Talk:Annan demands Hezbollah free abducted soldiers and Israel lift blockade

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

Title issues


Did Annan present demands? - Amgine | m | en.WN 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"calls on" would be appropriate, but will result in an even longer title. mebbe somthing like "Annan speaks on/clarifies implementation of Resolution 1701"? Doldrums 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

NPOV; why must we parrot Israeli POV media by mentioning the invasion justification theory that the recent conflict started with the kidnappings?


I do not think for this story there is any reason at all to make reference to the pro-Israeli pov theory that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers "triggered" or "started" the altercation. That is Israeli povizing! I think I added a reputable amnesty intl source to show that Israel was already accused of killing civilians prior to the kidnapping and it's reasonable to think Hezbolah feels empathy with the Palestinians killed in Gaza. I never said "scores of children" as Doldrums seemed to read into the section he deleted; the quote was "scores of Palestinian civilians". I propose that we leave out entirely either side's POV as to who hit who first.It's like children in a fight and each one says "he hit me first"; it adds nothing at all to this article and to be NPOV we should not take sides as to who started it.

the present wording does not say the war started because of the kidnapping, just says the kidnapping happened at the start of what was the recognisable conflict. as to linking hezbollah actions to the specific Gaza incidents, it needs quotes from Hezbollah, and needs to mention alternative interpretations of hezbollah's actions (and i'm sure the other camp is waiting with 178 other reasons for Hezbollah's actions, 92 of which involve Iran, and 63 Syria, and 8 Al-Qaeda. Doldrums 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have no crystal ball as to what either side might do or say; there is no proof that this would not have happened regardless of the kidnappings and some indications Israel was planning this invasion for some time. My main point is it adds nothing to the article at all to repeat,yet again, that the Israeli soldiers' capture preceded the massive attack on Lebanon. Neutralizer 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Easy...they said they would NEVER have kiddnapped the soldiers if they knew a war would have happened. Jason Safoutin 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
As of now it does seem that the rescue of the Israeli POWs was the casus belli for the invasion of Lebanon. However it would be important to state that sometime during the conflict, Israel changed its objective from "rescuing prisoners" to "crushing Hezbollah". PVJ(Talk) 02:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What does it add to this article other than pro-Israeli pov?


If that must be mentioned as a leading event then I think NPOV demands we also include the amnesty intl. source relating to the leading events of 2 months ago. Neutralizer 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Strongly agreed. 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

NPOV tag


I have removed the few word reference implying cause and effect between kidnapping and invasion. Please place a tag on the article if you feel it is important to the article and compelled to put back those words. Neutralizer 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is no consensus that there is any necessity to imply that the kidnappings caused the invasion. There are other theories and this article does not need to imply any of them. Neutralizer 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Really? then tell me why Nasrallah "regrets" the soldiers kiddnapping because "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it." Jason Safoutin 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Irrespective of what Nasrallah says, give me a reason why we need to mention the causes of the conflict in an article that deals with the truce-agreement? Especially since there is a link to the Wikipedia article where readers can get all the background information they want. PVJ(Talk) 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
please do not remove the NPOV tag while there is ongoing discussion and no consensus! Neutralizer 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Does the NPOV tag put an article back in develop? FellowWikiNews (W) 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's what I've been told a few times; that a tag puts it back into "develop". Neutralizer 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I removed the develop tag because NPOV tag puts it back in develop. FellowWikiNews (W) 16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kidnapped > captured


"Captured soldiers are not offered for ransom"

AFAIK the two Israelis are not being held for ransom per se but in exchange for the release of Hezbollah prisoners in Israel. Warring sides have prisoner exchnages all the time and, indeed, Israel has most of the Hamas government in custody for the same reason that Hezbollah has the two Israeli soldiers. Crimson 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Kidnapped" gives the impression that the captured men are innocent children who are being held by the Hezbollah-resistance. The fact is that the men were enemy combatants from the Jewish state and are POWs. PVJ(Talk) 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The soldiers were kidnapped and taken against their will. Demanding the release of prisoners is a form of ransom. For example: the Fox News Journalists were kidnapped and held for ransom to release Muslim prisoners in the US. Therefore, IMO, the soldiers were kidnapped. The soldiers were kidanpped before the conflict began so the "enemy combatants" is not a proper term. Jason Safoutin 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do not see how using "captured" or "abducted" will do anything negative to the article. In any case, Hezbollah considers all Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil as "enenmy combatatants", just as the Jewish state considers all Hezbollah "resistance fighters" (as they refer to themselves) "terrorists". PVJ(Talk) 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Does not matter. These soldiers were kidnapped. Plain and simple. If you were taken against your will and the kidnappers demanded money, release of prisoners or whatever, does that mean you are captured? Demands were made therefore they are kidnapped. It does not bother me really, its just that we need to make sure we are reporting facts. I am just concerned that it could be misleading, but its not a big deal. Jason Safoutin 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seems pretty simple, kidnapped has two-ish definitions: abducting a person, and abducting a child. So just use abducted. otoh, Just saying "captured" seems even worse than kidnapped, but on the other side. Nyarlathotep 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Nyarlathotep, let's use abducted. PVJ(Talk) 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree as well :) Jason Safoutin 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would also appreciate your opinion on my suggestion to not mention any background information about the conflict in this asrticle since Wikipedia has a page (that we have already linked to) that readers can visit to know more about the causes of the war. PVJ(Talk) 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can agree to an extent...a sentence or two on maybe when the conflict started and when it "ended" is acceptable...but I also agree since there is a WP article that any background Info should be very very limited. Jason Safoutin 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree as well. No need to present each side's stated casus belli in this article as it would distract from the news in this article. Neutralizer 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Have we been describing the abducted Hamas ministers as having been "kidnapped" by Israel? I think "capture" or even "abduct" sounds more neutral and also more apporopriate for a military situation. I also think "holding for ransom" connotes holding for money or material goods rather than holding an enemy solider for purposes of getting the enemy to release its prisoners. Capture, I think, is the most appropriate and it is by no means a benign term, somone who has been captured is a captive, after all. I think "abducted" is acceptable. Crimson 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Excellent point. The abducted freely elected Hamas ministers have not been refered to as "kidnapped" by western POV media. Captuured id the correct term here and there. Neutralizer 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why the tag still?


So if we've agreed on using the term "abducted", then why is the tag still around on the article? —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

from what i can make out, apparently, people who dont like "abduction happened at the start of the conflict" as it's pov, change it to "abduction caused the conflict" and then find it's even more pov. Doldrums 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS. and in case its not clear, they're fighting for the Lebanese cause.
We can simply state that kidnapping happened, and that's the end of it. Not the best solution, but it will shut up the editors until the next politically contentious article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I decided to be bold and I did it myself. If I'm wrong, then tell me to shut up. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to revert. FellowWikiNews (W) 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Whoever agrees with my revision to the extent that we can publish this article, please say so so we don't have to delay this article longer. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I won't be able to revert, having already thrown the monitor out the window in rage. Doldrums 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just read the article, two it is from when I put my siggy down, I do not see the issue or an issue for that matter. I think it looks good. Jason Safoutin 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Remove tag


If you feel the article is good now in its current condition, and that we should publish the article, please state so. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have decided to publish the article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok; thanks and sorry I was away for awhile. Neutralizer 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply