Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CEASE-FIRE

[edit]

Hi All. Please could we include which incidents took place during the ceasefire. I am covering this for school and can't find when the ceasefire was. I understand there was plenty going on during the ceasefire, I just don't have the dates. Also, who initialised the cease-fire. If I can't find it here then I can't finish my work. So pls put it in.

Article name

[edit]

According to the sources listed in the article, the attacks appear to target militants or buildings like weapons depots. Thus, the title of the list appears misleading. Open to any suggestions for a more appropriate name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bombings on the 3rd on refugee camps, the double shooting of civilians on the 7th and the shooting of anther civilian on the 8th...I don't think you read the article. Passionless (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "...Palestinian targets"? That would cover both those on Palestinian-controlled locations and on Palestinian individuals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Targets makes it sound like the killings are premeditated and that their deaths are a fair thing-must have done something extremely wrong to be put on a kill-list. How it stands currently already does include all Palestinians. Passionless (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you get a "fair thing" out of "targets". How it stands currently does include all Palestinian people, but doesn't include attacks against unmanned locations, which this list should include. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Targets" is a much better idea as perfectly explained by Nat.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Israeli military openly target civilians? If they came out and said that they do mean to target and kill them than fine target would work for the title. When Palestinian property is damaged it is an attack on Palestinians as it does them harm, not directly to their bodies but indirectly in many ways. Passionless (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If everything that the Israelis did that had a negative effect on some Palestinian counted as an attack on them for this article, then it would be nearly infinitely long - and that's not just true of Israel, it's the way of any government, all of its actions have an impact. Would you accept "...Palestinian people or property"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians and their property, 2011" or we could just keep the title the way it is and specify in the first line that this lists includes attacks by Israelis on property owned by Palestinians, this way the title is shorter, which is generally a good thing. Passionless (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good idea. For one, it is way too unweildly. Secondly, it's somewhat violative of NPOV because it may mislead the reader into assuming that Israel purposefully targets civilians. While that may very well be the case, the difference is that --unlike Hamas--Israel claims it tries to minimize civilian causalities.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble seeing how someone killed in an attack wasn't "attacked", purposely or not. I think it's POV for that to be considered an attack only if the Israelis say that they meant to do that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page makes no claims about wheather the attacks were on purpose on not, only that they did take place. Passionless (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler. I'm not suggesting the removal of "attacks." I fully concur with your suggested wording.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Passionless. We have to be careful that the title be written in a neutral manner as not to unnecessarily implicate anyone.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was and now is in a neutral manner-do not act unilaterally making the excuse you are doing it to be neutral, ya right. Passionless (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus reached, if you wish to discuss what you think is wrong with the title and possible substitute titles go ahead, I will listen. But until there is a consensus, please stop moving the page. Passionless (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passionless, you have moved this article repeatedly with not only no consensus, but without a single other supporter for your move. Please stop your actions until you come up with some more convincing argument and sway some editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems your confused as to which is the original. I am merely reverting the unilateral changing which calls all those attacked targets of Israel until a consensus is reached on the title. Passionless (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter which is the original. You have repeatedly moved it, with no consensus and no support, and complain when someone with at least majority support does the same. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
........I guess I'll restart the discussion for you two. So my thoughts on why targeting adds nothing and does do harm. By calling the victims targets, someone must have been targeting them-meaning all the attacks on the Palestinian 'targets' was deliberate and not collateral damage or accidental or such. The word 'target' is reminiscent of Targeted killing, a tactic Israel likes to use which is criticised as extrajudicial killing. The targets on these kill-lists are put on before they are killed, they do not magically contain the names of all those Israel kills like this list would have. I do not see how adding 'targets' adds anything good to the title.
I was acceptive of the suggestion of "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian people or property,2011" my suggested change was only because I didn't like the word 'or', it didn't seem right, which is why I suggested "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians and their property, 2011" before the discussion died and unilateral action was taken. Passionless (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That ends up with the question of who owns an ammo dump. Something can be under someone's control without technically or legally being their property. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask a question? What was the original article title? I see a lot of move warring going on and I suggest we revert to the original title and then open a formal move request to determine where consensus lies. 2 against 1 isn't much of a consensus and like Passionless, I find "targets" to be unnecessarily POV as well. Tiamuttalk 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original title is "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011", and I continue to undue brewcrewer's movements to the original as there is no consensus for his continual movement.
@Nat, when I read "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian people or property,2011" I read it as meaning "on Palestinian people or Palestinian property,2011". Well, I see the concern now, like the Isreali attacks on UN buildings in Palestine, while the attacks are in Palestine, the ownership is foreign. I guess I'm fine with your suggestion-containing 'or'- though I bet a lot of people will misread it the same way I did. Passionless (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[unnamed thread]

[edit]

Please never post again that Hamas is firing missles at Israel without a source. Passionless (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record this is addressed to me, as it was broken off the section above.) Passion: At this time I made nine edits to the article. Would you be so kind as to pinpoint the exact edit which you think runs afoul with verifiability? I haven't checked all of them closely, but I think all the 11 references currently utilized in the article mention Hamas firing missiles at Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
January 3rd-airstrike-you edited the description to say Hamas was firing missiles at Israel...the sources only say that Israel puts the responsibility of all attacks made by Palestinians on Hamas. no where near that Hamas is firing missiles at Israel. Passionless (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please bother you to provide the exact edit ("diff")? Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
scratch that - I found the January 3 incident edit. This is it. However, I fail to see what problem you have with the edit. In the headline of the source[1] provided it says "IAF strikes Gaza in response to Kassam rocket firing." Can you please clarify your concerns? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cut this from the intro of the Qassam rocket page:
More generally, all types of Palestinian rockets fired into southern Israel, for example the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Al Quds rockets, are called Qassams by the Israeli media, and often by foreign media.[1] Passionless (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what is your point?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rocket threat from the Gaza Strip, 2000-2007 (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Cente (Report). Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center. December 2007. p. 33. Retrieved 2010-06-05.

The whole article's single purpose is to spark hatred against Israel and Jews

[edit]
  1. 1st, there's no such thing as "State of Palestine", and will never be.
  2. 2nd, these aren't attacks but defensive actions targeted against brutal murderers of innocent children.
  3. 3rd, there's no such thing as "Palestinians" since there's neither such a nation nor such a people/ethnicity.
  4. 4th, why then there is no article titled "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2010", "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2009" and so on?

I consider this article as being a part of the global anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hysteria that is being raging for quite some time now.

Why there's no article titled "List of Arab attacks on Jews, 2011", "List of Muslim attacks on Christians, 2011", "List of lynchings of Negroes in the United States, 2011", or "List of Muslim women murdered by their families, 2011"?

The so-called "Palestinians" is the biggest hoax of all times set up by the KGB. Wikipedia has become a great example of Göbbels-style propaganda.

Arabs have 22 states, millions of square kilometers of territory, so they aren't "refugees" at all, but illegal occupiers who bring only murders, rape, and destruction.

Arabs in Israel are enjoying much more freedom than Jews do. And certainly much more freedom than do the Arabs in Arab states.

France is already being smothered by those poor "refugees", and soon will the whole Europe.

Don't lie. Shame on you. You'd better apologize and remove your screwing lies.

--77.41.106.71 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to have this article deleted, please see WP:AFD for an explanation on how you can propose that. Had you actually read this article, then you would know that Wikipedia does have a List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011, as it is specifically referenced. If your concern is that there aren't similar lists for other years, but is for this, then you may want to consider compiling a similar page for other years. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article

[edit]

unless you wanna make one called "Palestinian terrorist jihad attacks on Israelis, 2011" and so on, but that would be awfully incriminating.

You mean like this article --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, 2011 → List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011 — An editor-who is now undergoing an WQA for uncivil behavior- continually moved the page unilaterally to the title containing the word 'targets'. I can no longer return to the original title-as requested by another editor- by myself. Passionless (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The choices are still endless though, with something along the lines of "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian people or property,2011" being a probable title.
When I made the request for the move I did not mean it as a final move, it was only to get the page back to its original spot while we continued to discuss what the title will be. Passionless (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Renaming...

[edit]

So do we have consensus for renaming this article "List of Israeli attacks in the Palestinian territories, 2011"? I see this title as very NPOV and inclusive to all attack types. Passionless -Talk 02:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a better name nor do I see a consensus anywhere to this.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last entry

[edit]

The description states he was killed while HE WAS ATTACKING AN ISRAELI POSITION - how is this an Israeli attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it poorly originally, here is a more honest to source description.

|- |20 |Shooting |align="right"|1 |align="right"|0 |State of Palestine West Bank, State of Palestine |Salem Samudi, a Palestinian whos friend, Khaldun Samudi, was killed by Israelis on the 8th, is shot dead during an exchange of fire with Israeli forces.[1] Passionless -Talk 03:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you wrote it, the source says he "fired at an army post with an automatic rifle. The soldiers at the post returned fire and killed him," that is not an iSraeli attack by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the source says Israel said that. Passionless -Talk 04:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source says An armed Palestinian man has been shot dead at a military post in the northern West Bank in an exchange of fire with Israeli soldiers. It then goes on to quote a spokesman for the Israeli military. Regardless, neither of the sources suggest that the Israeli forces were doing anything but defending themselves. If the incident is to remain in the list, it requires better sources. Unless these are forthcoming, it should be removed. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-attacks are still attacks, I mean really some people will tell you Israel has never attacked anyone it only defends and retaliates, even if it is a belligent military occupier. Passionless -Talk 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12242969

Proposed Merge with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011

[edit]

{{Merge |List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011|target=List of notable events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2011 |date=January 2011}}

Our coverage of this subject might benefit from maintaining one list of incidents. Often, incidents caused by one side are reprisals for incidents caused by the other side, so by listing them separately we lose some context. A reader who wants to understand this conflict is going to want to see both sides presented together. GabrielF (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support: I like this idea, though I think the new article name should be List of notable events in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 (en dash, not hyphen) so we don't have to move it later. The self-defense/counterattack issue immediately above this demonstrates why this would fix some problems, and I think it is just more natural as a single article anyway. –CWenger (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but not for the "notable events" phrasing, which opens it to covering legislation, speeches, and so forth, which I think would fuzz the work. Still, I'm having trouble coming up with good wording that covers what these do; "attacks" may be best (not sure why that feels odd to me when combining them), "violence" is of questionable usage when applying to destruction of buildings rather than attacks on people, and "military action" is problematic when applied to individual Palestinians, at least. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2011 GabrielF (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rocket attacks are violent incidents, so are targeted killings, suicide attacks, shootings at checkpoints etc. Denoting which attacks are retaliatory/instigatory, classifying according to perpetrator or highlighting only one type of violence gives a fractured POV view. In a list that includes all violent acts in chronological order, the reader benefits from a more NPOV timeline of the conflict. Tiamuttalk 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, how does it "makes more sense to keep separate"? and of course the category palestinian rocket attacks exists, we would not be here to get rid of it if it did not exist. Passionless -Talk 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would serve to create a clearer understanding of the violent conversation (if you will) taking place; it is an interaction best understood as an interaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAlthough in 2009 and 2010 there are no pages like this, between 2000-2008 all violence in the I/P conflict was recorded on the same page. It seems to me like the creation of these palestinian rocket attacks by year pages are POV content forks-trying to hide one sides attacks will promoting the other sides aggresion. While we are at it we should be merging all the forks back into 'violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, xxxx' articles. Passionless -Talk 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I am not a registered user here. This is just my personal opinion. I do not think those pages are POV per sé as if they were trying to hide one sides attacks; reading those pages does not prevent me from reading further different pages, and in fact you are speculating about intentions, while POV is a matter of entry wording. If you merge those pages with this article on the one hand you will be forcing editors to be more concise and reduce background info lest the entry becomes too huge; and on the other hand one may end up involountarily causing edit wars which would subtract even more to the overall readibility and quality of the unified entry. 188.153.137.52 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 7 incident

[edit]

All three sources state that one person, not two was killed in the January 7 shooting incident. Here is what the Jerusalem Post, which Passionless seems to be basing his argument on says:

"Two Palestinians were killed in the West Bank over the weekend, one of them in a mistaken shooting during an IDF arrest operation in Hebron." [2]

Here is what our article says:

"Israeli troops shot and killed a 67-year-old Palestinian man in his own bed, and another unarmed man in the same house during an operation into the West Bank, Palestine to arrest members of Hamas."

I suspect that Passionless is misreading the following sentence from the JPost:

"During the operation, after the force arrested one of the suspected terrorists, they spotted another man in a different room in the house. The man apparently made a sudden move and the soldiers, fearing that he was reaching for a weapon, opened fire."

Clearly, this is stating that after arresting one man, the IDF shot another guy. Since the Jerusalem Post reports the circumstances of the man's death differently than other sources (who say that he was killed in his bed), I suspect that Passionless has become confused and believes that there are two separate victims. However, a close reading of the JPost article shows that this is not the case. GabrielF (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Kaddous

[edit]

The source used for this entry says the following about the circumstances of his death: "The camera footage showed the group of Palestinians attacking a man with rocks. The man responded by firing a gun in the air, which failed to deter his attackers. The man fired again, this time in the direction of the Palestinians. The video supposedly shows the bullet entering and exiting the shoulder-chest region of one of the attackers" - this is clearly a case of a Palestinian attack, not an Israeli attack. Removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) 03:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were two seperate events in that article, please re-read than revert your edits. Passionless -Talk 04:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the one source clearly states it was an israeli landmine. Passionless -Talk 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of game are you playing? The source that talks about a landmine is describing an incident from 2008 !!! 74.82.64.160 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was trying to find a source to elaborate on the explosive death of a palestinian shepard, didn't read the date...Anyways the deadly counter-attack is still an attack by an Israeli on a Palestinian. Although there may be claims of self-defense, Israel claims that everytime they bomb Palestine, but it makes it no less of an attack. Passionless -Talk 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This really underscores why this article should be merged with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 and renamed to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. –CWenger (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to haaretz: "On Thursday, police confirmed Palestinians reports claiming that a Palestinian who was shot to death near Nablus earlier in the day was shot by an unidentified Israeli citizen.

Palestinian eyewitnesses said that 18-year-old Fadi Kaddous was shot to death by a settler after clashes broke out between the shooter and a group of rock-throwing Palestinians.

A nearby security camera apparently captured grainy images of the shooting and confirmed that the shooter had Israeli features.

The camera footage showed the group of Palestinians attacking a man with rocks. The man responded by firing a gun in the air, which failed to deter his attackers. The man fired again, this time in the direction of the Palestinians. The video supposedly shows the bullet entering and exiting the shoulder-chest region of one of the attackers; it is being further studied by ballistics experts." There is nothing malicious here, and the source is already in the article, inanother section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rym torch (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Maher Qadous and Fadi Kadous are two different people who were both killed by israelis a day apart, stop making disruptive edits which change peoples names and details surrounding incidents. Passionless -Talk 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both messers Kadous were killed the same day (27), inthe same place (near irq burkin). It is obviosly the same person. But I'll play along with this charade and add it as a seperate incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rym torch (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The haaretz article you linked to reports on both incidents within one article in case that is what is confusing you. "The two were evacuated to a hospital in Beit Jala near Bethlehem, where one of them, a 17-year-old [Uday Maher Qadous] succumbed to his wounds." and "18-year-old Fadi Kaddous was shot to death by a settler after clashes broke out between the shooter and a group of rock-throwing Palestinians." both quotes from the haaretz article. Passionless -Talk 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is confused. The 17 year old who was evacuated to beit Jala and died there is not uday (that name does not appear in the haaretz at all) - he is one of the two involved in an incident on FRIDAY the 28, which happened near Hebron, whereas Kadous was shot on thursday the 27, near irq burkin, which is in the northeern west bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rym torch (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we have:

  • a teenage shepard died on thursday the 27th (CNN)
  • a 17year old killed by settlers on friday the 28th near Bethlehem, plus one injured (Haaretz)
  • a 18-year-old Fadi Kaddous killed by settlers in a clash on thursday the 27th near Nablus (Haaretz)
  • Uday Maher Qadous killed by settlers on thursday the 27th near Nablus, no one else injured (BBC) (CNN-though no name given)

So, maybe there are four seperate events while we only have three posted right now? Passionless -Talk 07:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Haaretz says 18 yo fadi kadous was killed on thursday. He's obviosly the same kadous as "uday kadous" killed the same day in the same place, and also the same as the unnamed 17 y.o mentioned in the first cnn source. Rym torch (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well I have mixed the two together than, though as the haaretz article goes against the other sources, and because the haaretz article does not clarify enough the events, the description can't be solely based on the haaretz source. Passionless -Talk 20:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shock

[edit]

There is no way shock and injured can be put in the same column, especially since attacks on Palestinians shock is never reported. I'm sure out of all the bombings in Palestine it has shocked people, or the wife of the man shot in his bed was probably shocked too, but it is never reported. Giving shock so much representation is simply pro-israeli bias. Passionless -Talk 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 23 edits

[edit]

So I have re added the sourced Israeli tank attack, and removed original research per WP:PRIMARY, fixed capitalization. I also put the rocket and mortar attacks today into one event as they weren't very different, but if someone really cares they can re-seperate them. As I can not revert on this page again for a week due to new sanctions, my patience has been forced to be very limited, and conflicts may move elsewhere quickly, so please try to discuss before reverting, thanks, Passionless -Talk 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestine Telegraph

[edit]

The Palestine Telegraph is already a questionable source with its staff partially consisting of "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media." We are allowed to use sources that are biased but when there bias leads to misreporting is when we have to stop using them. This is of particular concern. It identifies the gas used in crowd control as "poisonous". Yes it is technically poisonous and can have sever side effects but such gas is rarely called "poisonous" in RS. The exageration is so much that I don't think we can be comfortable using it. If we do use it, we need to make sure we are not mirroring its tone.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can take it to WP:RSN, but as for the gas being poisonous, well that was kinda what I was getting at the the AN, many Arab and Israel sources use very bias language, so can we use them for their undisputed facts, yet ignore them all when they give commentary on the events. Passionless -Talk 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read the wikipedia article on the PT, I think they would pass WP:RSN as they do have an editor-in-chief and it is a business, the "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media." just means they are an independent news source. Passionless -Talk 00:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at WP:RSN,(archive 89) and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source and can't be used. Rym torch (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it was brought to wp:rsn where is was found to be questionable and "any contentious material should either be better sourced or omitted." which is what I said about many sources just above-use for undisputed facts, ignore commentary and claims that are not backed by another source. Passionless -Talk 01:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. I remember it coming up but was under the impression that it was OK due to the acquisition. Kind of forgot about it though. I have and still lean towards not ever using it but have to say that you are completely on the right track with it if it is to be used at all, Passionless. Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


IMEMC

[edit]

Isn't this also a questionable source? If so should it be removed from the page with or without the associated content? See discussion of what to do with unreliable sources. Bin107 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. IMEMC has no reputation for reliability that I know of, and it's clear just from reading it that it's sub-par. I just fixed up two incidents that were sourced only to IMEMC, adding established reliable sources and adding and correcting details. I left the citations to IMEMC in the meantime, but I don't see how this source has a place in an encyclopedia article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

The flag thing has caused some reverts recently. Why aren't you guys using the talk page and why even come close (hours) to breaking 1/rr over this? The flags are obviously a problem since they have introduced POV (if they had not then people wouldn't be arguing in edit summaries about it). Along with NPOV being part of the five pillars of the project and an important policy saying not to be a advocate here, we do not need to emphasis national pride according to the Manual of Style handling this specific issue (flags). It is absolutely clear the the flags are more of a burden then a benefit. Simply remove the flags and the problem goes away. They are not essential to the readers understanding and raise more questions than answers.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two options here. There is a view, a valid view, that East Jerusalem is not in the Palestinian territories, but it is rather legally part of a corpus separatum. That view, however, also holds that the western portion of what Israel calls Jerusalem is also not in Israel, but part of that same corpus separatum. If somebody wishes to say that EJ is not in the oPt, that person should also say that Jerusalem is not in Israel. You cant have it both ways, it is one or the other. Wikipedia is not a tool to promote an expansionist Zionist POV as The Truth. nableezy - 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more with Cptnono: the flags are more of a burden than a benefit, and we should remove all of them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear: Yes, all of them. Nableezy's comment about East Jerusalem shows the a good part of the reason. And since no one else mentioned it: "Palestinian State" is another storm in a teacup for various reasons. I am sure we can point to many other issues of the flags so time for them to go.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP article

[edit]

On settler attacks 2011 that might lead to more info is here. FYI. CarolMooreDC 21:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_in_2011&oldid=1240308329"