Talk:The rocketed vehicle

message: 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)
replies: text: See m:The Wrong Version. —Centrx→talk • 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 TewfikTalk 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: red crescent and red lion is equivalent to red cross, according to humanitarian law . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit protection??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: Is anyone actually opposed to a merge? TewfikTalk 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks?