Revision as of 17:20, 9 July 2014 editAudiblySilenced (talk | contribs)243 editsm →8 July amphibious attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:29, 9 July 2014 edit undoEzzex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,568 edits →Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<blockquote>Shortly afterward, four armed Palestinians attempted to cross into Israel via the beach at Kibbutz Zikim. Gunfire ensued with the IDF resulting in the death of both Palestinians.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Shortly afterward, four armed Palestinians attempted to cross into Israel via the beach at Kibbutz Zikim. Gunfire ensued with the IDF resulting in the death of both Palestinians.</blockquote> | ||
If there were ''four'' armed Palestinians, how were ''both'' of them killed? Further, both of those numbers disagree with the cited article, which says that ''five'' assailants were killed, of an unspecified total number. ] (]) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | If there were ''four'' armed Palestinians, how were ''both'' of them killed? Further, both of those numbers disagree with the cited article, which says that ''five'' assailants were killed, of an unspecified total number. ] (]) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article == | |||
Seeing history of similar articles, I can't imagine that you have anything but Israeli propaganda to contribute.--] (]) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:29, 9 July 2014
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.
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
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. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
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.
|
Neutrality
Editors should remind themselves that this is not an account of Israel's operations from an Israelocentric perspective (one could easily put in a map showing radiating out from Israel its attested attack capacities from Tripoli to Sudan to Syria and Baghdad). It is an account of a conflict between two sides in a military confrontation, and both sides must be duly represented. The use here of IDF blogs, or other blogs is not permitted. Given that it is just one more I/P conflict, all of the relevant material will be amply supplied by mainstream newspapers and specialist (credited) journals.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
POV
What's the point of adding POV?--Anton 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is no sign that equal voice is given the two parties in the conflict. It sounds so far like an IDF version of events, and indeed an IDF blog has been used, and when I removed it per failure to pass RS criteria, it was immediately restored by an editor who thinks a specialist journalist in Jerusalem, writing for the Christian Science Monitor was pushing 'propaganda' for stating as a matter of record that Hamas has reined in rocket fire since November 2012, as per the cease-fire agreement, and only assumed responsibility for rockets fired from the Strip today. You'd never guess this from the article being patched up today, and it's evident the majority of contributions show zero interest in WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Using POV is not going to solve the NPOV unless you edit, correct or talk with the user(s). I do not like to see the articles just hang with "POV". As per {{POV/doc}}, I encourage you to point the issue rather than giving general idea. --Anton 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- How does one edit an article when one's first addition is automatically reverted at sight with a false edit summary? Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is almost no elbow room for any experienced editor who has been reverted to restore improperly removed material, or further remove things like the IDF blog which is in direct contradiction with the given data from Bryant and happens to use a unilateral statistic from a belligerent in the conflict while eliding all mention of the alternative perspective? Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand your point. Why don't you intervene with editor(s)? --Anton 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll notify here that for one, User:Galatz, whose been round for 5 years, cannot alter the existing text for a day. He broke the 1R rule in ARBPIA articles with the edit summary ‘Undid propaganda’ (false edit summary also) here, removing citation tags uynder false pretenses, since they were entered because the IDF blog is not usable and here. Normally, this merits an automatic suspension or sanction, but I'm not personally going to worry admins for the moment. All red-ink editors and others should study the rules on reverting and fashion their edits in such a way that they do not revert the given text more than once, except to correct obvious vandalism.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is just nuts, unless something is done what we are going to have is a POV tag sitting around for months. My suggestion is to take this whole thing back to arbcom and ask that well established editors be allowed to at least have 2RR or something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll notify here that for one, User:Galatz, whose been round for 5 years, cannot alter the existing text for a day. He broke the 1R rule in ARBPIA articles with the edit summary ‘Undid propaganda’ (false edit summary also) here, removing citation tags uynder false pretenses, since they were entered because the IDF blog is not usable and here. Normally, this merits an automatic suspension or sanction, but I'm not personally going to worry admins for the moment. All red-ink editors and others should study the rules on reverting and fashion their edits in such a way that they do not revert the given text more than once, except to correct obvious vandalism.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand your point. Why don't you intervene with editor(s)? --Anton 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- How does one edit an article when one's first addition is automatically reverted at sight with a false edit summary? Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is almost no elbow room for any experienced editor who has been reverted to restore improperly removed material, or further remove things like the IDF blog which is in direct contradiction with the given data from Bryant and happens to use a unilateral statistic from a belligerent in the conflict while eliding all mention of the alternative perspective? Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Using POV is not going to solve the NPOV unless you edit, correct or talk with the user(s). I do not like to see the articles just hang with "POV". As per {{POV/doc}}, I encourage you to point the issue rather than giving general idea. --Anton 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm removing your tag - you are using the TP as a WP:SOAP - so far, everything is properly cited.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hamas fired/IDF blog
Hamas fired more than 450 rockets at Israel since the beginning of 2014, by the time Operation Protective Edge began. ("Live updates: Ggaza terrorists fire rockets". Retrieved 8 July 2014.)
This is an improvement from the prior version, reducing the issue to 2014 the relevant time space for the background (start to mention 2001 and you get the counter of the several wars of infrastructural and human devastation, of wars and the ongoing blockage by Israel, and get nowhere)
However
- The source is an IDF blog which cannot be used, as I have noted several times.
- The IDF assertion itself is dubious, since the ceasefire terms of November 21 2012 have been generally observed down to June 2014. Hamas is the elected government of Gaza, and yet does not exercise complete control over the many militant groups operating there (as one saw in the Arrigoni kidnapping and other cases). The various jihadist groups there are generally thought to be behind many of the infractions caused by rocket fire. What the IDF blog did was total up firings from the Gaza Strip for 2014 and attribute them to Hamas, and not to Islamic Jihad in Palestine, various salafist and other militant groups. That is counterfactual. It may be untrue, and still be included, if you can get a mainstream newspaper to repeat the nonsense, and in which case, it must be included with attribution. But at the moment, the statement is contradicted by what Christa Case Bryant reports, and, from experience, she is a very close student of the details.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Implication in Lead
The implication in the Lead is that the Operation is a response to the killing of the teenagers. It's a subtlety, but it's in retaliation to the rocket attacks, that have intensified following the chain of events that can be traced back to the killing of the teenagers, but the causal link is not as direct as we currently state. The results of this error can be seen in the current ITN item on Main Page which boldly states the erroneous cause and effect. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas. That was followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia. Micky Rosenfeld, the Israeli police spokesman, and a lawyer for two of the suspects said Tuesday that they did not know if that was true and that the investigation was continuing.The kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teenagers led to a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, which in turn appeared to push Hamas to respond from Gaza, which it controls.'Steven Erlanger, Isabel Kershner, Dozens of Gaza Strikes by Israel as Hamas Extends Rockets’ Range,' New York Times 9 July 2014.
- It's simply what sources report, and everyone knows.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Another lead problem
a senior Palestinian intelligence official said off the record that the disappearance of the two suspects immediately after the kidnapping constituted: "clear evidence they have links with the abduction".[
This has been inserted into the lead to finger Hamas. The statement was made to link the abduction of the 3 youths with the two missing Hebronites. It was not made by the PNA official to link the abduction of the 3 youths to Hamas, as it has been spun here. This is both POV pushing and a notable WP:OR violation and thirdly, the detail would not even be lead-worthy, even were it true, which it is not. It should be removed immediately.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
8 July amphibious attack
Shortly afterward, four armed Palestinians attempted to cross into Israel via the beach at Kibbutz Zikim. Gunfire ensued with the IDF resulting in the death of both Palestinians.
If there were four armed Palestinians, how were both of them killed? Further, both of those numbers disagree with the cited article, which says that five assailants were killed, of an unspecified total number. AudiblySilenced (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article
Seeing history of similar articles, I can't imagine that you have anything but Israeli propaganda to contribute.--Ezzex (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles