Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:30, 10 November 2006 editStriver (talk \| contribs)39,311 edits →Final warning ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:02, 9 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots6,555,844 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-08. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
(717 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ARBPIA}}
	==Title==
			{{Talk header}}
	In its short existence, this article has already been moved <s>twice</s> <s>three</s> a staggering eight times. The issue seems to be whether what happened was an incident or a massacre. Before we descend into a revert/move war, please discuss the article's title here. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{OnThisDay\|date1=2019-11-08\|oldid1=925218215\|date2=2024-11-08\|oldid2=1255916592}}
	:I prefer massacre. Since it was apparently deliberate, killing many civilians, and widely called so--''']'''<sub>]</sub> 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
	:: It wasn't deliberate. If you'll check the facts you see that only one shell, out of 12 shot, hit the Palestinians. A straying shell is an accident, and since there was no intention killing civilians - it is not a massacre. ] 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Mid}}
	::According to the IDF none of the massacres it has commited throughout history was deliberate. You are mistaking fact for PR and taking one side's statements at face value. I vote for massacre since it involves the shelling of a mosque in which the IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants.--] 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Low}}
	:: '''IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants''' - well, you admit the IDF targeted militants who used civilians as ]. Hence, not a massacre. ] 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Military history
			\|1=<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
			\|B-Class-1=no
			<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
			\|B-Class-2=no
			<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
			\|B-Class-3=yes
			<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
			\|B-Class-4=yes
			<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
			\|B-Class-5=no
			\|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes
			}}
			{{WikiProject Death \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low}}
			}}

			{{Archive box\|<br>}}
	::Hahaha, according to IDF? Do you honestly believe they would explicity state they're murdering civilians deliberately? It's like saying, "According to Hitler, Jews are quite evil."

			== List of Victims ==
	To MathKnight please read some articles...
	This is take from the Guardian:

			What do people think about including a lst of victims' names in this article?<br />There are some prior examples of this, e.g.], ], the ] or the ]. Another even more relevant example may be the ].
	'''"At least 19 Palestinians were killed and 40 wounded when FIVE ISRAELI SHELLS hit a row of houses in the northern Gaza town of Beit ber Hanoun this morning."'''
			<br />QmunkE pointed out the ] when I initially added the names, and referred to the discussion on the Omagh bombing, in which it was eventually decided not to include the list of victims. I am not connected in any way with the victims of this blast, which appears to be what the above policy is targeted at, and I do believe that the list of victims should be included. It was the death of these people that made this a noteworthy incident, doesn't that make them noteworthy?<br />The list of victims can be found at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=1 It's a bit of a wade through to find, but they are clearly listed. ]'s reports have been criticised by the IDF but not on their numbers, only on definitions of combatants vs non-combantants, which is hardly an issues in this case. ] 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

	'''"A further FIVE OR SIX landed in the same vicinity over a period of 15 minutes, witnesses said."'''

			I like the idea.
	It was definately at least 5-6 shells that landed in the same neighborhood district of Beit Hanoun, why on Earth and how on Earth the Israeli's targeted a village which is right on the Israeli border and has nothing to do with the Hamas rocket attacks is a mystery to me.
	They definately cannot hide behind their usual excuse of "Civilians caught in crossfire...etc..." for justifying civilian deaths anymore. As clearly there was no reason to even fire at this town. They were no militant activity at all in this town, in fact it again says on the Guardian the alleged "target", the IDF Artillery was supposed to fire at was at least 1 mile away from Beit Hanoun. I'd definately label it a massacre, it's the same as what happened in Qana, Shiyyah, Shatila, or the tons of other "incidents" of "accidental" civlian casualties.
	Israel's policy coudln't be anymore blatantly obvious; of targetting civlians deliberately to inflame and incite an uprising or counterattacks by Hamas or Hezbollah just so they can then justify even more extensive military operations.

			] (]) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	Call it what it is, killing an innocennt family in their home with artillery? This is a massacre, better yet war-crime...

			== Cover-up of a massacre ==
	P.S. Oh SUPRISE, SUPRISE, MathKnight is an Israeli as well... please we don't need your pro-Zionist agenda in another Israel-related article, it is a massacre, like it or not the IDF has committed another massacre, please face the truth...
	] 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

			When Hezbollah kills civilians with inadequate munitions in this fashion, it will be called a massacre - why are Palestinians not given the same decency?
	: "Witnesses said" and we know how reliable Palestinian witnesses are (they blame the IDF with radioactive candy bars and "500 massacred in Jenin". The Guardian claim it was by "tank fire" which is absurd since no ] was around miles away. According to ]: "The IDF confirmed that an artillery battery containing 12 shells had aimed at a site from where Qassam rockets were fired at the southern city Ashkelon on Tuesday. The artillery fire had been intended for a location about half a kilometer from the Beit Hanun houses. At this stage it is unclear whether the incident was caused by '''a technical or human error'''." There was no intention of massacre, and the incident was a mistake as the article indicates. Further more, Israel vowed regret over the incident (unlike Palestinian terrorists who declare publicly that their intention is to kill as many civilians as possible) Since you are seeking Zionist conspiracy in every corener ("''Israel's policy coudln't be anymore blatantly obvious; of targetting civlians deliberately to inflame and incite an uprising or counterattacks by Hamas or Hezbollah just so they can then justify even more extensive military operations.''") you won't be bothered by the truth. Your need of ] show that you have nothing but hatred at your side. ] 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

			It's not as if even Israelis weren't horrified - on this subject - "No one is guilty in Israel" - ''"Nineteen inhabitants of Beit Hanun were killed with malice aforethought. There is no other way of describing the circumstances of their killing. Someone who throws burning matches into a forest can't claim he didn't mean to set it on fire, and anyone who bombards residential neighborhoods with artillery can't claim he didn't mean to kill innocent inhabitants. Therefore it takes considerable gall and cynicism to dare to claim that the Israel Defense Forces did not intend to kill inhabitants of Beit Hanun. Even if there was a glitch in the balancing of the aiming mechanism or in a component of the radar, a mistake in the input of the data or a human error, the overwhelming, crucial, shocking fact is that the IDF bombards helpless civilians. Even shells that are supposedly aimed 200 meters from houses, into "open areas," are intended to kill, and they do kill. In this respect, nothing new happened on Wednesday morning in Gaza: The IDF has been behaving like this for months now."'' ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
	'''Massacre''' - whether deliberate or not. --] (]) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: Massacre must be deliberate. Accident is no massacre. ] 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	yes the grenades were exploded by accident --] (]) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

	What about another name such as "killings" or "shelling"? If not I would prefer "massacre". There is no evidence that this was a rogue shell other than the IDF's statement. Why should they be automatically believed when Human Rights Watch and others have poured scorn on IDF internal investigations? An 'incident' is:
	*1 A definite and separate occurrence; an event.
	*2 A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another.
	*3 Something contingent on or related to something else.
	*4 An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.

			:Anything to add, Jay?
	If 1, then it's a very bland/meaningless description (it might as well be "Something happened on 8th Nov...'). If 2 or 3 it's diminishing the significance of these deaths relative to other deaths in this conflict. If 4, I can't see this disrupting normal procedure... sadly it's perfectly normal at the moment.] 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			:] (]) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	: I also prefer massacre. "incident" or "accidental killing" is quite funny. missing artillery couldn't go a mile away. It is widely called massacre (of course not in Israel) But i think we don't need "November 2006" things,
	--''']'''<sub>]</sub> 04:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			::i worked through logs. it seems like there were quite a few move wars and attempts on the article, and a status quo was reached with 'incident'. it survived for almost two years until you brought it back up again. no new material surfaced to substantiate the claim that it was intentional, and a newspaper polemicist article is definitely not proof. i think that further trying to push this point of view will result in nothing more than a moveprotect. ] (]) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	Since your the IDF expert here MathKnight, please do explain how it was an accident and show some proof.
	"Massacre": The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense...

	Since it is being established whether this was truly accidental or not doesn't matter, the way in which the unarmed civilians were killed, the location of the killing and the fact there was no link to any rocket-launching sites in Beit Hanoun which the IDF were supposedly after is reason enough to call this a massacre. All the other so called "accidental" attacks on civilians by Israel in the past are called massacres, Qana, Shatila, etc... why isn't this one?

			:::"Incident" leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, considering the consequences, although I see the problem with "massacre" when intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the redirects is ], which I reckon strikes a good balance. What do you think?
	The only person here who disagrees is MathKnight, and his judgement is quite questionable, since he's trying desperately to defend Israel's actions and IDF's motive.
	I think we should VOTE.
	] 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
	: Stop use ] arguments. It is a violation of Wiki-ettiquete.] 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	~~Agree. I vote for massacre --'''~~]~~'''<sub>~~]~~</sub>~~ 08:32, 9 ~~November~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		:::] (]) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			:::If there's no logical objection, I'll move the article there.
	: You can vote that the earth is flat, but unless there is an evidence that the tragedy was deliberate, this will stay as incident. ←] <sup>]</sup> 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::The militants was a mile away, Israel's shell could't have missed that far --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: And you said this as a qualified artillery officer? For BTVR shelling, about a mile off is a reasonable deviation range, a specialy if the coordinates were misfed or there was an error in the gun controls computer. One evidence that the incident was an accident is that only 1-2 shells hit and not the whole 12. Believe me, if the IDF wanted to massacre, he was shelling the town itself with more than 12 shells. ] 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Belive me, if IDF whant a masscre, it will make sure it can later claimed it was an accidental. 1 mile is reasonable deviation range? In that case, do they ever hit anyone? We are not talking about rock-slingers. --] 12:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::"Normal" deviation was 200-300 meters --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			:::] (]) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	Btw, MathKnight it's '''Ad Hominem''', not Ed Huminem, I don't think you properly understand what an Ad Hominem arguement is, since I am not using one.
	Must I again repeat myself? READ THIS ARTICLE : http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1942339,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

			:::: Since there is dispute about the move, it is best not to move it yourself. I recommend filing a request at ]. --]]] 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	LOOK PLEASE:
			::::The same month that you moved the article to "massacre", ] moved over a dozen articles about massacres of Israelis to the titles which removed the word. I'm fine with the title "2006 Beit Hanoun shelling". ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

	'''"Witnesses said that the first shell hit a home, causing deaths and injuries."
	"A further five or six shells landed in the same vicinity over a period of 15 minutes, witnesses said."'''

			OK, sounds good. Anyone else want to weigh in?
	At least '''5 shells''' landed in Beit Hanoun, probably more, it was not 1 or 2 as you claim. Get the facts right please!
	Even CNN is reporting it as 6 shells.

			] (]) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
	Standard Deviation in modern artillery systems of something like a couple of hundred metres is ok. Israel uses the M109 Paladin as their main Artillery howitzers.

			==Move wars==
	According to http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm, the M109A6 Paladin which Israel uses can hit a tank-sized target 10km away within MOA of 200-375m, and standard spread of 20m. This means a shell fired will land somewhere within a 200-375m metre diameter circle around the target with a spacing between each subsequent shot of usually 20m.
			The yanking back and forth of this article must stop. See ]. If a move is controversial, then build consensus for a move on the talkpage, otherwise leave the page at its original title. --]]] 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			As a reminder, this article is under the scope of ]. As an uninvolved administrator, I have wide latitude in restrictions that I can place on the article, as well as discretionary sanctions on the involved editors. So please, stop with the edit-warring, and discuss differences at the talkpage. --]]] 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
	Since the target of Beit Hanoun was engaged by Israeli Artillery only a few kilometres away across the Israeli border, the standard deviation from the actual target should have been under 100m easily. The only way an artillery barrage like this could end more than a mile from the intended target would have to be incorrect orders/instructions/coordinates, which I highly doubt.
	Either way, Israel's usual excuse would of "accidental fire" would hold, but because of the particularly large condemnation from EU, UN, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross and so on, and because of the nature of the attack, (an entire family being killed), I really think this deserves the title of massacre. It had no military merit whatsoever.

			== Italian Foreign Minister ==
	] 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
	:True. Also, 6 shells could not deviate altogether at a same time --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	: The Guardian still insist it was "Children among 19 killed by Israeli '''tank fire'''" while it was artillery fire. ] report that: "following the killing of 19 Palestinian civilians '''by errant shelling''' in Beit Hanun on Wednesday. Peretz also decided that from now on all artillery fire must be approved by GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant, or his superior officers." and that "The inquiry found that '''a technical problem in the artillery battery's radar, which was replaced just last week, was the cause of the errant fire'''. That explains the diversion of the shells and prooves it was an accident and not deliberate. ] 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	: P.S. The IDF uses an older M109A1 and not Paladin M109A6. ] 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			Why is the statement of Italy's Foreign Minister being moved to the lead - as opposed, say, to the statement of Russia's Foreign Minister? For that matter, why would the statement of ''any'' foreign minister belong in the lead? It almost looks as if the statement was placed there because it was the statement most prejudicial to Israel from any Western politician - but that couldn't possibly be the reason, so there must be some other explanation. Is Italy's foreign minister a known expert on Middle East affairs, or unusually famous in some way? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	NPOV policy requires that titles be Neutral. I have fixed this as per notation on WP:ANI. ] 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	: "Incident" is not neutral. There must be a better term to use between 'incident' which has connotations of a 'random act of God' or something totally unexpected, which when an army fires shells in the vicinty of civilians deaths can not be, and 'massacre' which implies a deliberately perpetrated mass killing. Shelling, killings, attack or something else like this has to fit the bill.] 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::"Massacre" is an utterly POV title. <font color="green">]</font> 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

			It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician (which makes it unusual in itself), but you were close. Russia's, on the other hand, is just one more run-of-the-mill bland plea to "both sides". I'm not privy to the minister's sources.
	Based on English Google, 'Massacre' outnumbers 'Incident' by a 1.6 margin. "Attack" is more common than either of those terms, and "Killing" is higher even. Incident seems like sugar-coating what the NPOV reality is in the English speaking world and press outside Misplaced Pages. Perhaps 'Killing' or 'Attack' is better? Thanks. ] 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Note that not all 'incident' google hit refer to this massacre. There are many incident happened in Beit Hanoun due to israeli invasion in gaza --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
	:: So you figured out that Googletest is inaccurate and the internet is POV, get yourself a medal. ←] <sup>]</sup> 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Am I reading this correctly, and you are saying that, almost exactly as ] surmised but incredulously rejected, that this statement was chosen because 'It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician'? If so, you should review ] carefully, before further editing any Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

	==Final warning==
	Ok, I've had enough of it. This article has been moved eight times in the eleven hours that it exists. The last three moves occurred in the space of twenty minutes. Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Since all editor except MathKnight agree, can we move it back to massacre now?
	::All editors - I think not all editors were consulated - so the answer is no. --] 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			You seem to have missed the thrust of my argument, Monkey.
	Beit Hanoun "incident"??? Is this a joke? Move it back to massacre. This title is extremely offensive to the victims.--] 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:You saw this warning, but chose to ignore it anyway. You have been blocked for 24 hours. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: By not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
	==Merge==

	Is ] a NPOV title? That article also has pictures, something this one lacks. --] 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
			:CM appears to have summed your argument up precisely, from my reading. But I'm interested to hear you rephrase why you've cherry-picked the Italian minister's statement, if CM hasn't in fact gotten the gist of it. ] 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


			Let me put it another way; the foreign minister of a leading NATO country accuses one of NATO's beneficiaries of deliberately using artillery on civilians. This statement doesn't require cherry-picking, it stands out like a sore thumb.

			] (]) 08:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
			:We also have the opinion of the US ambassador, not just 'a leading NATO country' , but "THE" leading NATO country. If the NATO relationship is the reason for including that quote, why wouldn't we include the US Ambassador's opinion, insetad of the Italian minister's? ] (]) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


			You fail to grasp its significance. The US ambassador is not accusing a NATO beneficiary of war crimes.

			] (]) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			:So did you pick it becuase it was the most accusatory, or not? ] (]) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


			Like I wrote above, it pretty much selected itself. Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?

			] (]) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Well no, it didn't "select itself", an editor had to select it for inclusion, over other reactions. You did not select it because it was from a noted authority on the topic, norbecause it was from a leading NATO member (if that was the criteria, the US reaction would have been a better choice), so why did you? It is increasingly looking like you chose it because it was the most prejudicial. ] (]) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			::It's looking that way because he admitted as much. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


			"Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?"

			] (]) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			:It doesn't excuse choosing a quotation simply because it was the most prejudicial to Israel. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

			== Disambiguations in quotations ==

			It's best not to place any disambiguation links in quotations, particularly contentious ones, because quotes should be exactly what an individual said, not what we think he meant. And, of course, disambigutations in general shouldn't lead to re-directs. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			Are you referring to my linking of Abbas' mention of the "occupation" to ]? What other occupation do you think he may have been alluding to? I take your point about leading to a redirect, I'm surprised doesn't have its own article yet. That may change, of course.

			] (]) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

			== Accurately representing sources ==

			Israel's U.N. representative specifically referred to the "incident in Beit Hanoun". Why is Lapsed Pacifist changing it to say "ninetennpeople killed at Beit Hanoun"? Aside from the punctuation error, it misrepresents what he said. Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he prefers this to a direct quote of the source? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			I'm delighted by your willingness to emulate the terminolgy of UN representatives, this bodes well. I apologise for the clumsy punctuation. I have no strong preference, to answer your last question.

			] (]) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Great, then we'll just quote what he said, rather than putting words in his mouth. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


			Cool.

			] (]) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Why, then do you continue to insert words into his mouth, and revert my quoting of him? ]<sup>]</sup> 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

			=="appeared to defend the massacre"==
			Lapsed Pacifist is inserting the claim that "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre". This claim appears to be ] ] which ] on the PMO's statement. Could Lapsed Pacifist please provide the source for this claim he is inserting? Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			That's not a defence of IDF tactics? How do you make that out? It seems pretty plain to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance.

			] (]) 15:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
			:A defense "of IDF tactics" is not the same as a defense of the "massacre". Surely you see the difference between those statements? ] (]) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


			Fair comment.

			] (]) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

			==Protest against government policies?==
			Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the claim that Israeli protests were "against government policies", rather than against the killings. Given the fact that the link itself is dead, can Lapsed Pacifist please explain the source for his claim? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			The policies led to the killings, no? I'm sure these groups didn't just decide IDF tactics maybe weren't all they were cracked up to be just because of Beit Hanoun.

			] (]) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

			:It's the sources that matter, not our opinions about what did or did not happen. ] 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


			Can you show us the opinion you are referring to?

			] (]) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			:Yes -- yours. ] 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


			Where is it?

			] (]) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			:In the article, when you said the protest was "against government policies". Please don't insert your personal opinions into articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

			==U.S. vote==
			Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording
			<blockquote>voted against by the ], which holds veto power, on grounds that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".</blockquote>
			to
			<blockquote>
			voted against solely by the ], which holds a ] under rules drawn up in the 1940s. The US claimed that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".</blockquote>
			What does the fact that the U.N. voting rules were drawn up in the 1940s have to do with this article? When China or the U.S.S.R. veto resolutions, must the articles discussing them always mention that the rules were drawn up in the 1940s? Also, regarding the changing of the wording to "claimed", please see ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			It's illustrative that these rules have been with us since the end of World War II, and perhaps not that well known. I'd be happy to accept similar educative additions to articles about Chinese and Soviet vetos. I take your point on the use of "claim".

			] (]) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
			:There's no need to bu "illustrative" in such a fashion. Simply link veto to ], and anyone interested can read the details on that article.


			Fair enough.

			] (]) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			=="Israel" vs. "the Israeli state"==
			Lapsed Pacifist has changed the word "Israel" to "the Israeli state". Could he please explain why he is using the lengthy ] for the name of the country? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			I disagree that this constitutes a pleonasm. For example, if a right-wing Israeli assasinated the prime minister of Israel, that could be interpreted as an attack on the Israeli state. That's not the same as saying the man "attacked Israel".

			] (]) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

			:The usage is redundant, and adds no meaning, and is also redundant. ] 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


			Redundant twice over, I'm blown away. Your argument doesn't even approach redundancy.

			] (]) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			:Do you have an actual point to make? If so, I'm all ears. ] 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
			:: Folks, please, can we adopt a more ] tone here? For best results, please keep comments focused on the actual article, thanks. --]]] 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
			:LP, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. What information does the phrase "the Israeli state" impart to this specific article, in this specific instance, that is not covered by the conventional term "Israel"? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


			Point taken.

			] (]) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

			== "huge" vs. "wide" margin ==

			Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording "wide margin" to "huge margin". Given the fact that the term "huge" is more emotive, can LP explain his reasoning for the change? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			"Huge", given the amount of states in the UN, is hardly emotive.

			] (]) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

			:I can think of no article where the word "huge" would be appropriate, unless it's in a quote. This is an encyclopedia, and the tone should reflect that. ] 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


			When one vote is in treble figures, and the other fails even to leave single figures, I can't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that's not a huge margin. But let me suggest we display the voting figures, and let the readers make up their own minds.

			] (]) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
			:"Wide margin" is encyclopedic. "Huge margin" is unprofessional. Please don't introduce unprofessional, emotive terminology again. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

			How did you come up with that?

			] (]) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Basic English. Please don't do it again, thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


			"Wide" is encyclopedic, "huge" is unprofessional? That doesn't sound like anything that would be taught to students of English. In fact, it sounds pretty subjective to me.

			] (]) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
			:: 33,000 Google scholar hits.
			:: 1,080 Google scholar hits.
			:All done here, I think. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


			I hope so, but it's a faint hope. Are the thousand scholars on my side also guilty of being, in your opinion, "unprofessional"?

			] (]) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
			:It turns out that "wide margin" is 33 times as scholarly as "huge margin". ]<sup>]</sup> 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


			It turns out those voting against Israel, the US, and whatever US vassals' aid budgets are up for review, are often more than 33 times the number. You're speaking in the general, Jay, I in the specific. It would be more accurate to say that wide margins are 33 times more likely to occur. No?

			] (]) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

			== Summary of Israel's MFA statement ==

			Lapsed Pacifist has replaced the statement by Israel's MFA with his ], which doesn't appear to capture the MFA's point, which was about distorted U.N. processes, not blaming Palestinian militants. Could he explain why he is doing this? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


			"Distorted UN processes"? There's no need to have such a large piece of apologist propaganda in the text, especially when it's already linked.

			] (]) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

			:The quote itself is more informative and useful than what briefly replaced it. ] 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
			::

			More informative, certainly, but that's not enough for inclusion. Not alone is it propaganda, its size gives it ].

			] (]) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			:In no case is it propaganda, for our purposes. It is possible the quote could be cut down, but your deletion of the quote in its entirety, and your unhelpful synopsis of that quote, aren't making the article better. ] 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


			Its dishonest railing against the democratic mechanisms of the UN is blatant propaganda. Would you like to offer us your synopsis?

			] (]) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			::Ah, so you recognize that the statement was actually about UN processes; why, then, did your summary address some entirely different point? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
			:There's no need to offer a synopsis or paraphrase, especially when you paraphrase has been challenged as inaccurate. We have the original quote, and we can use it. ] (]) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


			We can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean we should.

			] (]) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Indeed. One of the things we shouldn't be doing is inserting our biased paraphrases of statements, in a way that doesn't appear to capture the original meaning. Please discuss any proposed paraphrase here before inserting it, to make sure it has consensus. ] (]) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
			::Exactly so. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
			:::Use of the entire article from the MFA is almost certainly a breach of copyright. The "When quoting from the protected material etc" (ie a portion may be used, subject to their amazingly tight restrictions), "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." - which would appear to have been written to bar use of the whole thing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
			::::Good point. I've summarized it. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


			Cool.

			] (]) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

			== Introduction ==

			I changed the Introduction to give it a NPOV and to give the full perspective of the incident. The previous Intro takes Israel's statement as fact. As there was no sufficient investigation by independent organizations, and as the United Nations investigation suggests that the incident may have constituted a war crime due to the withholding of facts by the IDF, Israels version of the events may not necessarily be true. This has to addressed in the Introduction.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			:Source?--'']] ]'' 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/eaeae82c6c256519852574c5005427ce!OpenDocument Thats the source for the UN mission. Read points 72-80 in the Conclusion Section. Since this is the only independent investigation, and as you read the conclusions I hope you understand my taking issue with taking Israels statement as fact. No doubt the statement should be given credence, as the introduction does, but taking it as fact suggests an Israeli POV.
			I also referenced Palestinian rocket attacks, as the UN report immediately referenced those as well, right after its war crime conclusion.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			:Oh, please. We can't take seriously the idea that the Israeli highcommand were sitting around one random day and one guy piped up "Hey, let's drop a bomb on a bunch of Arabs and then say it was a mistake". Tutu is a known anti-Israel propagandist and his statements should not be taken seriously, especially when he's smarting over the fact that Israel told him to "go somewhere". Moreover, even if we were to accept his statement's seriously, there's nothing substantive being said. "It's possible that they're were war crimes". Everything is ''possible''. No indpendant investigation would say that it's ''impossible'' that no war crimes were committed. --'']] ]'' 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			::Nor do I believe that. If you want my opinion, I don't think this was a deliberate act of murder. However, that was the only independent investigation into the event. Now whatever Desmond Tutu's personal bias is, or whether or not it was included into the report, we cannot independently verify. Therefore, we have to assume that this was an independent and unbiased report, as it was authorized by the Director General of the UN General Assembly. The point is Israel did not provide the fact finding mission with the proof needed to absolve it of any crime, and therefore we can't say that Israel is completely free of guilt. And also, a war crime isn't the same thing as a massacre, which is the deliberate killing of civilians. By firing into the general direction of the opposing force, while disregarding that there might be civilians nearby, and add a potential guidance system failure; this can also constitute a war crime. This is why I linked to the Misplaced Pages article of War crime.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			:::At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense to quote their "conclusion" when they didn't investigate the whole thing. Everything is possible, it's always possible that every time people die it was a war crime. There's no reason to announce that it's possible that it was a war crime when there's no valid basis for this possibility, besides for the lack of investigation.--'']] ]'' 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

			::::It isn't that they didn't investigate the whole thing, it is that Israel didn't allow them to investigate. Isn't Misplaced Pages about verification of information? Their isn't a clear, and independently verified consensus about whether the incident was deliberate or incidental, and the intro should reflect that. How you wish to present that is your choice. I'm not going to change the introduction anymore, as you are more experienced and understand Misplaced Pages rules better than me, therefore, I will leave it to you; but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and take your actions accordingly. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Disturbing external links ==

			I was reading the article when I wondered which 32 countries voted for the UN report, so I clicked on the link(num. 19) citing this and saw a very disturbing picture of three dead bodies related to this subject. I know they're not hosted here on wikipedia, but I expect the external links to have the same decency as Misplaced Pages has. Can you please remove them or add a warning to the link?--] (]) 08:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
			:Although Misplaced Pages is generally not censored, I agree in this case that it warrants removal. The source is questionable and we can't be sure that the pics actually relate to the alleged incident.--'']] ]'' 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

			== Copyright problem removed ==

			One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6127250.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences'' or ''phrases''. Accordingly, the material ''may'' be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

			== Dead link ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061108/wl_afp/mideastconflict_061108122037
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:12:41, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 2 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaun
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:12:51, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 3 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/2a61b680d2f3be9d852573e700539e3b!OpenDocument
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:01, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 4 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/d83c963115ea66ad8525723c00728578!OpenDocument
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:11, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 5 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/73d6eb7043cc08c785257305005049de!OpenDocument
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:27, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 6 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/document.do?id=ENGMDE150872006%20
			** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:42, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Dead link 7 ==

			During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

			* https://zzzen.secured.co.il/sites/gush/home/en/events/1163038715/
			** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:01, 404 Not Found
			** In ] on 2011-06-26 05:36:19, 404 Not Found

			--] (]) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 9 November 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 8, 2019 and November 8, 2024.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1: November 2006
Archive 2: November 2006 - March 2007

List of Victims

What do people think about including a lst of victims' names in this article?
There are some prior examples of this, e.g.Kent State Shootings, Bloody Sunday (1972), the Jerusalem bus 2 massacre or the Columbine High School massacre. Another even more relevant example may be the Gaza beach blast.
QmunkE pointed out the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL when I initially added the names, and referred to the discussion on the Omagh bombing, in which it was eventually decided not to include the list of victims. I am not connected in any way with the victims of this blast, which appears to be what the above policy is targeted at, and I do believe that the list of victims should be included. It was the death of these people that made this a noteworthy incident, doesn't that make them noteworthy?
The list of victims can be found at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=1 It's a bit of a wade through to find, but they are clearly listed. B'Tselem's reports have been criticised by the IDF but not on their numbers, only on definitions of combatants vs non-combantants, which is hardly an issues in this case. Puddleman 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cover-up of a massacre

When Hezbollah kills civilians with inadequate munitions in this fashion, it will be called a massacre - why are Palestinians not given the same decency?

It's not as if even Israelis weren't horrified - see what they read on this subject - "No one is guilty in Israel" - "Nineteen inhabitants of Beit Hanun were killed with malice aforethought. There is no other way of describing the circumstances of their killing. Someone who throws burning matches into a forest can't claim he didn't mean to set it on fire, and anyone who bombards residential neighborhoods with artillery can't claim he didn't mean to kill innocent inhabitants. Therefore it takes considerable gall and cynicism to dare to claim that the Israel Defense Forces did not intend to kill inhabitants of Beit Hanun. Even if there was a glitch in the balancing of the aiming mechanism or in a component of the radar, a mistake in the input of the data or a human error, the overwhelming, crucial, shocking fact is that the IDF bombards helpless civilians. Even shells that are supposedly aimed 200 meters from houses, into "open areas," are intended to kill, and they do kill. In this respect, nothing new happened on Wednesday morning in Gaza: The IDF has been behaving like this for months now." PR 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything to add, Jay?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

i worked through logs. it seems like there were quite a few move wars and attempts on the article, and a status quo was reached with 'incident'. it survived for almost two years until you brought it back up again. no new material surfaced to substantiate the claim that it was intentional, and a newspaper polemicist article is definitely not proof. i think that further trying to push this point of view will result in nothing more than a moveprotect. 80.179.69.194 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Incident" leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, considering the consequences, although I see the problem with "massacre" when intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the redirects is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun, which I reckon strikes a good balance. What do you think?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's no logical objection, I'll move the article there.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is dispute about the move, it is best not to move it yourself. I recommend filing a request at WP:RM. --El on ka 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The same month that you moved the article to "massacre", User:Imad marie moved over a dozen articles about massacres of Israelis to the titles which removed the word. I'm fine with the title "2006 Beit Hanoun shelling". Jayjg 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Move wars

The yanking back and forth of this article must stop. See WP:RM. If a move is controversial, then build consensus for a move on the talkpage, otherwise leave the page at its original title. --El on ka 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, this article is under the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As an uninvolved administrator, I have wide latitude in restrictions that I can place on the article, as well as discretionary sanctions on the involved editors. So please, stop with the edit-warring, and discuss differences at the talkpage. --El on ka 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian Foreign Minister

Why is the statement of Italy's Foreign Minister being moved to the lead - as opposed, say, to the statement of Russia's Foreign Minister? For that matter, why would the statement of any foreign minister belong in the lead? It almost looks as if the statement was placed there because it was the statement most prejudicial to Israel from any Western politician - but that couldn't possibly be the reason, so there must be some other explanation. Is Italy's foreign minister a known expert on Middle East affairs, or unusually famous in some way? Jayjg 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician (which makes it unusual in itself), but you were close. Russia's, on the other hand, is just one more run-of-the-mill bland plea to "both sides". I'm not privy to the minister's sources.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly, and you are saying that, almost exactly as Jayjg surmised but incredulously rejected, that this statement was chosen because 'It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician'? If so, you should review Wp:NPOV carefully, before further editing any Misplaced Pages article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the thrust of my argument, Monkey.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

CM appears to have summed your argument up precisely, from my reading. But I'm interested to hear you rephrase why you've cherry-picked the Italian minister's statement, if CM hasn't in fact gotten the gist of it. IronDuke 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way; the foreign minister of a leading NATO country accuses one of NATO's beneficiaries of deliberately using artillery on civilians. This statement doesn't require cherry-picking, it stands out like a sore thumb.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We also have the opinion of the US ambassador, not just 'a leading NATO country' , but "THE" leading NATO country. If the NATO relationship is the reason for including that quote, why wouldn't we include the US Ambassador's opinion, insetad of the Italian minister's? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You fail to grasp its significance. The US ambassador is not accusing a NATO beneficiary of war crimes.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So did you pick it becuase it was the most accusatory, or not? Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, it pretty much selected itself. Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no, it didn't "select itself", an editor had to select it for inclusion, over other reactions. You did not select it because it was from a noted authority on the topic, norbecause it was from a leading NATO member (if that was the criteria, the US reaction would have been a better choice), so why did you? It is increasingly looking like you chose it because it was the most prejudicial. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's looking that way because he admitted as much. Jayjg 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?"

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse choosing a quotation simply because it was the most prejudicial to Israel. Jayjg 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguations in quotations

It's best not to place any disambiguation links in quotations, particularly contentious ones, because quotes should be exactly what an individual said, not what we think he meant. And, of course, disambigutations in general shouldn't lead to re-directs. Jayjg 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to my linking of Abbas' mention of the "occupation" to Israeli occupation? What other occupation do you think he may have been alluding to? I take your point about leading to a redirect, I'm surprised doesn't have its own article yet. That may change, of course.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Accurately representing sources

Israel's U.N. representative specifically referred to the "incident in Beit Hanoun". Why is Lapsed Pacifist changing it to say "ninetennpeople killed at Beit Hanoun"? Aside from the punctuation error, it misrepresents what he said. Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he prefers this to a direct quote of the source? Jayjg 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted by your willingness to emulate the terminolgy of UN representatives, this bodes well. I apologise for the clumsy punctuation. I have no strong preference, to answer your last question.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, then we'll just quote what he said, rather than putting words in his mouth. Jayjg 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, then do you continue to insert words into his mouth, and revert my quoting of him? Jayjg 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"appeared to defend the massacre"

Lapsed Pacifist is inserting the claim that "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre". This claim appears to be unsourced original research which places a pejorative interpretation on the PMO's statement. Could Lapsed Pacifist please provide the source for this claim he is inserting? Thanks. Jayjg 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a defence of IDF tactics? How do you make that out? It seems pretty plain to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A defense "of IDF tactics" is not the same as a defense of the "massacre". Surely you see the difference between those statements? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Protest against government policies?

Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the claim that Israeli protests were "against government policies", rather than against the killings. Given the fact that the link itself is dead, can Lapsed Pacifist please explain the source for his claim? Jayjg 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The policies led to the killings, no? I'm sure these groups didn't just decide IDF tactics maybe weren't all they were cracked up to be just because of Beit Hanoun.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the sources that matter, not our opinions about what did or did not happen. IronDuke 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you show us the opinion you are referring to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- yours. IronDuke 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the article, when you said the protest was "against government policies". Please don't insert your personal opinions into articles. Jayjg 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. vote

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording

voted against by the United States, which holds veto power, on grounds that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".

voted against solely by the United States, which holds a veto under rules drawn up in the 1940s. The US claimed that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".

What does the fact that the U.N. voting rules were drawn up in the 1940s have to do with this article? When China or the U.S.S.R. veto resolutions, must the articles discussing them always mention that the rules were drawn up in the 1940s? Also, regarding the changing of the wording to "claimed", please see Misplaced Pages:WTA#Claim. Jayjg 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's illustrative that these rules have been with us since the end of World War II, and perhaps not that well known. I'd be happy to accept similar educative additions to articles about Chinese and Soviet vetos. I take your point on the use of "claim".

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to bu "illustrative" in such a fashion. Simply link veto to UN Security Council Veto Power, and anyone interested can read the details on that article.

Fair enough.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israel" vs. "the Israeli state"

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the word "Israel" to "the Israeli state". Could he please explain why he is using the lengthy pleonasm for the name of the country? Jayjg 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this constitutes a pleonasm. For example, if a right-wing Israeli assasinated the prime minister of Israel, that could be interpreted as an attack on the Israeli state. That's not the same as saying the man "attacked Israel".

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The usage is redundant, and adds no meaning, and is also redundant. IronDuke 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant twice over, I'm blown away. Your argument doesn't even approach redundancy.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual point to make? If so, I'm all ears. IronDuke 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please, can we adopt a more civil tone here? For best results, please keep comments focused on the actual article, thanks. --El on ka 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LP, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. What information does the phrase "the Israeli state" impart to this specific article, in this specific instance, that is not covered by the conventional term "Israel"? Jayjg 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"huge" vs. "wide" margin

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording "wide margin" to "huge margin". Given the fact that the term "huge" is more emotive, can LP explain his reasoning for the change? Jayjg 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Huge", given the amount of states in the UN, is hardly emotive.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can think of no article where the word "huge" would be appropriate, unless it's in a quote. This is an encyclopedia, and the tone should reflect that. IronDuke 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When one vote is in treble figures, and the other fails even to leave single figures, I can't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that's not a huge margin. But let me suggest we display the voting figures, and let the readers make up their own minds.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wide margin" is encyclopedic. "Huge margin" is unprofessional. Please don't introduce unprofessional, emotive terminology again. Thanks. Jayjg 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How did you come up with that?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Basic English. Please don't do it again, thanks. Jayjg 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Wide" is encyclopedic, "huge" is unprofessional? That doesn't sound like anything that would be taught to students of English. In fact, it sounds pretty subjective to me.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"wide margin": 33,000 Google scholar hits.

"huge margin": 1,080 Google scholar hits.

All done here, I think. Jayjg 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, but it's a faint hope. Are the thousand scholars on my side also guilty of being, in your opinion, "unprofessional"?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that "wide margin" is 33 times as scholarly as "huge margin". Jayjg 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out those voting against Israel, the US, and whatever US vassals' aid budgets are up for review, are often more than 33 times the number. You're speaking in the general, Jay, I in the specific. It would be more accurate to say that wide margins are 33 times more likely to occur. No?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Israel's MFA statement

Lapsed Pacifist has replaced the statement by Israel's MFA with his own summary, which doesn't appear to capture the MFA's point, which was about distorted U.N. processes, not blaming Palestinian militants. Could he explain why he is doing this? Jayjg 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Distorted UN processes"? There's no need to have such a large piece of apologist propaganda in the text, especially when it's already linked.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote itself is more informative and useful than what briefly replaced it. IronDuke 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

More informative, certainly, but that's not enough for inclusion. Not alone is it propaganda, its size gives it undue weight.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In no case is it propaganda, for our purposes. It is possible the quote could be cut down, but your deletion of the quote in its entirety, and your unhelpful synopsis of that quote, aren't making the article better. IronDuke 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Its dishonest railing against the democratic mechanisms of the UN is blatant propaganda. Would you like to offer us your synopsis?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you recognize that the statement was actually about UN processes; why, then, did your summary address some entirely different point? Jayjg 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to offer a synopsis or paraphrase, especially when you paraphrase has been challenged as inaccurate. We have the original quote, and we can use it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean we should.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the things we shouldn't be doing is inserting our biased paraphrases of statements, in a way that doesn't appear to capture the original meaning. Please discuss any proposed paraphrase here before inserting it, to make sure it has consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the entire article from the MFA is almost certainly a breach of copyright. The MFA says "When quoting from the protected material etc" (ie a portion may be used, subject to their amazingly tight restrictions), but they also say "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." - which would appear to have been written to bar use of the whole thing. PR 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've summarized it. Jayjg 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I changed the Introduction to give it a NPOV and to give the full perspective of the incident. The previous Intro takes Israel's statement as fact. As there was no sufficient investigation by independent organizations, and as the United Nations investigation suggests that the incident may have constituted a war crime due to the withholding of facts by the IDF, Israels version of the events may not necessarily be true. This has to addressed in the Introduction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)

Source?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/eaeae82c6c256519852574c5005427ce!OpenDocument Thats the source for the UN mission. Read points 72-80 in the Conclusion Section. Since this is the only independent investigation, and as you read the conclusions I hope you understand my taking issue with taking Israels statement as fact. No doubt the statement should be given credence, as the introduction does, but taking it as fact suggests an Israeli POV. I also referenced Palestinian rocket attacks, as the UN report immediately referenced those as well, right after its war crime conclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)

Oh, please. We can't take seriously the idea that the Israeli highcommand were sitting around one random day and one guy piped up "Hey, let's drop a bomb on a bunch of Arabs and then say it was a mistake". Tutu is a known anti-Israel propagandist and his statements should not be taken seriously, especially when he's smarting over the fact that Israel told him to "go somewhere". Moreover, even if we were to accept his statement's seriously, there's nothing substantive being said. "It's possible that they're were war crimes". Everything is possible. No indpendant investigation would say that it's impossible that no war crimes were committed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I believe that. If you want my opinion, I don't think this was a deliberate act of murder. However, that was the only independent investigation into the event. Now whatever Desmond Tutu's personal bias is, or whether or not it was included into the report, we cannot independently verify. Therefore, we have to assume that this was an independent and unbiased report, as it was authorized by the Director General of the UN General Assembly. The point is Israel did not provide the fact finding mission with the proof needed to absolve it of any crime, and therefore we can't say that Israel is completely free of guilt. And also, a war crime isn't the same thing as a massacre, which is the deliberate killing of civilians. By firing into the general direction of the opposing force, while disregarding that there might be civilians nearby, and add a potential guidance system failure; this can also constitute a war crime. This is why I linked to the Misplaced Pages article of War crime.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)

At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense to quote their "conclusion" when they didn't investigate the whole thing. Everything is possible, it's always possible that every time people die it was a war crime. There's no reason to announce that it's possible that it was a war crime when there's no valid basis for this possibility, besides for the lack of investigation.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that they didn't investigate the whole thing, it is that Israel didn't allow them to investigate. Isn't Misplaced Pages about verification of information? Their isn't a clear, and independently verified consensus about whether the incident was deliberate or incidental, and the intro should reflect that. How you wish to present that is your choice. I'm not going to change the introduction anymore, as you are more experienced and understand Misplaced Pages rules better than me, therefore, I will leave it to you; but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and take your actions accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.125.5 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing external links

I was reading the article when I wondered which 32 countries voted for the UN report, so I clicked on the link(num. 19) citing this and saw a very disturbing picture of three dead bodies related to this subject. I know they're not hosted here on wikipedia, but I expect the external links to have the same decency as Misplaced Pages has. Can you please remove them or add a warning to the link?--77.127.144.149 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Misplaced Pages is generally not censored, I agree in this case that it warrants removal. The source is questionable and we can't be sure that the pics actually relate to the alleged incident.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6127250.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)