Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Some guy (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 13 January 2009 (→Soapboxing on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Nableezy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody 00:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

bilady bilady bilady, laki hubbi wa fuadi

Hi Nableezy. I'm from Egypt too. Glad to see you :). --Darwish07 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tamam zaii el foll. Koll sana wi inta tayyeb :D. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace indeed

Hey, thanks for the message. I appreciate it. Our dialogue (as unproductive as it was...) actually made me understand a little better what "the other side" thinks about the issue, so some good did come out of it. There's really no right or wrong here, just two sides to a story. And, indeed, the same should be reflected here in WP. I really hope both Palestinians and Israelis will all move past this period of aggression and into more productive times, so I could drive down to Gaza and have some good humus with the people. So take care, and indeed let's hope for some more peace. Rabend (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inclusions

I have forwarded a compromise solution at the talk page of the Gaza conflict about the inclusion of UN workers and women and children. See it and reply please.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fading away

Nableezy, my time limit is too small these days cause of the exams. If this silly debate about the "Gaza Massacre" term continued, just take a look at my 3-point ("Reply to claim 1", "Reply to claim 2", ..) answer to the 3 proposed "problems". I believe those 3 points are sharp enough to cut off all the proposed arguments, including bolding. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, my 3-point reply has not been challenged, cause I think they are powerful enough. See you soon. --Darwish07 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre

The reason I'm not taking active part in this discussion (as well as in many others) is that I am having a hard time to crystalize an opinion. I must say that I am appalled by the "massacre" terminology, as I find it to be nothing short of simple case of racism, yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way. That said, I guess I would have no objection to include the term in the lead, but don't quote me on that just yet. Also , most Israeli media outlets call it "the Gaza War". If "massacare" goes in so should "war" (maybe, I don't know). Bottom line: I am still contemplating, but I tend to agree it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I didn't take part in this discussion (I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me post a message by myself--Omrim (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We disagree with a few of your points but you have not let any discussion devolve into an unproductive debate. Thanks. I keep on forgetting to sign my posts.67.170.88.215 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Edit: And logging in.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Grossly gross

No problem man. I appreciate it. I'm sure that poor soldier who misfired is utterly devastated and would have liked to apologize for that horrible accident. Maybe when the war is over. Rabend (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the compliment, and sending a similar one your way. It is exhaustedly difficult to maintain reason and calm in such tense times (while trying to have real life outside wiki at the same time) and I deeply appreciate anyone trying to do so, such as yourself. Peace indeed (even though I am quite skeptic about seeing peace in my lifetime...)--Omrim (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

Hey. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I also value your thoughtful contributions, and I think we’re helping this article finally reach a point of sustained neutrality.

I’ve been trying to put into actual words what’s bothering me with the massacre statement. I think it’s basically the effect that it has on the naïve reader, who is the target audience of this encyclopedia. I think that when the user encounters “the Gaza Massacre” in boldface in the opening lines of the article that is supposed to objectively sum up the conflict, cognitively, he will barely notice the suffix, and that the strong words will be imprinted in his mind and will be subconsciously associated with the conflict, thereby potentially creating an undue bias, before even reading the facts. This term is so emotionally charged, that the danger of such a potential bias overrides the necessity of putting it right up at the top. I agree it should be present in the article, but further down. The Hebrew term, by contrast, is “operation” (the people actually refer to it as “war”), which is a less strong expression, in my opinion (so is “war”).

This issue is particularly disturbing to (left wing) pro-Israelis, since we know for a fact that the IDF is doing all that it reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties. That’s why it’s using so much advanced intelligence equipment and smart weapons and doing door-to-door urban fighting, which is uber-risky. If the IDF really wanted a massacre, it would do it in a single 5-minute sortie with 0 casualties on its side and 100,000s of dead Palestinians. It feels like the use of “massacre” is not only false, but used as propaganda by Arabic media to bash Israel. When the western reader encounters this word, it is in the context of the western reporting standards that he is used to, and is more likely to accept that as fact. Again, the suffix is not so noticeable after those strong words. That is my opinion.

On a personal note, and please don’t be offended by anything, I think it also does a disservice to the Palestinian people. The term suggests that the Palestinian people are mere victims, and thus further consolidates what I view as the eternal victim stance. The Palestinians always try to show how they are always victims in everything, and I think that’s not a good for them, strategically. In my opinion, they should take a more proactive, independent stand. Not always the crushed people, even though they might feel that, and Israel may indeed make them feel that. You see what I’m saying? Call it a “war”, or something. Anything that implies that you’re not again the hopeless victims, coz if they keep it up, no one in the world would ever expect them to make something of themselves, and that would be like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not to compare in any way, shape or form, but take a look at what’s going on Israel, solely from this perspective. Forget about history and context and who’s right. Jews came to israel after being victims themselves in the Holocaust. But they chose not to wallow in the victimization feeling, but actually to be active, and build and create their country, despite incessant wars. I wish the Palestinians would do the same. While talking with the UN to see who’s right and wrong in this never ending conflict, decide that you stop being hopeless victims, and build a working country for yourselves. If they keep sticking to the victimization thing, they have a reason to not do much for themselves and instead blame everyone around them. The vast majority in israel thinks just that. Most Israelis have no special connection to the Gaza strip, and really don’t mind Palestinians around them. They just want them to create a viable, peaceful country alongside israel, so that the two people could live in peace. Right, wrong, guilty, victim. Whatever. We are all victims here to some extent. Let’s try to move past that.

I’m sure you might disagree with most of this, and you might think endorses a patronizing view (which I hope you won't), but I just wanted you to hear my opinion and the thoughts of the average Israel supporter. Rabend (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the claim that the Arab world calls the war by this name. I have no problem with that (although, as I said, I don't think it does the Arabs much good). My concern is that such a powerful emotional elicitor is used in the opening lines of the document, and can (subconsciously perhaps) instill some preconceptions in the mind of the naive reader, before he actually reads the facts, thereby biasing him right from the get go. In this way, we are not being encyclopedic, in my mind. I agree the term should be mentioned, coz as you said it is the most common name for it (although an official name would have been preferred, like Operation Cast Lead), but lower down the article, again, mainly due to its effect and that it is not the official name.

Try to place yourself in the eyes of the naive reader. You load the page, assuming it represents the objective truth, you start scanning thru the article, see the word Massacre in boldface, followed by the Arabic script. I doubt that, as a western naive reader, you would continue past the Arabic script. I know I wouldn't. Psychologically, you'll just skip the rest of the sentence and continue scanning, and never even notice the "used by the Arab world" part. Thus, you already have made the association between the conflict and a massacre taking place.

I'm not trying to be petty here. My MA is in a field similar to cognitive psychology and I work with things that are relevant to "user experience", and that is why I am so sensitive to the effects of seemingly small things on our perceptions. I would not have objected had I not thought this was important. Rabend (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My optimal wording would be "Hamas leaders and the Arab media have termed the conflict "The Gaza Massacre" (arabic script here). (sources)". without boldface.

I'm really concerned about the boldface. It is somewhat inappropriate, since, again, it is not an official name. For example, the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing is often referred to as a massacre as well, but the term, coined by Israeli officials, only comes up in the 2nd paragraph, and with quotation marks. This format seems reasonable to me, only I agree that this way it should be indeed in the 1st paragraph. What do you say? Rabend (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say that i scanned thru several Arab news sites (English versions), and I haven't seen this term used as the conflict's name. It may have been used as a noun in a sentence, but not as a semi-official name. Perhaps it's only in Arabic? I don't mean to suggest any bad faith or anything, but I'm not sure that The Gaza Massacre and Operation Cast Lead are used in the same way. i.e., as the name of the entire conflict. Rabend (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To me it still doesn't feel like it has the same level of "official name"-ness like Cast Lead, and I'm still bothered by the boldface font, but I also see where you're coming from, in wanting to list the war's name. Perhaps you want to invite user:Omrim into the discussion and see what he thinks? Rabend (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for agreeing on something here, and then bringing it to the group. It's nearly impossible to get a consensus there. Some on your side are pretty nasty too, like that racist NonZionist. It's like he's doing everything to stop our collaboration.

BTW, there's at least one part in the lead that could be made neutral, about the death toll. First of all, it should be in the same format, or at least referring to the same categories, i.e., "All but three of the Israeli casualties have been soldiers, while xxx of the Gaza casualties have been civilians". The reader should be able to figure out for himself which side has many more civilian casualties. Right now it's like we're directly going for empathy for one side. Also, immediately following is yet another count of children. While the facts are horrible, this is redundant. What do you think? Rabend (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the casualties. How should we change it, though? The lead discussion is a huge mess? Rabend (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And my thoughts too.

Hi. Well thanks for your kind words. I think "reasonable" must be the highest compliment a Wikipedian can give, especially on an article like that. I'd like to think that we're all reasonable outside of the terse dialogue of the talk pages. I'm sorry that I didn't respond earlier but I haven't been on WP since I made the comment.

I quite agree with your first assertion. I don't think a term should be excluded because it is inflamatory if it otherwise deserves inclusion. That might be a valid NPOV reason for excluding it from a descriptive title but it would also be an NPOV problem to ignore a widely-used term even if it was an ugly one. I also don't think the interwiki should be removed. If that was a valid reason the German Misplaced Pages could remove us for not having the "Cast Lead" name as the title like they do. =)

I also think that you did raise a good point about the Hamas name. We do have to consider the various reasons that we would include a name. The official name from the government would be one but the usual name in a society is quite a different thing. I think that most Americans would remember the invasion of Panama but not that it was called Operation, ugh, Just Cause. Similarily I don't think that most of my fellow Canadians would know the names that our government uses for operations in Afghanistan, although they are sometimes said in the media. I would actually suspect that average Israeli doesn't talk about "Cast Lead" to friends but probably uses another "Gaza" term.

So maybe "massacre" deserves some inclusion as the Hamas name even if it is not the usual Arabic name. I'd have to think about it and look into it some more before I can say. But thank you for your comments and the message on my talk page. It has definitely made me rethink things. That's really the best reason for having Misplaced Pages. The "sum of human knowledge" would be pretty hollow if we leave here thinking all the same things as when we arrived. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

First, this is not meant as a direct complaint about you or your behavior. I am sure you have noticed the excessive soapboxing from User:NonZionist which is in violation of Misplaced Pages talk page rules and guidelines. Almost all of his posts on the talk page are on his personal views on the subject and not at all about improving the article. I noticed you have occasionally responded to his comments. Please do not respond to soapbox comments with additional soapbox comments; even if well intended, they only encourage additional soap-boxing which violates Misplaced Pages rules and wastes space on the talk page. Some guy (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If that one comment is directly relevant to the article, perhaps it might be important, except it is obviously heavily bogged in soapboxing. Since I do not wish to edit only a portion of comment and misrepresent the author, I feel it is more appropriate to delete the text entirely. I would be very surprised if anyone tries to go and read the massive talk page all the way through carefully enough to notice the deletion of some soapboxing. Some guy (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)