Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archieved from Talk:Gaza Strip

[edit] Gaza Photos

For some unclear reason the link to photos from Gaza is deleted again and again from the "Gaza Strip" page.

Gaza is in the news, but yet people see very narrow aspect of of it.

Between the time the link to the photos is added and until it is removed the photos get many hits - which mean people want to see them.

Here is the hit counter (last 10 hours) on the Gaza photos on my web page:

Via which site 1. en.wikipedia.org 17 2. www.pbase.com 11 3. www.google.com 4 4. search.pbase.com 3 5. www.google.ca 2 6. www.google.co.uk 1 7. www.dogpile.com 1 8. www.google.ch 1 9. forum.pbase.com 1 10. www.google.fr 1 Total 42

In case it is not clear:

Wikipedia: 17

Google: 15

rest: 10

The photos are on:

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza&page=2

Take a look at decide for your self if they are of interest to anyone searching for "Gaza Strip" on wikipedia.

One more thing: Most people will look up the word "Gaza". For some reason someone decided that the entry Gaza should be reserved just for the City Gaza and should deal with municipality issues. Most people will therefore not find what they want if they come to know about the AREA known as Gaza (yes I know it is in the f "further" section but few bother to follow.

IMHO, the entry now under "Gaza Strip" should be under "Gaza" and the entry that is now called "Gaza" should be called "Gaza City" – this way people who search on Gaza will get to the main page on this area and it's history (and relevance to Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and only if they look for municipal issues on Gaza CITY they can click on the link to the city itself.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"


PLEASE STOP DELETING !!!! Or explain why you think photos from gaza do not belong on this page

If you want add other photos from gaza ( maybe you want this http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi and other sub galleries) but do NOT delete other people work just because it does not fit your agenda

That seems like a vanishingly small number of hits. I've looked at the pictures, and they appear to be a personal website used for propaganda purposed, not an encyclopedic link. What "agenda" do you think I have? Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


I dis agree with you. It is not propeganda. No more than other subject I cover and links from wikipedia to my site on many issues I never deleted. I do not what Agenda you have but the zeal you have deleting photos showing what goes on in Gaza show you do have some hidden agenda. I would like to midiate this.

To Jayjg: Please explain how this gallery http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi fits your defition of "a personal website used for propagand" In what way is it different from my gallery under the article about Druze or about Bedouins (both are links that exist for a year without a zealot like you to delete them)

see this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze

I see, so you're just inserting them to try to get more hits on your website? My agenda is the removal of dubious and self-promoting website links, because this is an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the "hits" number to show that when these links are here people use them.

I want people to be able to see and not just read. A photo is worth a 1000 words.

Please open a survey on these. Wikipedia is by consensus. You and I obvioulsy can not agree (although this is just an issue of EXTERNAL LINKS. You seem to be a very distrubed person to come and visit this item every day to remove links. No one argue with you about the content just adding more options for people who want to explore the issue further by seeing photos of the place. That is all.

Everyone wants to generate more traffic for their personal websites, but that doesn't mean links to them belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I'll get other opinions on the topic; please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, generally, with Jayjg. Links made to your own site are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Exceptions are made in the most rare of circumstances, and usually by independent witnesses. See Wikipedia:External links:
Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions.
However, if you own the copyrights to those photos, you are perfectly free - in fact, encouraged - to upload some of them onto wikipedia,or Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license for use in Wikipedia articles. On the information pages for these images, you can then link to your page as the source. (The added advantage of this is that it eases the bandwidth load on your server.)
Finally, to Jayjg, assume good faith.--Fangz 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


The 2 key issues are:

1. This is after all a link, that is all 2-3 lines at the end of the article and this link in to a non-commericial documentary site

2. Do people want to see these photos ? Well here are the referal stats for the last 24 hours:

1. en.wikipedia.org 56 2. forum.pbase.com 9 3. www.google.com 8 4. www.pbase.com 7 5. search.pbase.com 6 6. upload.pbase.com 4 7. www.indybay.org 3 8. www.google.lv 1 9. webmail.013.net 1 10. www.google.fr 1 11. mysearch.myway.com 1 12. www.google.co.uk 1 13. www.google.co.il 1 14. www.google.ca 1

 Total 100

so clearly out of 100 people who wanted to see Gaza photos

56 came via wikipedia , about 40 from google.

Wikipedia is a top-100 web traffic site. Any page linked from it will rise in Google pagerankings. This is very attractive to spammers. Just because something isn't a money-making venture doesn't prevent it from being spam.
Your argument goes something like this: You wander into a pharmacist's shop, and put a cigarette advertisement onto her window. The pharmacist takes it down. You repeat the process a dozen times, getting more and more annoyed; why does this unreasonable woman keep taking down your ad? People walking into the pharmacy see the advertisement, later they go and buy your cigarettes - people obviously want to see the ad. But could people be buying the cigarettes because they think the pharmacist is endorsing them as a heathy choice? The pharmacist doesn't want people to think that she endorses cigarette smoking, so she takes the sign down. Josh Parris ✉ 06:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you understand what Photos from Gaza has to do with smoking but I don't. My point, in case yoiu have missed it: People who come to Wikipedia to search about Gaza do want to see photos of the place If you have better photos please post them but stop taking down a link to photos people want to see.

This is not smoking this is education. It is not just words people look for They want to see photos.

As indicated before: I am open to mediation about it or do a survey. Although the high number of people who click on the link to the photos clearly show that people DO find and interst in seeing photos of the places they read about.

The pharmacist is an analogy. This is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. Upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article. Josh Parris ✉ 08:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. This is an analogy. So like the Pharmasict own the Pharmacy you own Wikipedia..... It is my descision what to do with my photos. On the other hand Wikipedia is a colobaration by many people. You are free to add links to any photo you choose But stop deleting mine. It is not about search engine and if you still did not get it:

People who come to this article want to see photos of the place.

Do you have better/other photos ? if so post them or provide a link.

This is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. Upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article. Josh Parris ✉ 08:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia and it inlude links to external sites.

You are free to add your links or submit your photos. I choose to link to the site of photos This is done in many other articles in this Encyclopedia and this article is not different. So please if you can resist yourself, start a mediation process. In the mean time I will add the links that people want to see.

I'm here via RFC. I am part of the mediation process. You can't add those links, because they are a clear breach of our established policy. In almost all cases, you can't add links to your own sites. Saying that it helps make your site popular doesn't make any difference. The rules are designed against advertising, and the only way rules work are if we are fair and equal in applying them.
You are being unreasonable, here. If you want to contribute to a NPOV and free wikipedia, there is no reason not to upload the images. You actions suggest to me that either you are being selfish, or you are trying to make Wikipedia endorse your POV. Neither of them we can allow.--Fangz 13:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fangz: Thank you for your help in mediation. Can you point out the policy, but please note, the issue is not who the "site owner" is (I am not the "owner" of the photo site. I am looking for a policy that prevents adding a link to an extrenal sitre that include photos that are jermain to the subject. After all this was the debate about. The people who removed these links claimed that these links has nothing to do with the Gaza strip. I would like to mediate this issue first: Are these photos relate to the subject of this article. Please review the photos and decide. Thank You.

Dear Fangaz: I read the external link policy and I expect that you will obeied by that policy. The photos site is not selling anything and it provide insight into the subject of the article. Thank you for pointing out the Policy. All that is left now is to implement it. The policy clearly allow for external links.

Please note that the person that first removed these links did so because he misunderstaood tham to be propeganda He wrote this insult about my work: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for right-wing Israeli propaganda images"

Many other Wikipedia articles include links to my photos. Some of them are photos that are not so pleast to right wing.

I am not a propagnist for either site I am a photogrpher and I provide insight that is all.

I never claimed the photos were unrelated to the subject of the article, I pointed out they were un-encyclopedic. They meet none of the qualifications for links under the Wikipedia:External links policy; upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article, rather than spamming this link in. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia has a three revert rule which you have violated many times now. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The person who violated the 3 revert block is you. It is nice that you now threat to use power. Clearly, once I saw the policy I know you are violting it since the policy is ecatly about adding links that jermain to the issue.

The problem is that you had labeled my work "right wing propeganda" (it is not) But once you did that you had removed yourself from a position of being neutral enough too edit this page If you see in photos that show both israelis and Palestinians who live in gaza propeganda you are not qualified to edit this article.

As I have told you I want to mediate this and don't threat on "blocking me" You do not own Wikipedia.

Please re-read the WP:3RR policy; I have not violated it, but you certainly have. Now that you are aware of the policy, you should be especially careful about abiding by it, as I will have no qualms about having you blocked if you violate it again. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the person who reverted it more than 3 times is YOu.

This policy is meat to avoid "edit wars" and this is what you did.

There are ways to resolve disputes and I am again asking for mediation. Stop threating to "block me" this is not your personal site.

The article currently links to GlobalPolitician.com, the CIA World Factbook, the United Nations, Care USA and the University of Texas. And you want a link to your site added? Is it of the same calibre of those sites? Perhaps WikiNews is an appropriate place for you to upload your photos; I believe you're photographing current events in Gaza.
The CIA World Factbook gives the population as 1,376,289 (recorded as 1.3m in the article), which you've tried to change on occasions to 1 and 1.25 million; do you have a source for your revised population figure? And have you picked one of the figures? Josh Parris ✉ 03:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It was a typo, the correct number is 1.325

Now how about these extrenal links to photos ?

Clearly as you can see in Gush Katif and in this article Jayjg has a political bias. He mis interprest the photos as "right wing propeganda" (although some of thse phots could be very unpleast to "right wingers" to see) and took it upon himself to reveret and reveret to a page without these photos.

The photos do not violate the rule about extrenal link (they are not to a comercial site) so it leaves only one option that what what motivate him his a political hatred (or even antisemitism) against the person who took the photos or the people who are in some of the photos. So how does Wikipedia resolve such disputes ? by deleting all refernce to these photos from this and other articles ?

Are photos like this http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi and http://www.pbase.com/yalop/work and this: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/harbor can be intereted as "anti-pull out propeganda " or as "right-wing propeganda" ?

Please answer thse questions.

To John : I hope you are aware of the 3RR rule. You have already reverted 2 times time and I hope you will not do it the 3rd time. On a side note I have no idea why this personal vandeta against me. Clearly I have put photos that are jermain to the subject and they show restrictions on the move of Palestinian labor.

The three revert rule states that you cannot revert a page more than three times in one 24 hour period. I hope this is clear enough. Now please stop spamming these pages with links to your photopage. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


To Jayjg: The person that used Reveret is you, not me. You used it more than 3 times in 24 hours so it is you who are in violation of the policy. Further more you did not provide a reason for your last revert. This is a BIG violation of the policy.

So.... do you want to get to the situation where you are banned for violating the policy ? If not I suggest you provide a reason for edit change you make.

I have already seen previous reasons you provided and have a itchy feeling that you have some bias against .. well we both know what it is so let's not go there. I expect to see justification for every change you make, And be carfull about violating the 3RR rule.

Regarding my reverts, I've explained them 20 times now, I don't think another explanation is required. And enough with the false accusations; exactly where did I revert more than 3 times in 24 hours? I won't be responding again until you provide some evidence. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

On May 16 Jayjg reverted 3 times in 24 hours. This is a violaition of the 3RR policy Toady (May 18) Jayjg reverted without explanation to remove photos of Gaza Palestinian rsidents (which are the subject of this article) I suggest you add these links (or provide a reson why you removed them)

If you do not provide a reason why you removed THIS LINK: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi I will add it my self. Wikipedia has rulles (thank you letting me know about them) Now YOU should follow these rules:

You remove something you say why. If you think an extrenal link does not belong here explain why: Is it not about the subject (it does) Or if you have other reason you should explain it.

Did you read the WP:3RR page? The rule is you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Understand? More than 3 times in 24 hours. As for the issue with your self-promoting links, already explained. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


To Jayjg: Did YOU read the WP:3RR page? The rule is you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Understand? More than 3 times in 24 hours. Note: I never reveret I edit to add contect. It is you (on May 16 ) who revereted 3 times and on may 18 you reveret without explanation. Both are violating of policy. YOU ARE A VIOLATOR.

You should follow the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot

Look at rule #7. If someone posted a link to photos you think are .... - what ever you think they are edit the link description and say these are photos that tell .... - what ever you think. These after all photos of people living in the Gaza Strip and as such (if you like them or not) are adding info on the life of people in Gaza

It would be much easier for me to follow the conversation if all parties were registered users and signed their posts. How do I know the anonymous user is the same individual each time? Having said that, I've been following this conversation for several days now and think that, while anon's photos are interesting and artistic, they probably are not encylopedic... Several do appear to demonstrate POV. I'm still pretty new here, but I've read lots of articles, talk pages, and studied user interactions. Take my opinion how you will, but Wikipedia is about consensus (and, of course, creating a great encyclopedia). It doesn't appear consensus will be easily reached as concerns anon's photos or links to his photos, so perhaps the article should remain as it is right now -- without the photos or links to them -- as they appear to provoke controversy. --Chiacomo 14:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Chiacomo: Which photos do you find "do appear to demonstrate POV"  ?

Please provide a URL to such photos ( i.e. such as

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42021564

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42842182

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42890598

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42951605

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42908774

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42036415

I would say that each of these photos represent reality, an aspect of reality that may be intrpreted based on one's POV. This is realy the beauty of the photos I take (see my work on the wall and read the comments in: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/essay and you will found out that different people see diffrent POV in the same photo.

Now about Jayjg. Jayjg have delted links to photos because they are for him "right wing propeganda". I would say that by doing so he interjected his OWN POV. So keeping the photos is actuially more neutral to any specific POV than deleting them.

Makes any sense ?

Which parts of "don't use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising your work" and "don't include non-encyclopedic links" are you having difficulty understanding? Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
...you will find out that different people see different POV in the same photo. So there is a POV expressed in the photos? This is my assertion. We should avoid controversy and seek consensus. It is obvious that these photos are controversial, do not substantially enhance the readers understanding of the content of the article, and the links are blatant self-promotion. An article such as this must be written and edited carefully so as not to step on anyone's toes as the article's subject is controversial itself. My opinion has not changed -- your photographs, while interesting and well made, are not suitable for this article. --Chiacomo 14:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: Your arguments against the photos were first that they represnt "right wing propeganda". So you have disqualified yourself from being suitable to edit this article. It is clear that anyone who see in these photos (as you said) "Anti-Pull out propaganda" is intejecting his own POV by seeing things that are not really there.

Chiacomo: I respect your view. Most likley I can not convince you. My work is based upon the idea that most people do not really have an idea about things they read about. So Photos, AS LONG AS THEY SHOW REALITY AND MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT REALITY are actually of encyclopidic value as they enhance the understanding of the situation.

I think that if you re-read what you wrote, and think about it in a very general way, what you are saying is that there is no room for photos in delicate subjects. I hope you would re-think tis position. Reality, as shown by photos is not something we should be afraid off.

(off course if photos are manipulated, or one sided only while hiding other aspects of reality - that is wrong) But not allowing photos at all, or not allowing them because one editor finds them in opostion to HIS POV is IMHO a negative diretion to go.

No, my arguments agains the photos are that they are POV, "a vehicle for advertising your work" and "non-encyclopedic". Don't try to make my arguments for me. As for you, since you are the person who took these photos, you clearly cannot be unbiased about them, and have therefore disqualified yourself from including them. Bye. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: At least be honest about your motives. When you first removed these links you wrote:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for right-wing Israeli propaganda images." (May 9)

So it is YOUR POV that made you remove these links. Since this is the case I will re-add them and you will need to remember the 3RR rule and about providing an explanation why you revert. If you reveret more than 3 times in 24 hours and do not eplain yourself (be specific) you will be violating the rulles. I suggest that when the links are added (sometime in the next 24-72 hours) you will review the photos before making your decision on the value of the photos.

On my part I will make an effort to include links to photos that show all aspects of the situation in Gaza. My aim is to add value that is not in the text alone. This is not self promotion. If I wanted self promotion I would place links to photos of girls in bikini....

I've told you why they are being removed; you prefer to believe something different. In any event, you can't use Wikipedia to advertise your photographs, and you will not be allowed to. Jayjg (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

When you first removed them (May 9) your argument was about "right wing propeganda" so at least b consistent and honest with us.

There are so many good reasons why you shouldn't be linking to your photographs; please be honest and stop trying to distract the reader from that. Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg ignore the reason he first gave to removing these photos. any attempts to change it result in personal intimidation from one user, making a collaborative editing atmosphere impossible. These are clear violations of WP process.

So far five different editors have reverted your edits or told you to stop putting in these links; how many will it take before you will stop? In any event, Talk: pages are for discussing article content, not your opinions about other editors. I'm done responding to your personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my

Well, isn't this quite the interesting discussion. To the person who wants to put the links to his page up I'll just repeat what somebody else said earlier: upload your photos on the commons to be used by everyone; then they will be the photos themselves without a link to a page with an opinion, and then everybody will be happy. People will see your photos and this discussion page will turn into a garden of peace and love.

Excellent suggestion, and one I've made as well. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

By now it is NOT the issue of the photos. Recent edit change by Jayjg have deleted facts and replaced them with "assertions" such as the high density in Gaza (population over 1.2 mil) is because the influx of refugees in 1948 (less than 100,000) and not as a result of the birth rate population growth (nearly 4% - the highets in the world)

So judge for yourself if he is qualified to edit this page.

ust assume I load my photos into WP (making them public domain photos) But then the tyran still does not like the photos (which was his reason to start with) Then no one will see these photos.

So if you want to help, start by removing the tyrany from this page. There are many links to extrnal photos and extrenal sites on WP (look up rafah and thousands other articles

Uploading your images will not make them PD. You can use any license, so long as it is compatible with Wikipedia.--Fangz 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Your other edits were poorly written, POV, and entirely unsourced. And don't make assumptions. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


It does not matter what license I use. Jayjg does not like to see photos of settlers, he will delete them.

AS for accuracy this is what Jayjg wrote:

"The majority of the Palestinians are refugees or their direct descendants, who fled Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see Palestinian exodus); as a result it has a high population density. "

Does this make sense ?

Of course it does not.

Here is the truth which I wrote, he removed and none of you other "editors" bothered to check:

"By 1967 the population had grown to about six times its 1948 size. The city's population has continued to increase since that time, and poverty, unemployment, and poor living conditions are widespread" (see http://www.palestinehistory.com/gazacity.htm )

I repeat what I said again and again: When you give one person the right to conduct tyrany over this page (just look at the history: Jayjg decides what goes on here, almost every contributor to this page run into argument with him and eventualy leaves) when you do that you defeat the purpose of WP.

If you want to have a colaborative edit process, why don't you review the text, change the completely biased staements Jayjg wrote (like the reason for Gaza density, like the false assertion that there are no arm smuggling tunnels, like the false assertion that the PA is in control all over Gaza and ignoring the Hammas role, the popular cometees (ran by the arm smugglers of Rafah (the Abu Samadna gang of war lords) And....

You can also add links to photos (not just mine, look it up on the web)

So do your work instead of just letting Jayjg decide for you.


And about who is in charge in Gaza PA or Hamas:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0E93FE7B-A69F-4A1F-A038-B01E1BA74661.htm

[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)