Template talk:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel


Is this infobox appropriate?

[edit]

Consider this new infobox with its emotive picture of an injured Israeli child as constituting original research. Suggest it may have been created in a POV attempt to circumvent consensus -- for example discussion on the Qassam_rocket article led some months ago to the removal of an image of an injured Israeli child. This box appeared appeared Sept 25 and was summarily put into a dozen Israel-Palestine articles, which are under Wikipedia general sanctions. When I reverted from the Qassam article I was accused of "borderline vandalism". Comments please. RomaC (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what idea you're requesting comments on. Are you suggesting that the infobox be scrapped because you think it has an emotive image, or are you suggesting changing the image? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please clarify on Jalapenos question. And this picture is not the same as the picture of the previous picture of the crippled Israeli child, Osher Twito. If you do not agree with the image, what would you suggest instead?ShamWow (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has since been removed by User:Mgiganteus1, and I replaced it with an image of a rocket being fired, which is as non-emotive as you can get, given the subject matter. I'm fine with this if everyone else is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues with your infobox. I and another editor reverted it from the Qassam_rocket article in part because it pushed to the top of the article an emotive photo of an injured Israeli child, despite a recent discussion which had resulted in the removal of a photo of an injured Israeli child from the article. In this regard it is not unreasonable that your infobox could be regarded as a sort of Trojan Horse. But that discussion should probably continue on Talk:Qassam_rocket. About that -- I notice you are now canvassing some of the editors who were active in the earlier Qassam photo discussion, such as Mbz1, who led the argument for inclusion of injured Israeli child. Also you've canvassed ShamWow, who was not active there (but does exhibit a pro-Israel bias). There were five editors who were against MBz1 in the discussion, none seem to have been contacted by you yet. Mindful of Votestacking guidelines, I hope you will do so.
Anyway, on to a general question: Why do we need an infobox of this sort at all? Don't Wikilinks already lead to specific supplemental information? Your infobox runs the gamut, isn't there something about POV forks that advises against this? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RomaC, you have just stepped over the line. I contacted the five most active editors of the article based on the "revision history" function; I am not acquainted with any of them. I asked for their input in a neutral way, in order to keep the situation from deteriorating into an edit war. Your accusation that I engaged in improper canvassing has removed any desire or requirement for me to address your concerns, now or - unless you apologize - ever. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the canvassing, only two of the five editors you contacted have been active on the article in the last two years, and two have not been there at all since 2006. Wikipedia is fluid, and I would have contacted editors au courant with the discussion on the appropriateness of an injured Israeli child photo, an issue that resurfaced with the addition of your infobox on that article. But there is more than one way to canvas, and yours was not improper and so I regret and will strike my comments above. (Also thanks for teaching me where to find top editors on a given article.) I would hope that you would also consider apologizing for terming my and untwirl's good faith reversions of your infobox edit as "vandalism" because that was simply not the case by any interpretation. A reversion of a new addition with a request for discussion is not improper. There are issues with your infobox and they are being raised by more than one editor. It would be constructive if you would respond to them. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your expression of regret for your accusation. Partly because of that, I considered for quite a while your request that I apologize for saying that your deletion of the infobox bordered on vandalism. (Note: I did not call it "vandalism" and would not have done so.) Ultimately, however, there is no equivalence between the your statement and my statement, and I still stand by mine, for the reasons I already gave. I will stress, though, that I was referring only to that specific deletion and did not mean to imply anything about you as an editor.
As for your question about whether Wikilinks already provide the benefit that infoboxes do. Do you mean to question the benefit of all infoboxes, or specifically this one? If the former, This page is probably not the best place to have that discussion. In any case, as a reader and editor of various aticles linked to in the infobox, I can testify that it does bring a benefit that can't be had by Wikilinks. A good example - and this is what spurred me to create the template in the first place - is the "by year" section. If you try to navigate through years via Wikilinks in "see also" sections, I'm sure you'll find it as awkward and inconvenient as I did. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that this template is reformatted to become consistent with the usual navigation box format like {{BBC Radio 1}} and placed at the bottom of pages. Regarding the image, I don't consider it necessary. Whether an "emotive image" is used or not, I don't see that it really adds much. Adambro (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure i see the encyclopedic value of this template. should we have a template for "israeli attacks on palestinians" that could be placed on the idf page and various cities/weaponry pages as well? ? seems like this could get out of hand. npov and due weight are the policies that i see in conflict with this template. untwirl(talk) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli cities and communities hit

[edit]

I noticed that Squicks and Flayer have added a couple of cities. I'm just taking the opportunity to point out that types of communites other than cities (moshavim, kibbutzim, former settlements, etc.) are currently absent. If anyone wants to fill them in, that would be much appreciated. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to do this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Any interest in replacing this template with a standard navbox based version something like below ? The existing template seems to produce some complaints when it's used in certain articles because it's perceived to diminish neutrality. Alternatively we could have both and give people a choice. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that would be more appropriate, as I suggested in September 2009. This is a navigation template and so navbox would be more consistent with other navigation templates and probably be easier to integrate the template into articles alongside other navigation templates using the normal navbox format. Adambro (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints aren't relevant anymore as they were about an evocative photo which was removed. A navbox would make navigation more confusing because the articles in which this template appears typically have navboxes already. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A good reason to change the format has yet to be presented, imo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Jalapenos do exist has said, "the articles in which this template appears typically have navboxes already" and so it makes sense to maintain consistency and use the same format. It isn't clear to me why "the articles in which this template appears typically have navboxes already" is a reason to adopt a different format for this navigation template. I'm not sure how that would "make navigation more confusing". Adambro (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would create a glut of navboxes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would simply add one to the number of already existing navboxes and mean all the navigation templates would be together, in a consistent format. I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Adambro (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more wp:notnews

[edit]

Today, a car almost hit a landpole. In front of my house! -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel&oldid=1234668702"