Talk:International bodies express concern over Israel-Hezbollah conflict

Looks very good Doldrums, ready to publish. Leed or feature? Im sure :) international 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

and thanks for adding the responses, it had completely slipped my mind. Doldrums 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

capture vs abduct

As this is a response from Hezbollah I think its ok to use their terminology. Abduct may change the sentence to a more Israel friendly pov and that is not necesary. international 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since that part of the phrase was not in quotes, it did not seem to me that the word choice was necessarily Hezbollah's; especially since English has by far the largest number of words in its vocabulary, and Arabic may not differentiate between "capture" & "abduct" (any contributors speak Arabic?).

Over on on the pedia discussion about this word choice, it was decided that "abduct" is the most NPOV as "capture" legitimizes the action as one of a lawful combatant in open conflict (i.e., taking a prisoner of war vs. taking a hostage, to which Hezbollah's own description of the action as intended to gain bargaining chip points) and "kidnap" hits the other extreme implying that the prisoners were innocent civilians (since, as soldiers, they are Geneva Convention Cat. III, lawful combatants, and less protected.) Sketch051 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC source use the word capture. In another situation I would agree with you but in this context, to give Hezbollah voice, it is obvious that they would prefer the use of capture. Israel got a voice above. And capture is a quite neutral word itself, not legitimating anything. Wikipedias discussion is interesting but not automatically sets the 'rules' for wikinews. And again, in this case there is two different pov ballancing eachother. Thats why I dont see why Hezbollah:s part of responses shall undergo a close npoving in itself. international 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Wikipedia discussion overrides stuff here, I was just trying to avoid repeating the (now underway) long, involved discussion over whether capture is NPOV. Obviously, I've failed. Sketch051 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

Haven't we discussed this over and over again, Hezbollah started the confrontation and should be named first. Look at all the sources, even the arab speaking one's like al jazeera, they all say Hezbollah started the confrontation, why do you continue to let your own POV be the judge of what you write?TiB

Assume good faith — don't automatically assume that "Israel" is listed first due to a reporter's bias. It's how it's done on Wikipedia, and it's how it has been on Wikinews for a while. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion is to use 'Israel-Lebanon conflict' to avoid pov in this title. international 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict is good...no side has yet to make any formal declaration of war. Jason Safoutin 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this, and tell me that it is worth INNOCENT PEOPLE dying for two SOLDIERS. Dessydes 01:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My problem is not with the word "conflict" but with the fact that Israel is named first. It implies that Israel is the aggressor, which is not the case, No matter how much force Israel uses, The conflict was still started by Hezbollah.

The Japanese fired the first shot in the Russo-Japanese war & are listed second; the French started the Franco-Prussian war, and are listed first. The order is not determined by who started it. Sketch051 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dessydes, Hezbollah knew exactly what they were doing when they kidnapped the two soldiers since they have seen what the Israelis have done when the soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas. Hezbollah sold the lebanese people out, It's that simple. Read this [1] if you don't believe me.

About the use of excesive force, Israel is trying to completly eliminate the Hezbollah movement, which by the way is what the lebanese government should have done a long time ago by order of the U.N., but they were powerless to do so. Israel has already declared that once hezbollah is eliminated they will leave and let the democratic government in lebanon rule the entire land. Right now, the situation is that the lebanese government are nothing but puppets of Syria which is a puppet of Iran, If you want someone to blame, blame Iran. I am deeply sorry that innocent civilians are dying on both sides, but that is the way of war and if it was your children who were kidnapped, you would have done the same.TiB

ICRC emblem

{{editprotected}} File:Flag of the ICRC.svg has been changed, and the correct emblem image is now File:Emblem of the ICRC.svg. --Sa^Mi ✉ 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd note file:Flag of the ICRC.svg looked like it does now when this was published, however the emblem image does seem to be obviously more correct, so i'm unsure if i should do this request. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems the "Flag of..." is what they use in field to protect their vehicles and stuff, and the "Emblem of.." is their organisational logo, as can be seen in their website. But I'd think it's not a big deal here. --Sa^Mi ✉ 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Not sure if its a good idea to change or not, but leaning towards change, so done. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)