| Revision as of 15:43, 15 July 2014 editBrewcrewer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits →RfC: IDF image: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:50, 16 July 2014 edit undoWickey-nl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,037 edits →3 IDF is not a reliable sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
| * The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. ] (]) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | * The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. ] (]) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| '''Comment.''' Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1. I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --'']] ]'' 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | '''Comment.''' Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1. I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --'']] ]'' 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you you insert that strange link here? --] (]) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:50, 16 July 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) 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 |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | The Al Jazeera images have the logo because the Creative Commons license requires it. These are free images with an attribution restriction. |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
| For previously archived Lead section material: Archive 22 and 23 |
| The move from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict to Gaza War is discussed in /Archive 47#Requested move |
| Sources for the article can be found at this subpage. |
| The inclusion of Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre in the lead of the article is discussed in this RFC. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008. |  |
| A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 January 2009. | |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please 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 met
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks. |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) 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 |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Rocket attacks
If RS do not draw a link shuld we imply one? Yes the attacks declined but there may have been reasons for this unrelated to the conflict.????
Lead
Israel's stated goal was to stop rocket fire into Israel: Not found in source Reuters (describes only part of the timeline).
and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip: Not found in sources.
I propose to replace the sentence by:
"Israel's stated goal was to stop attacks from Gaza on Israel. It argued that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. An argument rejected by the UN Fact Finding Mission, who investigate alleged violations of international law during the Gaza War."<ref name="guardian.co.uk">
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I, for one, oppose your proposal. Firstly I'm not sure why you are changing "rocket fire" to attacks." The weapons smuggling was sourced but now the link is dead. A new source must be found and it should be not difficult. Your essay-like proposal for the second sentence is wholly inappropriate for a second sentence of a WP:LEAD let alone for any part of the article. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all to keep "rocket fire" instead of the more compact "attacks". The Guardian perfectly cites the Israeli key arguments, so I also propose to add to the source the quote: "The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. Instead, it found the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".". Rejecting the source by calling it essay-like is very cheap arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- To include such "inquiry" in the lead (furthermore with those words, which are not mainstream opinion... the objective was to "humiliate, terrorize"?? are you kidding me or what?) is blatant and obvious POV-pushing. Take a time to read weight, label, lead and NPOV more carefully. This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal blog.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- First, a quote in the ref does not appear in the lead. Further no one says it is a mainstream opinion; it is a quote from a RS. Third, "humiliate, terrorize" are not my words, but only short-sighted minds see them as a joke. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Should Operation Protective Edge be added to the top with Operation Pillar of Defense in the "For..." section? - Galatz (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
AmirSurfLera's revert
The text reverted by AmirSurfLera: is not directly related to this war. Following AmirSurfLera's argument, all Gaza incidents should be added here. Everything in the conflict is related. Furthermore, terrorism-info is an extremely unreliable source, and "Hamas' post-war policy of restraint has come under severe criticism from local radical Islamic organizations, which accused Hamas of abandoning the principle of jihad to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip" does not make any sense here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is directly related to this article. The source (from 2009!) explains that Hamas restrained its activities as a consequence of this war, therefore drawing criticism from more radical organizations (Islamic Jihad and others). Read the source before deleting entire paragraphs.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Hamas restraint was simply part of the ceasefire, not an aftermath event and not notable. A meaningless statement on an IDF propaganda website, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, about criticism on Hamas, is also not an aftermath event and not notable. Also a meaningless statement of Hamas in which they promise to stay in uniform in the future is not an aftermath event and not notable, especially not in the main article about this Gaza assault. Keep bluffing! --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, read the source instead of wasting my time. Hamas's policy of restraint came under severe criticism from radical Islamic organizations (such as the Islamic Liberation Party) and local groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the global jihad, precisely because they reduced the firing of rockets. The ceasefire was a direct consequence of this war. You can also notice that Hamas reduced its rocket attacks after this operation (from 2,048 rockets in 2008 to 160 in 2009 after Cast Lead). Besides, you also removed important content supported by newspapers like BBC, CBS, Xinhua and Maan News. Finally, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is much more reliable and serious than the Journal of Palestine Studies, the Socialist Worker, Vanity Fair, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Jazeera, Amnesty International, "Studies on the Israeli Aggression on Gaza Strip: Cast Lead Operation" and many other Pallywood propaganda websites in this and other articles about the conflict.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the ceasefire, was not an aftermath event. As was the reduction of rocket attacks, especially when the same source continues with telling that "the terrorist organizations continue attacking IDF patrols and civilians near the border fence". Apparently little changed. The ceasefire is described in detail in a separate section. Still less an aftermath event was a simple statement about Islamic organizations on this IDF propaganda website. How is criticism on Hamas notable in this article? It has no importance at all. Terrorism-info is a pure hasbara organization and as such an unreliable source.
Why accuse me of removing important content while providing a link that proves just the opposite?May be I overlooked it because of the mouseover gadget. It is very clear that the Egypt item has nothing to do with the Gaza assault.
- Actually, there was no aftermath at all. The ceasefire was more or less maintained until the next assault in 2012, despite continued occupation, Gaza blockade and Israeli military provocations. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see how a policy enacted as a result of the War should not be included in the Aftermath section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
sources
Sources that are real are not fake. perhaps you should explain why you think this http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE50423320090105 was a fake source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- As explained above, this source is fake because it does not contain the statement. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- IN that case an accurate edit summery would have helped. You are saying not that the source if fake, but that it does not support the statement. That is not the same thing.
- “January 5 - Twelve civilians are killed as ground combat rages with the Palestinian death toll at least 524. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak says offensive will continue until communities in Israel are safe from Hamas rocket strikes.”
- So whilst it does not say “that is Israel’s stated goal” it does say that the reason for the fighting is to make Israel safe from rocket attacks. It can certainly be read as Barak saying that their goal is to prevent rocket fire. IO really am not understanding why you are so opposed to this source.
- If you really have this much issue with it take to the RS noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is simply WP:OR. Interpretation of a statement, made long after the start of the assault. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you really have this much issue with it take to the RS noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
A very simple modification of lede
WP attracts people who would argue with a rock if they had a chance so I expect heated debate of the simple ommission of the chara cterization of the name Operation Cast Lead as "Israeli". The name was used by English language journalists all over the world. You might also call "the New York Times name".
Nobody is going to read this article at this length except for people who have already made up their minds unless we can follow a more concise rule.
The characterization is also somewhat POV and perjorative. Perhaps calling it OCL is, too, but why not just keep it short and simple and lett he reader decide for themselves,
I am betting my pal $10 this simple change incites outraged opposition. But I am just keeping it simple not necessarily taking a side. See Occam's Razor. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Though I am against the use of military code names as title in general and prefer a reference to the 2008/2009 period, I see this as an exception due to the high ambiguity of "Gaza War". OCL has definitely become a common name. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Devilishlyhandsome. You failed to rationalize your removal of "known in the Arab world" from the Gaza Massacre name. I think this is not trivial and should be re-added as per the cited sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation name
Aviados, you seem not to get the point about the name Operation Cast Lead. It is not about the etymology of the word. It is about the cynical use of it, refering to the "lead" casted out over the Gazan population. Making an innocent reference to a celebration makes it still more cynical and hypocritical. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wickey-nl, I'm afraid it is you who does not get the point about the name. *Of course* the name may have several aspects, some of which you may call "cynical", or in any case a word play. However, its basic meaning should undoubtedly be explained (which, much to my surprise, was not the case until now).
- I shall quote from the English-language source I have given (which is nothing if not critical):
- The war-normalizing name Operation Cast Lead carried several connotations to Jewish culture with the key overall connotation being the holiday of Hanukkah. It is important to note that most of these connotations are lost in the English name, thus a detailed discussion of the Hebrew name may be useful for the non-Hebrew speaker. (Gavriely-Nuri, Dalia (2013). “Operation Cast Lead.” The Normalization of War in Israeli Discourse, 1967-2008. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. pp. 42–43)
- The authour – a senior lecturer and a research fellow in the Department of Politics and Communication at Hadassah Academic College and at the Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, respectively, and whose main research area is Peace and War Discourse – goes on to explain it in detail. If you wish to add information to it, based on sources like this study, you are welcome. However, objecting the mere explaining of the operation's name is an absurdity. Aviados (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Image
.jpg)
This photo of a stack of scrap from an unreliable source could have been made anytime, anywhere. Found in a mosque? It clearly are not weapons. This violates WP:SOURCE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do we usually consider military spokesperson units unreliable sources? Are all government spokespersons unreliable, in your opinion?
- And what is the basis for the claim that Qassam rockets "are not weapons"? Aviados (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, military spokespersons in general are pathological liars. They are not government spokespersons, although these usually also lie. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- This photo shows at best remains of what once were Qassam rockets. Unknown where and when found. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting approach, determining that information provided by official spokespersons is probably a lie. Is it grounded in any guidelines, or is it just your personal point of view?
- Qassam rockets are seen in the images. You *suggest* that these aren't but "remains of what once were Qassam rockets". That's an original research. Aviados (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- An exposition of old metal, yet not weapons, and a soldier posing for the picture. This image is not added for information, but merely for mood making. So, I remove it again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Two editors have explained why you are wrong and objected your edit. I reverted your edit yet again. Please do not remove the image again without achieving an agreement in the talk page. Aviados (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- An exposition of old metal, yet not weapons, and a soldier posing for the picture. This image is not added for information, but merely for mood making. So, I remove it again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The hollow phrase of Brewcrewer, I do not regard as an explanation. Instead, your suggestion that Qassam rockets are shown is original research. You failed to adress any of my objections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's less of an original research than to claim that what is shown is "a stack of scrap" or "an exposition of old metal". But of course, we should avoid original research, on either side; that means we are to stick to the source, according to which what is shown in the image are weapons. Aviados (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- You gave some arguments, all of which were then refuted.
- I have absolutely no idea what you mean by saying that "the image itself proves it is an unreliable source". Aviados (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Only silly Israelis and Americans believe that the IDF as a fighting party is a reliable source. Apparently, there are editors among those believers here. The image is clearly for propaganda, both on Flickr and in the article. WP:SOURCE is enough for deletion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- there are images in there from the ISM, which is not neutral, not a reliable source. Why are you not removing those? This kind of one-sided editing is disruptive. at leats 4 editors have reverted you yon this issue - stop edit warring over it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The IDF is reliable source for thier own images.Please don't remove it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
RfC: IDF image
 |
|
This request is about the question isued above (the use of an IDF image).
The IDF image, in my view, is placed in the article for propaganda only. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. My theses are:
- The image is used for propaganda and does not serve explanation of the article
- Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
- The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source on the subject, including statements about targets, and casualties among the other party
Wickey-nl (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
History
- 4 July 2014 Wickey-nl's first removal
- 4 July 2014 reverted by User:Shezor Sajur, almost certain a sock, edit accepted by Brewcrewer
- 6 July 2014 Wickey-nl's first revert, to force discussion on talkpage
- 6 July 2014 reverted by Aviados
- 7 July 2014 Wickey-nl's second revert, to force discussion on talkpage
- 7 July 2014 reverted by Aviados
Until Wickey-nl's third revert on 10 July 2014, there was no response on the talkpage but by Brewcrewer, with a reaction that was not to the point, and from Aviados, who ignored Wickey-nl's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickey-nl (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, this description cannot be less accurate. First, Wickey-nl neglected to mention the fact that the discussion had indeed begun, with both his argument and my response, on 5 July. Second, I couldn't have ignored Wickey-nl's final "arguments", since his kind remark about the silliness of Israelis and Americans does not constitute an argument (but if anything, merely reflects his "neutral" POV). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Please, start your comment with a * and your sign (~~~~)
1 The image is used for propaganda
- The image, showing weapons found in a mosque, demonstrates Hamas's notorious usage of public, civilan facilities – including, as in this case, mosques – for military purposes, and thus effectively turning the civil population in Gaza into a human shield. This is a matter of fact, known to be true and confirmed by numerous non-Israeli sources (including, interestingly enough, Hamas's own speakers, who apparently do not believe there is anything wrong with this practice). To present the readers with this image, then, is no more of a "propaganda" than to present them with images depicting the actions of the other side (i.e., Israel), namely explosions, damaged buildings etc. (which, to be sure, appear in the article in their numbers). To show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by only one of the two fighting parties, while erasing all trace of the ones inflicted by the other, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is used for propaganda/PR. That is the only reason to take the photo and publish the photo. But including propaganda in Misplaced Pages articles is fine as long the source is clearly identified and what it purportedly shows is attributed to the source of the propaganda. And Aviados, we are not here to show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by anyone. It's an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The image may have been taken by the IDF for PR purposes, but in this article it is being used to illustrate some of the arguments. There's nothing wrong with that so long as the overall article adheres to WP:NPOV - by including arguments and images from the other side. On that note, I might be more sympathetic to the OP's argument here if he also suggested that the propaganda photos originating with the International Solidarity Movement also be removed - but as the OP hypocritically supports retaining those photos while advocating the removal of IDF ones, we can safely dismiss this argument as disingenuous. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously, but as long as the caption clearly states where photo comes from and as long as photos from similar Palestinian sources are not rejected, it's useable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The question is not only if the image is used for propaganda purposes, which is obvious, but more importantly why it is used in a WP article. What does the picture add? Does it say that mosques are legitimate military targets, like homes, press offices, schools and hospitals? And if so, should WP support this. If this is indeed the case, it should be mentioned in the capture; not simply "weapons found in a mosque", which is meaningless. Questioning the presence of pictures that damage Israel's image is legitimate. But, unlike the photo about we are talking now, there are published plenty pictures of the damage, by plenty independent sources, and they were verifiable by everyone. The presence of other images does not legitimate the presence of an improper one. Every one should be judged separately. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The image gives an example of case where Palestinians have used a mosque as a weapon warehouse; nothing particularly new. You may think this to be "meaningless", but that seems like nothing more than yet another reflection of your clearly non-NPOV attitude here. It is a crucial aspect of this warfare, which should certainly not be disregarded. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
2 Content not verifiable
- This is not a separate issue, but merely an aspect of no. 3 (see bellow). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is true of just about every photograph on Misplaced Pages - , and is a byproduct of copyright laws. verifiable images - from reputable news agencies - are copyrighted and can't normally be used. (and as an aside, even reputable news media have been caught publishing fake photos). We rely on user generated content for most photographic material. Specifically, it applies to all the ISM photos in the article, which the OP has no problem with. Again, an insincere appeal to policy, properly described as WP:WIKILAWYERING Brad Dyer (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- As Sean.hoyland pointed out, propaganda may be included in Misplaced Pages articles under certain conditions. This does not mean that misleading info may be presented just because it is correctly attributed. The content on the discussed photo is dubious and not verified by a RS. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As others have already stated, the image gives no "misleading info", and only someone who applies a double standard would consider it "dubious" while unquestionably accepting the validity of the ones taken by the ISM. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
3 IDF is not a reliable source
- To be sure, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has an agenda here. However, the same can be said about other sources for the images used here, including the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, which is highly ideologically-driven and is known to have a clear agenda, ridiculously favoring the Palestine case.
- It is Wickey-nl's contention (above) that "military spokespersons in general are pathological liars". Well, we shall respect this point of view, like any other, and since Wickey-nl takes this belief to be a rule of thumb, he may well ignore military spokespersons altogether in his opinion pieces. Here, however, we do rely upon government spokespersons (at least as far as we deal with open societies).
- When deemed necessary, we can, and do, precede claims with "according to", as is done in various cases throughout this very article; in fact, that is what Wickey-nl himself suggested. The caption is now "Weapons found in a mosque during Operation Cast Lead, according to the IDF". This should undoubtedly be enough, and there's no justification for removing the image. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The false suggestion is made here, that a Flickr account under the name Israel Defense Forces is a source of the IDF Spokesperson. A Flickr account used for uploading propaganda pictures by soldiers is not an official IDF communication channel. Apart from that, is is very naive to suppose that IDF Spokespersons are reliable. No one can expect that IDF will let prevail truth over military and propaganda objectives. Not the nature of military; you cannot even blaim them for that. Just repeating that IDF is a reliable source does not make it true, even if 1000 editors would do. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1. I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you you insert that strange link here? --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages objectionable content
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment