Talk:San Remo Manual

NPOV

The restating of parts of San Remo to support a partisan take on recent events violates NPOV. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting relevant RS supported material, such as "Sol" has done, is POV editing. Kindly desist.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the entry on the San Remo Manual. Yes, it's from an RS, it is in fact from the document the article is on. Quoting the sections used in the IDF brief/other briefs upholding the legality of the Gaza flotilla raid is misleading, insinuating that these are the only parts of the document germane to the raid. It invites partisan editors to start quoting off every section of the Manual favorable to their particular view. We certainly could add in the sections quoted by the legal opposition to the IDF interpretation (Sections 94,102, there are some more which escape me now) to balance the article but that still seems like an NPOV/synthesis issue. Your thoughts, "Epee"? Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I recognize that you are a newbie editor, with only 300 edits to your name, so I understand how you could makes such a mistake. There is nothing misleading about it at all. The article reflect what the RSs reflect. If you have a problem with what the RSs reflect, that is your personal problem, and a POV issue. But if other RSs provide other points of view, you should of course add them.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, please re-read the above entry. I'm not saying San Remo has an innate POV issue. I'm saying that cherry picking sections of it to post on the article page is both a POV and WP:UNDUE issue (4th paragraph). This isn't a summary of the Manual or even it's most salient points, it's a few sections picked out that bolster one side's argument in a current event. If you want to keep it in address the policy concerns; dismissing them as a 'personal problem' isn't exactly constructive. Btw, you might want to point out to new people how they can improve or what they are doing wrong. They generally know they are new :) Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to advocate why giving special prominence to the 2 of San Remo's 187 paragraphs quoted in an IDF brief is warranted and not undue weight, or even why a novel recombination of primary source material isn't synthesis, go for it. If you have good reasons, perhaps based on policy and not on diagnosing my supposed personal problems, I will be very glad to hear them. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Absurd -- you say this is cherry picking to focus on an issue that the RSs are covering now in regard to this agreement. We reflect RSs. That's all. We don't tag this a "Palestine wikiproject" article, and then complain that mention of how it relates to the news today and is reflected in RSs should not be reflected. That is rampant POV. It is appropriate to reflect because it is what the RSs focus on. If the RSs focus on other paras, please reflect them as well. I know you are a brand new newbie unfamiliar with wp policies, but this is how we decide what to reflect -- not according to what "Sol" per his POV would like to reflect. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the condescending tone. You can talk about it or you can try to pull "rank". One will get you somewhere. I'd offered a compromise to balance the article with all the relevant passages, an idea that seems to fit your perspective, and you steam-rolled over it. I'm still not sure about the Undue weight issues of it (San Remo covers a lot more ground than neutral vessel status) and it still seems like material better left to Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid‎. If you'd like us to get a third opinion or open it for comments, we can. If you'd like to propose another solution we can do that, too. If you'd like to continue with unproductive ad hominem attacks, it's your time. WP:DRNC Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• My tone is not condescending. I'm simply noting that since your are a newbie, and therefore presumed to not understand wikipedia policies as well as you would if you were a seasoned editor, I am being especially sensitive to your newbieness. You, because you are a newbie perhaps, understand that as pulling rank and being condescending. Actually, you will learn in time that there is a concept referred to as don't bite the newbies, which has guided me in this respect. You are a newbie, are you not? As to the substance, I've already replied, and already given you an appropriate way to further revise the article -- simply reflect other material that has been reflected in RSs, if it is there. BTW -- would you think that this should have the present Palestine wikiproject deleted? If not, why not? Same question for anyone else watching this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence the synthesis and cherry-picking issues: the section in question summarizing parts of San Remo covers far more ground than the IDF source quoted in the article. It's expanding on an argument that the IDF source makes while only citing the Manual itself. There's no disclaimer that "this is what the IDF source says" (which would also be misleading, as he only mentions paragraph 67.A) nor is it a summary of the relevant portions from the IDF an Reuter's articles: it would be easy for readers to think that the article is merely reciting the only relevant parts of the Manual as it concerns the Gaza flotilla raid. So it's not a matter of RS's information so much as it is synthesis made (probably by mistake) to look neutral.

I'd only read your 2:10 post before the later change but it sounds like we might have some sort of compromise in the works. More later.

Thanks for the template/name, Brewcrewer! Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic of this article

There seems to be some confusion - this article is about the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, not about the Gaza blockade and its legality - we have an article dedicated to that. To the extent that sources discuss the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea in the context of that specific blockade, it my merit a (brief) mention in the article, but arguments that invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention in order to discuss the legality of the Gaza blockade, or discuss the Gaza blockade's reasons, have no place in this article HupHollandHup (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first part, there's an article already on the flotilla's legal issues and San Remo is much more important than it's recent time in the public eye. If we want to remove all mention of it save that it was cited as allowing/barring the raid/blockade and include a link to the relevant article, I'm just fine with that. As to the GC4 stuff, San Remo was written to clarify and apply the Conventions to these sorts of conflicts, as opposed to relying on the pre-WW1 laws. This is why San Remo is important. I'll tweak the wording/find a better source unless we decide to go with the brief mention option. Sol (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have taken a stab at wording along these lines. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)