Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Citations
Each information should be cited and supported by a reliable source. Governmental names lists are acceptable as names reference. Please describe the circumstances of death and state if the casualty was combatant (soldier, militant) or noncombatant (civiliam), if possible.
Below is a list of acceptable and unacceptable sources, as agreed in discussion [1].
[edit] Acceptable sources
- New York Times
- BBC
- CNN
- Reuters
- Haaretz
- Maariv
- YNET of Yediot Aharonot
- Israel's Ministry Of Foreign Affairs
- Jerusalem Post
- Al Jazeera
- etc. . . (feel free to add more)
[edit] Unacceptable sources (agreed)
- PCHRGaza (reliability disputed by MathKnight, see example of fraud in here)
- DebkaFile (reliability disputed by Ambi)
Independent Media Review Analysis - simply appalling, pure BS
[edit] Unacceptable sources (dispute)
- Electronic Intifada - Palestinian activism site, clearly not a news source. (Disputed by MathKnight 14:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))
- AlternativeNews AlternativeNews , with terms like "occupation forces" and "Palestinian resistance fighters from Hamas" the neutarlity of this source is disputed (Disputed by MathKnight 14:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))
- others (please explain reasoning)
By the same token, not listing ANY source is definitely not acceptable? Palestine-info 11:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Any report should be cited by a reliable source. MathKnight 14:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bias and poor sourcing
This article largely reflects the selective omission of Palestinian victims in the articles for 2000 - 2003. It starts with an assessment of total casualties for both sides, but then degenerates into POV. Please have a look at the corresponding article for 2004, which is consistently unbiased and well-sourced. Buttockhat (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)