Comments:Hamas claims Israeli jet shoot-down; report of Israeli soldiers captured

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
This is not news518:38, 18 November 2012
Comments from feedback form - "no confirmation by any large r..."118:21, 17 November 2012

This is not news

The lies of terrorist organizations are not news. You are just helping to spread propaganda... (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC) (talk)00:40, 18 November 2012

Fighter down or not, the important statement in this article is certifiably true: The Egyptian prime minister has been to Gaza and stated they stand by the Palestinians. As should all of the other Arab states in the region. The question is how close to the brink do either the Arab states or Israel want to get. (talk)07:51, 18 November 2012

Just to be perfectly clear. All the things stated in this article —which does not state that any plane was shot down— are true, to the best of our ability to verify them. The distinction between facts and claims is at the heart of Wikinews policy WN:NPOV (cf WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing).

Pi zero (talk)12:18, 18 November 2012

They maybe true, but they are not news, and they way this is written is not NPOV. read Wikipedia:Fringe_theories - "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.". You clearly violate this, not that i expect much of you... (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC) (talk)16:18, 18 November 2012

You appear not to know the difference between news and an encyclopedia, as well as more specifically not knowing that Wikinews is not Wikipedia.

Pi zero (talk)18:04, 18 November 2012

On reflection, I admit I've a tendency to be too soft-spoken, so I'll be more clear here: I advise you to learn the difference between news and an encyclopedia, and between Wikinews and Wikipedia, before you make more of a fool of yourself here.

Pi zero (talk)18:38, 18 November 2012

Comments from feedback form - "no confirmation by any large r..."

no confirmation by any large reputable media source. (talk)18:12, 17 November 2012

Indeed. A case study in attribution: We've multiple credible sources for the fact that Hamas claimed to have shot down an F-16, whereas we could not have run a story that presented the shoot-down as fact.

Pi zero (talk)18:21, 17 November 2012