Talk:Hezbollah and Israel exchange fire for fifth day

NPOV

The extent of this being one-sided is obvious to the extreme. Unpublishable as it is in Wikinews. Neutralizer 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I disgaree, it states the facts. Ealturner 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer, Please give reason for NPOV, and base you're arguments on sources before you put the POV tag on my articleTiB 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored the NPOV tag. Neutralizer is correct in that this article presents a biased view of events, for example misrepresenting rocket attacks as bombs and providing background of Hesbollah attacks while failing to provide background of Israel incursions. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article, as per title, does not claim to provide news about anything other than that stated in title. Ealturner 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That title is "Israeli railroad station bombed. 8 killed, 23 injured." On your grounds we ought to object to the recent "20 fleeing Lebanese villagers killed by Israeli missile" on POV grounds as it does not provide a background of Hebollah attacks. Ealturner 14:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As per amgines comments I have removed the word bombed from the title, and added an overview of the conflict.

If anyone has any other POV complaints please say so here so I can fix them and remove the npov tag. This article has been laying in the disputed area for too long. Thank you.TiB 16:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we forbbid news from middle east just because some are not gentle ?

Please Calm down.

I do not understand this edit war each time someone write on the subject. it's a lack of sesitivity and intelligence.

Should we forbbid news from middle east just because some are not gentle ? Jacques Divol 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The stated aim of wikinews is for a neutral point of view. However many display their point of view openly. This is a conjuction I do not understand. I also do not understand why some users call other users "zionist" or "American" - that they are neither is beside the point. Ealturner 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up

Ok, I give up. If the community wants to sit back and allow our lead stories to be written by editors applying overt pov;

• first example "I agree, but the subtle diffrence is, as you said, Israel is not TRYING to hit innocent civilians while Hezbollah IS trying to target civilians. Its a subtle diffrence but an important one.TiB 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"
• second example"TiB, I agree with you 100% but Neutralizer is right we don't need to use the word targetted. I've changed the word to "hit"." Ealturner 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

then so be it. I'm not continuing with it as it is too close to continual edit warring. Neutralizer 13

08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can give you twenty examples of you're own POV from the articles of the past 4 days. Please don't make this personal. The fact is, everyone has their own POV and the discussion should be kept as a discussion and not edit wars.TiB 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I as well have stopped to discuss with right-wing editors with an agenda(which indeed are always the same people). Instead, when an article is completely obviously POV, i'm just busting it, so that its issues get attention. It is a waste of time to discuss with those propagandists and should be handled by admins, not by editors. The job of editors is to provide constructive ideas and content - not to do useless discussions over and over with the same people guilty of trying to abuse wikinews as a propaganda-platform.--82.141.51.151 22:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortened title

Stats are still breaking so I've removed the stats from the title for now Ealturner 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews is not a theatre of war

Whilst an agreement could be reached that war was an acceptable term for an earlier article on this, that doesn't mean people need to declare war on each other and over-POV articles. I'd like to see more people justifying what's wrong with an article than assuming that because someone holds an opposing political position they cannot meet NPOV.

Anyway, I'm off to stir some shit by doing an infobox. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Brianmc. I'm fed up with this. Ealturner 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Any remaining NPOV objections?

I am considering removing the NPOV tag. Do we have any NPOV objections as the article now stands? Ealturner 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? Ealturner 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As no comments have been forthcoming I will re-published the revised article. This is not to say there is nothing to comment about, rather there have been no comments. Ealturner 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Article is still pov. Please read and address objections and find someone less involved to re-publish. Neutralizer 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging (urgent)

Could we settle on just one (1) news article per day on this crisis? There's been created (at least?) four articles on the topic today; this, this, this and this. Could we please merge all four articles into one (1) article. So far, we've written just one article per day on this crisis. Could we please continue doing so? The current situation is VERY confusing. I came in here some minutes ago and I haven't a single clue on what article I should start editing!! --Jambalaya 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Was my first thought.

But then, on second thought, when I thought about the situation I experienced, whilst preparing audio-news-briefs (anb) today, there were two articles concerning the crisis: During preparing anb, one article "vanished" from the main-page. Hence I deleted it from anb. Now it is there again.

Yes, it is a bit of a garble-warble we are showing to the readers/listeners of wikinews. On the other hand, this turmoil of news is the truth.

Even though I´m not envolved in the development of the articles, I do understand very well the difficulties your are all going through to formulate proper articles.

Due to the organization of wikinews, I think we have to live with the fact, that we might have several articles concerning one issue, which are just putting the emphazises on different aspects of the conflict. Therefore I think, it´s the best we can do, even though we all have the feeling this might be confusing.

Apart from that, other news-"organizations" provide several articles a-day for the conflict aswell.

Hence we might have to live with the fact, that we are offering more than one article, covering the same conflict from different angles.

I - for my part - can live with that. Gumboyaya 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties have been high on both sides.

Highly POV as this is suggesting that civilian casulties on both sides are comparable, when in fact they differ by more than a factor 10. --vonbergm 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

8 Canadains killed should be lead

Since it was in the bottom of the story it was known at time of publishing. Since this is the first G8 victims of the war it should be lede. Neutralizer 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right to remove the NPOV tag now? -- Robert (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is already a developing article about the Canadian casualties. The conflict itself is certainly not about Canadian citizens, so I would move it back to something closer to its original title. The newest sources are saying that Lebanese death roll has risen to 23, rockets have hit Nazareth, Afula and Givat E'la, civilians have been killed in Tyre, the G8 is blaming extremists. Since the Candian casualities already have their own article, we should move this one back to something else. -- Robert (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I say that the 8 Canadian death story have another article and suggest this article focus on the rest of whats already writen in it. international 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Cruel comment

I don't see why eight Canadians deserves their own article. Sorry about the cruelty, but there's horrible stories taking place in Lebanon every day. Just because they got a Canadian citizenship, does that mean they "deserves" their own article? What if it was eight Egyptians, would a _new_ article be written about them just like somebody did with this article? You may think I'm cold blooded, plain stupid and cruel, but my open minded question is; Is this Western biased? --Jambalaya 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No its not a cruel coment. But its news. Look, more civilians is killed in Lebanon than in Israel. international 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the same token why are we talking about this whole conflict at all? Everyday more than 30,000 people die of preventable dieases. Are the citizens of Egypt or Lebanon more important than those of say Ghana or Zambia? Of course not right? News is news, you can't go off nixing articles just because you think there's an more important issue that's not reported on. This issue is espically important news at the moment since those are the first dead of any G8 nation right before the G8 summit. Also, I do think there would be an article here if expatriots/citizens of another country were killed in this conflict. There is no western bias here any more than there would be by reporting on the World Series of baseball rather than a Football Tournament in Mali for example.--202.153.114.201 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

title

it shld be "exchange" and not "exchanges". other title suggestions:

• X reported killed on fifth day of Israel-Hezbollah clash

X = 20 + 9 + 8 +...

Doldrums 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)