Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun

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

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

message: Why is the statement of Italy's Foreign Minister being moved to the lead - as opposed, say, to the statement of Russia's Foreign Minister? For that matter, why would the statement of any foreign minister belong in the lead? It almost looks as if the statement was placed there because it was the statement most prejudicial to Israel from any Western politician - but that couldn't possibly be the reason, so there must be some other explanation. Is Italy's foreign minister a known expert on Middle East affairs, or unusually famous in some way? Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I reading this correctly, and you are saying that, almost exactly as Jayjg  surmised but incredulously rejected, that this statement was chosen because 'It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician'? If so, you should review Wp:NPOV carefully, before further editing any Wikipedia article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Israel's U.N. representative specifically referred to the "incident in Beit Hanoun". Why is Lapsed Pacifist changing it to say "ninetennpeople killed at Beit Hanoun"? Aside from the punctuation error, it misrepresents what he said. Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he prefers this to a direct quote of the source? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, then we'll just quote what he said, rather than putting words in his mouth. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Lapsed Pacifist is inserting the claim that "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre". This claim appears to be unsourced original research which places a pejorative interpretation on the PMO's statement. Could Lapsed Pacifist please provide the source for this claim he is inserting? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A defense "of IDF tactics" is not the same as a defense of the "massacre". Surely you see the difference between those statements? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "appeared to defend the massacre"

message: Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the claim that Israeli protests were "against government policies", rather than against the killings. Given the fact that the link itself is dead, can Lapsed Pacifist please explain the source for his claim? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the sources that matter, not our opinions about what did or did not happen. IronDuke 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording
voted against by the United States, which holds veto power, on grounds that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".
to
voted against solely by the United States, which holds a veto under rules drawn up in the 1940s. The US claimed that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".
What does the fact that the U.N. voting rules were drawn up in the 1940s have to do with this article? When China or the U.S.S.R. veto resolutions, must the articles discussing them always mention that the rules were drawn up in the 1940s? Also, regarding the changing of the wording to "claimed", please see Wikipedia:WTA#Claim. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to bu "illustrative" in such a fashion. Simply link veto to UN Security Council Veto Power, and anyone interested can read the details on that article.
Fair enough.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. vote

message: Lapsed Pacifist has changed the word "Israel" to "the Israeli state". Could he please explain why he is using the lengthy pleonasm for the name of the country? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage is redundant, and adds no meaning, and is also redundant. IronDuke 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you have an actual point to make? If so, I'm all ears. IronDuke 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Folks, please, can we adopt a more civil tone here?  For best results, please keep comments focused on the actual article, thanks. --Elonka 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: LP, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. What information does the phrase "the Israeli state" impart to this specific article, in this specific instance, that is not covered by the conventional term "Israel"? Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Israel" vs. "the Israeli state"

message: Lapsed Pacifist has replaced the statement by Israel's MFA with his own summary, which doesn't appear to capture the MFA's point, which was about distorted U.N. processes, not blaming Palestinian militants. Could he explain why he is doing this? Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote itself is more informative and useful than what briefly replaced it. IronDuke 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 
More informative, certainly, but that's not enough for inclusion. Not alone is it propaganda, its size gives it undue weight.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In no case is it propaganda, for our purposes. It is possible the quote could be cut down, but your deletion of the quote in its entirety, and your unhelpful synopsis of that quote, aren't making the article better. IronDuke 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you recognize that the statement was actually about UN processes; why, then, did your summary address some entirely different point? Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no need to offer a synopsis or paraphrase, especially when you paraphrase has been challenged as inaccurate. We have the original quote, and we can use it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I was reading the article when I wondered which 32 countries voted for the UN report, so I clicked on the link(num. 19) citing this and saw a very disturbing picture of three dead bodies related to this subject. I know they're not hosted here on wikipedia, but I expect the external links to have the same decency as Wikipedia has. Can you please remove them or add a warning to the link?--77.127.144.149 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Wikipedia is generally not censored, I agree in this case that it warrants removal. The source is questionable and we can't be sure that the pics actually relate to the alleged incident.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing external links 

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

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061108/wl_afp/mideastconflict_061108122037
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:12:41, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaun
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:12:51, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/2a61b680d2f3be9d852573e700539e3b!OpenDocument
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:13:01, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/d83c963115ea66ad8525723c00728578!OpenDocument
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:13:11, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/73d6eb7043cc08c785257305005049de!OpenDocument
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:13:27, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/document.do?id=ENGMDE150872006%20
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-05-26 02:24:43, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:13:42, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* https://zzzen.secured.co.il/sites/gush/home/en/events/1163038715/
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-14 22:13:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun on 2011-06-26 05:36:19, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7