Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 5 September 2009

The principle of proportionality in Gaza war

JF, seems like you're quite new editor to Misplaced Pages. If indeed so, welcome. However, your recent edits in the articles I'm participating, violate certain WIki policies. For example, stating that Israel is not a party to 4th GC is technically true, but the whole sentence is attributed to the specific source; the source didn't say that and didn't mean to say that. If you think that is absolutely necessary, you'll have to find another reliable source to base it. Wiki policies does not allow self-speculations, original research, unsabstantiated claims, making biased edits and so forth. I'll ask my associate to provide you links to wiki policies so that you can understand them better. What is more, I'll appreciate if before making controversial edits, you'll discuss them first on a talk page of the articles. --Sceptic from Ashdod 10:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SA, the source we are talking about is a report called "International Law and the Fighting in Gaza" prepared by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Page 20 of the report reads "Even if it were bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel would be acting in full compliance with international law." From this sentence it is clear for a general reader that Israel is not party to 4th GC. Do you think it is still insufficient to reference the edit on this very source? --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to multiple sources (, , even CAMERA say "Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention August 12, 1949 and ratified it on July 6, 1951". Israel's argument is that they dont apply in the occupied territories. Not that they dont apply to Israel. nableezy - 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake and clarification. Of course Israel IS a party of 4th GC, and my apologies. However, the principle of proportionality was introduced in 1977 in additional Protocol I. US and Israel did not ratify it. And this is what caused the confusion. The charges against Israel, as cited in the article, are that some attacks might have violated the principle, as stated in Article 51(5b) of Additional Protocol I. As you see, 4th GC is irrelevant here. You can say that Israel is not a party to the Protocol I (JCPA indeed says that "Israel, however, is not a party to the First Protocol and is therefore not bound by the provisions of Article 70."), but in this particular case I find it pointless.

As for 4th GC, Israel IS a party of 4th GC, and you simply misinterpreted the text. P. 18 says that "...Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties to certain conflicts to permit transit to enemy civilian populations of a limited number of items and under a limited set of conditions. However, the fighting in and around the Gaza Strip is not a conflict covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention: the conflict is not one between state parties to the Convention, and Gaza is not occupied territory. Therefore, Israel is not bound by Article 23. Even if it were bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel would be acting in full compliance with international law...". JCPA wanted to emphasize that 4th GC is inapplicable to the fighting in Gaza, nothing else. If you still have doubts, it could be easily proved that Israel is a party to 4th GC. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do not we include that clarification into the article or is it already there? I think this is an important for a reader to know about it. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll include the clarification, but based on the recent Israeli Government report. Some excerpts, if you don't mind: "While Israel is not a party to either Additional Protocol I or the Rome Statute, it accepts these clarifications as reflective of customary international law...It is precisely because this balancing (to protect the lives of soldiers and the duty to minimise incidental loss of civilian lives) is difficult that international law confirms the need to assess proportionality from the standpoint of a “reasonable military commander,” possessed of such information as was available at the time of the targeting decision and considering the military advantage of the attack as a whole. Moreover, the balancing may not be second-guessed in hindsight, based on new information that has come to light; it is a forward-looking test based on expectations and information at the time the decision was made. This perspective is confirmed by the use of the word “anticipated” within the text of the rule itself, as well as in the explanations provided by numerous States in ratifying Additional Protocol I. ...for attacks planned in advance, each operation and target was considered on an individual basis (and reviewed by several authorities, including legal officers) in order to ensure that it met the requirements of proportionality. The same analysis was frequently repeated in the field based on real time data, immediately prior to an attack, to confirm that excessive civilian harm was not anticipated. On numerous occasions, this review led to a decision not to attack legitimate military targets, to avoid the possibility of civilian harm, even though such an attack might not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. ...The IDF also refrained from attacking Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, despite Hamas’ use of an entire ground floor wing as its headquarters during the Gaza Operation,118 out of concern for the inevitable harm to civilians also present in the hospital. On other occasions, attacks were approved using precision guided munitions, but the missiles were diverted moments before impact, because civilians were spotted in the target area. On still other occasions, a decision was made to proceed with a strike, but only under certain specified conditions designed to minimise civilian casualties, such as the time of the attack, the type of weapons permitted, or required precautions prior to attack." --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. If anything, I will help you out.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

About Fatah

I'll try to take a longer look soon. In the meantime, I recommend trying to isolate what's at issue and calling for a WP:3O. The editor there will not accept my opinion as impartial and you may have better luck if someone unrelated to editing in this subject area is attracted by the 3O. By the way, welcome, nice to have you here at Misplaced Pages. Tiamut 08:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tiamut for your advise. Looking forward for your wiki-cooperation!--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Dsp Khalil al Mughrabi1, 1.jpg

I fixed this, should be fine. nableezy - 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy, appreaciate your help!--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A pro-Palestinian webcomic

Left a message for you on the article's talk page. --Sceptic from Ashdod 02:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't broken

If it ain't broken, don't fix it, as they say. The quote in the Band's visit was fine before you started playing around with it. There is so much to be done on Misplaced Pages, I would suggest you concentrate on things that need improvement. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your written English and English comprehension leave much to be desired. Please stop introducing false information and substandard English. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Page from Pappé's book

Hi Jim, I scanned the page in question and added it to my user page (it's copyrighted, so I figured it could only be added under a "fair use" rationale on a temporary basis). The reason I'm not so keen on having the non-publication mentioned is that it doesn't contribute anything, it's like saying that Ben Gurion had bad hair. True, but doesn't help the reader understand the reasons behind the 1948 exodus/Nakba. Also, reading between the lines from some user comments, the reason it was added there may have been to impugn the reliability of the report, which wasn't Pappé's point in mentioning the non-publication. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dailycare! I left my supportive stance on the issue at Talk page "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus".--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 8346b6e476c39df7a41e94f4fcd26f3a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Stop this vandalism.

If you have a dispute mark the spot with a request for a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.43.26 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The I/P conflict, Wikiprojects and policies

Hi, I notice your recent change to Irgun where you desxcribe the King David Hotel bombing as a terrorist attack. I happen to agree with you, but please bear in mind WP:Terrorist which recommends avoiding describing a particular action or group as terrorist as opposed to saying that someone (the British government, for example) has described the action as terrorist. It can be irksome when the same individuals (Bibi Netanyahu and those Misplaced Pages editors who agree with him) may wish to deny that Irgun was terrorist and then describe similar actions by Palestinians as terrorist, but it isn't worth getting into an edit war to keep the T-word in the article.

You seem to be a relatively new editor especially interested in an area of Misplaced Pages content (the Arab-Israeli dispute) which has quite a high casualty rate in terms of editors on both sides being blocked, topic-banned etc. I therefore would recommend your familiarising yourself with policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:3RR etc. as they are likely to come up frequently in editing conflicts.

You may also be interested in joining a WP:Wikiproject or two. WP:Israel, and WP:Palestine both cover a lot of articles in common but tend to attract editors with leanings in favour of one particular side (plus the most awkward editors on the opposing side). WP:IPCOLL is a project intended to encourage a balanced approach to material covering the conflict and also keep track of disputes and admin action taken against editors or on particular articles. There are plenty of projects on other areas of content too.

I also advise people to get involved in a broader range of articles than just those on political matters as when disputes occur admins tend to favour people committed to improving Wikpedia's broad range of coverage over those who are solely advocating political positions.

Any welcome and I hope to be involved with you fruitfully in the future.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, you have raised valid points. I have reverted my last edit. Thanks.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm surprised that the edit remained up there long enough for you to self-revert but your demonstrated willing position to reconsider controversial edits always looks good.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk archive

If you are going to archive a talk page, please do it properly:

• this was done using a copy of rendered text to edit box
• this was done into the wrong namespace and lacked proper headings
• when you create a talk archive, you delete the stuff from the live talk page.

— ] (talk · contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not you who would reprimand me of doing technically wrong things in Wiki. Please be aware, that civility on Wiki is most important than a blunted attack on a fellow wiki-colleague. I am going to watch your every step, so to make sure that you do not bother others with this kind silly and irresposible accusitions of misconduct. Jim Fitzgerald 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I consider my commemts above to be totally civil. How can you posibly deny making the two edits that I have linked to above? What was the purpose of those edits? — ] (talk · contribs) 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation - warning

I've warned you about this on Talk:Human rights in Israel, but you refused to comply, so I had to remove the offending section myself. Then I looked at your new addition to Human rights in Israel, identical to the text you placed in Arab citizens of Israel a while ago, and saw that's it's a copyright violation from the source - you just copied an entire paragraph, and changed the word order in a couple of places. I have no objection to the subject being discussed, but you must respect copyrights. You can only use the source for the facts, not the phrasing - rewrite the information in your own words, don't copy-and-paste. Please rewrite that paragraph ASAP. okedem (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation at all. If you think that there is one, I suggest you to follow the wiki procedures. Moreover, I am going to leave a warining message at your user page for attempting to use OR (misinterpreation of sourced articles to make the article unbalanced and intentionally biased). I am reverting your unbased deletes.-- Jim Fitzgerald 09:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you do not understand neither what plagiarism is, or what the article said. What I've added conforms to what the article says (you also don't understand what OR is, apparently) - look at paragraphs 4 and 5 (Starting with: "The special assistance budget is allocated...").

Since you refuse to comply with the standard used here, I am forced to report you. Note that I tried to discuss this with you, and you chose to attack me instead. okedem (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Uri Avnery plagiarism

Here. It's not acceptable to copy large blocks of text directly from a source without quotation marks, even if you cite it.Prezbo (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)