Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 3

message: ::The propaganda poster used in the latest edit does not meet WP:V and is not a reliable source. The poster does not cite where it got these figures, so in no way can it stand as a "source" all by itself. Please find a reliable source for these percentages or the highly POV material associated with it will have to be altered or removed. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stand With Them dot com

message: In regards to the bolded section of this sentence: "The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image."
The sources cited do NOT make any mention of any worldwide shock or outrage, or of the photograph being an iconic image. In fact the second source goes to any empty earthlink page. Can somebody please provide sources for these claims or can they be removed? Deuterium 01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iconic image" 

message: i miss the suicide bombing in tel aviv from january / february 2006. it was in the same restaurant as the later april bombing, but there were less people killed. --Herrengedeck 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  january 2006 suicide bombing 

message: This section cannot stay as is because:
# The very title is POV in nature, these are Israeli allegations and must be portrayed as such.
# Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Israeli government web sites, and pasting a whole POV table from their website (a possible copyright violation) is not within Wikipedia's scope or policy.
# It is undue weight to the Israeli POV. If any segment of this stays, it would have to be balanced by the official Palestinian allegations vis-a-vis the same issues as well, and these can be found here and here. 
A quick response would be appreciated; we can either remove/condense the Israeli propaganda and/or add the opposing Palestinian propaganda. I prefer removing rather than childish tit-for-tat, but if NPOV is the goal, the opposing POV must be represented. Ramallite (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support adding the first link you mentioned. --Shamir1 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that cutting and pasting from a copyrighted page may be a copyright violation (in fact, in this case I'm pretty sure it is, which is why I removed it). If you'd like to summarize/condense your edit, I'll do the same. Ramallite (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Palestinian violations" section 

message: This artcle is larded with so much anti-historical nonsense that it should be entirely discarded. I don't don't have time to begin. The idea that anyone would still believe in propaganda line Jenin Massacre or the al-Durrah hoax is crazy, that it should be included in an encyclopedia article is an embarrassment. Scott Adler 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be discarded

message: See this revision. Moshe, you have a bad habit of deleting totally uncontroversial stuff such as reference link details while deleting other stuff you find controversial. You did this on the Taba Summit page also. That page is currently protected due to your deletions of sourced material, and the edit warring that ensued. That controversy will eventually be sorted out. But on that page you also deleted uncontroversial stuff (reference link details) that had happened in between the edit warring. 
On this Al-Aqsa Intifada page you reverted the updated casualty stats while deleting other stuff you find to be controversial. Please learn how to revert only the stuff you find controversial. I stopped reverting your blanking deletions on the Taba Summit page after I learned that your blanking could not be considered to be vandalism as long as you gave any reason, no matter how against the wikipedia guidelines they were. An official request for comments was made on that page, and I encourage others here to make comments, in order to resolve whether your blanking deletions are against wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moshe's deletions on Dec. 13, 2006. 

message: Can we archive the old talk? I have done it on another wikipedia page. It is easy. Instructions are here: 
* Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page --Timeshifter 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal. Archive old talk?

message: The David Horowitz info about the Mitchell report is not accurate. I suggest quoting directly from the source. The Mitchell report text is online. Here is the contradictory info below that is currently on the page. 
David Horowitz in a Jan. 11, 2002 article wrote that the The Mitchell Commission report would later establish that "[t]he Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aksa Intifada," and that the violence was planned by the PA leadership 
*Why Israel Is The Victim And The Arabs Are The Indefensible Aggressors In the Middle East
The April 30, 2001 Mitchell Report found that the Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aqsa Intifada, although it was poorly timed and would clearly have a provocative effect. The report also concluded that 
"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the Government of Israel to respond with lethal force."
 
*"Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report". The George J. Mitchell (et al) report. April 30, 2001. --Timeshifter 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitchell report is online. Let's quote directly from it. 

message: Here are various stat sources:
* http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439
* http://212.150.54.123/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm
* http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics 
* http://www.mepc.org/resources/mrates.asp 
* http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/219.shtml 
* http://palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm 
* http://palestinercs.org/Latest_CrisisUpdates_Figures&Graphs.htm 
* http://palestinercs.org/crisistables/table_of_figures.htm 
* http://palestinercs.org/Database/index.htm 
* http://www.palestinercs.org/graphs/deathsregion2.jpg 
* http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org 
I do not know which stats are more reliable than others. I suggest putting the basic stats on the wikipedia page. Maybe in the form of a range of deaths. And a range of civilian versus combatant percents. And some hard numbers for civilian casualties (also a range). And then putting reference links. People can follow the links to make their own decisions as to reliability. --Timeshifter 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might create a section just for casualties. That is fairly common on wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. --Timeshifter 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty stat sources

message: I would like the economic costs and human casualties to be separated into 2 sections. Right now there is a section called "Economic and human costs." Also, I dislike using the word "costs" to refer to human casualties. See the Iraq War and Vietnam War pages. They have Casualties sections. --Timeshifter 20:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and created a casualties section. Hope no one objects. --Timeshifter 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about a separate Casualties section?

message: This info below is from the casualties section. But I don't see a verifiable source. Unverifiable info should not be in the article. What is the URL for the article? And the title of the article?
On August 24, 2004, Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff published casualty figures based on Shin Bet data. Here is a summary of the figures presented in the article:
* Some 1,001 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in the al-Aqsa Intifada, most of them (more than 75%) civilians.
* Palestinians sources claim 2,736 Palestinians killed in the intifada.
* The Shin Bet has the names of 2,124 Palestinian dead.
* Out of the figure of 2,124 dead, 1,414 (or 66%) were said to be combatants (armed men and/or "terrorists"). The casualties are thus assigned to organizations:
** 466 Hamas members
** 408 Fatah's Tanzim and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
** 205 Palestinian Islamic Jihad
** 334 of Arafat's guard Force 17, the Palestinian police and the General Intelligence 
----
The above info is unsourced. I am removing it from the article until it is verifiably sourced. 
I put in this sourced info:
:"But it turned out that according to calculations of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to the beginning of August [2003] this year, 551 were terrorists, 'that is, bearing arms and explosives' (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, August 8, 2003). ... Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
:*"What the fatality statistics tell us". By Amira Hass. Haaretz. Sept. 3, 2003. 
I removed the other info questioning the ICT stats since that criticism is unsourced also. I am referring to this statement:
:Palestinians dispute this, as the report treats most people that were killed as combatants, often much to the dispute of locals and international aid workers. Additionally, to reach these numbers, "combatant age" was defined to include ages 15 and up.
Please do not keep up a revert war for that unsourced statement. If someone can source it, then put it in the article in an NPOV way. Preferably with a quote. --Timeshifter 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shin Bet info on casualties

message: I removed this unsourced info below also. Is there a verifiable source and URL for this? And is the date for 2006?:
:On September 8, Maariv published IDF casualties figures indicating that some 989 Israelis were killed and 6,700 injured. Of the dead, 694 were civilians and 295 security personnel. --Timeshifter 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maariv info on casualties

message: I asked on December 13, 2006 in the talk section higher up titled "Proposal. Archive old talk?" if we could archive the old talk. If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive any sections that have not had any comments in the last few months. Are there any objections? --Timeshifter 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that it is usually a bad idea to archive in the course of active and contentious editing. TewfikTalk 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will archive old talk sections unless objections 

message: In your last comment you wrote: 
:I have this time "mass reverted"
So you admit it. I have not purposely removed any sourced material on this page. I apologized when I did so by accident. I corrected some poorly sourced info (the Intrafada material). On the other hand you have repeatedly removed sourced material. The IBC chart, the Amira Hass info, etc.. Without apologies at all. In fact, you do it defiantly, and with prejudice, and while removing totally uncontroversial minor edits, too, as in your last revert. You just reverted updated Palestine Red Crescent Society stats. A source you approve. You just reverted the much clearer Intrafada info to a poorly sourced unclear version that you later tried to fix, but did not succeed at. That makes no sense at all. In your zeal to mass revert you are destroying collaboration on this page, and scaring off excellent editors such as the creator of the IBC chart. Wikipedia:Assume good faith says: 
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
My latest edit summary: "Revert. I took incredible care to not change any of your minor edits. Whereas you reverted all of mine in one click, and added nothing new. See talk. Admins, please help." 
I will probably be reporting you for blanking and reverting soon. Also for repeatedly reinserting unsourced material. I notice other people mentioning some of these problems on your talk pages. 
Pick out the appropriate warning templates from here:
*Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
Here are a few that apply to you:
*Template:Blank2
*Template:Needsource
*Template:Verror
*Template:Civil2 
And please respect Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and stop editing other people's comments. That means stop removing your name from the section titles. Such as the one about your Dec. 28, 2006 reversions. User names are allowed in talk section titles. As long as it not biased. It is strictly descriptive. It is your deletions that are being discussed. Thus the title of the talk section. --Timeshifter 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 5, 2007 reversions 

message: Humus sapiens. You did the exact same thing as Tewfik. I make the same objections. Could you reply please to all my points in the above section? In a previous message concerning the B'Tselem chart you wrote:
"This statistics is highly controversial and POV. Instead, we should follow WP:NPOV."
You never explained why. Could you explain why? I note on your talk page that you are an admin. I point you to this page of casualty statistics: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. All casualty stats are included there. That is the NPOV solution there. Why not here? Why do we favor some stats here by including them, and disfavor others by not including them here? NPOV page says:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
I would like some other admins to comment on this, too. Can you bring some of them here? --Timeshifter 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions of January 5, 2006 

message: Since some biased POV-pushing editors will not allow stats to be put in the article in chart form except in the infobox, how will the B'Tselem stats be put in the chart? Or will these censoring editors selectively put in some stats, but not others? They have continually blocked most of the B'Tselem stats for a long time now. Rather than put them in the article in the form they prefer, they just delete them. Wikipedia rules say editors should edit first, instead of deleting first.
Solonium, we may have to go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in order to stop this violation of the NPOV rules by these 2 editors. I suggest people read some of the previous incident discussion there to understand the POV posses that form up in order to violate wikipedia guidelines. Some people don't seem capable of setting aside their POVs and letting the NPOV rules here be respected. 
We will have to form our own posse of NPOV-pushers. I suggest people sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict.
I am also starting a "Meatpuppets for NPOV" group. :)
Anybody know how to make wikipedia templates, userboxes, banners, etc.? I want some with the slogan "Meatpuppets for NPOV!
I think we sometimes have to fight fire with fire. It seems that various groups on wikipedia are recruiting for their "side" or ideology, and just don't understand NPOV. --Timeshifter 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How shall B'Tselem stats be put in article? 

message: He's been dead for 2 years, but the conflict is stil ongoing. Shouldn't another name be added?
Ismail Haniye? Haled Mash'al?
Krynnish Conspiracy 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i tried to add Abbas and Haniyeh, because they are current pal president and prime minister. should mesh'al, sheikh ahmad yassin, or other figures be added? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yasser Arafat as commander? 

message: The war is considered over, who keeps editing this to make it ongoing?
:The conflict isn't over. Just last week there was a suicide bombing in Eilat. It's more calmed now because the Palestinian factions are quarreling, but unfortunately it's still ongoing. Krynnish Conspiracy 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truce 

message: The page in question has been deleted: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. 
It seems to me that it was deleted in spite of no consensus to do so. See: 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada
So who deleted it? I may file a complaint at the appropriate incident board as to the process used to delete it. I don't mind it being deleted if it followed wikipedia procedures, and it allowed for a merge. 
But it seems to me that it was deleted unilaterally in spite of no consensus and no record of admin-only voting. And it was done in such a way that the material (in effect) was censored so that it could not be found and merged. 
Wikipedia should not work unilaterally like that. I want to file a complaint against the wikipedia editor(s) or admin(s) that did this.
Material can not be merged if the material can no longer be found. Where is it? I found an old version here at Answers.com: 
*http://www.answers.com/topic/accusations-against-israel-of-war-crimes-during-the-al-aqsa-intifada
I suggest people save that page, in case Answers.com follows wikipedia's lead in deleting it.
I want to see the latest version that was on wikipedia. It is not possible to easily copy material from 
Answers.com since we can not access the wiki code that was originally used. --Timeshifter 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeshifter, no one deleted anything. The content of the article can be found in its page history, like every other article on Wikipedia. TewfikTalk 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no page history for the article. The article link redirects to this article. So where is the old article? Do you have a link for the page history? I need the specific URL. --Timeshifter 10:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have discovered at Talk:Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada that you, Tewfik, admit to deleting the article and redirecting it. Tewfik, you are not an admin, and you have no right to delete the article and redirect the link to Al-Aqsa Intifada. It is illegal according to WP:MERGE. You did not follow the procedure outlined there. Please revert your illegal redirect. On the other talk page you further claim that there is nothing that needs to be merged. You, Tewfik, have a history of deleting sourced material. For further info anybody can see my longstanding Request for Comment concerning Taba Summit. For more info see Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. I have been discussing Tewfik's questionable editing on several pages since December 2006. --Timeshifter 11:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tolerated your incivility quite long enough, but I don't intend to engage in any nonconstructive discussion. I suggest you review the policy, review the talk, and cool down, else I don't anticipate working together here at all. TewfikTalk 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am calm, and I am civil. As I have said previously I am sorry that you are offended by my pointing out of wikipedia policies that you are violating. It seems that you can't or won't answer the question about what the URL is to find the deleted material. So your previous claim that there is such a location is unsubstantiated. I am following the wikipedia dispute resolution process by talking to you first before possibly taking your wikipedia violations to the appropriate incident boards. --Timeshifter 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the info to be merged? 

message: I suggest an archive page be created here. It can be labeled something like "old page: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada‎"
I created a blank archive page:
*Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada/Archive. Old page
I put a link to it in the archive box at the top of the current talk page.
I suggest that an admin copy the most complete version of the old article into the archive. Probably the last revision by Bless sins would be best. That way we can copy what we want from the old page into Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Timeshifter 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An archive needed for the page to be merged