Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle of Gaza (2007): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:49, 16 June 2007 editJd2718 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,682 edits →Human Rights Violations: weight; restrict to one paragraph?← Previous edit Revision as of 13:55, 16 June 2007 edit undoZeq (talk | contribs)10,670 edits →Human Rights ViolationsNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:


::The Sweirki incident is already reported. And the rest is simply out of proportion with the level of detail in the article. Saying that it '''will''' be improved is at most vaguely interesting. It '''has not''' been improved. As written, the section placed undue weight on what is essentially a single fact (HRW's claim). We could, if you like, rewrite the claim to a single paragraph. That would keep it in the article, without the undue weight that a full, bulleted section carries. ] 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC) ::The Sweirki incident is already reported. And the rest is simply out of proportion with the level of detail in the article. Saying that it '''will''' be improved is at most vaguely interesting. It '''has not''' been improved. As written, the section placed undue weight on what is essentially a single fact (HRW's claim). We could, if you like, rewrite the claim to a single paragraph. That would keep it in the article, without the undue weight that a full, bulleted section carries. ] 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::You are on the border of vandelizing the article. Improvments to other section will be done but first you need to stop the revert. Please be respecfull and self revert (or add) - feel free to edit the section but the level of detail (for encyclopdia) is reasonable and should not eb used as an excuse to remove a section you disgree with (first you argued OR - now you claim something else...) ] 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, 16 June 2007

WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:Arabic

Please rename

This article should be renamed Palestinian Civil War.

Human Rights Violations

  1. The level of detail in this section exceeds that of the rest of the article. Undue weight.
  2. One of the incidents is already reported in the article, above.
  3. The combination of the four or five or six details into one section constitutes WP:Original Research. It is an original synthesis.

Note, I am not claiming the material is inaccurate; just that it does not belong here. Jd2718 13:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Answers:
  1. The level of detail for the rest of the article will be improved. I don't see undue weight even now but accept that more detail can be added elsewhere in the article.
  2. We can move it to the section that talks about Human right violations.
  3. Human Rights violation as part of such civil war are common. Human Rights Watch and the press are calling it as such and so there is no WP:OR invloved.
I am glad you agree that the material is accurate. I understand the reality is not convient to you (or to the people of Gaza) but this is the reality. we only report it in the most NPOV way possible. Zeq 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Sweirki incident is already reported. And the rest is simply out of proportion with the level of detail in the article. Saying that it will be improved is at most vaguely interesting. It has not been improved. As written, the section placed undue weight on what is essentially a single fact (HRW's claim). We could, if you like, rewrite the claim to a single paragraph. That would keep it in the article, without the undue weight that a full, bulleted section carries. Jd2718 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You are on the border of vandelizing the article. Improvments to other section will be done but first you need to stop the revert. Please be respecfull and self revert (or add) - feel free to edit the section but the level of detail (for encyclopdia) is reasonable and should not eb used as an excuse to remove a section you disgree with (first you argued OR - now you claim something else...) Zeq 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Battle of Gaza (2007): Difference between revisions Add topic