→Images: replied |
→Images: reasons not to exclude |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Photographs of the aftermath of the attack can be found on Picasa, here: [https://picasaweb.google.com/picsyesha/Itamar#]. Israeli columnist and settler spokesperson Yisrael Medad has linked to the photos with the statement "These photos were released by the family. They have given full permission to reproduce them to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, simply because they are Jewish."[http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/03/fogel-family-releases-graphic-photos.html]. Three photos were in the article and were then deleted unilaterally and without warning or satisfactory explanation by [[user:Y]]. The deletion has been opposed by [[user:cptnono]], [[user:NortyNort]] and me. [[User:Jalapenos do exist|Jalapenos do exist]] ([[User talk:Jalapenos do exist|talk]]) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
Photographs of the aftermath of the attack can be found on Picasa, here: [https://picasaweb.google.com/picsyesha/Itamar#]. Israeli columnist and settler spokesperson Yisrael Medad has linked to the photos with the statement "These photos were released by the family. They have given full permission to reproduce them to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, simply because they are Jewish."[http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/03/fogel-family-releases-graphic-photos.html]. Three photos were in the article and were then deleted unilaterally and without warning or satisfactory explanation by [[user:Y]]. The deletion has been opposed by [[user:cptnono]], [[user:NortyNort]] and me. [[User:Jalapenos do exist|Jalapenos do exist]] ([[User talk:Jalapenos do exist|talk]]) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I'm with [[User:Y]] on this one. While Wikipedia is not censored, I personally believe we should not feature graphic images of murdered children unless there is a ''very'' good reason for doing so - e.g. the image is historically famous. In general, we're hear to inform people, not shock and disgust them. In this instance, the text of the article is shocking enough; an image would add no informative content. The pictures are still linked at the bottom of the article for anyone who ''really'' wants to see them. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
:I'm with [[User:Y]] on this one. While Wikipedia is not censored, I personally believe we should not feature graphic images of murdered children unless there is a ''very'' good reason for doing so - e.g. the image is historically famous. In general, we're hear to inform people, not shock and disgust them. In this instance, the text of the article is shocking enough; an image would add no informative content. The pictures are still linked at the bottom of the article for anyone who ''really'' wants to see them. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::[[User:Y]]'s delete should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation than "Ignore all rules in the name of basic human dignity," which is not a valid reason to remove images from a page. I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned. While true that the photos are shocking and disgusting, it is purely POV to claim that including them would be ''in order to'' shock and disgust the reader. They serve a historical function.—[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Article name should be changed == |
== Article name should be changed == |
Revision as of 13:19, 13 March 2011
Palestinian reaction
Under the Reactions section, the paragraph on the Palestinian response is potentially biased as it does not correspond to how the Jerusalem Post reported the claim of responsibility for the attack. Note that the Jerusalem Post does not say that Fatah claimed responsibility but rather that Fatah's militia did. It would be best to reword the paragraph to conform to how it's being reported in the press and more clearly distinguish between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition, the paragraph makes no mention of the condemnation issued by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. This too suggests bias on the part of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Photos
User:Jalapenos_do_exist, please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing. In particular, placing a photo of a victim in the Reactions sections is inappropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have decency, people! These are dead babies! The user who added these, whoever s/he is, needs to stop and smell some serious coffee. -- Y not? 04:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. The images compliment the text and add to the reader's understanding of the event. Everyone reads an article differently and Wikipedia has made a point of highlighting the use of media as a way to benefit the project. Furthermore, the family supposedly released. However, that claim needs verification to get the right copyright tag added.
- I agree that they are disturbing images but that does not mean they do not have a place here. I think it might be a good idea to put them into a collage in one file so that the reader is not essentially bombarded as they scroll down. Simply removing them was inappropriate with the reasoning provided. Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kudos for the admission in the edit summary, though.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see they were all deleted, I would've suggested just having a link to the CommonsCat. Wikipedia is not censored but the one of the dead infant was rather disturbing and didn't add much to the article other than the emotional aspect.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Conversely, the one with the dead infant is maybe the best one at accompanying the text "an act of incomprehensible cruelty and brutality". It is emotional and it is disturbing and that is exactly why it pairs well with the text. I do believe that highlighting the emotional aspects can be problematic since it can lead to POV. However, it was an event characterized by its brutalness so we should not expect this to be an article about sunshine and lollipops.
- And I assume you meant "not censored".
- This discussion will mean little if the copyright tag isn't figured out.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, yes I meant not censored. I corrected my post above. I see you point about the infant as this is the most disturbing part of the incident and it does illustrate that. If the pictures come back, a gallery or Commons link would be the best recourse; with one picture as a primary instead of scattered throughout the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see they were all deleted, I would've suggested just having a link to the CommonsCat. Wikipedia is not censored but the one of the dead infant was rather disturbing and didn't add much to the article other than the emotional aspect.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The link (23) does not match the author's text. Please change link to story alleging revenge killing. MizzR (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Images
Photographs of the aftermath of the attack can be found on Picasa, here: [1]. Israeli columnist and settler spokesperson Yisrael Medad has linked to the photos with the statement "These photos were released by the family. They have given full permission to reproduce them to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, simply because they are Jewish."[2]. Three photos were in the article and were then deleted unilaterally and without warning or satisfactory explanation by user:Y. The deletion has been opposed by user:cptnono, user:NortyNort and me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with User:Y on this one. While Wikipedia is not censored, I personally believe we should not feature graphic images of murdered children unless there is a very good reason for doing so - e.g. the image is historically famous. In general, we're hear to inform people, not shock and disgust them. In this instance, the text of the article is shocking enough; an image would add no informative content. The pictures are still linked at the bottom of the article for anyone who really wants to see them. Robofish (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- User:Y's delete should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation than "Ignore all rules in the name of basic human dignity," which is not a valid reason to remove images from a page. I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned. While true that the photos are shocking and disgusting, it is purely POV to claim that including them would be in order to shock and disgust the reader. They serve a historical function.—Biosketch (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Article name should be changed
you can't call it just an attack..pepole slaughtered there while they sleep.. it's terror attack,slaughter,massacre,murder..call it just 'attck' make it sounds like nothing serious really happened there --79.181.18.159 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)