This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | â | Archive 25 |
How on earth can someone cite a sentence from a PBS show:
But WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harmâs way.
This is not a reliable source. I'll delete the referenced sentence in Wikipedia till noted otherwise. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that we take everything bad about the Israelis at 100% face value without any attempt to context, while bad things said about the Palestinians must have clarifications, context, etc and create drama and hand-wringing? The Squicks ( talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but a very quick stroll through some A-I articles shows the fallacy of "pro israeli" statement. Case in point the entire fourth paragraph relies heavily on publications that have been refuted in Wikipedia itself. -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make the section as neutral as I could- citing the disputed claims of both sides. Supposedly, the Israel government disputes the figures cited by BBC, The Nation, and The New York Times given that it has its own contradictory figures. I believe that there was a discussion about this somewhere in the talk page archives. Does anyone have any idea about what those figures are? The Squicks ( talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which figures you are looking for. Shabak - An official source has the following concerning attacks against Israeli civilians and hamas takeover of gaza: The increase in attacks between 2005 and 2006 (the year hamas assumed control of Palestinian legislative council) was 17% (1831 during 2005, 2137 during 2006). between 2006-2007 the increase is 41% (2137 during 2006, 3032 during 2007). During 2008 a high attack rate was preserved (in first 6 months 1828 attacks which constitute 60% of entire 2007). Starting 19-June-2008 (the low hostilities agreement) there is significant reduction in attacks, but by 30th NOV they have reached 2019, or 67% of total 2007 attacks [1]
these numbers are provided to show direct correlation between hamas seizure of power and attack intensity on israel, which led to the blockade in the first place. As for number of trucks entered during the period - I would assume OCHA is RS, more than either Israeli or news agencies. Certainly raw data can be compiled from the reports, if no one had done that already.-- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I only skimmed the previous discussions on photos, so somebody please inform me if I'm just being clueless, but isn't there some verifiability criterion for photos and their captions, too? My question is prompted mainly by the horrifying picture of the dead baby. I mean, if there's a photo of a demonstration where a bunch of people are holding Palestinian or Israeli flags, I think "well, it's pretty obvious what this is, it would be hard to fake, and besides, why would anyone want to", so I won't be inclined to ask questions about its authenticity. But I look at this image and, honestly, I can't tell if it's a baby or a burnt plastic doll (which is a horrible thought, if it is a baby), and of course there's nothing in the photo itself that indicates that it has to do with this conflict at all. This may seem overly cynical of me, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and have to be cynical: in a conflict where public perception counts for so much, aren't we to consider the possibility that somebody on either side could burn a doll, or at least adopt an unrelated photo from another situation, in order to score PR points? Also, in this particular case the source of the image (International Solidarity Movement) says that the baby was run over a tank. I don't know much about tanks, but I would expect that in that case (and the horrible-ness just gets worse and worse) the baby would be, you know, crushed and covered with tread marks; which just whets my skepticism more. Answers? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If a picture of a Palestinian baby is placed in the article, I wonder if it might be possible to try to find a picture of the Israeli baby who was reported to have been injured in a rocket attack. PinkWorld ( talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
There is footage of the body in the hospital (needless to say I don't think the scene was staged), here is the link [2] starts at 2:20. Here is the description "In a report Thursday, the UN said thirty of the victims killed in the Zeitoun attack had been taking shelter in a home on orders from the Israeli military. More than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated there and told to stay indoors. Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.
Attia Barami: âThe Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the babyâs body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Without hurting anyone feelings I oppose this picture too. Please remove it. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, I advocate its removal too. It's sensationalist, not representative. -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no vote taking place. This is a discussion. "oppose" doesn't suffice. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think a vote is appropriate I am amenable to a vote. But I think it belongs in its own section, properly labeled so there can be no misinterpretations.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The website footer says "Unless otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Please see licensing information accompanying each individual video. " When you click on a video it then says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", which can be used commercially. I think this makes the footage (and stills that are derived from it) compatible. 155.69.179.33 ( talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Snapshots from the free videos at http://cc.aljazeera.net can be uploaded to the Commons via commons:Commons:Upload, and categorized in these categories or their subcategories:
Create more subcategories as needed. The Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository may eventually include photos and videos from various conflicts and wars. I sent them an email asking them to post some free images too.
Short videos can be uploaded too if they are converted to formats accepted by the Commons.
The template to use on the image or video page: Template:Cc-by-3.0
The direct upload pages if you already know know the license, and its copyright tag:
Some (mostly free) tools, help, and resources:
Please see:
Flickr: ISM Palestine's Photostream.
It says the photos are taken by ISM members. See
All the photos from there that I have checked so far are licensed under
See commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0
The image license tag to use is
Paste it into the image or video page on the Commons during or after uploading. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Images are being uploaded. Palestinian casualty photos should be categorized in:
Who and why removed the tag? I searched the edit summary and no dice in the explanation, and I will not go around comparing versions. We need that tag because significant neutrality issues have been raised that we are unable to fix so we need uninvolved set of eyes. I see no reason to remove the tag. -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone here speaks Hebrew, can they read this YNET article about allegations about improper use of text messaging (at least that what I understand the article is about)?
As a neutral reader of this article, all I can say is that it's way too long, biased toward different point in different sections and contains incorrect informations and useless ones as well. Trying to correct mistakes goes nowhere as fanatics are trying to restore what they wrote every 2 seconds. Perhaps when the conflict settles down someone will trim the article and fix its neutrality. -- 66.36.140.174 ( talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the implication in the lead that "Massacre" is only prevalent as a description in the arab world needs adjusting. It seems to be used in plenty of non-Arab countries including non Arab Islamic ones but also places like Bangladesh: [5], London: [6], [7], Auckland NZ [8], Australia [9] although that one may be a blog, and by all sorts of people like George Galloway etc. -- BozMo talk 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator, you should know that "opinion" sections and press releases don't count as reliable, neutral sources. Bring more convincing, meaning higher quality references than these. Every single time we try to establish common usage of a name/phrase we do this based on reliable sources, not blogs and the like.
Or do I miss something here? We could bring low quality sources to establish the term "Gaza Holocaust". I think you should "think a little deeper" as you suggest regarding to where this would lead.
Squash Racket (
talk)
13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
from the article: "Similar claims were made by Arab media and Palestinian sources during the 2002 Battle of Jenin but were later proved to be false.[citation needed]" I found the citation.
'No Jenin massacre' says rights group
By Paul Wood
BBC
3 May, 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin. The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
...
Much of the controversy about Jenin has concerned the number of dead with the Palestinians claiming hundreds and the Israelis saying less than 45, and all of them fighters. Human Rights Watch says at least 52 Palestinians died of whom 22 were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed wilfully and unlawfully the report says. Palestinian civilians were used as human shields and the Israeli army employed indiscriminate and excessive force, the report says.
My PoV is chomping at the bit to say something. I wonder if there is any way to connect the section on accusations of massacre to sections related to international and humanitarian law.
PinkWorld (
talk)
04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Please take a look at this: [10]. I object to the edit summary and the edit itself. What Rabend removed were not "sob stories", as he put it, but facts regarding the circumstances under which these facilities were hit, the number of people they served, and the reactions of people concerned by their destruction. Rabend also in a subsequent edit added the word "alleged" before "attacks on medical facilities and personnel", even though there is no evidence to suggest that these attacks did not happen. In fact, Israel admits to hitting some of these places, in one case calling the clinic to warn people to evacuate.
I would ask other editors to intervene here to restore what has been deleted and to restored a neutral title to the section, not one that makes false equivalences. Tiamut talk 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is very close to getting protected for edit warring. Please make sure to discuss edits here. Stifle ( talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe semi-protection needs to be returned until the war is over. The number of IP edits has increased greatly in the last few days. Many are vandalism without edit summaries, discussion, etc..
Wikipedia:Protection policy: "administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption â for example, due to media attention â when blocking individual users is not a feasible option."
Can someone make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I don't have time at the moment. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
With more than 1,000+ casualties the article should be renamed 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War. Kermanshahi ( talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
'War On Gaza'? 'Massacre'? Here we go again, with people refusing to accept the fact that there is a difference between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian combatants/miliants and asking the article to make them be the same. Sigh. This is not a "War on Gaza". This is a "War in Gaza". in Gaza and not on Gaza. This is a war between Hamas and the IDF taking place inside the area of the Gaza strip. This is not a war between the IDF and every last man, woman, and child living in a certain area (which would be an extermination campaign and not actually a war).
These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate. Look at basically any article based off of The Troubles, where Irish civilians were in danger from British soldiers, or the Second Chechen War, where Muslim civilians/Russian soldiers, or the 2008 South Ossetia war, where Georgian civilians/Russian soldiers, and so on. There are so many instances where we could use inflammatory language and we have sources for them but we stay neutral. The Squicks ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it a war against Hamas is something of a simplification, there are many militant elements in Israel which this article notes later on, but not in name. Thoughts? p.s. Calling it the war on Gaza is quite inaccurate, I read somebody suggesting the Economists choice of term "war in Gaza" which fits much better. Superpie ( talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
People, I know its hard to let go, but it turns out once more Cerejota's crystal adamantium balls (handle with care) were right. We should rename to "2008-2009 Gaza War". I won't gloat anymore except to say that ALL the media in the middle east, including Israeli media, is calling it so (besides massacre). There is near unanimous agreement that what we have here is a momentous historical milestone, that marks a new phase on the I-P conflict. It is time we listen to what the reliable sources are saying: yes, "assault", yes "massacre", yes "war on hamas", yes "war on Gaza", yes "Palestinian lovefest". The reality is, and has been since the weeklies came out last Friday, that this is now known as Gaza War. Man, even the damn protests for and against int heir propaganda call it the Gaza War. I implore all of you to consider and ponder the sources, specially the more thoughful, less newsy ones (le monde diplomatique, the economists, etc), and call this by the name historians are calling it, in the fashion they call Capital W War. Examples abound
Pacific War (how can you make war on an ocean?!?!?),
Six Day War (how can you make war on a week sans Sabbath?),
Phoney War (I mean, historians have a weird sense of humor!!!) etc etc etc. "Gaza War" doesn't imply action, it implies historicity, it implies encyclopedic value. Lets not fight the wars here for a second, and ponder that. Thanking you in advance... --
Cerejota (
talk)
00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This entire section is garbage. Most of its sources are highly biased opinion articles or ideological websites. We even cite Wikipedia itself as a supposed source (WTF?!). The idea that 'The United States has long made war against the Palestinians' is highly biased and is stated baldy as a fact without a specific reference. Must we refuse to distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian militants in this section? This is highly controversial.
The 'Iranian part' and the 'American Part' have the same problems, only from opposite ends: One uses biased pro-Palestine sources to make an original research synthesis and the other uses biased pro-Israel sources to make an original research synthesis. The Squicks ( talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I copied the whole section from the history and put it in User:Sean.hoyland/tmp. If whoever created it has a warm feeling of kinship towards the text it's there if you want it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
..is there any ? Who is doing what ? Are enough people working on it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. They are very helpful. I have gotten help there several times. I have also helped edit some of their resource pages. I recently helped a guy from Turkish Wikipedia to get an SVG map of Syria by asking there. He had asked me for help on my talk page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've watched this one because the description said the following which looked high priority to me.
However, the video doesn't actually contain that material. It contains handheld footage shot at a hospital of casualities coming in. Seems callous to say this but I would assign this video a low-ish priority if we need to assign priorities. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ...oh, and I emailed them to tell them they are spreading filthy lies with their inaccurate description and asked for an amendment. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"A three-hour ceasefire took place on 9 January as well. Three Grad rockets were fired from Gaza at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[192]
Hamas continued to launch rockets throughout the Israeli ceasefire again on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[193] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[194]"
The above has been removed from the text regarding humanitarian ceasefires. Im happy with that, however does anyone wish this information to remain? If so, could they rewrite it in a manner more keeping with the tone of the section that Hamas has continued to fire through Israeli ceasefires rather than "on this day -this happened", "and on this day -this happened". Else I will try to do so at a later time (I think others could do it better, as I would leave it out though I can imagine many would think it worth noting). Thanks Superpie (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
i restored it to the consensus based version Untwirl ( talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It was user Doright claiming it is OR in this edit [14] Nableezy ( talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The worst source to go to for a Gaza civilian count is the people who killed them and have a reason to lower the number. In addition, IDF doesn't count the bodies (running them over with tanks like they are nothing is what they have done), Palestinian medics are the ones collecting the bodies, counting them. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda. It should not be in the infobox at all.-- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the criterion we should adopt on what to include in the Infobox is: "which figure do notable third party neutral sources quote when they discuss casualties". As far, as I can make out, notable third parties tend to quote the Ministry of Health figure and almost no neutral sources quote the IDF figure. Here are a few references: 1) UNRWA (from Jan 13) which quotes the number of children killed as 311 (which already exceeds 250). 2) Foxnews: (from Jan 9) quotes a figure of 257 children dead and quotes a UN official who says this is credible. 3) San Francisco Chronicle (same story as above) 4) Economist (Jan 15) states that 400 women and children have died. 5) Al Jazeera claims half the total casualties are civilian. 6) Human Rights Watch (press release) again quotes the Ministry of Health
As far as I can see, the Ministry of Health figure is the figure that is repeated and taken seriously by international organizations worldwide. As someone pointed out above, in a war both sides tend to release inaccurate reports. There is no reason for us to reiterate these reports unless third party, neutral and notable sources take them seriously. For that matter, some Palestinian organizations have claimed that they killed "50 Israeli soldiers". This figure is not in the article and rightly so, for it is not taken seriously by third parties. The IDF figure for the number of civilians dead can go in the text but definitely not in the Infobox. If someone would like to include it there, please produce some neutral, notable reliable sources that quote this figure. thanks Jacob2718 ( talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"Elements in Indonesia are seeking to put together a coalition such as the one put together after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[419][420]" - what are "elements in Indonesia"? Besides, the two references have nothing to with the facts stated by this sentence. --
JensMueller (
talk)
23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Definite weasel words, that portion should be removed. 67.42.114.117 ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say remove. Its dubious. Superpie ( talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it is ridiculous, thank you to whoever put the tag in there. Nao, some suggestions:
Of course, we can also choose to have this unreadable behemoth... -- Cerejota ( talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've an odd affection for this ugly, ugly baby only editors involved could hope to make sense of. Superpie ( talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked some of the references for this article in order to add more information (title, author, date, etc.) to them. My findings are below.
Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Jan 4, 2009
Updated Jan 5, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733174237&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Israel rejects EU calls for immediate cease-fire
Radio Netherlands
05 January 2009
Last updated: Monday 05 January 2009
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6122316/Israel-rejects-EU-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire
Israeli jets kill âat least 225â in strikes on Gaza
Marie Colvin, Tony Allen-Mills and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
Times Newspapers (? - Copyright 2008 Times Newspappers Ltd)
28 Dec 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece
Israeli Troops Mobilize as Gaza Assault Widens
By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers
28 Dec 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
ABC News - Copyright © 2009 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
Palestinians say Gaza death toll now 1,010
CNN
14 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/14/israel.gaza/index.html
ŚŚŚŚŚ ŚŠŚ"Ś Ś Ś€ŚŠŚąŚ ŚŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚšŚ Ś§Ś
ŚŚŚ Ś©ŚŚȘ, 10 ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚš 2009
14.1.2009
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1414914
(I can only hope that I got the title of the article and the date of publication.)
http://www.nrg.co.il links are in Hebrew. Can a Hebrew speaker get the article information from them, please? Thank you.
PinkWorld (
talk)
20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Israelis, Hamas clash near Gaza City, witnesses say
CNN
updated January 11, 2009
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.gaza/?iref=mpstoryview
Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed
CNN
15 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html
IDF: Civilian deaths less than 25% of total
By YAAKOV KATZ
14 Jan 20090
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Two Egyptian Children, Police Injured in
Israeli Air Strike Near Gaza Border
By VOA News
11 January 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm
Hamas: 120 police dead, 95% of security buildings demolished and hundreds of civilians slain
Ma`an
29 Dec 2008
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34375
Three Palestinian soccer players killed in Gaza violence
RIA Novosti
14 Jan 2009
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090114/119490704.html
PinkWorld (
talk)
04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Previous consensus on talkpage ([ [15]]) was that police casualties should be left alone, and combined neither with civilians nor militants/fighters.
I don't see that this consensus has changed, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can we re-reach an agreement on this? VR talk 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I support them as the verified reliable sources treat them. -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute... we have no consensus as to whether or not they should be counted as civilian or as miltants. The reliable sources are deeply divided and frequently disagree. If we as editors create our own 'consensus' to label them all as innocent civilians as Nableezy has suggested, that means that were waving our hand and ignoring what a large chunk or reliable sources say. That simply is not acceptable. The Squicks ( talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
where should this be placed User talk:Yousaf465
I would urge you to move it to the main article, if not, certainly below the UN and other reactions. Superpie ( talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think moving these two events from where they currently are to controversial events would make more sense.
* 2.4.2.1 Al-Fakhura school * 2.4.2.2 UN headquarters
Thoughts? Superpie ( talk) 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is still cluttered even though decent sources are coming in. It is time to modify it. Civilian can be used and "women and children" can be used in the casualties section where appropriate Cptnono ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted his latest.
Squash: understand that {{ POV}} is fully redundant with {{ activediscuss}}, down to inclusion in the appropriate neutrality categories etc. The removal is not a removal of the neutrality issues, but tidying up and consolidating into a more useful tag, that presents the same information: {{ pov}} is meant for articles whose only issue is POV. That is not the case here, as has been made abudantly clear.
Furthermore, since there are POV matters, we need a POV-check tag, because we want to resolve that matter. I can barely understand you placing a pov tag, I simply cannot phanthom why the pov-check tag is being removed. Please don't.
Lastly, in your edit sumamry you claim "see talk" but I don't see any explanation on your part of why you insist on this. Please feel free to do so here.-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The template that I originally inserted says: The neutrality of the article is disputed. Let's say that kind of reflects reality. Someone changed it afterwards without discussion to "the article is nominated for neutrality check" which to me sounds a bit strange, so I added back the original, simple statement.
I referred to the talk page for current POV disputes (not for a section about the template itself) just as the template asks for this. If you think "activediscuss" highlights the problems enough, I'm just wondering why do you "nominate" the article for POV check instead of simply adding the "neutrality is disputed" tag. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket ( talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)# The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.(...)This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject.
WP:LOVE
The article is getting too long and too detailed in certain parts. May I suggest creating an article 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire from section 1.1 "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire" to reduce the size of that section?
Opinions? Comments?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 09:19
Might be an idea, will there not be quite a lot of overlap between that and the blockade article? Superpie ( talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is already an article for that 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is my point about the background section being too long: it has material that goes in other articles. Its recentism at its worst, and why all of these conflict articles are an open sore in encyclopedic quality.-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, took a deep breath and cut up most of the "Background" section... Let's see how long this lasts. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 14:13
"3 top soccer players" - top? you mean professional? it should be changed.
"Among the wounded there were 1,600 children and 678 women" -I still don't understand this one - if from the 5,100 wounded this is the confirmed ones, shouldn't it be like "***Among the 670 reported civilian fatalities 519 are confirmed as". "Among the 5,100 wounded there were confirmed: 1,600 children and 678 women" - isn't that phrasing better?--
62.0.140.228 (
talk)
09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
155 arrested for rioting
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647869,00.html
Israeli citizen offers the Iranian embassy copies of Israeli papers
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656848,00.html
That the reporters were released to house arrest
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656756,00.html
71 Palestinian illegal residents arrested, some released some still in custody
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654528,00.html
500 Palestinian illegal residents arrested
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653465,00.html
Hamas executes 6
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651845,00.html
5 arrested for rioting in Nazareth
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649149,00.html
suspected in mall shooting
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649055,00.html
--
62.0.140.228 (
talk)
09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If somebody with some talent in images could fix this it'd be great. I've... Somehow got rid of one for the time being, but its of the UN security council in sesh and it is interesting. Thanks Superpie ( talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a specific exchange here that bothered me so I started typing a reply when I realized that what I wanted to say applied to this discussion generally. I said to someone the other day that you can't have a good article with a bad talk page. If this article is going to improve, it needs to start here.
I don't want to point fingers or single anyone out but it does really feel like battle lines have been drawn here. This talk page feels very unwelcoming. I don't consider myself to be either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I've spoken a little here but I've been really choosy about where to comment. I have avoided saying what my feelings are about specific issues because I thought it would make one side or the other feel like I was the enemy.
The article's text is always changing. A lot of whatâs there now won't be next month. You can get some kind of plurality in one of these little fights and put something up on the article but if you want it to last, you need to find a real consensus. All of our work is meaningless without that. A real consensus only comes when you account for the concerns of those who disagree, not when you find an excuse for why you didn't.
I think that, at least for a little while, I won't be editing this article. I'm just leaving this message for the benefit of the people who will. I think that you're all well-meaning people. And I have faith that things can improve. Above all, I think that weâll get the article we deserve. So good luck. Peace.
And donât tell me to see WP:SOAP! -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright Ghandi ;). Noted though :) Superpie ( talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |acessdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | â | Archive 25 |
How on earth can someone cite a sentence from a PBS show:
But WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harmâs way.
This is not a reliable source. I'll delete the referenced sentence in Wikipedia till noted otherwise. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that we take everything bad about the Israelis at 100% face value without any attempt to context, while bad things said about the Palestinians must have clarifications, context, etc and create drama and hand-wringing? The Squicks ( talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but a very quick stroll through some A-I articles shows the fallacy of "pro israeli" statement. Case in point the entire fourth paragraph relies heavily on publications that have been refuted in Wikipedia itself. -- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make the section as neutral as I could- citing the disputed claims of both sides. Supposedly, the Israel government disputes the figures cited by BBC, The Nation, and The New York Times given that it has its own contradictory figures. I believe that there was a discussion about this somewhere in the talk page archives. Does anyone have any idea about what those figures are? The Squicks ( talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which figures you are looking for. Shabak - An official source has the following concerning attacks against Israeli civilians and hamas takeover of gaza: The increase in attacks between 2005 and 2006 (the year hamas assumed control of Palestinian legislative council) was 17% (1831 during 2005, 2137 during 2006). between 2006-2007 the increase is 41% (2137 during 2006, 3032 during 2007). During 2008 a high attack rate was preserved (in first 6 months 1828 attacks which constitute 60% of entire 2007). Starting 19-June-2008 (the low hostilities agreement) there is significant reduction in attacks, but by 30th NOV they have reached 2019, or 67% of total 2007 attacks [1]
these numbers are provided to show direct correlation between hamas seizure of power and attack intensity on israel, which led to the blockade in the first place. As for number of trucks entered during the period - I would assume OCHA is RS, more than either Israeli or news agencies. Certainly raw data can be compiled from the reports, if no one had done that already.-- 84.109.19.88 ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I only skimmed the previous discussions on photos, so somebody please inform me if I'm just being clueless, but isn't there some verifiability criterion for photos and their captions, too? My question is prompted mainly by the horrifying picture of the dead baby. I mean, if there's a photo of a demonstration where a bunch of people are holding Palestinian or Israeli flags, I think "well, it's pretty obvious what this is, it would be hard to fake, and besides, why would anyone want to", so I won't be inclined to ask questions about its authenticity. But I look at this image and, honestly, I can't tell if it's a baby or a burnt plastic doll (which is a horrible thought, if it is a baby), and of course there's nothing in the photo itself that indicates that it has to do with this conflict at all. This may seem overly cynical of me, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and have to be cynical: in a conflict where public perception counts for so much, aren't we to consider the possibility that somebody on either side could burn a doll, or at least adopt an unrelated photo from another situation, in order to score PR points? Also, in this particular case the source of the image (International Solidarity Movement) says that the baby was run over a tank. I don't know much about tanks, but I would expect that in that case (and the horrible-ness just gets worse and worse) the baby would be, you know, crushed and covered with tread marks; which just whets my skepticism more. Answers? Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If a picture of a Palestinian baby is placed in the article, I wonder if it might be possible to try to find a picture of the Israeli baby who was reported to have been injured in a rocket attack. PinkWorld ( talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
There is footage of the body in the hospital (needless to say I don't think the scene was staged), here is the link [2] starts at 2:20. Here is the description "In a report Thursday, the UN said thirty of the victims killed in the Zeitoun attack had been taking shelter in a home on orders from the Israeli military. More than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated there and told to stay indoors. Palestinian paramedic Attia Barami was among the first to reach the victims.
Attia Barami: âThe Red Cross got permission for us for three ambulances to enter the northern area of Gaza. We found bodies that the tanks drove over. The medics checked the bodies and found damage at the cellular level, and bodies. This baby girl, age five months, she has been dead for more than two days. The dogs ate parts of the babyâs body. This baby was burned because you can see her face and body are dark and charred." -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Without hurting anyone feelings I oppose this picture too. Please remove it. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, I advocate its removal too. It's sensationalist, not representative. -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no vote taking place. This is a discussion. "oppose" doesn't suffice. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think a vote is appropriate I am amenable to a vote. But I think it belongs in its own section, properly labeled so there can be no misinterpretations.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The website footer says "Unless otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Please see licensing information accompanying each individual video. " When you click on a video it then says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License", which can be used commercially. I think this makes the footage (and stills that are derived from it) compatible. 155.69.179.33 ( talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Snapshots from the free videos at http://cc.aljazeera.net can be uploaded to the Commons via commons:Commons:Upload, and categorized in these categories or their subcategories:
Create more subcategories as needed. The Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository may eventually include photos and videos from various conflicts and wars. I sent them an email asking them to post some free images too.
Short videos can be uploaded too if they are converted to formats accepted by the Commons.
The template to use on the image or video page: Template:Cc-by-3.0
The direct upload pages if you already know know the license, and its copyright tag:
Some (mostly free) tools, help, and resources:
Please see:
Flickr: ISM Palestine's Photostream.
It says the photos are taken by ISM members. See
All the photos from there that I have checked so far are licensed under
See commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0
The image license tag to use is
Paste it into the image or video page on the Commons during or after uploading. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Images are being uploaded. Palestinian casualty photos should be categorized in:
Who and why removed the tag? I searched the edit summary and no dice in the explanation, and I will not go around comparing versions. We need that tag because significant neutrality issues have been raised that we are unable to fix so we need uninvolved set of eyes. I see no reason to remove the tag. -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone here speaks Hebrew, can they read this YNET article about allegations about improper use of text messaging (at least that what I understand the article is about)?
As a neutral reader of this article, all I can say is that it's way too long, biased toward different point in different sections and contains incorrect informations and useless ones as well. Trying to correct mistakes goes nowhere as fanatics are trying to restore what they wrote every 2 seconds. Perhaps when the conflict settles down someone will trim the article and fix its neutrality. -- 66.36.140.174 ( talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the implication in the lead that "Massacre" is only prevalent as a description in the arab world needs adjusting. It seems to be used in plenty of non-Arab countries including non Arab Islamic ones but also places like Bangladesh: [5], London: [6], [7], Auckland NZ [8], Australia [9] although that one may be a blog, and by all sorts of people like George Galloway etc. -- BozMo talk 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator, you should know that "opinion" sections and press releases don't count as reliable, neutral sources. Bring more convincing, meaning higher quality references than these. Every single time we try to establish common usage of a name/phrase we do this based on reliable sources, not blogs and the like.
Or do I miss something here? We could bring low quality sources to establish the term "Gaza Holocaust". I think you should "think a little deeper" as you suggest regarding to where this would lead.
Squash Racket (
talk)
13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
from the article: "Similar claims were made by Arab media and Palestinian sources during the 2002 Battle of Jenin but were later proved to be false.[citation needed]" I found the citation.
'No Jenin massacre' says rights group
By Paul Wood
BBC
3 May, 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin. The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
...
Much of the controversy about Jenin has concerned the number of dead with the Palestinians claiming hundreds and the Israelis saying less than 45, and all of them fighters. Human Rights Watch says at least 52 Palestinians died of whom 22 were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed wilfully and unlawfully the report says. Palestinian civilians were used as human shields and the Israeli army employed indiscriminate and excessive force, the report says.
My PoV is chomping at the bit to say something. I wonder if there is any way to connect the section on accusations of massacre to sections related to international and humanitarian law.
PinkWorld (
talk)
04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Please take a look at this: [10]. I object to the edit summary and the edit itself. What Rabend removed were not "sob stories", as he put it, but facts regarding the circumstances under which these facilities were hit, the number of people they served, and the reactions of people concerned by their destruction. Rabend also in a subsequent edit added the word "alleged" before "attacks on medical facilities and personnel", even though there is no evidence to suggest that these attacks did not happen. In fact, Israel admits to hitting some of these places, in one case calling the clinic to warn people to evacuate.
I would ask other editors to intervene here to restore what has been deleted and to restored a neutral title to the section, not one that makes false equivalences. Tiamut talk 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is very close to getting protected for edit warring. Please make sure to discuss edits here. Stifle ( talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe semi-protection needs to be returned until the war is over. The number of IP edits has increased greatly in the last few days. Many are vandalism without edit summaries, discussion, etc..
Wikipedia:Protection policy: "administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption â for example, due to media attention â when blocking individual users is not a feasible option."
Can someone make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I don't have time at the moment. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
With more than 1,000+ casualties the article should be renamed 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War. Kermanshahi ( talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
'War On Gaza'? 'Massacre'? Here we go again, with people refusing to accept the fact that there is a difference between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian combatants/miliants and asking the article to make them be the same. Sigh. This is not a "War on Gaza". This is a "War in Gaza". in Gaza and not on Gaza. This is a war between Hamas and the IDF taking place inside the area of the Gaza strip. This is not a war between the IDF and every last man, woman, and child living in a certain area (which would be an extermination campaign and not actually a war).
These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate. Look at basically any article based off of The Troubles, where Irish civilians were in danger from British soldiers, or the Second Chechen War, where Muslim civilians/Russian soldiers, or the 2008 South Ossetia war, where Georgian civilians/Russian soldiers, and so on. There are so many instances where we could use inflammatory language and we have sources for them but we stay neutral. The Squicks ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it a war against Hamas is something of a simplification, there are many militant elements in Israel which this article notes later on, but not in name. Thoughts? p.s. Calling it the war on Gaza is quite inaccurate, I read somebody suggesting the Economists choice of term "war in Gaza" which fits much better. Superpie ( talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
People, I know its hard to let go, but it turns out once more Cerejota's crystal adamantium balls (handle with care) were right. We should rename to "2008-2009 Gaza War". I won't gloat anymore except to say that ALL the media in the middle east, including Israeli media, is calling it so (besides massacre). There is near unanimous agreement that what we have here is a momentous historical milestone, that marks a new phase on the I-P conflict. It is time we listen to what the reliable sources are saying: yes, "assault", yes "massacre", yes "war on hamas", yes "war on Gaza", yes "Palestinian lovefest". The reality is, and has been since the weeklies came out last Friday, that this is now known as Gaza War. Man, even the damn protests for and against int heir propaganda call it the Gaza War. I implore all of you to consider and ponder the sources, specially the more thoughful, less newsy ones (le monde diplomatique, the economists, etc), and call this by the name historians are calling it, in the fashion they call Capital W War. Examples abound
Pacific War (how can you make war on an ocean?!?!?),
Six Day War (how can you make war on a week sans Sabbath?),
Phoney War (I mean, historians have a weird sense of humor!!!) etc etc etc. "Gaza War" doesn't imply action, it implies historicity, it implies encyclopedic value. Lets not fight the wars here for a second, and ponder that. Thanking you in advance... --
Cerejota (
talk)
00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This entire section is garbage. Most of its sources are highly biased opinion articles or ideological websites. We even cite Wikipedia itself as a supposed source (WTF?!). The idea that 'The United States has long made war against the Palestinians' is highly biased and is stated baldy as a fact without a specific reference. Must we refuse to distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian militants in this section? This is highly controversial.
The 'Iranian part' and the 'American Part' have the same problems, only from opposite ends: One uses biased pro-Palestine sources to make an original research synthesis and the other uses biased pro-Israel sources to make an original research synthesis. The Squicks ( talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I copied the whole section from the history and put it in User:Sean.hoyland/tmp. If whoever created it has a warm feeling of kinship towards the text it's there if you want it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
..is there any ? Who is doing what ? Are enough people working on it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. They are very helpful. I have gotten help there several times. I have also helped edit some of their resource pages. I recently helped a guy from Turkish Wikipedia to get an SVG map of Syria by asking there. He had asked me for help on my talk page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've watched this one because the description said the following which looked high priority to me.
However, the video doesn't actually contain that material. It contains handheld footage shot at a hospital of casualities coming in. Seems callous to say this but I would assign this video a low-ish priority if we need to assign priorities. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ...oh, and I emailed them to tell them they are spreading filthy lies with their inaccurate description and asked for an amendment. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"A three-hour ceasefire took place on 9 January as well. Three Grad rockets were fired from Gaza at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.[192]
Hamas continued to launch rockets throughout the Israeli ceasefire again on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod,[193] and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school.[194]"
The above has been removed from the text regarding humanitarian ceasefires. Im happy with that, however does anyone wish this information to remain? If so, could they rewrite it in a manner more keeping with the tone of the section that Hamas has continued to fire through Israeli ceasefires rather than "on this day -this happened", "and on this day -this happened". Else I will try to do so at a later time (I think others could do it better, as I would leave it out though I can imagine many would think it worth noting). Thanks Superpie (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
i restored it to the consensus based version Untwirl ( talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It was user Doright claiming it is OR in this edit [14] Nableezy ( talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The worst source to go to for a Gaza civilian count is the people who killed them and have a reason to lower the number. In addition, IDF doesn't count the bodies (running them over with tanks like they are nothing is what they have done), Palestinian medics are the ones collecting the bodies, counting them. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda. It should not be in the infobox at all.-- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the criterion we should adopt on what to include in the Infobox is: "which figure do notable third party neutral sources quote when they discuss casualties". As far, as I can make out, notable third parties tend to quote the Ministry of Health figure and almost no neutral sources quote the IDF figure. Here are a few references: 1) UNRWA (from Jan 13) which quotes the number of children killed as 311 (which already exceeds 250). 2) Foxnews: (from Jan 9) quotes a figure of 257 children dead and quotes a UN official who says this is credible. 3) San Francisco Chronicle (same story as above) 4) Economist (Jan 15) states that 400 women and children have died. 5) Al Jazeera claims half the total casualties are civilian. 6) Human Rights Watch (press release) again quotes the Ministry of Health
As far as I can see, the Ministry of Health figure is the figure that is repeated and taken seriously by international organizations worldwide. As someone pointed out above, in a war both sides tend to release inaccurate reports. There is no reason for us to reiterate these reports unless third party, neutral and notable sources take them seriously. For that matter, some Palestinian organizations have claimed that they killed "50 Israeli soldiers". This figure is not in the article and rightly so, for it is not taken seriously by third parties. The IDF figure for the number of civilians dead can go in the text but definitely not in the Infobox. If someone would like to include it there, please produce some neutral, notable reliable sources that quote this figure. thanks Jacob2718 ( talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"Elements in Indonesia are seeking to put together a coalition such as the one put together after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[419][420]" - what are "elements in Indonesia"? Besides, the two references have nothing to with the facts stated by this sentence. --
JensMueller (
talk)
23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Definite weasel words, that portion should be removed. 67.42.114.117 ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say remove. Its dubious. Superpie ( talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it is ridiculous, thank you to whoever put the tag in there. Nao, some suggestions:
Of course, we can also choose to have this unreadable behemoth... -- Cerejota ( talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've an odd affection for this ugly, ugly baby only editors involved could hope to make sense of. Superpie ( talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked some of the references for this article in order to add more information (title, author, date, etc.) to them. My findings are below.
Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Jan 4, 2009
Updated Jan 5, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733174237&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Israel rejects EU calls for immediate cease-fire
Radio Netherlands
05 January 2009
Last updated: Monday 05 January 2009
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6122316/Israel-rejects-EU-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire
Israeli jets kill âat least 225â in strikes on Gaza
Marie Colvin, Tony Allen-Mills and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
Times Newspapers (? - Copyright 2008 Times Newspappers Ltd)
28 Dec 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece
Israeli Troops Mobilize as Gaza Assault Widens
By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers
28 Dec 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
ABC News - Copyright © 2009 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
Palestinians say Gaza death toll now 1,010
CNN
14 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/14/israel.gaza/index.html
ŚŚŚŚŚ ŚŠŚ"Ś Ś Ś€ŚŠŚąŚ ŚŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚšŚ Ś§Ś
ŚŚŚ Ś©ŚŚȘ, 10 ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚš 2009
14.1.2009
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1414914
(I can only hope that I got the title of the article and the date of publication.)
http://www.nrg.co.il links are in Hebrew. Can a Hebrew speaker get the article information from them, please? Thank you.
PinkWorld (
talk)
20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Israelis, Hamas clash near Gaza City, witnesses say
CNN
updated January 11, 2009
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.gaza/?iref=mpstoryview
Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed
CNN
15 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html
IDF: Civilian deaths less than 25% of total
By YAAKOV KATZ
14 Jan 20090
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Two Egyptian Children, Police Injured in
Israeli Air Strike Near Gaza Border
By VOA News
11 January 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm
Hamas: 120 police dead, 95% of security buildings demolished and hundreds of civilians slain
Ma`an
29 Dec 2008
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34375
Three Palestinian soccer players killed in Gaza violence
RIA Novosti
14 Jan 2009
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090114/119490704.html
PinkWorld (
talk)
04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Previous consensus on talkpage ([ [15]]) was that police casualties should be left alone, and combined neither with civilians nor militants/fighters.
I don't see that this consensus has changed, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can we re-reach an agreement on this? VR talk 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I support them as the verified reliable sources treat them. -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute... we have no consensus as to whether or not they should be counted as civilian or as miltants. The reliable sources are deeply divided and frequently disagree. If we as editors create our own 'consensus' to label them all as innocent civilians as Nableezy has suggested, that means that were waving our hand and ignoring what a large chunk or reliable sources say. That simply is not acceptable. The Squicks ( talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
where should this be placed User talk:Yousaf465
I would urge you to move it to the main article, if not, certainly below the UN and other reactions. Superpie ( talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think moving these two events from where they currently are to controversial events would make more sense.
* 2.4.2.1 Al-Fakhura school * 2.4.2.2 UN headquarters
Thoughts? Superpie ( talk) 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is still cluttered even though decent sources are coming in. It is time to modify it. Civilian can be used and "women and children" can be used in the casualties section where appropriate Cptnono ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted his latest.
Squash: understand that {{ POV}} is fully redundant with {{ activediscuss}}, down to inclusion in the appropriate neutrality categories etc. The removal is not a removal of the neutrality issues, but tidying up and consolidating into a more useful tag, that presents the same information: {{ pov}} is meant for articles whose only issue is POV. That is not the case here, as has been made abudantly clear.
Furthermore, since there are POV matters, we need a POV-check tag, because we want to resolve that matter. I can barely understand you placing a pov tag, I simply cannot phanthom why the pov-check tag is being removed. Please don't.
Lastly, in your edit sumamry you claim "see talk" but I don't see any explanation on your part of why you insist on this. Please feel free to do so here.-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The template that I originally inserted says: The neutrality of the article is disputed. Let's say that kind of reflects reality. Someone changed it afterwards without discussion to "the article is nominated for neutrality check" which to me sounds a bit strange, so I added back the original, simple statement.
I referred to the talk page for current POV disputes (not for a section about the template itself) just as the template asks for this. If you think "activediscuss" highlights the problems enough, I'm just wondering why do you "nominate" the article for POV check instead of simply adding the "neutrality is disputed" tag. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket ( talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)# The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.(...)This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject.
WP:LOVE
The article is getting too long and too detailed in certain parts. May I suggest creating an article 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire from section 1.1 "Israel-Hamas temporary ceasefire" to reduce the size of that section?
Opinions? Comments?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 09:19
Might be an idea, will there not be quite a lot of overlap between that and the blockade article? Superpie ( talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is already an article for that 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is my point about the background section being too long: it has material that goes in other articles. Its recentism at its worst, and why all of these conflict articles are an open sore in encyclopedic quality.-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, took a deep breath and cut up most of the "Background" section... Let's see how long this lasts. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 14:13
"3 top soccer players" - top? you mean professional? it should be changed.
"Among the wounded there were 1,600 children and 678 women" -I still don't understand this one - if from the 5,100 wounded this is the confirmed ones, shouldn't it be like "***Among the 670 reported civilian fatalities 519 are confirmed as". "Among the 5,100 wounded there were confirmed: 1,600 children and 678 women" - isn't that phrasing better?--
62.0.140.228 (
talk)
09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
155 arrested for rioting
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647869,00.html
Israeli citizen offers the Iranian embassy copies of Israeli papers
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656848,00.html
That the reporters were released to house arrest
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656756,00.html
71 Palestinian illegal residents arrested, some released some still in custody
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654528,00.html
500 Palestinian illegal residents arrested
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653465,00.html
Hamas executes 6
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651845,00.html
5 arrested for rioting in Nazareth
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649149,00.html
suspected in mall shooting
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3649055,00.html
--
62.0.140.228 (
talk)
09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If somebody with some talent in images could fix this it'd be great. I've... Somehow got rid of one for the time being, but its of the UN security council in sesh and it is interesting. Thanks Superpie ( talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a specific exchange here that bothered me so I started typing a reply when I realized that what I wanted to say applied to this discussion generally. I said to someone the other day that you can't have a good article with a bad talk page. If this article is going to improve, it needs to start here.
I don't want to point fingers or single anyone out but it does really feel like battle lines have been drawn here. This talk page feels very unwelcoming. I don't consider myself to be either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I've spoken a little here but I've been really choosy about where to comment. I have avoided saying what my feelings are about specific issues because I thought it would make one side or the other feel like I was the enemy.
The article's text is always changing. A lot of whatâs there now won't be next month. You can get some kind of plurality in one of these little fights and put something up on the article but if you want it to last, you need to find a real consensus. All of our work is meaningless without that. A real consensus only comes when you account for the concerns of those who disagree, not when you find an excuse for why you didn't.
I think that, at least for a little while, I won't be editing this article. I'm just leaving this message for the benefit of the people who will. I think that you're all well-meaning people. And I have faith that things can improve. Above all, I think that weâll get the article we deserve. So good luck. Peace.
And donât tell me to see WP:SOAP! -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright Ghandi ;). Noted though :) Superpie ( talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |acessdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)