User talk:Nableezy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Images discussion

I wanted to clarify here instead of the talk page to make sure it didn't get lost in the hodgepodge and to not stoke the flames of another debate with others. I do not think one injured and one dead is poor balancing image wise. My concern was the potential to have half a dozen images of Palestinians which would be too much in that seciton just to make a point. As it stands, we could replace one of them but then we have to deal with finding free images so no worries for now since it is acceptable. And just to reiterate, the casualties edit will be the best one throughout the history of the article. Thank you for rocking it.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Carriage return

Thanks for that, I will experiment with it! Betacrucis (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza opening

How would you feel about stating in the first paragraph of the conflict article: "It has been referred to as both a war and even a massacre." It doesn't look like Hamas has a name for the operation but the new wording would still get the point across to the reader that it is widely considered a war and people have viewed it as a massacre of civilians in Gaza. It could also put to bed the argument as to what events this article is covering.

I wanted to bring this up to you specifically since I don't know if it is any good, this would start a huge debate on the main page that I don't think would be productive, and you in particular have been very adiment about balancing Israel's name for the attacks. Let me know what you think. If it is a "No way at all!" don't worry about it. Just looking for thoughts from someone else before even really considering it as a viable option. Not attached to the proposal just a thought.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think it is a no way at all. I think we need the name used by Hamas, and the only name I have found them calling it is the gaza massacre. I honestly think the statements we have from Hamas spokespersons show that they have named it the gaza massacre. I personally be opposed to that wording, though I have said I would be cool with something along the lines of Hamas officials have named the conflict the Gaza massacre. But that was shot down, if you want to try and bring it up again feel free, but I dont think the wording used would be good. I dont even think we need what 'the Arab world' has called it or what the Israeli public has called it, I think we just need the common English name for the article title, what the Israeli govt has called it (Operation Cast Lead) and what the government of Gaza has called it (as far as I can tell the Gaza massacre). Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your thoughts on it. We could rework it to something like "Hamas calls it..." but that it is OK for now and redoing these particular lines isn't a priority enough to even bring it into the discussion page. I'm sure it will be revisited sooner or later and then we can deal with it.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think what I supported a while back Version 3 works perfect. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Linked to the main discussion page. Are you thinking of the different versions that were in different colored fields a little bit back or the new lines under "lead"?Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The colored fields. Fixed link. Nableezy (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I liked it better before I respected you :). Now other editors are getting on the being bold as possible boat and I'm slacking. Thanks for the counter though. It is great having another view on the issues to ensure neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

haha, thanks for that. ive said before, i dont care if the most hardcore zionist joins the discussion, if they are reasonable and rational i will listen and try to work with them. i know in real life i am not anywhere neutral on this issue, you can see that in 2 seconds looking at my user page, but i do try to keep it out of my actual edits as much as possible. you certainly have my respect as well, while by admission you tilt to the pro-israel side it seems your biggest causes in this article are accurately reflecting the sources and keeping it clear and concise, and on both those fronts i agree with you. thanks again and peace, Nableezy (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't even decipher what the argument is from that! I agree that there was some mention of suicide bombings in the sources. It is OK to mention but rockets have been given the most news coverage as you stated. We also don't need to break down every single statistic (mortars launched from a tube). If we want to lump the total together while mentioning rockets, mortars, and suicide bombings I don't see a problem. I don't think we need to go back to 2001 for numbers since we already have an article for that. I can't even form a concise opinion with what you guys did to that discussion page.

Also fighting back has definitely evolved. If you haven't seen it The Battle of Algiers (film) even gets to me.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• ", 116 Israelis, including IDF personnel, were killed " jumps out. Adding the IDF personnel looks like "HEY DON"T FORGET SOLDIERS, TOO!". I know it seems a little exaggerating on my part but "Both civilians and IDF" might be better.
• Suicide bombings could still be mentioned but doesn't need a separate explanation line. "Rockets, mortars, and suicide bombings..."
• Why were the other Palestinian deaths left out? I do like that source. Has plenty of info for the ongoing conflict main page.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool ... Re: Gaza Edits

Yeah, cool. I was a little annoyed that they've reappeared several times. I hope to get back to serious editing soon, but work is busy piling up. Dovid (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an existential question. The answer, indubitably, is indubitably.
Is this the sound of One hand clapping while the other hand claps, Two? Dovid (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

They are influenced by Hamas. Hamas would never allow an objective/neutral human rights organization within their borders. Ever. This isn't even my opinion, I don't think PCHR doesn't qualify RS but we have to include them since they are one of the few organizations aside from Hams who report casualty figures, though most of them are suspected to be fed from Hamas as well. They were nearly silent during the reprisal attacks, barely verifying 6 Fatah murders. They haven't spoken since. I know this is very POV but I think it is a fair comparison, even if it may not be accepted consensus wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk is cramped hope this is ok

While I do agree the militants/civilians should stay, I do not believe 116 civilians have been killed by "direct-contact" between 2005-2008. Israeli sources contradict claims, as do the research ones previously. We should have multiple sources affirming such specifics IMO. If we cannot find such sources, I believe we should revert back to the suicide/mortar/rocket and keep the 100+ killed. Since we're going into such detail, could we list the exact number of civilians/soldiers or is that too much? It would only be less than a sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 February 2009

How about 'at least 116'? And I completely disagree on the suicide bombings, that has not really been brought up by sources as background to this, the major points have been the blockade and the rockets. I think the UN wording is perfect, vague enough to include everything. And the 116 is counting more than civilians (and it counts suicide bombings). Nableezy (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And you need to stay off the reverts for a while, i already said i am not one for reporting people but if somebody did you and cryptonio would be blocked in 2 seconds, there was an insane number of reverts in like 20 minutes by both of you. Nableezy (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them were me simply touching up without even realizing crypt removed. I know some people were having trouble with Aba something (pro israel) and we he was reverted quickly. as noted by some users, ive been pretty forgiving with crypt, especially with the namecalling. i dont i've ever reported someone honestly lol..Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Im just giving you some advice, I could probably benefit from following it as well. But about what I said about the article, is 'at least 116' acceptable to you without the mention of the suicide bombings? It helps with 2 things that are needed here, a reduction in POVy stuff on both sides and brings the article size down, something we need to do. I really think this is the most NPOV and verifiable thing we can get with this sentence. Nableezy (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What?! Is there a reason why you have succumbed to including the fatalities of suicide bombings? You were against the inclusion of the Israeli shelling because you implied that news sources did not report on that when describing the background. You were correct that news sources did not speak of the death toll of suicide bombings either. So you can't take out one and leave in the other. I hope I am making sense. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The fatalities can be included but we dont need to mention the cause. The fatalaties are included on both, the bombings and the shelling. Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we delete "Between 2005 and late 2008, Palestinian groups launched over 6,000 rockets and mortars into Israel"? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That has been brought up repeatedly and is a claimed to be a direct response to the blockade, which is also mentioned. Nableezy (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the rocket attacks are a direct response to the blockade and the continued killings of Palestinians? Currently the section doesn't note that Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians before they started the offensive 'OCL'. I will just have to check on more sources and update the section soon. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, it says that "1,735 Palestinians, including militants from various groups, were killed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents", 8,308 wounded." talking about 2005-2008. Nableezy (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean it doesn't mention that the rocket attacks is in response to the killings of Palestinians. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We start getting into circular arguments if we go that route. The rockets are in response to the blockade/killings, the blockade/killings are in response to rockets. Better to just say each and leave it to the reader to look at all the sources and see who they agree with. We dont need to try to prove a case for the justification of ones sides actions or the others, just say what happened and leave it to the reader to judge. Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

rep

Fine by me. Anyway, I already have a bad rep as an apparently obstructionist member of Fatah spreading hateful lies who confusingly is also pro-Iranian and pro-American at the same time. It's strange, some editors like you are consistently reasonable whereas others border on bi-polar or at least have bizarre mood shifts. Still, it's quite entertaining. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the best peace proposal I've ever heard but it might trigger a food crisis I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Oh so that explains why people ignore my sensible comments. Hmm... I just type in the box which is always blank. Maybe I have something wrong in my preferences? I'll have to check into that later but I'm just heading out. You can have my proxy vote at the article while I'm gone. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Well I have it enabled I guess I just never bothered actually editing sections. I'll make sure to that from now on.
It looks like my vote didn't really help you get anything changed. But I should have told you it is actually just a mere !vote which isn't really good for anything. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So of course I forget to sign my very first one.[1] Figures. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Well as long as I don't have to download a powerpoint presentation from hamas.gov. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aboot? That's a low blow. I'm proud of my vowel-space: "least accented form of English". --JGGardiner (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. But it took me a minute to realize that you were making fun of Canadian raising. I thought it was just one of those Wisconsin things where you moo like a cow. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We should really put aside our differences because I think we can at least agree that British English is the one that really sounds funny. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like New England English, do yourself a favour and don't go to Newfoundland. Great people but hard to understand sometimes.

I don't hear people say "irregardless" very often. I wonder if it less common in Canada. Or maybe I just hang out with smarter people than you. =) But I do often wonder when I see someone misspell a common word. I'm not a spelling Nazi but I wonder if someone who writes "goverment" reads newspapers very often. With WP I realize many editors and native English-speakers of course. But I'm amazed how often I see "artical" around here.

Although I did complain about one user's spelling[2] after he wrote "Zig Hiel heir (user:)WikiMart" on a talk page. That was probably my worst behaviour on WP. But it is more appropriate to be a spelling Nazi when we're talking about German words. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You should be careful saying "stag ass" to people: "A stag is a late or incompletely castrated male in sheep and cattle." Be careful before clicking the link though. I just learned that Wikipedia really isn't censored. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for that. I'm just an innocent victim. I was thinking of the party as a competing verb. "Stag" took me to the deer and I clicked the link to the disambig page which has that up top. And I foolishly went to the article. I'm thankful the editors of this article didn't decide they needed to balance it with pictures of other kinds. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that is an article that deserves "massacre" in the lead. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping to use it to illustrate the newest section: "Anyone can edit Wikipedia but it takes balls to work collaboratively." --JGGardiner (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy...

i totally missed a few things on a section you'll probably know about by now. Tomorrow i'll be on better terms with myself. it was a something. let us discuss it etc. thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

That's interesting. Although I guess in fairness to CP(?) it looks like it was entirely written by one user who just joined to write that article and one other (do yourself a favour, don't look at it). I did glance at CP once before, out of curiousity, and it seems like that is probably an even bigger flaw than their ideological orientation. They just have so few users that things won't be corrected quickly. WP is flawed enough but with a small pool of editors and an ingrained bias we'd be pretty useless indeed. That is all unfortunate because I believe it is intended as a resource for homeschooled children.

"Many believe that Islam is, with Atheism, currently the greatest threat to Christianity and Christian values".[3] I think that may be a reference to the two of us. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You were right, Wikipedia is fucked up. Just not quite that much. Although I suspect we'd have articles like that if we divided ourselves into ideological groups. That's why I'd like to see more cooperation between the I's and the P's on Gaza. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not something I want to see. I owe my dog a big apology. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Take off the headphones with that maghrebi rap for a mo'!

interesting conversation with a CIA agent. Keep up the good work.Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

re: jewish/muslim_quarter_maps and WP:A/I#User:Chesdovi

Just came to say thanks for questioning him about that. It's a couple of days overdue...I wanted to stop by here after I saw the post, but it skipped my mind. I didn't think anyone really noticed my querying him about his sketchy edits to be honest, and it seems like there aren't enough users around to balance things out against the obvious bias, but I'm glad you and a few others I've seen are working to keep things neutral. Anyway, thanks again. Peace. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupidness

Of course not, although I was happy to hear that it could have actually been a word. Take care! RaseaC (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spreadsheet randomness

Hey, you messed up my pristine new talk page!

But yeah, that's true. I think my way is just faster though, especially when I'm using my one-handed keyboard. I know I'd make at least one typo. I'm actually reasonably competent with spreadsheets and I do usually use Excel as well. But I should probably just head down to the Games Workshop and buy a 300 sided die. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed that your user page is terribly unbalanced. It looks like it was written by a bunch of pro-Nableezy editors. I don't see any citations and it should really say "allegedly" in all of the "this user is" boxes. Fortunately I know an anti-Nableezy editor or two so I think we can get this all straightened out. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unfortunate. I remember seeing Cerejota (I think it was) saying that NZ was so bad the he worried NZ might be a "false flag". I had actually seen Tiamut's poem last year (again, I think). To be honest I think her version works better than yours. No offence, of course. =)

I've always been reluctant to express my political opinions. I have some of course but I've always felt they weren't relevant to what I do here. I guess for a user like NZ or Tiamut they know that people are going to know where they stand anyway. I try my best to be neutral. That's why I was upset when JA called me pro-Israel the other day.

I can't see the Daily Show video by the way. Copyright restrictions. But I can see them on the Comedy Network site. But Canadian politicans are generally more to the left I guess you could say. Actually my first registered edits were on the Svend Robinson article. He was an MP for the left wing NDP and their foreign affairs critic. But he lost the portfolio, ridiculously for Israel-Palestine only, after a trip he made to the West Bank. I stepped into an argument that I saw on the talk page that I think had been going on for years. The question was if it was related to anti-semitism charges. I think some editors felt it was anti-Svend to say it was but I thought that was silly that we were being so coy about it. Svend himself never minced words and at his press conference he related his demotion to unfounded charges of anti-semitism. He's not an MP these days. He stole a ring at an auction which he blamed on stress and resigned.

If you're unhappy with your government, you could always come to Canada. I hear that's what Americans are supposed to say when they are frustrated. Or before elections. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're interested in coming, you might like this. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re the first sentence of this edit: It's good to have a sense of humour, but when you mention the idea of saying something, even if you don't actually say it, some editors may feel that it's being implied and still find the comment unwelcome. I appreciate your earlier reply to me, though; I was about to thank you for it when MiszaBot got there first. I'm also putting a message at User talk:Wikifan12345#Comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, me and him have a bit of a history, but you right i shouldnt have started like that. Nableezy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: gaza lead

(copied from his talk for completeness)
Hi Aaron, you have been adding Gaza Holocaust to the lead, but your sources are either not reliable or they do not call it the Gaza Holocaust, they on occasion say it is like the Holocaust or worse than it, but they never call it the Gaza Holocaust. Please do not continue to put this into the lead. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hi Nableezy. Thank you for your comment. I can understand that some editors could be oversensitive in Israeli-Palestinian issues. But I am assuring yout that my sources are both reliable and they call it "Gaza holocaust" not in a context of comparing it to the Holocaust. I used 2 Aljazeera channel resources, in one of the them, the term was used by the Plestinian president himself. + Other resources including Asharq Alawsat and the Guardian newspapers.

I hope that my edits will not be removed again whether you like it or not. Thank you. --Aaronshavit (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am Arab so I can read Arabic, and I read all the sources, they do not call it the Gaza Holocaust, they say like a holocaust, or worse than the Holocaust. The gazaholocaust.com is not a RS, this has been argued before already. Please do not continue making the same changes after being reverted without consensus. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are an Arab. ok, I can speak arabic better than a native speaker.

I just want to remind you that you first claimed that the resources are not reliable. Now you know that you were wrong.

You failed to specify which resource you are talking about. If you have a problem with one of the resources then remove that source only, but please don't make unfounded general claims.

* alriyadh article call it Gaza Holocaust (محرقة غزة) without any comparison with the Holocaust.

* 2 articles in aljazeera=> Ditto. In one of them, the term was used by the Plestinian president himself.

* The content of the guardin article can be found in many other articles by other reliable resources. Again, your claim doesn't apply here.

I ask you again not to delete something that you don't like because of your unfounded allegations.--Aaronshavit (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say they were all unreliable, the gazaholocaust.com one is. And I dont really give a shit what you think you know about Arabic, but lets break down your 'sources'. one of the aljazeera ones is an editorial, or 'analysis'. The Al-Riyadh source only uses the term in the title. The sharq-al-awsat source is also an editorial. Nowhere in the guardian source is the term 'gaza holocaust' to be found. Your other source is an Iranian source, and while this may come as a surprise to you, Iran is not in the Arab world. Do you understand yet? Do you understand you cant just put whatever you feel like into an article. That the lead was discussed rather thoroughly, and once you are reverted you should be going to the talk page to reach consensus for your edits? Is this clear or do I have to write slower? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

*Again, if you believe that one of the sources is not reliable then remove that source only. Although I believe all my sources are acceptable in this context to present the popularity of the Gaza Holocaust.

*Having some editorials in this context is very acceptable, since we are showing that this term is widely used in the Arabic media. This is the aim of that paragraph, i.e. to tell what gaza conflict is usually called in the arabic media.

*The guardian article is in another paragraph, it merely talks about the threat by Matan Vilnai to make a holocaust agaist the palestinians. This threat give the popularity of the Gaza Holocaust term, which appeared later. Please read the sentence again.

*About the Iranian source. I thought I was clear when I said " The conflict has been described by many, specially in the Arab World...etc". Clearly, the term is not used only in the arab world.--Aaronshavit (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you, get consensus for disputed edits. you got it? Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: casualties section

(copied from his talk for completeness)
please go to talk, we have discussed this before, we do not use the party in charge for the ministry of health, and we have worked on the the casualties section extensively. Please go to talk to work out any issues. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, I do not know what you mean when you say "we do not use the party in charge for the ministry of health". It is a well-known and VERY important fact that the Ministry of Health is an organization run by Hamas and not an independent one. It is cited this way in a New York Times articles.

As to working "on the the casualties section extensively", that's great. Good work. I did not remove anything from the casualties section. I simply added relevant details from reliable and reputable sources. And this altogether was not all that much at all and the details were (again) properly sourced and relevant. The Corriere article hit international attention and yet all that is mentioned is that "it could have been far less." This is very insufficient considering the important interviews and information the Gaza correspondent asserts in his article. Only a few sentences of that were added. This addition to the section is fine. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

countless other sources call it just the PMoH, every government agency is run by the party in charge. And we worked on the casualties to reduce the size. If you want to include the number of children, women and other stats from each source then keep doing this. But this is all irrelevant, all I am asking you to do it bring it up in the talk page and get consensus. I dont see why that is so hard. Nableezy (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "countless other sources" just say PMoH means nothing. Do countless other sources dispute the fact that this Hamas-run group? No. I never said it is "that hard" to post a discussion but it only seems that one or two editors have a problem with these few sentences based on no given reason per Wikipedia policy. Saying we worked on it "extensively" does not trump the basic information of perfectly reliable sources. This argument is a very easy one. Please do not inflate it into something it is not. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to put the Labour MoD, or the Kadima FM, or Kadima PM? Just go to the talk page, where you can see that all these issues have been addressed. This type of drive-by POV pushing is not acceptable, if you have you make an edit that is reverted the proper response is to go to talk, not to keep trying to push in the edits. Get it? Or do I have to type slower? Nableezy (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the worst comparisons I have ever read. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, because you dont like it? Hamas is the government of Gaza, all government ministries in Gaza are by definition run by the political party in power. We dont treat them different just because you want to, get it? Nableezy (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reprisal

To continue: Not all of the sources conclude that Hamas killed for those exact reasons. Some of the sources have suggested Hamas is simply using this as an excuse to move on Fatah. We cannot take sides, not all killings/tortures have been in the name of repressing collaborators 100%. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They say Hamas killed them because Hamas suspected them of collaboration. We dont say that they were collaborating but that they were suspected of it, added suspected by Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"They." Whose they? Not every cited source has concluded that Hamas killed for x reason. It is all he said she said, and Hamas is not an RS. We cite Hamas, but we do not say "Palestinians executed for x reason" because truth be told there is no evidence other than statements to corroborate. Plus, it is redundant because 2 inches down is the "collaborators" section which is more then enough. Thanks. Please end the rerverts for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources is 'they'. That should be clear to you. Hamas says that these people were suspected of collaboration. How you can then argue that they were not suspected of collaboration is beyond me. And somehow providing further accuracy is being called inaccurate. Wow. And honestly, that picture you posted under my comment on the gaza page pissed me off more than you can imagine, for the last time do not insinuate, imply, or say that I am an antisemite, next time I will report it. Nableezy (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And do you have source that says a single person killed or injured was not either a member of Fatah or a suspected collaborator? Nableezy (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, who is "they" nab. Hamas executes people all the time, most of the time it doesn't make the news. Again, we cite Hamas in the collaborters section, but all we know 100% is Palestinians were killed, tortured, and executed....and Hamas is trying to justify. Saying "Palestinians were executed for suspected collaboration" is a complete overstatement and cannot be verified to such a certainty with the information WE have. Also, I don't give a shit about the picture. I didn't post it. Yes - They said at least 75 activists were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken. All of it is hearsay, odds are Fatah is embellishing or is trying to cover up a massive intelligence failure, but we can't make that inference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah you did post it. Saying that members of Fatah and Palestinians suspected by Hamas of collaboration is not a 'complete overstatement' of anything. It is exactly and precisely what happened. And if you actually read the JPost article you linke, which oddly enough is titled "Hamas mobes on Fatah 'collaborators'", it groups these '75 activists' as members of Fatah, again not being able to show that anybody was killed or injured who was not either suspected of collaboration or a member of Fatah. Nableezy (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fatah activists aren't members of Fatah. Get it? Everyone in Gaza/West Bank is either with Fatah or Hamas. We can't blanket every casualty as a suspected collabortor beyond doubt because the sources dont SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM. The section elaborates more on citing actual material, we can't say for 100% certainty, unless we say, Fatah activists, Fatah political party members, Civilians suspected of collaborating with the IDF or Fatah, were assaulted, tortured, executed, blah blah... What is your reasoning behind this clearly unnecessary and unmerited addition? Hamas/Fatah claims are in the following section. Leads should be clear and concise, bloating them with overstatements and uncertainties is wrong.

Oh, feel free to report the image. I thought it was hilarious but hey, Islam as a religion isn't particularly famous for its sense of humor. Lolz. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Didnt I already tell you to keep my religion out of your fuckin mouth? Do you always have to be like this? And to think you actually accuse me of being a racist or prejudiced. Nableezy (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

'Fatah activists aren't members of Fatah'. You really want me to argue that with you? The sources have consistently said that those executed were either members of Fatah or suspected collaborators. How about those associated with Fatah or suspected of collaboration? Or do you just want to play this up for more than it is? Nableezy (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Fatah activists aren't PARTY members of Fatah. 4.5+ million Palestinians, half of them are Fatah, half of them are Hamas...more or less. Does Fatah have 2 million party members? NO. No, the sources did not, I just provided one by Jpost that made that explicitly clear. Stop gaming the system, it is a useless statement and cannot be verified without OR (which is what the statement is). Palestinians were killed - end sentence. Next section, (cite Hamas/Fatah), "Palestians killed were accused of collaborations...blah blah..." end sentence. Also, I didn't know you were a muslim and to be honest I don't care. Islam isn't famous for its sense of humor, not necessarily a bad thing. Don't take everything personal, this is the internet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You said you didnt know the first time you brought it up, and I dropped it. Now I just plain dont believe you, I have no reason to believe anything that you say. Every source you can find talks about either those associated with Fatah being killed or injured or those suspected of collaboration being killed or injured. Just find one source that doesnt that some other group of Palestinians were killed or injured. What I took personally was you putting under my comment a picture of something clearly antisemitic, dumb but antisemitic. Given you have a history of making those type of accusation towards me, I feel justified in taking that personally. Nableezy (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It talks about it, it doesn't draw a conclusion. It simply stated the opinions of Fatah/Hamas official, UNRELIABLE SOURCES. We have a few reports from various UNRELIABLE RSs such as Palestinian Centre for Human Rights but only provide evidence for a fraction of the activities. Basically, there is not enough evidence to say in total and complete certainty the Palestinians were killed for x reason. We can't take sides, all we do is cite from RSs. And then quote unreliable RSs in limited context. Get it? The general idea is guys with guns killed guys with guns who likely associated themselves with the IDF (i.e, collaborated). But, it is probable (and inferred in many of the sources) that these killings were simply a revisiting of previous witchhunts, and a simple accusation or one example would enable x group to kill off the others. Do we have RSs that have verified on their own and come to the ultimate conclusion that ALL killings, torturing, executions whatever was done again suspected collaborators? NO. We don't. Also, I forgot you were a muslim, I'll probably forget again. Religion isn't that all important to me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is a RS for the opinion of Hamas. It is the opinion of Hamas that these people were suspected of collaboration. RSs say that either these people were associated with Fatah or that Hamas has said these people were suspected of collaboration. It isnt taking sides to say that. Just show one source where those injured or killed were not either associated with Fatah or suspected of collaboration. Nableezy (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And we dont say these people are/were collaborators, only that Hamas suspected them of collaboration. There is nothing wrong with that. Nableezy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is not an RS, but we quote Hamas to support Hamas statements, officials, whatever. Original lead: "They ranged from physical assaults to executions of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with the Israel Defence Forces by Hamas, as well as members of the Fatah political party." 3 problems. First, this is according to Hamas, and in reality is not as certain as this lead makes it seem. Some of the torturing/assaults were simply to reassert their authority over Gaza, which had a STRONG relationship with alleged-Fatah/IDF spying but is it not 100% concrete beyond a reasonable doubt etc...2, it's not even an accurate statement. Palestinians suspected of collaboration is an extreme grouping, which Palestinians? All? Oh, Fatah party members. Well, 19 were executed apparently. What about the other 30? Oh, hmmm....get it? You're making this a problem when it shouldn't be. Even hypothetically speaking, I still wouldn't agree to including because it is redundant. The next section is solely dedicated to sifting through Hamas/Fatah opinion, the lead should be a general statement defining concrete details. I don't understand your reasoning, and to be honest do not consider a particularly reliable person for this article considering you removed CITED content because a known VANDAL made up some stupid reason. I'm beginning to think this has to do with me rather than the actual article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> You seem to misunderstand what I am saying, I am not saying the people executed were both members of Fatah and suspected collaborators, I am saying or. Every source shows that those killed were either associated with Fatah or were suspected by Hamas of collaborating. Sure the attacks on Fatah may be more closely related to reestablishing dominance, we dont say what the motives for the attacks on Fatah were. But they were attacks on Fatah. And sure the people Hamas suspected of collaborating may not have been, all we say is Hamas suspected these people of collaborating. If you could just provide one single source talking about other people being killed by Hamas as a part of 'reprisal killings' that doesnt either qualify for being labeled associated with Fatah or suspected by Hamas of collaborating then I could accept your point. But you havent yet. Nableezy (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But again, not all killings were on SUSPECTED COLLABORATERS. Hamas didn't say every single one of the casualties were against suspected collaborators, if anything Hamas' language and ambguity doesn't make it 100% clear who these people were. Point is, you are taking this to far. All we have is the sources and cannot OR just because it makes sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, all the sources say one of 2 things, either they talk about attacks on members of Fatah or they talk about attacks on suspected collaborators. What dont you understand about the word or? The usage of the word or means that 1 of the 2 are true, 1. those attacked were associated with Fatah; 2. those attacked were suspected of collaboration Hamas. Can you bring a single source that says somebody was attacked in a reprisal attack by Hamas that was not one of those 2 things? Nableezy (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Classic OR. The sources don't say one of 2 things, they say many things, many controversial and at times contradicting things. Nothing is in stone. Please find me a statement that says "Palestinians were killed by Hamas for suspected collaboration with the IDF." Please, and no, not according to Hamas, Fatah, or whatever. We can't assume based on what Hamas says, we say Palestinians because that is an undeniable fact. These reports are simply quoting Hamas/Fatah/PCHR, they aren't independently making judgments. Not to mention, it is completely unverifiable that Palestinians were exclusively tortured/killed/executed for suspected collaboration. Read the sources, you'll see. The body and other sections elaborate in a relatively neutral POV manner, and as I said it is REDUNDANT to put this statement in the lead. I know your bias and why you're doing this Nab, not fooling anyone but I'm applying the rules. At this point I can't see you compromising so feel free to ship this off to whatever noticeboard of your preference if this means that much to you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems several users disagree with you and Yam (vandal, BTW). Lol. Maybe you should try them for edit warring as well? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They are reverting an ip edit without looking at the actual article, cant really blame them as the ip is edit warring. They are performing single reverts based off the recent additions list, not because they agree with you. dont get too full of yourself, you are clearly wrong on this, and if other editors actually look at the justification you have they will plainly see it is complete bullshit. Now I am done talking to you here, I really dont enjoy discussing issues with you, so from here on out any edit you make to this page may be reverted on sight. dont take anything by it other than i really dont like talking with you and am reminded of all the things you have said about me whenever i see your username, so here i dont want to see it anymore. You got something to say about an article put it on the article talk page, if you got something else to say i dont want to read it. Nableezy (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And in case you didnt know, leads are supposed to be redundant, they are supposed to provide an overview of the article, which means talk about the very things the article goes into greater depth. Nableezy (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

IP doesn't matter. One user said it is a dubious claim, another agrees. This isn't just me, there is a clear and notable dispute and for GOOD reasons. The original info is cited thoroughly in the body, and new lead put in by VANDAL YAM who you oddly defended, isn't. Again, take it up at the noticeboards. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is retarded, you have no idea what you are talking about, you cant bring a single source that backs up your statements. Leave me alone, I dont like having to engage with those who behave irrationally. You have something to say bring it up on the article talk. Bye now. Nableezy (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Reverting people who are interrupting consensus process is separate from the 3revert rule. Another user did it as well, he got it. the information was inserted without a prior consensus, I removed it and now we are discussing. Any reverts made by you or me or anyone against people who reinserted the info is ALLOWED as far as I know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you notice, I did not report you, I was letting you know not to continue doing that, like you said other users have taken action against the ip, and I myself put an edit warring notice on his talk as well. And no it is not allowed, reverts of clear vandalism are allowed, this is a content dispute and you cant do that. If you havent notice I havent been pressing the revert button so we can discuss this and reach some sort of consensus. You should do the same. Nableezy (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please report me if you think I'm violating edit war rule. I rationalized why I wasn't. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your input here: yamamam's edit to reprisal attacks. I really appreciate it. I am not sure what is wrong with Michael93555 or Wikifan12345! Since when we are not allowed to make edits on wikipedia? Especially if those edits are supported with sources! Thanks again. Yamanam (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)