Talk:Lawmakers ask US Secretary of State for Gaza crisis help

I'm not best pleased with the sources for this article, which needed a big rewrite for grammar and NPOV. Google News brings up 3,000+ in a general search, but only the two quoted are about this subject. One is a Y!News reprint of an AFP short which is okay but doesn't quote much of the letter; The other is Press TV, which quotes it all... but in my opinion Press TV is not neutral and is not reliable as a source. Frankly, I don't even trust them to correctly print the letter. Make of that what you will. Redvers (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Press TV is one of the best sources because its not run by goverment unlike FOX News and all those other american news channels. What was wrong with my article and why did you change it? ~andimahony

I'm not American, but I can tell you now that Fox News is not run by the government. It's run by Mr Murdoch for Mr Murdoch, which isn't the same thing. Press TV, however, is indeed funded by the Iranian government, which is one of the reasons I think it is biased. And I edited the article because this is a wiki, so I'm meant to. Also, your English grammar and spelling is awful (no offence intended) and we couldn't publish something in that previous condition. Redvers (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is my spelling and grammar that bad? I double check everything in Microsoft Word.

You misspelled "secretary" in the headline. You used "offence" where you meant "offensive". You said the lawmakers were talking to the AFP when you meant that the AFP was quoting the letter the lawmakers wrote. Your sentence "They also urged Clinton and her team to make a list of "actions taken to date and the strategy you will pursue to address the humanitarian crisis" that is due before February 13." doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The sentence "it would resume its offense if they ever found the Gaza government rearm its fighters" didn't have nearly enough verbs in it. I could go on. Redvers (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Review results

Revision 760315 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 760315 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Terms like Hamas Militants

Refrain from using terms such as Hamas militants, we wouldn't call Israeli soldiers militants. We must remember that Hamas was democratically elected, and serve as the army for the Palestinian people in Gaza. Soapy (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)