Talk:Winograd Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Winograd Commission is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] "Reactions" or "Consequences"

Since the report, things are in flux in Israeli politics, so I was thinking that "reactions" and consequences to the report should have their own title, just after "preliminary report". What do you think? Cramer 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violations

The history section seems to be blatently POV. It asserts what appears to be the statements of the commission as absolute fact. I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it, but it is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. --Samael775 02:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are the widely-held facts and are sourced as such; they were written months before the committee issued any statements. If you do not know enough about the subject and you cannot realistically claim a violation, without citing anything specific, I suggest you study it. El_C 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The manner in which we explain reasons for tagging a page with {{npov}} is never limited to saying "clearly a violation," you always have to explain why you pose such a claim. Merely saying that you think something is clearly this or that, per se., never counts as an explanation. El_C 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"During the war, the Israeli State failed to provide sufficient material support, including necessities, to the Home Front population of about one million people in northern Israel who were instructed to remain in shelters for much of the war's duration. Government support networks were not activated or were inadequately run and much of the burden to care for vulnerable populations was left to individual volunteers and charities. The conditions of and access to shelters were often substandard, and government assistance to provide northern Israelis with transport and accommodations in central and southern Israel, were highly lacking. As a result of this government inaction, the weakest segments of Israeli society in affected areas suffered the worst day-to-day privations." Seems quite blatant to me. --Samael775 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You're just quoting the entire paragraph and then placing a "seems quite blatant to me." Confusing. El_C 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the article cited at the end of this passage says nothing about the content of the paragraph. --Samael775 22:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It speaks about it plenty, but there are others I can add or refractor. El_C 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) — Actually, that ref was misplaced; I couldn't find the one I had set out earlier, but I added some other ones instead. El_C 03:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"During the war, the Israeli State failed to provide sufficient material support, including necessities, to the Home Front population". Stating that the government failed to provide sufficient support is POV. So is saying that government support networks were inadequately run. Whose opinion is this? Who disagrees? What sources are there for each side of the argument? --Samael775 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If you find someone that disagrees (that is, if there is disagreement), feel free to present their views. The sources are cited and they are authoritative. El_C 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy and fortitutde

The whole democracy and fortitutde bit editorializes the intro and is, essentially, a cliché. The expansion of the external links section with many links from one site, is also problematic. El_C 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The links from one site is nothing new and was modeled after other pages. Anyhow, I have already shortened it. The democracy bit has continuously shown up in media, you can see more with the external links. The Nasrallah part is also notable. Bottom line, if a pattern begins to show then it is notable. Just like the idea that Brokeback Mountain would win the Academy Award for Best Picture, or the speculation that Al Gore will run for president in 2008. --Shamir1 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That does not respond to my objection. That whole ability to self-criticize, democracy & fortitude and so on, are pretty tangential, especially for the into. Please try to gain consensus for the contested addition before inserting it again. Thank you. El_C 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the argument you posted on the edit summary was incorrect and had nothing to do with this. The sources that prove a point on the pages mentioned above are similar to those that I have used, and some of these sources come from organizations or institutes. It is sourced, relevant, and in no way tangential. It will be reverted. --Shamir1 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that attitude demonstrate little willingness for dialogue. That passage is tangential and it is your original synthesis. El_C 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, when you are willing, or able, to address my points above, perhaps this dispute can advance toward resolution, but simply saying something like 'it's relevant, it's sourced' looks diversionary and rings hollow. El_C 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It was notable enough for the Time (magazine) article and several other publications. The reason I noted that above is to show that there is no problem with the inclusion of the material. --Shamir1 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final report

It's missing from the article, besides a short notice on it's publication date at the beginning.--84.108.69.102 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)