Misplaced Pages

Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:39, 8 December 2006 editStriver (talk | contribs)39,311 edits →Mediation← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 9 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,590,370 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-08. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger 
(233 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{ARBPIA}}
{{Talk header}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2019-11-08|oldid1=925218215|date2=2024-11-08|oldid2=1255916592}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history
|1=<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=no
|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes
}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
}}


{{Archive box|<br>}}
==Title==
In its short existence, this article has already been moved <s>twice</s> <s>three</s> a staggering eight times. The issue seems to be whether what happened was an incident or a massacre. Before we descend into a revert/move war, please discuss the article's title here. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:I prefer massacre. Since it was apparently deliberate, killing many civilians, and widely called so--''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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. ] 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.--] 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 ]. Hence, not a massacre. ] 21:01, 8 November B2006 (UTC)


== List of Victims ==
::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."


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


'''"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."'''


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


] (]) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
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.


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


When Hezbollah kills civilians with inadequate munitions in this fashion, it will be called a massacre - why are Palestinians not given the same decency?
P.S. Oh SUPRISE, SUPRISE, MathKnight is an Israeli as well... please we don't need your pro-Zionist agenda in another Israel-related article, it is a massacre, like it or not the IDF has committed another massacre, please face the truth...
] 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Amir


It's not as if even Israelis weren't horrified - on this subject - "No one is guilty in Israel" - ''"Nineteen inhabitants of Beit Hanun were killed with malice aforethought. There is no other way of describing the circumstances of their killing. Someone who throws burning matches into a forest can't claim he didn't mean to set it on fire, and anyone who bombards residential neighborhoods with artillery can't claim he didn't mean to kill innocent inhabitants. Therefore it takes considerable gall and cynicism to dare to claim that the Israel Defense Forces did not intend to kill inhabitants of Beit Hanun. Even if there was a glitch in the balancing of the aiming mechanism or in a component of the radar, a mistake in the input of the data or a human error, the overwhelming, crucial, shocking fact is that the IDF bombards helpless civilians. Even shells that are supposedly aimed 200 meters from houses, into "open areas," are intended to kill, and they do kill. In this respect, nothing new happened on Wednesday morning in Gaza: The IDF has been behaving like this for months now."'' ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
: "Witnesses said" and we know how reliable Palestinian witnesses are (they blame the IDF with radioactive candy bars and "500 massacred in Jenin". The Guardian claim it was by "tank fire" which is absurd since no ] was around miles away. According to ]: "The IDF confirmed that an artillery battery containing 12 shells had aimed at a site from where Qassam rockets were fired at the southern city Ashkelon on Tuesday. The artillery fire had been intended for a location about half a kilometer from the Beit Hanun houses. At this stage it is unclear whether the incident was caused by '''a technical or human error'''." There was no intention of massacre, and the incident was a mistake as the article indicates. Further more, Israel vowed regret over the incident (unlike Palestinian terrorists who declare publicly that their intention is to kill as many civilians as possible) Since you are seeking Zionist conspiracy in every corener ("''Israel's policy coudln't be anymore blatantly obvious; of targetting civlians deliberately to inflame and incite an uprising or counterattacks by Hamas or Hezbollah just so they can then justify even more extensive military operations.''") you won't be bothered by the truth. Your need of ] show that you have nothing but hatred at your side. ] 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


'''Massacre''' - whether deliberate or not. --] (]) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Massacre must be deliberate. Accident is no massacre. ] 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
yes the grenades were exploded by accident --] (]) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


:Anything to add, Jay?
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.


:] (]) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If 1, then it's a very bland/meaningless description (it might as well be "Something happened on 8th Nov...'). If 2 or 3 it's diminishing the significance of these deaths relative to other deaths in this conflict. If 4, I can't see this disrupting normal procedure... sadly it's perfectly normal at the moment.] 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


::i worked through logs. it seems like there were quite a few move wars and attempts on the article, and a status quo was reached with 'incident'. it survived for almost two years until you brought it back up again. no new material surfaced to substantiate the claim that it was intentional, and a newspaper polemicist article is definitely not proof. i think that further trying to push this point of view will result in nothing more than a moveprotect. ] (]) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
: I also prefer massacre. "incident" or "accidental killing" is quite funny. missing artillery couldn't go a mile away. It is widely called massacre (of course not in Israel) But i think we don't need "November 2006" things,
--''']'''<sub>]</sub> 04:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


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...


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


:::] (]) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The only person here who disagrees is MathKnight, and his judgement is quite questionable, since he's trying desperately to defend Israel's actions and IDF's motive.
I think we should VOTE.
] 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
: Stop use ] arguments. It is a violation of Wiki-ettiquete.] 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:::If there's no logical objection, I'll move the article there.
Agree. I vote for massacre --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:::] (]) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (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. ←] <sup>]</sup> 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::The militants was a mile away, Israel's shell could't have missed that far --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::: And you said this as a qualified artillery officer? For BTVR shelling, about a mile off is a reasonable deviation range, a specialy if the coordinates were misfed or there was an error in the gun controls computer. One evidence that the incident was an accident is that only 1-2 shells hit and not the whole 12. Believe me, if the IDF wanted to massacre, he was shelling the town itself with more than 12 shells. ] 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Belive me, if IDF whant a masscre, it will make sure it can later claimed it was an accidental. 1 mile is reasonable deviation range? In that case, do they ever hit anyone? We are not talking about rock-slingers. --] 12:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::"Normal" deviation was 200-300 meters --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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


] (]) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
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.


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


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


== Italian Foreign Minister ==
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.


Why is the statement of Italy's Foreign Minister being moved to the lead - as opposed, say, to the statement of Russia's Foreign Minister? For that matter, why would the statement of ''any'' foreign minister belong in the lead? It almost looks as if the statement was placed there because it was the statement most prejudicial to Israel from any Western politician - but that couldn't possibly be the reason, so there must be some other explanation. Is Italy's foreign minister a known expert on Middle East affairs, or unusually famous in some way? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
] 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
:True. Also, 6 shells could not deviate altogether at a same time --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
: The Guardian still insist it was "Children among 19 killed by Israeli '''tank fire'''" while it was artillery fire. ] report that: "following the killing of 19 Palestinian civilians '''by errant shelling''' in Beit Hanun on Wednesday. Peretz also decided that from now on all artillery fire must be approved by GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant, or his superior officers." and that "The inquiry found that '''a technical problem in the artillery battery's radar, which was replaced just last week, was the cause of the errant fire'''. That explains the diversion of the shells and prooves it was an accident and not deliberate. ] 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
: P.S. The IDF uses an older M109A1 and not Paladin M109A6. ] 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


NPOV policy requires that titles be Neutral. I have fixed this as per notation on WP:ANI. ] 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician (which makes it unusual in itself), but you were close. Russia's, on the other hand, is just one more run-of-the-mill bland plea to "both sides". I'm not privy to the minister's sources.
: "Incident" is not neutral. There must be a better term to use between 'incident' which has connotations of a 'random act of God' or something totally unexpected, which when an army fires shells in the vicinty of civilians deaths can not be, and 'massacre' which implies a deliberately perpetrated mass killing. Shelling, killings, attack or something else like this has to fit the bill.] 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::"Massacre" is an utterly POV title. <font color="green">]</font> 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Am I reading this correctly, and you are saying that, almost exactly as ] surmised but incredulously rejected, that this statement was chosen because 'It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician'? If so, you should review ] carefully, before further editing any Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


:::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!". ] An accident is possible, but the ] virtually excludes it from the outset. "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence." (etc) ] 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


You seem to have missed the thrust of my argument, Monkey.
::] -- the accurate description of what occurred that day at that spot -- redirects to ]. 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! ] 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (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. ] 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Note that not all 'incident' google hit refer to this massacre. There are many incident happened in Beit Hanoun due to israeli invasion in gaza --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


:CM appears to have summed your argument up precisely, from my reading. But I'm interested to hear you rephrase why you've cherry-picked the Italian minister's statement, if CM hasn't in fact gotten the gist of it. ] 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
:: So you figured out that Googletest is inaccurate and the internet is POV, get yourself a medal. ←] <sup>]</sup> 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


:::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. ] 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Let me put it another way; the foreign minister of a leading NATO country accuses one of NATO's beneficiaries of deliberately using artillery on civilians. This statement doesn't require cherry-picking, it stands out like a sore thumb.
:::: It is a tragedy no doubt, but why would we promote ]? ←] <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:32, 23 June 2008 (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. ] 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:We also have the opinion of the US ambassador, not just 'a leading NATO country' , but "THE" leading NATO country. If the NATO relationship is the reason for including that quote, why wouldn't we include the US Ambassador's opinion, insetad of the Italian minister's? ] (]) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


::::::He means that the recipients of the shells have no right to characterize the event if the senders have ]. 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! ] 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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


] (]) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There could have been tons of "incidents" in Beit Hanoun in November, the November 2006 Incident is really too vague and unimaginative for a[REDACTED] 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.
:So did you pick it becuase it was the most accusatory, or not? ] (]) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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.


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


] (]) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
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.] 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:It doesn't excuse choosing a quotation simply because it was the most prejudicial to Israel. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


== Disambiguations in quotations ==
: 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”. ←] <sup>]</sup> 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! ] 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


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


===What could they have expected to accomplish??===
Out of curiosity, what could Israel really have expected to accomplish? I mean seriously. Did they really expect to hit only "terrorists."? If this was sincerely their goal ... that they really thought they could eliminate individual terrorists with surgical precision .. .then fine .. it was an "accident" and not a "massacre." But what on earth could they possible have that would make them think they could hit only terrorists...that there would be minimum civilian casualities? Do they have terrorist seeking missiles? If you know for certain it's going to kill civilians .. and there's only possibilty it might kill a terrorist ... it is definitely a massacre. You perform an action that has at least one guaranteed outcome ... civilians will die. You want to perform this action. So therefore, you purposely want to perform a specific action that has the guaranteed results of killing civilians. This is massacre. ] 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Are you referring to my linking of Abbas' mention of the "occupation" to ]? What other occupation do you think he may have been alluding to? I take your point about leading to a redirect, I'm surprised doesn't have its own article yet. That may change, of course.
==Final warning==
Ok, I've had enough of it. This article has been moved eight times in the eleven hours that it exists. The last three moves occurred in the space of twenty minutes. Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:Since all editor except MathKnight agree, can we move it back to massacre now?
::All editors - I think not all editors were consulated - so the answer is no. --] 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Beit Hanoun "incident"??? Is this a joke? Move it back to massacre. This title is extremely offensive to the victims.--] 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:You saw this warning, but chose to ignore it anyway. You have been blocked for 24 hours. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:: By not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


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


Israel's U.N. representative specifically referred to the "incident in Beit Hanoun". Why is Lapsed Pacifist changing it to say "ninetennpeople killed at Beit Hanoun"? Aside from the punctuation error, it misrepresents what he said. Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he prefers this to a direct quote of the source? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
==Merge==
Is ] a NPOV title? That article also has pictures, something this one lacks. --] 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
: Could we have more gory pictures, to show how bloodthirsty those <s>Joos</s> Zionists really are. Striclty for NPOV. ←] <sup>]</sup> 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::What are you implying? We should have an article about the event, withouth actually describing it? --] 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. ] ] 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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


] (]) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Or any of the pictures at ]. I have a hard time assuming your comment was in good faith. --] 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Great, then we'll just quote what he said, rather than putting words in his mouth. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


If you can use lengthy lists, why can't I? From ]:<blockquote>
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.


Cool.
* '''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 ].
* '''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 ].
</blockquote>
Into which category do your images fall? Furthermore, if you consult ], 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 ]. ] ] 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 ]--] 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


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


=="appeared to defend the massacre"==
<s>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. ] 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</s>
Lapsed Pacifist is inserting the claim that "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre". This claim appears to be ] ] which ] on the PMO's statement. Could Lapsed Pacifist please provide the source for this claim he is inserting? Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


<blockquote><div style="border:1px solid">As a neutral ] I have annulled this vote. Misplaced Pages policy clearly dictates that ] and the ] strongly discourages it per ]. ] however, are permitted. Thank you. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
</div></blockquote>


That's not a defence of IDF tactics? How do you make that out? It seems pretty plain to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance.
::'''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 ] so as to avoid repeating the same discussion. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The first lines of ] seems NPOV and acceptable. --] 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? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
: 'Killings' but if it's a straight 'massacre' vs 'incident', i vote 'massacre'.] 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::* '''Incident''' - It should remain incident for the time being at least until the investigation is completed. --] ] 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:A defense "of IDF tactics" is not the same as a defense of the "massacre". Surely you see the difference between those statements? ] (]) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Massacre'''. "Mechanical failure"... yeah... --] 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:The Guardian and the BBC are referring to it as an incident. --] ] 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Incident''' -- massacre is against naming conventions in ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::: How is this against the naming conventions? The relevant part as far as I could see was ''An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (e.g. Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" (where X and Y are the locations of the operations). Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care.'' By having this discussion we are taking care.] 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".] 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Boy you really need to review the naming convention article if you believe what you're saying . ] 10:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::What you've said looks very much like a breach of ]. ] 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Massacre''', definately.
] 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Amir




Fair comment.
*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.
] 08:06, November 12 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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". ] 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


The policies led to the killings, no? I'm sure these groups didn't just decide IDF tactics maybe weren't all they were cracked up to be just because of Beit Hanoun.
*'''Massacre'''. if not, killing. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (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. ] 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 ]. 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. ] 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. ] 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Massacre''': I would also support Killings as a consensus version.--] 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


:It's the sources that matter, not our opinions about what did or did not happen. ] 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I opened a vote because democracy should be an option.


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


Can you show us the opinion you are referring to?
I counted the last vote becuz incident and massacre were equal. ] 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, ]. Our opinions don't alter our responsibility to maintain neutrality. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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. ] 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 ], and the article's name is the last place for holding such a discussion. I suggest a ] formulation similar to the one used at ], ie describing the event without a moral judgment (thus neither "accident" nor "massacre" would be appropriate). Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 ] (policy) trumps ] (guideline). ] 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,[REDACTED] 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 ]. 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.]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 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. ] 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


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


Where is it?
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. ] 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (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.
:In the article, when you said the protest was "against government policies". Please don't insert your personal opinions into articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
--] 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[REDACTED] with NPOV policies in mind and when you actually understand them. ] 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


==U.S. vote==
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".--] 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording
:Your bad faith is showing: now you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being Israeli. ] 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>voted against by the ], which holds veto power, on grounds that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".</blockquote>
to
<blockquote>
voted against solely by the ], which holds a ] under rules drawn up in the 1940s. The US claimed that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".</blockquote>
What does the fact that the U.N. voting rules were drawn up in the 1940s have to do with this article? When China or the U.S.S.R. veto resolutions, must the articles discussing them always mention that the rules were drawn up in the 1940s? Also, regarding the changing of the wording to "claimed", please see ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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.--] 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
--] 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. ] 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


It's illustrative that these rules have been with us since the end of World War II, and perhaps not that well known. I'd be happy to accept similar educative additions to articles about Chinese and Soviet vetos. I take your point on the use of "claim".
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. --] 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). ] 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (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.--] 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:There's no need to bu "illustrative" in such a fashion. Simply link veto to ], and anyone interested can read the details on that article.
:Could you live with "]" as a compromise, instead of "massacre" or "incident"? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Provided that there is not a merge with the despicable POV fork ], 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. ] 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. ] 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Fair enough.
::: 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. ←] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey RunedChozo, by ur way of speaking violantly, we may assume that ur defending a murderer. ] 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We can't compromise, the ] 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? ] 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What the heck is a ]? ] does not equal ]. ] is not ]. ] ≠ ], etc. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:Don't be deliberately dense. Unless of course you're just naturally that mentally deficient. ] 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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.] 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I disagree that this constitutes a pleonasm. For example, if a right-wing Israeli assasinated the prime minister of Israel, that could be interpreted as an attack on the Israeli state. That's not the same as saying the man "attacked Israel".
Yes, you get into the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy which should be avoided at all costs.] 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (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. ] 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::'''comment''':please give citation to your claim that russia etc list Hamas as terrorist group. also, please ].
:Could you present me with a list of people refering to Hamas as freedom fighters? --] 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Other Terrorists. ] 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


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


Redundant twice over, I'm blown away. Your argument doesn't even approach redundancy.
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. ] 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. --] 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''no consensus'''. -- ''']''' 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :Do you have an actual point to make? If so, I'm all ears. ] 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
:: Folks, please, can we adopt a more ] tone here? For best results, please keep comments focused on the actual article, thanks. --]]] 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
== Requested move ==
:LP, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. What information does the phrase "the Israeli state" impart to this specific article, in this specific instance, that is not covered by the conventional term "Israel"? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
] → ] — There is controversy over term "incident" being euphemistic, proposed title is simply descriptive. &nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">]</font>&nbsp;</span> 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


===Survey===
:''Add &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki>* '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; or &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki>* '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.


Point taken.
'''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[REDACTED] has to be careful with politically charged words. Shelling is slightly better than incident and I support this move.--] 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
'''OPPOSE IN STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS''' Misplaced Pages naming conventions have already ] to you people multiple times. Stop trying to POV push. ] 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== "huge" vs. "wide" margin ==
'''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. ] 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Per RunedChozo] 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording "wide margin" to "huge margin". Given the fact that the term "huge" is more emotive, can LP explain his reasoning for the change? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* '''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. ] 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''' - "massacre" didn't work, now let's try "shelling". No, "incident" is NPOV enough. ←] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


"Huge", given the amount of states in the UN, is hardly emotive.
* '''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 :|) ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per Humus. The agenda behind this proposal is transparent and unwikipedic. ] ] 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ] (]) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


:I can think of no article where the word "huge" would be appropriate, unless it's in a quote. This is an encyclopedia, and the tone should reflect that. ] 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' regardless of "agenda" this article's title is currently uninformative and "incident" is one of the most ] 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 ] or similar. Unless the event itself becomes widely known as the "Beit Hanoun incident" its article should not be located here. ] 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. ] 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I don't oppose a title like "Beit Hanoun shelling" in principle, but I ''do'' share Joshua's concerns about NPOV. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


When one vote is in treble figures, and the other fails even to leave single figures, I can't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that's not a huge margin. But let me suggest we display the voting figures, and let the readers make up their own minds.
*'''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:, incident , shelling . 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' titles about attacks don't mention the perpetrators, eg ]. ] 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:"Wide margin" is encyclopedic. "Huge margin" is unprofessional. Please don't introduce unprofessional, emotive terminology again. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
:What about the use of "shelling" instead of euphemistic "incident"? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


How did you come up with that?
*'''Oppose''' Oh hell no. ] 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' What is an "incident"? If I were to stub my toe, that would be incident too. This was a shelling. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Basic English. Please don't do it again, thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 4 July 2008 (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!'' ] 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


"Wide" is encyclopedic, "huge" is unprofessional? That doesn't sound like anything that would be taught to students of English. In fact, it sounds pretty subjective to me.
===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. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 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.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">]</font>&nbsp;</span> 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. ] 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:''']''': 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: , , ], go figure)&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">]</font>&nbsp;</span> 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::...shelling of Beit Hanoun seems a lot less POV then ''incident'' --] 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:: 33,000 Google scholar hits.
:::''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 ]. ] 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:: 1,080 Google scholar hits.
:All done here, I think. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


:::Just about every one of your comments is derisive, it does not help to make your points by doing that. Please stop. --] 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I hope so, but it's a faint hope. Are the thousand scholars on my side also guilty of being, in your opinion, "unprofessional"?
:::It seems we all agree and we are dealing with one particularly conflictive user... --] 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. ] 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (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. ] 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:It turns out that "wide margin" is 33 times as scholarly as "huge margin". ]<sup>]</sup> 21:37, 8 July 2008 (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 ]) 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. ] 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 ;>)] 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. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


It turns out those voting against Israel, the US, and whatever US vassals' aid budgets are up for review, are often more than 33 times the number. You're speaking in the general, Jay, I in the specific. It would be more accurate to say that wide margins are 33 times more likely to occur. No?
::::How about..."Accidental November 2006 IDF Shelling of Beit Hanoun"????--] 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (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. --] 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. ] 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== Summary of Israel's MFA statement ==
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. --] 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:When you desist POV-pushing, I'll stop telling you to stop POV-pushing. ] 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) ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


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


From ]:
: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".


"Distorted UN processes"? There's no need to have such a large piece of apologist propaganda in the text, especially when it's already linked.
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. ] 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (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 ]. 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. ] 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.] 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== 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. ] 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
: Non-encyclopedic picture. ←] <sup>]</sup> 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). ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 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. ] 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Agreed with all of the above. This picture should not be in the article. ] ] 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The summary is suspect itself. ] 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Correct. Unless the summary can have a cite attached, the image should be scrapped.--] 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. ] 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::It is a ]. It should be better put the picture and let the viewer decide themselves. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You're just POV pushing. Go away. ] 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::As I said, your interpretation of the photo is ]. I think it's better to put it. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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. ] 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: is a citation that it is blood. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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 ] and sufficent cause to include the picture with the caption.] 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No thats the BBC taking a stock propaganda photo without bothering to factcheck. ] 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

: My POV is very close to that having happened. However, in general the BBC is treated as a ] 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. ] 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 ], is Misplaced Pages the appropriate forum for it? ] 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. {{unsignedIP|129.7.35.126}}
your second image is bullshit too, looks like ordinary muddy water. "mixed with blood" my ass. {{unsignedIP|129.7.35.126}}
:]. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::No, you keep putting it back because you're trying to POV the article. Stop. ] 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. ] 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. ] 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
From ]: ''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.] 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 ], 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. ] 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. ] 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 ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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.] 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!] 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. ] 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 ]. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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!] 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. {{unsigned|129.7.35.126}}

: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. ] 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.{{unsigned|129.7.35.126|05:08, 17 November 2006}}

:: The entire section on the GC is ]. If it isn't well-sourced in the next few hours I'm removing it. ] 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I just zapped it again. It remains out until someone can source it directly. ] 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. {{unsigned|129.7.35.126|05:48, 17 November 2006 (edit)}}
: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 ] and sign your posts using four ~'s, like so: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 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, ]. 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. ] 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 ]. -- ''']''' 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Congatulation you protected the pic with the fake caption and no right to use.] 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::It is mandatory to protect an article on ]. Incivility will only lengthen the time it stays protected on The Wrong Version. ] 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.] 08:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::"Very first protection"? As far as I can tell, ] and ] were the first articles he protected. ] 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.] 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. ] 07:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Definitely agreeing about the edit summaries. Some of that stuff is WAY out of the boundaries.] 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(comment by 70.114.236.109 about locking of article removed by ] 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 ] 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)) ] 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: I'm inclined to agree. Can anyone explain why they think this isn't relevant? ] 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". ] 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. ] 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that all Palestinian attacks are called massacres on[REDACTED] 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.--] 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Compare
*http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada to

*http://en.wikipedia.org/Qana_shelling
*http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Qana_airstrike

:: 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 ]. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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[REDACTED] (like User:Amoruso for example) than hardcore pro-palestinians. I dont know why this is, but[REDACTED] rules on naming these types of incidents should be applied consistently.--] 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. ] 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). ] 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. ] 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. ] 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, ] 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you removed my entire comment, including the section header. That is foul and disreputable. ] 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 ]. It has been confirmed that {{user5|Wheelygood}} is a {{user5|RunedChozo}} ]. Both accounts edit from {{user|129.7.35.126}}, which is registered to the University of Houston. {{user5|NotAWeasel}} does not seem to be related. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 10:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:user {{user|70.114.236.109}} who is all over this discussion also hails frm houston , as is the above {{user|129.7.35.126}}. another sock?&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">]</font>&nbsp;</span> 11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to add him to the request. I have just added {{user5|Al'Ilah}}. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have filed a formal protest about this, it is clearly just a ]. ] 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. ] 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of this one conflictive user and his sockpuppets would certainly contribute to resolving this debate.--] 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. ] 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?--] 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. ] 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure what you're saying violates ]. Still, what is the content dispute? What do we need to establish consensus on?--] 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?] 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?--] 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Runed, please calm down. Are there specific quotes you would like to include? ] 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). <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I think he is not saying that the statements are untrue, but more that they are given ].--] 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 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. ] 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. ] 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? --] 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Bit of a hair-trigger? Everyone is escalating this entirely too much.--] 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 to it on BBC for later reference. -- ''']''' 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Even Striver's pet admin wouldn't support him, and he's still going on like this? ] 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. ] 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.] 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:The discussion on the proper article name is above. You might want to read it first.--] 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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.--] 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::For what its worth, I echo your impression that all is in order. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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? - ] 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:Unless we're recreating what other sources have done, wouldn't that be a bit close to ]? ] 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. ] 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. ] 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:? ] whatever you meant. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:: ] would appear to be the most appropriate here I think. ] 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. ] 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. --] 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: You went to deletion review? Why don't I see any history of that on ]? 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 ] concerns and claiming that we need both of them and can make legitimate fair use claims is laughable.) ] 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, Joshua, there was a ] discussion (see ). 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. -- ''']''' 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 ( and ) proves that the images are both notable and relevant to this very issue. There are no issues with N, R, or POV here. --] 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? ] 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill tell again:
#It gives a visaul representation of the results of the Shelling. This is the Beit Hanoun shelling article, right?
#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 --] 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 ] 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. ] 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. --] 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.--] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've edited the caption to take a step back from the unsourced "streets stained with blood" sensationalism.--] 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::: That's easily citable to the BBC caption. ] 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Will do. --] 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this unencyclopedic image. ] ] 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, i have had enough, time for a RFC. --] 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Request for Comment==
:::''This RFC has been included in ].
:::''This RFC is regarding the inclusion of one or both of this pictures: ], ].
*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. --] 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.--] 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::So fix it. Fix other pictures to add. Or why not take a look at ]. Here, for your convineace:


:The quote itself is more informative and useful than what briefly replaced it. ] 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
:: ::
{| border="1" width="80%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]
|}


More informative, certainly, but that's not enough for inclusion. Not alone is it propaganda, its size gives it ].
::All in the SAME article. Is this not anti-Nazi pov? Or is your pov argument void?--] 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. ] 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... --] 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: Indeed, the comparison to the Holocaust is inaccurate and insensitive. They're not even close. -- ''']''' 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. --] 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.--] 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`?! <s>You got bloody UN condemning it</s>, not that "consensus" is even closly relevant to this issue. What, you need "consensus" on the factuality of the pictures? --] 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.--] 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Listen, people died. We ], 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 ] emotinal? Yes. Are they on wikipedia? Yes. factuality goes over sensitivity. --] 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. ] 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. --] 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 ] by pulling on heartstrings and heavily emphasizing the Palestinian casulties. ] 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.--] 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. ] 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". --] 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (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). ] 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::] 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? --] 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


:In no case is it propaganda, for our purposes. It is possible the quote could be cut down, but your deletion of the quote in its entirety, and your unhelpful synopsis of that quote, aren't making the article better. ] 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
*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.--] 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. --] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 ] page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles. What's so different here? ] 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 ] page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles."'' --] 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Its dishonest railing against the democratic mechanisms of the UN is blatant propaganda. Would you like to offer us your synopsis?
*There aren't any on either ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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? --] 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?--] 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::*The issue is not over, and there still are no graphic images on either ] or any of the Palestinian suicide bombings, nor would such inclusion suddenly change the conventions of NPOV that disallow the use of such images. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::::*You need to try reading ]. NPOV means "no point of view" - a picture does not have a point of view. What is more applicable is ]#Censured, just like the big bang on the 911 article like the Muhammad pictures. --] 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::::*] 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 ]. I don't know what "big bang on the 911 article" refers to, though ] has no graphic images, and as others have told you above, the ] are not relevant since they are not graphic, and are encyclopaedic (the article is ''about'' the images). <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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). -- ''']''' 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. --] 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
===Outside comments===
::Ah, so you recognize that the statement was actually about UN processes; why, then, did your summary address some entirely different point? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
* 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&mdash;instead of just removing relevant pictures having to do with the event and its aftermath. --] 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:There's no need to offer a synopsis or paraphrase, especially when you paraphrase has been challenged as inaccurate. We have the original quote, and we can use it. ] (]) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


*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.] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
::*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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->


We can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean we should.
==The "Fake" Pic==


] (]) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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 , 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, --] 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed. One of the things we shouldn't be doing is inserting our biased paraphrases of statements, in a way that doesn't appear to capture the original meaning. Please discuss any proposed paraphrase here before inserting it, to make sure it has consensus. ] (]) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
#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.
::Exactly so. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
#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!
:::Use of the entire article from the MFA is almost certainly a breach of copyright. The "When quoting from the protected material etc" (ie a portion may be used, subject to their amazingly tight restrictions), "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." - which would appear to have been written to bar use of the whole thing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
#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?
::::Good point. I've summarized it. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
#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.] 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


::Okay, firstly the above seems to stray into ] a bit (and so probably will this reply), but if you want some reactions -
:#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.
:#For the water in the street: there might be water from many sources (broken pipes, runoff from attempts to put out fires).
:#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.
:#The picture is from ], 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. ] 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.] 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Cool.
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. --] 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:And if opiner still doubt BBC and AFP's reliability, ] has similar pic . ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


::Why does Opiner keep reverting?''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ] (]) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (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.] 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


== Introduction ==
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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Please stop abusing the policy. We should assess whats reliable its not 'original research.'] 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::And see ]: ''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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Issue remains unaddressed:where is your source that they don't do fact checking? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::And ] is saying that the pic is unencyclopedic. Quite funny. Why is depiction of the scene unencyclopedic? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I changed the Introduction to give it a NPOV and to give the full perspective of the incident. The previous Intro takes Israel's statement as fact. As there was no sufficient investigation by independent organizations, and as the United Nations investigation suggests that the incident may have constituted a war crime due to the withholding of facts by the IDF, Israels version of the events may not necessarily be true. This has to addressed in the Introduction.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
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...--] 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


:Source?--'']] ]'' 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
==Disputed tag==
Why did opiner put a disputed tag? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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.--] 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::Which one? ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::The dispute over the picture and large blockquotes is well documented above.--] 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


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


:Oh, please. We can't take seriously the idea that the Israeli highcommand were sitting around one random day and one guy piped up "Hey, let's drop a bomb on a bunch of Arabs and then say it was a mistake". Tutu is a known anti-Israel propagandist and his statements should not be taken seriously, especially when he's smarting over the fact that Israel told him to "go somewhere". Moreover, even if we were to accept his statement's seriously, there's nothing substantive being said. "It's possible that they're were war crimes". Everything is ''possible''. No indpendant investigation would say that it's ''impossible'' that no war crimes were committed. --'']] ]'' 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Our friendly anon changed the wording based on ] concerns. However, I don't see a substantial difference in meaning- incursion seems like a more succinct descrpiton. Thoughts? ] 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


::Nor do I believe that. If you want my opinion, I don't think this was a deliberate act of murder. However, that was the only independent investigation into the event. Now whatever Desmond Tutu's personal bias is, or whether or not it was included into the report, we cannot independently verify. Therefore, we have to assume that this was an independent and unbiased report, as it was authorized by the Director General of the UN General Assembly. The point is Israel did not provide the fact finding mission with the proof needed to absolve it of any crime, and therefore we can't say that Israel is completely free of guilt. And also, a war crime isn't the same thing as a massacre, which is the deliberate killing of civilians. By firing into the general direction of the opposing force, while disregarding that there might be civilians nearby, and add a potential guidance system failure; this can also constitute a war crime. This is why I linked to the Misplaced Pages article of War crime.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
* I have a very slight preference for "incursion" (because of the absence of the word "offensive"), but both terms sound perfectly fine to me. ] 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


:::At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense to quote their "conclusion" when they didn't investigate the whole thing. Everything is possible, it's always possible that every time people die it was a war crime. There's no reason to announce that it's possible that it was a war crime when there's no valid basis for this possibility, besides for the lack of investigation.--'']] ]'' 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::] was, as its name implies, a military operation. "Incursion" is a loaded word and must be avoided. ] ] 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Can someone explain to me what connotations "incursion" has that I'm not picking up on? ] 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::there is nothing wrong with incursion. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


::::It isn't that they didn't investigate the whole thing, it is that Israel didn't allow them to investigate. Isn't Misplaced Pages about verification of information? Their isn't a clear, and independently verified consensus about whether the incident was deliberate or incidental, and the intro should reflect that. How you wish to present that is your choice. I'm not going to change the introduction anymore, as you are more experienced and understand Misplaced Pages rules better than me, therefore, I will leave it to you; but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and take your actions accordingly. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::"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. ] ] 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


== Disturbing external links ==
::::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!!!!!'' --] 11:01 am, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::First and foremost, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Please use NPOV phrasing. ] ] 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Beit Or:address the issue. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::See above. ] ] 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Absolutely agree with palestine48 ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Please address the issue ] and don't just give the Israeli Army partyline. I put forward a valid argument with valid links. --] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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" --] 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You really need to stop ] the debate, Striver. This is not the first time you've brought up the Holocaust in this discussion.--] 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. ] I suggest you stop mentioning the Holocaust to STOP legitimate debate. ~] 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::There are less inflammatory ways to make said point, and Striver's hyperbole is only worsening the situation.--] 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


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


== Copyright problem removed ==
Why? The eyewitness's account is well-sourced, accurate, and highly descriptive. Thus it is encyclopedic. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6127250.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences'' or ''phrases''. Accordingly, the material ''may'' be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
: Emotional - yes, encyclopedic - no. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


== Dead link ==
::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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
:::We don't add details like "heads and legs were everywhere" to every single article dealing with people killed by artillery fire. ] ] 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061108/wl_afp/mideastconflict_061108122037
::::Because it is not always the case. Not all shelling hit civilian homes and kill 20 civilians. this one does. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:12:41, 404 Not Found


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::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. ] ] 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


== Dead link 2 ==
::::::There is a different between WW II-era shelling and this. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
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. --] 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Last time I checked there was no official policy ]. That's just meaningless political rhetoric. ] ] 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 ] 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 ]-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. ] 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaun
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. --] 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
::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.] 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:12:51, 404 Not Found


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (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. ] 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''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As was said several times already, the ] 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 ]'s inclusion of graphic pictures just serves to highlight the inappropriateness of inclusion here. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 ] 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! --] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Why do images remain at ]? ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Just to remind you, be civil and dont use ]. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I already answered that Nielswik, I never did use sockpuppets, and I'll thank you to quit your blatant attacks. ] 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:: I find the comparisons with the Holocaust here utterly disgusting. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::No problem. We can use ] too. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: A stray artillery shell during a war is not genocide. Try harder. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yet you fail to realize that comparing it to mass murder/genocide is '''POV'''.--] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


== Dead link 3 ==
The "explicit pictures are POV" argument is utterly debunked, you really want to argue that the ] pictures do not "pull on heartstrings?"
{| border="1" width="80%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]
|}


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
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 ] incident pictures? It has a HUGE talk page archive mostly about people, Muslims, not appreciating the pictures. What happened? The pictures remained since[REDACTED] is not censured. Period! --] 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


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


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have protected the article, again. Revert-warring is '''not''' the way to resolve disputes. Maybe you all should try ]. -- ''']''' 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:good idea. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


== Dead link 4 ==


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
==]==
For visual comparision, her are some other picturesm, all from the ] article. This is relevant for those who argue that inclusion of the two pictures in this article would be a NPOV breach. The pictures in the ] clearly show that this is not the case. --] 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/d83c963115ea66ad8525723c00728578!OpenDocument
{| border="1" width="80%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
|-
** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:11, 404 Not Found
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|}
Again, the "no emotional pictures" argument is totally voided of merit. --] 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In case you forgot, this is what we are debating about including in this article:


== Dead link 5 ==
{| border="1" width="30%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
|-
|]
|]
|}


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--] 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/73d6eb7043cc08c785257305005049de!OpenDocument
Just for the record, even if you believe that ] is comparable to ] and the ], 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
: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. --] 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:27, 404 Not Found


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:: You are confused. WP not censored does not mean it should reflect an extremist POV. You strived too long to ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Extremist POV`? Those are pictures from western maintream media. --] 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


== Dead link 6 ==
I'm an outsider here. I'm generally sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but I'm not emotionally connected to the issue. But I know a lot about ] and our ], and neither of those pictures would pass our criteria. ] requires (for non-free images) that "the material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". These pictures show a random grieved person and an unnamed alley with blood in it. They are effective images, but they don't identify any person or place in the article, and are just decorative. The only other purpose such images could serve would be to promote one POV, and of course we can't include images for just that reason. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::The pictures are not random, it is not a random alley. It is the alley that was of the building that was hit, it depict destruction of the place that was hit with the artillery. Just like the 9/11 article does. It is there to show the consequences to the event, not to be pretty. It is information. The same with the greaver, it is not random, it is the dead person relative, very relevant to the "reactions" section of the article.--] 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::i think it is justifiable to include an image of the incident presented by mainstream media. ] 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
:These problems should probably be discussed in the talk-page of the picture, not here. If the picture is not fair use people should change the copyright tag. But you can't just remove the picture saying it's not fair use when it clearly says it's fair-use. ] 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::Exactly. --] 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you trying to hide the discussion somewhere else, Taxico? There is only one place that the POV pushing crowd are trying to put those images, and that is on this article space. Therefore, the discussion's proper place is here. ] 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::I don't know why[REDACTED] would censor mainstream media images, admittedly war is gory and pictures speak volumes. These pictures depict the destruction and loss of life as a result of the shelling. If we censor these images we must censor all images of this calibre, otherwise it would be a clear biased against Palestinian suffering. You must either not censor or censor all images (including 9/11 & Holocaust). As for images of Palestinian attacks on Israelis I am not against showing them, like I said earlier, censorships serves no purpose on wikipedia. --] 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


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


--] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
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.] 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:No it is not. It is to show what we are talking about, and what other pictures there are to compare with. Do not remove them, doing so will remove a powerful argument: visual comparison of what we are talking about. --] 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::No, I agree with Opiner. You are being deliberately disruptive trying to justify blatant POV pushing. Please stop. ] 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Expressing an opinion contrary to yours is not "POV pushing", Runed Chozo. I think you are abusing that term...--] 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Attempting to deliberately and knowingly bias a Misplaced Pages article is POV pushing, which is precisely what you and your friends do. I'm not abusing the term.] 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:I have linked to the images instead. Two of the images are fair use, and so they should not be on the talk page. The other images are only on the talk page for shock value (''compared to those gruesome images, these are nothing''). This should not be a decision of whether the fair use images in question are appropriate compared to other images on Misplaced Pages, but rather whether the fair use images in question are appropriate, ''period''. If people want to look at the images, they can click on the links. -- ''']''' 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::I have linked to the fair used, those who are legal to use in[REDACTED] are visible. Don't give me "shock value", how are we supposed to talk about an issue if we are afraid of looking at the issue from all angles. Specially sine some have argued that the pictures constitute NPOV breach due to some claimed "emotinality". If the pictures that are shown to establishes precedence are inappropriate, they should not be on[REDACTED] in the first place. Lets not forget that we are in dispute regarding adding those pictures to the article itself, so don't give me "i can stand to look at it". If that is the case, you should not be editing this article. --] 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I find it oddly surreal that due to the article itself being locked, we now have a revert war ''on the talkpage''.--] 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah, that got to be unusual... --] 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rosicrucian, that's not unusual - they want to use the images to push POV, and if someone says to stop pushing them, they'll just keep pushing. ] 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


==Mediation== == Dead link 7 ==
This is going nowere, time for mediation?--] 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Can we just include Striver and his buddies in with the al qaeda types now and be done with them? ] 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:As I said on your talkpage this is not helping, RunedChozo.--] 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


* https://zzzen.secured.co.il/sites/gush/home/en/events/1163038715/
Actually Muslims are also forbidden from praying in the Mosque at Cordoba by the Catholic church. So what? Chozo, can you express your racism somewhere else please? You hate muslims, we understand. Just go back to watching Fox news and eating donuts.--] 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-06-14 22:13:01, 404 Not Found
:] & ] - pleaSe review ] and cease your persoanl attacks immediately. You will be blocked if this continues. ] 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
** In ] on 2011-06-26 05:36:19, 404 Not Found
Burgas, I find it funny that you're going nutso on this. I have no problem with most Muslims; I do have problems with people who can't separate religion from their interactions with others, or feels that they need to be assholes to or worse yet, kill others for the "sin" of not being members of their religion. Your and your friends' behavior here has been well beyond my ability to assume you're acting in good faith, and your attempts to cause the article to become bare propaganda are well beyond the bounds of Misplaced Pages's standards. I pointed the article I mention above out because I feel this is the same sort of behavior; on your side, you made threats against me, you falsely accused me of things I haven't done, and now you're whining and demanding that I still treat you with kid gloves. ] 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:If you feel Striver and related editors are a problem, please follow the ] process. Sniping on talkpages is right out.--] 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::I already did so by taking a Wikibreak, as per step 2: Disengage For A While. I note with grim certainty that Striver and his POV-pushing colleagues have done no such thing. ] 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There is still ] and ].--] 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Informal mediation request created by me: ] --] 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 9 November 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

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

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 8, 2019 and November 8, 2024.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

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


List of Victims

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


I like the idea.

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

Cover-up of a massacre

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

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


Anything to add, Jay?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
i worked through logs. it seems like there were quite a few move wars and attempts on the article, and a status quo was reached with 'incident'. it survived for almost two years until you brought it back up again. no new material surfaced to substantiate the claim that it was intentional, and a newspaper polemicist article is definitely not proof. i think that further trying to push this point of view will result in nothing more than a moveprotect. 80.179.69.194 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


"Incident" leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, considering the consequences, although I see the problem with "massacre" when intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the redirects is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun, which I reckon strikes a good balance. What do you think?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If there's no logical objection, I'll move the article there.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there is dispute about the move, it is best not to move it yourself. I recommend filing a request at WP:RM. --Elonka 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The same month that you moved the article to "massacre", User:Imad marie moved over a dozen articles about massacres of Israelis to the titles which removed the word. I'm fine with the title "2006 Beit Hanoun shelling". Jayjg 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Move wars

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

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

Italian Foreign Minister

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Disambiguations in quotations

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


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

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

Accurately representing sources

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


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

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

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


Cool.

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

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

"appeared to defend the massacre"

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


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

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

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


Fair comment.

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

Protest against government policies?

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


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

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

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


Can you show us the opinion you are referring to?

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

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


Where is it?

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

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

U.S. vote

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording

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

to

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

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


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

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

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


Fair enough.

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

"Israel" vs. "the Israeli state"

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Point taken.

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

"huge" vs. "wide" margin

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

How did you come up with that?

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

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


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

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

"wide margin": 33,000 Google scholar hits.
"huge margin": 1,080 Google scholar hits.
All done here, I think. Jayjg 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

Summary of Israel's MFA statement

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Cool.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Oh, please. We can't take seriously the idea that the Israeli highcommand were sitting around one random day and one guy piped up "Hey, let's drop a bomb on a bunch of Arabs and then say it was a mistake". Tutu is a known anti-Israel propagandist and his statements should not be taken seriously, especially when he's smarting over the fact that Israel told him to "go somewhere". Moreover, even if we were to accept his statement's seriously, there's nothing substantive being said. "It's possible that they're were war crimes". Everything is possible. No indpendant investigation would say that it's impossible that no war crimes were committed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Nor do I believe that. If you want my opinion, I don't think this was a deliberate act of murder. However, that was the only independent investigation into the event. Now whatever Desmond Tutu's personal bias is, or whether or not it was included into the report, we cannot independently verify. Therefore, we have to assume that this was an independent and unbiased report, as it was authorized by the Director General of the UN General Assembly. The point is Israel did not provide the fact finding mission with the proof needed to absolve it of any crime, and therefore we can't say that Israel is completely free of guilt. And also, a war crime isn't the same thing as a massacre, which is the deliberate killing of civilians. By firing into the general direction of the opposing force, while disregarding that there might be civilians nearby, and add a potential guidance system failure; this can also constitute a war crime. This is why I linked to the Misplaced Pages article of War crime.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)
At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense to quote their "conclusion" when they didn't investigate the whole thing. Everything is possible, it's always possible that every time people die it was a war crime. There's no reason to announce that it's possible that it was a war crime when there's no valid basis for this possibility, besides for the lack of investigation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't that they didn't investigate the whole thing, it is that Israel didn't allow them to investigate. Isn't Misplaced Pages about verification of information? Their isn't a clear, and independently verified consensus about whether the incident was deliberate or incidental, and the intro should reflect that. How you wish to present that is your choice. I'm not going to change the introduction anymore, as you are more experienced and understand Misplaced Pages rules better than me, therefore, I will leave it to you; but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and take your actions accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.125.5 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing external links

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

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

Copyright problem removed

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

Dead link

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun: Difference between revisions Add topic