Alberuni, on what basis are you:

1) Removing the NPOV notice? 2) Removing the link to the IDF code of Conduct page?--Josiah 17:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You guys are funny. You slap an NPOV notice on any article about Israel that displeases you without even bothering to dispute any aspect of the article's neutrality. It's as if you think NPOV means "Potentially Harmful to Israel". The IDF conduct link is in there. What a joke. Lt. William Calley also committed atrocities while soldiering under the US military code of conduct. As if the existence of laws stops criminals. You guys are really funny. --Alberuni 20:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cut the Rhetoric and answer my questions please. --Josiah 22:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have it backwards, Yoshi. If you dispute some aspect of this article's neutrality, you are supposed to bring up your issues on Talk first so that they can be resolved. --Alberuni 01:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but I agree with you. I actually don't agree with the NPOV notice. But when edit wars are happening (as was the scenario between you and the other person), there is no justification to remove it.--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On what basis was the NPOV notice added in the first place? - Mustafaa 00:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add it.I don't know--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV is obvious. The article is written as if this was a typical murder done by those bloodthirsty Israelis. For those who harp and stir hatred on sad incidents like this, remember what caused it: rockets were continuously fired into the Israeli cities. BTW, were those who do it ever investigated? Or it was also the Joos who did it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"POV is obvious" doesn't quite cut it. According to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

So what's your description? Any specifics? - Mustafaa 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. It uses the highest possible estimate of casualties, that of the Al-Mezan Center, ignoring the many other estimates, all of which are lower.

2. It is highly selective in the quotes used, and then follows up by pointing out that the soldiers later admitted that they lied to get their superior in trouble. I consider both of these POV. Jayjg 21:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. is easily fixed, and I see no evidence of 2. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Perhaps it's easily fixed by you. Whenever I try, it's immediately reverted by Alberuni. He's not shy about reverting you on the Dore Gold page either, perhaps he'll revert you here too.

2. Um, quoting soldiers who later said they lied? What is the point of quoting admitted lies? Jayjg 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"admitted lies" or truths later retracted under political pressure? I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. - Mustafaa 22:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too naive and trusting, Mustafaa. ;-) Jayjg 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa makes a relevant point. If something that they later denied is quoted, it should be mentioned that they later retracted their comments.--Josiah 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone provide any sources on the soldiers (or some of them) later having claimed to have lied? None of the links at the bottom mention it, nor does a quick Google search yield anything. - Mustafaa 00:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I use Google news (rather than "normal" google) for stuff like this. A search for "soldiers lied iman" (sans quotes) produced the following results which mentioned some lieing. CNN Jerusalem Post Maariv Int.. To quote the last of the 3 articles, "According to the two, the soldiers who claimed that the platoon commander had carried out the procedure lied in an attempt to frame him."--Josiah 03:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - Maariv says that 2 of the soldiers claimed the others were lying (the other two talk about the commander lying.) No "change of testimony" at all (contra the anon edit that inserted that statement.) I will change the article accordingly. - Mustafaa 15:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So are any further grounds suggested for keeping the NPOV tag? - Mustafaa 15:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. I removed it along with a slight rewording of the beggining paragraph for redudancy reasons.--Josiah 23:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made a couple edits to begin to bring the article to neutrality. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)