Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 14 November 2006

Title

In its short existence, this article has already been moved twice three 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. Aecis 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer massacre. Since it was apparently deliberate, killing many civilians, and widely called so--Nielswik_(talk) 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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. MathKnight 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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.--Burgas00 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants - well, you admit the IDF targeted militants who used civilians as human shield. Hence, not a massacre. MathKnight 21:01, 8 November B2006 (UTC)

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."

To MathKnight please read some articles...This is take from the Guardian:

"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."

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

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.

Call it what it is, killing an innocennt family in their home with artillery? This is a massacre, better yet war-crime...

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... 203.134.146.126 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

"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 tank was around miles away. According to Haaretz: "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 Ed Huminem show that you have nothing but hatred at your side. MathKnight 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Massacre - whether deliberate or not. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Massacre must be deliberate. Accident is no massacre. MathKnight 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

yes the grenades were exploded by accident --TheFEARgod (Ч) 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.

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.Puddleman 03:07, 9 November 2006 (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,

--Nielswik_(talk) 04:58, 9 November 2006 (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?

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. 210.50.228.5 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

Stop use Ed Huminem arguments. It is a violation of Wiki-ettiquete.MathKnight 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I vote for massacre --Nielswik_(talk) 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You can vote that the earth is flat, but unless there is an evidence that the tragedy was deliberate, this will stay as incident. ←Humus sapiens 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The militants was a mile away, Israel's shell could't have missed that far --Nielswik_(talk) 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. MathKnight 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. --Striver 12:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Normal" deviation was 200-300 meters --Nielswik_(talk) 14:52, 9 November 2006 (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

LOOK PLEASE:

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

210.50.228.5 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

True. Also, 6 shells could not deviate altogether at a same time --Nielswik_(talk) 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. Haaretz 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. MathKnight 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The IDF uses an older M109A1 and not Paladin M109A6. MathKnight 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy requires that titles be Neutral. I have fixed this as per notation on WP:ANI. RunedChozo 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.Puddleman 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Massacre" is an utterly POV title. IronDuke 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If the event was an isolated incident, maybe. But it wasn't, was it? Analogy: if you shoot me, and there was no prior engagement between us, it is a reasonable proposition for you to claim that an accident has occurred and a name like "ironduke/mdf shooting accident" would be assigned. But if we were neighbors, with a long, bitter, history between us, including violence, and you then shot me, I'd have to be a complete idiot to believe your after-the-fact apologetics "oh dear, an accident, sorry!". Especially if these "accidents" appear to be a semi-regular feature of the relationship. An accident is possible, but the prior virtually excludes it from the outset. "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence." (etc) mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Qana massacre -- the accurate description of what occurred that day at that spot -- redirects to Qana shelling. Why? Well, it appears simply because "massacre" lost the "google test" (see below). Or, equivalently, because the recipients of the shells are not as well insinuated into the mainstream media as the people who fired them. Personally, I feel a massive, overwhelming benefit of the doubt be given to the victims. They took the hit, they get the right to name the event. If it's an inappropriate name, let the shame be on their heads. If the people who are firing these guns don't like the names being assigned, maybe they can be more careful with their toys. If they have any apologies to make (see above, "radar problem, so sorry!"), they can be described in the article, not in the title. But this is almost certainly a minority view. Google on! mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Kiyosaki 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 --Nielswik_(talk) 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So you figured out that Googletest is inaccurate and the internet is POV, get yourself a medal. ←Humus sapiens 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the internet, it's the control of information. The Misplaced Pages model is based on open access to all information (aka "science"), which simply can not work for a war-zone situation, where all parties are keen (to the point of lethal force) to control and dominate the information landscape. So rather than rename this article, I suggest it be deleted on the grounds it is basically a vehicle for propaganda. If not that, move it to wikinews, where it honestly belongs. And if still not that, then simply accept that there is no way to obtain a NPOV result re: it's title, and just make a sensible executive decision and stick with it. As I note above, I think preference should be given to the opinions of those whose blood is spilled, instead of those who have the most money. mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a tragedy no doubt, but why would we promote moral equivalence? ←Humus sapiens 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean 'moral equivalence'? The kassams claimed to be the reason for this shelling killed NO ONE and haven't for over a year. The IDF and its apologists should be wishing for moral equivalance. Puddleman 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He means that the recipients of the shells have no right to characterize the event if the senders have clean hands. As I explained, it is not possible to tell who has or has not clean hands in the Middle East (or any other war-zone), so the objection is spurious. Morality is fixed by actions, not intent. In the instant case, Misplaced Pages probably needs to build a simple, unambiguous name-generator for situations like this -- shock of shocks: this won't be the last one! Alternatively, it can engage in days of of fractious bickering every time Something Bad happens in Tel Aviv or Gaza. Have fun! mdf 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Eating your lunch can be an incident, walking your dog is an incident, and incident is any random occurence. ANYTHING could be called an incident, but we usually figure out better ways to describe things than call them "random occurences". If massacre is still too POV for some people, although I have to say in this case it would an appropriate title, what about Killing? Or even Shelling, ANYTHING that actually describes this event.

There could have been tons of "incidents" in Beit Hanoun in November, the November 2006 Incident is really too vague and unimaginative for a wikipedia artice. I suggest if people think massacre is too POV, then at least Shelling or Killing. Can't we just have a proper vote already and get this sorted, this is ridiculous, people have been arguing for days now. Come on just vote already.

210.50.228.5 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

Massacre is not NPOV, so let's forget about that. "incident" seems fine to me - it doesn't necessarily mean random, it certainly doesn't mean "Act of God", since there is no god. "Killing" seems ungrammatical. "Attack" implies intent, which can only be speculated about and is not NPOV. Doesn't anyone have a thesaurus? There must be loads of other words we could also argue about.

As for the person who wanted the whole thing deleted, nope - an encyclopaedia is the place for an article which answers the question "What happened at Beit Hanoun in November 2006?" That said, if this was one incident in the Shelling of November 2006, it should be a subsection of that article. I know you wikipedians are obsessed with the number of articles in the English Wiki, but don't artificially split stuff off just to add one more to the total.

If it is to stay separate, I agree with the above comment to come up with a naming standard for events like this. How about this - do a survey of the naming scheme of other wiki articles on other incidents and see how other less-contentious issues have been named, then go with that.

Or how about "Incident of XX November 2006" - that is, specify the exact date, to differentiate from incidents that didn't lead to a complaint to the UN and yet another US veto in the UNSC.

Oh, and for MathKnight, who said earlier "IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants - well, you admit the IDF targeted militants who used civilians as human shield. Hence, not a massacre." - I don't get this; if the IDF knew there were civilians being used as shields and they fired anyway, then that's a massacre AND a war crime. I think I must have missed your point.198.142.5.126 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Fourth Geneva Convention (Part 3, Article 1, Section 28): “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations”. ←Humus sapiens 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you hear? The Gevena Conventions only apply when they can be used to say bad things about those Evil Joos! RunedChozo 21:37, 13 November 2006 (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. Aecis 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. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun "incident"??? Is this a joke? Move it back to massacre. This title is extremely offensive to the victims.--Burgas00 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You saw this warning, but chose to ignore it anyway. You have been blocked for 24 hours. Aecis 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior. ←Humus sapiens 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun a NPOV title? That article also has pictures, something this one lacks. --Striver 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we have more gory pictures, to show how bloodthirsty those Joos Zionists really are. Striclty for NPOV. ←Humus sapiens 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you implying? We should have an article about the event, withouth actually describing it? --Striver 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We can have a descriptive article without resorting to copyvio. The images you have uploaded do not even remotely qualify as fair use. Beit Or 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare to:

• Image:Askari reaction.jpg
• Image:Beforesmarraafter.jpg
• Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png
• Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png
• Image:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png
• Image:Israeli Forest Fire (2006).png
• Image:Economist Cover 20060819.jpg
• Image:Qana04.jpg
• Image:Qana idf video s.jpg
• Image:54492.jpg
• Image:Summerains.jpg
• Image:Gaza-tanks.jpg
• Image:Idf-arrests.jpg
• Image:53628.jpg
• Image:Gaza-supplies.jpg

Or any of the pictures at 2005 Bali bombings. I have a hard time assuming your comment was in good faith. --Striver 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can use lengthy lists, why can't I? From Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Images:

There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Misplaced Pages has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Misplaced Pages articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.

• Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Misplaced Pages:Logos.
• Stamps and currency. For identification.
• Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
• Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
• Screenshots from software products. For critical commentary.
• Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
• Publicity photos. For identification and critical commentary. See Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos.

Into which category do your images fall? Furthermore, if you consult Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Counterexamples, you'll find a nice example of images that do not qualify as fair use: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." These photos are not newsworthy by themsleves, they only illustrate a newsworthy event. And, yes, Striver, nothing exempts you from assuming good faith. Beit Or 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that your argumentation would demand the deletion of _all_ the pictures i linked to, the conclusion is that either is your interpretation wrong, or the problem is on a procedural scale and it would be wrong to single out a single article. Just take a look at Image:Pentagon precollapse.jpg--Striver 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote

The best solution is voting. The vote will be open till tomorrow 17:30 GMT (EST+5), all votes after that time will not be counted, u can only vote once. Robin Hood 1212 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Voting is definately not the best solution. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to supply an original analysis of Israel's intentions here. "Massacre" is an absolutely POV term which is not employed unless intention is acknowledged. I suggest you all review Talk:1996 shelling of Qana so as to avoid repeating the same discussion. Tewfik 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The first lines of 1996 shelling of Qana seems NPOV and acceptable. --Striver 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Twentyfour hours is a ridiculously short period for such a discussion/vote. How can you expect substantial and representative editor input in such a short period, particularly in view of the fact that you don't seem to have left any notice at messageboards, wikiprojects etc. that this discussion/vote is taking place? Aecis 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

'Killings' but if it's a straight 'massacre' vs 'incident', i vote 'massacre'.Puddleman 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Incident - It should remain incident for the time being at least until the investigation is completed. --PiMaster3 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Massacre. "Mechanical failure"... yeah... --Striver 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian and the BBC are referring to it as an incident. --PiMaster3 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Incident -- massacre is against naming conventions in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history. -- Kendrick7 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this against the naming conventions? The relevant part as far as I could see was An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (e.g. Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" (where X and Y are the locations of the operations). Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care. By having this discussion we are taking care.Puddleman 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And if we're going to use the 'most common name used to refer to the event' as per naming conventions, a quick google search showed 23000 hits for 'Beit Hanoun Massacre" and 796 for "Beit Hanoun Incident".Puddleman 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy you really need to review the naming convention article if you believe what you're saying . Amoruso 10:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What you've said looks very much like a breach of WP:AGF. PalestineRemembered 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Massacre, definately.

210.50.228.5 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

• It is a massacre. It was indiscriminate killing due to either EXTREME negligence (the rockets had been fired a day before, no intelligence stated that rockets were continuing to be fired) or simple malice. No militants were killed. It was a massacre, and calling it an "incident" is a shameful exposure of bias for calling Israeli suicide bombing attacks as such and not this.

71.131.134.55 08:06, November 12 2006 (UTC)

I guess I won't know when 1730 UTC is until I post this entry, but with all due respect, what the BBC and the Guardian call it isn't really relevant. Haaretz is referring to "Shelling of Beit Hanoun", so that would be more in line with the rules quoted by Puddleman above.

Google searches are also not really relevant, since I'm pretty sure Google is biased towards English language sources, and neither of the parties speak English as a first language.

I vote for "incident" as per the third entry in the Webster dictionary, since this got referred to the UN which makes it an "international diplomatic incident". 198.142.5.126 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Massacre. if not, killing. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Incident obviously, but this obviously won't be determined by this short timed vote. Look up massacre in the dictionary and you'll see it's a cruel or wanton murder. This was obviously no murder. It should actually be Accident. And the article itself should probably be deleted. Part of a military campaign - not any event should be listed. Amoruso 10:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Massacre - assuming WP still uses the English language. The killing of 5 people on the streets of Boston by British soldiers in March 5, 1770 is classified in WP as Boston Massacre. It would be a travesty to call the firing of modern tank-shells into the homes of innocent people, killing at least 18, anything other than a massacre. PalestineRemembered 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. The Boston Massacre involved the British lining people up and deliberately shooting civilians. This was an incident in which civilians died as a result of equipment failure, when terrorists were the intended target. RunedChozo 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Massacre: I would also support Killings as a consensus version.--Burgas00 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened a vote because democracy should be an option.

Killing gets: 2 Massacre gets: 6 Incident gets: 4

I counted the last vote becuz incident and massacre were equal. Robin Hood 1212 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Our opinions don't alter our responsibility to maintain neutrality. Tewfik 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

However the Massacre's side arguments are strong. I think we have to call an admin to move this. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm loving how our muslim POV pushers guild keep doing this crap and getting away with it all the time. RunedChozo 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By definition, the arguments that try question Israel's assertion that it was nonintentional ("Mechanical failure"... yeah...;indiscriminate killing due to either EXTREME negligence or simple malice) are at minimum original research, and the article's name is the last place for holding such a discussion. I suggest a neutral formulation similar to the one used at 1996 shelling of Qana, ie describing the event without a moral judgment (thus neither "accident" nor "massacre" would be appropriate). Cheers, Tewfik 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that there is now enough distance from the recent move war for me to put my $.02 worth in. Before I do so, I would like to emphasize that I'm saying this as an editor, not as an admin. My actions as an admin regarding this article have nothing to do with this message/vote. I feel that Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (policy) trumps Misplaced Pages:Consensus (guideline). Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus vs. other policies would apply: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." In other words, it is more important to be neutral than to do what the majority in this poll wants. As Tewfik has said, wikipedia is not a democracy. I also agree with what he said about incident and massacre. Either word would be our interpretation of what happened. Both versions need to be addressed in the article, but should be avoided in the title. I therefore suggest going with Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. It has all the relevant facts in the title (Who? What? Where?) without passing a judgement. I think we can all agree that what happened was a shelling of Beit Hanoun. Whether that shelling constituted an incident or a massacre is the dispute.Aecis 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are getting there. The next step is to realize that "shelling" is just as much a whitewash as "incident" is. The end-game is to realize there is no NPOV title of this article: anything that doesn't directly refer to the fact that 19 people were killed in their own homes will be challenged by one side as a lie of omission, and anything that does directly reference this fact will be challenged by the other as pernicious propaganda. The contents of the article are just as non-NPOVable, since it will simply be a "he says, she says" affair beyond the single sentence that describes what happened. As I expected back on Friday, this entire "discussion" is basically descending into the two factions sniping at each other, with no productive work being done. I'll re-state my advice:

Delete the article as non-encyclopedic at this time. If no NPOV title can exist, then it's likely that neither can an article. Move it to wikinews and be done with it (no NPOV, no NOR, etc). Maybe all these rhetorical snipers will follow along.

If not possible, if a POV article must exist, then simply make up a naming scheme for sitations like this and apply it mercilessly across the board. I strongly suggest a bias towards the victims, but any bias will do. The point is to state the bias and declare the reasons why it exists (to wit: so people will use WP to create content, not to serve as yet another information battlefield).

Particularly, it needs to be clearly stated that if the "we just follow the mainstream media" approach is taken, that this does lead to a natural bias that is not intrinsically "neutral", and worse, tends to lean towards the position that is better represented in that forum. mdf 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a perfect example of how Misplaced Pages fucks up, when a bunch of POV pushers decide they want to make an article sound as nasty as possible towards the Jews they hate so much. NotAWeasel 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say it openly: I think that the muslim pov-pushers guild is doing a great disservice to Misplaced Pages by trying to POV the hell out of this article. That means "Robin Hood", "Nielswik", "Striver" (and yes, I'm fully aware that the holy-war term jihad is usually translated as "to strive") and the rest.

It may be incivil of me, but I don't care, I need to say what I think, and I do not think ANY of you are acting in good faith here. RunedChozo 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim POV pushers? I dont know if anyone in this discussion is Muslim. Quite a few are Israeli. In any case it seems that only the occuppiers have a right to "self-defence" whereas those who are being occupied and getting killed (hundreds over the past months) must keep quiet lest they be branded terrorists or jihadists. Lets keep neutral. Israel killed around 1000 civilians last July in Lebanon. Maybe they were all "accidents" or "mistakes" in the language of the IDF, but when you bomb the hell out of a country you know civilians are going to get killed. The same goes for Palestine. Shelling heavily populated areas ammounts to a massacre as one can reasonably predict that there will be civilian casualties. In a court of law, murder requires intention to kill or moral certainty that death will result from our actions in the case of oblique intention. The same should apply to the IDF's operations. --Burgas00 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For Striver, Robin Hood, etc all I had to do was to look at their user pages to see what guild they belong to and their bias. For you, oh ye of horrid bad faith action, I doublechecked your contributions and what do I find? POV pushing on islam-related topics everywhere. Your bias is noted, your bad faith doubly so. I suggest you take a long break and come back only when you are willing to edit wikipedia with NPOV policies in mind and when you actually understand them. RunedChozo 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Incident definitely cannot stay. Some form of limited consensus must be found. If massacre (which I believe is the correct term) will not be accepted by the Israeli wikipedians, I propose "Killings".--Burgas00 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your bad faith is showing: now you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being Israeli. RunedChozo 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Amoruso is overtly Israeli and very much a nationalist (see his user page), and you, I can only assume you are Israeli or pro-Israeli since you are offended by the fact that killing Palestinian women and children in their sleep is called a "massacre". Only someone who is strongly one-sided and emotional about the Arab Israeli-conflict could have so little regard for human life.--Burgas00 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am offended by your obvious bias; I condemn the death of innocents but recognize that they wouldn't have died if the Palestinian terrorist groups weren't playing games, claiming Hamas was in a "cease fire" while they lobbed missiles DELIBERATELY at civilian centers under an assumed name. I recognize that incidents like Palestinian national radio calling for civilian shields to protect terrorists from being captured, and trying to sneak them out under a group of burkha-clad women and then bitching when the women were wounded as the terrorists were found out, are rampant disregard of ALL portions of the Geneva Conventions by the terrorists who run the Palestinian society. And I absolutely am outraged anyone like you who has so little disregard for human life that you can blither on about only one side of this, while the terrorists blatantly ignore the Geneva Conventions even while their supporters like you bitch and moan every time the Israeli army, the most handcuffed army in the world, winds up hitting the civilians instead of the terrorists who were hiding in their basement. RunedChozo 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complicated. 50 years of occupation does tend to breed hatred and terrorism. And this hatred is not restricted to Muslim Palestinians. Christian Palestinians feel pretty much the same way. I see that you do have strong feelings on the issue. Maybe Israel should just pull out of the occupied territories and just let these people live with dignity in their own land. It would make life easier for everyone. --Burgas00 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. You can't bother to thread your responses properly, and by "occupied territories" I presume you mean the ones listed on the Hamas flag, that exclude the existence of Israel at all? You're a real laugh riot. I have strong feelings anytime I see someone trying to justify using "civilians" as human shields to wage a genocidal war, just as I have strong feelings about any army that deliberately targets civilians (which is I will note NOT what the IDF does, but what Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of the terrorists do on a daily basis). RunedChozo 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't really judge any party to the conflict, but especially not the Palestinians. I am not living under occupation, a foreigner in my own land, under the constant threat of violence, with no right to travel freely, and with tanks firing outside my house. I don't know if I would resort to violence. If there was the slightest chance of finding a just peace, probably not. In any case, Misplaced Pages is not a soap box. Lets simply try to find consensus in good faith here despite our differences of opinion.--Burgas00 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you live with "shelling" as a compromise, instead of "massacre" or "incident"? Aecis 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Provided that there is not a merge with the despicable POV fork Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun, perhaps. There are plenty of ways for Burgas and his friends to try to POV an article, though, and their conduct has given me reason to question their good faith: AGF only goes so far before you're being an idiot. RunedChozo 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask anyone who is pro-Israeli, and they will accept anything that makes no reference to the deaths. Ask the other side, and they will demand a reference to the deaths. And frankly, who the hell are we to make "compromises" here? If we are making up names as we go along, we should at least have the intellectual honesty to (a) admit what is going on and (b) apply the rule consistently. If neither of these are acceptable practices, then I assert the article should not exist at all. mdf 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel acknowleged deaths and admitted mistake. Unfortunately, such tragedies take place in every war. I find the vote absurd and refuse to take part in it. ←Humus sapiens 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey RunedChozo, by ur way of speaking violantly, we may assume that ur defending a murderer. Robin Hood 1212 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) We can't compromise, the Zionists call it an accident and believe they r perfect and the other side calles it massacre or killing.

Reactions

Just removed Dlippman's addition of 'terrorist' to " A local Hamas leader called for resumption of suicide attacks " It doesn't add anything when someone is obviously calling for attacks, if you don't like them they're terrorists, and Hamas are not only 'terrorists' but the elected government.Puddleman 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you get into the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy which should be avoided at all costs.198.142.5.126 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is recognized to be a terrorist group by the EU, UN, USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Russia, and the list goes on. It doesn't surprise me that there's a bunch of racists on here trying to whitewash their image, but come on, a spade is a spade. RunedChozo 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you present me with a list of people refering to Hamas as freedom fighters? --Striver 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Terrorists. NotAWeasel 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Submitted bad-faith "Merge" page for deletion

I have submitted Striver's bad-faith "Merge" POV fork of this article for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun.

I do this because it is a POV fork, put in in bad faith by an editor whose history I have read and I have determined that I cannot come to assume they acted in good faith in its creation, and because other editors here have pointed out that the images in that article are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)