Talk:Ariel Sharon gives 'free hand' to military for crack-down

The article writer is probably not biased. But the article is so poorly written that it reads as biased.

(1) In the first graf, the article makes a connection between the "crackdown" and the election of Abbas. More accurate is that the "crackdown" is connected to the attack of Israelis at the border crossing.

(2) "Crackdown" is a loaded word, which has a negative meaning to most people (compare this to the Chinese "crackdown" on dissidents, which is almost universally condemned).

(3) The third graf says the "crackdown" merely "follows" but doesn't suggest that this is the cause of the military going into Gaza.

(4) A connection is made between the two people who were killed in Israel and the eight who were killed in Gaza. But those killed in Israel were non-combatants while at least some of those in Gaza were combatants -- a big difference.

(5) The Israelis killed were simply "two people" while the two killed in Gaza were a more-descriptive "eight Palestinians". (As a one-time occurrence, this is not really a problem. But I see that this type of construction is reported over and over again.)

(6) The action described is being taken by "Ariel Sharon" (and not "Israel" or "Israeli PM"). The tactic is to further vilify the Israeli prime minister.

DBW

Biased?

1. The article writer have even failed to underline that Mahmoud Abbas have used his inauguration talk to urge militant groups to end attacks on israel. This does determine the background of the Israeli order.

2. Maybe "Crackdown" is a loaded word. And what about " These instructions will remain valid as long as the Palestinians fail to lift even a single finger ", said by Sharon?

3. I guess "follows" is a much more neutral word than "pretext" or "peg". There could be a lot of interpretations on what could be the cause of the Israeli order, and a lot of them would be much more concerned with the fact that there is an opportunity now to end the war, and whether it is good for the Israeli leadership, than with some people killed by braindead militants (the latter is happening every day in both sides anyway).

4. It would be interesting to figure out how much of people killed in Gaza were combatant, and whether teenagers throwing stones to tanks destroying their homes classify as combatants.

Author's response

As the original author I guess I better respond to these comments (you'd have been better off simply editing it yourself, though).

First set:

1. It's just fact that seven days elapsed between Abbas being elected and this crackdown being initiated. That's not POV.

2. Crackdown isn't loaded, again it's just a factual description of the event.

3. I don't understand this one. I certainly wasn't going to infer something I didn't know.

4. I have no idea of the status of who was killed. I was just reporting facts.

5. I don't understand this one.

6. Ariel Sharon is the name of the person who took the action. That's not POV.

Second set:

1. This article was not the place. In fact I don't believe the inaugration had even occured when I wrote the article. The correct place was a new article - write it yourself!

2. Add the quote yourself, if you have a valid source.

3. We deal in facts, not speculation.

4. I'm unsure of the relevance of that.

Dan100 (Talk) 19:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That piece had more palestinian POV than the Hamas home page! wake up moderators and start opening your eyes! TiB 21:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"As a result, the Israeli government cut all communications with Abbas." - that is simply untrue. Israel has never cut communication with abbas. Abbas is the only one keeping the cease fire in place. TiB 22:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Substantiate this claim with a source before removing text again. - Amgine/^talk 22:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Half the sources don't exist anymore so I will leave it at that, even though I remember clearly they did not cut any ties with abbas. TiB 22:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)