Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023

Template proposition

Would a template displaying the numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed be warranted? A tally, as terrible as that sounds. Mooonswimmer 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. The (usually biweekly) OCHA reports contain the the period tally/year to date figures. Is that not sufficient? Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Demolishment of gunman's home

IDF razes East Jerusalem home of Palestinian gunman behind deadly checkpoint attack

Should we include this? Hundreds of police officers entered the Shuafat camp in order to demolish the home. Mooonswimmer 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't but for my own edits I prefer to try and stay with major incidents involving loss of life or something otherwise notable that makes it into the international press. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be more remarkable on a page about that particular sequence of events, but it appears that the checkpoint attack, unusually for events of this type, never found itself onto a Wikipedia page. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Think it's in the 2022 timeline, 8 October. Could add it there, I guess, "Subsequently..." Israel are demolishing stuff all the time and whether it is punitive, because of lack of a permit or any other reason, it is in general illegal. I am wary of normalizing what are illegal acts in international law. If we put one in, why not all the others? Otoh, a discussion of demolitions in general over a period would be fine to include I think. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect biased page

This page is not showing the correct news on the issues, it is biased towards Palestine and minimizing the attacks and terrorist attacks that Israel is responding too, heartless shootings and stabbings and kidnapping of innocent Israelis and children. 2603:8000:D100:22E9:A555:D148:77F0:4067 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to point out whatever notable events you think have been omitted from the article. If notable, an extended confirmed user will add them to the article promptly. Mooonswimmer 23:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Please add {{main|April 2023 Nablus incursion}} to the top of the 3 April subsection. Thanks. 2A00:23EE:1520:1AC3:70F8:59FF:FEE4:AFC1 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)  Done

April 7th

Please link to the following article regarding the events at April 7th: 2023 Hamra junction shooting. Thanks. TheStriker (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

update there are many who read this page

update there are many who read this page JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Update what? Mooonswimmer 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The one with the chronology of 2021 and 2020 have not done anything, it is empty!!! It is an insult to the truth. JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not stop reporting this conflict, thanks in advance.

I have been following the conflict since I read the 6-day war, since then this topic has interested me a lot because of its relevance on the international stage. JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Israeli settler kills Palestinian

Israeli settler murders 19-year-old Palestinian boy in Sandhala. JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian is from Sandala in Israel so this is not IP conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/135667 JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Still not IP conflict, which is between Israeli and Palestinian not Israeli/Israeli or Palestinian/Palestinian. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

4 Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza 05/08/23

4 Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza 05/08/23 JAIRUS MAGNUS (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Does the ongoing escalation of the Israeli Palestinian conflict need its own article or is it to early?

Many Israeli and Palestinian officials have been warning of a potential third intifada. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably too early to be speaking about an intifada. There are some possibilities for an article about Jenin, the "Area A" incursions more generally, the new Netanyahu gov occupation/settlement policy and so on. Best thing is to keep this timeline wikilinked, up to date and with plenty good refs so that there is material available for those that may look to write an article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Israeli security guard killed in Tel Aviv 5 august

This article describes how Palestinian gunman from a village near Jenin in West Bank entered Tel Aviv and killed a security guard. Most likely a revenge from Jenin raid a few weeks ago. 2A02:A03F:8CFE:A100:ECB7:E703:F282:8903 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Israeli military prepared the family home of the Palestinian for demolition."

This is standard practice and what Israel does to the homes of most Palestinians involved in attacks or suspected of terrorist activities. For the sake of consistency, do we add "The Israeli military prepared the family home of the Palestinian for demolition." after every attack or should this detail be omitted? Mooonswimmer 12:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion about this a while ago, "Demolishment of gunman's home" section above, it does seem from editing by others, that people do want to include these details, assuming sources do.

It is considered improper in international law nor do Palestinians get to demolish the houses of Israelis who kill them. I don't know about Israeli law but this "instant" prepping seems new and possibly why AP saw fit to mention it, their report is later than the others. It does appear as if the new authorities are more enthusiastic about this practice than the previous. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

September 21- "allege"

I would like to remove the language of "allege" from the section talking about two separate Palestinian fatalities killed in disputed circumstances. "Allege" casts the claim in a negative light. How about "According to Israel and the IDF," instead of "Israel and the IDF allege that" and replacing "allegations" with the more neutral term "claims".

Furthermore, the dictionary definition of "allege" is a claim without evidence. The IDF released a video providing evidence to the second claim. Closetside (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

AP uses allegedly in both cases. AP is not in the habit of using this word in their reporting of incidents. WP:CLAIM is arguably worse. The IDF, who have not infrequently been caught out telling porkies, is not reliable (witness the so called video evidence in Shireen Abu Akleh case) and the source is careful to phrase it as "The army released a video showing a man firing a pistol toward soldiers before he was shot by a sniper" (ie it does not say it is evidence nor that it is a video of the incident in question) and which was also improperly reverted in favor of a POV interpretation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The Shireen Abu Akleh case is one-of-a-kind. Afterward, the IDF walked back their allegations by stating they probably found the rifle used by an Israeli soldier during the incident that was used to kill her but needed the bullet to confirm. IDF videos are usually reliable.

Selfstudier, you are correct about "claim." Replace all instances of "claim" with "statement" in my statement above. Closetside (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

6 September MEMRI paragraph

This material has nothing to do with the IP conflict and should not be here, it refers to Abbas making alleged antisemitic speech about the Holocaust and Askenazi Jews in Arabic to members of his own party. Neither Israel nor Palestine are even mentioned. Apart from this, two editors are in any case making POV edits to the material in tandem, both deleting relevant sourced material that they WP:DONTLIKEIT.Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

can you provide examples of my POV editing here...there's actually a lot of pro-Palestinian POV (uncritically citing the PA's state-run media that conveniently leaves out militant group associations, while discounting Israeli statements because they're Israeli, leaving out NPOV details from sources, citing overwhelming left-leaning or pro-Palestinian accounts instead of looking for a balanced, complete perspective) on this page, but I don't think that's what you're referring to. And ridiculous, WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim that there's no I-P connection by the Palestinian president promoting the Khazar myth, regardless of what you think about it, which is a tactic that Abbas and Palestinian leadership have commonly used to insist that the Jews have no connection to what is today I-P, a core contention of the I/P conflict. Not sure why Abbas saying them in Arabic or to members of his own party has to do with it. If Netanyahu said anti-Muslim remarks or denied the connection of Muslims to Al Aqsa in Hebrew at a Likud meeting, it would rightly be added.

I also challenge any uninvolved, non-POV reader to read the RS and come away with the conclusion that incendiary statements by the Palestinian president, and the reaction by the international community, have nothing to with the I-P conflict. But don't take my word for it:

• From the BBC: "His [Abbas's] aim on such occasions is to dispute the connection between the Jewish people and modern-day Israel. Rights to the land lie at the core of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and are entwined with the historical narratives of both peoples.BBC
• From the EU's statement in the BBC and NYT: "In a statement, it said: "Such historical distortions are inflammatory, deeply offensive, can only serve to exacerbate tensions in the region and serve no-one's interests. They play into the hands of those who do not want a two-state solution, which President Abbas has repeatedly advocated for."
• From the TOI: "Abbas also launched a fresh diatribe against the Balfour Declaration, the 1917 document issued by the British government declaring support for a “national home” for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, which he charged America was a party to at the time. “Who invented the [Jewish] state? It was Britain and America, not just Britain,” he claimed. “I am saying this so that we know who we should accuse of being our enemy, who has harmed us and took our homeland away, and gave it to the Israelis or the Jews.""
• From the New York Times: "Mr. Abbas’s false claim drew swift condemnation from Israeli and European officials. It also fueled accusations that Mr. Abbas — an architect of interim peace agreements between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s — is not genuinely committed to resolving the ongoing conflict....His comments illustrated why he has developed a checkered reputation among Israeli and Western partners. Mr. Abbas was one of the chief negotiators in the peace process, and often is credited with helping to reduce tensions following a wave of violence in the 2000s. At times, he has also described the Holocaust as a crime against humanity."

Your editorializing (for example, adding an epithet to MEMRI that was not even mentioned in the source you cited to support the claim [1]) is not perfect here, so I'd cool it with the POV aspersions. Finally, no need to add "alleged antisemitic" in your original comment. Much of the international community (and Palestinian intellectuals) have condemned his comments as such. Longhornsg (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The material I deleted does not mention Israel or Palestine, or actions by the IDF or by Palestinian militants, it only mentions Abbas giving a speech to his own party in Arabic. MEMRI is a pro Israel organization, this is well known and can be sourced very easily, it is as much blue sky as the accusations of antisemitism against Abbas which date way back (even to his thesis). Sources have already queried the timing of this translation and the fact that the West did not even notice it until it was translated later by MEMRI. Therefore the POV you enquire about is removal of this obviously relevant fact. It is also my understanding that equating Israel (which has a population that is only 75% Jewish) with all Jews anywhere is antisemitic of itself. Also note that I added condemnation from Palestinian intellectuals and when I did so, I specifically asked in edit summary what all this had to do with the IP conflict. So who is editorializing? Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Not arguing with labeling MEMRI as pro-Israel or whatever sources say, I just think it should be properly sourced and not synthed, which is why I have no issue with your addition of language from Reuters (and didn't remove it). I've stated this several times. And I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say at the end about antisemitism. My contention here, is going based on what the RS say, which is that Abbas's statements are directly related to I-P. They mention Israel, they mention the Balfour Declaration, they mention the Khazar myth/hypothesis, Jewish immigration from Arab lands, an alleged plot by David Ben-Gurion to get Jews to immigrate to Israel and occupy Palestinian. All of these, and the statements that directly involved world leaders (for the purposes of this article, I wouldn't really care as much if the Spanish president said as much) make on the sides' respective historical narratives, are directly relevant to I-P. It's not just people killing other people. But let's go by what the RS say, and I'd be interested in the opinions of non-involved editors as well. Longhornsg (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

excuse the typos, mobile editing here Longhornsg (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, can we reword the material so that the IP conflict is mentioned together with an explanation of how Abbas speech connects to it (that will deal with the POV problem) and then we can address the question of dueness after that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

what's the dueness issue? and kindly ask that you retract your POV accusations on this point, given my explanation. and what's the point about antisemitism you were making? I don't understand. Longhornsg (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The edit is POV for the reasons I have explained. That will be corrected if the material is adjusted as I asked. It's all undue now because the material as it is now has no connection to the IP conflict. How much of it remains undue will depend on what the material looks like after it is amended. I expect that the amended material will not equate Jews worldwide with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because you added language not supported by an RS, not for POV. Simple as that. Go ahead of re-add with proper citation, which is what I've maintained consistently here. Not sure why you think this is POV or why you're being so WP:BATTLEGROUND. Longhornsg (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We are speaking at cross purposes, the material is POV because it has no relation to the IP conflict and that is why I tagged it as POV and why we are having this discussion. The POV inherent in removing a well known and relevant fact is another, separate issue, which will be resolved when we establish that it should not have been removed by Closetside (I already explained the simple error I made in the first instance with the Intercept source at Closetside talk page in response to your comment about this there.) That you are not sure about why I think this is POV after I have just explained it above, I find confusing. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of POV editing. I'm saying I removed the material because it was not sourced. That's why I did not remove subsequent material that made the same point you wanted to make, as it was properly sourced. How is this POV? My goal is ensuring NPOV, not POV-pushing. My concern is that you've spuriously accused me of POV editing here. It reads like you are making this personal (I removed it because of POV), which I do not appreciate, nor is it accurate. Honestly, I think you would be quite surprised of my POV in real life. You've been making this a battleground, first by insisting my edit was POV, secondly by sarcasticly accusing Closetside as my "buddy". I am my own editor, so keep your issues with that editor out of this discussion. Happy to take this to ANI if you can't stop impugning my policy-supported edit. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I will assume AGF as to the removal of a well known fact for the reason that the source did not support it and ignore the fact that Closetside cited yourself as justification for his later revert. Happy to restrict this discussion to the issue I raised both in edit summary and as primary reason for this discussion, that the material as is does not bear any relation to the IP conflict. I can address this POV myself if preferred. Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can. Feel free to add how the speech relates to the I/P through the analysis the reliable sources provide. Just add it in to the section. Closetside (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How about an RfC on this issue? Closetside (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided above reduce to the BBC/NYT (TOI quote is about American connection to Balfour Declaration which is something else). The Holocaust material is not directly relevant to IP conflict, the main point relevant to IP conflict appears to be Abbas repeating of a discredited claim, the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, made, according to the BBC, in order "to dispute the connection between the Jewish people and modern-day Israel" which the BBC indirectly connects to the IP conflict by "Rights to the land lie at the core of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and are entwined with the historical narratives of both peoples". The NYT is less clear with "It [the assertion "that European Jews were persecuted by Hitler because of what he said were their predatory lending practices, rather than their religion"] also fueled accusations [by whom?] that Mr. Abbas — an architect of interim peace agreements between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s — is not genuinely committed to resolving the ongoing conflict" which seems somewhat self contradictory.

Anyway I will attempt a workup that sets the speech in some sort of IP context without belaboring the irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

How about this?-

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a Washington-based media-monitoring group considered close to Israel, published a verified translation of an 24 August 2023 speech given by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to senior Fatah officials in Arabic. in addition to other dubious claims, Abbas presented the discredited Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry as fact in a speech widely condemned as anti-Semitic. It was unclear why diplomats issued statements only after MEMRI translated and published the claims that Abbas made, two weeks after Abbas made them. Abbas has a history of making doubtful claims with one aim being, according to the BBC, to "dispute the connection between the Jewish people and modern-day Israel" since "Rights to the land lie at the core of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and are entwined with the historical narratives of both peoples." Critics also accuse Abbas of not being genuinely committed to resolving the ongoing conflict. Abbas, who is deeply unpopular at home, was subsequently condemned by dozens of Palestinian intellectuals. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for working through this. Question: why are the Reuters statements unattributed and in Wikivoice, but the BBC statements are attributed and in quotes? Considering both sources are broadly considered reliable and independent, they should be treated the same. Longhornsg (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems as if the sources that we have are having the same difficulty as us in relating the speech to the IP conflict. If there were other sources making the same argument as the BBC, an indirect argument, I would be happy to lose the quotes, do you know of any? I left NYT (Reuters source does not link the speech to IP conflict) without quotes because I just used "Critics...." as summary of what they said. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but your personal WP:IDONTLIKE IT is irrelevant -- we just report what the RS say, which clearly tie this to I/P (which is also WP:SKYBLUE). The Reuters quote doesn't have quotation marks because it's reliably sourced and doesn't need to be attributed. The BBC meets those same standards. Unless there's a POV difference between what the BBC and Reuters say? Otherwise we can go to DR. Longhornsg (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with @Longhornsg. In the speech, Abbas blamed the UK and the US for creating Israel. Hard not to attribute that to the I/P conflict. Furthermore, if the Holocaust was justified, killing all the Jews today (and therefore ending their nation-state) is justified (that’s why there is an application of WP:SKYBLUE). Supporting the Khazar myth is obviously I/P related too - delegitimizing the very existence of Israel as a Jewish nation-state. The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world is also relevant - it was caused by Arab and Iranian aggression toward Jews of their countries after their countries intervened in the 1947-49 Palestine war. Happy to support @Longhornsg on DR. Closetside (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Which Reuters quote are we talking about? I have only commented on the BBC and NYT. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Include October rocket strikes

As of today (6th October 2023) I'm in my 'bunker', I live in the north of the Tel Aviv metro area and here we only got one alarm 4 minutes after gaza launched its first rocket. I know that it's not even an hour since it started but Wikipedia has a reputation for updating within minutes if not seconds TomGoLeen (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

oref.org.il/12481-en/Pakar.aspx

Is a good English language source TomGoLeen (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait it's 7th of October not 6th,

I was woken at 6:33 by the sirens installed 200m from my house TomGoLeen (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm watching the "11 news" channel and there is also footage of terrorists with rifles (idk if semi automatic or what) in a pick up truck, it shows very obvious Israeli street and it's filmed by someone from their apartment. TomGoLeen (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding number of deaths

please update the number of Israeli deaths from a few to a few hundred, as per the parallel Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict 5.28.177.212 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look, prefer not to have casualty counts in the timeline because constantly changing. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a casualty count issue, you basically leave out the scale of the hamas attacks which killed 700+ on october 8. 98.34.174.100 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WAFA

WAFA is the state media of the State of Palestine, an autocracy whose leader redoubled on his Holocaust denial. We should treat their claims with caution, just like extreme Israeli sources (e.g. Arutz Sheva). Additionally, it has an extreme pro-Fatah viewpoint and parrots the points of the Palestinian Authority, which can’t even acknowledge the Holocaust. Therefore, it meets the qualifications of a WP:QS and should not be relied on. Closetside (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think WAFA is OK for basic facts and info, do you have any evidence that claims cited to WAFA over recent years are fabricated? If so, the proper course would be to have a discussion about the source at WP:RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If so, Arutz Sheva is alright too. Despite their bias, there is no record of them fabricating information. Two of their failed fact checks are on COVID-19 and their other failed fact check is on alleged antisemitism by Twitter before it became X. Therefore, both WAFA and Arutz Sheva are reliable or they are both not reliable. Agree? Closetside (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk much about Arutz Sheva, the usual procedure is a discussion at RSN and then if there are already several discussions archived, anyone can conduct an RFC to assess general reliability. Usually, if there is some doubt about reliability in general, I try to stick to basic facts and info and avoid opinion (or perhaps attribute). What is it that you want to cite Arutz Sheva for? Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll bring it up at RSN. In the meantime, please continue adding tags whenever WAFA is the lone source cited. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The usual sources are paying attention to the main event and not so much to WB, eg AP has "Elsewhere, six Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli soldiers Sunday around the West Bank" tucked away in a big article instead of their usual coverage. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Cite the main articles. The event in the West Bank would be the headline if not for the 2023 Gaza-Israel conflict. Also, if the fatality is a known militant or civilian, write that in the event. Closetside (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

OCHA is reporting them now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Use OCHA. The UN is generally reliable. Avoid Wafa due to it literally being the mouthpiece of an autocratic government that spews false and dubious statements. Same for Hamas-affiliated networks.

If there is one sentence in the AP or any reliable source about an event in the West Bank, it is reliable and should be included in the timeline based on the current inclusion standards. That event would be the headline if not for the war going on right now.

I think we can agree that reliable sources for coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict include neutral international wire agencies (e.g. AP, Reuters, AFP), mainstream Israeli media (e.g. Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, YNet), far-left Israeli media (e.g. Ha'aretz, B'Tselem), and international Arab news bureaus (e.g. Middle East Eye). This qualification is in addition to an established reputation of reporting facts and not making claims that are against the facts.

Al Jazeera has a strong pro-militant, anti-Israel and anti-PA viewpoint, although it is generally reliable. Same goes for Arutz Sheva, a far-right Israeli news network.

Avoid Palestinian sources which produce outright antisemitic content (e.g. Maan News Agency).

This analysis applies to I/P reporting only. Al Jazeera, the Jerusalem Post and Arutz Sheva have failed fact checks in other areas. Domestic Israeli politics (e.g. the judicial overhaul, elections) should be analyzed primarily by mainstream sources. Antisemitic Palestinian sources can be used to analyze domestic Palestinian politics. Closetside (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

At WP:RSN, either one asks whether a source is reliable for some material or one asks whether a source is generally reliable via an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I added WAFA to the RSN. If you want an RfC right now, how about you formulate the request. Closetside (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what I mean, one doesn't "add WAFA to the RSN", one either asks...or conduct an RFC. Afaics, it is just your personal opinion placed there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How about you formulate the RfC? I’m relatively new to Wikipedia and may not do it properly. Closetside (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I am quite happy to continue to use WAFA as discussed above (I have been citing WAFA for a couple years now for basic facts eg at COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine as well as in this and 2022 timelines. If you are not happy with that, then you need to address that at RSN yourself.(fyi, there was an inconclusive discussion previously here.) Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Did it. May the best arguments win. Closetside (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The choices are standardized. Take a look at previous examples on the board. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. I standardized the choices. Closetside (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Here there are a lot of citations for WAFA which suggests that editors consider it reliable for something. And as you have seen, there has only been one significant discussion (disrupted by multiple socks) at RSN which suggests the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Same for Arutz Sheva (see here). After spending some time in this dispute I've come to this conclusion: if even a semi-reliable source reports something, it merits inclusion here. Agree? Closetside (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly it is a question of bias rather than unreliability, why I restrict myself to basic facts. We can always attribute anything doubtful. It is a timeline only, not a conclusive source of truth, even the more definitive articles are not that. For myself, I only view the timeline as an aide memoire with the key thing being to get as many refs in as possible that may end up in some article or other and that a reader can read for themselves. Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. For each event, it is as good to include as many sources as possible, even if they are semi-reliable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not to be relied on. Any serious researcher would read the source and consider the bias and reliability of a source before formulating a conclusion about an event.

Furthermore, each side will emphasize different events. It is good to have both sides' emphasized events so a researcher (or even a casual reader) can investigate and formulate an opinion for themselves.

If only an extremely biased source and/or semi-reliable (e.g. Al Jazeera, Arutz Sheva, Wafa, Quds News Network) mentions an event, probably state "according to Y" when mentioning the event in the Wikipedia article, where Y is the source. A researcher or casual researcher can inspect the source and decide for themselves if Y's report is reliable or not. Top-tier sources are very likely to be correct and not cherry picked, hence an event reported by them can be written in wikivoice.

We don't know what will be important in 20-30 years, so if a source is reporting it, it deserves mention. Perhaps in 20-30 years we can eliminate events forgotten by reliable sources from the timeline.

It is nice that we arrived at common ground despite our divergent views. I look forward to working with you in the future. Closetside (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. The only disagreement I have there is with AJ (or any other source at RSP that is currently green), those are GR. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are uncorrelated. Let me rephrase part of my above statement.

• If a semi-reliable source is the sole source, always write "according to"
• If a reliable but very-biased source is the sole source, write "according to" if the story seems to perfectly serve their bias. Reliable sources can cherry pick and not fail a fact check.

Al Jazeera is an example of the second category, a reliable but very biased in favor of Hamas and Palestinian militants and very biased against Israel and the PA. It literally hired a Hamas operative .

Regarding Israel and Palestinian militants, when reporting on the June 2017 Jerusalem attack, it cast doubt on the militants' militant activity and indirectly accused the Israeli police of shooting the militants in cold blood. The militant attack claimed the life of an Israeli border police officer so the existence of the attack was (and is) obvious.

Regarding the PA and Palestinian militants, AJ accuses the PA of literally being Israel's Palestinian proxy while ignoring the immense tension between Israel and the PA, most notably the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund..

Just be careful. If an AJ article solely seemingly perfectly serving its biases. lionizing Palestinian militants, demonizing Israel and/or demonizing the PA, its claims are doubtful due to possible cherry picking and deserve attribution. If the story is neutral or even seems against its typical biases, there is no need for attribution. Same goes for every other reliable but very biased source. Agree? Closetside (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

All sources are biased but AJ is green at RSP. Green means GR. JP is similar, biased (all Palestinians are terrorists according to it) but also Green.

Green means that the bias is not sufficient to affect reliability, we have different colors for those whose bias requires attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep. All events must be presented as neutrally as possible even if a source is biased. I now understand green sources are considered reliable despite their bias, which must be omitted when presenting the event in a Wikipedia article.

Quick correction about the JP. It uses the term terrorist to describe Palestinian militants and alleged Palestinian militants. It will not label a Palestinian a terrorist if there is no allegation of their militant activity. For example, PA President Muhammad Abbas and other high-ranking PA officials are not labelled a terrorists by the JP. Closetside (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The grey area is those sources not listed at RSP and then it becomes a matter of editorial judgement as to how or whether to include material from such a source, particularly if it is the only source.

Most of the time, it's not a problem but in the event of a dispute not resolvable locally, the question can be put directly at RSN "Is (source) reliable for (statement)?"

I often find that the best way is simply to present a source with a different POV to a contested source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Look forward to great collaboration in the future @Selfstudier. Closetside (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

The article glaringly fails to convey the timeline. The main Wikipedia article on the October conflict is better.

"At least 3,000 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip as Hamas militants broke through the border and entered Israel, killing at least 700 Israelis[47][48] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict 5.28.178.121 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Casualties figures won't be on the timeline until the end of the war because the figures are rapidly updated. The barrage of rockets is recorded, along with the fact that there are a large number of fatalities, injuries, and hostages. But not quantified.

Spelling mistake

look at 9th of october there is "bringinging" instead of "bringing 87.68.136.59 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (2)

The current timeline fails to mention specifically an event, without which, the timeline is false and misleading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacre 5.28.178.121 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a source. Also read the request "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Atm, nothing other than the initial events is included in the timeline because articles are still carrying the current events tag. I suggest waiting for things to settle a bit before attempting to summarize a complicated set of events of which this just seems to be a part. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Totals across multiple days should specify time period

For example, the section for October 10 claims that:

> 900+ people have been killed and 2,600+ wounded in Israel. Hamas gunmen are said to be holding about 150 hostages. At least 687 Palestinians were killed and at least 3,726 injured.

Those numbers are *totals* since the beginning of the current war (“intifada”?). If it is a section for a particular *day*, as this section is, and it lists totals over some preceding time period, the period should be stated exactly. Otherwise the resulting ambiguity can be extremely misleading when it concerns a war. I cannot edit it to clarify but hopefully someone can. Goblin89 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Can only go by what the source says, ie ....entered a 4th day, for updated figures and detail, best to visit the wikilinked main article, these figures change all the time. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tallies should not repeat past numbers every day. The section about 6 November should reflect that day, and not the past month again and again. The source you're using gives the numbers for each day, and that's what should be cited. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The cumulative data is given by the source and I see no reason why it should not be used, that was what was as well done with every OCHA update prior to October 7, total during the period and cumulative, nothing new here, also it seems quite logical to do that. No problem to give daily figures in addition, feel free to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Those totals were added by you, and there's no logic to constantly spamming last month's data in a section about one day. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not last month's data it is cumulative data to a day, that is not spamming, the data varies. That is currently the way OCHA is reporting the data, since October 7, I suppose that they will return to the old system at some point. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa provocation on 4th October

On October 4, there appears to have been a provocation by Israelis in the Al-Aqsa complex:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/4/israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-mosque-complex-on-fifth-day-of-sukkot
https://www.newarab.com/news/over-800-israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-compound-sukkot
Georg_Rempftel (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been a number of such incidents recently (and many more less "provocative" before that) but since they have not resulted in deaths, rioting etcetera, they are not widely reported in English language media.

If there was a source summarizing the recent incursions/provocations, whatever to call them, maybe we could include that. Do you know of any such? Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Please add:

"=== 15 November ==="

"Gaza's Parliament building was bombed and destroyed by IDF ground forces after being taken over the day before."

• sources:
  • https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/military-demolishes-hamas-parliament-building-in-gaza-city/
  • https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/1397151/article/2023-11-15/le-parlement-de-gaza-detruit-par-l-armee-israelienne-au-lendemain-de-sa-conquete
  • https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-troops-blow-parliament-building-143139690.html

91.54.1.54 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

I would like an additional entry to 28 December 2023 be added to note of South Africa's "APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS" (Primary source link). I think a suitable sentence would be the one currently in the Palestinian genocide accusation article:

"On 29 December, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging that Israel's conduct amounted to genocide." The two sources for this sentence provided are the Associated Press and Reuters.

Ideally, there will also be a follow-up to this in the Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 article on 11/12 January once the hearings take place (Reuters source).

Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually just about to add an additional suggestion for a wikilink to the South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) article, but it looks like you did that already. Thanks again. JasonMacker (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)