Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Bet Hanoun and others
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Wikizach
Comment	no activity since 2 Jan, asking to close

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Bet Hanoun and others]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Bet Hanoun and others]]

Mediation Case: 2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Striver 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Who's involved?

I compiled the list myself, im sorry if i missed or mistakenly added anybody. --Striver 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?: Dispute regarding the NPOV and Fair use status of four pictures, the comon denominator is that the they are pictures of violences caused by the IDF. Every trick in the book is used to prevent the inclusion of the pictures in the three articles.

What would you like to change about that?: Create consensus

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No discretion needed.

Mediator response

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

if some form of consensus can be reached on the above, could we also discuss the problem with the title. (tho this is definitely a secondary issue.) specificaly the euphemism 'incident' is arguable incorrect and insulting, regardless of what it was intended to be. there was a move war over this & a previous move request (by me) was no consensus. there were serious problems with my suggested title, apart from point blank opposition to any change. perhaps 'killings' would be at least properly descriptive. relevant guidelines are't much help as there doesn't appear to be any one commonly used description. ⇒ bsnowball 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we could avoid a lot of wasted time and effort if we could get the mediation case semiprotected against anonymous IPs. I mean, considering the vandal activity.--Rosicrucian 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

As i wrote above, the dispute is regarding the inclusion of several pictures into the appropriate articles. I find that there are no real reason to exclude the pictures from the articles, but some editors have raised a host of issues ranging from Fair Use issues, it being POV to include pictures, the pictures provided from BBC being fake and BBC not being a reliable source and so fourth... --Striver - talk 13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as far as im concerned this is just the latest islamist bad faith attempt to try to make the page into propaganda for their terrorist brothers in the spirit of taqiyya and kitman which say that you have to lie to any unbeliever in the cause of making islam dominant in the world.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The dispute is not just about "inclusion of pictures", it's about the deliberate attempt by Striver and others to force material into the article and violate NPOV standards. I would have commented earlier but I have been away over the holidays, it's lucky I was back in time to comment in this case.

The pictures they keep trying to force, as well as dubious, unreliable "witness reports" that serve only to push emotional appeal, are definite violations of NPOV. RunedChozo 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wiki eZach| talk 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]