Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2014/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should the title be more specific?

Considering that this article is really dealing with the escalation of tensions in Jerusalem and related events in parts of the Palestinian West Bank and in the Israeli state proper. If it is a page to document "incidents" in the conflict in 2014 in general, then it would be permissible to link to the summer assault on the Gaza strip and to write up on the Palestinians killed or wounded by Israeli forces and "settlers" prior to the start of the "Silent Intifada", no? The kyle 3 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That already exists (see here). Quis separabit? 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I know it exists. That's why I asked "should it not be linked" to this particular page. The kyle 3 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This exists too. I don't see any problems linking them as related topics. Quis separabit? 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The article started as related to incidents in Jerusalem where Israelis were victims, and was so edited as to downplay any reference to contemporaneous Palestinian casualties. This article was forked off. Given the title, I have begun to build it as it should be, respecting the indication of the title. It has nothing to do with Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's right. It should specifically exclude events that fall within the parameters of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. And also stick to conventional definitions of violence.ShulMaven (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with you, @ShulMaven. I suppose it's a clumsy way to articulate it, but the point I brought it up was because I think they should be linked to this page if this page is talking about violent incidents in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in general this year. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? The title reads as the article is being edited, a list of violent episodes over the period 2014 involving Israel and Palestine. No one discussed why violence should be restricted to killings, when in standard usage, violence refers to any use of force against another person. Any contravention of an international norm about humane treatment is arguably 'violence', and the lead rightly must clarify what the page includes, without assuming, as did the all too brief line we had, that violence has, here, an abnormally restricted meaning. I will reintroduce the text removed without adequate discussion. You are welcome to discuss alternative introductions, if a consensus claims that as it was it was not appropriate.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Lists are always difficult to maintain, unless the criteria is clearly stated. The edits over the weekend have made the criteria pretty clear, and that is a very good start. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Egged bus-driver hanging

I remarked above that the Israeli press in Hebrew is far more comprehensive and open-minded than what we get from reports filtered through into Western languages. On the Egged bus-driver al-Ramouni's 'suicide' by hanging, our version gives the standard Israeli police report. However I note that on Richard Silverstein's web page, Israeli newspaper accounts of the evidence Palestinians subscribe to, for believing it was murder, is translated. See Richard Silverstein, New Evidence of al-Ramuni Murder, on November 20, 2014. I am not pressing for Silverstein's own views to be aired, but his blog recapitulates the evidence given in an RS in Hebrew, Yigal Sarna's article in Yediot Achronot. I'd appreciate input by fellow editors on whether this is usable, in their view, taking the appropriate policy considerations in view. I have no belief one way or another on the truth. I do think we are obliged to give all sides a fair hearing or relevant theories among a journalistic constituency a fair airing.Nishidani (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Silverstein's blog is not permissible per WP:RS. Can link directly to the story in Hebrew if need be. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, incorrect. Silverstein's opinions may legitimately be questioned, as it is a blog, but he does translate and give the gist of Hebrew sources, that are otherwise unavailable, and in such cases, he is perfectly usable, for his use of a primary source that is inaccessible to most English readers of an English encyclopedia. I agree, on reflection, with your removal of the olive theft. Theft without violence does not fit the definition of the article's heading, stricto sensu, because no one was beaten up. Just their livelihood impoverished, which is 'violen ce' metaphorically but not legally.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As it is a blog and he is an activist, his translations are not sufficiently reliable either given the lack of editorial review on his blog and his open partisanship. Just use the original foreign-language article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nearly everyone who is a political actor or commentator, and even many editors here, qualify as 'activists', which is a stupid descriptor. If you think Silverstein's translations are not accurate, point me to a source (there are many that would jump on such evidence if he fudged things, to prove he is an idiot). You have no argument, as yet.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a blog, period. It's really that simple. You're habit of forcing sources into articles that do not qualify as WP:RS for narrow POV purposes is tiresome and becoming part of a larger pattern of WP:tendentious editing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I probably have one of the highest ratios for quality sourcing, using almost exclusively mainstream newspaper or academic sources, in this area. I have suggested the use of Silverstein twice in 8 years, for the reasons given above. Caricature is no argument.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dec 1

• I've used several versions, because there is no comprehensive reference, and all supplement or contradict each other.
• In some cases it is a soldier, others a civilian.

This dissonance is explained by

'"According to the police, the woman approached an Israeli soldier with the intention of stabbing him but was unable to do so. So she then used her knife to harm a passerby, an Israeli civilian, who was apparently only lightly injured," Al Jazeera's Nisreen El-Shamayleh reported from Ramallah.' 'Palestinian woman shot after knife attack ,' Al-Jazeera, 1 December 2014.

Whether the passer-by is the person Haaretz mentions, talking to a friend in a car, is not clear.

• Arutz Sheva, which is not reliable, and should not be used, states:'Video from the scene of the attack has been circulating the internet. In it the cameraman can be heard describing the scene as police are around the terrorist as she is on the ground and shoot to confirm she posed no threat, out of concern she may have been wearing a bomb belt.'

If so, that will probably lead to mainstream press reports and enquiries, and one should use those, if they emerge.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

The article as it exists today is extremely POV, using biased language and, especially, making numerous unsourced and/or unreliably sourced assertions of violent intent.ShulMaven (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. I think Shulmaven is just upset because the article now documents the many, many cases over the past year of Israeli violence against Palestinians inside the Israeli state and in the occupied areas of the Palestinian West Bank. All the sources being used in these cases are, in general, far more reputable then the like of Arutz Sheva or Jpost. The kyle 3 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If so, cite all of the examples you have noted, with suggestions for improvement, and they will be fixed, where cogent. Undocumented declarations imputing some general disorder are useless to other editors, and, as such, only flash an 'attitude' whose empirical basis remains obscure. I am particularly interested in hearing about 'unreliably sourced assertions of violent intent'.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tags are nor "badges of shame". You have to indicate specifically what sections or sentences you believe are not neutral or nor properly sourced. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I would add that it good practice to allow a tag to stand for a few days, while the editor requested to justify his placement of it, musters the evidence. If he or anyone else doesn't reply, or there is no justification forthcoming within a few days, then it should be removed. Ideally, tags like this should be made when indications have been outlined preemptively on the talk page, and an invitation to discuss them has been made. Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@ShulMaven:, you can't add a POV tag and not engage in a discussion. Please respond to the comments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't. I was typing and hit an edit conflict with you.ShulMaven (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just cleaned up a single section: Gush Etzion vehicular attack changing POV text to reflect sources. And adding sources. Many, many of the page's incidents and casualties are sourced to a single source, in particular, the Ma'an News agency. Some are of such dramatic incidents that it is difficult to believe that they happened without being reported in multiple courses. For example: "On 21 November 2014, Ahmad Yaqub al-Ghoul was beaten into unconsciousness, reportedly by 3 Israeli settlers using iron bars and belts, near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem." 3 "settlers", no further identification of the alleged assailants, beat a man to "unconsciousness' at Sha'ar Shechem and Ma'an is the only place that reports it? This is seriously POV. Or take the apparant suicide of an Arab bus driver. "Controversy over death of Palestinian bus driver", a suicide is a tragedy, it is not a violent incident, although the ensuing riots were violent. This article is POV editing at its worst and needs a lot of work. If it happened - source it.ShulMaven (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia has few perfect articles, and too few"good" ones, but no responsible editor would argue that this article as it stands, with it's laundry lists of poorly sourced and unsourced "violent incidents" can be characterized as NPOV.ShulMaven (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of our coverage on the I/P area comes from the English versions of Israeli newspapers which, apart from Haaretz, read to outsiders like myself as blinkered. Ma'an News Agency is probably as objective a paper as any in that area. It is financed by Denmark, and it would appear, under an obligation to be stringently careful in giving a balanced coverage in fairly neutral, unemotional language. It doesn't shout 'terrorist' in every other article on incidents. It is far superior to the settlers' organ Arutz Sheva, which many editors are using on these articles. Are you saying that Ma'an news agency is unreliable? I think it just reproduces from the Hebrew networks, and its own sources, what is published in Israel. Israeli/Jewish journalists in their Hebrew articles are far more comprehensive than what we get when this is filtered out into English.

As to your specific examples. Well, if dissatisfied with the paraphrases, editors usually just check the source, and correct for more neutral language. You're at liberty to do that, as everyone else is. There are no obstacles to such work, which is normal. If it's just a phrasing problem per WP:NPOV, go ahead and edit it according to your lights and policy. If the objection is to Ma'an, say so.

'laundry lists of poorly sourced and unsourced "violent incidents"'. Again, cite examples, don't pontificate in protest at something I for one fail to identify, because everything I, for one, have added, is sourced, and reliably and multiply sourced.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ma'an is the only place that reports it? This is seriously POV." - I haven't read the source, but just because the source shows bias does not mean it can't contribute to an NPOV article. Read WP:BIASED.

"a suicide is a tragedy, it is not a violent incident" - Firstly and most importantly, it's highly contested. Wikipedia only cares about facts; the fact is, masses of people believe there was wrongdoing - commenting on their views is relevant. Secondly, it does technically fit the title; suicide is self-directed violence. Thirdly, it's seen as a catalyst for riots, which have been violent. As a related aside, this article also includes instances of Israel's home demolition policy, with the qualification in the lede. The article doesn't intend to be 100% perfectly descriptive of traditional violence. The conflict is much too nuanced for fundamental interpretations of violence.

The article obviously needs improvement, but it demonstrates multiple POV's from many angles. Cumulatively, multiple POV's can constitute a NPOV. If you see any others, kindly point them out so they can be fixed.

As a reminder, this was forked from Silent Intifada so it could be as NPOV as possible. This list is supposed to be indiscriminate, so if it happened in Israel or the West Bank, it fits. How much "less biased" can you ask for? sudopeople 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Shulmaven. You just created an impossibly stupid article, simply on the basis of what I, out of scruple for the evidence, added re Nedtanel Arami in this article today. I.e. You created Terror murder of Netanel Arami. That is very strong evidence, from the hysterical title (no evidence yet proves the theory investigators are working on) that this is a 'terroristic act' so far. It doesn't warrant an article on its own (I could write articles on several incidents here, the killing of the judge at the Allenby Bridge, etc. - I don't. These things go in lists), at least until, if they do emerge, we have same real evidence of a crime. And they cannot be linked to your hypothesis of a silent intifada if sources don't connect them. Psheesh! That ought to be AfD'd asap.. Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

.'

Is B'tselem a WP:RS?

Can someone establish that B'tselem is a WP:RS. Several incidents listed here are sourced solely to B'tselem.ShulMaven (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitively an RS. See About B'TSelem and B'Tselem. One way to deal with sources is to attribute whatever is supported by these sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies, I'm sure. It is WP:SELFPUBLISHed but "B'Tselem's statistics on casualty figures are 'cited widely by Western news organizations'." which satisfies: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."

It could possibly fall under the category of WP:BIASED but as I pointed out in the section above, that wouldn't necessarily mean it should be excluded from the conversation. sudopeople 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Every source has a bias (check some of the Israeli press for examples). If there are concerns, we can simply attribute the text as in, "according to X". - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

B'tselem is quite conservative in its estimates. No one (see the wiki article for a comical run-down of attempts to smear it) has even scratched its integrity. I don't trust anything, really, but B'tselem is an ornament to its country, a testament to the palmary millennial traditions of Jewish social conscience, philosophical ethics and intellectual integrity, if one must use an ethnic label. It, like so many other organizations of similar origins, is the best argument for philosemitism, and the greatest slap-in-the-face to anti-Semitic critics of Israel these days I can imagine (apart from some of Howard Jacobson's novels).Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as RS. Moreover, in my opinion it's not "the best argument for philosemitism", but rather - for antisemitism.

What may be added to what is already mentioned in "B'Tselem has come under intense fire for what its critics describe as misrepresenting and distorting facts..." (at the moment only):

• World Bank report on Palestinians based on false NGO reports and anti-Israel bias, NGO Monitor, May 16, 2007
• B’Tselem, Los Angeles Times Redefine «Civilian», July 7, 2003 by Tamar Sternthal
• COMMENTS ON B’TSELEM’S CIVILIAN CASUALTY ESTIMATES IN OPERATION CAST LEAD By Elihu D. Richter MD MPH, Genocide Prevention Program and Dr. Yael Stein MD, September 13, 2009
• Israel Media Watch: Beware B’Tselem’s Reports, by Hillel Fendel, israelnationalnews.com, 06/15/10
• Caroline Glick Column One: Agents of influence, jpost.com, 01/07/2011
• ... --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Ma'an New Agency a WP:RS??

Is Ma'an a WP:RS? Several incidents listed here are sourced solely to Ma'an.ShulMaven (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to consider Ma'an News Agency as a reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, yes. And, if anyone doubts that, I would ask them to click on any article on its mainpage to check for tone, facts and understatement compared to the emotiveness of most mainstream Israeli newspapers here.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A good example. I just saw, before shutting this computer down, a Ma'an Agency report on an Israel bus running over two Palestinians, killing one (9:10 pm). So, to satisfy multiple sourcing requests, I checked Haaretz, The Times of Israel and Ynet, and can, as yet, find no mention of the kind of incident that, were Israelis, the victims, would have been instantly reported. I'm sure this will be corrected: perhaps, like the New York Times, they just take several more hours or a day checking the facts before dealing with Palestinian casualties. But the delay is a good example of the problem (WP:Systemic bias) in English reportage. The Israeli Hebrew news sources have reported it, but it hasn't filtered out to goyim. No, I see it's now there on the Times of Israel (11:15, two hours later, in a marginal column, but the fact is presented as a Palestinian POV:'Israeli bus runs over man near Jenin, Palestinians say.' though the article explains the bus ran over people, and one man is dead. I don't complain about that, Shulmaven. I only note it to show that it is by no means an easy matter to see the huge difficulties in securing NPOV in this area.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"I don't complain" - ?

For your "presented as a Palestinian POV" one may find a lot of examples for something "as Israel (police, army...) says" added either by yourself or by somebody else: is it "presented as a Israeli POV" too? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way: was it "violent incident" or "traffic" one ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

On the question of when the POV tag should be removed

It is usual when starting a section or pageasserting that an incident occurred to source to multiple WP:RS sources. In a controversial area like this, where many news agencies are partisan, I do not think that that the POV tag should come off until all incidents are either sourced to multiple WP:RS sources, or individually tagged with tags.ShulMaven (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You will make our job much easier if rather than having a tag at the head of the page, you tag specific passages with {{cn}}, or {{Disputed-inline}}. That way we can address your concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Shulmaven, that is a purely subjective invention. Where is the policy supporting your assertion that multiple sources are required? My impression is that good reputable RS are sufficient for any one fact.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that, Cwobeel (talk · contribs). sudopeople 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is still very POV. Every section starts with a summary of Palestinian injuries with no mention of Israeli. Firstly, does this even belong on a list? You are listing incidents why are there summaries before each? If you look at List of pizza chains they don't talk about pizza before each one. I am not sure why this information is even there. Secondly, if you feel it should be there you need to show the other side. You need to show either both or neither. - Galatz (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article began as a fork of material which focused on nothing more than Shulmnaven's monocular focus on events in which Israelis were victims. So I added material on Palestinian victims to balance the page, while also adding anything that came my way regarding (as I did today) incidents where Israelis were the object of violence. The article will probably have more details on incidents regarding Palestinians because the historic ration of killings and injured from violence is about 10 Palestinians to 1 Israeli. If that is how detailing each verifiable incident classifiable as an act of violence leads, it can't be called POV. It is just being faithful to the record.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of the POV wording

On 13 February 2014, Ibrahim Salman Muhammad Mansur (35) of Gaza City, a non-belligerent, was shot dead from an Israeli military tower while collecting gravel 100 meters from the Gaza-Israel border fence. Israeli sources claim he was tampering with the fence. Another Palestinian was wounded in the incident. Survivors say no warning was given.

Why is the Palestinian claim that he was gathering gravel written as a fact, but the Israeli claim written as a claim? Also saying "survivors" instead of "witnesses" gives the reader an impression like it was a massacre and these people who made the statement were lucky enough to survive - Galatz (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your objection arises from reading the text, but not its sources. B'tselem is a neutral investigative body, and its report, duly cited runs:

On Thursday, 13 February 2014, Ibrahim Mansur, 35, of Gaza City, was shot at a spot about 100 meters away from the perimeter fence, east of Gaza City. Mansur was collecting sand and gravel along with several other people at the time he was shot. According to B'Tselem's inquiries, at around 2:30 PM, several shots were fired at the group from a nearby military watchtower. Mansur was struck in the head, and another man suffered a minor leg injury. Both were taken to a-Shifaa Hospital, Gaza City. Mansur was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. According to a report in Israeli daily Haaretz, military officials said that the soldiers shot at Palestinians who had approached the perimeter fence in the northern Gaza Strip. The military claimed that the Palestinians tried to sabotage the fence and had entered the restricted access area.

Likewise the +972 magazine report states

Ibrahim Mansour was collecting gravel near the Gaza Strip’s eastern border with Israel when he was shot in the head and killed by the Israeli military on Thursday, February 13. One of Mansour’s two companions was injured in the shooting. Both survivors say that no warning was given before they were fired upon.

I.e. they state as a fact what the men were engaged in doing, and then add as a claim what the IDF said was their version of events. I didn't tamper with that report, but simply paraphrased it.

I.e. the survivors' remarks are reported as what they said. I didn't write, which would be POV, 'No warning was given' and secondly, the source calls them survivors. 'Witnesses' would be inexact, since they were not bystanders but were directly shot at, according to the report.

I don't know what the problem is. The girls at their consols pressing buttons to make their automatic sniper rifles take out people trespassing on their own land is a common feature of that area. It began just after the Gaza withdrawal, when B'tselem noticed that: from September 2005. until the end of July 2006, soldiers have killed fourteen unarmed Palestinians near the perimeter fence,' including even an 8-year old girl. I'll check to see if the Israeli claim there was she was sabotaging Israel's security fence.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look here at this RS [1] it clearly states its a claim. Unless there is video evidence that shows exactly what happened both sides are claims. Additionally it no where mentions about entering a restricted area.

As for survivors its still a term used to create emotions. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. The source might use the word but sources have POV all the time

The point is this is just one random line, there are many just like it throughout the article - Galatz (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you ask questions, and they are answered, you should do your interlocutor the courtesy of replying to them, before adding another objection.

The Times of Israel report was written within 1 and a half hours of the incident, giving both versions. B'tselem and Human Rights Watch both investigated the incident. In regard to this, one of many, they determined that he had been collecting gravel. Human Rights Watch wrote,

Ibrahim Mansour, 35, was shot in the head and killed by Israeli soldiers on February 13, 2014, while he and others collected rubble for building materials near the perimeter fence in the Gaza Strip. . . .On February 13, Israeli forces fatally shot 35-year-old Ibrahim Mansour in the head while he and others collected rubble for building material several hundred meters from the perimeter fence. A witness told Human Rights Watch that an Israeli military vehicle fired teargas at four apparently unarmed men, who then fled. When Mansour and others who had taken cover resumed working, Israeli forces fired at them with live ammunition, killing Mansour and wounding another worker as they tried to run away.

Unfortunately for Israel's public presentation of these murders, or war crimes, or however you like to name them, it never provides what it has at hand, direct video film of each and every incident, the video being the basis for those girls and boys who sit behind their consols and press a button to fire the automatic sniper rifles that pick off anyone they decide is a 'security threat' whether 100 metres away or several hundred metres away, as in this case. Press handouts giving a version instantaneously are claims. Investigations by neutral bodies that state what occurred as factual should be written as factual. Human Rights Watch on that same page cites one case where it apparently could not ascertain the facts independently ('16-year-old Adnan Abu Khater, who, according to Palestinian medics, was shot by Israeli troops .') and therefore use attribution. If the IDF wanted to change their position from a claim to a statement of fact, all they needed to do, in this and thousands of other cases, was to provide their multiple photographic and radio reports to journalists. They almost never do. You cannot flatten out as reciprocal claims, instantaneous press releases by an interested party and independent reports made by investigative bodies.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

An anti-Semitic propaganda organization like "Human Rights Watch" that was disowned by its own founder because of its rampant anti-Semitism and a far-left group of nutjobs like B'tselem are not neutral bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.7.52 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit violates the principle you held against me

here

There were no injuries sustained, unlike the other incident. You cited a principle, which I used to justify an edit, and now violate that principle to introduce irrelevant matter. This is just provocation. Compare REPORTING PERIOD: 9 – 15 DECEMBER 2014. Over 2014 the average number of Palestinians physically injured each week by Israeli forces and settlers amount to 114, some 5,707 from 1 January to Decemnber 15. 6 Israelis were injured that week, and 97 Palestinians. We could only incidents where injuries occurred, as per 'violence' in the title. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest reports

suggest the death of Ben Zion has nothing to do with ethnic violence, but was an accident caused when three Palestinian thieves stole his car to sell off its parts. Terrorism had apparently nothing to do with the incident. I've copied the details here, with new sources, if anyone wishes to challenge my excision in terms of the page's definition of what we mean by violence. I think it is related to the conflict, not to everyday thuggery.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

: In a hit-and-run incident, an Israeli settler, Avi Ben Zion (63) of Netiv HaGdud, was left critically injured, and died the day after. The event took place near the Zaatara checkpoint south Nablus. Three Palestinians from were detained in Kfar Qabalan on suspicion of being involved. Israeli police determined that the incident was unrelated to terror but occurred during a bungled carjacking, when the three from Aqraba stole his car to sell off its parts.

References

Originally there was question about whether or not it was terror. Today's reports say they believe it was a carjacking gone wrong so I think it was correct to remove. - Galatz (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

19 October 2014

• diff

I suggest too that according to police's report this incident "has nothing to do with ethnic violence" and move it to Talk page. Has anybody other POV ?

• On 19 October 2014, A settler from Yitzhar struck 2 Palestinian 5 and 8 year old girls with his car while they got off their school bus to return home from their kindergarten near the village of Sinjil. One of the girls, Einas Khalil, was killed; the other Nilin Asfour, sustained serious injuries. The driver fled from the scene for fear of being lynched. He immediately reported the incident and stopped at Ofra, the closest Jewish town on his way. Israeli police concluded it was an accident. Palestinians at the scene asserted it was deliberate. The accident took place on Highway 60, an intercity road where the speed limit is 80 Km/h (50 Miles/h).

References

--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani to Igorp

• (to my "19 October 2014" subtopic above --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC))

Igorp.(a) the Israel version is that the incident on On 19 October 2014 was an accident. The police closed the investifgation within hours. The Palestinians at Sinjil are reported as saying that it wasn’ty accidental. Since that is one POV, one cannot accept the Israeli version as definitive. It therefore fits into a possibly violent incident. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd propose to make a special sign for such "possibly", "reportably", etc. incidents in the article. It'll be interesting to see what is a % of such incidents in this (IMHO - NPOV) article. (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly neither you nor the IP editor overnight removed examples in text of damage to Israeli vehicles. I was opposed to including property but several editors have added examples of damage to Israeli property (the windshield of a settler car near Sinjil village, was damaged when a Palestinian threw a rock at the vehicle’ etc). What has been done is to use the talk page discussion against mentions of property damage to Palestinians, while quietly leaving mentions of property damage to Israeli settlers. This is unconscionably biased POV pushing. What goes for one side goes for the other. Parity of treatment Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, have I wrote smthng about this issue? --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thirdly, why was this removed? '8 December Muath Nouh a Rajabi stabbed in Hebron.' That is violence. And it is doing violence to sources and the text to change settler to Israeli everywhere.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again: why do you ask me about this issue? It's not my edit. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said about Avi Ben Zion where his family claims it was hate crime based. They are either both in or both out. Ashtul (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I entered that as a violent episode. It was removed when an Israeli police investigation analyzing violence against an Israeli concluded it was not. This quite different from cases where an Israeli investigation is dealing with an incident where Palestinians are injured, for their reputation for closing cases almost immediately as 'not proved' is notorious. The Avi Ben-Zion case was intensely investigated for weeks (Israeli police investigating a possible Israeli victim of hate crimes). The Sinjil incident was investigated and wrapped up as an accident within a matter of hours (Israeli police investigating a possible case of a hate crime against Palestinian). Always distinguish, and please do not follow me around as you have been these days.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's similar to the case what you describe in this topic above, only not about Israeli victims. The family and others aren't agree with the police's decision. And you should know about such cases as Shelly Dadon, Netanel Arami, Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer ... when police had to change its prev. decision. So I'd left this accident as 'possible one' as well. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In those cases the police worked for months. The police happen to be officials in a military occupation zone. What they conclude about their ethnic group by due investigative processes should be respected. What they conclude about Palestinians, esp. if investigations are wrapped up in hours, cannot have the same status. Israel's border police and civil administration takes weeks over any incident of settler injuries or killings, and dismisses 95% of Palestinian cases rapidly, as you can see here. When there is such a marked difference in investigative approaches, one cannot accept as proven the Israeli verdict and quash the Palestinian complaint. It would lend authority to one POV. Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You, basing on B'tselem (I may repeat your "Infamous for its carelessness with facts" about it), think so, but many Israelis consider that police works in an opposite way and hides many of Arab terroristic attacks. As I remember you know Hebrew as well, so here is such quote from NRG:

• בדרך כלל הפיגועים אפילו לא מדווחים. ידיעה על "כלב נשך אדם" מופיעה במקרה הטוב במבזקים של האתרים הגדולים, לא מאוזכרת בחדשות ברדיו, קל וחומר במהדורה המרכזית בטלוויזיה. הפיגועים לא מוגדרים פיגועים והמחבלים לא מוגדרים מחבלים, מבחינת התקשורת הישראלית הם אלמונים או צעירים. רק תארו לכם מה היה עושה הדרג הפוליטי אם הייתה פה זעקה תקשורתית על ילדים שנרגמים באבנים ובקבוקי תבערה בדרכם הביתה.

My examples above as well as others, without wiki-link, approve that it's hard and takes a lot of time for Israeli police to receive decision about terror attack. Yet example: from 2 yeshiva students wounded in suspected Jerusalem terror attack (25.11) to Police Admit Arab Stabbing of Jew in Jerusalem was Terror Attack (22.12). By the way: is this incident presented in the article? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The case of Sinjil is an excellent example. Anyone who knows the road can tell you a 5 years old shouldn't be allowed next to it. About 10 years ago I got a ticket for speeding probably 1-2 KM from there. It is normal for people for driving there fast. In addition that day was rainy (though I am not sure of the conditions right there). The guy reported the accident immediately. You don't need to be a scientist to realize it was a car accident. But... Nishidani put it in b/c the family said-so. If that is enough for Palestinians, it should be for Israelis. Some of the incidents you have on this page don't even have eyewitnesses of 'settlers' in the place. A car the ran over a kid can be of either an Arab or a Jew. Many Arabs have yellow-plated cars so that is not an identification. But... Ma'an writes it is 'settlers' (which is even more baseless then simply 'Israelis') and WALLLLLLA... it is in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, Ashtul. You have no awareness of what editing Wikipedia requires. Your personal opinions and tendency to edit saying the 'Israeli version' is the truth (based on your experience) is farcical. Stop following men around. It is impossible to edit intelligently with you on the page.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani to Igorp. You misconstrued the lead

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence between Israel and Palestinians in 2014 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.

You interpreted 'exclusive of . ..within the parameters of the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict' to mean that in the lead of an article entitled 'Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014,' there can be no mention of the statistics of death in that 51 day period when mentioning the overall statistics for the year as reported by OCHA. That translates into sheer nonsense. The 'exclusive of events' means the list will not register individual incidents/events occurring every day in the Gaza-Israel July-August conflict, i.e., it will not mention 150 odd bombing incidents, one by one, where people died. You took that wildly to mean that in an overview of the year, the OCHA figures of fatalities for Israel and Palestine must be given only for the pre-war and post-war period. Got that? Secondly, there was no need to place a clarification tag. neither me nor anyone else is obliged to clarify what sources state, particularly if the request comes from an editor who hasn't examined the source. What sources state is transcribed.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas, but it's your interpretation & POV-pushing :

2,314 Palestinians were killed and 17,125 injured by Israeli operations in 2014, a rise from 39 deaths and 3,964 injuries caused in the previous year, according to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Over the same period 87 Israelis were killed, and 2,629 injured. The majority of casualties occurred during the Gaza War, but 58 Palestinians were killed and 6,028 injured in the West Bank, the highest figure since 2007. Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians,mostly settlers, and security forces resulted in 12 fatalities, compared to 4 the previous year.[3][4]

does translate "into sheer nonsense" (@Nishidani).

Let's add to this Overview info about the "Rockets from Gaza", 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers + "Operation Brother's Keeper", as well about other terror activities, for some reasons (:) not mentioned in your sources. "Got that?" (@Nishidani) :)

And even from this pro-Palestinian OCHA's "document" you've chosen only less number of 12 Israeli fatalities, not mentioning "Fatalities - 16; Injuries - 250".

So it's about you: "particularly if the request comes from an editor who hasn't examined the source" @Nishidani (or who's examined but brought to the article only false one?)

I'll retain this your overal info, repairing it & adding appropriate NPOV tag to the section.

Regarding to the A7 references: see : "there is no consensus for its exclusion". --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See RSN for A7. Generally, you appear to have (a) difficulty in reading English (b) making clear ungarbled arguments based on normal wiki practice and policy. It's not 'my interpretation'. I wrote the sentence, carefully, and knew what I intended by the terms. If you dislike the way I wrote it, then offer suggestions for its improvement.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(as usual: not replying to your personal attacks here as well as in POV-Push revert's description: "Reverted relentless tagging by an incompetent editor...")

You haven't right to remove a tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved".

To be cont. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)