Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] A new discussion on the pbase Gaza photos

Well, I've been wrong before... I had another look at the photo links from pbase most recent added by User:Yuber. The photographs are quite good, actually and don't express a blatant POV. What are the current objections to these photos, again? --Chiacomo 03:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After filtering the ranting, whinging and personal attacks out, the photos are:
  • <anonymous user> Good photos and make lots of traffic to my website. Lots of articles have links to photos. These photos are neutral.
  • <User:Jayjg> Pushing your photography business. Not encyclopaedic. POV (look at the captions). Wikipedia is not a link repository. Upload and add to article.
  • <User:Fangz> Contrary to Wikipedia policy. Upload and add to article.
  • <User:Josh Parris> POV and non encyclopaedic. Upload and add to article.
  • <User:Chiacomo>Interesting and artistic, they probably are not encylopedic.

And, as an aside, I think they're pretty and some are very well composited. But it's still inappropriate to link to them from Wikipedia. Josh Parris ✉ 04:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As I've said, I was initially against inclusion of a link to these photographs. After reviewing the photos..

  • I can't find an obvious POV (though I'm still looking and if you find one, please document) -- the captions seem to accurately represent the content of the pictures, both of Palestinian and Israeli subjects.
  • I can't seem to find a link to purchase anything...
  • Responding to my own objection: the photographs seem no less encyclopedic than other "daily life" pictures already included, and, in the case of the Khan Unis pics, aren't found elsewhere.

While none of the individual pictures seem to represent an idea that merits inclusion in the article itself, as a collection they are quite interesting and did in fact help me understand a bit more about the Gaza Strip. I now think a link is appropriate. --Chiacomo 04:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if a link is appropriate, three is not. If the photos were embedded into relevant parts of the article, they would add to the atmosphere of the article. And we're not seeing that, but three obscure links at the bottom. Perhaps an article on the daily life in Gaza would be an appropriate place for links of this nature. But the Gaza Strip article is encyclopedic. My understanding of external links is that they're mainly used for cross-checking of facts. Josh Parris ✉ 05:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, then we should remove some of the other external links and create an article covering daily life in the Gaza strip? Or, a single link to the collection of photos might be appropriate. --Chiacomo 05:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why I formed the opinion that the images push a POV:
I'm not saying that the POV isn't valid, nor that it is valid. It's just not the neutrality that Wikipedia strives for.
Feel free to start a section on Daily Life in the Gaza Strip. I have no expertise on Gaza, but I do feel responsibility to protect Wikipedia's reputation.
BTW, User:Yuber didn't add the photo links, s/he reverted them in. They were originally put in by <anonymous user>. Josh Parris ✉ 06:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Daily life in the Gaza Strip==

Main article: Daily life in the Gaza Strip or maybe Gaza Strip/Daily life

What can you say? There are taxis and buses, and people grow food. Yadda yadda yadda.


About POV:

The photo "soldiers telling..." is EXACTLY what it was. The sub-headline reads: "Tomorrow is fine, today the settler march is going through this beach so the area is closed"

This is NOT MY POV. This is what actually occurs in Gaza. My POV that the soldiers should not be there. That this fisherman does not-represent any security risk and that if the settlers will see him there they may cause a stir - none of that is in the photo or the caption.

I can go on and on about every such photo. The point is that none of these photos can tell you what I really think. The Proof is that you all think that my POV is different from what it really is which mean that my POV is not expressed in the photos. And if someone left a comment under the photos this is again not the Photo POV. (I can delete the comment if that is what bothering you)

Are the links encyclopedic?

All of you said: Load them to wikipedia. Which mean that you know the encyclopedic value of the photos.

External links to photos: For over a month every time I placed a link to the photos on pabse you removed them. Then I placed a link to other web site and that link did not bother anyone Now I have re-added the link to pbase and again you removed them.

This is not consistent. Either no photos should be linked att all from wikipedia (thousands of links to photos exist throughout wikipedia)

I suggest you re-read what Chiacomo had written. The ability to change one POV is a gift. Don't be fanatic.

And BTW, the traffic to my web site from wikipedia is slim at best. It turns out that in the past the fact that I placed the discussion about this subject in the main page talk page was what generated the traffic. Still once in a while someone who reads this article wants to see how gaza looks like, who are the people who live there.

Clearly when I added in the page about "disengage plan" photos about the road blockers who demonstrated against the plan these were directly related to the "opposition to the plan" but use jayjig removed even that.

This is a crsade. Wikipedia is about collaboration not about personal crusades. Let us not forget that when user jayjig first removed these photos he did so because he claimed that they are "right wing Israeli propaganda"

So every time you remove these links you are following his mistake (in understanding the nature of the photojournalistic / documentary photos) and his POV (against israel).

I suggest you special:upload appropriate images for inclusion in the article. You can tag them with {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat|credit is given and copyright is attributed to Eual Ofer}} which will mark them as
 © 

This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for a non-profit, educational purpose, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed to Eual Ofer

I would even suggest that linking to your web site from the image would be appropriate in that context, as it is the source of the image. Life would be a lot easier if you created a user account for yourself and you became a contributor to Wikipedia. Having your work appear in Wikipedia could be quite a feather in your cap. Josh Parris ✉ 08:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. When one uploads their pictures, it's welcomed — when one links to them, it tends to be viewed as self-promotion. El_C 08:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will think about it but I need to learn how to do that. I got to Wikipedia because other photo page of mine someone (not me ) linked to it from a wikipedia article. I started getting hits and wondered where these hits come from.

When I started working on Gaza I linked to my photos from the Gaza page. No hidden intentions. Wanted people to have access to the photos to see for them selfs. What you are asking me, to become a contributor to Wikipedia, to read understand the type of license I am giving awayetc... all this takes time and maybe even a legal advice.

I'll ask you again: Is there value to Wikipedia readers to SEE how does Gaza look like, how do the settlments in Gaza look like, how much military control is there over there etc.....

If there is a value than it does not really matter if the photos are linked or part of the article. Who ever want to know more can click on a link and see the photos of settlers who built to stop the pullout and of Palestinians who want Israel out and those who are apprihensive of every change.

If there is NO VALUE in thse photos - why are wasting our time ?

I was really hoping anon wouldn't show up again -- I really don't know if he's helping or hurting himself. I generally discount IPs; I really wish he would create an account. I would, however, tend to agree with anon's assesment of the captions of the photos. I understand that multiple links to the same collection of photos might be bad. My question: Is there a link to this collection of photographs, as a whole, that y'all would find at least as appropriate as some of the other external links? --Chiacomo 13:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Actually, I may the only one here who is NOT ANON. My (real) name is on the web site. I have no idea who Jayjg is. So creating an account does not remove anonimity but creates one. An IP address is at least somewhat traceable.

Anyone who thinks these links are self promotions must be kidding. I suggest you read the relevant pages/definition of self promotion in wikipedia. These links do not describe a product etc... Their only "sin" is that I am the photogrpher who took them and that Jayjg is "hooking up " to the "self promotion" (false) argument because he first did not like these photos which he (misteknly) thought are against his own POV.

I would suggest everyone would take a deep breath of air: 1. A link to OTHER photos from gaza stood here for a month without bothering anyone. 2. You all agree that if thse photos were loaded to Wikipedia you would like to see them included.

Well ? What is the logival conclusion :

That it is OK to put an extrenal link to photos as long as thse are NOT photos that you would want to see uploaded to Wikipedia ?

John Paris: Try be logical in what you revert or not reveret - do not automatically follow Jayjg. Signed: Eyal (my Real name although I have no Wikipedia handle)

Why don't you get yourself a Wikipedia "handle", Eyal? As for the other photographs, they do not appear to be self promotion. In any event, you have been told many times to upload your contributions rather than linking to them, and to avoid self-promotion. I recommend listening to the arguments being made, rather than attacking those making them? Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why getting an ID makes any difference ?

These photos were added to this page by a person with an ID (not me) and you still delted them I do not buy your "no self promotion" argument. When you first removed the photos you claimed they are "right wing israeli propeganda". You know your problem is your POV about this photos so why don't at least be honest with us.

I write the truth. I use my own name, I use my own IP address. It is YOU who hide behind nonsense arguments and "handles"


ANYONE who think this is about "self promotion" should look at Jayjg last revert. He list the reason as "(revert absurdly pro-Israel bias "

This is how he treats facts. This is how he treats external links. In fact one user is trying to exceside tyrany over this page. Will you allow him to continue ?

Getting an ID makes a big difference; then people can communicate with you on your Talk: page for one thing. And you can use your own name for your ID, as opposed to a number. You certainly aren't editing from your own IP address, but rather from a series of IPs owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. Also, saying that the Palestinians did not "flee" Israel, but rather "left after they were asked to do so by Arab leaders" is absurdly pro-Israel bias, which is a good reason for reverting it. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I give up! Anon is doing more harm than good in our discussion about his photographs -- I do think he would gain credibility if he registered and studied convention here before becoming embroiled in controversy. I do also think it would be fair to remove the other external link depicting "Daily Life" in Gaza... It appears to represent a POV as well... I could be convinced the BBC pics are biased too. --Chiacomo 19:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not particularly keen on any of the photograph links on this page; I'd be happy to see them all go. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this appears to be the best option -- as neither of the two uncontested links to photography appear to be sources for the article and both evince POV of some type, they should be removed. --Chiacomo 20:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chiacomo: I could get a handle if this would make you happy. But the issue is not me. The issue is use of links to photos.

Links to Photos exist everywhere on Wikipedia. Except that in this page you now suggest removing ALL of them ? Does this makes any sense ?


"consensus" is a very nice word but what shped your view ? The photos: NO ! You "gave up" because what I say, not based on the photos.

And user Jayjg, he post here a lie "You certainly aren't editing from your own IP address, but rather from a series of IPs owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam" which only shows that he has no idea how to look for IP addresses. I suggest he look up the IP address of my ISP "Barak, Israel" and try to match it to the IP address on the edit page: Bingo.

I do not hide behind any "handle" or "nick name" I have nothing to hide. The one who lies about his intentions is Jayjg who first was against the photos because they do NOT match his POV, but now convinced you that they are "self promotion". Hope you have good time with your faked "consensus" I will continue to add links to extrenal photos. Such links exist in many other Wikipedia articles and there is no reason to deny them here.

If you think differently put a talk item on the main page : "Should wikipedia have extranl links to photos" ? This is after all the reason you give to remove these photos so seeq consensus for this bizare opinion.

Talk:Main Page is not the proper forum to discuss this -- it clearly says at the top of the talk page, This page is to discuss the Main Page only. Perhaps you should become more familiar with convention before becoming embroiled in controversy. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my short time here I noticed that there are manu rules and modus operandy, most of them are vioalted all the time.

But in any case, why instead of starting to discuss the issue of a new rule we can discuss the issue we started with.

Your view Chiacomo was first that the PHOTOS add value, but later due to my words on the discussion page you decided to give up. So is it about the PHOTOS or about "my style" or "me not knowing the rules" ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/z/Talk%7EGaza_Strip_yalop2_77b8.html"