Talk:Gaza imports

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Discussions

{{movereq|List of commercial goods not allowed for import into Gaza}}RM on hold until AfD is over. Fences&Windows 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) - ostensibly the list, if moved, could be longer. In any case the official list is slated to be reconceptualized in accord with prohibitive constraints. [1] -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List is useful, encyclopedic, deserves a space, factual, about human rights, whoever tags it has no deep understanding of the conflict at all. Kasaalan (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in your best interests to curb your
personal attacks and address the subject matter, rather than attack other editors. I have now sent the matter to AfD. Tarc (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you have a deep understanding of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Are you an expert. Do you have interest/reading/knowledge in the area. Do you have expertise/knowledge in the historical background. If you claim any expertise on the field provide any link to any of your contributions or do not claim personal attack while there is none. Kasaalan (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who I am or what my background is is none of your flippin business, to be blunt. Focus on the argument itself rather than attacking the arguer (i.e.
Argumentum ad hominem), if you would. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

From the AfD

"some lists are available online, these are written by different NGO and other organization and all vary greatly in content" (quote from User:Raisescale)

These should be referenced, and salient differences mentioned. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I think the closing admin was right on. If this is to have any chance at being acceptable, it needs to be turned back into a list and the prose need to be ripped out. The introduction should be concise and not a quote farm demonizing Israel. Maybe if people want to get it to FL then the lead can be expanded but I frankly don't trust a detailed introduction to keep on track. See WP:LIST.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the textual content was added by delete voter Marokwitz anyway [2] I respected his edits and did not delete them because background info is useful. And he is editing the article adding content which shows his efforts. On the other hand we may always merge info with main page. The main issue was updating/merging the table and referencing it, which took my hours since I am alone. Kasaalan (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way it works sometimes. Marokwitz was wrong to do so even though there may have been nothing wrong with the attempt. Really the only way for this to not be a POV fork is to remove the duplicate and biased prose and simply rely on the list and a lead. There are lists for all sorts of stuff (not that OTHERSTUFF is a valid argument) so it might be worth trying to keep it as an actual list.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will never work as a list-type article, the contents of the list have varied greatly over time, and the accounts are widely conflicting, and the sources for this list themselves say that it is not official rather based on circumstantial evidences, so there is no single list, and it is not possible to summarize this complex information into a simple list without falling into original research / original synthesis category. Marokwitz (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is time to propose a merge or another AfD.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

None of these are needed. Many can be used at the main article as sources.

WP:ELCptnono (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I also removed the Notes section since it seemed like a link farm that was EL but not labeled as so. Sources for the main article again?Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I fully restored crucial info by multiple RS~links. We will update table by checking links, then merge links with main article. Kasaalan (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have provided them here for easy access but was a little lazy. The mainspace is not a sandbox. Move them to the talk page since they have no business being there against MoS.Cptnono (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be removing the links and inserting them here for easy access i they re not integrated in the near future.Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gisha
BBC


This article is now drifting into a content fork

I wouls sugest returning it to just a listSlatersteven (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote previously, it will never work as a list-type article, the contents of the list have varied greatly over time, and the accounts are widely conflicting, and the sources for this list themselves say that it is not official rather based on circumstantial evidences. Also there are two countries involved in the blockade (Israel and Egypt), each with it's own lists and incidents of allowed and blocked items. So there is no single list, and it is not possible to summarize this complex information into a simple list without falling into original research / original synthesis category. Since the article is being kept, the I think we should take material related to Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza from the main blockade article and move it into here, thus avoiding content fork and shortening the main article. Marokwitz (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List articles do not need to be a single list. This one is even an FL. If it is not possible to make this a list then maybe it is simply not appropriate as an article.Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOLONG we might have or not have the background text sections. I respect adding info and editing efforts, yet we may also merge the textual content. I support both ways, yet if the info will be substracted we should merge them and not delete. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The majority of the prose are already duplicated in the other article. The list isn't. This is a clear fork that might have been sustainable as a list but now just needs to be deleted.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list on it's own and without context is utterly meaningless. Marokwitz (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the list is meaningless and this is duplicated information. So delete it then?Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The be more precise, I said the list is meaningless WITHOUT CONTEXT. The policy compliant and best solution, as long as there is no consensus to delete, is to remove the duplicate information from the OTHER article, turn them into
summary style, and link to here. Marokwitz (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Why?Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This way we can avoid duplication, and shorten the main article. As said above, WP:FORKs are recommended when the

WP:TOOLONG. Marokwitz (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

What article do you feel is too long? Readable prose of
2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip is only 48k. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not at all too long. About 6,500 words and <44K readable prose. It is within the limits and well within what is usually accepted. Please reread TOOLONG. You would actually be reducing the quality of the other article since it is a decent enough size to put it up for GA or even FA if all of the other improvements were taken care of. Many improvements would be needed of course.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was and still am in support of deleting this article, but as long as there is no consensus to delete it, the same information should not be duplicated in the main article. That's my opinion. And I do think that the main article has long and tedious lists that are better moved to here, as long as this article is kept, since they make the original article boring and unreadable. Marokwitz (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion most of the text should be merged with main article. But having text might also be useful. We actually need more user opinions.
If we add the table does it stay below or higher than 10.000 or 44 KB. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that tables are not readable prose so it shouldn't matter size wise. It might look a little silly though. The BBC article could always just be an external link or inline citation.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will undoubtedly be deleted from the main article if added there since it is overly detailed and will give undue weight to minute details. Marokwitz (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And since it is not done correctly here the only option is deletion.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tables for main item types or not

The list is harder to manage when we have all item types. What is your opinion about having separate tables for main item types like nutrition, hygiene products, construction, houldhold items and agriculture needs etc. It would be much easier to manage, read and update. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be separate tables for allowed and blocked items. Mixing them together is very strange. This is much more important than splitting by categories. Marokwitz (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually categorization is important. Too many items exist. I made 2 columns for that reason, the dates the items banned [we don't have that info yet for each particular item] and the date they are allowed. I will give it a try for separate tables.
What we list in the article are actually still blocked items and the allowed items since 2009-2010 among those blocked items. As you can tell all the allowed items had been banned for a period pre/after 2007 especially after Hamas got elected and attack with rockets etc. which resulted an extensive blockade in 2007. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's incorrect to imply the "allowed items" were ever banned, the sources do not say so. The source that is cited is a source of allowed items. Having an empty column with no dates is certainly not professional. Marokwitz (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they say so. There is a May and a June version of the item list for example. For example In the June version some of the items previouslly banned crossed out and listed as allowed. Kasaalan (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you those are primary sources. We need to stick to the secondary sources we have. Marokwitz (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Secondary sources BBC and Gisha who creates their own independent report based on primary sources. Since Israel declines publishing such a list, the table is currently the best and most reliable source to be found. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gisha are a primary source. They compiled the list themselves. BBC is a secondary source. Marokwitz (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Food supply

Item Type Date banned Date permitted
wheat nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
flour nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
cooking oil nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
cooking fat nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
sugar nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
salt nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
pasta nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
dates nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
garlic nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
chick peas nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
rice nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
beans nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
lentils nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
kidney beans nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
margarine nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
dairy products nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
powdered milk nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
frozen meat and fish nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
frozen vegetables nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
empty bags for flour nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
yeast nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
fertilised eggs nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
fruit nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
semolina nutrition 2009, 1st half [1]
tea nutrition 2009, October [1]
coffee nutrition 2009, October [1]
instant coffee nutrition 2009, November [1]
canned tuna nutrition 2009, November [1]
salami nutrition 2009, November [1]
canned meat nutrition 2009, November [1]
kitchenware nutrition 2010, April [1]
sage nutrition 2010, May 5 [2][3]
coriander nutrition 2010, June 7 [2][3]
spices nutrition 2010, June 7 [2]
jam nutrition 2010, June 7 [2]
halva nutrition 2010, June 7 [2]
vinegar nutrition 2010, June 27 [2]
nutmeg nutrition 2010, June 22 [2]
chocolate nutrition 2010, June 22 [2][4][5]
fruit preserves nutrition 2010, June 9 [2]
seeds and nuts nutrition 2010, June 22 [2][3][4]
biscuits nutrition 2010, June 9 [2]
sweets nutrition 2010, June 22 [2]
potato chips nutrition 2010, June 9 [2]
gas for soft drinks nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
dried fruit nutrition 2010, June 22 [2]
fresh meat nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
water-dispensers nutrition 2009, December [1]
potatoes nutrition 2009, December [1]
mineral water nutrition 2010, February [1]
tahini (sesame paste) nutrition 2010, March [1]
other canned goods, with the exception of tinned fruit nutrition 2009, November [1]
zaatar (dried herb mix) nutrition 2009, November [1]
sesame seeds nutrition 2009, November [1]
black pepper nutrition 2009, November [1]
chicken stock powder nutrition 2009, November [1]
olives nutrition 2009, December [1]
aniseed nutrition 2009, December [1]
cinnamon nutrition 2009, December [1]
glucose nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
industrial salt nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
plastic/glass/metal containers [clarification needed] Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
industrial margarine nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
unfertilised eggs nutrition 2009, December [1]
flavor and smell enhancers nutrition Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
animal feed agriculture 2009, 1st half [1]
animal medicines medical/agricultural 2009, 1st half [1]
fishing rods fishing Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
various fishing nets fishing Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
buoys fishing Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
ropes for fishing fishing Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
nylon nets for greenhouses agriculture 2010, June 14 [2]
spare parts for tractors agriculture Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
dairies for cowsheds agriculture Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
irrigation pipe systems agriculture Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
ropes to tie greenhouses agriculture 2010, June 14 [2]
planters for saplings agriculture Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
horses agriculture/farm animal Still banned as of 2010, June
donkeys agriculture/farm animal Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
goats agriculture/farm animal Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
cattle agriculture/farm animal Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
chicks agriculture/farm animal Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
Some agricultural materials [clarification needed] 2009, June [1]
heaters for chicken farms agriculture/farm Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
polythene for greenhouses agriculture 2009, June [1]

Housing/Basic needs

Item Type Date banned Date permitted
camomile medical/nutrition 2009, December [1]
gas for medical use medical 2009, 1st half [1]
medicines and medical equipment medical 2009, 1st half [1]
female hygiene products hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
nappies (diapers) hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
toilet paper hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
detergent hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
washing liquid hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
shampoo hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
soap hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
toothpaste hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
toothbrushes hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
cleaning products for tiles hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
cleaning products for glasses hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
toilet-cleaner hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
washing-up sponges hygiene 2009, November [1]
bath sponges hygiene 2009, November [1]
cloths for mopping the floor hygiene 2009, 1st half [1]
baby wipes hygiene 2009, November [1]
blankets household 2009, November [1]
matches household 2009, December [1]
candles household 2009, December [1]
sticks for brooms hygiene/household 2009, December [1]
rubbish bins household 2009, December [1]
mops hygiene/household 2009, December [1]
hand-cleansing gel hygiene/household 2009, December [1]
razors hygiene 2010, June 7 [2]
sewing machines and spare parts clothing Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
heaters household Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
towels hygiene/household 2010, June 22 [2]
buttons clothing 2010, June 13 [2]
matresses household 2010, June 22 [2]
kitchenware nutrition preperation/household 2010, June 22 [2]
perfume cosmetics 2010, June 28 [2]
cosmetic products cosmetics 2010, June 28 [2]
combs clothing 2010, March [1]
hair brushes clothing 2010, March [1]
clothes clothing 2010, March [1]
shoes clothing 2010, March [1]
fabric (for clothing) clothing Still banned as of 2010, June [2][4]
plaster construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
tar construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
wood for construction construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
cement construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2][6]
iron construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
tarpaulin sheets for huts construction Still banned as of 2010, June [2]
glass (to a maximum of 200 trucks) construction 2009, December [1]
wood (for doorposts and window frames) construction 2010, April [1]
aluminium construction 2010, April [1]
musical instruments culture Still banned as of 2010, June [2][4]
size A4 paper culture/education Still banned as of 2010, June [2][3]
writing implements culture/education 2010, June 22 [2][3]
notebooks culture/education Still banned as of 2010, June [2][3]
newspapers culture/education/news Still banned as of 2010, June [2][5]
toys toy 2010, June 22 [2][3]


Requires fixed column width, and some more sorting however I have separated tables. Kasaalan (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc Cite error: The named reference BBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf Cite error: The named reference gisha060610 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f g http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1994742,00.html
  4. ^ a b c d http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/amira-hass-israel-bans-books-music-and-clothes-from-entering-gaza-1.276147
  5. ^ a b http://www.economist.com/node/16264970
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference foxnews.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Tagging

WP:NOTDIR, point 7. Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Not all possible details are listed. Mainly the basic human needs who are reported by a-internationally accepted media organisation BBC reseach, and b- Israeli Human Rights Organisation: Gisha are listed. Kasaalan (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly limited to the items banned by Israel during 2009-2010, after the 2007 Israeli blockade. Kasaalan (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the lists above and tell me "Not all possible details are listed". BBC? That would contravene
WP:NOTNEWS. Chesdovi (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (2nd nomination)

  • Admin's decision:
    • "The table itself does not meet Wikipedia polices regarding Copyvio and Primary source so would need to be removed entirely. The BBC list may be linked to rather than copied, while the BBC article mentioning the list may be used for content for RS commentary on the list. The gisha list declares that it is unverified, so is speculation, and the organisation is promotional so should be used with care per
      WP:POORSRC
      . I am minded that people have commented that they find the list useful because it encyclopedic to know what items have been banned or permitted, however, as the sources are speculative and state that Isreal deals with matters on a case by case basis, the list is misleading. The article should reflect what can be verified, and make clear what is speculation. A list makes things appear more certain than they are."
  • Gisha is internationally credited Israeli Human Rights Organisation [So Gisha is Israeli, they only gathered information from Palestinians and other International Organisations]
    • May 2010 Report [4] June 2010 Report [5]
    • "The following list is approximate and partial, and it changes from time to time. It is based on information from Palestinian traders and businesspersons, international organizations, and the Palestinian Coordination Committee, all of whom "deduce" what is permitted and what is banned based on their experience requesting permission to bring goods into Gaza and the answers they receive from the Israeli authorities (approved or denied)." [List is partial, changes time to time, based on personal/real life experiences of Palestinians' requests and answers they receive from Israeli authorities]
    • "It is not possible to verify this list with the Israeli authorities because they refuse to disclose information regarding the restrictions on transferring goods into Gaza." [list is verifiable by experience, list is not verifiable by Israeli authorities, since they do not reveal information]
    • "It should be noted that Israel permits some of the "prohibited" items into Gaza (for example: paper, biscuits, and chocolate), on the condition that they are for the use of international organizations, while requests from private merchants to purchase them are denied." [some items are available for international organizations]

The case is not as simple as admin claim. Gisha is a credited Israeli Human Rights organisation. BBC is already 3rd party RS. The list is unverified by Israeli state since they do not reveal every specific information, but in real life practice they ban specific items. Case by case basis refers to arbitrary practices, it doesn't mean the item types aren't banned. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the administrator made a good call. There is no reason to duplicate the source here. Wikipedia is not wikisource. We can summarize their results of the research, which is what encyclopedias do. Gisha are not a reliable source, and BBC just republished their research without claim that it is reliable. On the contrary, they noted that it is not considered accurate. Publishing it as a list makes it appear as more credible and definitive than it is actually is. And the way the table was presented (mixing allowed and blocked items) was extremely confusing. Marokwitz (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So time to remove the table per the admin's comments? Actually wasn't something even though of when nominating it but it makes sense.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gisha is an accurate source, which credible source claims otherwise, BBC made their own research not republished Gisha. "Allowed items" you refer are already previously banned items, so there is no confusion. The Israeli court case is in progress, if they have a resolution it will be easier to update the table. I will create a summary table instead all item types later. Kasaalan (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be best to present a draft first. It would be a shame to go through the effort to have it removed.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a rewrite

Most of this article features outdated information from being Israel eased the blockade, yet presents this information in the present tense as if it were current.

The article needs to differentiate between the conditions of the blockade pre June 17 2010 and post. Drsmoo (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or a deletion. There is another article this can go into. That along with the lack of effort means that it is too poor to be live.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More recent data (Jul 4 2010)

This article was discussed on reddit. During the discussion I got a more recent .il source: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HumanitarianAid/Palestinians/Lists_Controlled_Entry_Items_4-Jul-2010.htm

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the scope of the topic

---Not much has been changed on this page in recent years. How about expanding it to include both imports AND exports? That would restore balance to the viewpoint. The list of exports is more interesting in recent years than the outdated banned imports list. ---Labellesanslebete (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

This article was mentioned in the guardian in august 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaza imports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaza imports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is the worst article I've ever read

like seriously i was going through trying to find sources on gaza import restrictions, found this article, and suddenly i was transported back to the year 2011, i mean im all for nostalgia (god i miss battle field 3) as much as the next anonymous wikipedia commenter but seriously. also some of the sources already present dont match up with the text which is really strange

im not a editor but anyone with half a temporal lobe and a keyboard can criticize this article 2001:56A:774D:F300:D81E:87BF:8D28:BD77 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some imports infos might be wrong.

I saw some external conversation about this cookie ban being real or not and this article + this document popped out. I'm not sure how you guys weight sources or how to find if this document is official but this is apparently an unclassified document and an interview stating that the ban was only for private sources and not for humanitarian sources. https://www.npr.org/2010/06/09/127600204/israeli-official-disputes-list-of-banned-gaza-products https://drive.google.com/file/d/12U4n_yjBIH6VlTNn-pa6xGkfz4kDbc3A/view Sydaske (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_imports&oldid=1224623366"