Talk:Palestinian factional violence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
Contents |
[edit] Page History
User Kendric7 hasn't MOVED the page correctly from the old name. Here's the history that has been lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas-Fatah_conflict&action=history --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, it didn't occur to me to merge, then move one over the other. Sorry, the fork started at Palestinian National Authority which had a whole section on the skirmishea without linking to the main article. I didn't realize until I scrolled down thru the current portal. -- Kendrick7talk 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commanders?
It seems kind of weird to have Abbas and Haniyeh listed as "commanders" in the infobox, as they aren't 'leading their troops' in the traditional sense of the phrase. I would support removing their names from the infobox. Thethinredline 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done. If this does become a civil war with clear leaders on both sides, it would be a better fit. -- Kendrick7talk 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- It may be "a better fit" for this article. But it would be somewhat less convinient for the many who would be killed in the process. Abu ali 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article name-date
Do we need the month and year as these are the first such clashes and here disambiguation isn't needed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- also, I propose the name Palestinian factional violence. Like Iraqi sectarian violence. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This page should be moved
This page should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions as it fits there better then starting a whole other Article. 24.226.128.164 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- better to merge the articlesAbu ali 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I think this page shouldn't be moved
This is separate armed conflict.
- I agree.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the problem is that at the moment this artical and the History of Fatah/Hamas tensionsartical duplicate each other, i propose we merge this artical into the December section of the History of Fatah/Hamas tensions--Boris Johnson VC 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you add the merge template to this page then Boris. Hut 8.5 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but these clashes are more notable than the overall tensions so this should be the main topic and page name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose move This article deserves its own topic and is its own armed conflict. Just as the wars between Egypt and Israel might fit into Arab-Israeli relations, so to does this conflict fit into another article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Seeing that this is a new conflict, it should have its own article. I would suggest removing "December 2006" from the name as this conflict statrted earlier and it might last longer. – Zntrip 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree that it is a new clash. It is an exclamation of an older clash that started when Hamas gained power. 69.114.71.250 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
You can't cover each new clash which lasts a few days in an own article because of the lack of relevancy. Articles like Pileup at I-46 from January 2, 2007 don't make sense. (That would be rather for Wikinews. However, an article about the developments since the elections is usefull. (See below in a seperate edit some sources I've collected a couple of months back). --213.155.224.232 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Style
Please remove newspaper style like Tuesday night -- in a month or so we aren't aware of weekdays anymore. --62.227.135.168 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page name
"Palestinian factional violence"? "Palestinian civil skirmishes"? Who came up with this page name? Since the press is calling this a civil war, wouldnt it make more sense to call it that? Or would that not be politically correct? KazakhPol 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- please source your statement, I doubt they call it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you joking? KazakhPol 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, please give a source calling this a civil war. I've only heard for "On the verge of civil war" --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's one:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6324677.stm--Ge Ming 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guy's this is getting ridicilus
At the moment this artical and a History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions duplicate each other, i don't really care which is merged into which, but they really do need merging. P.S. This is espeshally the case after this articals name was changed. --Boris Johnson VC 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it doesn't make sense to keep this seperated. --213.155.224.232 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It would make more sense to merge History of Fatah-Hamas tensions into this article, as Palestinian factional violence is a more general topic, and if any other Palestinian factions start fighting they can be included in this article. Hut 8.5 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This page shouldn't be moved as it is covering the ongoing conflict. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes but so is the other artical, one should be merged into the other (i don't care which way round)--Boris Johnson VC 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It does seem rather obvious that "Palestinian factional violence" did not start in December 2006, as History of Fatah-Hamas tensions shows. Therefore it would make sense to include the content from History of Fatah-Hamas tensions here, as the current conflict is only the latest in a long line of incidents. The title of this article covers a much broader scope than the introduction says. Hut 8.5 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some sources
I am preparing a similar article in the German WP. Here are some sources for the October 2006 events which are so far not covered. Collected back then so you'll have to check if they're still valid. --213.155.224.232 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
BBC: Gazans bury dead after clashes, 2. Oktober 2006
BBC: Militants threaten Hamas leaders, 3. Oktober 2006
BBC: Masked gunmen kill Hamas member, 4. Oktober 2006
Haaretz: "Qatari FM leaves Gaza unable to break Hamas-Fatah impasse", 10. Oktober 2006
Gulf Daily News" "Four killed in Gaza" 14 Oktober 2006
[edit] Start date of the fighting
I think that we should put the start date of the curent conflict of the Palestinian factions to be October 1st 2006 because, yes there was fighting even back in May, but the most intence fighting started at the begining of October and has since then been on and off just like it is now. We just put the December 15th because then is when the assasination attempt happened. But the major fighting actualy already started back in October. What do you other guys think. --Top Gun 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More pictures
This should have more pictures. How is the one on the left of this site? [1]
--Shamir1 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Casualty toll
It doesn't make any sense to try to count the wounded because most of them go unreported by the media. More than 200 people were injured in the past two days and the article's toll is still at 305. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.149.119 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Civil War?
Has the conflict reached the point now that we can call it a Civil War, or is that too soon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- I would like to do that, some news sites already labelled it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Please don't use direct links to Reuters Alernet, today.reuters or the Associated Press - those links disappear forever after 60 days and are therefore worthless. Use news.bbc.co.uk and other stabile news sites instead. --213.155.224.232 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
