Talk:Hezbollah-Israel conflict continues

The date has passed: DO NOT REVERT TITLE WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Ealturner 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been much discussion but there is no consensus to leave the most important news event; the threat quote, out of the title. Please do not revert the title again unless there is a clear consensus to leave the quote out of the title. Neutralizer 12:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Neutralizer: "to say the offensive is solely against Hamas or solely in response to the capture of 1 soldier. A historical account needs to go back to at least the Israeli bombing of the palestinian beach."

We have already debated this many times and have come to the conclusion that it's ok to say that. see debate on yesterday's article.TiB 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TiB, Palestinian beach would be a bad example. Israel say publically they did not attack the Palestinian beach. German newspaper theorised it was a publicity stunt. If it's history anyone wants, we might as well go back to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war Ealturner 13:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Neutralizer: "Can't say targets are Hezbollah when most fatalities are civilian" I agree.

Quote Neutralizer: "Can't say targets are civilian when most fatalities are military" Strongly disagree, NO military targets have been hit. NONE. only houses, cars, coffe shops and families.TiB 13:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain; "So far, a dozen Israeli soldiers and four civilians were killed"? Also, you can not possibly know that no military targets have been hit; you must be relying upon Israeli reports. Neutralizer 13:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am relying on both Israeli sources and al jazeera to counter POV.

About the soldiers, There are constant gunfights along the border. That's where the soldiers get hit, not by missiles. The Hezbollah missiles have a terrible accuracy and are incapable of hitting military targets unless by accident. See wikipedia articles on Katyusha missiles and Fajr 5 Missiles which are the only ones that have been fired upon Israel as of now.TiB 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Wikipedia article on Fajr-5 Missiles: "Like the Katyusha rocket and the Scud missile, however, at the limit of its range it is accurate only within a radius of around one kilometer."TiB 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I really can't grasp the logic. If you say the Hezbollah missles are incapable of hitting military targets how can we have a list of so-called Hezbollah "civilian" targets? I'll take the list out. Neutralizer 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The list is not of targets Hezbollah is trying to hit, but of targets they HAVE hit. That is why the list is correct and important.TiB 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check dictionary definition for the word "target"; e.g. U.S. mantra; "we do not target civilians (even though we hit some)" Neutralizer 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV; Anglo/American POV

• In accordance with our policy please see paragraphs 1 and 2. I am right now applying this sentence in paragraph 2; "maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page".

• Please do not see this as being critical, it is only normal,natural for humans to see things from one side or the other depending upon their own personal pov, location and background. However, with these series of articles western media's tendancy has,by far, been pro-Israeli which means we must be extra dilligent in identifying the bias in our articles. Neutralizer 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific about which parts you believe to be POV.TiB 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Israeli POV presented in our articles(this article)

• I think we all agree on 1 thing. Israel has killed many,many,many more civilians in the "Hezbollah-Israel war" than Hezbollah has.

• Then why, when I got up this morning, did our published article say this; "Israel launches more air strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon." and "The list of civilian locations targeted by Hezbollah include.." ?

This obviously sevices the Israeli propaganda side of the war (message being Israel trys not to kill civilains while Hezbollah tries to kill them) and it really needs to be addressed by more editors,imo. Neutralizer 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Neutralizer: *I think we all agree on 1 thing. Israel has killed many,many,many more civilians in the "Hezbollah-Israel war" than Hezbollah has."

I agree, but the subtle diffrence is, as you said, Israel is not TRYING to hit innocent civilians while Hezbollah IS trying to target civilians. Its a subtle diffrence but an important one.TiB 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TiB, I agree with you 100% but Neutralizer is right we don't need to use the word targetted. I've changed the word to "hit." Ealturner 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not TRYING to hit innocent civilians. Sure, they probably just have remarkably bad aim, right? PVJ(Talk) 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

About as bad as American's, they must use the same technology -- High

Please read my response on the next paragraph since it fits here as well.TiB 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors think their own POV is scientific fact

Here's the rub. What TiB just said (and Ealturner agreed with)"I agree, but the subtle diffrence is, as you said, Israel is not TRYING to hit innocent civilians while Hezbollah IS trying to target civilians. Its a subtle diffrence but an important one.TiB 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)," shows that their blatant pov(imo) is not seen by them to be pov at all but rather as being 100% established facts to be reported here on Wikinews as facts. That's why so often many of our editors install their own western biased pov into our articles without even realizing it. It's no problem for Fox News or CNN but It's a huge problem for a NPOV publiction like wikinews. Neutralizer 14:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning an area before an attack and waiting until it is evacuated only to fire at empty buildings is, in my account, enough to merit that they are not trying to hit innocent civilians. If you have any proof otherwise please post it here.TiB 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out this is an academic argument. It has no bearing on the news. Unless there is sufficient proof we need not say Hezbollah is targetting anywhere. Just report the facts what was hit. However we do have a quote where Hezbollah said they would target Haifia Ealturner 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette: Rephrase first; remove second

Just a heads up to everyone. Sometimes it's better to rephrase something you disagree with than remove it altogether. See example Ealturner 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The list of civilian locations targeted by Hezbollah so far include the city of Haifa, Naharia, Tiberias, Karmiel, Rosh Pina, Safed, Kiryat Shmona, and smaller towns including Ma'alot, Meron, Kabri, Shavi Zion, Horfish, Elkosh, Zuriel, Oshrot, and others. So far, a dozen Israeli soldiers and four civilians were killed, and many dozens wounded. Don't like the POV bias with the word "targetted"? Don't remove the whole paragraph.

This is what you do.

The list of civilian locations hit by Hezbollah so far include the city of Haifa, Naharia, Tiberias, Karmiel, Rosh Pina, Safed, Kiryat Shmona, and smaller towns including Ma'alot, Meron, Kabri, Shavi Zion, Horfish, Elkosh, Zuriel, Oshrot, and others. So far, a dozen Israeli soldiers and four civilians were killed, and many dozens wounded. Change the word "targetted" to a word that does not imply the civilian locations were attacked on purpose. That way you need not remove the whole paragraph. Ealturner 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point Ealturner; very good point. Thank you. Neutralizer 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good lad. Ealturner 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive news: Escalation of war?

The 72 hour Syria ultimatum is massive. It could spread the war to between Syria and Israel - ie. explicitly rather than by proxy. Were this to happen it could drag in other countries. I've changed the title in light of this information. Ealturner 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is true. Once Israel attacks Syria, Iran is most likely to come for aid since they have a signed mutual protection pact.TiB

grammar: should be "Israel gives Syria ultimatum". suggest rename to Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues, Israel ultimatum to Syria". Doldrums 14:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

make any suggestions quickly, as there's the correction needs to be made quickly. Doldrums 14:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Israel conflict, you mean - alphabet/Hezbollah started it. Ealturner 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as a "threat" according to my dictionary. Can we use this; "Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues, Israel threatens Syria"? Neutralizer 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, If its an ultimatum then its an ultimatum, why call it something else?TiB 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, If its a threat then its a threat, why call it something else? Neutralizer 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All sources say its an ultimatum, only you see it as a threat.TiB 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about this aspect. Thanks for the discourse. Neutralizer 16:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• issues ultimatum was the wording you were looking for. Like issuing a press release, but one that says we'll blow up bits of your country. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Silkworm: Not Iranian made?

The assertion that the Silworm anti-ship cruise missile is 'Iranian made' may well be false and an inflammatory statement by "a senior IDF officer" reference Ynet source article.

Our own sources and sources such as FAS suggest the Silkworm is made entirely in China and is only exported to the Middle East. Through other sources, it even sounds possible that Lebanon may have been supplied directly by China.

Any further comments? --Pvt Parts 14:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to make article edits when you notice something presented as fact which is not corroberated as fact. Neutralizer 14:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On further research, I've discovered that the C802 is the Chinese export version and the HY-2 is an Iranian/Chinese built version but are visually distinct. As the 'senior IDF officer' referred to the C802, I shall remove both the references to Chinese developed and Iranian built and leave the wikipedia link to avoid confusion.

Good work. Also, if anyone wants to make reference to future weapons sources be sure to mention all of the American weaponry/equipment that Israel is using in its attacks. Neutralizer 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We should put in detail where we know it, including that Israel uses many US weapons. Don't delete detail unless it is not relevant. The fact the missiles are from China is something the reader would like to know. Ealturner 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an issue in that except for tenuous evidence we can't really say whether these missiles definitely originated in China or not. My own research points to this but is still inconclusive so it would be irresponsible to give it as fact --Pvt Parts 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an almost certainty Hezbollah got the missiles from Iran. Even if they were made in China, China would not have posted those missiles to Sheihk Nashrallah, Hezbollah House, Terrorism Division, Hezbollah, Beruit Of course on the off chance China has become a supporter of Muslim extremists (unlikely given they have their own muslim extremists) we cannot speculate in the news unless we have a quote. Ealturner 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This; "I think it's an almost certainty Hezbollah got the missiles from Iran." is the speculation. Neutralizer 15:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an educated guess. Wikipedia link says China stopped making the Silkworm missile in the 80's. Anyway, we're allowed to speculate on this discussion page. I would certainly not let you write that in the news piece. Ealturner 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly not let you write that in the news piece. And I would certainly not let you get away with being uncivil . The country of origin is irrelevant. PVJ(Talk) 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The detail is relevant news. Ealturner 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article's looking good

It's really becoming a good riveting article now,imo. Let's just watch out for our collective pro-Israel pov and we'll be fine. Neutralizer 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spreading baseless acusasions about Israeli POV. You have filled the entire discussion page with them. I think you should read again everything you said on this discussion page before acusing others of POV.TiB 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Al-Manar TV

Who said this?

Hezbollah attacks are "in response to Israeli provocation through the brutal attacks against Lebanon and the attacks on the southern suburbs, which Nasrallah warned Israel against attacking," Al-Manar TV said Friday. Ealturner 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm guessing Al Manar itself (thats how its been reported), (presumably) speaking as a mouthpiece for the hezbollah. if u r concerned about it comment it out till we figure out what to do about it. Doldrums 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia article about Al-Manar: "Al-Manar is surrounded with controversy due to its preceived ties to Hezbollah. In the United States, Al-Manar was categorized as a terrorist organization by a decision [2] made by the U.S. Department of the Treasury pursuant to Executive Order 13224, prohibiting their access to American news outlets. Many European countries have also prohibited Al-Manar broadcasts. In the Arab world, many consider Al-Manar and Hezbollah freedom fighters."

TiB 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to use the quote we will need to mention the ties to Hezbollah - or even that Al Manar is catagorised as a terrorist organisation. Otherwise the quote looks like it is from any old media, and we don't quote other media. Ealturner 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

yes. slipped my mind. do. Doldrums 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

we also need an israeli quote explaining the rationale for their actions, like this one (wld also be nice if we cld find a hezbollah spokesman comment to include in the place of this one). Doldrums 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner, why are you reverting my edits again? PVJ(Talk) 15:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was an edit, not a revert. I kept the same information and rephrased it. Ealturner 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, your rephrasing. //12 of which were directly linked with Hezbollah.// Who said that? Ealturner

Reuters. See [1]

They say:The Israeli army said on Saturday it had struck about 150 targets in Lebanon so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah. Most have hit civilian installations.

Again, I ask, where's the cite? Who said that? Ealturner 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also "so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah". Why did you write 12 when it was fewer than 12? Ealturner 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian deaths should not be buried at the end of the article

This reference "An Israeli missile incinerated a van near the southern port of Tire, killing 17 people, among whom eight were children, and wounding six others." needs to be in the lede as I expect it might be if the sentence was "A Hezbollah missile incinerated a van .. killing 17 people, among whom eight were children, and wounding six others." Neutralizer 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

one possibility is to add the phrase "including eight children" to the sentence in the lead reporting casualties. also need to check for any similar figures on the israeli casualty list. Doldrums 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As per my knowledge, no Israeli children were killed by Hizbollah. let us update the lead to reflect the deaths of the Lebanese children for now, and then if any Israeli kids are killed we will add the information as soon as we get it. PVJ(Talk) 15:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Youre knowledge is incomplete. read the sources.TiB 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

idf website reports atleast one child killed in katyusha strike on Meron.[2] (see scrolling Updaed Reports section) Doldrums 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PVJ's edits

Ealturner seems to be reverting my edits about Lebanese casualties, even though they have been sourced from Reuters. PVJ(Talk) 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was an edit, not a revert. I kept the same information and rephrased it. Ealturner 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, your rephrasing. //12 of which were directly linked with Hezbollah.// Who said that? Needs a cite. Ealturner

I've read the reuters report. It made no mention of that statistic. Where did you get that statistic from? Why did you put it back in the article uncited? Ealturner 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please remain civil. There was no need to start a new headline to whinge at me. This is not a theater of war. Ealturner 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

note that i created this section, to keep different discussions separate. Doldrums 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil. Please check the source I have mentioned (Reuters) before reverting my edits. I have provided a link about the concerned figure above.PVJ(Talk) 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(carried on from above)

Again, I ask, where's the cite? Who said that? Ealturner 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also "so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah". Why did you write 12 when it was fewer than 12? Ealturner 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where it the cite? Who said it? Ealturner 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

cite is listed above. i reproduce it here [3] and conclude with a homily about the advantages of keeping different discussions separate from each other, each in one place. Doldrums 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

that's not a cite. That's a news report. Who said it. Ealturner 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

The Israeli army said on Saturday it had struck about 150 targets in Lebanon so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah. Most have hit civilian installations.

(emphasis mine).

i dont think reuters is fool enough to mix a quote and a separate statement in one sentence. Doldrums 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The question remains: Who? "Israeli Army" is a big tent. Ealturner 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli army said that it had struck about 150 targets so far less than 12 of which (according to Reuters) were directly connected with Hezbollah.

We don't quote other news organisations. But to prevent further ado on such a small matter, I'll agree to this. Though I think actually knowing who said it is necessary. Ealturner 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

i expect reuters uses the expression "israeli army said", when an authorised spokesman fot the army sez. we can check if IDF website has a press room Doldrums 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to appear uncivil here but I think it is fairly apparent from this sentence- The Israeli army said on Saturday it had struck about 150 targets in Lebanon so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hizbollah. Most have hit civilian installations., that the Israeli Army made that statement. PVJ(Talk) 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time with me. I ask again, who said it? The caretaker who does the night shift at HQ? The reason that it matters is the information is POV and might turn out to be incorrect. Ealturner 15:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When a news source quotes an organisation (in this case the Israeli Army), they usually speak to an authorised spokesperson of that organisation. I doubt whether an established agency like Reuters would quote incompetent people in their stories. PVJ(Talk) 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I note in this case Reuters failed to say that they had got the information from a spokesperson. We have no idea who said it. If indeed it was the Israel army that said it. Mistakes happen. Ealturner 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

so when reuters reports "the white house declined to comment", u think they asked the third gardener? Doldrums 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reuters made the mistake. We handled the situation the best we could. Ealturner 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite :) "the white house declined to comment" - this means we trust the media organisation phoned up but got no reply. "Declined to comment" doesn't imply anything was said at all. Ealturner 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incinerated.

I think using the term 'incinerated' (Context "Incinerated a van") is adopting Reuters own POV.

I would suggest that it is common knowledge that the only weapon that would 'incinerate' a van is an incendiary or flamethrower and that a missile or rocket 'hits' a target and 'destroys' the target by virtue of an explosion. Any other terms tend to become emotive.

I contend that using the term 'incinerated' from Reuters is only suitable if directly quoting their article rather than sourcing from it where we should modify context toward NPOV. --Pvt Parts 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

not pov i they were, literally,incinerated. Doldrums 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that an international news agency like Reuters would have a POV. I am directly quoting their article. See [4]

Also, as per Doldrums, if the children were literally incinerated as in being burnt till they were destroyed, it is not a POV, just an appropriate adjective. PVJ(Talk) 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the "tone" of the word. Incineration is something deliberately done to some corpses. This incident was presumably a tragic accident. At least we don't know the motivation to speculate. Ealturner 15:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

in·cin·er·ate

Function: transitive verb

to cause to burn to ashes

Doldrums 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the fact that the van (as per Reuters), as also (presumably) the children's bodies were incinerated (as in burnt till they were completely destroyed), accident or not. PVJ(Talk) 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the word incinerate on factual grounds. That's what happened. However I objected to the tone. In other words, I would be happy with the word if I was convinced the tone was not that Israel deliberately hit civilians. Ealturner 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We are supposed to report facts. See Wikinews:What Wikinews is. PVJ(Talk) 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From a NPOV - you know the wikilink. I think it's borderline but I'm not going to say anything more. I'd rather hear other's views on this. Ealturner 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that incinerated implies of intent to incinerate. There is no diffrence between the van being hit and every other attack on both sides, both are meant to hit, incineration happens.TiB 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree. if u target a vehicle with a missile, u're well aware that the likely result is that the vehicle's occupants will die in the blast or burn to death in the aftermath. Doldrums 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially if you were the ones who urged the people in that van to flee their homes. PVJ(Talk) 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PVJ that is pure unbased speculation, there is no information, aside from lebanese sources, that this is what happened.

And as for the word incineration, you can just as easily put it on the boat attack, houses burned and the cars that were hit by hezbollah missiles. There is no difference.TiB 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

<nod> true. so i guess i'd support incineration if it specifically describes what happened - the victims were burnt to death, as opposed to killed in blast, or that a fire incinerated the bodies. btw, did anyone burn to death in a house, or were any cars hit by hezbollah missiles? as far as the boat attack oes, i know there was a fire on board, did any source indicate that the people killed on board were burnt to death? Doldrums 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PVJ(Talk). We have been reporting lots of events based on 1 sided Israeli cources. Neutralizer 16:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can source any news source (which I have done with Reuters) as saying any Israelis were "incinerated", we will put that in the article. As to why Reuters used that word, maybe it had something to do with the condition of the childrens' bodies. I cannot say I have seen what rocket attacks do to kids but I would assume their bodies would have been pretty much destroyed-which would explain why Reuters used that word, probably based on a coroner's report or something. In any case, the point is that the word was sourced from a reliable source. PVJ(Talk) 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As sorry as I am, There is an example, yesterday a car was hit by a Katyusha rocket, inside was a grandmother and her grandson, both burned to death.TiB 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

in which case we have to report the two in the same way. Doldrums 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I think TiB is saying is if you define incinerate as "burn to ashes" that could apply to a lot of things. Smoking a cigarette involves incineration. Why use incineration in this context? Ealturner 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner proceeded to confirm that the contents of the van (i.e the deceased children) had been incinerated. I proceeded to clarify that the contents of the van were in fact children. The current sentence reads An Israeli missile incinerated the contents (i.e human occupants) of a van near the southern port of Tire, killing 17 people, among whom eight (of those who were incinerated) were children, and wounding six others. . I trust that is okay everyone? Also, as a matter of interest, do news sources generally refer to dead people as "contents" of the vehicle in which they were travelling? For example, could we say "the contents of United Airlines Flight 93 were incinerated on 9/11"? PVJ(Talk) 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner proceeded to confirm that the contents of the van (i.e the deceased children) had been incinerated. In my note I said that the word incinerate was open to debate and that the discussion was on-going in talk. Ealturner 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the fuss around the word "incinerated", it describes what happened to the van's occupantes. If they had been shot, then you would say that they had, well...been shot. I don't see why that word should only be used to describe what happened to one cultural group and not another. If someone, or something, burns until is is blackened and/or turned into ashes, then why not use the correct term? -- High 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree the term "incinerate" is accurate enough. I'm not pushing for change and won't change without agreement, just raising the question about the tone of the word. In that sense alone doesn't seem right to me. Ealturner 19:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

terrorists vs militants

Why let a part in the conflict tell us what name to use aganst its opponents. Israel claim that palestinian militants are terrorists. We should not bring in unnecessary pov in articles even if attributed. Retorically, shall we call israel 'Israel, alledged terrorstate in Palestinians view' or something? international 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

Several international organizations, including the EU, and many governments, including the United States, have designated it a terrorist organization(*).

Hezbollah Wikipedia article - TiB 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Annoyingly, the statement that the EU designates Hezbollah as 'terrorist' is not borne out by statements further down the same article. --Pvt Parts 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. More properly, Hezbollah as referred to mainly in this conflict is the Military wing of the Hezbollah political party in Lebanon. The 'terrorist' designation is given by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel and Australia. (possibly others but it is hard to research). This, obviously does not count as the 'world view' of Hezbollah's status. --Pvt Parts 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "militants" and terrorist is POV. Therefore I suggest we have three options

1. attribute the word. So an so says _____ militant/terrorist
2. write your way around using either word
3. write in both words

I suggest solution three for this case. Ealturner 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think calling anyone militants is pov in an conflict like this is now. And its still pov to take Israels definition. If the 'terrorist' stay then we shall use ' by Palestinian called freedomfighters'. Better non of them but we have to write npovich. international 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

i think 'militant' is neutral, refers to the fact that Hamas is an armed faction, which Hamas acknowledges, and the armed status is not a formally conferred one (i.e. it is not an state's armed force or police, etc). Doldrums 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, I don't think the word 'militant' is particularly 'loaded' but it still gives an accurate description of the military wing of Hezbollah. --Pvt Parts 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Hezbollah is on the US ,UN and EU list of official terrorist organizations. And they should be treated as such.TiB 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

The United Nations has not included Hezbollah on its list of suspected terrorist groups (which is just being drawn up)

Hezbollah Wikipedia article

Can you give a citation that Hezbollah features on any UN terrorism list? I recall they tried to hash this out in 2004 but I recall Hamas and Hezbollah were not included back then and I am yet to see anything to indicate they are included now. --Pvt Parts 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

well, its a pov and we are not bound to it. international 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

it's also on the freedom-fighters list of a dozen arab countries, and not recognised as a terrorist organisation by many others. so we'd have to include all that too, all of which will make for a lenghty description. using 'militant' avoids that. Doldrums 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the same note you can say that Israeli soldiers are not actually soldiers but civilians because Israel is not recognized as a country by many arab countries.TiB

some Palestinians, who Israel call terrorists, and whom Palestinians consider freedom-fighters,

Fantastic. This is what wikinews is about. Ealturner 16:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

haha... thats a nice one. agreed.TiB 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some clarity. Is this intended with sarcasm?--Pvt Parts 19:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a humorous reflection on how obsessed WN is about NPOV ;-) Anyway, I think it makes the sentence to hard to read. "Palestinian militants" is shorter and clarifying without too much detail. --Jambalaya 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved back to militants as the phrase in use was actually incorrect as it directly implied that all Palestinians consider militants to be freedom fighters which is not the view generally held outside of Hamas. --Pvt Parts 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Defititely should not use the term terrorists in this instance; Neutralizer 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Though may I suggest a last little edit...

some people who Israel consider Arab and whom others consider Palestinians, who Israel call terrorists, and whom Palestinians consider freedom-fighters, fired a weapon those who consider themselves Palestinians call the Kassam rocket, that Israel considers missile Not too much to ask? Ealturner 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, maybe I should bring it up on Wikinews:Admin action alerts and see what my fellow Administrators have to say about it? PVJ(Talk) 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be an overreaction Ealturner 16:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Several international organizations, including the EU, and many governments, including the United States, have designated it a terrorist organization Various groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas prefer to refer to Israel as Zionist invaders. Does that mean that, in the interest of NPOV, we start reffering to the Israeli Army as Crusaders? PVJ(Talk) 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Crusaders are as the name implies, christians, and there have never been any jewsaders, so no. I still don't understand what exactly youre point is.TiB 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading the debate avidly, may I suggest the term 'combatant' rather than militant/terrorist/freedom fighter.wikipedia seems to suggest this would be correct--Manc ill kid 01:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Van & UN center

Article says Van was "carrying refugees who were fleeing the village of Marwaheen after Israel warned them to do so via a loudspeaker announcement."

This report says the passengers were on their way to a UN center when their vehicle was struck[5]

another The residents said they had first gone to a UN Ghanaian position to take refugee but they were turned down.[6]

another They reportedly went back to the village and were trying to leave again when the attack occurred.[7]

Think we can add this info. Ealturner 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Van's contents

An Israeli missile incinerated the contents (i.e human occupants) of a van near the southern port of Tire, killing 17 people, among whom eight (of those who were incinerated) were children, and wounding six others. . I trust that is okay everyone? PVJ

The word incinerate is still being discussed. The rest of it - yes. That is fine. Ealturner 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think human beings are refferd to as "contents". I believe the correct word in this case is "occupants". Will change the phrase accordingly. PVJ(Talk) 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupants is fine by me. "Contents" was an improvement on "van" (which was not literally incinerated) however occupants is yet another improvement so I'm pleased with this ammendment. Ealturner 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you do not have any issues with the "tone" associated with the incineration of the Lebanese occupants (among whom 8 were children) of a van by an Israeli missile? PVJ(Talk) 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're carrying on from the debate above, I will refer to TiB's reference to an Israeli car hit by a Hezbollah missile. Incineration is an evocative word. Particularly so for Jews. While it's not racist it's not tactful. But then again on fact alone I have no complaints with the word. It's just the tone. Ealturner 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Silkworm and C802 confusion

New information has come to light regards the Silkworm and C-802. The confusion was apparently caused by the IDF officer who used "C802 Silkworm" as a term when the Silkworm is an entirely different missile to the C802.

This is the information as is now generally being reported and also as included in Wikipedia. On balance, the use of the early Silkworm design seems unlikely. I will update the story to reflect this. --Pvt Parts 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, great work. Ealturner 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"At least 29 Lebanese civilians were killed in Israeli air strikes"

29 killed yesterday? Or today...? Be more specific :-) --Jambalaya 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The names on the Israeli (and Lebanon) towns

Do we have to repeat the names of all the towns that were hit yesterday and the day before? Shouldn't we stick with today's events? --Jambalaya 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Airport was hit yesterday and we include that. I think it's of interest to the reader. We might want to be explicit which were hit when. Expand on the timeline with dates? We could continue to update this one timeline in other articles. It would be a good resource of dates and times of events. Ealturner 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon for changing the title. I'd be interested in a list of the Lebanon towns hit. I'm a list person. This sort of information makes people come back and read again IMO. Ealturner 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A list for towns hit "today" or a list that includes every single town hit since the start of the conflict? --Jambalaya 21:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fajr-5"

Where did the rocket ID "Fajr-5" come from? It's a pretty serious accusation that needs to be sourced. --Jambalaya 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it came from one of the Ynet articles which was updated. (Note that they also updated from "Silkworm C802" to just "C802") As viewed today, Ynet seems to be a bit of a shakey source to be using. The reference in the Wikipedia crisis article still hold up tho with a source. However, the validity is hard to know --Pvt Parts 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Fajr reference (speculation?) in the Wikipedia article comes from this blogpost(!)[8] which hosts a clip from Fox News Channel saying that Israel said that Hezbollah fired Fajr rockets. --Jambalaya 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

With correction to myself it's actually in the Fajr-5 wikipedia article the source is Haaretz --Pvt Parts 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimatum?

Should we really emphasize this "ultimatum" to Syria? CNN doesn't mention it, BBC doesn't mention it and I haven't seen AP and Reuters making much fuzz about it either. The only source we got on this is Ynet News, which I'm afraid to say, looks a bit like Jerusalem's Fox News. How reliable is it? How reliable is the Al-Hayat newspaper? --Jambalaya 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment above, I'm not over enthusiastic now about Ynet's viability as a source for us. --Pvt Parts 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The source comes from the Pentagon. Ealturner 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer 3 revert rule violation

The day after the article has been published, against concensus that whatever we thought about his point a quote should not go in the title. Particularly that quote, as Jambalaya put it, without reliable source. Ealturner 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Headline needs to reflect most important content of the article

This is a quote from a source in te missle of the article; "The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

The overt threat by Israel is the mandatory headline as we could be heading into WW3. Neutralizer 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't change the title without out a discussion. Ealturner 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert back? Why start a revert war when there has been no discussion?

I object to

I'm also objecting to a title change as well, it becomes excessive and almost like an mini editorial --Pvt Parts 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hezbollah-Israel conflict continues, Israel threatens Syria with "an offensive with disastrous consequences."

Whether you're right or wrong is here nor there; it's not a good title too long, you and don't put a quote in a title. Ealturner 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this mainly on the length issue but quotations in titles don't fit with me either --Pvt Parts 00:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a a long quote from a dubious source should be included in the headline. --Jambalaya 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To Eal and Jam; you must have missed this quote; it's by far the most newsworthy aspect of the article. Please find other editors to support your view before reverting. Neutralizer 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote in your talkpage, the primary source for the quote from the newspaper article is Pentagon. Speaking of psyops... Anyway, I think the headline with the quote (it's not a quote from Pentagon either, it's a quote from a London-based arabic newspaper) is too long. --Jambalaya 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, does it REALLY matter? It's Saturday in the Middle East and new attacks have commenced in Beirut. We should really create a new article instead of arguing about the title of the old one :-) --Jambalaya 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An ultimatum implies a threat - it's a demand. Ealturner 00:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The threat within the ultimatum is the most important news event and I do not understand why a direct quote is not the best way to present the threat? Neutralizer 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up

Ok, I give up. If the community wants to sit back and allow our lead stories to be written by editors applying overt pov "Hezbollah started the conflict, they should be mentioned first." then so be it. I'm not continuing with it as it is too close to continual edit warring. Neutralizer 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer 3 revert rule violation

The day after the article has been published, against concensus that whatever we thought about his point a quote should not go in the title. Particularly that quote, as Jambalaya put it, without reliable source. Ealturner 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see above topic; I will not continue as we are too close to edit warring every day on these articles. Here are just some of the other media that are reporting the quote in question and I still say the threat of expanding this war to Syria is extremely newsworthy as Ealturner said yesterday. Neutralizer 13:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You changed the title without discussion. You changed it knowing there were objections. While I have yet to comment whether I object to your point - perhaps I don't - I have objected to this particular title. What was the need to break the three revert code for this? Ealturner 14:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed?

This has now ended up in disputed.

AFAIK, the text of the article is currently by consensus with 1 dissenter. Does this really constitue an article pull? --Pvt Parts 14:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

publishing

am publishing this, with a changed title: Hezbollah-Israel conflict continues. the ultimatum stuff is being removed bcoz there does not appear to be any independent confirmation of the Al Hayat report, and also as per 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, tha Hayat report itself does not bear out the headline.

Quote

---

report in Al-Hayat on 15 July mentioned rumours in Washington, D.C. of an Israeli ultimatum to Syria to stop Hezbollah's activity along Israeli border, and force the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers in 72 hours, or it would face serious consequences.[102] Al-Hayat's source refused to confirm or deny the rumours.

Doldrums 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept this compromise. And I would like to thank Doldrums for his effort to resolve. Ealturner 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The War is BullShit! Anti-War!