Talk:The rocketed vehicle

Old, unsectioned comments

I noticed isarig had a problem with Amnesty international statement. why?--Nielswik_(talk) 19:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it- it is stated in the article. I don't see a reason to make the same claim twice, though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

Then why do you still deny that it's an ambulance?--Nielswik_(talk) 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know it's an ambulance - that's a claim by AI, and there a different claim by th eIDF. Both claims already appear in the article, there's no reason to repeat one of them twice (and it's also POV to do so.) Isarig 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty has confirmed it is an ambulance, Amnesty is a neutral and reliable source. Also, we don't have to trust Israeli generals that much. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AI "called" it an Ambulance. The IDF syas it was not. YOu may not trust the IDF much, and you're welcome to that opinion, but on WP we are interested in verifiability, not truth, and both claims are equally verifiable. Isarig 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then how could you explain the image on the page. IDF may not see the ambulance sign, or it maybe lying. Speaking of moving without consensus, i think you did it first. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the image I see girl in a car. I don't see any ambulance. My move was uncontested by anyone for over 5 months, seems like a consensus to me. Isarig 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the footage of the attack before jumping to irrelevant conclusion. And independant medias have confirmed this. --Banzoo 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our interpretation of the footage is original research and has zero relevance to naming this article. If independent media have confirmed that it was indeed an ambulance, and not an 'improperly marked rescue vehicle,' then please document that, but there is still no reason to name it in such a way that chooses one POV over all others. Tewfik^Talk 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from Amnesty [1]
Attack on ambulance carrying civilians, 13 April 1996
... The vehicle was a grey Volvo station wagon with a blue flooding light and a siren. A clear red crescent was painted on the hood, and the word ambulance was written in Arabic on the hood and on both sides of the car. ... --Nielswik_(talk) 10:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, even Amnesty admits we are talking about a " grey Volvo station wagon with a blue flooding light " - not an ambulance- but insists that since it had a red crescent painted on its hood, it is an ambulance. Unfortunately for AI, the Fourth Geneva conventions is very clear and explicit about how ambulances need to be marked in order to be protected: "National Societies are asked to use preferably a red Greek cross, always on a white ground"[2]. So, here we have a regular civilian gray car, with a blue floodlight, and a red crescent painted NOT on a white background - it is not a an ambulance, let alone a properly marked ambulance, exactly as the IDF claims. In fact, reading the source above, it is very likely that the driver or owner of that grey station wagon was violating numerous conventions by inappropriately painting the crescent on the car. Isarig 16:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your text said that the red crescent or the red lion and sun is also recognized --Nielswik_(talk) 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text says on a white background. In any event, we aren't here to decide whether or not it fits the definition, but to recognise that several POVs exist. In such a case we have an obligation to make sure the name reflects the most neutral formulation, while still including the additional detail in the text. Tewfik^Talk 17:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you were reverting, reflecting only your POV, without providing any unpersonal proof of your claims. Almost all medias and NGO agrees the fact that IDF attacked an ambulance [3]. Even The Jerusalem Post which is a Israeli daily represented that fact [4]. So please do some research before projecting your very personal ideas in WP. --Banzoo 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The JP article you are quoting says "Chief of General Staff Lt. -Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak confirmed that the IAF hit a vehicle", not an ambulance. Clearly, what type of vehicle was hit is a matter of dispute, and there are different POV on it. We do not include just one or the other - we describe both. On WP, we look for verifiability, not truth. Isarig 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah he said IAF hit a vehicle, and the vehicle is an ambulance. The title was "Shahak defends attack on ambulance" and the 1st paragraph said ...THE chief of staff defended yesterday's missile attack on an ambulance which reportedly killed three children...and also Reports from Lebanon said an IAF helicopter fired at an ambulance traveling on a road southeast of the port city of Tyre. He didn't even deny it is an ambulance. Even the heavily pro-Israeli JPost said it is an ambulance, why on earth you said it isn't? --Nielswik_(talk) 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at this (from CNN)[5] Israel defended the attack, saying a Hezbollah guerrilla was in the ambulance. (Israel confirmed it is an ambulance). --Nielswik_(talk) 05:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Israeli sources you bring actually call it an ambulance, but rather that term is supplied by the reporter. Tewfik^Talk 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually that's how news agencies get their materials I think, no? --138.231.136.10 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the reporter says 'ambulance' but does not attribute the term to an Israeli official, then one cannot argue that it is said Israeli official's position that 'ambulance' is correct. Tewfik^Talk 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to provide your sources instead of providing NPOV. --Banzoo 10:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been provided many times - it is in the very AI report that you are quoting, Surely you have read it? It says "IDF officials told Amnesty International delegates that at the time the vehicle was attacked it was being used by a Hizbullah terrorist, and that it was a rescue vehicle and not a properly marked ambulance. Public statements made by the IDF shortly after the attack refer to "a vehicle belonging to a Hizbullah terrorist", and continue: "If other individuals were hit during the attack, they had been used by the Hizbullah as a cover for the Hizbullah activities ... to the best of our knowledge the terrorist was hit." You have quoted the very next sentence of the report in the article several times, so I am sure you saw the previous statement as well. Please stop pretending that the IDF did not claim it was not an Ambulance, or that no sources for this were provided. It is tiresome. Isarig 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you were saying is that israeli officials what saying not the IDF, so I was waiting from some quotations of the Israeli government about the attack on the ambulance, since it's obvious that the IDF will try to defend itself by denying the fact that it was an ambulance while not providing the evidence. Yet it is not a reason to hide the conclusion of the amnesty reports, the one that you dont hesitate to cite. --Banzoo 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection

I think protecting the page when the title have been changed to the POV of the IDF is a biased move, while all other sources refers to it as an ambulance. Even the IDF have conflicting claims about the ambulance, since it did not deny the fact that it is an ambulance. --Banzoo 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See m:The Wrong Version. —Centrx→talk • 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. I think this is not right. An editor moved this article to the POV one, without consensus, and an admin protected it. This have to be complained. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suggestion

Centrx has suggested that this article be merged into the "Grapes of Wrath" article, with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a news source, nor a blow-by-blow account of battles, needing a title like "The rocketed ..." shows one problem (e.g., Wikipedia is not a novel)) ". I agree with this suggstion and will be happy to merge it into "Grapes of Wrath" . If you have objectiosn to this, let me knwo. Isarig 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move will be a biased for hiding facts like it have been already done for the Nabatiyeh attack on house which have been merged into that article and then been deleted from there continuously, renaming of the qana massacre as well as many other moves. I think this will prove only as a bias move. And since when historical events are considered as a news source?--Banzoo 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that we cannot and should not document every single case where someone dies, and especially in a war - which is full of cases to document. I'm in favour of merging as well Tewfik^Talk 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt explain much, doest it mean that an encyclopedia should not have articles about major tragedies in wars?--Banzoo 16:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor incident in the war, even if it were clear it was an ambulance. I think a merge without redirect would be the appropriate action, as both "The rocketed vehicle" and "The rocketed ambulance" are implausible search terms, and undoubtably would apply to many other articles, potential and actual, within Wikipedia (even if they may not apply to this article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection???

I dont think that this protection move is a coincidence also; the title protection was set when the IDF words have been used, and now removing the conclusion set in the amnesty report as well as the image, and then set the edit protection, one cannot look to a move like this without considering a bias decision, so I suggest strongly to reconsider this decision, since it can be seen as a NPOV and forcing an IDF pov to the reader of this article. Not to forget that no discussion have been created suggesting a move like this. --Banzoo 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "force" the IDF POV - but it provides the IDF POV alongside the other POV. This is what is known as NPOV. Isarig 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually this is called hiding facts, like removing the picture, along side backing the title used by the IDF, and how about removing the conclusion of the amnesty report? Is that NPOV? --Banzoo 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "hiding facts"? What fact is hidden? The AI claim, that this was an ambulance is stated, as is the counter-claim, by the IDF, that this was not an ambulance, but an improperly marked civilian vehicle. Isarig 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was an ambulance is being hidden by claming the title backed only by the IDF. While the report have stated that the IDF claims was not backed by any proper evidence. And deleting what the report concluded from the article cannot be seen as providing NPOV facts, not to forget removing the picture without consensus.--Banzoo 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a fact that it was an ambulance- that is a claim, by AI. There is a counter claim, that it was not an ambulance, but a civilian rescue vehicle. We provide both claims. 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A fact since it was backed by evidence, unlike the IDF claims that did not provide nothing but claims.--Banzoo 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not backed by evidence, just AI's assertions. In fact, AI's own report described it as a grey Volvo station wagon, with a red crescent painted on it- which according to the ICRC, is not a properly marked ambulance. Isarig 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

red crescent and red lion is equivalent to red cross, according to humanitarian law [6]. Everybody (except Wikipedia) agrees it was ambulance. Even in Israel "Shakak defends attack on ambulance, JPost", USA "an Israeli helicopter warship fired at an ambulance, CNN", and of course neutral sources like Amnesty. The only sources that say it is not an ambulance is Isarig, which is non-RS. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But the Geneva Convention defines the required marking for an "ambulance" as having the red cross or red crecest on a white background. This vehicle did not have that characterization. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, even if it were clearly established that the vehicle was an ambulance, it's still a lousy article title. There are undoubtably a number of ambulances hit by rockets fired by "insurgents" in Iraq. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

The last sentence ends with a wierd ".th". I suggest the "th" be removed or somehow fixed. 68.39.174.238 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED due to wrong question being asked. The question isn't whether to have this article at "The rocketed vehicle" or "The rocketed ambulance", both of which are terrible titles, but whether or not to merge it into Operation Grapes of Wrath. Hence I'm closing this poll as premature and ill-formed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rocketed vehicle → The rocketed ambulance – I'm posting this poll in order to gauge consensus for the requested move. For myself, I abstain. I believe the arguments are given on this page already. Let's try to summarize them here as clearly as possible, and make the right decision based on the arguments we see. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose. Not clear it was an ambulance, and neither title is very plausible. What's wrong with the merge option above, instead? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree existing title is unsuitable, but ambulance is even worse. They are both suitable titles for a novel or short story based on the incident but not for this article. Andrewa 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I described above, and as summarized by Arthur Rubin. support merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath Isarig 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. THere must be a better title though - something about a rocket-fire incident ? -- Beardo 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As can be seen from sources and discussion above this survey, all neutral sources said it was an ambulance. even IDF and Israel also said it was an ambulance. The first time I heard that it wasn't was from Isarig, which is not WP:RS. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 14:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment based on the sources I could access, Israel and the IDF go out of their way to deny that it was an ambulance, and the quoted Jerusalem Post, only part of which I could read without registering for the archive service, says "...confirmed that the IAF hit a vehicle..." At best, all you can say is that the Jerusalem Post was of the opinion that it was an ambulance, but that is far from being the Israeli government's position. Tewfik^Talk 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arthur Rubin. Neither title has good form, and in any event, this should be merged to Operation Grapes of Wrath per Centrx. Tewfik^Talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support references were given: it was an ambulance according to (Israeli journalists and Amnesty) SuperAriel 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question is whether or not it was an ambulance, but what the title should be of the Wikipedia article containing this information. Do those not seem like different questions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The title existing title is misleading, this is not the only vehicle that was rocketed. While this event was known to the world as the rocketed ambulance since its footage has been shown on the medias all over the world, and NGO reports as an ambulance.--Banzoo 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of that said, "The rocketed ambulance" is a bad article name, it seems to me. Is it the only ambulance that's ever been rocketed? Is the name by which this incident is known, "The rocketed ambulance"? Couldn't one be more descriptive somehow, like indicating some kind of context? I mean, whether or not the vehicle was an ambulance, and whether the title of this article should be "The rocketed ambulance" are really two separate questions. (To be fair, "The rocketed vehicle" is a pretty crummy article title, too - it's hardly a unique search term.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arthur Rubin. Merge it as Centrx suggested. - Evv 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if it was a vehicle full of the beautiful people who suffered this calculated atrocity, we'd not be discussing this, of course it was an amubulance. I can see no reason to treat the iggerant furriners differently. PalestineRemembered 01:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any response to the point that "The rocketed ambulance" is a crummy article name, as it provides no context, and could apply to any rocketed ambulance in any war? Can't we think of a better title than that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that some people are simply favoring a certain name "vehicle" or "ambulance" for whatever reason, to fit into the binary options and without reading the discussion. These mindless votes therefore are irrelevant to whether the article should be merged. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be merged - and you have my blessing to go ahead and do that. The survey, however, is not on about merge, but about a proposed renaming to a POV title. Isarig 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm beginning to think that listing this poll was a bad idea. Clearly, the question is not whether it should be called "The rocketed vehicle" or "The rocketed ambulance"; neither of those titles is any good. The first question is whether or not it should be merged into Operation Grapes of Wrath, where the incident currently isn't even mentioned except as a link in the "See also" section, or whether it should keep its own article. Only if we decide against merging it do we need to discuss what the separate article should be called, and I would then suggest finding a name that doesn't cause us to take a stance as to whether a red crescent on a grey background counts as an "ambulance" marking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I would suggest you close the poll out, then, as withdrawn by nominator. I think everyone agrees that this is more about a merge than the naming convention. Use the {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} templates, btw, if you're so inclined. ;) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Merge?

Is anyone actually opposed to a merge? Tewfik^Talk 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find no reason for this article to be included inside another one, instead, I suggest to expand it.--Banzoo 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous reasons have been given to you, including poor and ambigous naming, non-notability and otehrs. Your refusal to recognize the validity of these reasons is not an argument. Isarig 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the naming is that much ambiguous then how come there is that much users discussing the article, and involving in voting and all that. I think the issue is not the ambiguous name as some suggests. And please dont jump on conclusion and prejudgment about how I think. The reasons provided doesnt seem to meet with the NGO reports after all. One last point, some are trying to force their POV instead of discussing them.--Banzoo 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support -as outsider coming in, consensus already supports it, as does common sense. What's the harm, so long as we include the information on the old article? Wikipedia is extensive, but needn't contain a blow-by-blow account of every single event in the history of Israel-Palestine (or, if it does, it can go in the same articles, not forkingoff for each one). Patstuart^talk|edits 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see what do u want to say by consensus already supports it, since I didnt find any consensus in any discussion yet. This is not just any event, since it's one of 3 major events during the 1996 israeli aggression. So I dont see the harm of providing an article of each tragedy (they are not that numerous). And I have concerns about making the information about this event fade away as it happened to the article Nabatiyeh attack on house.--Banzoo 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who seems to oppose the merge is you, vs. half a dozen editors who support the merge (myself, Centrx, Patstuart, Tewfik, (talk), and Ew). That seems like consensus. Isarig 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's consensus in the sense that supermajority is consensus, which we often settle for around here. The best definition of consensus is "all concerns are addressed and taken into account". Banzoo's primary concern seems to be that this material won't stay in the article if merged. How can we address that concern? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need look no further than his complaint that a similar article (the "Nabatiyeh attack on house) had information fade away - this is simply not true - the information is alive and well in the Operation Grapes of Wrath article. Isarig 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banzoo, can you at least suggest a better name than "The rocketed vehicle" or "The rocketed ambulance", which are generic names that don't even provide any context? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the major concern is a loss of encyclopaedic information in the merge, I think it would be safe to say that if we are all AGF, and all going to follow the information there, then it will be safe. I'm going to be WP:Bold soon if there are no other objections. Tewfik^Talk 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks?

I would like to know how to remove a personal attacks from the history logs, On 15:21, 16 November 2006, Isarig made an edit to the article while putting in the edit summary a personal attack, so I would like to know how to remove such acts, Thanks. --Banzoo 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean *********. No, you can't remove those. In fact many edit summaries are considerably jucier, but they must stay. Only extreme cases like posting personal information, and sometimes even then, it's not done. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider, I would like to remind everyone here of WP:AAGF (not just WP:AGF, which is also pertinent). Once people start arguing about who's personally attacking whom, then it all goes nowhere. Also try WP:POT (I'm not sure if anyone here is guilty of that, but I've often seen it in these type of debates). Please, if you have an issue, work out the issue, and forget who said waht 2.5 weeks ago. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]