary wave, but they are not clearly part of the spring.
I also have an alternative idea. Assuming you agree it is also part of the Arab Israeli Conflict, we may possibly define the demos as simultaneously part of both events. for example Vietnam War is described as "Part of the Cold War and the Indochina Wars". DGtal (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about whether and how to include the A-I conflict. I see this source [5] quotes Ban Ki Moon as referring to the unsustainable status quo in the Arab-Israeli conflict in his statement on these events, but I'd like to see more sources before deciding how and where to include something on it.
About the Arab spring, Wikipedia's definition is not an RS. These events have been described by RS as "unprecedented" and as forming part of the Arab Spring. Morrocco, where there is no revolution, but there are protests, is covered by RS as forming part of the Arab Spring. Its better to stick to what sources say, than to make OR arguments based on Wiki definitions. No offense intended. Tiamuttalk 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

numbers killed and injured

The numbers killed is quoted as 31+ in the article, this is only accurate if official Syrian government sources are to be taken as reliable. Israeli sources dispute this figure. It would be helpful if someone can provide an independent source.

The numbers injured is quoted as 530+, but the cited source states dozens, not 530+. It is not clear why someone wrote 530+. Again, we need an independent source. --Halma10 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the infobox are totals from both the Nakba Day and Naksa Day events. An independent source, the UN Human Rights Commissioner Pillay, gives a total figure of 30 to 40 people killed [6]. For the injured, we might simply write "hundreds" sincethat is borne out by the sources cited in the article itself. Tiamuttalk 13:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the source on numbers of death. For the numbers injured, I don't think you can simply write "hundreds". The source simply says "large numbers of deaths and injuries".--Halma10 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using hundreds based on the sources cited in the article.
To review:

On May 15th:

  • Lebanon: "Eleven participants were killed and 100 injured by gunfire before the protesters retreated."[1]
  • Gaza: "IDF forces fired on the group intermittently over the course of a couple of hours with tanks, machine guns, gas canisters and sound bombs, killing one demonstrator and wounding more than 80."[2]
  • WB: "More than 80 protestors, including three paramedics, sustained injuries and twenty were hospitalized; a doctor at the hospital said the last time he saw so many casualties in one day was during the Second Intifada."[3]
  • Syria: Four demonstrators were killed and dozens injured.[4]

On June 5th:

  • WB: " Over the course of several hours, 120 were injured, mostly by tear gas, but also by rubber bullets, sound bombs, and a new stink spray being used for crowd control purposes."[5]
  • Syria: "According to Syrian officials, 23 people were killed and 350 people were injured by Israeli snipers as they attempted over the course of several hours to breach the barbed-wire border."[6]
The total without the injuries in the Golan, for which the only source is Syria, is 380+ (the plus being "dozens" in Syria on May 15th. When the 350 figure for injured given by the Syrian government for June 6th is added, the figure would be 730+. I think "hundreds" is good. Alternatively, we could give the lowball and highball figure as 380-730+. Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give both the lowball and the highball, that sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Should I add all the cites above in the infobox? Or is it being cited in the body enough? Tiamuttalk 15:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not fussed, you may as well give a couple of cites in the infobox but <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AJP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Israeli military's killing of Nakba protesters must be investigated
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference JQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Palestinians killed in 'Nakba' clashes. Al-Jazeera English. 15 May 2011.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Maan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Protests continue on the border at Golan, 23 killed yesterday by Israeli fire

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations

I've decided there was enough heat here to justify reporting this page to ANI.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzat Maswadi - Is is important enough?

"One of those killed, Ezzat Maswadi, was a Palestinian born in Jerusalem in 1977, who grew up in al-Eizariya. His family moved to Jordan in 1984, and then Syria, and when he and his mother tried to go back to Jerusalem to join his father years later, they were denied residency permits and had to return to Syria. When Maswadi heard people were going to march towards Israel on May 15, he decided to join and almost made it back to Jerusalem before being stopped at an Israeli checkpoint outside the city and sent back to Syria. One June 5, he tried again and this time was killed by Israeli fire. His father, who lives in al-Eizariya, could not procure a permit to travel to Damascus to attend his funeral."

Sad as it may be, this tale doesn't seem notable enough. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.137.235 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maswadi's participation in both demonstrations at the armistice line, and his being killed in the second one were important enough that his story was the subject of an article run by Agence France Presse days after the events, which was reprinted by hundreds of other news outlets. His story is more relevant and illustrative of who participated in this event than the claims of the Syrian Reform Party and its inclusion provides balance to their view which states that the protestors were paid agents of Bashar al-Assad. I don't mind abbrieviating the passage slightly but its WP:V and I think its meet WP:N while helping us to create a WP:NPOV article. Why the protestors demonstrated, in their own words, is certainly important and relevant.Tiamuttalk 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed article

One AlJazeera opinion article that is cited by this page has been removed by AlJazeera, possibly because of incorrect information. A search on Aljazeera confirms the existence of the article, but the URL is non-functional. The Wikipedia sentence:"According to Israeli officials, they counted 10 dead, none of whom were killed by Israeli fire.[37]" Link 37 is called "'Naksa' deaths spark Palestinian violence", and the link goes to http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/2011673373245769.html141.211.120.190 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in question

I'm adding a neutrality tag because there are a plethora of issues in question:

  • It is questionable and probably a POV assertion that these border incidents are a part of the Arab Spring. There's as much evidence that these incidents are in opposition to the Arab Spring, given evidence they occurred at the behest of the Assad regime.
  • The title of this article is questionable. Once notable are the border incidents -- not the demonstrations themselves.
  • There is little to no mention in the article of evidence that the Syrian regime orchestrated the border incidents in the Golan region.

These and other issues must be addressed. Dubious article in many respects. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive source-based discussion above on how these events constitute part of the arab spring. Please participate in that discussion and explain how the sources there are unreliable in their assessments.
There are also discussions regarding how this article should be titled.If you unsatisfied with the options being discussed, please open a new section to propose your preferred title and garner consensus for a change.
There is a whole paragraph expressing the POV that the syrian government orchestrated the events at the border. It says : "The Syrian Reform Party issued a statement accusing the Syrian regime of hiring Syrian protesters to storm the border to deflect attention from its own crackdown against the 2011 Syrian uprising. The statement claims that protesters were paid about 1000 dollars for protesting, with 10,000 being offered to their family if the protester was killed.[43] Also Syrian State TV reported 6 hours live from the incident, whilst not reporting on Syrian crackdowns at all.[44]" If you find thisparagraph to be insuffficient, please provide sources and or a sample paragraph for what you would like to see included.
I also noticed that you added "descendants of" before "Palestinian refugees" throughout the article [7]. This addition is not supported by the sources cited, and you are well aware that descendants of Palestinian refugees are considered refugees by UNRWA. This is POV language and should be removed. Furthermore, your deletion of the arab Spring cats is not supported by the discussion on the issue above where nobody has made a credible argument as to why we should ignore that multiple reliable sources characterize the protests in this way.
In sum, i will be reverting all of your changes, though I will be retaining the NPOV tag until the issue you raised about the Syrian government's involvement can be addressed. Tiamuttalk 07:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "activist" seems to violate the Neutral Point of View Guideline, as it usually implies a positive goal, which in this case is highly disputed. Anonymous 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Is this really still ongoing or it was only happening around Nakba and Naksa day? --93.136.247.114 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, neither does anyone else. There isn't any generally assumed close date for "the next round of border demonstrations", so my guess it's over. Assuming there will be demonstrations around september 2011, the expected UN vote, they will probably be bigger than these events, and require a seperate article. I suggest we change the status and revert it if necessary. DGtal (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree with that it is not ongoing.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
September mass uprisings? According to this article on antiwar.com. Sounds like marches on settlements to support statehood, but other articles may reveal plans to do border actions. If someone wants to research/add relevant material? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits, removing cited content.

Okay, I urge editors to read sources before citing them in the article.

Let's start with the intro.

the Syrian claim does not belong in the lead. The whole spat with Syria was very complicated while the current suggestion lead all those dead are at the fault of Israel. It doesn't make the lead incomplete by moving a one-sided viewpoint to a regulated status.

The shooting of the legs and tank edit were directly from the sources.

Israeli soldiers fired at the legs of protesters who managed to penetrate the LAF perimeter and reach the border fence. So it is not unsourced. It is almost verbatim.

The tank comment came from anonymous Palestinian sources - a Palestinian medic. And that claim comes from one source BBC.

Israeli troops opened fire with tanks and machine guns, injuring dozens, Palestinian medical officials said.

So, my edits should be restored. WikifanBe nice 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikifan,
I reverted your edit because you moved the Syrian claim from the lead to the section on May 15th [8] where it clearly does not belong. Furthermore, that claim is balanced by the Israeli claim that the figure is exaggerated, and without it, the lead does not mention the casualties of June. If you feel strongly that that claim should be removed, it should be replaced with another sources discussing casualties from both days. We could the UN official Navi Pillay who is cited in the infobox for the figure of 30-40 casualties total instead. But it should not be removed until a substitute can be agreed upon.
Your addition about the soldiers shooting at the legs of protestors is sourced to Jpost (thanks for clarifying that). Its a very close paraphrase, it gives predominance to the Israeli POV without attributing the statement and prejudices the balanced presentation of facts that follows that explains there were conflicting reports about happened. If you insist on including it, it should be rephrased, and we should mention the Lebanese perspective for balance. Also, you added 'Lebanese' before 'media' in the sentence that followed, even though the sources cited were BBC and Al Jazeera. Not an accurate label.
About the 'Palestinian medics' addition, I thought it was more than just the BBC that reported that and that the attribution was unnecessary. After reviewing the sources, it appears I was wrong. Accordingly, it can be reincluded, but should read 'said' rather than 'claim' which is a weasel word. Tiamuttalk 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it is appropriate to include claims by the Syrian authority in the lead. We could just as easily say, "According to Israeli authorities, most of the protesters were killed by Lebanese fire, and others died after they threw fire bombs at land mines that ignited and killed more. However, state-run Syrian media says the majority of those killed were by Israeli fire..."

A lot of the sources are from the day after the event before all the facts were known. It is now assumed Syria was carting off protesters to the border themselves to distract from their own crack-down. Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and claims that Israeli fired warning shots or shot at the legs of protesters must be mentioned somewhere. Or at least mention this is what IDF soldiers were ordered to do. Also, it should be mentioned how many soldiers were at the border verses the protesters they were facing:

DF officers admitted that they were not adequately prepared for the demonstration that developed along the border and that fewer than 60 soldiers were deployed near Majdal Shams when the trouble started, since intelligence assessments spoke of a larger demonstration near the Quneitra Crossing to the south.

link. I agree claim is a "weasel" word but it is kind of annoying to see the media accept anonymous claims - made by any party - without vetting or identifying the source of those statements. WikifanBe nice 23:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So no opposition? I plan on restoring some of these edits unless an editor can provide a reasonable reason not to. WikifanBe nice 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5 days and no response? I feel the sources are reliable enough to support my original edits. I will restore some of my edits as well as adding info from the sources above over the next few days. WikifanBe nice 10:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no current objections, I'm restoring the part regarding the Palestinian medical officials. But in line with Tiamut's suggestion, the word "said" is retained. Assassin3577 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

As you can see I made a few changes to the article, expanding some of the content from original sources and rephrasing a few sentences. I added the number of protesters (roughly) and cut this one down a bit because it is highly undue. Unless one wants to create an article about the kid's death a whole paragraph doesn't belong. WikifanBe nice 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Intafada

It should be stressed that what ever people may say, calls for the third intafada ARE violent. Given that the previous two intafadas were defined as a "period of intensified Palestinian-Israeli violence", the article is wrong to state "A page calling for a "Third Palestinian Intifada" to begin on 15 May was started on March 9, 2011, garnered more than 350,000 "likes" before being taken down by Facebook managers at the end of March after complaints from the Israeli government that the page encouraged violence", because this only implies that it may have been interpreted as being violent, rather than actually being a page that incited violence. I and many thousands of people in a counter facebook page acted to remove the page from facebook because it incited violence and posed a credible threat of violence. I am changing the wording on the page myself, and putting this page on my watch list, please reply here if you think my wording is not balanced. Colt .55 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? I haven't read that Facebook's TOS. If this facebook group did in fact call promote violence and there is a reliable source that exists attributing Facebook's decision to remove the group as a result then feel free to merge in the content. It's not smart to "change wording" because you as an editor feel it isn't a fair representation of the event. We can only go by what the sources tell us. WikifanBe nice 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"border"

The title, and the body, makes a rather important factual error, in that it defines the boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian territories and the boundary between the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights and the rest of Syria as the "borders of Israel". Israel does not have a border with any country besides Egypt and Jordan, and as far as I know there were no protests on either of those borders. I havent figured out what to use in place of border, Im currently thinking boundary would be better, but the word "border" is inaccurate. Especially for the case of the Golan, as the boundary that people were attempting to cross is a ceasefire line that is entirely in Syria. nableezy - 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel boundary demonstration? Sounds a tad bit awkward. WikifanBe nice 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I said I havent figured out what to use. nableezy - 19:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested earlier that we consider rename to 2011 Palestinian protests. Now that an article has been created there, might we propose a merge of this article to there? Tiamuttalk 18:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm not fine with it because protests are held weekly in the West Bank. Title needs to be more precise. When Palestinian protest in September, what then? September 2011 Palestinian protests? That article needs be filed at AFD. Content from that article (any actual content) should be merged here although it appears to be entirely original research/synth. I think borders is the best compromise - even if it is 100% legally accurate. Sources describe Palestinians of breaching Israel's "borders." WikifanBe nice 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you managed to find a couple of sources that refers to the ceasefire line in Golan as "border" then that is unfortunate, higher quality sources, including UN and international community views shows that the ceasefire line in the Golan is not in any way "Israels border", so current name can not stay. "2011 Nakba and Naksa days demonstrations" is more accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that the U.S position was that Israel has the right to defend its "sovereign borders" from Syrian protestors in the Golan Heights. This is inaccurate, as the U.S does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and this claim is not supported by the source that is cited. --152.23.200.58 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true per nableezys arguments above that the current title is false and misleading and a clear violation of npov. The biggest part of the demonstrations happened near Majdal Shams near the ceasefire line, to claim that this is "Israels border" is claiming that the Israeli occupied portion of Golan is Israel. So therefore I want to move the article to an accurate name and neutral name, which is: "2011 Nakba and Naksa days demonstrations". Those two days were also what the demonstrations were about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources using this "accurate name and neutral name"? The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nakba day demonstrations" [9], "Nakba day protests" [10], "Nakba Day demonstrations" [11], "Nakba Day protests " [12], "Naksa Day protest" [13], "Naksa Day demonstrations" [14].
Furthermore the fact that you registered your account only two days ago and seeing your edits where you are reverting back to Brewcrewers edits at Pariah state, following Sean Hoyland to March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, and me to this article, it doesn't take much to realize that you are an old returning user who are not allowed to be here. Therefore whatever you say here or anywhere else it will have no value or validity.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot spoilers move of article

Plot spoiler, the issue has already been discussed above, so why did you move the article back to its previous name? It is clear from the discussion that "2011 Israeli border demonstrations" is a false and misleading name that violates npov, I also suggested "2011 Nakba and Naksa days demonstrations" and no objections came.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also furthermore:[15] Here in the edit you label as "restore before POV pushing move w/out attendant talk page discussion" where you remove that protesters went to the Israeli occupied portion of the Golan heights and replaced it with "Borders of Israel". Could you please explain how my edits are undiscussed or "POV pushing" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously no consensus for such a move. You should know you're conduct is unsupported despite the lack of objections to your informal suggestion to move the page. And these clearly are the functional borders of Israel, whether or not they are recognized internationally. Start a formal process to move the page if you'd like but thus far your conduct has not followed proper Wikipedia guidelines. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How come? After I suggested the name not a single argument or objection has been made against it. I don't go after your edits reverting every edit you make and demand that you gain support from numerous editors at the talkpage before making the changes, if you want to do an edit to an article that no one objects to, then there is no reason for you not to make it. Well thats your personal pov. You are fully aware of that claiming that these are Israels borders are not internationally recognized and that it implys that the Golan heights are part of Israel. Could you please tell me where on Wikipedia there is consensus to present the GH as part of Israel? or how that would be in accordance with Wikipedia policy npov? Why do you object to the name "2011 Nakba and Naksa days demonstrations" How is this not a better and neutral name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such things ussualy should gain consensus.I don't see any consensus for the move.Anyhow current title is neutral and used by many sources.So I oppose any change of title--Shrike (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you see any consensus? What valid argument has been presented against the move? How is "2011 Israeli border demonstrations" neutral? If you managed to find a couple of sources that refers to the ceasefire line in Golan as "border" then how does this change the fact that, higher quality sources, including UN and international community views shows that the ceasefire line in the Golan is not in any way "Israels border" ? Saying that it is "Israels border" is basically saying that Golan is Israel. I showed several sources above that uses Naksa/Nakba protests/demonstrations:[16]. So why should we cherry pick sources following the inaccurate pov following the views of one country and then disregard other sources that don't do that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources describe it as protest on Israeli border they use such wording in the headline .Here is a few. [17],[18],[19] and etc. anyhow if you want to initiate discussion about name change you of course may do so.--Shrike (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have not replied to my previous arguments:
1: How is "2011 Israeli border demonstrations" "neutral"? when its is saying that Golan is Israel? You said it was "neutral"
2: If you managed to find a couple of sources that refers to the ceasefire line in Golan as "border" then how does this change the fact that, higher quality sources, including UN and international community views shows that the ceasefire line in the Golan is not in any way "Israels border" ? Saying that it is "Israels border" is basically saying that Golan is Israel.
3: I showed several sources above that uses Naksa/Nakba protests/demonstrations:[20]. So why should we cherry pick sources following the inaccurate pov following the views of one country and then disregard other sources that don't do that? including higher quality sources including UN and international community view? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating the legal boundaries with the physical borders. You should discuss such changes before implementing your POV.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not, neither Israels legal or physical border is deep inside internationally recognized Syrian land. What do you mean by "before implementing your POV" What is "my POV" that I have tried to ad to the article? What I have said above is not my personal POV, its reality, and I suggest that from now on you don't say baseless things like that again.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Israeli border demonstrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Israeli border demonstrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Israeli border demonstrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations&oldid=1196592868"