| Revision as of 20:32, 11 January 2009 editJmundo (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,808 edits some much spinning← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:35, 11 January 2009 edit undoCerejota (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,178 edits →Refimprove: omg what is so hard to understand?Next edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| (undent)Where has anyone claimed that "this used for all the military operations"? You keep harping on this point, but it is not a claim made anywhere accept by you and J.Mundo. This is an article about a term which is clearly in use. The actions described by the term have been in use also. I imagine some one "did the Locamotive" dance move before it was named too, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about that dance move. ] (]) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | (undent)Where has anyone claimed that "this used for all the military operations"? You keep harping on this point, but it is not a claim made anywhere accept by you and J.Mundo. This is an article about a term which is clearly in use. The actions described by the term have been in use also. I imagine some one "did the Locamotive" dance move before it was named too, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about that dance move. ] (]) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Then lets use another name for the article. There is an implicit claim that the name covers actions before December 2008: in fact the lede reads that the technique has been used "at least since 2006" (which BTW is OR as per brewecrewer's highly original). It is confusing, as it implies that the name applies when it doesn't. And I only see you, brewcrewer and tundra not understanding this point: and incredibly overwhleming majority I see. :D--] (]) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Article topic == | == Article topic == | ||
Revision as of 20:35, 11 January 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roof knocking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject International lawPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met
worldview tag
I placed the tag on the article because of editors statements at the afd discssion that this type of action and this name has been around before Israel began the practice. Any help would be appreciated--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree. I am changing references specific to Israel accordingly. Feel free to replace if we feel that it is necessary to include every country project that we mention. --Cerejota (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
possible sourcing
Google Scholar has a shit load. I just can't do it now.--Cerejota (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
tags
Since this article has been re-narrowed to the specific use of these techniques in the context of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, the tags are placed as follows.
I hope this provides a framework for discussion. --Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Due to the fact that there are currently numerous references, I don't see a need for your additional tag.WacoJacko (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The tag that you added states that the article contains original research, however, the article is full of valid references/sources. Please explain?WacoJacko (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with NJGW below, what you are doing is basically tag spam.WacoJacko (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have no idea what is meant by "re-narrowed," nor does it refer specifically to the 2008-2009 conflict. The procedure has been around a long time, though not sure how long the name has been given. It seems to have plenty of references and no doubt more can be provided given a little time. Since it is a new article and has had to justify its existence in the first week or so of its birth by your AfD, there has been little time to provide more reference. But as per the discussion above, there seems to be plenty of references so far. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Context
The article is about a recently coined term, as clearlty reflected by the title. The term is not defined using sources, and one is left to imply its usage via original research
- This is tag spam. If the problem is OR, then don't label it a context issue. This is a new article that has seen major revisions. Please wp:AFG that it will be expanded as needed, help, or accept the wikilinks as context. NJGW (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The term is in fact defined using sources : "The IDF has code named such operations "roof knocking," in which the army informs the residents of suspected building that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises." Can't get much clearer than that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am accepting the WP:AGF, in fact, I provided a google scholar link to searhc for sources way before this discussion started. I think this topic deserves to exist, but needs to be seriously expanded and renamed. I proposed a structure that was reverted, to this end. However, the article as it stands today is a WP:COATRACK of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and that is an urgent issue that needs to be adressed. This has nothing to do with any assumptions on my part, and to assume is not exactlly AGF, in particular because we have never chatted before.--Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- How is this article "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject?" What bias subject is being fronted here? NJGW (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am accepting the WP:AGF, in fact, I provided a google scholar link to searhc for sources way before this discussion started. I think this topic deserves to exist, but needs to be seriously expanded and renamed. I proposed a structure that was reverted, to this end. However, the article as it stands today is a WP:COATRACK of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and that is an urgent issue that needs to be adressed. This has nothing to do with any assumptions on my part, and to assume is not exactlly AGF, in particular because we have never chatted before.--Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Disputed
All sources used, while reliable in at of themselves, are from the national press of Israel and hence the IDF. While this has not bearing on reliability, claims presented as "fact" should be verified by the use of un-involved sources in order to guaranteed factual accuracy of the claims. In the specific I refer to the actual usage of the technique, rather than its abstract inclusion as a policy (ie a policy doesn't require extenral verification, implementation of a policy does.
- I see ten (10) different news outlets used as sources, and none of them are "the national press of Israel" (state run). Most of them are not even Israeli. I'm also not sure how you can ever get more verification that the IDF calls something Roof Knocking than the IDF saying, "emm, we call dese 'Roof noking'". How often the technique is used is not the main focus of the article, and thus individual disputed statements should be discussed, not the article as a whole. NJGW (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Totally Agree with NJGW. Unclear what "facts" are at issue here. If I am not mistaken, it is not up to wikipedians to verify accepted reliable sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken: Who determines what a reliable source is precisely the consensus of wikipedians. We widely believe in accepting sources on a case by case basis, so for example Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source on Paris Hilton, but Wall Street Journal is more iffy if it talks about its owner, Rupert Murdoch. However, you miss the point I am making, which is "verification". For example, a naked claim is made that "since we warned, this is not a crime" or that the warnings actually happened. Since this is a psychological warfare technique, and Israel is a warring faction in the conflict the technique is used, we should verify. The sources say this is the policy, but as I already stated, there is a difference between policy and action.
- Amazing! We can't have people talking about their own policies because it might be psychological warfare? You don't seem to hold this position for both sides. We can decide not to accept Israel's word regarding what Israel does, but we are quite willing to accept the word of unnamed medics, the ministry of health in Gaza, hamas spokesmen, and in fact the word the whole Arab world (think: The Gaza Massacre') and stick these things in the lead of an article without question. (In fact this position is apparently irreversible since one side consistently reverts the other.) Apparently you think Palestinians aren't equally capable of psychological warfare? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken: Who determines what a reliable source is precisely the consensus of wikipedians. We widely believe in accepting sources on a case by case basis, so for example Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source on Paris Hilton, but Wall Street Journal is more iffy if it talks about its owner, Rupert Murdoch. However, you miss the point I am making, which is "verification". For example, a naked claim is made that "since we warned, this is not a crime" or that the warnings actually happened. Since this is a psychological warfare technique, and Israel is a warring faction in the conflict the technique is used, we should verify. The sources say this is the policy, but as I already stated, there is a difference between policy and action.
- Totally Agree with NJGW. Unclear what "facts" are at issue here. If I am not mistaken, it is not up to wikipedians to verify accepted reliable sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the policy of Elbania is to throw mud in their wars, we do not need to verify the Elbanian National Times when they say so. We do need to verify if they say they actually threw mud at Albenia in their long-runing conflict. Get it?--Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you really think this is an issue. Further discussion here is obviously not going to get us anywhere. NJGW (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the policy of Elbania is to throw mud in their wars, we do not need to verify the Elbanian National Times when they say so. We do need to verify if they say they actually threw mud at Albenia in their long-runing conflict. Get it?--Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Original research
While the sourcing does sustain the usage of the term, the elebaoration of a narrative based on multiple sources. If this article simply said that the term "Roof knocking" is used, it would be a different thing, but explanations and elaborations are made, and a narrative is created, that doesn't conenct with the sources and borders in the WP:SYNTH.
- Please mark individual problematic sentences with {{or}}. The whole article is obviously not OR, as you so very well point out. NJGW (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed it is not necessary to tag a whole article if you have concerns about a particular statement. It seems to me that the narrative does indeed "connect" with the sources. Not clear what you mean by the "borders." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually you both have a point. This is more like WP:SYNTH not OR. I will remove it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Recentism
due to the recent development of the term, it is impossible to find the mos reliable of secondary sources, which are academic materials. As such, the contents of this article would be better placed in the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to evade even the appeareance of undue-weight WP:COATRACK issues.
- Tag spam. This is being discussed at the AFD, and there is no point in carrying on the same conversation here. NJGW (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- AfD tag doesn't describe the controversy, it is precisely why the tag was placed. Please do not say it is tag spam, even if you disagree with the reasoning. However, this would be resolved if the article was renamed to something that actually describes the topic with a correct name, rather than a phrase used only to refer to recent events. That is the very definition of "recentism": we are name this with a recent name rather than an old one. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no: your explanation that the IDF might have had the term and only now revealed it is OR. The term is recent, just like the sky is blue, if you find a source that says it isn't I will immediately change this view. Otherwise, this is sophism.--Cerejota (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The term may be, may be recent. Not "is." Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The term is now in the public consciousness and it is our job to let people know what it is. It is not relevant how old this term is -- the concept has history. Many concepts have been around before they were named. Once they were so named, they became a household word. Wiki has three articles on the word "Jello" and a long article on the word "bling." Whatever, blinging is, I am sure people were doing it before it was so named. I think roof knocking has a place. "Recentism" is not a wiki guideline and the WP:recentism article itself is ambiguous about the pros & cons of it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, recentism is an essay. Regardless, the article claims none of this, so we're wasting time arguing over it. NJGW (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The term may be, may be recent. Not "is." Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The term is now in the public consciousness and it is our job to let people know what it is. It is not relevant how old this term is -- the concept has history. Many concepts have been around before they were named. Once they were so named, they became a household word. Wiki has three articles on the word "Jello" and a long article on the word "bling." Whatever, blinging is, I am sure people were doing it before it was so named. I think roof knocking has a place. "Recentism" is not a wiki guideline and the WP:recentism article itself is ambiguous about the pros & cons of it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no: your explanation that the IDF might have had the term and only now revealed it is OR. The term is recent, just like the sky is blue, if you find a source that says it isn't I will immediately change this view. Otherwise, this is sophism.--Cerejota (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Refimprove
While sources are okay as content, there is a complete lack of verification that justifies extensive elaboration. Sourcing should be improved, and if this is not possible, then the article should be merged in order to provide context.
- Again, tag spam. Same issues you have brought up above and which are being discussed at the AFD. This tag serves no other purpose. NJGW (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The tags should be removed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both NJGW and WacoJacko. Kudos to them for having more patience than I. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tag should not be removed. All secondary sources are from this month. The newspaper article from 2006 doesn't use this "code word". More sources are needed to establish that this term was not coined yesterday. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does not claim that it was not made up yesterday. You can't request a reference for what the article does not claim. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked and looked and looked and there is not a single mention of the term anywhere before this conflict. "Implications" are not OR when they are common sense and common knowledge and when a good faith effort has been made to find a source: the term is recent, and everyone knows it. Lets be productive here, OK?.--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article does not claim that it was not made up yesterday. You can't request a reference for what the article does not claim. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Telling an editor "Let's be productive here" while pipe-linking to Misplaced Pages:Honesty is not a productive way of collaborating with your fellow Wikipedians. Regarding the substantive issue: In previous conflicts, house-bombing did not play a major role in Israeli operations. In addition, newspaper articles from recent years are far easier to find on-line then newspaper articles from previous years. These might be one of the number of reasons you are having a hard time finding mention of this term prior to this conflict. In any case, it surely isn't common knowledge and it obviously isn't common sense. WP:OR and WP:V are two important policies at Misplaced Pages and I would like to err on the safe side before adding anything into an article that is unsourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:V tells us that no source can be found before the current events in Gaza - I think you are not erring on the side of caution here, quite the contrary, you are erring on the side of OR: you are saying that "roof knocking" is appropriate to refer to things that are not called that way RS.--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at. The article is about a military operation. There are a multitude of reliable sources that state that this military operation is called "roof knocking". When the military operation began taking on the name "roof knocking" is unknown at this point. Therefore, the article does not state when the IDF began using this name for this type of military operation. What do you want the article to state?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again you ignore the point: none of the sources say this used for all the military operations, just for the Operation Cast Lead. --Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's more probable that I'm missing your point instead of ignoring your point. But as this is getting confusing I would like to propose another way for you to bring out your point. Please point to a specific line or word on the article and tell us what exactly is the problem with this specific line or word. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a good suggestion. NJGW (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's more probable that I'm missing your point instead of ignoring your point. But as this is getting confusing I would like to propose another way for you to bring out your point. Please point to a specific line or word on the article and tell us what exactly is the problem with this specific line or word. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again you ignore the point: none of the sources say this used for all the military operations, just for the Operation Cast Lead. --Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at. The article is about a military operation. There are a multitude of reliable sources that state that this military operation is called "roof knocking". When the military operation began taking on the name "roof knocking" is unknown at this point. Therefore, the article does not state when the IDF began using this name for this type of military operation. What do you want the article to state?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:V tells us that no source can be found before the current events in Gaza - I think you are not erring on the side of caution here, quite the contrary, you are erring on the side of OR: you are saying that "roof knocking" is appropriate to refer to things that are not called that way RS.--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Where has anyone claimed that "this used for all the military operations"? You keep harping on this point, but it is not a claim made anywhere accept by you and J.Mundo. This is an article about a term which is clearly in use. The actions described by the term have been in use also. I imagine some one "did the Locamotive" dance move before it was named too, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about that dance move. NJGW (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then lets use another name for the article. There is an implicit claim that the name covers actions before December 2008: in fact the lede reads that the technique has been used "at least since 2006" (which BTW is OR as per brewecrewer's highly original). It is confusing, as it implies that the name applies when it doesn't. And I only see you, brewcrewer and tundra not understanding this point: and incredibly overwhleming majority I see. :D--Cerejota (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Article topic
In the AfD as well as here there have been multiple instances of discussing what this article is about... so I want to see where the consensus is.
- Warnings to civilians before air-strikes, across the board
- Historic and current use of the policy by Israel
- The recent Roof knocking policy by Israel
I want some clarity, as I think all of these are valid topics, that should be handled differently, and are different, even where they overlap. Think of it as an onion, where the first includes the other two, and the second includes the last. I think there could be enough material for good stand-alone articles on the first two, but not just for the last. If the article is about the first, then it should be renamed to reflect a more global view on the subject. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the Israeli practice. I would encourage another article about the general practice, but the elements in the Israel-Palestinian conflict are very unique and specific.
- For how long this practice has been called "roof knocking" is unclear, but (as I posted above) it seems like it's been called this way for a while. In any case, if there are sources out there that state that this name is a new name and that this practice has been going on for a while I would support renaming the article. Somebody who knows Hebrew would be a valuable asset because s/he can peruse Hebrew-language sources.
- Lastly, we are not a newspaper that must have all the information out there the next morning. This encyclopedia is built by Wikipedians collaborating with each other to build this great thing we all love piece by piece. Eventually, this article can be merged into a greater article about the general concept. But one thing is forsure, rushing off to nominate for deletion will not contribute to further human knowledge.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- it seems like it's been called this way for a while based on what? I am not talking wikipedia here, I am talking that I can't find a single reference in the intertubes that uses the term for the warning practice before the current conflict in Gaza. None. Zero. Zilch. I mean, reliable sources might get a wind of it late in the game, but not even one reservist, one refusenick, one arab spy leaked this term (for which there of course had to be a lot of secrecy) until now? It makes absolutely no sense. So, why do you say it seems like it's been called this way for a while?
- Your last paragraph is hard to disagree with, however, asking to have me blocked was not an example of this open spirit: saying something is different from actually living it out. Fortunately, most admins are reasonable people and see this, even when they might act in haste once in a while. I invite you to re-consider your obvious hostility, in the spirit of furthering human knowledge, Poke-cruft and all :D. --Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing your fellow editor of being hostile is not the most productive way of going about building this collaborative project. As for your substantive point, please find one source that states that the term is new one. I'm sorry, but we can't do stuff around here without the support of sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, name one source that says the term was in use before December 27 2008. One. Just one.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't have a source. That's why the article does not say it was used before December 27 2008. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then, the article should say that the term was not used before December 27, 2009. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't have a source. That's why the article does not say it was used before December 27 2008. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, name one source that says the term was in use before December 27 2008. One. Just one.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject: MILHIST
Why is the MILHIST tag continuously removed from the article's talk page? The article is clearly within the scope of the MILHIST project; the banner should be included. There's a way to condense all the banners, so that there's not a huge list of them. Since it seems that one editor is reverting all the additions, I want to open discussion first. JonCatalán 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem with the one editor has resolved itself. Templates are important, but if there is no article there's forsure no templates. I think we should focus on getting the article kept before resolving template issues. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether or not this is within the scope of WP:MILHIST (which it probably is), we should probably discuss this on the talk page if we all disagree... However, brew, you do have a point - no article, no template issue. :) —Ed 17 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, it seems a consensus has been reached on the excessive use of templates on this article?WacoJacko (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Jack: Yeah, a consensus has been reached about the excessive use of problem templates at the article. A smaller issue is the removal of Wikiproject templates at the top of this talkpage. There seems to be consensus that they should stay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- What consensus is this? We never even discussed anything about the "excessive use of templates". WikiProject banners help organize articles, and make it easier for users with specific interests to find it and edit it. I will condense the current banners to offer an example of how the banners can be cleaned up. JonCatalán 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Already done, sorry. JonCatalán 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Jack: Yeah, a consensus has been reached about the excessive use of problem templates at the article. A smaller issue is the removal of Wikiproject templates at the top of this talkpage. There seems to be consensus that they should stay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen articles tagged by seven or more WPs. Adding a third, especially one as germane as MilHist, needs to be done.--King Bedford I 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen one tagged by fourteen projects. Just tag for MILHIST and hide the banners using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and be done with this. -MBK004 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles