Talk:Four children among six Canadians killed in Israeli attack on Lebanon

pov

Please edit to deal any of my own pov which has likely effected the tone or content of the article. Thanks Neutralizer 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this as reported... 4 children died when a building collapsed following an Israeli strike. News? Yes. "Israel blames Hizbollah" (default spelling for us should be Hezbaollah per Wikipedia, unless quoted). Looking at the Reuters source it is seven members of the same family, and I'm not sure I'd report the event under this title.

I'm glad to see you know you're good at doing the "emotional appeal" articles. I'd suggest doing an editorial version in your userspace if it wasn't for the fact that you'd have to work even harder to prove you weren't promoting your POV when editing in main namespace afterwards. :-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to move this article to a less emotionalistic headline, but if someone else can, I suggest something like "Canadian family" or "six canadians" or something, so as not to downplay any of the deaths for the sake of emotionalism.151.190.254.108 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The AP version of this story said "seven canadians," not "four... children." Counting only the children and not the adults in the headline is usually reserved for news organizations that have an agenda to push, by making an emotional appeal only for the children. Also, the AP news story DID mention that the family were Lebanese who had immigrated to Canada. This isn't mentioned in this story, so we are left to wonder this from the family's names. Furthermore, neither your story nor the AP's mentions whether the adults in the family are connected in any way to Hezbollah, and that's the first question that popped into my mind upon reading it: whether they were a direct target of the IDF, collateral damage in the destruction of a direct target, or a total mistake. Neither the AP's story nor this one are any help in ascertaining that at all, so both pieces come across strictly as emotional appeals. "O NOEZ CANADIANS!" Well, technically yes, they are Canadians, but one really has to do a lot of reading between the lines here to figure out that there might be a larger story lurking behind the emotionalism. 151.190.254.108 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

i see. canadians of lebanese origin are only "technically" canadian, those who die in an israeli military strike are automatically suspected hezbollah militants and reporting four children died is "emotionalism", a no-no. thanks, i'm now a better reporter. Doldrums 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic because you actually FAVOR omission of details that are inconvenient to your emotionalistic agenda? 151.190.254.108 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

title change

i'll be reverting the title to its old one, which is much more specific than the current one, and much more than six civilians have been killed in israeli attacks.

please discuss any further changes to the title, before making them. Doldrums 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dupe

Why wasn't the victim's names put in the existing article? --Jambalaya 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Ooooh, I see. They're Canadians, so they need extra attention. I stand by my earlier comment. At least 55 civilians have been killed in Lebanon _today_, but it's of course the Canadians that died last week that's today's news. Again: Western bias. --Jambalaya 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Too late to merge now, this should be a follow-up article as there is much more specific info now. --vonbergm 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was - if you check the history on Deletion Requests - in the process of getting rid of a complete duplicate of an earlier article, started by the same editor, using the same event, with a different "angle" in what looks like an attempt to influence the readers' opinions by presenting one side in a bad light. This stays at develop until it is completely clear that it is a follow-up to the article from 2 days earlier. At that point I expect it to be a lot shorter. Why? Well, boosting the perception of casualty figures by reporting the same story twice in one week is what I see here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, not sure if you have noticed we consistently report the Israeli actions as being a reaction to Hamas or Hezbollah kidnappings which looks like an attmpt to influence the readers' opinions by presenting one side in a bad light. Perhaps we can try to focus on that a bit since this BEFORE ANY "KIDNAPPINGS" throws in question the theory that Hamas and Hezbollah started it all. Neutralizer 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

we appear to have two possible courses of action:

1. merge the info in the present article into the old one (and possibly bump its date, if the victims were not identified then)

2. slight rewrite of this article so it is a follow-up to the previous one. (we can make it quite clear that the casualties referred to here, are the same ones in the previous article, so satisfying brian's concerns (though i see no reason why the article is required to be "much shorter").

either way, i see little reason to get particularly worked up over this. so can we discuss which of the two is a better option, and why and why not... Doldrums 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the title to make clear that this is a follow-up. That should do the trick. Brian's argument that it needs to be shortened is bogus. There is only minimal overlap in the information given in the articles, with the newer article relying on much more specific information. --vonbergm 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the "dupe" label. Our "Wikinews needs you" invitation says; "What we want from YOU! We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that: .....Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or isn't getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world!"

• I don't think the death of children in Lebanon is getting enough coverage; and particularly these children who didn't even live in Lebanon; article is good now,imo. Neutralizer 03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Children were all born in Canada

Not sure why the confusion but children were all born in Canada. Neutralizer 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What if 4 american children on vacation in Israel were killed 2 days ago by Hezbollah?

Please don't tell me that would not be it's own article....please don't say that with a straight face. Neutralizer 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be four martian children killed for all the difference it'd make to my opinion on this. If they're part of seven 'that have already been reported on then it's a dupe. You have to be clear you're reporting new information on the same event, not a new event. I saw this with a dupe tag on it, and I agreed because there was zero acknowledgement of the earlier story on the same event. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not know what changes Brian is requesting so perhaps he or someone who knows what he wants can make the changes ? Neutralizer 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what Brian is proposing. I disagree entirely with his pov on this matter; especially the imagination that specifically mentioning the children is done with the intent of making 1 side look worse than the other; that's also a bogus argument,imo. Neutralizer 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New title solves the problem

Hopefully Doldrums new title solves the issue? I'll republish. Neutralizer 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

more POV

This article does not give an overview of the surrounding conflict. Also, there is no mention of the casualties on the Israeli side. Neutralizer, I'm glad you acknowledge that your POV affects your writings, but still, These exact POV complaints have been spoken by you on the railroad bombing article I wrote. TiB

Exactly what in the article make you tag it pov? Your reasons above is in my opinion not good enough. Please use other means befor taging articles. If I thought it was a good idea I would advise you to edit what you missing but it sounds like you should write another article about it. international 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The 31 killed Israels are now mentioned, together with 306 killed Lebanese. international 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added an overview of the situation to give the reader the context of what is going on.TiB

the current overview section is pov. if it is to be retained, then it needs to incorporate these facts too:

1. account of israeli attacks on lebanon similar to "Israel has been under a continued barrage of rocket fire from Hezbollah militants over the past week, over 1000 rockets have been fired on Israel's northern cities"
2. effect on lebanese citizens (today's WSJ reports half million displaced)
3. lebanese govt has "refused" or "pleaded inability" to disarm hezbollah?
4. lebanon's wishes, hopes and pious outpourings, parallel to reported israel "wish".

until the overview can be sorted out, i'll remove the pov version for now. (the alternative was to tag and unpuiblish, but since this article has been published for days now, i wont do that). Doldrums 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the overview was useless. The title of the article is "Four_children_among_six_Canadians_killed_in_Israeli_attack_on_Lebanon", so that it should only talk about it. In the english wikinews, you made a model relative to the israel-lebanon war (on the right side), so that everybody can find more about the origins of the "conflict" if he wants to.

Doldrums, instead of removing the section why don't you add the extra information?

I have worked and written a section of text and you just went and deleted it.

Why? because it doesn't fit your POV? I have written facts and only facts. you can add more to it but why delete something that someone else worked to write? TiB

i didn't add more bcoz 1. this article is published, and i'm done with it. 2. it's too much work and i didn't want to do it. i'm sorry to remove something that u spent time and effort on, but, as i've said above, i didn't have another alternative. if u strongly believe that the current article is pov (and i don't see a reason why it is), then i have no particular objection to an _npov_ "overview" being added (but u may find that others don't agree).

if you agree that a two sentence line, reporting israeli and lebanese casualties on that date is sufficient "context", then that would be a reasonably quick and easy edit to make, rather than writing a large overview section. Doldrums 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)