Talk:Harvard lawyer who advises IDF asked about "rules of engagement" in 2004

The news value of this being an IDF disregard for Lebanese civilians? -Edbrown05 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

pov

this article is pov. at a bare minimum, it needs a rebuttal from the unidentified colonel or from an appropriate israeli authority, or failing that, a mention of israeli statements about the legality and/or rationale for its (present) actions. note that the newsworthiness of this article is only its relevence to the present conflict, and israel's view of the issues raised in the conversation as they apply to this conflict is relevent. Doldrums 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost ridiculous. It has very little relevance to the news today, except to clarity on certain RoE of the IDF. I also got the impression this meant that Israel was "planning" the attack for a long time. It's badly worded/titled and may lead to confusion. - --80.172.186.147 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how very much the professor remembers when the person he talked to smiled, or arched an eyebrow, even two years after the discussion. I think this article shouldn´t be on our frontpage. 84.176.33.188 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with comments above but the person bringing this info forward has credibility. To me its similar to the story about the content of Joe Wison's op-ed article in the NYTimes (totally different topics of course). I can remember quite small details of a person's facial expressions many years after conversations when it was an important converstion; some people even have photographic memories. Likelihood of finding a second source is small although the identity of the female Colonel might be discoverable; but that wouldn't help with the objections raised above.
• I thought about it a lot and my opinion is that the article is a good news story and falls within our boundaries; I won't remove the tag though as my opinion needs other editors' support to warrant that. Neutralizer 14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok; I will later today provide "a mention of israeli statements about the legality and/or rationale for its (present) actions" as suggested above. Along with that will come a second source. I think this is important news because it shows the careful attention to international laws and rules of engagement which is paid by the legal advisors of major military institutions. Imo, this is quite NPOV as it can be interpreted either favourably(desire to be law abiding) or negatively(using legalities to justify extreme reactions ).Neutralizer 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a cartoon is in order... trouble is... there's nothing funny about it, but i'm in the mood... -Edbrown05 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok; I've added an Israeli government source relating Israeli pov concerning Lebanon's responsibility in this matter. Is this ok now? Neutralizer 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• "I think this is important news because it shows the careful attention to international laws and rules of engagement which is paid by the legal advisors of major military institutions." The following article is related: electronic intifada human rights watch article. Xarathustra 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

source

Article could do with a second source, as it's all based on one discussion as reported by a single newspaper. Frankie Roberto 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about copyright?

This article quotes almost verbatim whole paragraphs out of the original newspaper article, which imo cannot be argued thats it is a factual report. I wonder how this sits with wikinews policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.232.117.121 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 18 July 2006