Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Problematic picture

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

Non-encyclopedic picture. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also probably a copyright issue if it's from a media source (which most are of these kinds of incidents). Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFP logo bottom right. Image is from Agency France Presse, shouldn't be quoted from BBC and since they sell those things we shouldn't have it at all. NotAWeasel 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. This picture should not be in the article. Beit Or 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture can be fair use. There is no alternative to show the real effect of this killings(as described in the picture summary). Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The summary is suspect itself. RunedChozo 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Unless the summary can have a cite attached, the image should be scrapped.--Rosicrucian 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Even with citation, the summary is worthless. The red in the image is not possible as shown, unless it's just a reflection of the buildings behind it. If it were really the water that were red, the blue sky reflection on bottom right wouldn't be there. Also, the human body only has 6 quarts of blood; if you had 19 fully grown adults (not the case) and got every single last drop out of each of them (also impossible) and all of it got into that area (again impossible) then you have 114 quarts (28.5 gallons) of blood. That's not nearly enough to get that color of red; motion pictures use 100's of gallons of denser fake blood to try to get the same effect. The picture is either miscaptioned or altered, and is POV propaganda in any case. RunedChozo 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a WP:OR. It should be better put the picture and let the viewer decide themselves. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just POV pushing. Go away. RunedChozo 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, your interpretation of the photo is WP:OR. I think it's better to put it. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If the photo does not have a citation for the blood claim then there is no plausible fair use claim to keep the photo. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

here is a citation that it is blood. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suspect that that claim is almost certainly wrong and that the BBC is going to get flack from it. However, that article is at present a WP:RS and sufficent cause to include the picture with the caption.JoshuaZ 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

My POV is very close to that having happened. However, in general the BBC is treated as a reliable source and until we have reason to believe otherwise in this specific instance we should include it. In any event, I've already contacted people who know more/are active in these sorts of issues and asked them to look into it. JoshuaZ 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found RunedChozo's (et al) original research more suspect than the image. It looks like a typical blood stain to me. Are there in fact any red buildings in the area? Looking at the unstained section of section of the water ("blue"), it appears that the colour of the buildings reflected is about the same as the background wall -- which is what I would expect. For the stained section of the water: if in fact reflected from a background the geometry of the image basically says the source wall must be the visible wall which is clearly not red. Simple physics, but of course for propaganda purposes, physics is not relevant, right? Anyways, http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/08/israeli-shelling.html has a close-up of what appears to be the same scene. Whether or not the image is an artifact of some propaganda machine, I can continue my refrain from above here, as it seems relevant at this point: if it can be demonstrated that an article is being used as a propaganda battlefield, is Wikipedia the appropriate forum for it? mdf 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

WP:OR. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I concluded that part of the water has not been heavily stained (for whatever reason) and could then see the buildings are not in themselves particularly red. Did you read what I wrote? As for your "muddy water" argument, people can compare that image with the one at http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,419038,00.html. Note the purple "sky" in each is the same, as is the red (except for luminosity -- in the the der Spiegel image, the pool is directly lit by the Sun, while the Beit Hanoun pool is in shade). I can also suggest you try and get around more in life, as pools of blood and water are not all that uncommon. I've seen many beside car accidents -- can you guess one reason why the fire department is typically dispatched to these events, even when there is no fire? -- and all images I've seen here are consistent with this experience. mdf 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's quite a stretch for the water to be perfectly blue (instead of the purple seen in your other photo) even in the reflection of a gap in the building, while the building in question somehow manages to remain red beyond that gap. This image is obviously a ploy to POV the article with emotional content, nothing more. RunedChozo 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You may spout forth whatever OR you wish on this talk page, but as far as article content is concerned, removing content you disapprove of based on OR is Against The Rules. The image remains because it is from a realiable source, and is directly relevant to this article. I suggest you attack the source directly, instead of wasting time building faulty arguments. mdf 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you keep putting it back because you're trying to POV the article. Stop. RunedChozo 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrate the lack of reliability in the source and it can go. Otherwise, it must remain, as per policy. mdf 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to reread NPOV standards again. A picture can be used if and only if it adds to the article in a meaningful and factual way. This doesn't. All it does is add needless emotional content. It is POV and should stay out. RunedChozo 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

You quote policy, but fail to understand it. Allow me to highlight the part that permits this image: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now in the instant article, we have 19 dead people who otherwise would not be dead. We have an eye-witness report in the article about human body parts strewn willy-nilly. Therefore, an image of this environment would not given "undue weight" "inappropriate" to this particular aspect of the subject. It is for this reason why infinitely more explicit images of fields of dead bodies are permitted in holocaust, and other articles. Once again, I suggest you look to attacking the source, not the message or messenger. Life is ever so much simpler if you just follow policy. mdf 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I quote policy, but you appear to lack the capacity to understand same. In this instance, we have a military war going on, and we have a case where errant shots were fired. All the picture is designed to do is increase the emotionality of the report, it does not offer any better information than we have if we did not have the picture. Therefore, the picture violates NPOV and you are wrong. But, since you are in bad faith desperately pushing POV here, I do not expect you to ever concede such. RunedChozo 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment about the image. I know nothing about its provenance, but it's a recent, copyrighted wire photograph, which is presumably being sold to news organizations, and these are exactly the circumstances in which it's problematic for us to claim fair use, so far as I know. We could perhaps claim that we're using a small, poor-quality version, but I don't know whether that's enough. It might be wise to post a query about it on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Context of Incident - new subheading needed?

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

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

Bullshit anon, you don't quarter troops in civilian areas, that is a violation of the GC's. The GC applies in this case and every other one involving the terrorists. NotAWeasel 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

A Word about the Geneva Convention

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

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

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

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

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

I just zapped it again. It remains out until someone can source it directly. mdf 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

If the source is in the history of the article it shouldn't be too hard to copypaste it to the current version. Please remember to remain civil and sign your posts using four ~'s, like so: ~~~~. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

None of your sources are directly relevant to this event. I've removed it yet again, and of course, now that this is my third time, I'm out. Have fun! I do encourage you, though, to find a relevant source. For example, Israel justifying the attacks and resulting carnage on GC grounds would be an excellent way to proceed. Naturally, I do not expect such a source to exist -- given Israel has already said the whole episode was a mistake -- but, thankfully, that's not my problem anymore. mdf 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Protected

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

Congatulation you protected the pic with the fake caption and no right to use.Opiner 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is mandatory to protect an article on m:The Wrong Version. Incivility will only lengthen the time it stays protected on The Wrong Version. Andjam 07:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

'Wrong version' is just a cop out for those who wrote it. If no wrong and right versions WHAT are we wasting our time doing? You want to say were not involved in content. No were just fixing the content in ways no regular editor can. Not responsible at all! Very first protection as admin. Protect from edit war ffine BUT dont take the content without rights AND THEN protecting a fake caption.Opiner 08:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Very first protection"? As far as I can tell, Aaron Klein and SpongeBob SquarePants (character) were the first articles he protected. Andjam 08:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well alright maybe. BUT my point about the cop out is hard to deny. Nothing else on Wikipedia where critical review is ridiculed just for being the critrical review.Opiner 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A plea for civility

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

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

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

Removal of mention of other rocket firings from Beit Hanoun

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

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

The Title "Incident" is too POV

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

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

I can understand that you have very strong feelings about the issue. Please try to convey them in a less inflammatory language. FYI, since the millenium's dawn, thousands of Palestinians were killed by IDF attacks. The figure for victims of Hamas rockets (as appalling as they are) can be counted on my fingers. Yet, the media hardly reports such figures. The "terrorists" might be different from the ones they tell you. Lixy 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Compare

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada to

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Deir Yassin massacre. JoshuaZ 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The trouble here is that the Israeli government is pretty much united when commenting on an "incident". That, along with their grip on many media, makes their standpoint more resonant and credible. Also, Israel only acknowledges actions which are undeniable. Anyone remember the Gaza beach in June 2006? The IDF still maintains it wasn't them despite evidence pointing in their way. Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry about it is called "Gaza beach blast". Lixy 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The "trouble" is that Israel has a "grip on many media"? We can't have intelligent conversation if your contentions are based on Elders of Zion conspiracy theories. Tewfik^Talk 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I argue in good faith here and have absolutely no desire to spread around lies as you seem to imply. Now, I have no evidence about the "grip on many media" part, but I do have plenty circumstancial evidence on a media bias in favor of the Israelis. Consider for example how much attention/space/time is given/allocated when an Israeli soldier is captured and contrast it with the coverage of a Palestinian citizen getting kidnapped. Chances are the latter won't even be covered. Is the bias a consequence of the self-censorship all foreign reporters in Israel are practicing because of the military censorship laws? Maybe. The bottom line is still that there POV prevails.

Of course, the influence of the Jewish lobby in Washington has been established by now (there are a couple of academic papers on the issue if you're interested) and that alone could be considered enough leverage to bully some media. The Israeli PR campaign to influence the American media in their favor is hardly ever reported in the mainstream. Try watching this documentary about the Israeli propaganda in American media to understand what I'm talking about. This piece might also provide you with a bit more insight on the issue [1].

Most Israelis genuinely want peace; And this is why ignoring the elephant in room is only helping the minority who want to maintain the status-quo. Lixy 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Locked by a "new Muslim convert"??

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

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

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

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

Request for CheckUser on RunedChozo

The users involved in this article and in the discussions on this talk page might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo. It has been confirmed that Wheelygood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppet. Both accounts edit from 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs), which is registered to the University of Houston. NotAWeasel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) does not seem to be related. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

user 70.114.236.109 (talk · contribs) who is all over this discussion also hails frm houston [2], as is the above 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs). another sock?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add him to the request. I have just added Al'Ilah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're going to need a less vitriolic and hostile account on what the dispute entails, but your objections are noted. The first step is to stop painting the other side as "PoV pushers." What incentive do they have to come to the table and establish a consensus if you discount them outright?--Rosicrucian 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Runed, please calm down. Are there specific quotes you would like to include? JoshuaZ 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The issues that I see are the inflammatory block-quotes ("It is the saddest scene and images I have ever seen. We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street"), potentially too much weight given to critical Israeli reactions (Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Meretz, and B'tselem), and perhaps more context is needed surrounding the Israeli position (testimony regarding short distance from rocket launchers, long history of launchings from the area, and continued launchings after the shelling). Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory? It is describing facts, how come you said it is inflammatory?Also, your objection about Israeli peace movement. Their statements are indeed reaction to this shelling/massacre. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he is not saying that the statements are untrue, but more that they are given undue weight.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 22 November 2006

(UTC)

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

Picture removed

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

The action is outrageous and inexcusable, there is no copyright issue. Im on for and RFC. I need one more to support me. Who is joining? --Striver 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a hair-trigger? Everyone is escalating this entirely too much.--Rosicrucian 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that was a good move. I'm going to delete the image as a copyright violation, but here is the link to it on BBC for later reference. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There has already been a fair amount of consensus on that in the discussion above. Beyond that, the protecting admin seems to agree with Joshua. I don't see that anything improper has been done here.--Rosicrucian 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I echo your impression that all is in order. Tewfik^Talk 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Map of Area

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

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

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

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

And the pov pushers have left

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

? WP:AGF whatever you meant. Tewfik^Talk 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls would appear to be the most appropriate here I think. QmunkE 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

pic

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

You went to deletion review? Why don't I see any history of that on WP:DRV? It looks to me like you went to a single admin and tried to persuade that admin to undelete them. Please don't engage in out of process behavior like that. Thank you. (Incidentally, having both pictures raises serious WP:NPOV concerns and claiming that we need both of them and can make legitimate fair use claims is laughable.) JoshuaZ 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Joshua, there was a WP:DRV discussion (see here). However, regardless of whether the images could be used as fair use, it seemed as there was somewhat of a consensus here that the images are not neutral and are quite irrelevant (blood flowing in the streets??). I don't think it is a good idea to follow the unprotection with adding the images again, without further discussion. And as Joshua said, two images are certainly not necessary here. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly dissagree and are going to start a fomal proces if the images are reverted. The images are visual representation of the consequesnes of the shelling and a visaul representation of the reactions. This can not be refuted. The simple fact that the images come from RS mainstream media (BBC and Guardian) proves that the images are both notable and relevant to this very issue. There are no issues with N, R, or POV here. --Striver 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver, in the future, it would be nice if you would let interested editors know that a DRV was taking place (say a note on this page). I'm still very puzzled at least for the AP photo how a photo can be fair use when it is something which the AP specifically liscences to media to use. As for your other claim, other editors including Tariqabjotu who is uninvolved seem to disagree with you. And no, the mere presence in other media does not make them automatically NPOV to have them there. I could probably find in the media a few other images of the incident that were as graphic or more so and add them to the article under the same logic. That wouldn't make that NPOV. Can you articulate what having both photos accomplishes? JoshuaZ 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill tell again:

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

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

Maybe you didn't understand my question- the inquiry was what is accomplised by having both pictures? As to your second point, there are accurate pictures all the time that would make an article POV. If for example, on World War II we had two pictures of the firebombing of Tokyo and nothing else that would be a serious POV issue. Pictures naturally pull at emotions and as such an emphasis on a specific type of picture can have serious POV concerns. JoshuaZ 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the comparison is not adequate. WW2 is a encompases huge space and time, this event is very limited in both, so while a single picture in WW2 might only encompase a small portion of the event, a picture here encompses a much large portion of that event. I mean, one town, one day, how many pictures do you want? Would a picture of every corner of the house be more NPOV? It silly. --Striver 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't feel either image to be particularly informative in this article, however leaving an image of "mourners" in over a bloodstained street seems nonsensical to me - surely there is more bias showing the emotional state of a group of involved parties than the physical effect of the attack? I think it's fairly obvious people would be grieving for their relatives, I don't think it's appropriate for their grief to be a battleground over "POV" issues. Also, I agree that it would have been polite for Striver to bring to the notice of this page's editors the DRV on the image, and I think that there was not enough discussion for the decision to be overturned - this is clearly a controversial topic the history of which the closing administrator should have researched on this talk page. QmunkE 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i missed the consensus that deleted it in the first place. It was deleted out of process, so dont toss baggage on me for bringing it into process. I would have notified people if there had been any formal proces before the deletion. Two guys viewing it to be copyvio is not a proses, and deleting it on just that is bordering to admin abuse in my view considering that the admin is active in the article. --Striver 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read above you would note that other users also thought so and the admin who deleted it was very much uninvolved. And even if this weren't the case that amounts to some sort of two wrongs making a right claim. To not even alert the admin who deleted it is bizaare. JoshuaZ 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the caption to take a step back from the unsourced "streets stained with blood" sensationalism.--Rosicrucian 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's easily citable to the BBC caption. JoshuaZ 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Striver 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Request for Comment

This RFC has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict.

This RFC is regarding the inclusion of one or both of this pictures: pic 1, pic 2.

• I view that both pictures need to be included in the article, since both give information regarding the subject of this article. Removing them is bordering censorship, if it not actual censorship. A detailed summary of my stance can be viewed in previous conversations in this talk page. --Striver 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• As I have commented above, I view including the pictures to be sensationalist, giving undue weight and biasing the article in an anti-Israel direction. They are akin to charged words like "massacre" being used in the title. Having the only images be of bloodstained streets and mourners is a POV issue.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. Fix other pictures to add. Or why not take a look at Holocaust. Here, for your convineace:

Image:Nordhausen camp.JPG

Image:Gen Eisenhower at death camp report.jpg

Image:Einsatz1.jpg

Image:Kovnopogrom.jpg

All in the SAME article. Is this not anti-Nazi pov? Or is your pov argument void?--Striver 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually you'll note that article has a variety of related pictures such as relevant maps and a picture of Raoul Wallenberg. Also, there is an issue of scale. The Holocaust was of a much larger scale than this incident. It should not be therefore surprising that more pictures might be useful. JoshuaZ 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to more pictures, anyone is welcomed to add maps and pictures of... Wallenberg? or maybe not the last one... --Striver 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the comparison to the Holocaust is inaccurate and insensitive. They're not even close. -- tariqabjotu 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not make a comparision of the events, i made a comparision about so called "emotionoal" pictures in articles and their eventual pov-ness. --Striver 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Beit Hanoun shelling is part of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, and is not even a month old. By contrast, the Holocaust is an event there is strong historical consensus on. Thus, we are required to take a more even-handed approach to the Beit Hanoun shelling given that there is no historical perspective or consensus on it as of yet, whereas nearly everyone can agree that the Holocaust was an unparalleled atrocity.--Rosicrucian 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? What was that? was that a "the picture will be NPOV in 20 years, but is POV now", a "the picture will be sourced in 20 years, but is not sourced now", or is that "nobody will care about the picture in 20 years so do whatever you like then" argument`?! You got bloody UN condemning it, not that "consensus" is even closly relevant to this issue. What, you need "consensus" on the factuality of the pictures? --Striver 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly insinuated that we do not believe the pictures are factual. That is a strawman. The fact remains that given an ongoing conflict such as the issue of Palestinian sovereignty, with two active viewpoints each having international support, we cannot compare this situation to a historical event where all the meaningful debates have already been had. Understandably given the recent nature of the event we cannot give too much weight to emotional issues or make moral assumptions on something that hasn't even been examined fully by the parties involved.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen, people died. We do not cover that up, no mater who tries to hide it. This is wikipedia, not the IDF propaganda organ, we do not hide that people died. Is that emotional? Yes. Were the Muhammad cartoons emotinal? Yes. Are they on wikipedia? Yes. factuality goes over sensitivity. --Striver 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a good comparison. The entire topic of that article is the cartoons, the pictures themselves. It would unreasonable to not have some sort of picture of them. Please understand this isn't an issue of censorship but an issue of emphasis and NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is the emphasis POV here? Is this not about people killed? Whould this even be an article if they where not killed? It is literaly their spilled blood that is the notability claim of this article, and that is the picture of the spilled blood. No blood -> no article. --Striver 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The main concerns of editors not favoring the inclusion of both pictures is that a) they have very weak fair use claims and it is nearly impossible to argue that somehow there is a legimimate fair use claim for both of them. b) having the pictures here (and certainly having both pictures) runs afoul of WP:NPOV by pulling on heartstrings and heavily emphasizing the Palestinian casulties. JoshuaZ 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• ...heavily emphasizing the Palestinian casualties.' As opposed to what casualties? I agree that one picture should suffice. In any case, when is the name of the article going to be changed? I think most editors agree that incident is not a NPOV title.--Burgas00 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify it emphasizes the emotional impact of the casulties beyond what would be considered neutral. In any event, I still don't see what having both pictures does that one would do. JoshuaZ 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pic 2 is about about losses, pic 1 is about Human reactions, two different things. They even have two different sections in the article, one named "The incident" and one named "Reactions". --Striver 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? The reaction section is almost completely about large scale government reactions. Its hard to see how the reaction of a few mourners is that relevant to the section (unfortunate and painful are not the same thing as relevant and notable in the context). JoshuaZ 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guardian Unlimited agrees with me in that the reaction of the relatives are notable and relevant. Its hardly indiscriminate information, and we are trying to collect "sum of all human knowledge", remember? When was it the last time you saw a guy react like that? --Striver 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• hmmm.... I think that the mourners should go... and the picture of the main bombing site should stay. It is true that mourners are just there for emotional impact and add no info. And Striver dont forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Burgas00 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

are you stating that the mourners do not add any information to the "reactions" section? Yes, let us remeber that this is an encyclopedia, one that is trying to represent information. --Striver 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not all information is equal. I'm sure you would agree that explicit pictures of a blood-splattered around a pizza shop wouldn't make pages about suicide bombings more neutral, and that in a case where the organisation responsible openly declares its intent and satisfaction with the outcome. Tewfik^Talk 08:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with showing pictures of bombing scenes when discussing those bombings. No one is removing the ones on the 9/11 page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles. What's so different here? Taxico 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I second that, "There's nothing wrong with showing pictures of bombing scenes when discussing those bombings. No one is removing the ones on the 9/11 page, and I doubt anyone would try to remove images from other suicide bombing articles." --Striver 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• There aren't any on either 9/11 or on any suicide bombing as far as I could tell, because while you might not object, exclusion of such graphic images is an established part of NPOV. Tewfik^Talk 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, not true. There are no graphical images of corpses on 911, remember the tower crashing down? "exclusion of such graphic images is an established part of NPOV." Did you miss the pictures at the top of this section? --Striver 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good, im glad that the pov issue is over. Now to the next issue. Why is having to fair use pictures from two different sourses in the same article all the sudden copyvio? i see no merit in that argument, anyone who feels to elaborate on it?--Striver 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The issue is not over, and there still are no graphic images on either 9/11 or any of the Palestinian suicide bombings, nor would such inclusion suddenly change the conventions of NPOV that disallow the use of such images. Tewfik^Talk 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• You need to try reading Wp:NPOV. NPOV means "no point of view" - a picture does not have a point of view. What is more applicable is WP:NOT#Censured, just like the big bang on the 911 article like the Muhammad pictures. --Striver 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV stands for "neutral point of view" - a picture does have a point of view, and while that doesn't disqualify information from being added in and of itself, a graphic image is not accepted unless it is in and of itself encyclopaedic, which is why there are no blood filled pictures in other articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't know what "big bang on the 911 article" refers to, though 9/11 has no graphic images, and as others have told you above, the Muhammad cartoons are not relevant since they are not graphic, and are encyclopaedic (the article is about the images). Tewfik^Talk 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The number of sources is irrelevant. One can't just add fair-use pictures because one wants to; there needs to specific reason (hence the fair-use rationale for each image). -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The number is irrelevant? Great, as for rational, the picture depicts visauly the reaction to this notable event of the family members of those killed, in the "Reactions" section of this article. We know that the event is notable. We know that the family members reaction is notable (how many times have you not seen that on tv?). And we do have a reaction section. So the second picture needs to go in and add information that is lacking without it. --Striver 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments

• Both pictures are relevant and appear to qualify as fair use (the second picture more so because it's unique). So there's really no reason to remove them. There are however some (minor) neutrality concerns that have to be taken into consideration. The side removing the images would probably have to propose practical steps for making the Incident section more neutral—instead of just removing relevant pictures having to do with the event and its aftermath. --Taxico 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The pic with the blood is fake or altering in some way like other recent wire pics. Wires arent a very good source for controversial against Israel pics when we KNOW fakes have been given not long ago AND there are specific objections here like, is that realy blood in 'Water stained with blood filled the street?' Captions sent with pics arnt always followed in the wires and they dont name the editors.Opiner 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well said Opiner but theres no way in hell the islamist POV pushers will stop. They probably still claim all their propaganda is real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.238.142 (talk)

• Ah fuck it. I see now. looked back in Striver's records, he's a fucking islamist troll nothing more. No point bothering with him, he'll just keep popping up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.238.142 (talk)

• As I said at WP:AN/I: While not an admin, I took a look at this page. That entire talk page is absolutely filled with violations of everything from WP:POINT to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT. The images of the Armenian Genocide, The Holocaust and from 9/11 serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with. Which is not an appropriate use of them, fair use or not. On the subject of the pictures in the article, the gaza morgue image is clearly irrelevant as it could just as easily be a picture of people crying in any city in the world on any random occasion. While I could be convinced as to the relevance of the blood image, simply standing on its own in the article would not give it any useful purpose. In contrast, if there were images available of Israeli troops during the event itself, or some other topical image from the event itself, I could see its relevance more surely. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Fake" Pic

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

1. Look closely at the red water it is only red where the buildings are reflecting. Distributing of real flowing blood would be independent of the reflectiing. Either a natural illusion or a photoshop on magic wand selected area of building reflecting.
2. Why is there water? Does water normally flow down Gaza streets or maybe the IDF shells filled with water? None of the links say anything about the water! Which would be worth of reporting. Quote is saying 'We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street' anything like that here? Should be we saw them FLOATING DOWN the street!
3. Is there any evidence of the shelling in the pic? Look at what the people are doing is it indicate anything about the story? or is there ANY reason for us believing it was taken at the scene?
4. Pic is not credited to a photographer and caption isnt credited. Even story isnt credited meaning BBC bought it. Unlike the respectable newspaper BBC doesnt credit its sources.Opiner 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, firstly the above seems to stray into original research a bit (and so probably will this reply), but if you want some reactions -

1. As to the colouring of the water, I can't comment, but saying "it looks photoshopped" isn't a valid objection, it's original research. Unless another reputable source calls the authenticity of the picture into question we have to assume that it is a picture of what the original source claims it to be.
2. For the water in the street: there might be water from many sources (broken pipes, runoff from attempts to put out fires).
3. Okay, the picture doesn't show the shell damage explicitly as far as I can see, unless the stuff floating in the water is detritus from the destruction of buildings. This isn't shown in the caption for the image on the original article and so cannot be ascertained at this time.
4. The picture is from Agence France-Presse, a reputable news agency. I agree it should be mentioned somewhere as the original source of the image. And the caption is credited, it's from the BBC article from which the picture itself is taken - if you mean "where did the BBC get their quote from" well they do have reporters in Gaza, so maybe one of them?.

Note that I do not object to the picture being removed if the consensus is that it does not add information to the article - I'm still undecided about its usefulness. QmunkE 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the BBC reporter is on the scene they give credit to the reporter otherwise its from a party three. Really we dont know the source. who wrote the story who is the photographer or made the caption. The BBC buys it isnt meaning anything.Opiner 09:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you don't have a reliable source that reject the credibility of BBC, you can't just remove the pic. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

And if opiner still doubt BBC and AFP's reliability, Associated Press has similar pic [3]. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Opiner keep reverting?Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Youre still not addressing the questions.

For BBC you can learn something they have a rule regular newspapers dont have. Every story MUST have the pic. Most of these are buying from the wire or in stock not BBC reporting. Theyre not fact-checking. You have a pic of a town except its really another town. Its happening all the time on BBC.

we know the photographer and the wire so lets discuss that instead of party threes who buy it. which is meaning nothing.Opiner 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Please stop abusing the policy. We should assess whats reliable its not 'original research.'Opiner 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And see WP:OR: It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. See? your analysis/assessment is OR unless it has been published by a reliable sources. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Issue remains unaddressed:where is your source that they don't do fact checking? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And humus is saying that the pic is unencyclopedic. Quite funny. Why is depiction of the scene unencyclopedic? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Disputed tag

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

I changed it to a neutrality tag rather than a factual dispute tag. The facts are not in dispute, the presentation is.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which one? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute over the picture and large blockquotes is well documented above.--Rosicrucian 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incursion v. military offensive

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

• I have a very slight preference for "incursion" (because of the absence of the word "offensive"), but both terms sound perfectly fine to me. Taxico 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Autumn Clouds was, as its name implies, a military operation. "Incursion" is a loaded word and must be avoided. Beit Or 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what connotations "incursion" has that I'm not picking up on? JoshuaZ 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with incursion. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Incursion" is defined as "an aggressive movement into somewhere; an invasion."[4] Using it in the article would imply an aggression on part of Israel. "Operation" is the most NPOV and accurate word. Beit Or 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Be it Self Defence or an Attack. The Israeli actions are an Incursion into Gaza since the Israeli Army redeployed its troops in August and did not FULLY end the occupation per say then the word incursion would be very descriptive of the situation; an encyclopaedia describes an event by listing the two sides of the story with NPOV commentary. Inherently all acts of war are violent and aggressive. Israel’s action were described as an incursion in Israeli media as well. So if Both Palestinian and Israeli say it is an incusion, then we shall use the term. [5] [6] [7] [8] might I suggest you search the words incursion and Gaza again. wikipedia is not the official IDF spokesperson!!!!! --Palestine48 11:01 am, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please use NPOV phrasing. Beit Or 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or:address the issue. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. Beit Or 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with palestine48 Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please address the issue Beit and don't just give the Israeli Army partyline. I put forward a valid argument with valid links. --Palestine48 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if other sources use incursion that isn't necessarily relevant to whether or not the term has POV connotations. "operation" seems to be a neutral word and the facts of the Israeli military operation are in the article anyways, so we don't lose anything by using it. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli (military) Operation was an Incursion into Palestinian Land, an aggressive act. To say it was a bloody incursion is only descriptive. War is a tragic thing. --Palestine48 19:00 pm, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, to describe it as an "Incursion into Palestinian Land" would almost certainly be POV. Operation is neutral and we don't lose anything by using it. JoshuaZ 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An operation is a very vague word. A drill could be a operation. We do not use vague word when there is a more informative alternative. We say "Hitler killed Jews in a camp " not "Hitler had an operation with some people somewere" --Striver 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You really need to stop Godwinning the debate, Striver. This is not the first time you've brought up the Holocaust in this discussion.--Rosicrucian 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see paranoia has set in already, All I am suggesting is that we describe things as they are, be it the Holocaust, WW2 or Beit Hanoun. The Israeli army made an Incursion into Gaza under (military) Operation codename "The Autumn Clouds". Striver had a valid point and he used a valid example, he wasn't offensive or derogatory in any way. Rosicrucian I suggest you stop mentioning the Holocaust to STOP legitimate debate. ~Palestine48 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are less inflammatory ways to make said point, and Striver's hyperbole is only worsening the situation.--Rosicrucian 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quote

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

Emotional - yes, encyclopedic - no. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind explaining why?It has been block-quoted by BBC[9]. His account about legs and hands everywhere is really informative. I am wondering why you said it is unencyclopedic. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't add details like "heads and legs were everywhere" to every single article dealing with people killed by artillery fire. Beit Or 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not always the case. Not all shelling hit civilian homes and kill 20 civilians. this one does. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of shelling hits residential areas. In the history of WWII, one shelling of one house (by any warring party) does not deserve even a footnote. Beit Or 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a different between WW II-era shelling and this. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Last time I checked there was no official policy Wikipedia:Moral implications. That's just meaningless political rhetoric. Beit Or 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Bugras instead of the accusing HOW about an answer. Why is the blood suddenly stopping where the sky is reflecting? How it will really look if the water is saturating with the blood? Im not gonna say theres no blood in the water how would I know BUT that cant be the reason the water is red! The distributing of redness is ONLY governed by what is reflecting.Opiner 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit of AGF might be in order. First, the building in question is red. Second, the people who were of that opinion expressed there reasoning above. You have no reason to accuse them of being not informed or not engaging in good faith and to say that "it is impossible to believe that the person who is making it truly believes what he is saying" is if anything just an indication of your own POV and failure to AGF and to actually defend your own incivility and repeat it is uncalled for. We can discuss this matter without resorting to such issues. JoshuaZ 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's return to the topic. we need not to discuss wheter it is blood or not since 3 RS has proven it. now, why does the picture keep being deleted? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Those suicide bombing articles being incomplete has nothing to do with this article. Go ahead and add a few gory pic's, i promise i will suport you 100% if it is sourced and depicts the action. In the same way, this picture is informative, nobody has denied that, and WP:NOT censured. WP does not care if somebody gets offended as long as the picture is informative. NPOV? What, are the Israelis denying that people died? Or is there POV that people do not bleed when they die? In either case: tough luck, its a bith when you dont agree with reality. If all USA said that the earth is flat, do we remove from earth due to NPOV? NPOV is in use when there is several points of view and facts are not established. Here, the facts are clear: people died, people bleed. There is not even any NPOV dispute, nobody is denying any of that. WP:NOT sensured! --Striver 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, as no one is arguing that people weren't killed, or that said killed people didn't bleed. What is being stated is that we don't "Go ahead and add a few gory pic's" on Wikipedia because NPOV is served best by letting the facts of the case speak for themselves without harping at chords of emotion. I won't add any gory pics to other articles since it wouldn't be NPOV, and it wouldn't make their addition here NPOV either. Tewfik^Talk 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 Wikipedia articles and remove all images. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV is served best by letting the facts of the case speak for themselves without harping at chords of emotion." If the pictures are gory, then in the vast majority of cases they should be removed. And when such images were added by others to Palestinian suicide bombings, they were removed. Tewfik^Talk 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do images remain at holocaust? BhaiSaab ^talk 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Just to remind you, be civil and dont use sockpuppets. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I already answered that Nielswik, I never did use sockpuppets, and I'll thank you to quit your blatant attacks. RunedChozo 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the comparisons with the Holocaust here utterly disgusting. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We can use Armenian Genocide too. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A stray artillery shell during a war is not genocide. Try harder. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation has been compared to mass murder / genocide many times. There's no need to try harder. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet you fail to realize that comparing it to mass murder/genocide is POV.--Rosicrucian 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly allowed to have a POV outside of article mainspace. There is no valid justification here for keeping the image out. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "explicit pictures are POV" argument is utterly debunked, you really want to argue that the September 11, 2001 attacks pictures do not "pull on heartstrings?"

Image:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg

Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg

Image:September 17 2001 Ground Zero 04.jpg

Image:Twintowerscross.jpg

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

Protected, Again

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

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

Armenian Genocide

For visual comparision, her are some other picturesm, all from the Armenian Genocide 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 Armenian Genocide clearly show that this is not the case. --Striver 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Armin wegner-pile of bodies-DSC 0124.JPG

Image:Armeniangenocide starvedchildren.JPG

Image:BE046109.jpg

Image:Morgen53.jpg

Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg

Image:Armeniangenocide starved.JPG

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

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

Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg

Image:Gaza morgue .jpg

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

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

The scale is different, but the principle is not. Something does not get NPOV just because its articles subject is of a higher magnitude. I don't care for suicide bombings, i care for principles and guidelines like WP:NOT censored. This article is right now censored of information, a direct violation of policy. --Striver 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are confused. WP not censored does not mean it should reflect an extremist POV. You strived too long to make a point. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremist POV`? Those are pictures from western maintream media. --Striver 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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 fair use and our fair use guidelines, and neither of those pictures would pass our criteria. Criterion #8 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 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.--Striver 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it is justifiable to include an image of the incident presented by mainstream media. ITAQALLAH 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Taxico 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Striver 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. RunedChozo 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why wikipedia 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. --Palestine48 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pic Flood

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

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. --Striver 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with Opiner. You are being deliberately disruptive trying to justify blatant POV pushing. Please stop. RunedChozo 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...--Burgas00 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to deliberately and knowingly bias a Wikipedia article is POV pushing, which is precisely what you and your friends do. I'm not abusing the term.RunedChozo 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 Wikipedia, 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. -- tariqabjotu 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have linked to the fair used, those who are legal to use in wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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. --Striver 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.--Rosicrucian 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that got to be unusual... --Striver 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. RunedChozo 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This is going nowere, time for mediation?--Striver 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[10] Can we just include Striver and his buddies in with the al qaeda types now and be done with them? RunedChozo 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talkpage this is not helping, RunedChozo.--Rosicrucian 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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.--Burgas00 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00 & RunedChozo - pleaSe review WP:NPA and cease your persoanl attacks immediately. You will be blocked if this continues. Isarig 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia'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. RunedChozo 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel Striver and related editors are a problem, please follow the dispute resolution process. Sniping on talkpages is right out.--Rosicrucian 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. RunedChozo 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still request for comment and request for arbitration.--Rosicrucian 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation request created by me: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident --Striver 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu will investigate IDF killings

Can someone please add this to the article?

Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu has been named to head a United Nations fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanun, where the Israel Defense Forces killed at least 18 civilians. Tutu will travel to the Palestinian territory to "assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors and make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli assaults," according to the president of the UN Human Rights Council, Luis Alfonso De Alba.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881809389&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullRockette 07:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats like hiring Yasser Arafat to be security chief for the 1972 Israeli olympic team. Big fucking deal, another antisemite comes along. Not notable, not worth crap.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.237.14 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006

The preceding comment was totally inapprpriate. But I agree that this info. should be added. More importantly we should keep an eye out for when the "assesment" and "recomendations" by him come out.Bless sins 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

baiting

first off, big suprise, the above attempt to investigate the massacre was headed off by israeli immigration. [11] now if the article was unlocked we could add this little detail. but we can't do that because some people insist on behaving like children. at the absolute minimun everyone who wants this article to be updated has to start behaving like an adult & that means observerving WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc even despite provocation. (then anyone being stupid can just be blocked, as they won't be able to say "they we're doing it to") as it is, when you sink to their level you are helping everyone who wants to whitewash this 'incident': if they can't get the idf spokesperson's version taking up the whole of the article, they can at least stop anyone from updating it with further info about the atrocity & the ongoing whitewash. so keep responding to the baiting guys cos every little bit helps.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Atrocity & the ongoing whitewash" - I think that sums up your POV-pushing ways quite nicely. RunedChozo 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise regarding pictures

see also Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bsnowball (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm still not convinced we have a decent fair use rational for either picture. But be that as it may, I would suggest the following compromise: include the street picture and not the morgue picture and give the street picture a caption that says something like "according to the BBC, the red coloring is due to blood in the water" JoshuaZ 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I value that you are interested in a compromise, really, but i feel that i have a very strong case for including both pictures and unedited & unqualified BBC text, and i rather continue the dispute resolution. Lets see what the mediation cabal request ends in. Basically, there is no RS disputing the BBS claim of it being blood, so i see no reason to qualify it, and as i have argued before, i view it as censorship to not include both pictures, arguing that both are informative and that there is ample precedence in other articles in support of including this kind of pictures. I dissmiss the FU dispute as nothing more than a diversion that has no merits. Peace. --Striver 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

None of them have any place, it's just more Striver trying to make Jews look as evil as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.237.14 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006

sight... reported to WP:PAIN. --Striver 05:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...and blocked for 24 hours. --Striver 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RunedChozo is also having a "break" --Striver 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Until the intentionality is proven, the images do not belong in an encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

explain? pictures would still be relevant even with an indisputably innocent accident, but you seem to be implying info on the massacre should be minnimized unless it can be proved deliberate. more broadly, striver can i remove the pictures on this page? you've made your point & there are links to those pages. also how do we get a final opinion on the fu thing? can i just add it to the mediation request? of course if we gave up on the pics (as we might need to do per copyright) it could be possible to get the article unlocked...  ⇒ bsnowball  11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any special reason that we need to remove the pictures? ... ah... sure, remove them. As for the FU, as i said, im sure there is no merit in those claims. I mean, really, if not here, then WHEN is it FU?--Striver 12:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident already includes the FU dispute. Ill agree to not add any of those two pictures to this article until the Mediation Cabal is resolved, that is my compromise to get the article un-locked se we can edit the text. I still insist that the pictures need to be there, but since the block is hurting the article text, i can voluntarily view the article as blocked regarding pictures only. --Striver 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The compromise offer sounds really to me. I can see why the first image can cause some controversy (it's not as encyclopedic), but I've not seen any good arguments for why the first image should be left out. ==Taxico 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i can repeat myself yet again: It is a visual demonstrations of the victim's families response, and belongs to the "response" section. It's notability is already established by the mainstream newspaper that included the pictures, thus, it is informative, notable and well sourced --Striver 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now saying its obviously fake isnt a good argument? There NO WAY the red can be from blood. Look at it yourself! This is a real problem the way people are saying 'original research' because our eyes AND brains are turned on instead on off. WP:NOR ISNT saying we cant use our judgement to remove things only not to ADD the original research. New York Times shows Barney the Dinosaur with cap "Tyrannosaurus Rex in modern times" now weve gotta add it to Tyrannosaurus. pointing out its really Barney is original research!

This pic maybe "real" BUT cap isnt right because the red cannot ANY WAY be from blood. Blood isnt disappearing where sky is reflecting.Opiner

(edit conflict) Exactly what is so notable or informative about it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, you won't be taken seriously if you can't come up with a source which claims the picture is anything other than what the BBC News article purports it to be. Just saying "the red cannot ANY WAY be from blood" is hardly a compelling argument and is clearly original research. Find me a reliable source which says "Image of Beit-Hanoun street with red water in it, definitely no blood" and I'll accept that the picture's provenance is in question, however the BBC and AFP are clearly reliable sources and what they claim is valid for inclusion in articles.

The only question over whether to include them is whether they satisfy the fair use rationale that they add information to the article. I'm undecided on this, but I'd hate to see valuable content not included because some people refuse to trust a clearly reputable news source. QmunkE 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC and others have a history of mislabeling pictures and related issues in the palestinian-Israeli conflict so if you want to put it that way it isn't completely obvious that a BBC description is reliable- this is why I think the compromise version makes sense since it makes it clear that the BBC described it as such but allows inclusion of the picture. JoshuaZ 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So your OR is RS, but BBS is not RS, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Striver (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

No, the point is you can make a decent argument that this isn't an RS- whether or not the reflection matter is correct is OR and obviously shouldn't be included without a source. JoshuaZ 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the picture's caption is adequately sourced, there is no real way to say that it is "fake" without straying into OR. Arguing that it is fake is ultimately a distraction from the real discussion that I personally don't appreciate.--Rosicrucian 17:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%, the "fake pic" argument is a distraction. And i am having a hard time WP:AGF.--Striver 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Right Rosicrucian itd be the original research to put the pic in the article and THEN write the cap 'the red color here doesnt come from blood.' Its NOT original research like the policy is saying to decide what to trust and include and why. If you take that definition then everything were doing is the original research. Striver is saying pic should be included because other articles have holocaust pics. Thats strivers original research and now hes using it to decide what should be in the article? Think about that.Opiner 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen any original research from Striver. Maybe you should read the policy. Personally, the caption can stand as sourced as it meets WP:RS failing any particular controversy over that given photo. Whether the photo is fair use in this context, and whether it is being used to bias the article, are the issues I feel we should discuss. That we keep getting away from this to irrelevant issues is part of why we're not making progress. So I'll put a finer point on it. Unless you have a reliable source that the caption on the photo is not accurate, we must go with the only other cite we have for it. Otherwise, we cannot really speculate as to the nature of what is depicted. I have argued against the inclusion of the pictures, but the nit you've chosen to pick seems to me to be a waste of time.--Rosicrucian 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The red isnt blood isnt a nit. Im glad you dont want to include it either BUT this over interpretation of the original research is being abused here. Maybe you should read the policy. Its the original research to say the cap fake IN the article or to put our own cap saying the red isnt blood IN the article. Its NOT original research to notice its fake on the discussing page and decide not to include it. Policy in a nutshell saying 'Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.'Opiner 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't just hop onto a 9/11 talkpage and say "I've done the math and theory X on the WTC is wrong." Reliable source answers reliable source, and original research can't be used to argue against inclusion because it is not verifiable. So unless you have a reputable source saying that the picture does not show blood, you are merely theorizing. As I said, it's not relevant to the argument as a whole. It's a red herring. It's keeping us from the meat of the issue and is ultimately just a distraction.--Rosicrucian 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is why i decided to move on the ladder of the dispute resolution steps... --Striver 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In math someone can say it and you cant judge it unless youself a mathematician. only believe the claim or not. This is more like Barney the Dinosaur you can see for yourself. Someone tell me WHY is the 'blood' suddenly stop where the sky is reflecting and only red where the building reflecting. Is blood running away from the sky? Dont mindlessly parrot its the original research. Its an easy question so give me an easy answer.Opiner 12:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a question that is outside the scope of what Wikipedia is here to do.--Rosicrucian 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The more serious issue is not the OR one (I think using OR by itself to say that a source is not reliable is problematic but not obviously disallowed by WP:OR) but the point that the BBC had made mistakes similar to this in the past about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and therefore one could argue that it isn't a reliable source for this purpose. I therefore would reiterate my earlier suggestion which is to include the picture with the caption explicit about who said it was blood. Could someone please explain why they would object to this compromise? JoshuaZ 13:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The caption was cited anyway - and therefore this compromise is not actually changing the attributation of the quote - it's just moving it into the article text, where it doesn't belong. If we include the line you suggest, it would imply that the provenance of the image is in doubt. I'd be more willing to accept this interpretation if I had some evidence which either throws the BBC's reliability into doubt (actual examples please) or which interprets the picture as something else (again, a reliable source please). Thanks. QmunkE 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

joshuaz, you have already been asked to substantiate your claims about bbc bias, & you have refused to do so. as pointed out, you're going to need something a little stronger than your opinion. also, if it is only a matter of mistakes your claims are irrelevant, mistakes will always be made no matter how thoroughly these things are checked. you're going to have to establish acctual bias if you want to rule out a source full stop. (also the bbc has a very good reputation on this score, and obviously the source will be on the image page).   ⇒ bsnowball  15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's compromise with QmunkE's caveat would be fine, but as Rosicrucian keeps pointing out, the issue here is primarily one of NPOV and Fair Use per Quadell's remarks. Tewfik^Talk 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Snowball, I'm sorry I thought I had already posted a few links about this matter. Maybe it got lost in all the shuffle. Example issues are discussed at [12] [13]. JoshuaZ 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should censor these picture from wikipedia. We have many potentially offensive pictures on wiki, and this should be no exception. These pictures also only (visually) describe the incident and in no way promote one POV. They are photgraphed by BBC reporters not HAMAS. If, however, these pics don't meet the "Fair Use" criteria, then, ofcourse, they should be deleted. Bless sins 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These pictures aren't "reported by BBC" they're AFP which is as far as I'm concerned a Hamas front group, likely pictures bought from Hamas-allied "stringers." AFP has a history of bias and fraud in this area.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs)

Provide your source that AFP is a hamas-biased partisan. I agree that the morgue pic is less informative than the blood pic, but the blood pic is highly informative and descriptive. I would accept the blood pic without the morgue one. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Closed opened

Note that the mediation cabal case was closed since the page was not filled out completely. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I left a message, he did not answer, i went bold and fixed it myself. --Striver 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am asking to open the case. I would like to be your mediator, WikieZach| talk 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Guys, join the mediation so we can have this over with. --Striver - talk 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mediator" works for CNN and has AFP ties that way, this is such bullshit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs)

You're really not helping.--Rosicrucian 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Does this article really still need protection? It's been nearly a month but I see there's still discussion here and now medcab. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the repeated and vitriolic vandalism of the mediation case is evidence we're not ready for unprotection yet.--Rosicrucian 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

as long as a bunch of islamist trolls are trying to pov it, it needs protection.

Statements

Please give your statements of your opionions on the dispute of this page below, since I will make a compromise on February 1st, 2007; WikieZach| talk 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything pertinent to this discussion is on this talk page. My comments will not be repeated here, since I feel it unnecessary and hope that Wikizach will have read the entirety of the discussions before coming to any conclusions. QmunkE 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply am asking that if anyone wishes to make a statement, feel free to do so. When you have two sides of a dispute, you get a mediator to propose a compromise. Policy and the history of this dispute will determine the outcome, not a person who has not at all commented on the mediation page. WikieZach| talk 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just commented in that mediation. They threatened to make a "decision" on February 1st, and it's lucky I have returned in time to make any statement at all. RunedChozo 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo, the decision to close the mediation was not a "threat" - please desist from trying to re-ignite the bickering which has plagued this talk page. Also, nobody has been active on this issue for almost a month. Personally I can't understand why it was even taken to the Mediation Cabal, which isn't an official step in the dispute resolution process, and can't enforce any binding decisions okay, it's listed but it's hardly suitable for this issue. If the issue required mediation that badly it should have been taken down the official channels. QmunkE 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there has not been any progress here, I am closing the mediation. If it needs to be reopened, you can leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)