Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 28 January 2009

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

How-to make and delete a page

• Try to remember how you created User:Tundrabuggy/ Yom Tov Samia! I go to my user page, add /summick to the URL in the browser's address box and hit Enter! Why delete? You might want to go back. I have this permanent sandbox which I simply blank after each session. But if you must delete, just tag it {{db-author}}. — RHaworth (Talk

What did happen with the intro

You violated WP:3RR. I think it was on good faith, so I am just letting you know, not accusing or anything. We all do it once in a while. In fact, I am not looking at those things closely right now, because that's just free drama. The other thing is, the intro at the moment you edited was subjected to intense discussion based on a proposal from me. Some of the concerns you raised were discussed, but not all. Regardless if I agree or disagree with your views, you owe to your fellow editors to try and reach consensus with them, specially if we all recognize that we need to reach neutrality and be in the watch for biased slants. Be aware that bias can be entered into unwittingly: what you assume to be the truth is not what others assume it to be. Eliminating the point of view of the others is the basis of bias, which is different form NPOV.

RomanC, really stepped out of line above, and I am sorry he did, but he has clearly been good with discussing things. Don't think we all share his opinions on your editing. Perhaps you need to try and see this not as an "us v them" zero-zum situation, and one where we can work together. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Find my fourth revert/post in 24 hours. Let's see the evidence. I made numerous changes to the intro but I don't think even one of them was a staight revert. I added references and changed the wording to deal with concerns raised. I discussed every change I made numerous times. I then followed the wiki precept to be bold. RomanC was also wrong in making the claiming that I had blanked the intro. That never happened by me, sorry. I am taking a break from this article, since it is clear that it is all gang-up and get your WP:POV in. Neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources to tell the story, and balance by putting in the perspective of both sides in a conflict. There is precious little attempt at balance or neutrality here. I don't need a lesson in WP:NPOV. Your bias is as evident as any. This will be a POV and bad article until people start remembering that this is supposed to be a neutral project, and start looking to themselves rather than others, as culprits. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As to 3RR, as I said, I am not accusing you, but indeed look at your editing. In fact, pretty much everyone, including myself, has done tiny 3RR stuff, most of them. But the real fact is that the bulk of the edit warring has been by people who do not discuss the article: one of the reasons I approached you was because you did a rather sad posting on the talk page, thought about it, and I wanted to comment on it here, but saw RomaC's warning. There is no reason why our eidting environment should exclude valuable editors like yourself.

I am sorry you feel this way, but what bias I have? I have attempted, at all times, to ensure that no bias enters my convo, focusing on the intro. An example of what you feel where biased actions on my part would be helpful to allow me not to exhibit bias in the future, as that is not my goal. Perhaps we can work together, since we are both looking for the same thing? As to RomaC, I defended you, and I agree: in fact he is now accusing me of stuff. As to ganging? Who ganged up on you? I think we all could use a chill pill, but for the most part, people have argued from their mind, I see no meatpuppetry and stuff. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe I have done 3RR but I am in no mood to go check. Don't forget that breaking that rule means 4X. Any changes that I made in the intro had been discussed ad nauseum, if not by me, by others on the talk page, regarding there being 2 sides of the conflict, essentially. I wrote my reasons in the edit summaries as well. I am sure that you do not see your bias, and I have no problem with people having a bias -- we all have one, it's a perspective. Your sympathy for the Palestinian side is obvious, as clearly mine for the Israeli side is obvious as well. But hopefully one can still be fair and balanced and write a neutral article despite our respective biases. I did not mean to suggest that I felt that people were personally ganging up on me, I don't. But they are indeed ganging up on the Israeli perspective, both in this article, and on its talk page. I am taking a break on the page until some kind of stability is reached. It is frankly too much work & disappointment to have a well-written, balanced, and referenced sentence trashed and turned into a POV, illogical, inaccurate, unreferenced piece of trash before I even have a chance to refresh the page. :( Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sympathetic at all towards Hamas, and have sympathy for the plight of Jewish Nation (a sympathy that can be described as post-Zionist, in the academic, not partisan, sense). Some of my greatest heroes are the people of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who died against all odds standing up for all of humanity, not just for the Jewish people. I am, however, indeed also sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, and unsympathetic of how their very real suffering is abstracted into a cartoonish view of good vs evil - and of late have had their very existense questioned in a sad mirror of Holocaust denialism. I am not dispassionate, but I do have empathy for Israel - and it pains when it is assumed that because I also have empathy for the Palestinians is automatically means I do not.

That said, we should not expect neutral editors, we should expect neutral articles.

It is interesting, because some of the very concerns you raised above are what you hear from Palestinian editors. Now, if I assume good faith, it means both sides feel the same way. However, how can that be possible? Surely one side is cynically lying?

I think it can very well be: it seems the dominant narratives of either side are so partisan and one-sided, that in an environment like Misplaced Pages's, where one-sidedness is against the house rules, any deviation from the dominant narratives will seem shocking and non-neutral. If you side tells you the sky is cyan, and another side tells their side it is dark blue, you will be shocked to find out it is neither, but Sky blue.

For a pro-Palestinian person it might seem non-neutral that Israel actually called upon the people of Gaza to move from targetted sites hours before the first air strikes. For a pro-Israel person it might seem non-neutral that inspite of these efforts there are a large number of innocent civilians dying and getting maimed. For me, both are verifiable facts, that are neutral in as of their own, and deserve to be in Misplaced Pages. So while I think your feelings are genuine, I think they are baseless upon the evidence: the same way I cannot expect you to defend the Palestinian perspective, you cannot expect those with a Palestinian perspective to defend the Israeli perspective. Yet you can certainly expect that your vigorous defense of the Israeli perspective, and their vigorous defense of the Palestinian perspective, arbitrated by more moderated elements of either side and non-involved editors, will result in a neutral article worthy of wikipedia. What you cannot expect is your perspective to be the only one, because that would go against everything this project is about: collecting the world's knowledge in a neutral fashion. Does this make sense to you?--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict response

Hi. I noticed your edit . Please make your views known at Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

rant

Hey am glad we can find common ground! BTW, I didn't see your respond on the other thread... --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Respond on talk

You have made this without addressing the concerns regarding this edit raised on talk at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict. I think this is unfair. I'm waiting for you there.VR _talk 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You responded on the wrong place, I've moved your comments to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict, responded to you, and am waiting for your response.VR _talk 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded ad nauseum. Going for a little walk now. You guys discuss it among yourselves. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing, you have been asked repeatedly to stop. RomaC (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tundra.

I never intended to make any remarks regarding you, only on your editing. Even while doing that, I should have been more respectful. I apologize for any hurt feelings, (as often happens on touchy issues).VR _talk 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts in holding back a "Misplaced Pages Massacre"

Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Every time any of us make an edit to the article in accordance with the rules, we am swarmed from all sides by editors using their majority to manipulate the situation. Kinda reminds me of a country............--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that you are right in your edits to the Gaza conflict article, Thanks.--79.177.132.177 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

lead

I am sorry you feel that way, but unilateral changes before any discussion in not acceptable. This has been discussed at length, that you do not like it is not reason to continue to persist in making disruptive edits. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Innumerable discussion has already been made at the talk page that the previous edit was not (far from) universally acceptable. Rather than the same old argument which one side consistently opposes and reverts, it is time to try another, fresh attempt at the lead. Such attempts are not disruptive, on the contrary. What is disruptive is constant reversions of the lead back to unacceptable versions, with warnings being placed on anyone's page who tries to be bold break this deadlock. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to tell you this one time, I dont care what you think is important or POV or anything, you have not once made a single objection based on logic. That Michael Safyan has now entered the discussion is fine with me, desirable even, because even though I disagree with what he says, he at least uses logic and reason for his discussions. I am done talking to you, as you clearly cannot understand the basic ideas of rational thinking. Now, respectfully, leave me alone. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much there is a need to stop ninja edits. Perhaps there will never be complete consensus on this matter, but there is definitely a rough consensus to keep it, which is why you get reverted so quickly and only Doright helps. Discussion might be endless, but there is also the need to have what is supported by sources. I think your argument is weak: and in particular has become weaker as time has passed and more sources developed. This is why I opened in OR noticeboard, and in fact all non-involved editors have agreed (the few that have commented) to keep. Same with "intensified". Stop edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

er...not. Here are the responses from the 2 non-involved editors at the OR noticeboard. In fact, the way I read their comments, they do not agree with you.

• "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you get consensus out of that? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, both argue for inclusion of the term: it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions and the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". One is uncontrovertibly for inclusion - and for pretty much the same reasons I am. I do agree the second does skip mention of the lead, but I offer that the lead is not separate form the article. This might support the due weight argument at the beginning of the discussion, but I do not know this to be the case. They are not strong responses, and they are only two, but coupled with futher arguments in the talk page, and new sources that have emerged, I no longer have such a weak support as I did once (I might remind you that I opened the thread because I saw value in the objections, but felt discussion was gettting unproductive). That said, I will not revert your edits, because WP:CCC, unless I see tag-teaming, meat puppetry, and the other editors are up fro 3RR - I have a good eye for those things. I do agree you are just being bold, but so are those that revert you.

But lets discuss, because in spite of some of your friends and I not losing any love, you are always willing to talk which I greatly appreciate...

Lets forget rules and all that crap, lets talk about why we are here: writing an encyclopedia. The point is that this is how the conflict is seen and named by one side, as a counter-point of how it is seen by another side. I do not see how encyclopedic value is decreased by the inclusion of this perspective, in particular because it is extremely verified as the mainstream (not fringe) description among those on the other side. True, the facts reveal that this is not a massacre other than in the sense that all wars -just or unjust- are "massacres". This might speak of a sense of melodrama in Arab and Palestinian society, well, any reader with two fingers of brain will see this (as naming a military operation for a children's song speaks of the melodrama of Israeli society). But it is fact that this is the perspective. And we must report relevant facts. I feel other editors - including of your POV - understand this and have let the discussion drop, to concentrate on other, probably more important consensus questions, like the photos etc.

Lastly, consensus is ultimately not the result of discussions. It is a result of editing, but this is why we frown upon edit warring: it would give dedicated individuals the ability to single-handlely create consensus by sheer force of editing. Please consider that. --Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors' comments regarding the Gaza Massacre in the lead

In fact many other editors have left the page due to feeling insulted by it rather than moving on as you imply. Here is my list of editors who have disagreed with the "Gaza Massacre" being in the lead. Not sure if I have them all. Some of the editors have attempted to remove it from the lead and been insulted with accusations of vandalism on their talk page, with the resultant dif not being allowed to stand for 5 minutes. It seems to me to be 50-50% at best, with the pro- people being entirely unwilling to compromise on any of it - ie to move it out of the lead, to say that Arabs call it a small em "massacre", or to balance it with Israel's perspective of "not massacre" but "self-defense." It is not trying to achieve consensus by refusing all compromise and insisting on something that is considered by others to be POV and OR. We do not need to argue the points over and over again. These editors have done it already and have been bullied and insulted by by those who insist on maintaining it.

• tundrabuggy original dif link re massacre:

The following are not difs but sections:

• doright *The last sentence of the first paragraph claims: "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in much of the Arab World.." However, after having read each of the references, it is clear that some have made the claim that massacres have occurred. However, none have said that the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre. Therefore, this sentence appears to be in violation of WP:OR. Doright (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• cerejota "I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre" but rather than "massacre in Gaza" or "massacre" and specifiying place somewhere else, etc"

• Itsmejudith "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blueboar"I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ]

• brewcrewer The third problem is sort of collateral of the second. Apparently this term massacre in relation to Israeli actions has been around for a while and has been applied to a number of other incidents. A look at Google News archives reveals that this is not the only incident that the Arab world has called a massacre. The term "massacre" is not unique to this particular action. Thus it would be wrong to call this a "massacre". They are not calling it a specific name. Every Israeli action that kills multiple people gets a "massacre reaction". The Arab world is not giving the action a proper noun. They are merely describing the action. Look at this way: instead of calling each Israel action a "killing", they are calling it a "massacre". That being said, there is no intention of giving a specific name to the Israeli operation. The action taken by editors in naming this conflict is original research, at best.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rabend I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Coreywalters06 I agree with the viewpoint that it is very POV-ish to say "Gaza Massacre". Israel's view of this is defense in response to Hamas's 144 rockets and 86 mortars fired from Gaza at Israeli 'civilian' targets. Two extremely differing viewpoints from that of the "Arab world". "Gaza Massacre" suggests that Israel has cruelly and hastefully killed a huge number of innocent people intentionally and violated international law. This is very much more POV than "Operation Cast Lead" could ever be. Operation Cast Lead has no accusations, no bias or hateful connotation. Nothing. Its just random words as said above.Coreywalters06 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• DrorK Another thing - calling and event "a massacre" is an accusation. It is not merely a different choice of terminology, it is a straightforward accusation. Therefore, if you say the Arab world call the events "a massacre", you are saying "all Arabs accuse Israel of deliberately and intentionally killing civilians". If this is the case - fine, but think well what you are writing here. The fact that many media resources use terminology in an irresponsible way doesn't mean that we should do the same. DrorK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gabi S. It is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Jaakabou This standard "massacre" naming convention doesn't work well for Misplaced Pages as it is applied to each and every Israeli operation regardless if it's foe calls himself victorious (Nasrallah's divine victory / massacre, for example). I have no objection to listing this controversial accusation/nickname next to POVs from both sides in the body of the article rather than the lead as that a proper location. The main problem here is that Hamas is attacking Israel and has made declarations that they are martyrdom seekers... clearly we can't play up the double speech of Hamas on one side while ignoring the other side of the coin. This is just too controversial to tackle in the lead in a neutral fashion and should be avoided like fire. That said, if someone can come up with a neutral and wide-scale acceptable version then I'd be ok with having it included in the lead as well as in the body. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• CptnonoMost of the sources cited and google news hits state "...Gaza massacre". It is being reffered to as a massacre but not actually titled as one by most news sources.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it sounds like pulling hairs but most of the sources cited after the line use it in the headline but not as a title which is why it is not capitalized and why it is put in quotations whenever an Arab leader uses the term. ....Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just rereading some of it and sometimes it is being reffered to as a massacre. I think my biggest concern is that it is being referred to as a massacre and not titled a massacre. I don't think it history will label this event as The Gazan Massacre so if it stays for now (which will prevent the lead from becomming to argumentative) I anticipate it will need to be changed sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009

• MichaelSafyan attempted a compromise of the lead, but was reverted as a vandal

And thank you

The anti-Israeli (feels like that more than pro-Palestinian) majority relentlessly tries to pull the article in a very specific direction (most of them, to be fair), and it's been really hard trying to make it more accurate and objective and thus closer to the actual truth. I've been noticing your help in trying to stop the anti-I deluge, and I really appreciate it. Rabend (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to find consensus

I have started an attempt to find a consensus regarding the inclusion of image you removed of the dead Palestinian baby from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Should_the_picture_of_the_dead_baby_be_displayed_on_the_page.3F.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry

I see no other way. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Tundrabuggy_reported_by_Cerejota_.28Result:_.29. I hope you understand its not personal. However, you should reconsider your edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I've looked over the article history on the article with a specific eye to your edits, and you are a bit out of line. Please discuss matters on the article talk page instead of continually reverting the article, and if a rough consensus has formed, do not go against it. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead baby pictures

The conversation begins here: Also the question was raised at ANI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Have_I_been_a_jerk.3F --editor Tb made the following comment The appeal of the "include graphic photos" crowd is mostly to WP:CENSOR, but our "side" points out the part of the policy which says "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

In fact, as argument progressed on the talk page, all attempts to remove the material until consensus was reached were reverted. Further, a gallery of dead (supposed Gazan) children was added, with pictures of a morgue of dead children, a dead child, and a burned baby who was supposed to have been burned and then run over by an Israeli truck! Pictures and video from Al Jazeera were added with titles that were pure OR by the uploaders.

I am not finding the diffs, but to spare you having to read the whole area, here are a few of the comments made by those of us who disagreed with those who wished to keep the photos. I believe that most of the comments are straightforward and show that there is no consensus to keep this photo or similar photos, "rough" or otherwise.

User:AgadaUrbanit :"Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"

User:tariqabjotu Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Nezek Well said. and on that note I would like to bring up what tariqabjotu said above. If this image really is "at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties", and can be verified as an extreme and isolated case, it would mean it doesn't fairly represent the Palestinian casualties, and should be removed. I especially want to hear tariq's say and what sources he is basing this on. --Nezek (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

user:MickMacNee I can't read the article because of the presence of the image, I feel too sick with it being there to be able to concentrate on the wording. So, to me, removing the image from the article would not amount to censorship, because its presence already acts as a barrier to me reading the no doubt neutrally worded, sourced and informative text on the conflict. Of course it is sensationalist, and not in any way necessary for understanding the article. But I doubt anybody cares about such cold hard logic. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:RabendWe are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). Rabend (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cider86I would not be surprised if most people reading this article were to find the dead baby image highly offensive. Given the litany of news sources available I think it would be likely that a less offensive alternative could be found. Cider86 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist No, because we have no way of knowing that the baby has anything to do with this conflict, or even that it is a baby at all, and we have good reason to question any claims made about the image, namely: this is a highly emotive image in a conflict where both sides and their allies are using images to garner sympathy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:SandsteinNo. Although we are not censored, we aren't a tabloid or a shock website either. The image's shock value and sensationalist nature distracts from the actual article in a manner that far outweighs its documentary benefit. We don't want an arms race in war articles, in which each side tries to get as gruesome an image as possible into our articles. Sandstein 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PrylonWhat about the baby's parents? Do we have to exploit their grief? Prylon (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC) User:Brewcrewer No. If you really want to, you can get a dead-baby pic in every war. That doesn't mean we have to. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Drewskee No. I am not a contributor to wikipedia just like the other 99% of it's readership and I think that is why my post counts. There is no need for this picture. PERIOD. This is a war, people die in wars, civilians die in wars, its a sad truth but the average Joe who comes to this page to learn about what is going on in the world does not need to see a deep-fried-baby. This picture just screams AGENDA. If it was an Israeli baby, you would have a million people jumping on this page right now screaming "zionist agenda!" In such a hostile, volitile situation such as this Misplaced Pages needs to remain as neutral and objective as possible. If you notice, there are no other wars that have images like this. There is not a genocide, where a specific group of people are being targeted for a mass elimination. Then and only then is it okay to post an image like this, though I still feel the shock value is too much; there aren't even images like this on Darfur's page. No one targeted this baby, it was just a sad reality of war. Please take it off and save it for rotten.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskee (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The SquicksI was debating this in my head for a while, but reading

User:Skäpperöd No per Sandstein. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Tomtom9041 Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy Finally on the issue of balance, any article which puts up a half dozen pictures of the carnage of only one side in a conflict will be (rightly) accused being unencylopedia, or worse -- of spreading propaganda for that side. Better no pictures at all than only one-sided pictures of carnage. And yes, the picture is "offensive, profane and obscene" by many standards and their insertion would actually render the article less informative, rather than more. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)(signed later)

I see where Cerejota has made an RfC on this issue. I would have done it myself but not having done it before not comfortable doing it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Just reverted User:Brunte's reinsertion of the photos. This user just joined in the conversation 2 days ago. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I inserted two of the pictures, not the dead babypicture. You behave arrogant by reverting a compromis. Brunte (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The three pictures was removed during an nonconcensus debate about one of them. I put back the two other. Now you reverted it and fall in to a povpushing effort. Dirty done. Brunte (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AN3 thread

Hey,

I saw my name on the edit-war list you created at WP:AN3. May I ask you to strike my name out, as I did neither restore nor delete anything, in fact I merely transformed a table with images into a wiki image gallery, as is clearly shown in the diff you provided - just wikiformat, nothing more. I can also assure you that I am neither a SPA nor a partisan :), but a Pomeranian usually editing Pomerania-related articles - check my contributions summary. I went to the Gaza article only out of interest in this current event, and my edits were mostly style related. If you check out the talk page, you will find that I actually voted against integrating the images in question. So may I urge you again to strike out my name in that list, I really don't want to be grouped with SPA's and partisan flamers, and I don't want to troll that thread with "What am I doing here" notices. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not opposed to that list as such, but I did not remove or insert the gallery, I just wikified the format (and moved the whole thing two paragraphs down, please check the diff you provided). Neither am I against your AN3 thread as such, just against being an insurgent there - I did not participate in the image war, though I am actually on your side with this. Clear enough? :)Skäpperöd (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Skäpperöd (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see these guidelines on what to do if you want to withdraw a remark from talk. You need to make a strike out, preferably (use <strike></strike> around the relevant text). If you want someone else to withdraw a remark then you need to request that they do so. But, removing comments or editing them isn't really the best approach for a whole variety of reasons. Coldmachine 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The report is now *closed*. Indeed, it was closed some time ago. Stop removing the list or fiddling with it at all. If you have anything to say, say it on the talk page where we can all quietly ignore it. To S: stop worrying. Your name on the list means nothing William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting the dead baby picture up for discussion. It seems like you have already made some considerable headway. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the Gallery of pictures that has been being reverted as well, the dead girl, the bodies at the morgue etc? Does it strike you that there should be a balance in photos as well as in text? Or do you find it acceptable that there would be more photos of Palestinian suffering as they have had so many more casualties? It seems to me that since this war did not start in a vacuum, (ie several years of indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli civilian communities) that we should be able to balance the article with some pictures of Hamas damage and devastation. I think emotive, sensationalist photos should be out, myself. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate galleries. Period. So, any images that get placed in the article, in my opinion, should be placed in the article. There should be no problem here because this is a long article. I think one of those images would be fine (I think the picture of the girl is the most relevant), along with the other wide shots of devastation in Gaza. The question of balance in photos as well as text has nothing to do with the subsequent question; yes, I think there should be more pictures of Palestinian suffering because this event was all about what was happening in Gaza (not that there was a whole lot happening against Israel). The article does not suggest this happened in a vacuum either; there's the background section and there's there was even a picture there (and that picture should be re-added). There's also another picture of a rocket being fired from Gaza. There's a difference between sensationalist photos and photos that accurately depict the subject and content of the article (within obvious reason). The baby image, as I have already stated, fits in the former. The other images currently in the article, in my opinion, fit in the latter category. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - unresolved disputes

Hi to you too and thanks for the note. I would like to start a list of unresolved disputes on that mess of an article. Are there any you can add to the below list.

1. It is a violation of NPOV to represent the view that it is part of the I-P Conflict and exclude other prominent POV's. For example, it is viewed by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power.

2. If one insists on saying The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world, then balance requires that it be mentioned that The conflict has been described as and as part of the War on Terror in the non-Arab world.

3. Someone keeps setting the archive bot to remove talk sections after only 9 hours of inactivity. It should be set to a minimum of several days because ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes are being automatically removed from the talk page. This is contrary to WP standard practice and guidelines.

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power , began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in the Arab Worldand as part of the War on Terror in the non-Arab world . Doright (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Thank you for support! I really appreciate it. Thank you for bringing some balance and neutrality. My nickname stands for "urban legend" in Hebrew, this is somehow describes WP content in my view :) Hope you visit Jerusalem really soon. You are most welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

dense inert metal weapons

Hi, you deleted the mention in the Gaza conflict article that stated that DIME weapons were not illegal. I wrote that statement only because the placement of the DIME weapon allegations within the "International Law" section implied that they were illegal, which they are not. Therefore, I have restored the comment (that they are not illegal). It sounds odd to write that line, but it seems like the best choice since people keep moving the DIME allegations back into the "International Law" section even though it does not belong there at all.althena (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Tundrabuggy, due to recent edit warring, you are banned until March 1, 2009, from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1. {{cite }}
2. {{cite }}
3. {{cite }}
4. Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
5. "Israel braced for Hamas response". BBC. 2009-1-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. "Israel pounds Gaza for fourth day". London, UK: BBC. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2009-01-14.
7. "Israel vows war on Hamas in Gaza". BBC. December 30, 2008. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
8. "Israeli Gaza 'massacre' must stop, Syria's Assad tells US senator". Google News. Agence France-Presse. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-9. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
9. "Factions refuse Abbas' call for unity meeting amid Gaza massacre". Turkish Weekly. Ma'an News Agency. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
10. "Iraqi leaders discuss Gaza massacre". gulfnews.com. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on http://www.webcitation.org/5dfW1C8nU. Retrieved 2009-1-8. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); External link in |archivedate= (help)
11. "Hamas slammed the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre" - "Israel airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 225". Khaleej Times. Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA). 2008-12-27. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
12. "it's impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre" - "Hamas denies firing rockets from Lebanon". Special Broadcasting Service. Agence France-Presse. 2009-1-8. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
13. "Arab Leaders Call for Palestinian Unity During "Terrible Massacre"". Foxnews.com. Associated Press. 2008-12-31. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
14. "Gulf leaders tell Israel to stop Gaza "massacres"". Reuters. Reuters. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
15. "OIC, GCC denounce massacre in Gaza". Arab News. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
16. "Diplomatic race to stop the Gaza massacre" - "سباق دبلوماسي لوقف مذبحة غزة". BBC Arabic. 2009-1-5. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
17. Libya calling the operation a "horrible massacre" - "United Nations Security Council 6060th meeting (Click on the page S/PV.6060 record for transcript)". United Nations Security Council. 2008-12-31. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
18. {{cite }}
19. {{cite }}
20. {{cite }}