Jump to content

Talk:2022 Al-Aqsa clashes

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



Requested move 30 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There were two major policy-based questions that were discussed in this RM: (1) which title is most neutral, and (2) which title reflects the common name used by reliable sources. Question (1) did not have any consensus – editors on both sides of the discussion made comparably strong arguments for the neutrality of their preferred title, with "storming" being described as a one-sided portrayal of events and "clashes" being described as euphemistic. Question (2), however, was more decisive. The term "clashes" was shown to have extensive use in a wide variety of sources, while usage of "storming" was used more rarely. It was also pointed out by some editors that many sources that used "storming" were referring instead to the events of 22 April and 29 April, whereas the article principally limits its focus to the events of 15 April. Therefore, I feel that "clashes" is the wording with the most solid backing in policy. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque storming → 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes – First of all "storming" is a pov term used by one side of the conflict. Second clashes is WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by multiple sources from leading news outlets around the world [1],[2],[3],[4] Shrike (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentTotally inappropriate. 'Clashes' implies two groups in the same area came to blows, neatly suppressing the core fact that these clashes occurred after, or as a result of, an Israeli police intervention inside the Haram area precisely at the moment of prayer. All sources concur that Palestinians were gathered on the Haram, and an Israeli police force (technically they have no jurisdiction there) entered the compound to raid presumed stocks of stones, and disperse the 'crowd'. An 'incursion' is what occurred, but one should not exercise massive energy in title RfCs before doing the work few care to do on wikipedia, i.e. actually muster all reliable sources to figure out the precise unfolding of events, so9 that editors can see who started what, where. Without that, an accurate stable title won't be forthcoming. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani also made a vote later in the discussion Shrike (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clashes is far more neutral, especially when something like this is dispute. Storming has a very negative sense, which is what one side of the story is, but if we went with the other side of the story this could be called "2022 protection against terrorism at the Al-Aqua Mosque." Clash is the most neutral term. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as proposer --Shrike (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic Discussion

--Tombah (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is not WP:RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed in the section prior to this RM, multiple other sources including CBS, AFP, NPR, France 24, Al-Jazeera, The Economist, WAPO and the NYT (as well as all the local papers from the Gulf states plus Jordan, Egypt and Turkey) describe said incursions as "storming". Therefore the argument that storming is used by one side only is demonstrably false. Storming is entirely appropriate since the police were in full riot gear and armed. Are we to believe they walked up and knocked?
  • "Israeli police in full riot gear storm Jerusalem holy site after rock-throwing". CBS News. 2022-04-22. Israeli police in full riot gear stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed.
  • France-Presse, Agence (2022-04-22). "Dozens wounded in Israeli-Palestinian clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque". the Guardian. The Palestinian Red Crescent said 57 people were wounded on Friday, including 14 Palestinians taken to hospital, one of them in a serious condition, after police stormed the facility in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem's Old City.
  • "Israeli police storm Jerusalem holy site after rock-throwing". NPR.org. 2022-04-22. Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed.
  • "New clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound". France 24. 2022-04-22. The Israeli police stormed the compound and fired teargas and rubber-tipped bullets at stone-throwing Palestinian youths, said an AFP photographer on the scene.
  • Brugiotti, Carlo (2022-04-29). "The storming of Al-Aqsa: 'The patients kept on coming like waves' - Israel-Palestine conflict". Al Jazeera. Israeli forces had stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem during morning prayers.
  • "Jerusalem clashes destabilising for Israel and Palestine". The Economist Group. 20 April 2022. On both days, however, Israeli police stormed Al Aqsa in order to stop stone‑throwing and make arrests, crossing what many Palestinians regard as a red line.
  • NYT: "...prompting the police to storm the largest mosque within the complex, which contains several places of worship. and
  • Washington Post: Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed.
Proposer cites
1) CNN and AP which are about events of April 21 (a Thursday) and not about the main subject of the article.
2) Reuters and BBC do cover the principal event on 15 April, both referring to "clashes" following incursion by Israeli forces, described as "entering" the mosque. As can be seen from the above, we can consider these reports as unrepresentative. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of "Arab" sources, not untypical for the whole region (Gulf Jordan, Egypt, Turkey):
  • Mohammed Abu Zaid (16 April 2022). "Egypt slams Israeli storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque". Arab News. Egypt's Foreign Ministry has condemned Israeli forces' storming of Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque and violence against Palestinians in its courtyards
  • "Israel government faces new split over Al Aqsa Mosque storming". TRT World. 17 April 2022. Arab-Israeli party Raam "suspended" its membership, after Israeli troops stormed Al Aqsa Mosque, igniting protests at the flashpoint Jerusalem holy site that wounded more than 170 Palestinians in the last three days.
    Note: Three of the links above are simply mirrors of the Associated Press Wire Service, (CBS, Washington Post, and NPR), and are in fact the same AP source with the same author. Almost all are describing the events of a week later (not the 15th), and almost all describe the events as clashes. Drsmoo (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a smaller "clash" at the mosque was a storming, then the earlier much larger "clash" was certainly a storming. Clashes are a daily occurrence, not an event. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSP#TRT World; RSP doesn't consider TRT to be a good source. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - euphemistic and based on fabrication on what the sources say. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the storming of the mosque as a storming, and the clashes on the complex outside as background to that. The only thing that makes this notable is that the mosque was stormed, and that is why sources routinely focus on that. See Selfstudier's sources for proof. It is a fabrication that third party reliable sources do not use storming, it is a fabrication that the term is only used by one "side", it is a fabrication that sources prefer "clashes". And the entire basis of this request is built on those fabrications. And to add to the list of sources:
Yes, there are sources that discuss clashes. That however is a different scope than this article, which is about the notable topic of the Israeli forces storming the mosque. Yes, sources that discuss another topic will use different language. That has nothing to do with the title of this article, and the attempt at misdirection in throwing a bunch of unrelated sources up to pretend like that is the "common name" is just that, misdirection and obfuscation so as to reframe the article in to one on another topic. nableezy - 16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Zeex.rice's edit count". XTools. 1 May 2022.
There isnt a single thing of any relevance to what I wrote in what you wrote. And if you were going to follow your previous commitment not to perform extended confirmed contributions until you had 500 mainspace edits you shouldnt be in this section anyway. nableezy - 12:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy My commitment was not to edit any extended protected pages. The talk pages a are for everyone:
"Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. " 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That continues... ".....This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc" Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from 4/15:

Sources from April 22/29:

Drsmoo (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Associated Press, same author, a week later https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-religion-jerusalem-israel-70ec6d764384ad816c8a5adb81b770d8 "Israeli police in full riot gear stormed a sensitive Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims on Friday after Palestinian youths hurled stones at a gate where they were stationed." If a lesser event is a storming then so is the main event. This is not about ongoing clashes, a daily occurrence, it is about a full scale armed incursion by large numbers of police into the Al-Aqsa mosque, regarded by Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular as a major provocation, regardless of who threw the first stone. https://www.timesofisrael.com/uae-bahrain-join-condemnation-of-police-actions-amid-temple-mount-clashes/ "The UAE strongly condemned today Israeli forces’ storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque.... stressed the UAE’s position that the Israeli authorities should respect the right of Palestinians to practice their religious rites and halt any practices that violate the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque."Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both describe the events as clashes as well. Drsmoo (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Temple Mount clashes are clashes, see the difference? Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (the Irish Times), as well as France:
and Germany (in addition to DW):
So far as I can tell, the arguments for contravening this overwhelming consensus in the sources are twofold: 1) "clashes" is felt to be "euphemistic" and thus NPOV, and 2) some (but as Drsmoo shows, by no means the majority of) coverage uses the phrase "storms" in headlines addressing events on April 22. But of course the other party in the dispute feels "storms" to be highly partisan and NPOV, and as for argument 2), if editors are so keen to use media coverage about the events of April 22 to describe events of April 15, wouldn't it simply be better to address the events that are the subject of this page on the page [5] that covers the events of April 22 - just as, most recently, Zeex has suggested? Finally, yes, a random IP did something weird on my talk page - and of course that does not preclude an editor from weighing in on a topic s/he routinely edits, especially when this involves a page s/he had already been keeping an eye on. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the third one that was canvassed duly appears.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SS, old friend. I already acknowledged the situation up front, and I trust that editors on this page are both gracious enough to read what I wrote all the way to the end and sophisticated enough to appreciate the scenario I detailed in my concluding sentence. Finally, I realize that this appeal to you is perhaps approaching the status of a refrain, but, with respect, perhaps you might be willing to engage with my arguments in the same good faith with which I have written them? Surely that is the best way to increase the quality of the page/pages in question. Yours, of course Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be basing this on the headlines. The fact that you have mentioned headlines twice makes me think you have not read WP:HEADLINES. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your substantive response, Iskandar. I was thinking of "Common Name" debate above, and I still think the observation carries some weight. But your point is a very fair one, and I am happy to accept your invitation to go through the articles cited one by one (with a nod to the earlier evidence collected by Shrike, Tombah, Drsmoo):
  • BBC: [6]: First sentence "More than 150 Palestinians have been injured in clashes with Israeli police at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, Palestinian medics say." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Telegraph: [7]. First sentence: "More than 150 Palestinians were injured after clashes broke out with Israeli riot police inside Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound on Friday." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Times: [8] "More than 150 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli police at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem yesterday." The word "storm" is used once - to describe events from 2021. ("Last year, after Israeli forces stormed the mosque during Ramadan, an 11-day conflict ensued.")
  • The Independent: [9]. First sentence: "Clashes broke out early Friday between Israeli police and Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a major holy site in Jerusalem, and medics said at least 59 Palestinians were wounded." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Financial Times: [10] First sentence: "Clashes erupted on Friday at Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque between Israeli security forces and Palestinian worshippers after weeks of escalating violence." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Guardian: [11]: "Medics say more than 150 Palestinians have been injured in clashes that erupted when Israeli riot police entered Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque compound, in the most significant violence at the holy site since similar scenes sparked a war last year." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Associated Press: [12] First sentence: "Palestinians and Israeli police clashed at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Friday as thousands gathered for prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • Reuters: [13]. First sentence: "At least 152 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli riot police inside Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound on Friday, the latest outbreak in a recent upsurge of violence that has raised fears of a slide back to wider conflict." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Washington Post: [14]: First sentence: "Israeli forces killed six Palestinians in confrontations in the West Bank this week, and clashes between police and Palestinians broke out Friday after early Ramadan prayers in Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Wall Street Journal: [15] Israeli police and Palestinians clashed Friday around Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • NPR: [16] Third sentence: "At least 25 Palestinians have been killed in the recent wave of violence, according to an Associated Press count, many of whom had carried out attacks or were involved in the clashes, but also an unarmed woman and a lawyer who appears to have been killed by mistake." "Storm" and derivatives do not appear in article.
  • CNN: [17] "Palestinians and Israeli forces clashed in and around the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City for hours on Friday morning, before an uneasy calm returned to the city later in the day." The word "storm" appears only at an arm's length, being attributed to Jordanian government officials: "Jordan's Foreign Ministry condemned what it described as the storming of the compound, calling it a "flagrant violation.""
  • France 24: [18]: First sentence "Clashes broke out early Friday between Israeli police and Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a major holy site in Jerusalem, and medics said at least 150 Palestinians were wounded." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • The Irish Times: [19] First sentence: "At least 152 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli riot police at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the Palestine Red Crescent said, two weeks into the Muslim holy month of Ramadan." "Storm" and derivatives are not found in the article.
  • Even the The Economist, one of the subsidiaries of which has been cited above, uses "clashes", not "storming" in its flagship publication: [20]: "More than 100 Palestinians were said to have been injured in the compound of Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque in clashes with Israeli riot police, who accused the Palestinians of throwing stones and fire crackers at Jews praying at the Wailing Wall below"
Very tellingly, and as Drsmoo observed, with the exception of Al Jazeera (and this says something in its own right) those who plump for "storm" must apparently wait until publications dating from April 22 or after to find RSs that use the word to describe events in 2022 - and that is precisely because the word seems to be reserved for the events of April 22, not April 15. In short, what we find are 15 sources, comprising a solid chunk of the reputable outlets in the English-speaking world, that use the word "clashes", usually in the first sentence of the main article, to describe the events this page describes; they also eschew entirely the word "storm" to describe those events. Unless editors are able to find a similar number of high-quality RSs that do describe the events of April 15 with language from the "storm" family, we should no doubt follow the lead of these sources. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is material from the lead of the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis where a virtually identical incursion was carried out by Israeli forces in very similar circumstances. Then, as now, editors objected. It says "stormed" still because there were sources saying that just as there are now. How else to refer to an armed incursion into a mosque? There were also "clashes" all over the place, this is the principal problem with all the above objections which are merely an attempt to turn a common noun into a common name rather than accurately describing an event.
On 7 May, according to Israel's Channel 12, Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police forces,[1] who then stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque[2] using tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades.[3][2]
Sources

  1. ^ "TV: Palestinians stocked rocks for Temple Mount riots, police caught unawares". The Times of Israel. 8 May 2021. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  2. ^ a b Holmes, Oliver; Beaumont, Peter (10 May 2021). "Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque ahead of Jerusalem Day march". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  3. ^ Srivastava, Mehul; Cornish, Chloe (13 May 2021). "Violence flares between Jews and Arabs on streets of Israel". Financial Times. London. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused: SS, is your argument now that it just doesn't matter at all what the sources say, because there is no other way to refer "to an armed incursion into a mosque"? As I (and others above) try to demonstrate, RS very clearly do choose when they use "storm" and when they don't; it turns out that, whether we like it our not, they simply don't for the events of April 15 (but do for April 22, and perhaps at other time in the past). Given that sources are perfectly capable of using "storm", surely the most effective way to prove the case is not to engage in elaborate special pleading - which, as nableezy rightly noted much earlier on this page, others can just as easily from the other side - but simply to provide sources that support your claim for the events in question? If it's a strong case, that should not be difficult. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you are confused. I already provided sources, here is NYT (not exactly known for being pro Palestinian) referring to storming on 15th:
"The clashes on Sunday followed a more intense incident on Friday, when Israeli riot police officers, firing rubber-tipped bullets and stun grenades, stormed the main mosque in the compound to detain hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom had been throwing stones at them. More than 150 people were hurt."
In addition, there are sources referring to much more minor incursions of 17 and 22 as "storming" and if they are storming then the far bigger event obviously is as well. Look elsewhere for special pleading, you won't find it here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is very good, SS - one source down, 14-15 to go to make for as strong a case for "storming" as for "clashes". Since in this instance I agree with Nableezy's remarks above that "International sources do not use the type of euphemisms you are doing about a series of attacks by police on Palestinians", I take it that when 15 of 16 sources say "clashes", not "storm", they have not engaged in any euphemism in doing so. Do you have any further sources for April, by chance? If not, perhaps neutral editors will feel confident in evaluating the relative merits of a view based on one RS and a view based on 15. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they simply don't for the events of April 15 turned out to be false. I won't embarass you further. 2009 Temple Mount clashes are "clashes". See if you can spot the difference between those and the subject of this article. This discussion is not, as you and some others seem to think. about whether clashes is a common name, it is about a proper descriptive title for the event. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wandering Off Topic Discussion
  • Yes, the implication of a relative equality of force is the aspect of the use of 'clashes' as a piece of terminology that is the most deplorably euphemistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Loksmythe (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NPOV and NOM. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with no prejudice to a possible different alternative name. 'Clashes' refers to what happened inside Jordanian administered territory strictly speaking outside of Israeli jurisdiction (it is not in Israel/ it is not 'occupied' by Israel) Despite the frequency of Israeli incursions into the Haram, and the endless attempts, on security grounds, to establish a right by practice, the massed entry of Israeli police into that area on such occasions is invariably an incursion or storming. The word 'clashes' neatly sidesteps the fact that such 'clashes' occur when a raid/incursion/storming has already taken place: it disguises, suppresses, or camouflages why, in part, such clashes occur, rather like that if thugs enter your house and you resist, 'clashes occurred', with the assumption that there are two sides to the question. There ain't. Israeli police know that their massed armed entry into a site of prayer, particularly on Friday, will provoke precisely the reaction their intrusion is supposed to block.
All this is reflected in the ingrained, hideously vague boilerplate language invariably used by Israeli mainstream newspaper coverage,- that falls back on the spuriously 'neutral' clashes while refraining from determining who did what and when- which is picked up reflexively abroad. So the only way, as I have said, to determine what the appropriate term should be is to sift carefully all sources to ascertain the chronological order of events, to establish when police entered - before or after rocks were thrown. Editors chiming in with the usual POV lockstep vote, while not helping out the clarification of the sequence of events that should be the basis for a proper judgment, are doing the page no service. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOV and WP:CommonName. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The events of April follow a very usual pattern: Nationalist Israeli Jewish provocation in relation to planned religious ritual of some kind on or near the Temple Mount, leading to Palestinian reaction, sometimes in the form of riots, or the stockpiling of stones to be used in defense of said provocation, sometimes leading to even stronger retaliation by security forces. This can be seen again and again in such articles as Pro–Wailing Wall Committee, 1929 Palestine riots, 1990 Temple Mount riots, 2009 Temple Mount clashes and 2017 Temple Mount crisis. While the disturbances follow the same pattern, they have been described differently each time. In this case, the main event seems to be the entering of police into the mosque. In the AP's language, Israeli police later entered the mosque and arrested people inside. The police rarely enter the building, which is seen by Palestinians as an escalation. Therefore, while 2022 Temple Mount clashes would seem to be correct, if vague, 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes on the other hand is misleading, because what happened there was not a disagreement pertaining to the mosque, but rather an incursion into it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israeli-police-fire-rubber-bullets-in-new-al-aqsa-incursion/ar-AAWrsUA "Storming" however has a bit of a sharp ring to it, reminiscent of stormtroopers or a siege/hostage situation. So if the proposed title was 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque incursion I might support that. Havradim leaf a message 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I concur with Nishidani's no prejudice to a possible different alternative name, for myself I would be fine with "raid" or "incursion" as being equally valid descriptions of the event. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incursion and raid both sound better to me than storming, which is a verb changed into a noun. Havradim leaf a message 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have no problem with either of those. All appear in the sources. Of the two, incursion feels like the slightly more accurately descriptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Next we need to clarify if it should be incursion or incursions. Havradim leaf a message 21:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about a single large scale event identified by date, there have been many "entrances" (another excellent euphemism in the same general category as clashes, disturbances and skirmishes) during Ramadan but the scale is different (level of violence, casualty count, reporting of, etcetera). No need for clarification and in any case there is no agreement to use the term. Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Storming" is the usual hysteric language used by Arab sources whenever Jewish people come to pray at the Temple mount. It is not neutral and it evokes images of SS storm troopers. Most neutral sources not the Arab rioting on the temple mount, stone throwing and firecrackers shot directly at Jewish people and police. Most neutral sources do no use storming. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disturbing choice of metaphor, but each to their own. I think it is a stretch of the imagination to believe the heavily armed police were there to pray however. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from being wrong. Jewish people for 2000 years have prayed at the Western Wall, not on the Temple Mount where their very presence is banned rabbinically. In fact for anyone familiar with the specific halakhic ruling made in 1967 prohibiting such promiscuous movements on the site of the old temple, the Israeli police as Jewish are, on each occasion of these intrusions, violating halakha, risking trampling over the sacred area where only the sanctified feet of the High Priest could move at ritual times. Anyone familiar with the precedent, the 1920-1929 pressure to establish, against custom, exclusive rights to the Western Wall itself, will recognize the pattern: persist in creating clashes whose resolution leads to a change in the status quo leading to exclusive Jewish possession. All Palestinians know that. The choice offered counters 'storming' (Palestinian POV) to 'clashes' (Israeli POV) and excludes the rational neutral compromise in 'raid' or 'incursion'. So the game here is merely to alter the spin, not to honour NPOV. The proper thing would be to reformulate the RfC in terms of indisputably neutral terms like those suggested, otherwise as often, this will play out with the usual lockstep numbers gaming. 'Clash' is no more neutral than 'storming' and the failure to mediate or compromise is indicative of a refusal to seriously apply policy.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Israeli police is not religious. The Israel Police also has a non-Jewish population (Muslims, Christians, Druze) and its role is to uphold the law and prevent violence (such as throwing stones) in the mountain area. By the way, the status quo allows tourists to reach the mountain and the reach most of the year.I also mention that according to Islam the Jews (and Christians) are Dhimmi and therefore the Muslim conception can include the restriction of members of these religions regardless of the religious conception of those religions.
    And I am of course waiting for a stage where the writer will justify violence against non-violent people (stone throwing or terrorist attack for example) because of provocation or wrong / violent behavior of others / verbal aspiration / non-violent demonstration.
    An encyclopedia should not enter into a confrontation between peoples and religions nor accuse a particular party of "creating a conflict" without proof (even the "precedent" you mentioned did not include "such a creation") 2A00:A040:184:3024:B0BD:D749:E1BE:F2E1 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will mention that there are Arab politicians with entrances to the mountain tour. [[21]] 2A00:A040:184:3024:6458:5C2C:AA10:1076 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT, the Economist, AFP and Wapo use "hysteric language" and turned themselves into "Arab sources" when I wasn't paying attention:) Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani, at the risk of being pedantic myself, and veering ever-so-slightly off topic, the halakha in question is subject to debate. Your point still stands however, since this is at the very best a grey area regarding one of the most contested square kilometres in the world. Havradim leaf a message 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. (Strike this if I voted earlier). Havradim. Yes, I am familiar with some of the intricacies of rabbinic debates but they are not mainstream, but arise from a very particular settler-religious constituency predominantly which aspires to restore sacrifice on the Mount/Haram. The point still stands: in orthodox thinking, let alone Haredi thinking, Jewish police entering and engaging with Palestinians are probably treading unawares on areas associated with the Shekinah, and as such, are violating halakha. Note that most mainstream sources which use 'clashes' for this site did not use that word for the disruption by assault/storming at the funeral of Shireen Abu Akleh, because funerals have a certain sacrality. 'Clashes' implies that the Israeli police have a right to come and go all over the Mount, on days when Muslims pray there. Well, they assert that right in practice, but in terms of Jewish belief, it is most peculiar, if not indeed outrageous. Were evidence forthcoming that stones thrown down from the site at worshippers at the Western Wall precipitated an Israeli 'response', I'd have no problem with describing the subsequent events as 'clashes', rather than what they appear to be, reactions to a provocative intrusion on a sacred space on a Friday that has, for Muslims, the sanctity of a sabbath.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such an absurd statement already disproven by the wide range of sources using "storming" to describe the storming of al-aqsa mosque by armed police. Not "Jewish people com[ing] tp pray at the Temple mount". nableezy - 20:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Drsmoo; the proposed name better meets WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the fact that it wasn't an unprovoked storming but a police response to... for lack of a better word, Arab "extremists" who were throwing rocks at Jewish worshippers. I can't find articles with images, but several users on Twitter and elsewhere have provided images of people collecting rocks for the purpose of throwing them at Jews. Note: I am not suggesting Twitter posts as a valid source within the article. I am saying if the police had shown up with no prior attacks on Jews by people at the al-Aqsa Mosque, then I would agree it constitutes a storming, but as it stands, it's a police response to violence committed by people at the al-Aqsa Mosque.EricSpokane (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)disallowed from commenting here per WP:A/I/PIA Nableezy 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EricSpokane: I don't believe anyone has claimed that the storming was "unprovoked": perhaps it was a "provoked storming". A provoked event is still an event. On the fine detail, the sources are conflicted about the stone throwing, with many simply stating it was at the police (and even that is according to the police). And yes, Twitter is an atrocious source of reliable information, with posts telling you little about their veracity (old images can be reused) or supposed timeline of events (how would you know if stones were collected before or after the storming?). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With both terms used by RS as shown by user:Tombah and another editor whose signature I can't find, we should go for a more neutral name per WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question? 19:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That completely ignores that the "clashes" are a substantially different scope of the storming of the mosque. Clashes have been ongoing or weeks. The storming of the mosque is a discrete notable event, and the proposed title is not about that same event. If this is moved to a wider subject the still notable storming would still qualify for a stand alone article with that title. Somebody wants to write about the wider clashes? Do it. But this is not an article on that scope, and the move request is a transparent attempt to run around the fact that the storming itself is a notable event. nableezy - 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed term "clashes" is an unbalanced description of what our article describes. The site is managed by the Jordanians, and the sole reason this event is newsworthy is the Israeli incursion onto it. I am open-minded to different word options here, but clashes is inappropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Focusing on a specific moment while downplaying the context is favouring a POV. This is exactly how the rioters wanted this to play out: "Look!, those brutal Israelis desecrating a mosque." In fact, they didn't care about the sanctity of the mosque at all, they were even playing soccer inside of it, they just wanted bad publicity for the Israeli Police which, being attacked with brick-sized rocks, had no other choice but to stop the riot. 'Clashes' is the NPOV word, also used by nearly all sources presented here so far (WP:CommonName). -Daveout(talk) 20:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clashes" is not a commonname, it's just a word, the existing title "2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque storming" and the proposed "2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes" are both descriptive, the first being of the incursion and the second of a whole bunch of relatively smaller events before and after it, if that is what you mean by "context". "stones" have become "rocks" and now "brick sized rocks", that likely results from using twitter and wikipedia as sources. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

The article shows an image of the Al Aqsa (Al Qibli) Mosque, rather than the Al Aqsa (Mosque) Compound. There is of course a long-running confusion with these names.

According to the diagram here the incursions related to the whole company, not just the Al Aqsa (Al Qibli) Mosque. So our image is wrong and so is the intro. The name is also not consistent with how we have labelled the articles about these places.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose side am I on, anyway?

[edit]

As some of the more aged editors here might remember, I used to hang around a lot around here, and my personal views on matters was well-known. After a long hiatus, I returned with a single post on this talk page, which, by the pro-Israeli editors here, was seen as supporting their particular outlook on things. I have since been barraged with messages seeking my support for their side in the many disputes on this page. Well, friends, let me tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. Do not expect me to leap to your defense.

That said, let me say this: this article should not exist. Without disputing the facts or the heinousness of the events, the whole episode is far too new to merit a Wikipedia article. What ever happened to WP:SUSTAINED? "Brief bursts of news coverage", says the policy, "may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events." News coverage of an event that occurred less than a month ago, and that is part of an episode in a conflict that is still taking place, can hardly be called "sustained coverage."

Again, I am not seeking to denigrate the importance or the raw emotional impact of the events described in this article. I am only questioning whether enough long-term notability has been established to justify a Wikipedia article at this time.

So if someone were to nominate this article for deletion on the basis of WP:SUSTAINED, I would support them. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barraged by whom, and in what manner? I'm sure you can judge for yourself, but if you have been canvassed, that is a matter of community concern. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa is, IMO, one of the best editors in this topic area from years past, and we would benefit greatly if he joined us more regularly. nableezy - 16:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the boost. The reason I have returned is that I am doing research for a book (on the history of amateur music making), and, in order to use the Wikipedia library I have to make 10 edits a month. This one is number 10, so you might not see me here again until June. Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to make those 10 count for more then. nableezy - 06:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be at ease i have not been cavassed. Ravpapa (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a way you have a point, unfortunately it is the custom nowadays to put up articles even while an event is ongoing, that do not meet the sustained criterion, I can point you to many such. It seems to be that if there is coverage, sustained or not, then an article should exist and someone will create it.The status quo issue is ongoing and a matter of concern to many, agreed that this event is only the latest episode in that particular drama. It is notable in that sense even if it turns out not to be in and of itself. Of all the argument in the current RM, no-one has yet argued that the article should not exist. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpapa, I think the problem with that view is that it is never followed in any consistent way. We have articles on drive by shootings within hours of them happening. We have articles on stabbings that so obviously fail that test yet are kept over and over. But I think you are wrong here, I think the incursion in to the mosque has made this a passing news story in to something that will be discussed much further in to the future than say 2022 Bnei Brak shootings. Crossing the Rubicon so to speak. nableezy - 16:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right. It may well be the crossing of the Rubicon. Then again, it may not. And if it is not? Exactly my point.
And, as for the problem that the guideline is consistently ignored, that too is obvious. It is a problem inherent in the Wikipedia editing model - to delete an article requires consensus, and consensus on deletion cannot possibly be achieved where the article is in dispute.
I just reread the article I wrote on The Politicization of Wikipedia. I wrote it 14 years ago (Gawwr!). Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose --Ravpapa (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rav is right. But as Nab and Self say, one can't stop the editing temptation to rush to print breaking news, esp. re death/terror etc., which are pots of gold for the POV miner. There should be some overall understanding that, in encyclopedic terms, these itsy-bitsy impromptu articles need to be gathered in, at a certain point, under a generic title and the specific incidents listed with the important details (I insist chronology is fundamental) with all of the reactions waffle thrown overboard. Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aka

[edit]

I included in the lead opening sentence the Arab aka (pretty much every Arab state and all Arabic sources call it that), Al-Aqsa mosque storming (also discussed in the RM) and it was reverted by another editor (silently). I see no reason why this aka should not be present, it's not our fault that "clashes" is not actually a name and is just a word.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now an editor has reverted the standard form introduction with the assertion that "clashes" is a description of the event. Lol. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the “standard form” articles don’t need that. Temple Mount clashes doesn’t have it either Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should look like 1990 Temple Mount riots.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Temple_Mount_clashes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araouane_clashes

The use of scare quotes is not standard form either Drsmoo (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also many Arab sources refer/have referred to any Jews visiting the Temple Mount, even sometimes the western wall, as “storming” Drsmoo (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with anything? Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When an elderly Jewish man slowly walks through the area it’s also referred to as a “storming”. In this case the aka is too broad because even quiet introspective prayer by elderly Jews is commonly referred to as “storming”. In other words, it is not specific to this event. Drsmoo (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, it does not seem relevant at all. I think I will just wait for others to give an opinion if you don't mind.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would come as a surprise to some of us, but some Arabic-speaking sources tend to describe every Jewish entry to the Temple Mount as a "storming" (see #1, #2, #3), so this word kinda lost its meaning when speaking about events in the Temple Mount. And we've already seen that most articles that frame the April 15th events as storming, are by Arabic-speaking media outlets. Tombah (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an established falsehood, as a ton of Western sources describe the storming as a storming. The rest of your argument is entirely OR and irrelevant. nableezy - 16:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each one of these linked examples is either talking about settlers or Israeli forces. That's a far cry from "every Jewish entry" into the Temple Mound. Agreed that this is just perpetuating an established falsehood. 2603:8001:7100:4764:9EC0:8C12:87DE:3C18 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

split

[edit]

I intend to split off material on the storming of al-Aqsa to its own article. That is a notable event in its own right. nableezy - 12:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need a hand. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page only has 12kb of readable prose; I don't think a split is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The storming of the mosques is a notable topic covered in independent reliable sources. The rename changed the scope of an article on that topic to one on weeks-long "clashes. As a notable topic I intend to make an article on that. nableezy - 15:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy Can I see your draft? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, but that doesn't mean a standalone article is needed - Israeli police entering the mosque is part of the clashes. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, the police entered the mosque one more than one occasion, with more than one of those occasions being described as a storming, clashes occurred on a daily basis throughout Ramadan, particularly on Fridays.Selfstudier (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nableezy, this article now covers multiple clashes. Some of those clashes involved police entering the mosque. Unless I have misunderstood something, I think it is better to cover that in this article - if this article gets too long, then we can split it off. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this article now covers multiple clashes As written, it covers one event with a before and after. To cover the current title, it would need to be almost completely rewritten, I will leave that to those who created the need for that. Any new article needs to meet the usual criteria, of course, and I assume any such, will. Selfstudier (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. For concision and paradoxically greater precision. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes → 2022 Al-Aqsa clashes – Most of the events took place in the Al Aqsa compound, not the mosque building / prayer hall. The Israeli police did enter the mosque building / prayer hall, but not clear to me that their were "clashes" or "storming" in that specific location. If unfamiliar with the source of confusion here, see ongoing RM at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Requested move 30 May 2022; though this RM proposal is not dependent on the outcome there. Having read some of the underlying sources here, we have got some parts wrong due to this confusion – e.g. NYT footnote 10 discusses activities in the Aqsa compound but we describe it as happening in the mosque building. Could add the word "compound" to the title as some sources do, but this solution seems better per WP:CONCISE Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The current title implies specificity, but per the above, it in fact adds confusion based on a lack of clarity in English media sources as to what exactly constitutes the Al-Aqsa Mosque per se: i.e.: the compound or prayer hall, leading to a variety of narrative problems, and, consequently here, similar confusion. The proposed title, while avoiding this, is just as recognisable and more concise. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with suggestion: If the article's scope has changed, then a rename should use the name for the wider area commonly used on Wikipedia to avoid confusion. The emphasis on the Mosque in the title is due to the raiding of the mosque building (which was widely shared on Social Media). With regard to what that title is, for the most part we have two article names, Temple Mount, and Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Al-Aqsa Mosque article has typically explained the wider conception of the term. It was only changed (with no consensus or discussion) extremely recently during a requested move (started by the same user who is starting this move discussion) which is still in progress. There has not been any consensus for changing the scope of the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted in the preceding section, the content of this article is no longer reflected in the title following a page move. The so-called "clashes" took place pretty much every day during Ramadan and included the surrounds of Al-Aqsa as well as the interior. Most sources refer to clashes at Al-Aqsa compound but Al-Aqsa compound clashes sounds particularly idiotic as a title. What is clear is that hardly any of these clashes took place in what English speakers would refer to as the mosque itself so the current title is as well just wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources currently in use in the article, when referring to the compound commonly refer to "Haram al-Sharif", "Al-Aqsa Mosque", "Al-Aqsa Compound", or "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound"? Drsmoo (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They use all of, interchangeably: "Al-Aqsa", "Al-Aqsa Mosque", "Al-Aqsa Compound", and "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound". Onceinawhile (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources currently in the article reflect the prior title, the Al-Aqsa Mosque storming, an event on one single day, with a before and after. If you type Al-Aqsa clashes into Google you can see lots of sources, you don't even need "". A lot of those sources are in the RM above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the whole claim in the requested move that the term Al-Aqsa Mosque can apply to a wider area? (Otherwise there is no justification for the move) Drsmoo (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was opposition to the word "storming" and wanting "clashes" instead. That it said AAM was not an issue. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the requested move at the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discussing that here? Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: whether or not we have a bracketed disambiguation at the other article will not solve the problem here (or in many other parts of the encyclopedia). So the other RM is not relevant – either way – for this discussion. The term Al Aqsa Mosque is frequently used in an ambiguous way, and we should try our best to make things less confusing for readers.
You have opposed this so far. To help us understand your position, could you please explain your view as to what the term “Al Aqsa Mosque” in the title of this article is referring to, the building or the compound? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the other RM is relevant, especially given that you opened both of them. At the Al-Aqsa Mosque article, you claim that the term applies to a wider scope, and that therefore it must be renamed. Here, you claim the exact opposite, that it must be renamed because the term applies exclusively to a narrow scope. Which is it? Drsmoo (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both are based on the term being ambiguous. Your post above falsely attributes claims to me that I have never made. Please do not do that again. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see those are the rationales you cited for the two RMs, and they are contradictory. Which claims specifically were falsely attributed, and how does that specifically relate to any ambiguity? Drsmoo (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other RM is not relevant to this article or the proposed move here. Nor does it matter who opened which discussion, you can pretend that I opened this one (or the other one ) if that helps.Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As being less subject to misinterpretation than the current title, which an English reader would take to mean that all the different clashes took place in the mosque itself and which is false. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Al-Aqsa_clashes&oldid=1243027082"