Talk:Roof knocking: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:05, 11 January 2009 editBrewcrewer (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits →Refimprove: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:25, 11 January 2009 edit undoCerejota (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,178 editsm oopsNext edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talkheader}}		{{Talkheader}}
			{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
⚫	{{WikiProject International law}}
	{{WikiProject Israel\|class=Start\|importance=low\|nested=no}}		{{WikiProject Israel\|class=Start\|importance=low\|nested=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=Start\|importance=low\|nested=no}		{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=Start\|importance=low\|nested=yes}}
	{{MILHIST\|class=start\|B1=~~yes~~\|B2=no\|B3=yes\|B4=yes\|B5=~~yes~~\|Middle-Eastern=yes\|nested=yes}}		{{MILHIST\|class=start\|B1=no\|B2=no\|B3=yes\|B4=yes\|B5=no\|Middle-Eastern=yes\|nested=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject International law\|class=Start\|importance=low\|nested=yes}}
	}}		}}

Line 57:		Line 58:

	:::Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. ] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)		:::Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. ] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
			::::Actually, no: your ''explanation'' that the IDF ''might'' have had the term and only now revealed it is OR. The term ''is'' recent, just like the sky is blue, if you find a source that says it isn't I will immediately change this view. Otherwise, this is ].--] (]) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	===Refimprove===		===Refimprove===
Line 68:		Line 70:
	:::The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)		:::The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --'']] ]'' 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)		::::The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --'']] ]'' 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
			:::::I have looked and looked and looked and there is not a single mention of the term anywhere before this conflict. "Implications" are not OR when they are ] and ] and when a good faith effort has been made to find a source: the term is recent, and everyone knows it. ].--] (]) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Article topic ==		== Article topic ==

Revision as of 02:25, 11 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roof knocking article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:WikiProject International law

worldview tag

I placed the tag on the article because of editors statements at the afd discssion that this type of action and this name has been around before Israel began the practice. Any help would be appreciated--brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am changing references specific to Israel accordingly. Feel free to replace if we feel that it is necessary to include every country project that we mention. --Cerejota (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

possible sourcing

Google Scholar has a shit load. I just can't do it now.--Cerejota (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

tags

Since this article has been re-narrowed to the specific use of these techniques in the context of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, the tags are placed as follows.

I hope this provides a framework for discussion. --Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there are currently numerous references, I don't see a need for your additional tag.WacoJacko (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag that you added states that the article contains original research, however, the article is full of valid references/sources. Please explain?WacoJacko (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NJGW below, what you are doing is basically tag spam.WacoJacko (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea what is meant by "re-narrowed," nor does it refer specifically to the 2008-2009 conflict. The procedure has been around a long time, though not sure how long the name has been given. It seems to have plenty of references and no doubt more can be provided given a little time. Since it is a new article and has had to justify its existence in the first week or so of its birth by your AfD, there has been little time to provide more reference. But as per the discussion above, there seems to be plenty of references so far. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Context

The article is about a recently coined term, as clearlty reflected by the title. The term is not defined using sources, and one is left to imply its usage via original research

This is tag spam. If the problem is OR, then don't label it a context issue. This is a new article that has seen major revisions. Please wp:AFG that it will be expanded as needed, help, or accept the wikilinks as context. NJGW (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The term is in fact defined using sources : "The IDF has code named such operations "roof knocking," in which the army informs the residents of suspected building that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises." Can't get much clearer than that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am accepting the WP:AGF, in fact, I provided a google scholar link to searhc for sources way before this discussion started. I think this topic deserves to exist, but needs to be seriously expanded and renamed. I proposed a structure that was reverted, to this end. However, the article as it stands today is a WP:COATRACK of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and that is an urgent issue that needs to be adressed. This has nothing to do with any assumptions on my part, and to assume is not exactlly AGF, in particular because we have never chatted before.--Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

All sources used, while reliable in at of themselves, are from the national press of Israel and hence the IDF. While this has not bearing on reliability, claims presented as "fact" should be verified by the use of un-involved sources in order to guaranteed factual accuracy of the claims. In the specific I refer to the actual usage of the technique, rather than its abstract inclusion as a policy (ie a policy doesn't require extenral verification, implementation of a policy does.

I see ten (10) different news outlets used as sources, and none of them are "the national press of Israel" (state run). Most of them are not even Israeli. I'm also not sure how you can ever get more verification that the IDF calls something Roof Knocking than the IDF saying, "emm, we call dese 'Roof noking'". How often the technique is used is not the main focus of the article, and thus individual disputed statements should be discussed, not the article as a whole. NJGW (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally Agree with NJGW. Unclear what "facts" are at issue here. If I am not mistaken, it is not up to wikipedians to verify accepted reliable sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken: Who determines what a reliable source is precisely the consensus of wikipedians. We widely believe in accepting sources on a case by case basis, so for example Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source on Paris Hilton, but Wall Street Journal is more iffy if it talks about its owner, Rupert Murdoch. However, you miss the point I am making, which is "verification". For example, a naked claim is made that "since we warned, this is not a crime" or that the warnings actually happened. Since this is a psychological warfare technique, and Israel is a warring faction in the conflict the technique is used, we should verify. The sources say this is the policy, but as I already stated, there is a difference between policy and action.

If the policy of Elbania is to throw mud in their wars, we do not need to verify the Elbanian National Times when they say so. We do need to verify if they say they actually threw mud at Albenia in their long-runing conflict. Get it?--Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

While the sourcing does sustain the usage of the term, the elebaoration of a narrative based on multiple sources. If this article simply said that the term "Roof knocking" is used, it would be a different thing, but explanations and elaborations are made, and a narrative is created, that doesn't conenct with the sources and borders in the WP:SYNTH.

Please mark individual problematic sentences with {{or}}. The whole article is obviously not OR, as you so very well point out. NJGW (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is not necessary to tag a whole article if you have concerns about a particular statement. It seems to me that the narrative does indeed "connect" with the sources. Not clear what you mean by the "borders." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you both have a point. This is more like WP:SYNTH not OR. I will remove it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Recentism

due to the recent development of the term, it is impossible to find the mos reliable of secondary sources, which are academic materials. As such, the contents of this article would be better placed in the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to evade even the appeareance of undue-weight WP:COATRACK issues.

Tag spam. This is being discussed at the AFD, and there is no point in carrying on the same conversation here. NJGW (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD tag doesn't describe the controversy, it is precisely why the tag was placed. Please do not say it is tag spam, even if you disagree with the reasoning. However, this would be resolved if the article was renamed to something that actually describes the topic with a correct name, rather than a phrase used only to refer to recent events. That is the very definition of "recentism": we are name this with a recent name rather than an old one. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no: your explanation that the IDF might have had the term and only now revealed it is OR. The term is recent, just like the sky is blue, if you find a source that says it isn't I will immediately change this view. Otherwise, this is sophism.--Cerejota (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

While sources are okay as content, there is a complete lack of verification that justifies extensive elaboration. Sourcing should be improved, and if this is not possible, then the article should be merged in order to provide context.

Again, tag spam. Same issues you have brought up above and which are being discussed at the AFD. This tag serves no other purpose. NJGW (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The tags should be removed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both NJGW and WacoJacko. Kudos to them for having more patience than I. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag should not be removed. All secondary sources are from this month. The newspaper article from 2006 doesn't use this "code word". More sources are needed to establish that this term was not coined yesterday. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that it was not made up yesterday. You can't request a reference for what the article does not claim. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked and looked and looked and there is not a single mention of the term anywhere before this conflict. "Implications" are not OR when they are common sense and common knowledge and when a good faith effort has been made to find a source: the term is recent, and everyone knows it. Lets be productive here, OK?.--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article topic

In the AfD as well as here there have been multiple instances of discussing what this article is about... so I want to see where the consensus is.

Warnings to civilians before air-strikes, across the board
Historic and current use of the policy by Israel
The recent Roof knocking policy by Israel

I want some clarity, as I think all of these are valid topics, that should be handled differently, and are different, even where they overlap. Think of it as an onion, where the first includes the other two, and the second includes the last. I think there could be enough material for good stand-alone articles on the first two, but not just for the last. If the article is about the first, then it should be renamed to reflect a more global view on the subject. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories: