Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Non-encyclopedic picture. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed with all of the above. This picture should not be in the article. Beit Or 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The summary is suspect itself. RunedChozo 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Unless the summary can have a cite attached, the image should be scrapped.--Rosicrucian 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're just POV pushing. Go away. RunedChozo 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problematic picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Context of Incident - new subheading needed? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  A Word about the Geneva Convention 

message: 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)
replies: text: Congatulation you protected the pic with the fake caption and no right to use.Opiner 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: Definitely agreeing about the edit summaries. Some of that stuff is WAY out of the boundaries.Opiner 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea for civility 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. Can anyone explain why they think this isn't relevant? JoshuaZ 07:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of mention of other rocket firings from Beit Hanoun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Locked by a "new Muslim convert"??

message: 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  is a  sockpuppet. Both accounts edit from , which is registered to the University of Houston.  does not seem to be related. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user  who is all over this discussion also hails frm houston , as is the above . another sock?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add him to the request. I have just added . Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for CheckUser on RunedChozo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Runed, please calm down. Are there specific quotes you would like to include? JoshuaZ 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). TewfikTalk 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So what's it going to take to get the page unprotected? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: For what its worth, I echo your impression that all is in order. TewfikTalk 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Map of Area 

message: 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)
replies: text: ? WP:AGF whatever you meant. TewfikTalk 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls would appear to be the most appropriate here I think. QmunkE 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And the pov pushers have left

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  That's easily citable to the BBC caption. JoshuaZ 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. --Striver 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Why did opiner put a disputed tag? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Which one? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute over the picture and large blockquotes is well documented above.--Rosicrucian 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: 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)
replies: text: Emotional - yes, encyclopedic - no. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind explaining why?It has been block-quoted by BBC. His account about legs and hands everywhere is really informative. I am wondering why you said it is unencyclopedic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is a different between WW II-era shelling and this. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. TewfikTalk 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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. TewfikTalk 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do images remain at holocaust? BhaiSaab talk 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to remind you, be civil and dont use sockpuppets. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the comparisons with the Holocaust here utterly disgusting. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. We can use Armenian Genocide too. BhaiSaab talk 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A stray artillery shell during a war is not genocide. Try harder. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yet you fail to realize that comparing it to mass murder/genocide is POV.--Rosicrucian 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: good idea. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected, Again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg	:Image:Gaza morgue .jpg
--Striver 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Exactly. --Striver 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Armenian Genocide]]

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that got to be unusual... --Striver 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic Flood

message: This is going nowere, time for mediation?--Striver 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talkpage this is not helping, RunedChozo.--Rosicrucian 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Desmond Tutu will investigate IDF killings

message: first off, big suprise, the above attempt to investigate the massacre was headed off by israeli immigration.  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)
thread_title:  baiting 

message: Note that the mediation cabal case was closed since the page was not filled out completely. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I left a message, he did not answer, i went bold and fixed it myself. --Striver 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking to open the case. I would like to be your mediator, WikieZach| talk 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Guys, join the mediation so we can have this over with. --Striver - talk 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're really not helping.--Rosicrucian 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal 
Closed
 opened

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statements 

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