Talk:Israeli Woman killed by Qassam rocket

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 17 years ago by PVJ59 in topic unpublishing
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some more propaganda?


Why are related news stories only tell on attacks on Palestinians, and not about attacks on Israelis? I really should change that.

--TacticalSniper 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe cause it's the Zionists who're doing most of the attacking? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Only because now IDF has the power to stop almost all the attacks. Palestinians still try to attack Israel daily - sometimes they succeed, but mostly, they fail.

--TacticalSniper 07:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Palestinians are facing temporary setbacks, but eventually the Zionists will be crushed. The latest Qassam strike should be indicative of what will happen in the long term. Why not just quit the Middle East, instead of remaining in a situation where neither side can profit? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Such hate-filled comments are simply unacceptable. Humus sapiens 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's not a comment-I am merely stating a fact. It is just a matter of time before the Jewish state is destroyed. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
You'll need to learn a difference betweeen facts and opinions.
In your ES you said Source used terms Hamas as "fighters" - what was that source, al-Quds Brigades? Humus sapiens 09:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Al-Jazeera. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please get familiar with the policies and restore WN:NPOV language. Humus sapiens 10:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
What exactly do you feel is not neutral about the current tone of the article? Were not the Israeli attacks aimed at Hamas? Were not a large number of casualties civilian? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
"fighters" is POV. somne would call them "terrorists" since they intentionally target civilians, but I uphold NPOV and therefore chose the word "militants". This is basic stuff. Humus sapiens 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Fighters" seems the most logical thing to say since they are engaged in fighting. We refer to IDF gunmen as "soldiers" even though some would call them "terrorists" because theie official designation is "soldiers" Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, what was the change about the "gunmen and civilians"? What's not factual here? "Many of them civilians" does not show the entire picture. "Gunmen and civilians" does.

--TacticalSniper 10:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

PVJ, your extemist POV does not belong here. Those who intentionally (important!) fire rockets at civilian areas are not "fighters". Since you locked your talk page, I'll have to ask you here: is there an ongoing case against you or we will have to open a new one? Humus sapiens 10:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is ample evidence that Israeli tanks intentionally fired at civilian structures. Will you agree to refering to both Hamas and the IDF as militants? I have already informed you that I do not want you editing my talk-page or otherwise trying to engage me in chit-chat. I hoped that my protecting the page would send the message across to you quite clearly. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply



The figures were sourced from here, and are based on casualty counts proviuded by the media, B'Tselem and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

of fighters and bombers.




  1. A person who fights.
  2. A Warrior (person who is actively engaged in battle, conflict or warfare; a soldier or combatant.)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

one that fights : as a (1) : WARRIOR (a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict ), SOLDIER (1 a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior 2 : a militant leader, follower, or worker)



  1. an aggressive or fighting person (e.g. Islamic militant)
  2. one who serves as a soldier (A member of an army, of any rank.)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

  1. engaged in warfare or combat : FIGHTING
  2. aggressively active (as in a cause) : COMBATIVE <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

why is there so much disagreement between using one over the other? in what way is each of them pov?  — Doldrums(talk) 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Refering to only one side in a conflict as militants would be POV because:-
  1. It would imply that only the side refered to as militants are acting aggressively, when, in fact, it is highly likely that both sides are doing so.
  2. It would also imply that only the alleged militants are fighting for a cause, which would make the other side seem like mercenaries.

If we are to use the word militants, we would have to use it to describe both the IDF and the Hamas. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"fighter" may imply "freedom fighter". Otherwise, why someone insist on it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
a "may imply" is a pretty thin reason. are we going to stop using words just because they occur at the beginning of a pov-laden phrase?  — Doldrums(talk) 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why such insistence on the term "fighter" and what neutral source uses it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
fighters describe the action these groups indulge in. so does militants. both have been widely used to describe them, i expect. fighters is the term used when publishing, and shall remain so, unless it constitutes a factual error, in which a correction shld be issued. i don't think such a factual error has been committed. in which case, leave it be, unless u have a very good reason for bringing it up. ur alternative of "militants" is not all that much different in meaning. so why go thro' this rigmarole?  — Doldrums(talk) 12:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are these attacks by Israel or by the IDF?


To my knowledge, the attacks being spoken of are all carried out by the IDF, as opposed to any other wing o the Israeli security forces. If so, it would be more specific to say IDF than to say they were carried out by "Israel". once again, why is there so much disagreement between using one over the other? in what way is each of them pov?  — Doldrums(talk) 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am sure that though the IDF is playing the most proactive role in these attacks, other Israeli security agencies are involved in the attacks. Also, I do not think it likely that these attacks could have been carried out without the authorisation of the Israeli government. Also, the UNGA has called upon "Israel", not the "IDF" to cease the attacks. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
1) What "other Israeli security agencies are involved in the attacks."? 2) UNGA is not a reliable or a neutral source. 2) Expressions like "Attacks by Israel" rather than "Attacks by IDF" are POV. It seems that PVJ59 has a policy to ignore WN policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you implying that the IDF's actions are not controlled by the Israeli government, and that the IDF does not act on Israel's behalf? Since when did the UN General Assembly's authority or neutrality become questionable? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
PVJ, u've stated that u think agencies other than IDF are involved. can u source this?  — Doldrums(talk) 12:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am stating that the Israeli government is involved. Can those who imply it is not confirm that the IDF has mutinied against the government? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Attacks are not done by Israeli govt or "Israel". It is the IDF. Please report facts.
See w:Reform of the United Nations. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Waht's with the UN reform article. can u pls point out what we're supposed to see there. thanks.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
w:Israel and the United Nations is more pertinent here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

incidentally, why is the distinction between Israel and IDF important? why is so important that it has to be corrected 4 days after publication. (Wikinews articles are not to be modified upon publishing, the grace period is 24 hrs tapering off to 48. see Wikinews:What Wikinews is not).  — Doldrums(talk) 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Doldrums. This issue is a waste of time. Couldn't we just revert to how it ws before the dispute was initiated? Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't know that. I saw a mistake and clicked the edit button. (Maybe it should be disabled then?) We are dealing with attacks by armies or armed groups but not countries. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Q)Which one of the following is not a country? 1) Israel 2) Palestine Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What part of the phrase "attacks are done by armies or armed groups but not countries" you don't understand? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
How army acts without its country's backing is what don't I understand. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply



do u know what unpublishing an article published four days ago means? it means we're retracting the story. apparently because we cant agree on whether "fighter" or "militants" is to be used, and on whether the IDF or Israel is attacking.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't start a dispute four days after the article was published. It wasn't me that went about quoting dictionaries and arguing about who the IDF is answerable to. I had already moved on to other stories-which certain other "Wikinews reporters" seem unable to do. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 12:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you talk about me, I am still find my way around here. BTW, I find your decision to "unpublish" the story of Israeli casualty from Hamas rocket a little too convenient. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

About time-I've been around here for a year less than you and have already written about 93 more stories than you. Like I said, some users just don't seem to want to contribute. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

(where's tht darn template when u need it) Article talk pages are for talking about making the article better. if u want to tell each other what u think about one another, find an unprotected user talk page or take it to DISPUTE. there's also something about civility and personal attacks that i shld say here, but i don't want to type so much.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather not pursue this matter anywhere. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
i repeat, <something about> civility and personal attacks. incidentally, u can consider urself warned over personal attacks, PVJ.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What personal attack? I was calling myself a troll! Thanks for the help with sorting this quickly. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 15:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply



so i take it we revert this article back to its original published state[1] then? — Doldrums(talk) 12:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

if anyone has a problem with the above suggestion, speak now. i intend to revert to the above version in about 5 minutes.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

done. — Doldrums(talk) 13:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply