Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun/Archive 1

Title
In its short existence, this article has already been moved twice three a staggering eight times. The issue seems to be whether what happened was an incident or a massacre. Before we descend into a revert/move war, please discuss the article's title here. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Title Suggestion: "Nov. 2006 Israeli state terrorism in Beit Hanoun"


 * There's plenty of reasons to call what Israel did "state terrorism." This is fair to both sides, since effectively, both sides are "terrorists" because
 * they accept the death of non-militant civilians as a necessary sacrifice for their political aims. Israel's actions were most
 * likely meant to drive the point home that there will be heavy price for not only terrorists .. but non-terrorists as well. It was an act of sacrificing
 * innocent lives in order to scare people into submission. There's some rough definitions of what precisely state terrorism is: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.211.0.105 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC). 18.211.0.105
 * I prefer massacre. Since it was apparently deliberate, killing many civilians, and widely called so--Nielswik(talk) 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deliberate. If you'll check the facts you see that only one shell, out of 12 shot, hit the Palestinians. A straying shell is an accident, and since there was no intention killing civilians - it is not a massacre. MathKnight 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the IDF none of the massacres it has commited throughout history was deliberate. You are mistaking fact for PR and taking one side's statements at face value. I vote for massacre since it involves the shelling of a mosque in which the IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants.--Burgas00 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants - well, you admit the IDF targeted militants who used civilians as human shield. Hence, not a massacre. MathKnight 21:01, 8 November B2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, according to IDF? Do you honestly believe they would explicity state they're murdering civilians deliberately? It's like saying, "According to Hitler, Jews are quite evil."

To MathKnight please read some articles...This is take from the Guardian:

"At least 19 Palestinians were killed and 40 wounded when FIVE ISRAELI SHELLS hit a row of houses in the northern Gaza town of Beit ber Hanoun this morning."

"A further FIVE OR SIX landed in the same vicinity over a period of 15 minutes, witnesses said."

It was definately at least 5-6 shells that landed in the same neighborhood district of Beit Hanoun, why on Earth and how on Earth the Israeli's targeted a village which is right on the Israeli border and has nothing to do with the Hamas rocket attacks is a mystery to me. They definately cannot hide behind their usual excuse of "Civilians caught in crossfire...etc..." for justifying civilian deaths anymore. As clearly there was no reason to even fire at this town. They were no militant activity at all in this town, in fact it again says on the Guardian the alleged "target", the IDF Artillery was supposed to fire at was at least 1 mile away from Beit Hanoun. I'd definately label it a massacre, it's the same as what happened in Qana, Shiyyah, Shatila, or the tons of other "incidents" of "accidental" civlian casualties. Israel's policy coudln't be anymore blatantly obvious; of targetting civlians deliberately to inflame and incite an uprising or counterattacks by Hamas or Hezbollah just so they can then justify even more extensive military operations.

Call it what it is, killing an innocennt family in their home with artillery? This is a massacre, better yet war-crime...

P.S. Oh SUPRISE, SUPRISE, MathKnight is an Israeli as well... please we don't need your pro-Zionist agenda in another Israel-related article, it is a massacre, like it or not the IDF has committed another massacre, please face the truth... 203.134.146.126 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Amir


 * "Witnesses said" and we know how reliable Palestinian witnesses are (they blame the IDF with radioactive candy bars and "500 massacred in Jenin". The Guardian claim it was by "tank fire" which is absurd since no tank was around miles away. According to Haaretz: "The IDF confirmed that an artillery battery containing 12 shells had aimed at a site from where Qassam rockets were fired at the southern city Ashkelon on Tuesday. The artillery fire had been intended for a location about half a kilometer from the Beit Hanun houses. At this stage it is unclear whether the incident was caused by a technical or human error." There was no intention of massacre, and the incident was a mistake as the article indicates. Further more, Israel vowed regret over the incident (unlike Palestinian terrorists who declare publicly that their intention is to kill as many civilians as possible) Since you are seeking Zionist conspiracy in every corener ("Israel's policy coudln't be anymore blatantly obvious; of targetting civlians deliberately to inflame and incite an uprising or counterattacks by Hamas or Hezbollah just so they can then justify even more extensive military operations.") you won't be bothered by the truth. Your need of Ed Huminem show that you have nothing but hatred at your side. MathKnight 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Massacre - whether deliberate or not. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Massacre must be deliberate. Accident is no massacre. MathKnight 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

yes the grenades were exploded by accident -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What about another name such as "killings" or "shelling"? If not I would prefer "massacre". There is no evidence that this was a rogue shell other than the IDF's statement. Why should they be automatically believed when Human Rights Watch and others have poured scorn on IDF internal investigations? An 'incident' is:
 * 1 A definite and separate occurrence; an event.
 * 2 A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another.
 * 3 Something contingent on or related to something else.
 * 4 An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.

If 1, then it's a very bland/meaningless description (it might as well be "Something happened on 8th Nov...'). If 2 or 3 it's diminishing the significance of these deaths relative to other deaths in this conflict. If 4, I can't see this disrupting normal procedure... sadly it's perfectly normal at the moment.Puddleman 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also prefer massacre. "incident" or "accidental killing" is quite funny. missing artillery couldn't go a mile away. It is widely called massacre (of course not in Israel) But i think we don't need "November 2006" things,

--Nielswik(talk) 04:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Since your the IDF expert here MathKnight, please do explain how it was an accident and show some proof. "Massacre": The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense...

Since it is being established whether this was truly accidental or not doesn't matter, the way in which the unarmed civilians were killed, the location of the killing and the fact there was no link to any rocket-launching sites in Beit Hanoun which the IDF were supposedly after is reason enough to call this a massacre. All the other so called "accidental" attacks on civilians by Israel in the past are called massacres, Qana, Shatila, etc... why isn't this one?

The only person here who disagrees is MathKnight, and his judgement is quite questionable, since he's trying desperately to defend Israel's actions and IDF's motive. I think we should VOTE. 210.50.228.5 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
 * Stop use Ed Huminem arguments. It is a violation of Wiki-ettiquete.MathKnight 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I vote for massacre --Nielswik(talk) 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can vote that the earth is flat, but unless there is an evidence that the tragedy was deliberate, this will stay as incident. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The militants was a mile away, Israel's shell could't have missed that far --Nielswik(talk) 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And you said this as a qualified artillery officer? For BTVR shelling, about a mile off is a reasonable deviation range, a specialy if the coordinates were misfed or there was an error in the gun controls computer. One evidence that the incident was an accident is that only 1-2 shells hit and not the whole 12. Believe me, if the IDF wanted to massacre, he was shelling the town itself with more than 12 shells. MathKnight 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Belive me, if IDF whant a masscre, it will make sure it can later claimed it was an accidental. 1 mile is reasonable deviation range? In that case, do they ever hit anyone? We are not talking about rock-slingers. --Striver 12:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Normal" deviation was 200-300 meters --Nielswik(talk) 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, MathKnight it's Ad Hominem, not Ed Huminem, I don't think you properly understand what an Ad Hominem arguement is, since I am not using one. Must I again repeat myself? READ THIS ARTICLE : http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1942339,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

LOOK PLEASE:

'''"Witnesses said that the first shell hit a home, causing deaths and injuries." "A further five or six shells landed in the same vicinity over a period of 15 minutes, witnesses said."'''

At least 5 shells landed in Beit Hanoun, probably more, it was not 1 or 2 as you claim. Get the facts right please! Even CNN is reporting it as 6 shells.

Standard Deviation in modern artillery systems of something like a couple of hundred metres is ok. Israel uses the M109 Paladin as their main Artillery howitzers.

According to http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm, the M109A6 Paladin which Israel uses can hit a tank-sized target 10km away within MOA of 200-375m, and standard spread of 20m. This means a shell fired will land somewhere within a 200-375m metre diameter circle around the target with a spacing between each subsequent shot of usually 20m.

Since the target of Beit Hanoun was engaged by Israeli Artillery only a few kilometres away across the Israeli border, the standard deviation from the actual target should have been under 100m easily. The only way an artillery barrage like this could end more than a mile from the intended target would have to be incorrect orders/instructions/coordinates, which I highly doubt. Either way, Israel's usual excuse would of "accidental fire" would hold, but because of the particularly large condemnation from EU, UN, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross and so on, and because of the nature of the attack, (an entire family being killed), I really think this deserves the title of massacre. It had no military merit whatsoever.

210.50.228.5 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
 * True. Also, 6 shells could not deviate altogether at a same time --Nielswik(talk) 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Guardian still insist it was "Children among 19 killed by Israeli tank fire" while it was artillery fire. Haaretz report that: "following the killing of 19 Palestinian civilians by errant shelling in Beit Hanun on Wednesday. Peretz also decided that from now on all artillery fire must be approved by GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant, or his superior officers." and that "The inquiry found that a technical problem in the artillery battery's radar, which was replaced just last week, was the cause of the errant fire. That explains the diversion of the shells and prooves it was an accident and not deliberate. MathKnight 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The IDF uses an older M109A1 and not Paladin M109A6. MathKnight 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy requires that titles be Neutral. I have fixed this as per notation on WP:ANI. RunedChozo 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Incident" is not neutral. There must be a better term to use between 'incident' which has connotations of a 'random act of God' or something totally unexpected, which when an army fires shells in the vicinty of civilians deaths can not be, and 'massacre' which implies a deliberately perpetrated mass killing. Shelling, killings, attack or something else like this has to fit the bill.Puddleman 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Massacre" is an utterly POV title. IronDuke  03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the event was an isolated incident, maybe. But it wasn't, was it?  Analogy:  if you shoot me, and there was no prior engagement between us, it is a reasonable proposition for you to claim that an accident has occurred and a name like "ironduke/mdf shooting accident" would be assigned.  But if we were neighbors, with a long, bitter, history between us, including violence, and you then shot me, I'd have to be a complete idiot to believe your after-the-fact apologetics "oh dear, an accident, sorry!".  Especially if these "accidents" appear to be a semi-regular feature of the relationship.  An accident is possible, but the prior virtually excludes it from the outset.  "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."  (etc)  mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Qana massacre -- the accurate description of what occurred that day at that spot -- redirects to Qana shelling. Why?  Well, it appears simply because "massacre" lost the "google test" (see below).  Or, equivalently, because the recipients of the shells are not as well insinuated into the mainstream media as the people who fired them.  Personally, I feel a massive, overwhelming benefit of the doubt be given to the victims.  They took the hit, they get the right to name the event.  If it's an inappropriate name, let the shame be on their heads.  If the people who are firing these guns don't like the names being assigned, maybe they can be more careful with their toys.  If they have any apologies to make (see above, "radar problem, so sorry!"), they can be described in the article, not in the title.  But this is almost certainly a minority view.  Google on!  mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on English Google, 'Massacre' outnumbers 'Incident' by a 1.6 margin. "Attack" is more common than either of those terms, and "Killing" is higher even. Incident seems like sugar-coating what the NPOV reality is in the English speaking world and press outside Wikipedia. Perhaps 'Killing' or 'Attack' is better? Thanks. Kiyosaki 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that not all 'incident' google hit refer to this massacre. There are many incident happened in Beit Hanoun due to israeli invasion in gaza --Nielswik(talk) 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you figured out that Googletest is inaccurate and the internet is POV, get yourself a medal. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the internet, it's the control of information. The Wikipedia model is based on open access to all information (aka "science"), which simply can not work for a war-zone situation, where all parties are keen (to the point of lethal force) to control and dominate the information landscape.  So rather than rename this article, I suggest it be deleted on the grounds it is basically a vehicle for propaganda.  If not that, move it to wikinews, where it honestly belongs.  And if still not that, then simply accept that there is no way to obtain a NPOV result re: it's title, and just make a sensible executive decision and stick with it.  As I note above, I think preference should be given to the opinions of those whose blood is spilled, instead of those who have the most money.  mdf 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a tragedy no doubt, but why would we promote moral equivalence? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean 'moral equivalence'? The kassams claimed to be the reason for this shelling killed NO ONE and haven't for over a year. The IDF and its apologists should be wishing for moral equivalance. Puddleman 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He means that the recipients of the shells have no right to characterize the event if the senders have clean hands. As I explained, it is not possible to tell who has or has not clean hands in the Middle East (or any other war-zone), so the objection is spurious.  Morality is fixed by actions, not intent.  In the instant case, Wikipedia probably needs to build a simple, unambiguous name-generator for situations like this -- shock of shocks:  this won't be the last one!  Alternatively, it can engage in days of of fractious bickering every time Something Bad happens in Tel Aviv or Gaza.  Have fun!  mdf 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Eating your lunch can be an incident, walking your dog is an incident, and incident is any random occurence. ANYTHING could be called an incident, but we usually figure out better ways to describe things than call them "random occurences". If massacre is still too POV for some people, although I have to say in this case it would an appropriate title, what about Killing? Or even Shelling, ANYTHING that actually describes this event.

There could have been tons of "incidents" in Beit Hanoun in November, the November 2006 Incident is really too vague and unimaginative for a wikipedia artice. I suggest if people think massacre is too POV, then at least Shelling or Killing. Can't we just have a proper vote already and get this sorted, this is ridiculous, people have been arguing for days now. Come on just vote already.

210.50.228.5 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Amir

Massacre is not NPOV, so let's forget about that. "incident" seems fine to me - it doesn't necessarily mean random, it certainly doesn't mean "Act of God", since there is no god. "Killing" seems ungrammatical. "Attack" implies intent, which can only be speculated about and is not NPOV. Doesn't anyone have a thesaurus? There must be loads of other words we could also argue about.

As for the person who wanted the whole thing deleted, nope - an encyclopaedia is the place for an article which answers the question "What happened at Beit Hanoun in November 2006?" That said, if this was one incident in the Shelling of November 2006, it should be a subsection of that article. I know you wikipedians are obsessed with the number of articles in the English Wiki, but don't artificially split stuff off just to add one more to the total.

If it is to stay separate, I agree with the above comment to come up with a naming standard for events like this. How about this - do a survey of the naming scheme of other wiki articles on other incidents and see how other less-contentious issues have been named, then go with that.

Or how about "Incident of XX November 2006" - that is, specify the exact date, to differentiate from incidents that didn't lead to a complaint to the UN and yet another US veto in the UNSC.

Oh, and for MathKnight, who said earlier "IDF knew there were women and children protecting militants - well, you admit the IDF targeted militants who used civilians as human shield. Hence, not a massacre." - I don't get this; if the IDF knew there were civilians being used as shields and they fired anyway, then that's a massacre AND a war crime. I think I must have missed your point.198.142.5.126 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Fourth Geneva Convention (Part 3, Article 1, Section 28): “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations”. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't you hear? The Gevena Conventions only apply when they can be used to say bad things about those Evil Joos! RunedChozo 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Massacre. First of all, a massacre can be an accident, but it still a massacre if a large number of people died. Second of all, it is not POV to say that it was a massacre. The IDF knew there were civilians in the area and decided to take the risk anyway. I'm not saying that the IDF was wrong, I'm just strongly hinting at it and thinking it. Five or six shells hit the house according to most news agencies, including The Guardian, CNN, and Yahoo!, and that hardly seems like an accident to me. Still, whether it was an accident or not, it was not an "incident", which suggests some innocence. There was not innocence. It was known that there were civilians just as in any urban warfare, which means nothing about it was innocent because no war of any kind is, whether you're trying to save lives or take them. To call it an "incident" is not neutral. To call it a massacre is to call it what it was. It did not have to be deliberate—although there's no reason why it couldn't have been, since it will most likely end up being considered an act of self-defense by the tank gunner because a kid in the window was holding a rock—for it to be a massacre. The only requirement is that a lot of people were killed.

What could they have expected to accomplish??
Out of curiosity, what could Israel really have expected to accomplish? I mean seriously. Did they really expect to hit only "terrorists."? If this was sincerely their goal ... that they really thought they could eliminate individual terrorists with surgical precision .. .then fine .. it was an "accident" and not a "massacre." But what on earth could they possible have that would make them think they could hit only terrorists...that there would be minimum civilian casualities? Do they have terrorist seeking missiles? If you know for certain it's going to kill civilians .. and there's only possibilty it might kill a terrorist ... it is definitely a massacre, or what one might call state terrorism. You perform an action that has at least one guaranteed outcome ... civilians will die. You want to perform this action. So therefore, you purposely want to perform a specific action that has the guaranteed results of killing civilians. This is massacre. 18.211.0.105 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Final warning
Ok, I've had enough of it. This article has been moved eight times in the eleven hours that it exists. The last three moves occurred in the space of twenty minutes. Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since all editor except MathKnight agree, can we move it back to massacre now?
 * All editors - I think not all editors were consulated - so the answer is no. -- Armadillo From Hell 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun "incident"??? Is this a joke? Move it back to massacre. This title is extremely offensive to the victims.--Burgas00 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You saw this warning, but chose to ignore it anyway. You have been blocked for 24 hours. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Uri Avnery on the massacre/incident
The peace activist and Knesset member Uri Avnery calls it a massacre - even if the civilians were not intentionally killed (what he doubts). Read his judgment here:

Merge
Is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun a NPOV title? That article also has pictures, something this one lacks. --Striver 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we have more gory pictures, to show how bloodthirsty those Joos Zionists really are. Striclty for NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you implying? We should have an article about the event, withouth actually describing it? --Striver 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can have a descriptive article without resorting to copyvio. The images you have uploaded do not even remotely qualify as fair use. Beit Or 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The press and reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to it as a massacre.Kiyosaki 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare to:
 * Image:Askari reaction.jpg
 * Image:Beforesmarraafter.jpg
 * Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png
 * Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png
 * Image:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png
 * Image:Israeli Forest Fire (2006).png
 * Image:Economist Cover 20060819.jpg
 * Image:Qana04.jpg
 * Image:Qana idf video s.jpg
 * Image:54492.jpg
 * Image:Summerains.jpg
 * Image:Gaza-tanks.jpg
 * Image:Idf-arrests.jpg
 * Image:53628.jpg
 * Image:Gaza-supplies.jpg

Or any of the pictures at 2005 Bali bombings. I have a hard time assuming your comment was in good faith. --Striver 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can use lengthy lists, why can't I? From Fair use: There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.

Into which category do your images fall? Furthermore, if you consult Fair_use, you'll find a nice example of images that do not qualify as fair use: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." These photos are not newsworthy by themsleves, they only illustrate a newsworthy event. And, yes, Striver, nothing exempts you from assuming good faith. Beit Or 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
 * Team and corporate logos. For identification.  See Logos.
 * Stamps and currency. For identification.
 * Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads.  For critical commentary.
 * Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
 * Screenshots from software products. For critical commentary.
 * Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
 * Publicity photos. For identification and critical commentary. See Publicity photos.
 * Well, considering that your argumentation would demand the deletion of _all_ the pictures i linked to, the conclusion is that either is your interpretation wrong, or the problem is on a procedural scale and it would be wrong to single out a single article. Just take a look at Image:Pentagon precollapse.jpg--Striver 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote (anulled)
The best solution is voting. The vote will be open till tomorrow 17:30 GMT (EST+5), all votes after that time will not be counted, u can only vote once. Robin Hood 1212 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As a neutral Administrator I have annulled this vote. Wikipedia policy clearly dictates that Wikipedia is not a democracy and the Wikimedia Foundation strongly discourages it per Polling is evil. Surveys however, are permitted. Thank you. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Voting is definately not the best solution. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to supply an original analysis of Israel's intentions here. "Massacre" is an absolutely POV term which is not employed unless intention is acknowledged. I suggest you all review Talk:1996 shelling of Qana so as to avoid repeating the same discussion.  Tewfik Talk 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first lines of 1996 shelling of Qana seems NPOV and acceptable. --Striver 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Twentyfour hours is a ridiculously short period for such a discussion/vote. How can you expect substantial and representative editor input in such a short period, particularly in view of the fact that you don't seem to have left any notice at messageboards, wikiprojects etc. that this discussion/vote is taking place? A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Killings' but if it's a straight 'massacre' vs 'incident', i vote 'massacre'.Puddleman 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incident - It should remain incident for the time being at least until the investigation is completed. --PiMaster3 talk 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Massacre. "Mechanical failure"... yeah... --Striver 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and the BBC are referring to it as an incident. --PiMaster3 talk 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incident -- massacre is against naming conventions in WikiProject Military history. -- Kendrick7talk 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this against the naming conventions? The relevant part as far as I could see was An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (e.g. Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" (where X and Y are the locations of the operations). Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care. By having this discussion we are taking care.Puddleman 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And if we're going to use the 'most common name used to refer to the event' as per naming conventions, a quick google search showed 23000 hits for 'Beit Hanoun Massacre" and 796 for "Beit Hanoun Incident".Puddleman 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy you really need to review the naming convention article if you believe what you're saying . Amoruso 10:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What you've said looks very much like a breach of WP:AGF. PalestineRemembered 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

210.50.228.5 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Amir
 * Massacre, definately.

71.131.134.55 08:06, November 12 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a massacre. It was indiscriminate killing due to either EXTREME negligence (the rockets had been fired a day before, no intelligence stated that rockets were continuing to be fired) or simple malice. No militants were killed. It was a massacre, and calling it an "incident" is a shameful exposure of bias for calling Israeli suicide bombing attacks as such and not this.

I guess I won't know when 1730 UTC is until I post this entry, but with all due respect, what the BBC and the Guardian call it isn't really relevant. Haaretz is referring to "Shelling of Beit Hanoun", so that would be more in line with the rules quoted by Puddleman above.

Google searches are also not really relevant, since I'm pretty sure Google is biased towards English language sources, and neither of the parties speak English as a first language.

I vote for "incident" as per the third entry in the Webster dictionary, since this got referred to the UN which makes it an "international diplomatic incident". 198.142.5.126 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Massacre. if not, killing. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incident obviously, but this obviously won't be determined by this short timed vote. Look up massacre in the dictionary and you'll see it's a cruel or wanton murder. This was obviously no murder. It should actually be Accident. And the article itself should probably be deleted. Part of a military campaign - not any event should be listed. Amoruso 10:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Massacre - assuming WP still uses the English language. The killing of 5 people on the streets of Boston by British soldiers in March 5, 1770 is classified in WP as Boston Massacre. It would be a travesty to call the firing of modern tank-shells into the homes of innocent people, killing at least 18, anything other than a massacre. PalestineRemembered 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The Boston Massacre involved the British lining people up and deliberately shooting civilians. This was an incident in which civilians died as a result of equipment failure, when terrorists were the intended target. RunedChozo 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Massacre: I would also support Killings as a consensus version.--Burgas00 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened a vote because democracy should be an option.

Killing gets: 2 Massacre gets: 6 Incident gets: 4

I counted the last vote becuz incident and massacre were equal. Robin Hood 1212 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Our opinions don't alter our responsibility to maintain neutrality.  Tewfik Talk 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However the Massacre's side arguments are strong. I think we have to call an admin to move this. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm loving how our muslim POV pushers guild keep doing this crap and getting away with it all the time. RunedChozo 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By definition, the arguments that try question Israel's assertion that it was nonintentional ("Mechanical failure"... yeah...;indiscriminate killing due to either EXTREME negligence or simple malice) are at minimum original research, and the article's name is the last place for holding such a discussion. I suggest a neutral formulation similar to the one used at 1996 shelling of Qana, ie describing the event without a moral judgment (thus neither "accident" nor "massacre" would be appropriate). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is now enough distance from the recent move war for me to put my $.02 worth in. Before I do so, I would like to emphasize that I'm saying this as an editor, not as an admin. My actions as an admin regarding this article have nothing to do with this message/vote. I feel that Neutral point of view (policy) trumps Consensus (guideline). Consensus would apply: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." In other words, it is more important to be neutral than to do what the majority in this poll wants. As Tewfik has said, wikipedia is not a democracy. I also agree with what he said about incident and massacre. Either word would be our interpretation of what happened. Both versions need to be addressed in the article, but should be avoided in the title. I therefore suggest going with Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. It has all the relevant facts in the title (Who? What? Where?) without passing a judgement. I think we can all agree that what happened was a shelling of Beit Hanoun. Whether that shelling constituted an incident or a massacre is the dispute. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are getting there. The next step is to realize that "shelling" is just as much a whitewash as "incident" is.  The end-game is to realize there is no NPOV title of this article:  anything that doesn't directly refer to the fact that 19 people were killed in their own homes will be challenged by one side as a lie of omission, and anything that does directly reference this fact will be challenged by the other as pernicious propaganda.  The contents of the article are just as non-NPOVable, since it will simply be a "he says, she says" affair beyond the single sentence that describes what happened.  As I expected back on Friday, this entire "discussion" is basically descending  into the two factions sniping at each other, with no productive work being done.  I'll re-state my advice:
 * Delete the article as non-encyclopedic at this time. If no NPOV title can exist, then it's likely that neither can an article.  Move it to wikinews and be done with it (no NPOV, no NOR, etc).  Maybe all these rhetorical snipers will follow along.
 * If not possible, if a POV article must exist, then simply make up a naming scheme for sitations like this and apply it mercilessly across the board. I strongly suggest a bias towards the victims, but any bias will do.  The point is to state the bias and declare the reasons why it exists (to wit:  so people will use WP to create content, not to serve as yet another information battlefield).
 * Particularly, it needs to be clearly stated that if the "we just follow the mainstream media" approach is taken, that this does lead to a natural bias that is not intrinsically "neutral", and worse, tends to lean towards the position that is better represented in that forum. mdf 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a perfect example of how Wikipedia fucks up, when a bunch of POV pushers decide they want to make an article sound as nasty as possible towards the Jews they hate so much. NotAWeasel 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say it openly: I think that the muslim pov-pushers guild is doing a great disservice to Wikipedia by trying to POV the hell out of this article. That means "Robin Hood", "Nielswik", "Striver" (and yes, I'm fully aware that the holy-war term jihad is usually translated as "to strive") and the rest.

It may be incivil of me, but I don't care, I need to say what I think, and I do not think ANY of you are acting in good faith here. RunedChozo 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim POV pushers? I dont know if anyone in this discussion is Muslim. Quite a few are Israeli. In any case it seems that only the occuppiers have a right to "self-defence" whereas those who are being occupied and getting killed (hundreds over the past months) must keep quiet lest they be branded terrorists or jihadists. Lets keep neutral. Israel killed around 1000 civilians last July in Lebanon. Maybe they were all "accidents" or "mistakes" in the language of the IDF, but when you bomb the hell out of a country you know civilians are going to get killed. The same goes for Palestine. Shelling heavily populated areas ammounts to a massacre as one can reasonably predict that there will be civilian casualties. In a court of law, murder requires intention to kill or moral certainty that death will result from our actions in the case of oblique intention. The same should apply to the IDF's operations. --Burgas00 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For Striver, Robin Hood, etc all I had to do was to look at their user pages to see what guild they belong to and their bias. For you, oh ye of horrid bad faith action, I doublechecked your contributions and what do I find? POV pushing on islam-related topics everywhere. Your bias is noted, your bad faith doubly so. I suggest you take a long break and come back only when you are willing to edit wikipedia with NPOV policies in mind and when you actually understand them. RunedChozo 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Incident definitely cannot stay. Some form of limited consensus must be found. If massacre (which I believe is the correct term) will not be accepted by the Israeli wikipedians, I propose "Killings".--Burgas00 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith is showing: now you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being Israeli. RunedChozo 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Amoruso is overtly Israeli and very much a nationalist (see his user page), and you, I can only assume you are Israeli or pro-Israeli since you are offended by the fact that killing Palestinian women and children in their sleep is called a "massacre". Only someone who is strongly one-sided and emotional about the Arab Israeli-conflict could have so little regard for human life.--Burgas00 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am offended by your obvious bias; I condemn the death of innocents but recognize that they wouldn't have died if the Palestinian terrorist groups weren't playing games, claiming Hamas was in a "cease fire" while they lobbed missiles DELIBERATELY at civilian centers under an assumed name. I recognize that incidents like Palestinian national radio calling for civilian shields to protect terrorists from being captured, and trying to sneak them out under a group of burkha-clad women and then bitching when the women were wounded as the terrorists were found out, are rampant disregard of ALL portions of the Geneva Conventions by the terrorists who run the Palestinian society. And I absolutely am outraged anyone like you who has so little disregard for human life that you can blither on about only one side of this, while the terrorists blatantly ignore the Geneva Conventions even while their supporters like you bitch and moan every time the Israeli army, the most handcuffed army in the world, winds up hitting the civilians instead of the terrorists who were hiding in their basement. RunedChozo 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complicated. 50 years of occupation does tend to breed hatred and terrorism. And this hatred is not restricted to Muslim Palestinians. Christian Palestinians feel pretty much the same way. I see that you do have strong feelings on the issue. Maybe Israel should just pull out of the occupied territories and just let these people live with dignity in their own land. It would make life easier for everyone. --Burgas00 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn. You can't bother to thread your responses properly, and by "occupied territories" I presume you mean the ones listed on the Hamas flag, that exclude the existence of Israel at all? You're a real laugh riot. I have strong feelings anytime I see someone trying to justify using "civilians" as human shields to wage a genocidal war, just as I have strong feelings about any army that deliberately targets civilians (which is I will note NOT what the IDF does, but what Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of the terrorists do on a daily basis). RunedChozo 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't really judge any party to the conflict, but especially not the Palestinians. I am not living under occupation, a foreigner in my own land, under the constant threat of violence, with no right to travel freely, and with tanks firing outside my house. I don't know if I would resort to violence. If there was the slightest chance of finding a just peace, probably not. In any case, Wikipedia is not a soap box. Lets simply try to find consensus in good faith here despite our differences of opinion.--Burgas00 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you live with "shelling" as a compromise, instead of "massacre" or "incident"? A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Provided that there is not a merge with the despicable POV fork Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun, perhaps. There are plenty of ways for Burgas and his friends to try to POV an article, though, and their conduct has given me reason to question their good faith: AGF only goes so far before you're being an idiot. RunedChozo 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask anyone who is pro-Israeli, and they will accept anything that makes no reference to the deaths. Ask the other side, and they will demand a reference to the deaths.  And frankly, who the hell are we to make "compromises" here?  If we are making up names as we go along, we should at least have the intellectual honesty to (a) admit what is going on and (b) apply the rule consistently.  If neither of these are acceptable practices, then I assert the article should not exist at all.  mdf 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel acknowleged deaths and admitted mistake. Unfortunately, such tragedies take place in every war. I find the vote absurd and refuse to take part in it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey RunedChozo, by ur way of speaking violantly, we may assume that ur defending a murderer. Robin Hood 1212 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) We can't compromise, the Zionists call it an accident and believe they r perfect and the other side calles it massacre or killing.
 * We can certainly see where your bias lies. Why don't you just say "damn Joos", follow it up with "apes and pigs", and be done with it? NotAWeasel 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is a Joo? Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semetism. War is not peace. 2 + 2 ≠ 5, etc. -- Kendrick7talk 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be deliberately dense. Unless of course you're just naturally that mentally deficient. NotAWeasel 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reactions
Just removed Dlippman's addition of 'terrorist' to " A local Hamas leader called for resumption of suicide attacks " It doesn't add anything when someone is obviously calling for attacks, if you don't like them they're terrorists, and Hamas are not only 'terrorists' but the elected government.Puddleman 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you get into the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy which should be avoided at all costs.198.142.5.126 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is recognized to be a terrorist group by the EU, UN, USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Russia, and the list goes on. It doesn't surprise me that there's a bunch of racists on here trying to whitewash their image, but come on, a spade is a spade. RunedChozo 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment:please give citation to your claim that russia etc list Hamas as terrorist group. also, please be civil.
 * Could you present me with a list of people refering to Hamas as freedom fighters? --Striver 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Other Terrorists. NotAWeasel 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

† It doesn't matter how many people recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. That does not make it true. I'm not whitewashing anything, I simply came across the mention, and I'm correcting it. The whole world can band together and say that nuclear weapons aren't dangerous, but that doesn't make that truth and that doesn't make it a fact, regardless of how many people say it is.

Submitted bad-faith "Merge" page for deletion
I have submitted Striver's bad-faith "Merge" POV fork of this article for deletion: Articles for deletion/Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun.

I do this because it is a POV fork, put in in bad faith by an editor whose history I have read and I have determined that I cannot come to assume they acted in good faith in its creation, and because other editors here have pointed out that the images in that article are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have expressed a complaint regarding the speedy delete closure of that afd to the adming closing the afd. --Striver 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

no consensus. --  tariq abjotu  01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident → IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun — There is controversy over term "incident" being euphemistic, proposed title is simply descriptive. &rArr; bsnowball  11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

Support: Incident is a euphemism for the shelling of a populated area and the killing of women and children in their sleep. It is borderline offensive. Massacre is the proper word in my opinion but I understand that wikipedia has to be careful with politically charged words. Shelling is slightly better than incident and I support this move.--Burgas00 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE IN STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS Wikipedia naming conventions have already been pointed out to you people multiple times. Stop trying to POV push. RunedChozo 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support: "Incident" is indeed a euphemism, and I do not see how the word "shelling" has POV connotations. "IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun" is EXACTLY what happened. Nobody debates that the town was shelled, or that it was shelled by the IDF, the only controversial issue is whether or not it was intentional, etc. Andri Egilsson 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per RunedChozoShrike 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: As I have said below, this is a descriptive and non-emotive title. Maybe we need to look at Israeli Army Shelling of Beit Hanoun though, instead of IDF, as IDF may be a bit onscure to the general reader. Puddleman 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "massacre" didn't work, now let's try "shelling". No, "incident" is NPOV enough. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Incident is neutral at the risk of being utterly meaningless, which is not the intent of NPOV. I think the term "massacre" or even "attack" is too emotionally charged to use for a current incident, even though that may well turn out to be what occurred. I'm generally in agreement with points made by Puddleman and Andri that "shelling" is NPOV enough - it explains exactly what happened, that shells were fired by somebody and fell on somebody else, without making a value judgement. Where possible we should be using factual terms. I also agree that something less cryptic to the random observer than IDF should be used (although Israeli Army may be technically incorrect if it was the air force, and many leftist Israelis may object to the generic "Israeli" - gotta love word value politics :|) Orderinchaos78 (t 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Humus. The agenda behind this proposal is transparent and unwikipedic. Beit Or 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support regardless of "agenda" this article's title is currently uninformative and "incident" is one of the most weasely words that I can think of: if you look at the other articles called "incident" the top results on the search bring up dozens of "purges", skirmishes or massacres by various governments. This article is about a clearly defined event, the shelling of Beit Hanoun by Israeli Defence Forces. The title should reflect this, propose move to 2006 Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun or similar. Unless the event itself becomes widely known as the "Beit Hanoun incident" its article should not be located here. QmunkE 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * opposed Incident is a vagye word, but the phrase "Beit Hanoun incident" turns up more google hits than "Beit Hanoun shelling" I don't see strong POV in "shelling" although it does seem to be non-neutral in that it was in response to a rocket attacj from the area. Thus a focus on "shelling" puts emphasis on the Israeli shelling rather than the incident as a whole. JoshuaZ 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't oppose a title like "Beit Hanoun shelling" in principle, but I do share Joshua's concerns about NPOV.  Tewfik Talk 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I prefer "massacre", though, but Many people don't agree with it so I think shelling is better. Burgas is true incident is too euphemism. To joshua, if we use google test, massacre will be much better(massacre:97,300 hits, incident 12,300, shelling 10,900. One must note, however the difference between shelling and incident is small (only ~1,000 hits) and i think there are many "incidents" in Beit Hanoun other than this one, so not all google hits for "Beit Hanoun incident" refers to this one. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose titles about attacks don't mention the perpetrators, eg Bombing of Gernika. Andjam 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the use of "shelling" instead of euphemistic "incident"? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Oh hell no. 70.114.236.109 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support What is an "incident"? If I were to stub my toe, that would be incident too. This was a shelling. BhaiSaab talk 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Always trying to sanitize Israel's disproportionate bloodletting. What occuptied territories? What Palestinians? What fighters? what resistance? Qassam homemade mortars are "rockets." They're are all "terrorists." Let's conform WP to the "real" outside unsheltetered world and avoid weasel words.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:


 * Not everyone may know the IDF, I'm not sure IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun is intuitive enough. I suggest using "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" as a redirect to "IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun", or the other way around. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * oops, thnx i meant to comment on that: i proposed "idf" instead of "israeli" as it cldn't be quibbled over on 'factual' grounds. it's straight down the line descriptive. "israeli shelling..." might be argued over on grounds that it wasn't the state/people of 'israel' who carried out the shelling. also it's already a re-direct & would still be if the name change went thru. the point of this proposal is, as stated, to find a main title that isn't euphemistic. there can be any ammount of re-directs from other titles. &rArr; bsnowball  11:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: BAD FAITH FROM BURGAS & FRIENDS AGAIN SIGH Seriously, you just keep trying to POV this every way you can, don't you? We've already had this discussion. Wikipedia naming conventions state that the correct title is already there. Stop being a POV pusher. RunedChozo 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (events): going down the list, 1) there is no common name for the event (its too recent) 2) there is no common word (it's disputed) 3) ("If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.") which coincidently fits this proposal rather well, "incident" being a somewhat pov euphemism & idf being descriptive & precise. (permit me to naively assume that there couldn't possibly be any objections to "shelling" or "Beit Hanoun") (& re pov pushing cabals:, , etc., go figure) &rArr; bsnowball  17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ...shelling of Beit Hanoun seems a lot less POV then incident -- Armadillo From Hell 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incident is a deliberately neutral word. The other wording they are all trying to add are emotional in nature, which is against NPOV standards. Stop being deliberately dense. RunedChozo 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just about every one of your comments is derisive, it does not help to make your points by doing that. Please stop. -- Armadillo From Hell  19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems we all agree and we are dealing with one particularly conflictive user... --Burgas00 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to your bad-faith attempt to have this page deleted and to having your friend's bad-faith POV fork deleted show otherwise, POV pusher. RunedChozo 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * RundedChozo. As I have pointed out, "incident" basically means, "something that happened", not a highly descriptive title. As for being 'deliberately neutral,' what do you mean? How does a word have intent? And can you accept that for the victims this would not appear to be a neutral description? 'Israeli/Israeli military shelling of Beit Hanoun' actually contains what happened, by whom and to whom. Much more descriptive and NPOV. Fair enough getting 'masszcre' removed from the options, but if you look at the list of [massacres] there are plenty that at the time the perpetrators denied being deliberate. Puddleman 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Puddleman, to argue that words do not have emotional content is absurd. "Massacre" is an emotionally charged word, and the rest of the behavior by these POV pushers has been consistent: they are trying to make the article as biased against the IDF, Israel, and "Jews" as they possibly can. "Incident" indeed means "something that happened", and this article is about an event that happened on a day and at a place. That is what the title should be, nothing else. As neutral as possible. IF there should come to be a colloquial or agreed-upon phrase to describe the event, even if it is later disproven to have even happened (such as Jenin Massacre) then, and only then, should we change the name, but it is ridiculous to stand by and let POV pushers try to make this into some emotional propaganda piece. RunedChozo 19:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RunedChozo, would you call the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth "The Westminster Abbey Incident," or the Munich Putsch "The Munich Incident"? These are both 'things that happened on a day at a place' but we commonly give them a name that gives more information.

Sure, I have a political view on this conflict, as I hope you admit you do to, but I am trying really hard to remove that from the picture when I am arguing this - thinking in purely encyclopedic terms I believe that "incicent" is not an adequate description. Just to be a bit long-winded, but I think relevant... nNear where I live, there was in the 1860s a mass killing which for many years was known as 'The Wairau Massacre'. This was when some local Maori killed a group of colonists who were illegally surveying land which they wanted to buy and had tried to arrest the chief of the tribe. The Maori were shot at... some have said by accident, and they responded by killing almost the whole survey party. Sometime in the last twenty years, for reasons of historical revisionism, and for a cause that I wholeheartedly believe in, that of building good will and understanding between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand, the name on the plaque where this happened was changed to 'Wairau Affray' and in many books to 'Wairau Incident'. Though I believe that the people who instigated this change were doing it for the best of reasons, I still am conviced that for true understanding that the original title would have been far better. So, my point is that euphemistic descriptions lead to false views of history. It is important to be truthful in descriptions so that people can have real understandings, and through facing reality, hopefully find ways to solve its problems. (There's my dose of idealism for the day ;>)Puddleman 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everything is about racism against Jews. People in my family died at the hands of Nazis. I still tend to agree with those who say that "incident" is pretty meaningless in an encyclopaedic context, and something else - albeit something factual - should be used. An incident at the shop could be getting overcharged 90c for fruit. Orderinchaos78 (t 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about..."Accidental November 2006 IDF Shelling of Beit Hanoun"????--Backroomlaptop 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be POV since that it was "accidental" is contested. There is no more to it. Can some one please contact an administrator, make the move and we can just forget about it and stop wasting time? Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun is 100% neutral. --Burgas00 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Better idea: Can you stop being a POV pusher, stop trying to bias this article, and go away so that those who really want to make an NPOV, encyclopedic article can do so without your POV pushing causing us more problems? "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" is an attempt once again to make an article saying "ooh look what those evil Jews did", just like your POV fork that got deleted, and you know it. RunedChozo 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks and accusations of anti-semitism. Not only are they unfounded but, in the light of the matter discussed, absurd and almost comical. --Burgas00 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you desist POV-pushing, I'll stop telling you to stop POV-pushing. RunedChozo 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we just debate the article and not the people? It's getting tedious. These are words on a screen written by people unknown. It's not like friends or family or people one can actually see or may even talk to again. (Something I actually have to remind myself of every once in a while on more heated online discussions) Orderinchaos78 (t 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - my view on this debate. In response to Runed Chozo's objection:

From Naming conventions:
 * 1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
 * The incident isn't really major enough to have acquired a "common name" yet, but a quick test through Google News gives:
 * about 1,970 for beit hanoun incident.
 * about 2,430 for beit hanoun shelling.
 * which to me would seem to indicate the latter is the more commonly accepted name.
 * 2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
 * I propose that a) the year is unnecessary in the article title here since there are no other similarly titled articles to confuse it with and b) that "shelling" is a generally accepted word used to identify the event, as shown by the above Google News search.
 * 3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
 * In no way are the words "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" a violation of NPOV. There are no dispute over these facts: Israeli shells hit Beit Hanoun. Accidental or not, it was a shelling. If at some point it is proven that this was an accident I would then propose a further move to "Accidental Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" or similar. This is far more descriptive than "Beit Hanoun incident".

I've never gotten this involved over an article move before, however the complete lack of impartiality in this discussion has led me to try and put my view across. Thanks. QmunkE 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As explained above, "Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun" omits the fact that 19 people were basically killed in their own homes. That is to say, it is just another way of saying "Israeli caused incident at Beit Hanoun".  You can try the other way, but then the Israeli's will object.  The core problem is there is no NPOV title for this article, or articles of a similar form.  No shades of gray, no calm transition from "wild POV X" to "wild POV Y", without doing an injustice to some side or another.  It's a super-sharp step function.  The simple answer, if articles like this need to exist (I believe wikinews is a better forum) is to just invent some scheme and blindly stick to it no matter what.  Push the interminable dispute into some other forum, away from the article itself.  Almost any other option will will inevitably lead for the article being used as yet another propaganda battleground, and the firefight erupting with each event like this that takes place.  mdf 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just change the title to "OMG LOOK WHAT THOSE EVIL JEWS DID" and get it over with then? The point is to be encyclopedic, not to try to push every bit of emotional content that you can.RunedChozo 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.