Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] 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 and 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 Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Striver 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Who's involved?
- --Striver 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- User:tariqabjotu
- User:bsnowball
- User:QmunkE
- User:JoshuaZ
- User:Rosicrucian
- User:Opiner
- User:RunedChozo
- User:Rosicrucian
- User:Burgas00
- User:Palestine48
- User:Itaqallah
- User:Tewfik
- User:Nielswik
- User:Beit Or
I compiled the list myself, im sorry if i missed or mistakenly added anybody. --Striver 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
[edit] Mediator response
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] 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)