Misplaced Pages

Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.114.238.142 (talk) at 13:27, 5 December 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:27, 5 December 2006 by 70.114.238.142 (talk) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2

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)

Massacre. First of all, a massacre can be an accident, but it still a massacre if a large number of people died. Second of all, it is not POV to say that it was a massacre. The IDF knew there were civilians in the area and decided to take the risk anyway. I'm not saying that the IDF was wrong, I'm just strongly hinting at it and thinking it. Five or six shells hit the house according to most news agencies, including The Guardian, CNN, and Yahoo!, and that hardly seems like an accident to me. Still, whether it was an accident or not, it was not an "incident", which suggests some innocence. There was not innocence. It was known that there were civilians just as in any urban warfare, which means nothing about it was innocent because no war of any kind is, whether you're trying to save lives or take them. To call it an "incident" is not neutral. To call it a massacre is to call it what it was. It did not have to be deliberate—although there's no reason why it couldn't have been, since it will most likely end up being considered an act of self-defense by the tank gunner because a kid in the window was holding a rock—for it to be a massacre. The only requirement is that a lot of people were killed.

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)

Uri Avnery on the massacre/incident

The peace activist and Knesset member Uri Avnery calls it a massacre - even if the civilians were not intentionally killed (what he doubts). Read his judgment here:

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)

The press and reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to it as a massacre.Kiyosaki 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare to:

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 (anulled)

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)

As a neutral Misplaced Pages:Administrator I have annulled this vote. Misplaced Pages policy clearly dictates that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and the Wikimedia Foundation strongly discourages it per meta:Polling is evil. Surveys however, are permitted. Thank you. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:36, 14 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)
The Guardian and the BBC are referring to it as an incident. --PiMaster3 23:05, 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)

  • 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)

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.

We can certainly see where your bias lies. Why don't you just say "damn Joos", follow it up with "apes and pigs", and be done with it? NotAWeasel 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is a Joo? Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semetism. War is not peace. 2 + 2 ≠ 5, etc. -- Kendrick7 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be deliberately dense. Unless of course you're just naturally that mentally deficient. NotAWeasel 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

comment:please give citation to your claim that russia etc list Hamas as terrorist group. also, please be civil.
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)

† It doesn't matter how many people recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. That does not make it true. I'm not whitewashing anything, I simply came across the mention, and I'm correcting it. The whole world can band together and say that nuclear weapons aren't dangerous, but that doesn't make that truth and that doesn't make it a fact, regardless of how many people say it is.

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)

I have expressed a complaint regarding the speedy delete closure of that afd to the adming closing the afd. --Striver 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident → IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun — There is controversy over term "incident" being euphemistic, proposed title is simply descriptive.   ⇒ bsnowball  11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support: Incident is a euphemism for the shelling of a populated area and the killing of women and children in their sleep. It is borderline offensive. Massacre is the proper word in my opinion but I understand that wikipedia has to be careful with politically charged words. Shelling is slightly better than incident and I support this move.--Burgas00 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE IN STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS Misplaced Pages naming conventions have already been pointed out to you people multiple times. Stop trying to POV push. RunedChozo 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support: "Incident" is indeed a euphemism, and I do not see how the word "shelling" has POV connotations. "IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun" is EXACTLY what happened. Nobody debates that the town was shelled, or that it was shelled by the IDF, the only controversial issue is whether or not it was intentional, etc. Andri Egilsson 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: As I have said below, this is a descriptive and non-emotive title. Maybe we need to look at Israeli Army Shelling of Beit Hanoun though, instead of IDF, as IDF may be a bit onscure to the general reader. Puddleman 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Incident is neutral at the risk of being utterly meaningless, which is not the intent of NPOV. I think the term "massacre" or even "attack" is too emotionally charged to use for a current incident, even though that may well turn out to be what occurred. I'm generally in agreement with points made by Puddleman and Andri that "shelling" is NPOV enough - it explains exactly what happened, that shells were fired by somebody and fell on somebody else, without making a value judgement. Where possible we should be using factual terms. I also agree that something less cryptic to the random observer than IDF should be used (although Israeli Army may be technically incorrect if it was the air force, and many leftist Israelis may object to the generic "Israeli" - gotta love word value politics :|) Orderinchaos78 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of "agenda" this article's title is currently uninformative and "incident" is one of the most weasely words that I can think of: if you look at the other articles called "incident" the top results on the search bring up dozens of "purges", skirmishes or massacres by various governments. This article is about a clearly defined event, the shelling of Beit Hanoun by Israeli Defence Forces. The title should reflect this, propose move to 2006 Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun or similar. Unless the event itself becomes widely known as the "Beit Hanoun incident" its article should not be located here. QmunkE 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • opposed Incident is a vagye word, but the phrase "Beit Hanoun incident" turns up more google hits than "Beit Hanoun shelling" I don't see strong POV in "shelling" although it does seem to be non-neutral in that it was in response to a rocket attacj from the area. Thus a focus on "shelling" puts emphasis on the Israeli shelling rather than the incident as a whole. JoshuaZ 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer "massacre", though, but Many people don't agree with it so I think shelling is better. Burgas is true incident is too euphemism. To joshua, if we use google test, massacre will be much better(massacre:97,300 hits, incident 12,300, shelling 10,900. One must note, however the difference between shelling and incident is small (only ~1,000 hits) and i think there are many "incidents" in Beit Hanoun other than this one, so not all google hits for "Beit Hanoun incident" refers to this one. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the use of "shelling" instead of euphemistic "incident"? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Always trying to sanitize Israel's disproportionate bloodletting. What occuptied territories? What Palestinians? What fighters? what resistance? Qassam homemade mortars are "rockets." They're are all "terrorists." Let's conform WP to the "real" outside unsheltetered world and avoid weasel words.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Not everyone may know the IDF, I'm not sure IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun is intuitive enough. I suggest using "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" as a redirect to "IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun", or the other way around. Aecis 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • oops, thnx i meant to comment on that: i proposed "idf" instead of "israeli" as it cldn't be quibbled over on 'factual' grounds. it's straight down the line descriptive. "israeli shelling..." might be argued over on grounds that it wasn't the state/people of 'israel' who carried out the shelling. also it's already a re-direct & would still be if the name change went thru. the point of this proposal is, as stated, to find a main title that isn't euphemistic. there can be any ammount of re-directs from other titles.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: BAD FAITH FROM BURGAS & FRIENDS AGAIN SIGH Seriously, you just keep trying to POV this every way you can, don't you? We've already had this discussion. Misplaced Pages naming conventions state that the correct title is already there. Stop being a POV pusher. RunedChozo 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events): going down the list, 1) there is no common name for the event (its too recent) 2) there is no common word (it's disputed) 3) ("If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.") which coincidently fits this proposal rather well, "incident" being a somewhat pov euphemism & idf being descriptive & precise. (permit me to naively assume that there couldn't possibly be any objections to "shelling" or "Beit Hanoun") (& re pov pushing cabals: , , etc., go figure)  ⇒ bsnowball  17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
...shelling of Beit Hanoun seems a lot less POV then incident --ArmadilloFromHell 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Incident is a deliberately neutral word. The other wording they are all trying to add are emotional in nature, which is against NPOV standards. Stop being deliberately dense. RunedChozo 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just about every one of your comments is derisive, it does not help to make your points by doing that. Please stop. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we all agree and we are dealing with one particularly conflictive user... --Burgas00 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Response to your bad-faith attempt to have this page deleted and to having your friend's bad-faith POV fork deleted show otherwise, POV pusher. RunedChozo 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
RundedChozo. As I have pointed out, "incident" basically means, "something that happened", not a highly descriptive title. As for being 'deliberately neutral,' what do you mean? How does a word have intent? And can you accept that for the victims this would not appear to be a neutral description? 'Israeli/Israeli military shelling of Beit Hanoun' actually contains what happened, by whom and to whom. Much more descriptive and NPOV. Fair enough getting 'masszcre' removed from the options, but if you look at the list of there are plenty that at the time the perpetrators denied being deliberate. Puddleman 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Puddleman, to argue that words do not have emotional content is absurd. "Massacre" is an emotionally charged word, and the rest of the behavior by these POV pushers has been consistent: they are trying to make the article as biased against the IDF, Israel, and "Jews" as they possibly can. "Incident" indeed means "something that happened", and this article is about an event that happened on a day and at a place. That is what the title should be, nothing else. As neutral as possible. IF there should come to be a colloquial or agreed-upon phrase to describe the event, even if it is later disproven to have even happened (such as Jenin Massacre) then, and only then, should we change the name, but it is ridiculous to stand by and let POV pushers try to make this into some emotional propaganda piece. RunedChozo 19:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
RunedChozo, would you call the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth "The Westminster Abbey Incident," or the Munich Putsch "The Munich Incident"? These are both 'things that happened on a day at a place' but we commonly give them a name that gives more information.

Sure, I have a political view on this conflict, as I hope you admit you do to, but I am trying really hard to remove that from the picture when I am arguing this - thinking in purely encyclopedic terms I believe that "incicent" is not an adequate description. Just to be a bit long-winded, but I think relevant... nNear where I live, there was in the 1860s a mass killing which for many years was known as 'The Wairau Massacre'. This was when some local Maori killed a group of colonists who were illegally surveying land which they wanted to buy and had tried to arrest the chief of the tribe. The Maori were shot at... some have said by accident, and they responded by killing almost the whole survey party. Sometime in the last twenty years, for reasons of historical revisionism, and for a cause that I wholeheartedly believe in, that of building good will and understanding between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand, the name on the plaque where this happened was changed to 'Wairau Affray' and in many books to 'Wairau Incident'. Though I believe that the people who instigated this change were doing it for the best of reasons, I still am conviced that for true understanding that the original title would have been far better. So, my point is that euphemistic descriptions lead to false views of history. It is important to be truthful in descriptions so that people can have real understandings, and through facing reality, hopefully find ways to solve its problems. (There's my dose of idealism for the day ;>)Puddleman 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not everything is about racism against Jews. People in my family died at the hands of Nazis. I still tend to agree with those who say that "incident" is pretty meaningless in an encyclopaedic context, and something else - albeit something factual - should be used. An incident at the shop could be getting overcharged 90c for fruit. Orderinchaos78 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How about..."Accidental November 2006 IDF Shelling of Beit Hanoun"????--Backroomlaptop 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be POV since that it was "accidental" is contested. There is no more to it. Can some one please contact an administrator, make the move and we can just forget about it and stop wasting time? Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun is 100% neutral. --Burgas00 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Better idea: Can you stop being a POV pusher, stop trying to bias this article, and go away so that those who really want to make an NPOV, encyclopedic article can do so without your POV pushing causing us more problems? "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" is an attempt once again to make an article saying "ooh look what those evil Jews did", just like your POV fork that got deleted, and you know it. RunedChozo 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks and accusations of anti-semitism. Not only are they unfounded but, in the light of the matter discussed, absurd and almost comical. --Burgas00 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When you desist POV-pushing, I'll stop telling you to stop POV-pushing. RunedChozo 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we just debate the article and not the people? It's getting tedious. These are words on a screen written by people unknown. It's not like friends or family or people one can actually see or may even talk to again. (Something I actually have to remind myself of every once in a while on more heated online discussions) Orderinchaos78 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - my view on this debate. In response to Runed Chozo's objection:

From Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
The incident isn't really major enough to have acquired a "common name" yet, but a quick test through Google News gives:
about 1,970 for beit hanoun incident.
about 2,430 for beit hanoun shelling.
which to me would seem to indicate the latter is the more commonly accepted name.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
I propose that a) the year is unnecessary in the article title here since there are no other similarly titled articles to confuse it with and b) that "shelling" is a generally accepted word used to identify the event, as shown by the above Google News search.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
In no way are the words "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" a violation of NPOV. There are no dispute over these facts: Israeli shells hit Beit Hanoun. Accidental or not, it was a shelling. If at some point it is proven that this was an accident I would then propose a further move to "Accidental Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" or similar. This is far more descriptive than "Beit Hanoun incident".

I've never gotten this involved over an article move before, however the complete lack of impartiality in this discussion has led me to try and put my view across. Thanks. QmunkE 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained above, "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" omits the fact that 19 people were basically killed in their own homes. That is to say, it is just another way of saying "Israeli caused incident at Beit Hanoun". You can try the other way, but then the Israeli's will object. The core problem is there is no NPOV title for this article, or articles of a similar form. No shades of gray, no calm transition from "wild POV X" to "wild POV Y", without doing an injustice to some side or another. It's a super-sharp step function. The simple answer, if articles like this need to exist (I believe wikinews is a better forum) is to just invent some scheme and blindly stick to it no matter what. Push the interminable dispute into some other forum, away from the article itself. Almost any other option will will inevitably lead for the article being used as yet another propaganda battleground, and the firefight erupting with each event like this that takes place. mdf 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just change the title to "OMG LOOK WHAT THOSE EVIL JEWS DID" and get it over with then? The point is to be encyclopedic, not to try to push every bit of emotional content that you can.RunedChozo 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problematic picture

Someone keeps trying to reinsert a picture with a caption about "blood-stained water" on it. However, a quick look at the picture reveals that the coloration of the "water" seems merely to be a reflection of the buildings above it. Plus, there have been numerous scandals about pictures that are either altered or just miscaptioned for propaganda purposes recently. I don't trust this picture, the caption fails the smell test, and it is highly POV in any case. Please do not reinsert it. RunedChozo 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic picture. ←Humus sapiens 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Also probably a copyright issue if it's from a media source (which most are of these kinds of incidents). Orderinchaos78 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
AFP logo bottom right. Image is from Agency France Presse, shouldn't be quoted from BBC and since they sell those things we shouldn't have it at all. NotAWeasel 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with all of the above. This picture should not be in the article. Beit Or 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture can be fair use. There is no alternative to show the real effect of this killings(as described in the picture summary). Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The summary is suspect itself. RunedChozo 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Unless the summary can have a cite attached, the image should be scrapped.--Rosicrucian 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Even with citation, the summary is worthless. The red in the image is not possible as shown, unless it's just a reflection of the buildings behind it. If it were really the water that were red, the blue sky reflection on bottom right wouldn't be there. Also, the human body only has 6 quarts of blood; if you had 19 fully grown adults (not the case) and got every single last drop out of each of them (also impossible) and all of it got into that area (again impossible) then you have 114 quarts (28.5 gallons) of blood. That's not nearly enough to get that color of red; motion pictures use 100's of gallons of denser fake blood to try to get the same effect. The picture is either miscaptioned or altered, and is POV propaganda in any case. RunedChozo 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a WP:OR. It should be better put the picture and let the viewer decide themselves. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You're just POV pushing. Go away. RunedChozo 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, your interpretation of the photo is WP:OR. I think it's better to put it. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If the photo does not have a citation for the blood claim then there is no plausible fair use claim to keep the photo. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
here is a citation that it is blood. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly suspect that that claim is almost certainly wrong and that the BBC is going to get flack from it. However, that article is at present a WP:RS and sufficent cause to include the picture with the caption.JoshuaZ 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No thats the BBC taking a stock propaganda photo without bothering to factcheck. NotAWeasel 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My POV is very close to that having happened. However, in general the BBC is treated as a reliable source and until we have reason to believe otherwise in this specific instance we should include it. In any event, I've already contacted people who know more/are active in these sorts of issues and asked them to look into it. JoshuaZ 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I found RunedChozo's (et al) original research more suspect than the image. It looks like a typical blood stain to me. Are there in fact any red buildings in the area? Looking at the unstained section of section of the water ("blue"), it appears that the colour of the buildings reflected is about the same as the background wall -- which is what I would expect. For the stained section of the water: if in fact reflected from a background the geometry of the image basically says the source wall must be the visible wall which is clearly not red. Simple physics, but of course for propaganda purposes, physics is not relevant, right? Anyways, http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/08/israeli-shelling.html has a close-up of what appears to be the same scene. Whether or not the image is an artifact of some propaganda machine, I can continue my refrain from above here, as it seems relevant at this point: if it can be demonstrated that an article is being used as a propaganda battlefield, is Misplaced Pages the appropriate forum for it? mdf 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

you obviously know shit-nothing about physics, if the buildings were colored red by red in the water, the sky reflection wouldn't be so blue, it'd have tinted purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.126 (talk) your second image is bullshit too, looks like ordinary muddy water. "mixed with blood" my ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.126 (talk)

WP:OR. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I concluded that part of the water has not been heavily stained (for whatever reason) and could then see the buildings are not in themselves particularly red. Did you read what I wrote? As for your "muddy water" argument, people can compare that image with the one at http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,419038,00.html. Note the purple "sky" in each is the same, as is the red (except for luminosity -- in the the der Spiegel image, the pool is directly lit by the Sun, while the Beit Hanoun pool is in shade). I can also suggest you try and get around more in life, as pools of blood and water are not all that uncommon. I've seen many beside car accidents -- can you guess one reason why the fire department is typically dispatched to these events, even when there is no fire? -- and all images I've seen here are consistent with this experience. mdf 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It's quite a stretch for the water to be perfectly blue (instead of the purple seen in your other photo) even in the reflection of a gap in the building, while the building in question somehow manages to remain red beyond that gap. This image is obviously a ploy to POV the article with emotional content, nothing more. RunedChozo 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You may spout forth whatever OR you wish on this talk page, but as far as article content is concerned, removing content you disapprove of based on OR is Against The Rules. The image remains because it is from a realiable source, and is directly relevant to this article. I suggest you attack the source directly, instead of wasting time building faulty arguments. mdf 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you keep putting it back because you're trying to POV the article. Stop. RunedChozo 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Demonstrate the lack of reliability in the source and it can go. Otherwise, it must remain, as per policy. mdf 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to reread NPOV standards again. A picture can be used if and only if it adds to the article in a meaningful and factual way. This doesn't. All it does is add needless emotional content. It is POV and should stay out. RunedChozo 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The picture the POV-pushers keep trying to insert is pushing undue weight for only one side. It adds no information on location, damage to buildings, or anything else. All it does is push emotional content. This is directly contradictory to the NPOV policy. This is ALSO why I have so much problem with what Mdf and his fellow POV-pushers are doing, as their now-deleted POV fork was based on the same attack, and much of that content they have now dropped into here, while removing items related to the Israeli side and neutral international documents on the matter.RunedChozo 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You quote policy, but fail to understand it. Allow me to highlight the part that permits this image: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now in the instant article, we have 19 dead people who otherwise would not be dead. We have an eye-witness report in the article about human body parts strewn willy-nilly. Therefore, an image of this environment would not given "undue weight" "inappropriate" to this particular aspect of the subject. It is for this reason why infinitely more explicit images of fields of dead bodies are permitted in holocaust, and other articles. Once again, I suggest you look to attacking the source, not the message or messenger. Life is ever so much simpler if you just follow policy. mdf 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I quote policy, but you appear to lack the capacity to understand same. In this instance, we have a military war going on, and we have a case where errant shots were fired. All the picture is designed to do is increase the emotionality of the report, it does not offer any better information than we have if we did not have the picture. Therefore, the picture violates NPOV and you are wrong. But, since you are in bad faith desperately pushing POV here, I do not expect you to ever concede such. RunedChozo 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to comment about the image. I know nothing about its provenance, but it's a recent, copyrighted wire photograph, which is presumably being sold to news organizations, and these are exactly the circumstances in which it's problematic for us to claim fair use, so far as I know. We could perhaps claim that we're using a small, poor-quality version, but I don't know whether that's enough. It might be wise to post a query about it on Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use. SlimVirgin 05:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Context of Incident - new subheading needed?

Just a suggestion, would it be a good idea to have a sub heading as suggested above? It could come after the incident and before reactions and include such information as the Geneva Convention article and the previous rocket attack. I imagine that mostly it would consist of links to other useful articles, no point in re-visting the whole conflict of course.Puddleman 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Fourth Geneve Convention Part 3 Sec. 1 Art. 28 is not relevant in this case. The Palestinians did not put the civilians in shelled areas on purpose. They lived there before the area was shelled, SO the Palestinian Authority did not act in Bad Faith with Art. 28. This is off course only true if Israel did not purposfully bombard the area. If they attacked the houses and civilian areas on purpose, then the Civilians would have to be evacuated. So, that is why the Geneve Convention does not apply to this incident. However, when Civilians where used as human shields (recall the incident with the mosque), there is no discussion, that this is a clear violation of Art. 28. So yes, the article should be expanded, but no the Geneve Convention does not apply in this case!81.5.2.197 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit anon, you don't quarter troops in civilian areas, that is a violation of the GC's. The GC applies in this case and every other one involving the terrorists. NotAWeasel 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Anyway it isn't inserted in correct place. Neither is the rocket firing thing. It is not directly related with Beit Hanoun massacre, and it shouldn't come at "reaction" section. Anyway NotAWeasel please WP:CIV. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Word about the Geneva Convention

Sorry, but the Fourth Geneve Convention Part 3 Sec. 1 Art. 28 is not relevant in this case. The Palestinians did not put the civilians in shelled areas on purpose. They lived there before the area was shelled, SO the Palestinian Authority did not act in Bad Faith with Art. 28. This is off course only true if Israel did not purposfully bombard the area. If they attacked the houses and civilian areas on purpose, then the Civilians would have to be evacuated. So, that is why the Geneve Convention does not apply to this incident. However, when Civilians where used as human shields (recall the incident with the mosque), there is no discussion, that this is a clear violation of Art. 28. So yes, the article should be expanded, but no the Geneve Convention does not apply in this case!81.5.2.197 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

u already wrote that 1ce b4 up above, and its just as stupid a lie now. terrorists hide in beit hanoun, endangering civilian pops. the gc's apply as long as the terrorsts r hiding there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.126 (talk • contribs)

To allow this GC reference is a tacit claim that Israel was engaging in a military strike at that particular spot ... yet all the sources say that Israel claims the event was mis-directed fire. I'm removing the paragraph. Anyone who wants it back will have to find a source that demonstrates relevance. mdf 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

no the gc's are directly relevant, israel was striking a target and civilians anywhere in area don't get protection as long as terrorists are hiding around them so thats that. i put it back bcuz yer just comin up with excuses an billshit now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.126 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire section on the GC is original research. If it isn't well-sourced in the next few hours I'm removing it. JoshuaZ 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I just zapped it again. It remains out until someone can source it directly. mdf 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i lookd back in history when it was put it had link 2 extern gc site, sum1 removed that link so ur a fucking liar about no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.126 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 November 2006 (edit) (UTC)

If the source is in the history of the article it shouldn't be too hard to copypaste it to the current version. Please remember to remain civil and sign your posts using four ~'s, like so: ~~~~. Aecis 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
None of your sources are directly relevant to this event. I've removed it yet again, and of course, now that this is my third time, I'm out. Have fun! I do encourage you, though, to find a relevant source. For example, Israel justifying the attacks and resulting carnage on GC grounds would be an excellent way to proceed. Naturally, I do not expect such a source to exist -- given Israel has already said the whole episode was a mistake -- but, thankfully, that's not my problem anymore. mdf 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Protected

The article has been protected due to recent edit warring. Please discuss this relevant issues on the talk page here and come to some sort of consensus as to how to proceed. If you want or need any help facilitating discussion, feel free to contact me. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congatulation you protected the pic with the fake caption and no right to use.Opiner 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It is mandatory to protect an article on m:The Wrong Version. Incivility will only lengthen the time it stays protected on The Wrong Version. Andjam 07:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
'Wrong version' is just a cop out for those who wrote it. If no wrong and right versions WHAT are we wasting our time doing? You want to say were not involved in content. No were just fixing the content in ways no regular editor can. Not responsible at all! Very first protection as admin. Protect from edit war ffine BUT dont take the content without rights AND THEN protecting a fake caption.Opiner 08:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Very first protection"? As far as I can tell, Aaron Klein and SpongeBob SquarePants (character) were the first articles he protected. Andjam 08:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well alright maybe. BUT my point about the cop out is hard to deny. Nothing else on Misplaced Pages where critical review is ridiculed just for being the critrical review.Opiner 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A plea for civility

Can everyone please be a bit more civil? The grossly uncivil comments made in the talk page and in edit summaries aren't helping. Andjam 07:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agreeing about the edit summaries. Some of that stuff is WAY out of the boundaries.Opiner 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(comment by 70.114.236.109 about locking of article removed by Andjam 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Removal of mention of other rocket firings from Beit Hanoun

Come on people, the fact that other rockets were fired from the town just a few days later IS relevant, the events don't exist in a goddamn vacuum. (part of comment removed by Andjam 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)) 70.114.236.109 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Can anyone explain why they think this isn't relevant? JoshuaZ 07:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Title "Incident" is too POV

Using the term incident is a disgrace to those that were attacked, wounded, killed and/or massacred. They were not "incidented". Kiyosaki 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's correct. This is one incident in an ongoing regional problematic struggle. If you want to call this anything other than "incident", then "Massacre" or some other title belongs on every suicide bombing, every missile that Hamas or the other terrorists lob at Israel, everything. 70.114.236.109 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that all Palestinian attacks are called massacres on wikipedia whereas 99% of Israeli attacks seem to be called "shelling", incident or something of the sort with no allusion to the civilian victims involved. I agree, as do most users it seems, with user Kiyosaki.--Burgas00 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that your statistic is made-up, misleading, inaccurate, wrong, and Not The Case. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics70.114.236.109 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare

That is interesting. However, as observed in the above list "The criteria used for this list: deliberate attacks against civillians in which ten people or more have been killed" that's very different than attacks which incidentally have accidentally killed civilians. To call such attacks massacres is misleading. Now actual examples of Israeli massacres are labled as such. See for example Deir Yassin massacre. JoshuaZ 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. Deir Yassin is an exception which has survived this mass name-change because it is a widely known incident and is called massacre by pretty much everyone. As for the "accidental shelling" of Qana in 1996, all independent investigations (UN, Amnesty international) reject Israeli claims that the deaths were accidental. --Burgas00 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, two problems with that. First, I'd like to see a source that UN rejected the Israeli statement that the deaths were accidental. Second, even if the UN did it is still different because some signficant group is still claiming that the deaths were not deliberate. In any event, I'd agree that massacre has POV issues. IMO, it makes more sense to remove the word from all articles than to argue about whether or not this one should have it. JoshuaZ 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be impossible. There are rules about how to call articles which should be followed. For example the Boston massacre cannot be changed to the Boston incident. However I feel that these rules are being applied differently regarding massacres of Palestinians and of Israelis. The reason is that there are more persistent hard-core pro-israelis on wikipedia (like User:Amoruso for example) than hardcore pro-palestinians. I dont know why this is, but wikipedia rules on naming these types of incidents should be applied consistently.--Burgas00 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's more organized, it's you and your friends, Burgas. To try to claim that there are "persistent hard-core pro-israelis" somehow POVing the entire site when it's obvious the bias thanks to you and your crew runs in the opposite direction, is dishonest at best. 70.114.236.109 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Does anyone no if there is any actual policy or guideline on the use of the word? It might make more sense to go based on what is the most common term (hence Boston massacre). JoshuaZ 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Locked by a "new Muslim convert"??

Let's see here... Nielswik is trying to push content onto this page that doesn't belong and is all emotional in nature, while others are being attacked for disagreeing with him. And then, an admin who just "happens" to be a "new Muslim convert" shows up and locks the page to Nielswik's favored, highly biased version... I call bullshit. This was prearranged and premeditated to abuse adminpower to control the content and get an upper hand in content dispute. 70.114.236.109 06:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it EXTREMELY insulting and incivil that Andjam appears to be trying to protect said administrator by removing my comment. 70.114.236.109 15:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried my best to remove the incivility while keeping the content of your message. Please try to discuss the article without incivility. Thanks, Andjam 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you removed my entire comment, including the section header. That is foul and disreputable. 70.114.236.109 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser on RunedChozo

The users involved in this article and in the discussions on this talk page might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo. It has been confirmed that Wheelygood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppet. Both accounts edit from 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs), which is registered to the University of Houston. NotAWeasel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) does not seem to be related. Aecis 10:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

user 70.114.236.109 (talk · contribs) who is all over this discussion also hails frm houston , as is the above 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs). another sock?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add him to the request. I have just added Al'Ilah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Aecis 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a formal protest about this, it is clearly just a witch hunt. 70.114.236.109 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already responded on this at the page you linked, but if you're determined to make some POV game of attacking anyone with a viewpoint opposite yours who actually wants the article to be NPOV, I'm sure you'll just keep going with this. I know who wheelygood is, he and I are in the same department at my school, I have no clue who anyone else is. RunedChozo 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of this one conflictive user and his sockpuppets would certainly contribute to resolving this debate.--Burgas00 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered your complaints, but since a known tactic of POV pushers is to try to get rid of anyone who disagrees with them rather than have an honest discussion, you've just made my point for me. RunedChozo 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So what's it going to take to get the page unprotected?

I can tell you, that picture definitely isn't fair use given that it's an AP photo under copyright. What is the dispute that needs to be resolved before the protection will be lifted?--Rosicrucian 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was locked by a muslim admin to control the content of the page, so likely, the criterion for getting it unlocked is anyone who doesn't agree with their POV leaving or being forced out. 70.114.236.109 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what you're saying violates WP:NPA. Still, what is the content dispute? What do we need to establish consensus on?--Rosicrucian 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushers on the muslim side want a few things. First, they want to keep a highly emotional and not at all relevant, not to mention major copyright violation, image on the page to prejudice readers.

Second, they want to ensure that only material negatively slanted to the Israeli side exists in the article. Thus even in discussion of the events surrounding this incident, they refuse to allow quotations from the actual Israeli military, refuse to allow quotation of relevant Geneva Conventions passages, refuse to allow notation that the area of Beit Hanoun was used for launching deadly missile strikes by terrorists both before and after the incident, and yet they insist that a quotation from a small and barely notable leftist group within Israel be given prominence in the listing of "reaction." They also are on the standard POV pusher tactic of trying to destroy - literally, get banned - anyone who disagrees with their POV pushing ways. I was hopeful at first, but when the other side is not only completely intransigent but also has no respect for policy, what can you do?RunedChozo 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We're going to need a less vitriolic and hostile account on what the dispute entails, but your objections are noted. The first step is to stop painting the other side as "PoV pushers." What incentive do they have to come to the table and establish a consensus if you discount them outright?--Rosicrucian 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Runed, please calm down. Are there specific quotes you would like to include? JoshuaZ 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The issues that I see are the inflammatory block-quotes ("It is the saddest scene and images I have ever seen. We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street"), potentially too much weight given to critical Israeli reactions (Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Meretz, and B'tselem), and perhaps more context is needed surrounding the Israeli position (testimony regarding short distance from rocket launchers, long history of launchings from the area, and continued launchings after the shelling). Tewfik 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Inflammatory? It is describing facts, how come you said it is inflammatory?Also, your objection about Israeli peace movement. Their statements are indeed reaction to this shelling/massacre. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he is not saying that the statements are untrue, but more that they are given undue weight.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 22 November 2006

(UTC)

  • Just wondering if we could get this page unprotected now the discussion on here has calmed down a bit and now that some more very relevant and significant research has been done. This IDF Probe No Substitute for Real Investigation 10th Nov article by HRW (which also calls the Qassam attacks war crimes before any one says they are a biased source) names the victims, gives information about the IDF investigation and gives more context and detail about the changed tolerances for shelling which the IDF has recently implemented. Puddleman 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture removed

I have removed the picture. I have become convinced that the picture is copyvio. Therefore protection is not an issue- copyvio must be removed immediately. If anyone feels I abused admin tools, you are welcome to file an RfC. JoshuaZ 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The action is outrageous and inexcusable, there is no copyright issue. Im on for and RFC. I need one more to support me. Who is joining? --Striver 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Bit of a hair-trigger? Everyone is escalating this entirely too much.--Rosicrucian 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that was a good move. I'm going to delete the image as a copyright violation, but here is the link to it on BBC for later reference. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Even Striver's pet admin wouldn't support him, and he's still going on like this? 70.114.236.109 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't helping matters. To be blunt, the sooner you stop name calling and being disruptive the sooner this will get resolved. JoshuaZ 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i am new here, how do i get the page unlocked? the title is obviously wrong. incident needs to be replaced by massacre.Amitshah111 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the proper article name is above. You might want to read it first.--Rosicrucian 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi joshua, you can't remove that pic without consensus. The picture is fair use (see the reasoning on that image's page). And the resolution is not too big. so it isnt copyvio. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There has already been a fair amount of consensus on that in the discussion above. Beyond that, the protecting admin seems to agree with Joshua. I don't see that anything improper has been done here.--Rosicrucian 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth, I echo your impression that all is in order. Tewfik 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Map of Area

How about a map that shows where the shells hit, where the Qassam rockets were coming from, and the surrounding area of Beit Hanoun? That would be NPOV and yet give readers a better sense of what happened. The only problem is legally getting a hold of a map.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems: Google Earth/Maps has a cloud in the way, I don't know where the shells hit, and the map is low resolution. Some Googling didn't bring up any suitable maps. Perhaps a news source (Reuters, BBC, New York Times, etc.) would have a suitable map that I could ask for? - Pingveno 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless we're recreating what other sources have done, wouldn't that be a bit close to original research? Andjam 12:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the original address for each spot you mark has a verifiable and factual source, I don't think it crosses the line on Original Research. 70.114.236.109 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And the pov pushers have left

Looks like the goal of the POV pushers has been achieved; they've kept the article locked to a highly POV version past the two-week "news" window through the use of belligerence and a sympathetic POV admin, and now they don't care anymore. 129.7.35.194 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

? WP:AGF whatever you meant. Tewfik 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the trolls would appear to be the most appropriate here I think. QmunkE 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I was gone for the weekend for Thanksgiving but nobody at all commented while I was gone. And the goal certainly hasn't been for them to make any improvements now that they got the page locked to their version, far from it. 70.114.236.109 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

pic

I went to deletion review and had the pictures undeleted, they are not copyvio and it is outraging that an admin singlehandedly deleted out of process. Now that it is established that they are not copyvio, they are re-added to the article. --Striver 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You went to deletion review? Why don't I see any history of that on WP:DRV? It looks to me like you went to a single admin and tried to persuade that admin to undelete them. Please don't engage in out of process behavior like that. Thank you. (Incidentally, having both pictures raises serious WP:NPOV concerns and claiming that we need both of them and can make legitimate fair use claims is laughable.) JoshuaZ 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Joshua, there was a WP:DRV discussion (see here). However, regardless of whether the images could be used as fair use, it seemed as there was somewhat of a consensus here that the images are not neutral and are quite irrelevant (blood flowing in the streets??). I don't think it is a good idea to follow the unprotection with adding the images again, without further discussion. And as Joshua said, two images are certainly not necessary here. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly dissagree and are going to start a fomal proces if the images are reverted. The images are visual representation of the consequesnes of the shelling and a visaul representation of the reactions. This can not be refuted. The simple fact that the images come from RS mainstream media (BBC and Guardian) proves that the images are both notable and relevant to this very issue. There are no issues with N, R, or POV here. --Striver 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Striver, in the future, it would be nice if you would let interested editors know that a DRV was taking place (say a note on this page). I'm still very puzzled at least for the AP photo how a photo can be fair use when it is something which the AP specifically liscences to media to use. As for your other claim, other editors including Tariqabjotu who is uninvolved seem to disagree with you. And no, the mere presence in other media does not make them automatically NPOV to have them there. I could probably find in the media a few other images of the incident that were as graphic or more so and add them to the article under the same logic. That wouldn't make that NPOV. Can you articulate what having both photos accomplishes? JoshuaZ 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill tell again:

  1. It gives a visaul representation of the results of the Shelling. This is the Beit Hanoun shelling article, right?
  2. It gives a visual representation of the reactions of the shelling.

Any more questions? Any dissagrements? Are the pictures unfactual? If pov, whos point of view is it? Would an Isreali camera had capture another picture given the same location and time`? Expalian how it is pov, and what kind of camera would have given another set of information, and how that would be possible --Striver 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand my question- the inquiry was what is accomplised by having both pictures? As to your second point, there are accurate pictures all the time that would make an article POV. If for example, on World War II we had two pictures of the firebombing of Tokyo and nothing else that would be a serious POV issue. Pictures naturally pull at emotions and as such an emphasis on a specific type of picture can have serious POV concerns. JoshuaZ 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but the comparison is not adequate. WW2 is a encompases huge space and time, this event is very limited in both, so while a single picture in WW2 might only encompase a small portion of the event, a picture here encompses a much large portion of that event. I mean, one town, one day, how many pictures do you want? Would a picture of every corner of the house be more NPOV? It silly. --Striver 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sensationalism is not necessarily presenting false information so much as presenting information selectively to give undue weight to certain aspects of a story. This is sensationalism skewed towards viewing the event as a "massacre" and tarring the IDF. That is a POV issue.--Rosicrucian 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel either image to be particularly informative in this article, however leaving an image of "mourners" in over a bloodstained street seems nonsensical to me - surely there is more bias showing the emotional state of a group of involved parties than the physical effect of the attack? I think it's fairly obvious people would be grieving for their relatives, I don't think it's appropriate for their grief to be a battleground over "POV" issues. Also, I agree that it would have been polite for Striver to bring to the notice of this page's editors the DRV on the image, and I think that there was not enough discussion for the decision to be overturned - this is clearly a controversial topic the history of which the closing administrator should have researched on this talk page. QmunkE 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, i missed the consensus that deleted it in the first place. It was deleted out of process, so dont toss baggage on me for bringing it into process. I would have notified people if there had been any formal proces before the deletion. Two guys viewing it to be copyvio is not a proses, and deleting it on just that is bordering to admin abuse in my view considering that the admin is active in the article. --Striver 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you read above you would note that other users also thought so and the admin who deleted it was very much uninvolved. And even if this weren't the case that amounts to some sort of two wrongs making a right claim. To not even alert the admin who deleted it is bizaare. JoshuaZ 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the caption to take a step back from the unsourced "streets stained with blood" sensationalism.--Rosicrucian 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's easily citable to the BBC caption. JoshuaZ 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Will do. --Striver 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this unencyclopedic image. Beit Or 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i have had enough, time for a RFC. --Striver 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This RFC has been included in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict.
This RFC is regarding the inclusion of one or both of this pictures: pic 1, pic 2.
  • I view that both pictures need to be included in the article, since both give information regarding the subject of this article. Removing them is bordering censorship, if it not actual censorship. A detailed summary of my stance can be viewed in previous conversations in this talk page. --Striver 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As I have commented above, I view including the pictures to be sensationalist, giving undue weight and biasing the article in an anti-Israel direction. They are akin to charged words like "massacre" being used in the title. Having the only images be of bloodstained streets and mourners is a POV issue.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So fix it. Fix other pictures to add. Or why not take a look at Holocaust. Here, for your convineace:
File:Einsatz1.jpg File:Kovnopogrom.jpg
All in the SAME article. Is this not anti-Nazi pov? Or is your pov argument void?--Striver 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually you'll note that article has a variety of related pictures such as relevant maps and a picture of Raoul Wallenberg. Also, there is an issue of scale. The Holocaust was of a much larger scale than this incident. It should not be therefore surprising that more pictures might be useful. JoshuaZ 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not opposed to more pictures, anyone is welcomed to add maps and pictures of... Wallenberg? or maybe not the last one... --Striver 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the comparison to the Holocaust is inaccurate and insensitive. They're not even close. -- tariqabjotu 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not make a comparision of the events, i made a comparision about so called "emotionoal" pictures in articles and their eventual pov-ness. --Striver 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The Beit Hanoun shelling is part of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, and is not even a month old. By contrast, the Holocaust is an event there is strong historical consensus on. Thus, we are required to take a more even-handed approach to the Beit Hanoun shelling given that there is no historical perspective or consensus on it as of yet, whereas nearly everyone can agree that the Holocaust was an unparalleled atrocity.--Rosicrucian 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? What was that? was that a "the picture will be NPOV in 20 years, but is POV now", a "the picture will be sourced in 20 years, but is not sourced now", or is that "nobody will care about the picture in 20 years so do whatever you like then" argument`?! You got bloody UN condemning it, not that "consensus" is even closly relevant to this issue. What, you need "consensus" on the factuality of the pictures? --Striver 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You have repeatedly insinuated that we do not believe the pictures are factual. That is a strawman. The fact remains that given an ongoing conflict such as the issue of Palestinian sovereignty, with two active viewpoints each having international support, we cannot compare this situation to a historical event where all the meaningful debates have already been had. Understandably given the recent nature of the event we cannot give too much weight to emotional issues or make moral assumptions on something that hasn't even been examined fully by the parties involved.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen, people died. We do not cover that up, no mater who tries to hide it. This is wikipedia, not the IDF propaganda organ, we do not hide that people died. Is that emotional? Yes. Were the Muhammad cartoons emotinal? Yes. Are they on wikipedia? Yes. factuality goes over sensitivity. --Striver 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a good comparison. The entire topic of that article is the cartoons, the pictures themselves. It would unreasonable to not have some sort of picture of them. Please understand this isn't an issue of censorship but an issue of emphasis and NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So what is the emphasis POV here? Is this not about people killed? Whould this even be an article if they where not killed? It is literaly their spilled blood that is the notability claim of this article, and that is the picture of the spilled blood. No blood -> no article. --Striver 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The main concerns of editors not favoring the inclusion of both pictures is that a) they have very weak fair use claims and it is nearly impossible to argue that somehow there is a legimimate fair use claim for both of them. b) having the pictures here (and certainly having both pictures) runs afoul of WP:NPOV by pulling on heartstrings and heavily emphasizing the Palestinian casulties. JoshuaZ 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...heavily emphasizing the Palestinian casualties.' As opposed to what casualties? I agree that one picture should suffice. In any case, when is the name of the article going to be changed? I think most editors agree that incident is not a NPOV title.--Burgas00 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To clarify it emphasizes the emotional impact of the casulties beyond what would be considered neutral. In any event, I still don't see what having both pictures does that one would do. JoshuaZ 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Pic 2 is about about losses, pic 1 is about Human reactions, two different things. They even have two different sections in the article, one named "The incident" and one named "Reactions". --Striver 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, what? The reaction section is almost completely about large scale government reactions. Its hard to see how the reaction of a few mourners is that relevant to the section (unfortunate and painful are not the same thing as relevant and notable in the context). JoshuaZ 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Guardian Unlimited agrees with me in that the reaction of the relatives are notable and relevant. Its hardly indiscriminate information, and we are trying to collect "sum of all human knowledge", remember? When was it the last time you saw a guy react like that? --Striver 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • hmmm.... I think that the mourners should go... and the picture of the main bombing site should stay. It is true that mourners are just there for emotional impact and add no info. And Striver dont forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Burgas00 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
are you stating that the mourners do not add any information to the "reactions" section? Yes, let us remeber that this is an encyclopedia, one that is trying to represent information. --Striver 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not all information is equal. I'm sure you would agree that explicit pictures of a blood-splattered around a pizza shop wouldn't make pages about suicide bombings more neutral, and that in a case where the organisation responsible openly declares its intent and satisfaction with the outcome. Tewfik 08:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with showing pictures of bombing scenes when discussing those bombings. No one is removing the ones on the 9/11 page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles. What's so different here? Taxico 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I second that, "There's nothing wrong with showing pictures of bombing scenes when discussing those bombings. No one is removing the ones on the 9/11 page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles." --Striver 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There aren't any on either 9/11 or on any suicide bombing as far as I could tell, because while you might not object, exclusion of such graphic images is an established part of NPOV. Tewfik 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not true. There are no graphical images of corpses on 911, remember the tower crashing down? "exclusion of such graphic images is an established part of NPOV." Did you miss the pictures at the top of this section? --Striver 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good, im glad that the pov issue is over. Now to the next issue. Why is having to fair use pictures from two different sourses in the same article all the sudden copyvio? i see no merit in that argument, anyone who feels to elaborate on it?--Striver 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue is not over, and there still are no graphic images on either 9/11 or any of the Palestinian suicide bombings, nor would such inclusion suddenly change the conventions of NPOV that disallow the use of such images. Tewfik 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to try reading Wp:NPOV. NPOV means "no point of view" - a picture does not have a point of view. What is more applicable is WP:NOT#Censured, just like the big bang on the 911 article like the Muhammad pictures. --Striver 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV stands for "neutral point of view" - a picture does have a point of view, and while that doesn't disqualify information from being added in and of itself, a graphic image is not accepted unless it is in and of itself encyclopaedic, which is why there are no blood filled pictures in other articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't know what "big bang on the 911 article" refers to, though 9/11 has no graphic images, and as others have told you above, the Muhammad cartoons are not relevant since they are not graphic, and are encyclopaedic (the article is about the images). Tewfik 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of sources is irrelevant. One can't just add fair-use pictures because one wants to; there needs to specific reason (hence the fair-use rationale for each image). -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The number is irrelevant? Great, as for rational, the picture depicts visauly the reaction to this notable event of the family members of those killed, in the "Reactions" section of this article. We know that the event is notable. We know that the family members reaction is notable (how many times have you not seen that on tv?). And we do have a reaction section. So the second picture needs to go in and add information that is lacking without it. --Striver 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments

  • Both pictures are relevant and appear to qualify as fair use (the second picture more so because it's unique). So there's really no reason to remove them. There are however some (minor) neutrality concerns that have to be taken into consideration. The side removing the images would probably have to propose practical steps for making the Incident section more neutral—instead of just removing relevant pictures having to do with the event and its aftermath. --Taxico 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The pic with the blood is fake or altering in some way like other recent wire pics. Wires arent a very good source for controversial against Israel pics when we KNOW fakes have been given not long ago AND there are specific objections here like, is that realy blood in 'Water stained with blood filled the street?' Captions sent with pics arnt always followed in the wires and they dont name the editors.Opiner 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said Opiner but theres no way in hell the islamist POV pushers will stop. They probably still claim all their propaganda is real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.238.142 (talk)
  • Ah fuck it. I see now. looked back in Striver's records, he's a fucking islamist troll nothing more. No point bothering with him, he'll just keep popping up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.238.142 (talk)

The "Fake" Pic

Sorry for having to revert your removal of the picture here. But if you have problems with the caption you shouldn't be removing the whole picture? The caption itself comes from here, so it looks pretty accurate to me? Do you have any particular reason to believe what's on the ground is not blood? And do you have any sources backing this claim up? (You can just reply here.) Thanks, --Taxico 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Look closely at the red water it is only red where the buildings are reflecting. Distributing of real flowing blood would be independent of the reflectiing. Either a natural illusion or a photoshop on magic wand selected area of building reflecting.
  2. Why is there water? Does water normally flow down Gaza streets or maybe the IDF shells filled with water? None of the links say anything about the water! Which would be worth of reporting. Quote is saying 'We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street' anything like that here? Should be we saw them FLOATING DOWN the street!
  3. Is there any evidence of the shelling in the pic? Look at what the people are doing is it indicate anything about the story? or is there ANY reason for us believing it was taken at the scene?
  4. Pic is not credited to a photographer and caption isnt credited. Even story isnt credited meaning BBC bought it. Unlike the respectable newspaper BBC doesnt credit its sources.Opiner 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, firstly the above seems to stray into original research a bit (and so probably will this reply), but if you want some reactions -
  1. As to the colouring of the water, I can't comment, but saying "it looks photoshopped" isn't a valid objection, it's original research. Unless another reputable source calls the authenticity of the picture into question we have to assume that it is a picture of what the original source claims it to be.
  2. For the water in the street: there might be water from many sources (broken pipes, runoff from attempts to put out fires).
  3. Okay, the picture doesn't show the shell damage explicitly as far as I can see, unless the stuff floating in the water is detritus from the destruction of buildings. This isn't shown in the caption for the image on the original article and so cannot be ascertained at this time.
  4. The picture is from Agence France-Presse, a reputable news agency. I agree it should be mentioned somewhere as the original source of the image. And the caption is credited, it's from the BBC article from which the picture itself is taken - if you mean "where did the BBC get their quote from" well they do have reporters in Gaza, so maybe one of them?.
Note that I do not object to the picture being removed if the consensus is that it does not add information to the article - I'm still undecided about its usefulness. QmunkE 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If the BBC reporter is on the scene they give credit to the reporter otherwise its from a party three. Really we dont know the source. who wrote the story who is the photographer or made the caption. The BBC buys it isnt meaning anything.Opiner 09:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as you don't have a reliable source that reject the credibility of BBC, you can't just remove the pic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Water is probably there from efforts to clean the blood, obviously. Or it just rained. Have you never seen water? Even if it were not OR, it would be weak argumentation. And it does give information, it is visual representation of the effects of the shelling, you know, the same type of information that the "we saw..." quote gives. We are not going to sterilize this article. --Striver 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And if opiner still doubt BBC and AFP's reliability, Associated Press has similar pic . Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does Opiner keep reverting?Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Youre still not addressing the questions.
For BBC you can learn something they have a rule regular newspapers dont have. Every story MUST have the pic. Most of these are buying from the wire or in stock not BBC reporting. Theyre not fact-checking. You have a pic of a town except its really another town. Its happening all the time on BBC.
we know the photographer and the wire so lets discuss that instead of party threes who buy it. which is meaning nothing.Opiner 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean nothing. Please stay away from OR and give sources that reject the credibility of those 3 sources (BBC, AFP, AP). Where is your source that they don't do fact-checking?? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop abusing the policy. We should assess whats reliable its not 'original research.'Opiner 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And see WP:OR: It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. See? your analysis/assessment is OR unless it has been published by a reliable sources. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Issue remains unaddressed:where is your source that they don't do fact checking? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And humus is saying that the pic is unencyclopedic. Quite funny. Why is depiction of the scene unencyclopedic? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus have a look at this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/Holocaust Perhaps you would like to delete all the "unencyclopedic" pictures. This behaviour is really saddening...--Burgas00 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Why did opiner put a disputed tag? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to a neutrality tag rather than a factual dispute tag. The facts are not in dispute, the presentation is.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Which one? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The dispute over the picture and large blockquotes is well documented above.--Rosicrucian 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incursion v. military offensive

Our friendly anon changed the wording here based on WP:NPOV concerns. However, I don't see a substantial difference in meaning- incursion seems like a more succinct descrpiton. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a very slight preference for "incursion" (because of the absence of the word "offensive"), but both terms sound perfectly fine to me. Taxico 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Operation Autumn Clouds was, as its name implies, a military operation. "Incursion" is a loaded word and must be avoided. Beit Or 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me what connotations "incursion" has that I'm not picking up on? JoshuaZ 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with incursion. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Incursion" is defined as "an aggressive movement into somewhere; an invasion." Using it in the article would imply an aggression on part of Israel. "Operation" is the most NPOV and accurate word. Beit Or 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Be it Self Defence or an Attack. The Israeli actions are an Incursion into Gaza since the Israeli Army redeployed its troops in August and did not FULLY end the occupation per say then the word incursion would be very descriptive of the situation; an encyclopaedia describes an event by listing the two sides of the story with NPOV commentary. Inherently all acts of war are violent and aggressive. Israel’s action were described as an incursion in Israeli media as well. So if Both Palestinian and Israeli say it is an incusion, then we shall use the term. might I suggest you search the words incursion and Gaza again. wikipedia is not the official IDF spokesperson!!!!! --Palestine48 11:01 am, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Please use NPOV phrasing. Beit Or 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Beit Or:address the issue. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
See above. Beit Or 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with palestine48 Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please address the issue Beit and don't just give the Israeli Army partyline. I put forward a valid argument with valid links. --Palestine48 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if other sources use incursion that isn't necessarily relevant to whether or not the term has POV connotations. "operation" seems to be a neutral word and the facts of the Israeli military operation are in the article anyways, so we don't lose anything by using it. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli (military) Operation was an Incursion into Palestinian Land, an aggressive act. To say it was a bloody incursion is only descriptive. War is a tragic thing. --Palestine48 19:00 pm, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, to describe it as an "Incursion into Palestinian Land" would almost certainly be POV. Operation is neutral and we don't lose anything by using it. JoshuaZ 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An operation is a very vague word. A drill could be a operation. We do not use vague word when there is a more informative alternative. We say "Hitler killed Jews in a camp " not "Hitler had an operation with some people somewere" --Striver 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You really need to stop Godwinning the debate, Striver. This is not the first time you've brought up the Holocaust in this discussion.--Rosicrucian 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I see paranoia has set in already, All I am suggesting is that we describe things as they are, be it the Holocaust, WW2 or Beit Hanoun. The Israeli army made an Incursion into Gaza under (military) Operation codename "The Autumn Clouds". Striver had a valid point and he used a valid example, he wasn't offensive or derogatory in any way. Rosicrucian I suggest you stop mentioning the Holocaust to STOP legitimate debate. ~Palestine48 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There are less inflammatory ways to make said point, and Striver's hyperbole is only worsening the situation.--Rosicrucian 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quote

Why? The eyewitness's account is well-sourced, accurate, and highly descriptive. Thus it is encyclopedic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Emotional - yes, encyclopedic - no. ←Humus sapiens 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Mind explaining why?It has been block-quoted by BBC. His account about legs and hands everywhere is really informative. I am wondering why you said it is unencyclopedic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't add details like "heads and legs were everywhere" to every single article dealing with people killed by artillery fire. Beit Or 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it is not always the case. Not all shelling hit civilian homes and kill 20 civilians. this one does. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, quite a lot of shelling hits residential areas. In the history of WWII, one shelling of one house (by any warring party) does not deserve even a footnote. Beit Or 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a different between WW II-era shelling and this. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, I think you should reflect on the moral implications of your editing of this article. Palestinians are also human beings. The same goes for other Israeli wikipedians who have been editing recently. I find these attempts to twist reality (e.g. blood is really the reflection of red buildings ????) quite sickening. --Burgas00 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked there was no official policy Misplaced Pages:Moral implications. That's just meaningless political rhetoric. Beit Or 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would urge calm from everyone on this topic. Calling other editors well-informed opinions "attempts to twist reality" is neither productive nor civil. As for the quote about arms and legs everywhere, I note that in articles we have about some of the major suicide bombings such Passover massacre we don't have pictures of blood and we don't describe there being arms and legs everywhere (although a quick google source easily gives enough WP:RS-compliant stuff which makes similar claims). I'm not trying to make this an us v. them sort of thing but its useful to change the context sometimes and ask if we would put in the corresponding article. When the answer is obviously "no" that should tell us something about this one. JoshuaZ 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but claiming that pictures of blood on the street is the "reflection of red buildings" is an attempt to twist reality. It is a statement which is neither well informed nor made in good faith since it is impossible to believe that the person who is making it truly believes what he is saying. Untill all editors start contributing in good faith, civility and reasonable discussion on this and other related articles will be useless. --Burgas00 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bugras instead of the accusing HOW about an answer. Why is the blood suddenly stopping where the sky is reflecting? How it will really look if the water is saturating with the blood? Im not gonna say theres no blood in the water how would I know BUT that cant be the reason the water is red! The distributing of redness is ONLY governed by what is reflecting.Opiner 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit of AGF might be in order. First, the building in question is red. Second, the people who were of that opinion expressed there reasoning above. You have no reason to accuse them of being not informed or not engaging in good faith and to say that "it is impossible to believe that the person who is making it truly believes what he is saying" is if anything just an indication of your own POV and failure to AGF and to actually defend your own incivility and repeat it is uncalled for. We can discuss this matter without resorting to such issues. JoshuaZ 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's return to the topic. we need not to discuss wheter it is blood or not since 3 RS has proven it. now, why does the picture keep being deleted? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As was said several times already, the image is graphic in nature, and pictures of that sort are not included in Misplaced Pages due to NPOV concerns. Of at least a dozen Palestinian suicide bombings with entries on Misplaced Pages (whose intent is loudly proclaimed by those responsible, and not denied/apologised for as here), none of them maintain such graphic images. The idea that you have to use The Holocaust's inclusion of graphic pictures just serves to highlight the inappropriateness of inclusion here. Tewfik 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Those suicide bombing articles being incomplete has nothing to do with this article. Go ahead and add a few gory pic's, i promise i will suport you 100% if it is sourced and depicts the action. In the same way, this picture is informative, nobody has denied that, and WP:NOT censured. WP does not care if somebody gets offended as long as the picture is informative. NPOV? What, are the Israelis denying that people died? Or is there POV that people do not bleed when they die? In either case: tough luck, its a bith when you dont agree with reality. If all USA said that the earth is flat, do we remove from earth due to NPOV? NPOV is in use when there is several points of view and facts are not established. Here, the facts are clear: people died, people bleed. There is not even any NPOV dispute, nobody is denying any of that. WP:NOT sensured! --Striver 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand, as no one is arguing that people weren't killed, or that said killed people didn't bleed. What is being stated is that we don't "Go ahead and add a few gory pic's" on Misplaced Pages because NPOV is served best by letting the facts of the case speak for themselves without harping at chords of emotion. I won't add any gory pics to other articles since it wouldn't be NPOV, and it wouldn't make their addition here NPOV either. Tewfik 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You haven't defined the NPOV concern clearly. What is the concern? Why is the picture NPOV? "Let the facts speak for themselves"? That would mean we might as well let the facts speak for themselves in all Misplaced Pages articles and remove all images. BhaiSaab 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"NPOV is served best by letting the facts of the case speak for themselves without harping at chords of emotion." If the pictures are gory, then in the vast majority of cases they should be removed. And when such images were added by others to Palestinian suicide bombings, they were removed. Tewfik 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do images remain at holocaust? BhaiSaab 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was taking a wikibreak, but I'll just say it amazes me that the blatant pov-pushing is still going on by Burgas and friends. RunedChozo 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you, be civil and dont use sockpuppets. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the comparisons with the Holocaust here utterly disgusting. ←Humus sapiens 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. We can use Armenian Genocide too. BhaiSaab 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A stray artillery shell during a war is not genocide. Try harder. ←Humus sapiens 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli occupation has been compared to mass murder / genocide many times. There's no need to try harder. BhaiSaab 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet you fail to realize that comparing it to mass murder/genocide is POV.--Rosicrucian 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly allowed to have a POV outside of article mainspace. There is no valid justification here for keeping the image out. BhaiSaab 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "explicit pictures are POV" argument is utterly debunked, you really want to argue that the September 11, 2001 attacks pictures do not "pull on heartstrings?" {| border="1" width="80%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" |- |] |] |] |] |}

Those pictures are plenty of emotional why don't we "just let the facts speak" on that article? The "no emotional picture" argument is totally voided of merit, have you already forgot the Muhammad cartoons incident pictures? It has a HUGE talk page archive mostly about people, Muslims, not appreciating the pictures. What happened? The pictures remained since wikipedia is not censured. Period! --Striver 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected, Again

I have protected the article, again. Revert-warring is not the way to resolve disputes. Maybe you all should try Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Armenian Genocide

{| border="1" width="80%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" |- |] |] |] |] |] |] |}

Again, the "no emotional pictures" argument is totally voided of merit. --Striver 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you forgot, this is what we are debating about including in this article:

File:Beit HanounBlood.jpg File:Gaza morgue .jpg

--Striver 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, even if you believe that Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is comparable to 9/11 and the Armenian Genocide, there is no reason for us to treat it as such, and quite differently from the dozen Palestinian suicide bombings within which the convention of no gory pictures is adhered to. I'm not going to explain again why they are different, as that has been discussed ad nauseum above. Tewfik 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The scale is different, but the principle is not. Something does not get NPOV just because its articles subject is of a higher magnitude. I don't care for suicide bombings, i care for principles and guidelines like WP:NOT censored. This article is right now censored of information, a direct violation of policy. --Striver 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You are confused. WP not censored does not mean it should reflect an extremist POV. You strived too long to make a point. ←Humus sapiens 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Extremist POV`? Those are pictures from western maintream media. --Striver 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

youre an extremist striver, stop trying to pov this article. wikipedias not a place where you get to push your more jews need to be in ovens pov.

Pic Flood

Please none of the pic flood here. People should be able to come and edit without having dozens of the Holocaust images rubbed in the face. which dont have anything to do with the article. Its disruption of talk for making the point.Opiner 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)