Talk:Despite 6 warnings Israel bombed and killed 4 UN observers

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

problems with title[edit]

to my knowledge, modern armies typically use shells, missiles and rockets, not bombs. and i prefer

X UN peacekeepers/monitors killed by/in Israeli strike/shellfire/fire/bombardment. Doldrums 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary: Bomb, A device filled with explosives used for destroying things. [1] --MyName 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake, it was an airstrike, and it was bombs and so...
Four UN observers killed by Israeli bombardment/airstrike in south Lebanon

Doldrums 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. It sticks to the straight fact that Israel killed UN workers; reporting an accusation is more taboo. MyName 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about problems with title. ...it makes little to no sense right now as "Israel accused, "ignored" UN bomb warnings."

Suggest: Israel accused of ignoring UN bomb warnings --LazLong 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its better but I think 'accused of' is not really good. They ignored the warnings just that. international 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we have consensus that the IDF deliberately ignored the warning (IIRC, 10 calls sent by the UN), I will remove "accused" the quotations from "ignored". zuzu 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

Primary Sources[edit]

  • IDF statement[2]
  • UNIFIL press release [3]
  • Kofi Annan statement [4]
  • Olmert statement [5]

Not[edit]

  • LA Times article[6]

Jndrline[edit]

What exactly are you trying to move this article to? international 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite sure what your asking; I think you're asking why I changed the title back. To state that "Israel ignored" the warnings is POV - it sways the reader into the belief that it was intentional.

You have change the title and then rewrite the first part in a inconsistent way. international 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it inconsistent?
    1. The first paragraph is a summary, which tells what happened.
    2. The next two parts are all statements and perspectives given by the involved parties (involved from an overall sense). Unfortunately, Lebanon is absent from this to be a third party.
    3. The rest all involve countries which were involved in this particular incident. An Irish Observer gave Israel warning. The others have fallen nationals.
This seems pretty consistent to me.
--Jndrline 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about that Israel ignored ,accused or not, the warnings and still bombed the wellknown and wellmarked UN post.
1. you move pagetitle to 'accused'
2. you reWrite the first part without any attributations or 'accusations'
3. where are youre sources as Im not sure of youre editing are sourced.
international 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that Israel ignored the warnings, rather than having done something unintentional, is opinion.
RE 1: I moved the page title back to where it was
RE 2: I'll give you that. It doesn't mention accusation, and should because of the title.
RE 3: My sources are having read the existing ones at the bottom of the article and editing based on existing text; I have added nothing new.
Perhaps the arguement is over the semantics of how the word "ignored" is used and what it means. Ignored, is often taken to be deliberate action in of itself. Because of its imprecise language, it has a POV connotation: it is a Weasel word
--Jndrline 01:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you continue to use that 'Weasel word' in your new title? international 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Despite_6_warnings_Israel_bombed_and_killed_4_UN_observers&oldid=291111"