Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is
not censored, not even to remove
profanity or pornography. Please do not remove or censor information that is
relevant to the article, as you did to
Battle of Jenin. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
it may not have been your intention but you have repeatedly removed already established material from the article. 11:40, 18 August 2007, 19:05, 18 August 2007 please take a look at the body of the article and the given references and raise your concerns on the talk page if you still have concerns. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please justify the statement you made "without references from international sources it is inappropriate to imply a massacre took place - and thus accuse a party of committing a massacre - the word massacre is inapproropriate unreferenced".
PalestineRemembered 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC) You could read up on and reference the articles on incidents such as the
Boston Massacre and
Kent State Massacre if you feel this would help your case.
PalestineRemembered
15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's no good telling us that Boston Massacre and Kent State Massacre are "controversial", the fact is that they have no international verification (your point), concern small numbers of people (your point) and yet appear in the encyclopedia as massacres. There would be outrage if Wikipedia tried to call them anything else, as you must be well aware.
- Nor does it help to tell us "will not waste my time finding the literally thousands upon thousands of cases in which multiple civilians have been killed and the event has not been labeled a massacre. This is just silly." - you have commented on what Palestinians (may) call a massacre, and have told us it is inappropriate of us to use the same phrasing. Please justify why we should deny a (badly suffering) people the usual recognition of mass killing of defenceless civilians by others military. PalestineRemembered 08:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now rewriten the section on terror atacks. The title itself was POV, so I've renamed it. Basically the point is that an attack on US marines cannot simply be called a terror attack and the same is true about the rocket attacks on Israel, kidnappings of Israeli soldiers etc. etc. Count Iblis 20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Is firing missiles on Israeli towns an act of terror? I would say that this is an act of terror. And you also think that way. However, we have to remember that on wikipedia we have to be neutral. This means that if there are other opinions then we cannot just mention our own opinions. Incase if the missile attacks this is obvious, because you can find many excuses for Hezbollah. ALso, we have to rmember that if we can say that a certain action by Hexbollah is a terror attack just because we feel that way, then others can say simialr things about Israel or the US.
E.g. Israel used cluster bombs in civilian areas. This is considered to be awar crime. But I think it is wrong to write that down like that in a wiki article. The Israeli POV is different, they have explanations for what happened. It doesn't matter if I agree with that or not.
It is enough to just mention all the facts without using certain words to give extra weigth to our opinions. Count Iblis 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand what NPOV means. I'll asks others to modify the paragraph you have started. Attacks on civlians during wartime is not, by definition, a terror attack (unfortunately not, I would say). Civilians were a target in WWII (also by the allied forces), and in the cold war we were prepared to vaporize entire cities. So, it cannot be said that the mere fact that Hezbollah attacked civilian targets makes such an attack a terror attack. Of course, we may consider (for good reasons) such an attack as a teror attack. But that is then still our POV. Count Iblis 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been reported to an admin noticeboard for a violation of the three revert rule. I have reviewed the case and there is no doubt that you have violated this rule. Because you are a new user and were not specifically warned, I am not blocking you on this occasion but I want you to be very clear that this is the only warning you will get. We do not tolerate disruption from edit warring over article content. If another editor disagrees with your edits you are expected to resolve the issue by discussing the problem on the article talk page. If I catch you revert warring again, please be under no misunderstanding - I will block you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)