Talk:Day 7 of the Hezbollah-Israel conflict

If this is intended to be a summary of the events of the first seven days of this particular conflict, renaming the page Week one of Hezbollah-Israel conflict might be clearer.Wintergreen 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, week one of that? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only meant as a a summary of today's events. A summary of seven days would be far to complex to write and should be leaved to the encyclopedia warriors at Wikipedia ;-) About this article; it seems the interest of writing a story of the crisis has dropped considerably. Looks like I have to plow through it myself :-o --Jambalaya 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then "day seven of..."? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have earlier proposed a standarized naming scheme for the stories covering events per day : [1] I'm very eager to start numbering the Hezbollah-Israel stories, but I need some sort of consensus... Perhaps. I mean, I think this would be a smart thing to do because this is most likely going to be a long conflict. --Jambalaya 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a few of the people who heat up the discussion burned themselves out or got frustrated with the discussion on the subject because they've not changed their approach. Why don't you go ahead and use your own naming convention? I think the "day <blah>" version works better as a correspondent type report where dry facts are included and no opinion is mentioned. A report of significant events for a day can have a dull title, and if there are also political developments a separate article can cover them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

i like the idea of standardised numbered titles. i like the idea of someone else plowing thro' the article even more :) Doldrums 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar?

I've noticed people have their own news writings styles so I thought instead of me editing - perhaps inconsistently because I'm new I suck at this - I'd post a section of the wiki style guide as a reminder so we're all thinking the same thing. Hope this helps. Ealturner 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Link[2]

Verb tense

Articles should be written in the past tense or the present perfect. Headlines should be written in the present tense. Timelines also are written in the present tense.

Reporting on future events

Since we as writers are not in the business of predicting the future and are not psychic (arguably), it is best to stick to past or present perfect tense - especially since future events may change (or be cancelled). When writing about future or ongoing events, change tense as follows:

• They will meet next Tuesday - change to: They are scheduled to meet next Tuesday or They said they would meet next Tuesday

• The event will continue through the end of August - change to The event is scheduled to continue through August or The event is supposed to continue through August.
• The show debuts in July 2012 or The show will open in July 2012 -- Change to The show's debut is scheduled for July 2012 or something similar.
• The couple will celebrate their third anniversary next month - change to The couple plan to celebrate their third anniversary next month.

Breaking News

Hey guys, does someone want to start a new article?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/mideast/index.html

"BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Israeli ground troops have entered southern Lebanon on a mission to destroy outposts of the militant group Hezbollah, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN early Wednesday."

I'm really a newbie when it comes to making/editing wiki articles. However, I thougth someone might want to start covering this.

Here. --Jambalaya 11:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

pov statement in lead removed

"Hezbollah sparked what many call the worst crisis in the Middle East in 10 years by crossing the border to attack Israeli positions, and by launching missiles and rockets at Israeli cities. " is pov on many counts.

1. who are the many? are there others who call Iraq worse than this?
2. were isreali positions attacked? or one patrol of two trucks.
3. did rocket launched and missile attacks precede isreali airstrikes, if not, then actions on both sides have "sparked" the crisis.

Doldrums 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

thisshows Israel began the regional violence (before any kidnappings)so to be NPOV we shouldn't take sides in the blame game "he hit me first". Therefore; the acceptance of the Israeli pov(that they are just resonding)"One week has passed since Israel responded to a Hezbollah attack across the Lebanon-Israel border." must be removed.Neutralizer 22:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer: You must learn that there is a border between the article's POV and plain reporting. You can't just remove whole sentences, claiming it is POV, just because Israel made a claim. That is vandalism. Olmer's comments might have been a "conspiracy theory", but he made the claim and it was reported. It hasn't got anything to do with NPOV. "It's the news". --Jambalaya 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's nothing wrong with "One week has passed since Israel responded to a Hezbollah attack across the Lebanon-Israel border." Every single part of that sentence is true. You must to be able to differentiate between the various crisis in the Middle East. There's several crisises going on in the Middle East at the same time, but the sentence is refering to the Israel-Lebanon crisis. Not the crisis in Gaza, it's about the VERY SPECIFIC crisis that begun Wednesday 12 July. --Jambalaya 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both points; every unfounded conspiracy theory allegation from one side is not news and without including the Iranian denial makes it Israeli pov. Also, there is certainly something wrong with continuing to give the impression that Hezbollah started this whole thing which the "one week" sentence gives. I could say "Five weeks have passed since Amnesty International called for the establishment of an international investigation to examine the circumstances in which scores of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces..." and every single part of that sentence is true. The continual thinly veiled references to this war being the fault of Hezbollah for starting it are not only not NPOV they are fradulent in the extreme and the fact other western media and political leaders continue to repeat the lie does not make it true. Please read this and try to understand that saying Israel's attacks are a "response" does not make it true and is your own pov. Neutralizer 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, one must draw parallels back to 1948 and maybe even further. It's good for providing background information, analysis, Q&A, describing the logic behind this spesific crisis, reasoning, religions, ideologies, etc. Since this isn't an encyclopedia, we don't have to draw those parallels. Israel has probably comitted war crimes every day for many years, but one still has to seperate various conflicts "inside" the same crisis. I'm not saying there is _one_ victim and _one_ perpetrator, but ask any analyst about what _single event_ that marked the start of the Hezbollah-Lebanon-Israel crisis, you'll get the answer "Hezbollah raid 12 July". It was that specific event that took place that led to the specific Israeli bombings and incursion into Lebanon. Whether or not that is _true_ , is a another story. We have to stick with the official version if we want credibility. I'm sure there will be conspiracy theories that claims that Israel "staged" the kidnappings in Gaza and Lebanon (kinda like the government cover-up conspiracy theory about what happened 9/11). And maybe, some day, we'll learn that Israel did indeed tell us lies and more lies back in 2006. But for now, we must assume that the event that ignited the 2006 crisis was that raid. Erm, I'd better stop rambling now :-S --Jambalaya 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

pov

The npov edits keep being reverted for past 2 days. Unfortunately the editor above keeps reverting what I think are necessary npov edits so I have no choice but to apply a tag. Here are the edits in the article I feel are blatant pov as well as the reasons I think they are pov;

One week has passed since Israel responded to a Hezbollah attack across the Lebanon-Israel border. (POV as it perpetuates the Israeli POV that Hezbollah started this round of violence one week ago and Israel is just responding...Amnesty International reported over a month ago (prior to any kidnappings) that Israel was inflaming the region [3] so there is certainly no factual proof that Israel's actions are simply a "response". Therefore the first sentence is quite improper especially as the lead sentence to the article.

nope. this article covers the israel-hezbollah conflict. what israel did to gaza has no place here, unless u can demonstrate, by sources, a link between the two. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel believed that the trucks were transporting missiles for the Hezbollah. (POV as it speaks for Israel "Israel believed" and provides justification for targeting the trucks...should be a quote or "Israel said they believed")

If a counterclaim is found, we'll report it. else it's perfectly within npov bounds to report israel's claim as its claim. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Haifa, Acre, Kiryat Shemona and the region of Gush Halav have been hit.(Pov as the same emotionalizing list isn't provided for Lebanese towns hit)

weak reason, if at all. if the palestinian list can be easily prepared, go ahead and add it. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

200 Lebanese civilians have been reported to be killed in the past seven days, 30 of them today. As a result of Hezbollah fire, at least 24 Israelis have been killed, (POV; with Lebanese the deaths are "reported to be killed" whereas with Israelis it's stated as fact "have been killed")

agree, will change accordingly. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert claimed last weeks kidnappings were a timed attempt to divert attention from Iran's nuclear programme. (POV as Iranian response not included)

yep. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

and sorry neut, for mangling up ur comment, thought it was the best way to reply to each point separately. Doldrums 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doldrums(for your attention and response). Neutralizer 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)