Talk:Israel Defense Forces attack Gaza Strip
Just wondering why the headline for this page uses the euphemism "pushes" rather than "invades". I'll change it shortly unless anyone can convince me otherwise. Jobrahms 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Invasion suggests a certain size of armed forces. Since neither article nor source refer to the size of the armed force, a size neutral headline would be better. However if Israel did send a invasion size force into the Gaza Strip, invasion would be accurate.
Personally i prefer "Israel sends armed forces into Gaza Strip"
220.127.116.11 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would go with "enters". Israel Defence Force Enters Gaza Strip. Mvelinder 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The dramatic Nizar Rayan citation reeks of anti-Israelism. The title uses "invades" instead of the suggested "sends armed forces into." Arafat must be delighted in his grave to see his followers taking over wherever they can. --Gabi S. 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- "invades" is fine. since when is so "neutral" to call military advancements "movements"? they don't go for a walk (even though no much point, it's preferable giving it any title as soon as the facts are followed to a reasonable accuracy).
Invasion is neutral. But is it accurate?
To simplify things. I wouldn't call 10 tanks an invasion, 100 tanks could be called an invasion and 1000 tanks are an invasion for sure. Invasion makes me think of the allied invading Normandy, Germany invading Poland, the Soviet Union invading Poland, Israel invading Lebanon, Argentina invading the Falklands, etc.
If you know the size of the Israeli forces please ad it to the article (with a source). If you don't know the size don't use a word in the headline that suggests a size.
18.104.22.168 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that invasion would be fine. Size does not really matter, it is the action involved.Wikitionary entry for "invade" For example, let's say I got a drink (i.e. drank something), it would not matter if I drank a tiny sip or the whole of the thing that I was drinking, the point would be that I drank it and the size would no effect on the word used to describe the action. ~ clearthought 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did some slight tweaking so article doesn't report Israel's stated motives as fact. In war the true motives of any participant are only known to themselves and are often misrepresented to the public and press. Since the 8,000 man strong search and rescue force the US sent out just recently allegedly to free their 2 soldiers resulted in a quick slaughter, it is not credible to sophisticated readers that Israel's primary purpose for this attack is to "free" the soldier. If I were to speculate, I'd say it's more of a payback...but since we don't speculate, we must simply report what Israel says is it's purpose but not as if their stated motive is the factual truth. Neutralizer 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
may be Israel military force enters Gaza Strip is better than invades. Israel goals is not Invasion in order to control territory, i hope .
Jacques Divol 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Invade does not have to mean conquer.. it can mean move into...  ~ clearthought 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whilst it can mean move into, surely if there's differing opinions about the meaning of the word then people may not think of that particular definition - wouldn't it be safer to err on the side of caution and merely point out that Israel has sent troops in the Gaza Strip? R2b2 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are differing opinions on nearly everything. All of the dictionaries I have consulted say it can mean move in and, in addition, Israel is taking aggressive movement anyway... If we became so cautious then we would not be able to report news (i.e. without having disagreement or being worried about offending someone), now would we? ~ clearthought 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- If Hamas were to move the same # of its troops into Israel,blow up bridges and kidnap elected Israeli political leaders would we use the word "invade"? If so, then we should use it here,imo. Neutralizer 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- You mean Israeli military forces enter Gaza Strip not Israel military force enters Gaza Strip longbow 13:52EST 30June06
Not an invasionEdit
in·va·sion Audio pronunciation of "invasion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn) n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment.
Israel's mission in Gaza is not to conquer it is to rescue a hostage. The means by which they go about the hostage rescue might legitimately be questioned. But the correct title should not have "invade" in it because it clearly isn't one on dictionary definition. I don't agree with the word "pushes" either - it's devoid of meaning. I'd suggest the word "storms" - Israel storms Gaza Strip as this implies a brief violent incursion which as it is a hostage rescue mission it probably is. Ealturner 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did Vietnam invade Cambodia then?  I don't think the intent is relivent in defining only the action.--Irate 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nope your wrong look at [dictionary.com] which actually say's niot what a previos user said.
in·vade Audio pronunciation of "invade" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vd) v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades v. tr.
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith). 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson). 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
To make an invasion: “The X-rays showed that the cancer, which had invaded deeply into the chest cavity, was retreating” (Zach Rosen).
[Middle English, from Old French invader, from Latin invdere : in-, in; see in-2 + vdere, to go.]in·vader n.
[Download Now or Buy the Book] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: in·vade Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing 1 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE <invading a constitutional right> 2 : to make payments out of (a fund from which payments are not ordinarily made) <authorized the trustee to invade the principal for educational expenses>
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: in·vade Pronunciation: in-'vAd Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing 1 : to enter and spread within either normally (as in development) or abnormally (as in infection) often with harmful effects <protect the body from invading viruses> <branches of a nerve invade the skin area> 2 : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue> —in·vad·er /-'vAd-&r/ noun
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
v 1: march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939" [syn: occupy] 2: to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; "This new colleague invades my territory"; "The neighbors intrude on your privacy" [syn: intrude on, obtrude upon, encroach upon] 3: occupy in large numbers or live on a host; "the Kudzu plant infests much of the South and is spreading to the North" [syn: overrun, infest] 4: penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way; "The cancer had invaded her lungs"
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
invade: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary
Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB --Irate 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't understand your point. "Invades" is a laden with POV - the POV that Israel is in the process of conquering Gaza. Israel, as quoted in the article, claims it is a temporary occupation. Totally and utterly misleading to say Israel is "invading". Note also there has not been a statement of war that usually happens before an "invasion". This is not a war. The best analogy that fits the facts is a hostage rescue. That is why I suggest the metaphor "storms". Sudden, violent, temporary. Please remember this is a news article; it's not a place to debate the legitimacy of the methods by which this hostage rescue is being undertaken. Neutral point of view is the aim. Ealturner 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you think "invades" is POV they you obviously did not read those dictionary entries. "Storm" works almost the same way. Israel "penetrated" and to a certain degree "overrun" parts of Gaza, did they not? OK. I am not going to waist any more time arguing on this issue. ~ clearthought 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I read those definitions. Here was one. " 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage." Conquer and pillage? There is no conquering or pillaging reported in the article. Ealturner 02:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, the numbers pose as separate meanings for the word. For example,
storm (stôrm) n. 1. An atmospheric disturbance manifested in strong winds accompanied by rain, snow, or other precipitation and often by thunder and lightning. 2. A wind with a speed from 64 to 73 miles (from 103 to 117 kilometers) per hour, according to the Beaufort scale. Also called violent storm. 3. A heavy shower of objects, such as bullets or missiles. 4. A strong or violent outburst, as of emotion or excitement: a storm of tears. 5. A violent disturbance or upheaval, as in political, social, or domestic affairs: a storm of protest. 6. A violent, sudden attack on a fortified place. 7. A storm window.
- Numbers 3. and 6. both apply in this case. Another reason why "invades" would be incorrect: wikinews does not predict the future. The evidence we have - statement from Israeli government - suggests it is a temporary mission and that Israel are not out to conquer and annex Gaza territory. Once the hostage is freed the army would return to Israel. I think storms is a decent, neutral word. It gets across the violence Palestinians experience while it does not say the Israelis are out to steal their land and rob them. Any sort of agreement with me :) ? Ealturner 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is rubbish. Invade does not imply conquest if it did what use is the word conquest. Do invasive plants seek to conquer no. Is an invasion of froga and attempt to conquer no. It seem that the Americans do not want to admit to invading Iraq and Israeli doea not want to admit to invading the West Bank because they see them selves as better then Hitler. But it just spin, it is an invasion. Are you American or Isreali by any chance, do you support the invasion or not?--Irate 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia decribes D Day as an invasion. So why not this. However, many other invasions and operations had a designated D-Day, both before and after Operation Overlord.--Irate 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- If Palestine(btw,what is it actually called now?) were to move the same # of its troops into Israel,blow up bridges and kidnap elected Israeli political leaders would we use the word "invade"? If so, then we should use it here,imo. Neutralizer 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Irate, //Are you American or Isreali by any chance, do you support the invasion or not?// Please do not resort to calling people names it does not support your case or demonstrate your adherence to neutral point of view. "Invasion" is a fundamentally inaccurate way to describe the news according to its publically available dictionary definition. Germany "invaded" Poland to take the land and steal from its people. The article states Israel forces are in Gaza to get a hostage freed; Israel is not invading to take land or steal. The use of "invasion" to describe the news comes across as partisan. It's not an invasion; it's a hostage rescue mission. That's why I suggested an alternative term. Ealturner 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did USSR "invade" Afghanistan, what about the western coalition; did it "invade"Iraq and Afghanistan? Not to steal and take land, I hope. Actually, Russia did not steal or take land from Czechoslovakia and the other "iron curtain" countries either; nor did the nazis in France. I disagree with the severe limitations of the word "invade"...it should be seen strictly as a physical event; motive analysis is always a subjective activity.Neutralizer 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutralizer, that has been what I have been saying all along. Ealturner only looks at one or two of the meanings of the word, yet he does the opposite with his word, "storms"!!! "Storms" has multiple meanings and connotations and so does "invades", in fact, since Israel is really not aggressing that quickly, it may be wrong to even call it "storms"! ~ clearthought 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Clearthought, "storms" is my chosen metaphor. The only two relevant - non-meterological definitions - fit this case. The primary definition of "invade" is wholly misleading and does not give the slightest inkling to the read as to what the article is about. If you're writing for a newspaper I'd probably go for "invades" - yeh, because it's dramatic, aggressive and make people read. But this is NPOV here and we can't do that. Do you understand me? Ealturner 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- How could something be the "primary" definition, they are all numbers.. none of them has a little label saying "primary definition", just like with storms! Now look up the word "hypocrisy". ~ clearthought 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's generally accepted that the 1. defintion is the most commonly used. It is in that sense I meant 1. was the "primary" definition - the most used one. Storms is obviously a metaphor so "1. An atmospheric disturbance manifested in strong winds accompanied by rain, snow, or other precipitation and often by thunder and lightning" is not going to mislead the reader too much. Unlike conquering and pillaging! Seriously.... ;)Ealturner 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw no mention of the settler they took hostage then supposedly killed about 3 hours ago. Any specific reason for that?--22.214.171.124 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- okay no mention of his death--126.96.36.199 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article was written before that news broke. It needs an article of its own. Ealturner 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Meantime, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, condemned Israel's attacks on infrastructure in Gaza, which disabled its only power plant and knocked down three bridges on the north-to-south roads.
"Israel seizes Hamas leaders"Edit
It seems 8 ministers and other officials are now arrested.
reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-29T095848Z_01_SCH354578_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml APress: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=TXDAM&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME
The title must be renamed. It is so very anti-Israel not NPOV at all. 188.8.131.52 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is that? If Hamas did the same to Israel we would call it an invasion. You, sir, are POV. ~ clearthought 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
BBC says: 64 MPs and officials were seized?Edit
BBC states: "Sixty-four MPs and officials were seized".
CNN states: "Overnight, Israeli security forces arrested 64 Palestinians in the West Bank, who were suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, the Israeli army said."
Reflex 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- it's probably "8 ministers + officials"
Palestine's right to exist?Edit
This is a bit of an aside but perhaps important in terms of how media refers or doesn't refer to the "country" that just elected Hamas. I noticed the map we use does not have a name for the territory where the people elected the Hamas political party to govern them. Ok, I guess the fact is, right now, Palestine does not have the right to exist Gaza Strip. I didn't know that and it makes it awkward to report on activities within a country that does not exist. Also, perhaps there is no "invasion" if there is no "country" which was invaded. What a load of hypocritical bull surrounding this entire middle eastern conflict, it seems to me. Perhaps we should simply not report on anything that goes on in that part of the world as it may be impossible to do so with accuracy and NPOV? Neutralizer 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutrality doesn't mean cowardise but i think we could, how to say that in english, maybe give an unsavory, unsmely name to this article in order to calm down any further attack ???
- enters to remplace invades, everyone agree ???? please, we need to be cool !
Jacques Divol 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- is there a way to please both? in any way, facts should matter more than titles.
- You know, reality is not pleasant at all for 3/4 of the people leaving on this planet. truth is not pleasant at all to accept sometime. Our goal is not to please, our goal, I hope, is to report events with the more sensibility, intelligence and truth possible with no warp, otherwise Wikinews is like all others news-site Jacques Divol 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- is there a way to please both? in any way, facts should matter more than titles.
- "Enters" is better than "pushes" - "pushes" implies encroachment without retreat. However enters is such a banal word to put in a headline. It describes very little. Enters for what? I agree "invades" is an utterly ridiculous, inaccurate way to describe the events. My personal favourite word for this is "Storms" - it implies violence but that the raid is only temporary. Ealturner 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get it. If N.Korea did the same thing to S.Korea that Israel is doing to "Palestine", wouldn't we be using the word "invade" and also perhaps "attack"? Please explain why we are tiptoeing around this intrusion? If Syria were to now bomb Israel and send in troops to rescue the duly elected Palestinian politicians, would we be shy to say "Syria attacks Israel" or "Syria invades Israel"? Am I off base here with these comparisons? Neutralizer 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutralizer be careful of the fallacy of mistaking bias toward the "underdog" - or in this case the less rich, less well armed side in the conflict - for the NPOV. The facts are the only NPOV. You raise an interesting point but since the Israeli detentions were made to locate the missing soldier, they are temporary detentions. As these detentions are contingent on the release of the missing solider, captured by Hamas in a military attack on an Israeli outpost, reprisal from Syria would be an alliance in the Hamas attack on Israel. Ealturner 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- With respect I do not think we can speak for Israel. I don't know that "detentions were made to locate the missing soldier" nor that "detentions are contingent on the release of the missing solider"..perhaps the effort is simply to show the world that Israel can not be messed with or to drive more of a wedge between Hamas and the other palestinian groups. Why would I think this is simply a rescue? because Israel says so? Almost every invasion or attack throughout history has had some type of justification offered by the attacker, from Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to the 9/11 attack; who are we to pick which country's attack justifications warrant removing the labels of "attack" or "invasion"? Neutralizer 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Captured, Kidnapped or Detained?Edit
According to the BBC's editors 
Civilians are "kidnapped", military are "Captured" and, since troops don't usually make "arrests", the politicians were "detained".
Please use the proper word based on English, not personal feelings. If you feel either of the above were illegal, make an explicit comment and note the corresponding laws.
- The BBC assumes that they are legal operations if they are not then it is kidnapping and false imprisonment. Using the terms you give means accepting the legality of the detention/kiddnapping of representatives. Words have to selected for context and the context here is disputed. So which words should be used is unclear. In such cases what does you BBC editor say.--Irate 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The BBC calls most of them detentions. ~ clearthought 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I made the first edit adding "arrested cabinet members" because I saw some sources in google.news using it (and it was only a bit later it was first announced). "Detained" is fine by me.
- What the BBC says is irrelevant. BBC does not adhere to a neutral point of view, and unlike us, nor does it have to. Nor should any other news organisation influence wikinews. We are different for a reason: we are NPOV. Therefore, I agree with use of words based on their publically available English definitions. Using words on their meanings will effortlessly tell the news as it is, not how we'd like it to be. I think "detained" or "captured" described Israeli actions as the people arrested were, unlike the Israeli soldier, not chosen at random, rather those individuals could best help the investigation to locate the missing soldier. Ealturner 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- BBC tends to have more NPOV than us... just look at us, arguing about a few words... sad (this is why I took a 1.5-year long Wikibreak). ~ clearthought 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, the BBC is not NPOV. Looking at the world from the side of the little guy instead of the big guy is not NPOV. It's a different point of view. Wikiness is NPOV and as such we have to be in the middle, state the facts how they are on their publically available definitions. Ealturner 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- omg, this collective viewpoint is really getting pro-Israel,imo, to me that's exactly how it comes across when a soldier is kidnapped and politicians are detained; give me a break, guys, just admit that most of us feel differently about the level of justified reaction when a stray Israeli bomb blows up Palestinian kids on a beach than when an Israeli soldier is "detained" by Hamas. The former we accept as part of war and expect no consequence at all and the latter we sympathize with a full blown invasion as being a reasonable consequence. To the family of either the kids on the beach or the soldier taken prisoner, I doubt the pain they feel is a whole lot different (except one of the families still has hope), so its the pain of war which is constant and non-partisan and should guide our NPOV parameters, imo. This invasion and mass arrest has insulted and terrorized the innocent civilians who live there as well as shut down a fledgling democratically elected government. Let's not sanitize the reality of the event through our pro-western lens. Neutralizer 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it seems as if we are neither taking one side nor the other, and we are not taking both either and instead of ridding the work of partisanship, we are creating a new kind of it. We are taking none, making the reporting and editing unbelievably difficult to do and the forum of discussion choppy. ~ clearthought 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- //so its the pain of war which is constant and non-partisan and should guide our NPOV parameters, imo.// Sorry, that is POV. Wikinews is the one website on the internet that is free of POV. Get a blog, write for another news site is you feel passionately about promoting your cause. I'm not saying your cause is wrong, I'm not giving my opinions on this issue because it's irrelevent to the news. News = facts. Accurate use of language the way to tell the news in a neutral way. Clearthought, I believe wikistyle accepts that articles can contain "both the little and big guy" perspectives. When both are present that's accepted as neutrality. I'm happy with that. This pairing off is not possible in the title though. Ealturner 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are yet to show me how the BBC has POV. News is news... and is often written by the "side" that gets, or can get, it out. E.g., if only Israel or reporters in Israel reported on Israeli forces entering Gaza, then it would be almost certainly from an Israeli viewpoint and not complete with the facts. However, in this case, you have reporters in both sides collaborating - like on the BBC - from both cultures' viewpoints. ~ clearthought 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, since we get most of our news from organizations like the BBC, one could say that we are as "biased" as they are since all we are doing is combining sources and rewording what they say! ~ clearthought 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The BBC is irrelevant to this discussion. Fox news, CNN, they're all irrelevant. There is a reason why wikinews is not about copying news articles from all over the net and pasting them here, aside from it's illegal to plagarise. That reason is NPOV. We're volunteers with a passion to tell news from NPOV. Wikinews gleans the facts from the sources and rewrites the articles from NPOV - using the correct words and giving balance of opinion (big and little guy) within the body of the article. Ealturner 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- //News is news... and is often written by the "side" that gets, or can get, it out. E.g., if only Israel or reporters in Israel reported on Israeli forces entering Gaza, then it would be almost certainly from an Israeli viewpoint and not complete with the facts.// Clearthought, that's a good criticism that will never go away with news. But we can't just make stuff up on behalf of the side without the megaphone that's not NPOV. Ealturner 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please itemize the actionable NPOV objections? The discussion is full of unsupported assumptions about underdog and big guy povs being in play as well as assumptions about other media's pov; all of this is just distracting,I think. Repeat; what are the actionable objections to the article as it currently stands? Neutralizer 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No. I believe Ealturner and I have come to a conclusion on our differences. ~ clearthought 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- the objection is Israel's actions do not fit the defintion of "invasion" or "invades." This is the NPOV objection; it is not an invasion. It is a temporary attack in response to a hostage taken with defined objectives, as stated by Israeli official quoted in the article. The dictionary is the neutral arbitor. Irate has, without discussion, changed the title again which I consider disruptive behaviour and will revert. Irate seems passionate to use the word "invade" despite the objections; I consider this biased. We need an alternative to "invade," I suggested "storm" which nobody has objected too. If you think another word is more accurate, suggest it. Invade is wholly inaccurate on all dictionary definitions. Ealturner 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are surely taking a POV by accepting Israel's own statement of its motives. As Israel is an interested party, using its stated objectives to define the action seems most definitely not neutral. I note, with some irony, the current last comment on this page: 49 hours after I first changed "pushes into" to "invades" we have come full circle... Jobrahms 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- How about the word "raid"? Ealturner 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of non-confrination (and the Zionists and anti-Zionists pushing for various wordage), I think "raid" or "enter" would be the best. If we choose the latter, we would want to stress in the introduction that it was an aggravated act, not just a movement. ~ clearthought 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please calm down, everyone, namecalling "Zionists and anti-Zionists" is counter productive at the least. I agree with Jobrahms and Irate. Ealturner, I urge you to read Jobrahms's edit above because to me, this sentence "You are surely taking a POV by accepting Israel's own statement of its motives." is 100% true and also obvious. If you wish to be doing that, that's fine, but I wonder whether you agree that you are accepting Israel's own statement of its motives? Please ponder this a bit as I feel it is important to deal with before a consensus can be reached. Neutralizer 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The facts do not support the use of the word "invasion" on dictionary defintion. There is no conquering or pillaging. Let's get a consensus on this in a hurry. Ealturner 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- wikt:invasion: 1. an attack of sorts, usually against another nation
- invasion: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
3. An intrusion or encroachment. (American Heritage)
the act of or an instance of invading (Merriam Websters)
1: the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder 2: any entry into an area not previously occupied; "an invasion of tourists"; "an invasion of locusts" [syn: encroachment, intrusion] (WordNet)
- Those definitions do not fit the facts of the news article. No conquest or plunder involved. Number 1. is the relevant definition as it is the most frequently used. We need another word. I'm fine with raid or storms or enters. I don't like the word "Enter" because it's bland but I'd go with it to settle this. Ealturner 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we clearly do not speak the same language. Israeli forces engaged in an attack (Wiktionary definition). Israeli forces intruded, encroached, and invaded (American Heritage definition). They invaded (Merriam Websters definition). They invaded, entered, encroached, intruded (WordNet definition). Disregarding these definitions, all other contributors to this discussion have agreed that this word is appropriate, while you solely have suggested it is not. - Amgine | talk en.WN 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think 'storms' is a little POV, not to mention that it reminds me of the blitzkreig and stormtroopers and all that, and this is nothing like that at all. Wouldn't something like 'invades' be better? 184.108.40.206 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read previous discussions on this Talk page. I, personally, was OK with "invades", but at this point I think that "enters" might be the best word choice. ~ clearthought 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The recent bombings of infrastructure and power supply make the word "invades" the only accurate word,imo. I suppose "attacks" is also a possibility. Neutralizer 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh, sorry didn't notice them. Probably the best wording of choice would be 'politely knocked on the door and wiped their feet before entering'. The above is seriously laughable.
With the recent bombings of infrastructure and power supply maybe the word "attacks" would be unchallengable? Neutralizer 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No objections here. "Attacks", IMO, should suit everyone's view on this. ~ clearthought 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Attacks is another bland word you'd not use but this is not an ideal situation. I'd accept it. Ealturner 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No discussion here for a while so I've republished with "attacked." Ealturner 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. with Hamas now using the word "invades" and phrases like "move into" or even "storm" sounding particularly inefficient to describe military attacks and detentions of officials, "attacks" is one of the better options.
Could the editors so staunchly defending the Israeli POV (ie. that this incursion of 3,000 troops, armour with air-support etc. is a "rescue mission") please provide criteria under which they will accept that Israel has invaded the Strip by default (ie. what would have to happen for you to accept that labelling)? 220.127.116.11 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, why is the article "Israel Defence Forces attack" rather than "Israeli..." or "Israel's..."? 18.104.22.168 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an invasion on any dictionary definition of the term. Putting troops into a foreign land is not by definition an invasion. Check your dictionaries. "Invaded" is POV and as it stands the article is unacceptable. Pushing for "invade" when many have agreed an alternative word is disruptive. Ealturner 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is farcical. Clearly what has happened is an invasion by a State into the territory under the control of another government. The dictionary definitions discussed above agree quite overwhelmingly with that conclusion; to argue otherwise is bizarre revisionism at best. The definitions are there, just above, where anyone can read them. The ongoing attempt to disguise the actions of the Israelis by euphemistically describing their actions as "an attack" is clearly POV, and being promoted on this page by a small number of editors. 22.214.171.124 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Point to the facts in the article, and cite the sources, that show the conquering and pillaging of Israeli troops in the Gaza strip and we shall call this an invasion. Ealturner 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the "attack" word was working. I suggest that title be put back as there is nothing here on the talk page showing objections to that word. I will put it back and if someone wants to explain why there is consensus for something else then they can change the title again. Neutralizer 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia says that Israel has launched a "major incursion" into the Gaza Strip... I kind of like that phrasing.... REGARDLESS, this is OLD NEWS NOW and arguing over the title has prevented publication -- Wikinews cannot be useful if we cannot publish news in a timely fashion. Why not publish the article and argue over the title? --Chiacomo (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I will again give my support for the word "attacks." I'd also consider "raids," "storms" and "enters" NPOV. I think the problem is "Invasion" is not defined the way people assume it is. It has a very specific definition; it's perfectly possible to send troops to fight another country in their country without it being an invasion. The Israeli aims must be known for the word "invasion" to be used on its dictionary definition. As quoted in the news piece, Israel claims what they are doing is something rather different to conquering, let alone pillaging, Gaza. Invasion is therefore POV as well as inaccurate. I hope we can bring this debate to a conclusion now! Ealturner 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone needs to publish and remove the tag. Neutralizer 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Invasion" is not defined the way people assume it is. — And here we come to the soft core of this argument. The English language is a living thing; what most people believe a word means is actually what it means, regardless of however many 19th Century dictionary definitions one might dredge up to defend it. Most people would understand the movement of thousands of troops with armoured and air support across a border to be an invasion.
- Israel claims what they are doing is something rather different — Israeli claims are irrelevant to the determination of how this information is presented. Their viewpoint must be presented clearly and accurately in ther article, but their claims about their motives are necessary POV and utterly irrelevant to the way this article should be constructed and named. 126.96.36.199 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- 188.8.131.52 first can I say please register with wikinews and help us out on a permanent basis. We need all the passionate helpers we can get. Second. The English language is a living thing but that's something for the English lit class, not wikinews. Ealturner 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind and encouraging invitation, but I think I'll wait until my wikipedia username is automatically valid on wikinews; I don't want to have to keep track of yet another login, and I don't see myself being a regular here just atm. As for your comments, perhaps I should be clearer. Most English users would understand that the Israelis have invaded; that you're able to locate some dictionaries providing alternate definitions of the word isn't really the point. "Invasion" implies a mass movement of troops and weapons into the territory of another government; it has nothing to do with motivation. In any case, the Israelis have admitted that the plans for this invasion were drawn up and approved long before Gilad Shalit's capture, and are now claiming that the principal aim of the invasion is to neutralise the source of the Quassam rockets. Others have suggested that the goal of the invasion is regime change, and the evidence would seem to support that. Your insistence, in the face of these developments, on the (I'm sure unintentionally) weasely "attacks" begins to seem less and less appropriate as the situation develops. I ask again, what would have to change for you to agree that this is, actually, an invasion? 184.108.40.206 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is not an invasion on the dictionary definition. To say the Israeli actions are for conquest and plunder, the most used dictionary definition of invasion, is POV. Ealturner 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have located a single source (ie. Mirriam Webster) which includes the phrase "conquest and plunder", and yet you are touting it as the commonly accepted definition. This would appear, at first glance, not to be a good faith argument. Perhaps you could clarify your position. 220.127.116.11 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The definition is the same across all those I've seen. Including dictionary.com, cambridge, everyone I've seen. The most commonly used definition of invasion is, as the MW definition suggests, about possession and conquest. Please do not accuse me of not arguing in good faith. Ealturner 12:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's try to look at this in some kind of systematic, verifiable fashion. First, I'll use the google definition via answers.com (ie. what you get when you click the "define" link in google):
- 1. to move into; 2. to enter by force in order to conquer; 3. to infest or overrun
- American Heritage:
- 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.; 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate; 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
- 1. march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; 2. to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; 3. occupy in large numbers or live on a host; 4. penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way
- So OK, that's 2:3 in favour of the "conquer/conquest" at least, if not the "pillage/plunder". However, if I try the links resulting from "define invade" in google (ignoring the wordnet definition, as above):
- "Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period. Euphemistically, an invasion is sometimes referred to as an intervention."
- Terms I:
- "Enter a Country with a Hostile Army, Violate a Country’s borders or Neutrality. The Act of Invading."
- Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary (via dict.die.net, again in addition to the Wordnet definition, above):
- "1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to enter; 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack; 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and progressively"
- Thefreedictionary.com quotes the American Heritage definition.
- Wordreference.com quotes Wordnet, and links to Mirriam Webster and dictionary.com (which repeats earlier definitions plus some irrelevant legal and medical definitions).
- Mirriam Webster:
- "1. to enter for conquest or plunder; 2. to encroach upon; 3a. to spread over or into as if invading; 3b: to affect injuriously and progressively"
- Dictionary.net quotes Websters.
- So, that's 3:1 (for a combined total of 4:3) against the conquest and plunder "primary definition" (although I'm not sure why we should only look at the primary defintion, which is often based on etymological chronology). Perhaps more importantly though, when we look to see how other news services are describing the event, we find:
- Google news
- "attack gaza", 82 hits; "attacks gaza", 25 hits
- "invade gaza", 239 hits; "invades gaza", 147 hits
- So, it would appear that the rest of the world doesn't think that declared motivation is especially relevant, and recognise this invasion for what it is. Right now, wikinews seems to be out of step.
- Your turn. 18.104.22.168 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's try to look at this in some kind of systematic, verifiable fashion. First, I'll use the google definition via answers.com (ie. what you get when you click the "define" link in google):
- My turn? Is this a game to you? On my count all the dictionary definitions you cite define invasion as conquest/plunder. Here is the wikipedia entry for invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government." Ealturner 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- //Right now, wikinews seems to be out of step.// With a flourish you clinch the argument, eh? To my knowledge Wikinews is the only source of neutral point of view news on the internet. Thanks for confirming that for me. Ealturner 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is no game; it is an attempt to reach consensus, and your flippancy is quite unhelpful in that regard. I can't begin to understand what you mean by "all the dictionary definitions you cite define invasion as conquest/plunder"; even if you selectively exclude wiktionary, wikipedia and Terms I, what about Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary? Or are we now to pick and choose amongst the proffered definitions from each source? The wikipedia definition (very clearly and importantly) qualifies its suggested motives with "generally", and the wikipedia definition for "invade" (which is the term under discussion above, and the one I believe should be used in the article title) doesn't come close to what you're trying to say. There's no "flourish" to my exposure of the fact that your term is used no more than a third as often as mine by news organisations reporting the subject (at least, those google cares about) or I wouldn't have used the qualifier "seems". As for your "the army is marching out of step" cant, I refer you back to my opening sentence. 22.214.171.124 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate my objections being called "flippant." Please can we keep the debate nice? Dictionaries we both have cited show conquest and plunder as a common definition of the word invasion. To use a word that connotates conquest when facts of the article do not support its use would be factually misleading. To say Israel's intention is to conquer Gaza is POV when Israel says its intention is to free a hostage. I don't know what else to say. The facts of the article do not support the word "invasion" which is an objectionable word on factual and POV grounds. Ealturner 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ealturner is quite correct - Israel does not need to conquer Gaza: it is already the occupying power. Jobrahms 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is old news. There is no POV problem that I can see. Please don't retag with NPOV without detailing your specific issue. Let's move onto the next story. Talk:Israeli barrage of Gaza continues with strike on PM's office Jobrahms 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- My specific issue with the article is its title, which uses weasel words to disguise the nature of the event. I'll will move on (or off, in this case) once wikinews no longer promotes a POV interpretation of these events. 126.96.36.199 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- 188.8.131.52 What do you mean by "weasel words"? I'm puzzled by your attitude to neutral point of view at wikinews. It's okay to have opinions but wikinews is not the place to push them. We have a partial concensus on a word that is NPOV, let's go with that and move on to the next articles on this same subject? Ealturner 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- "A Weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or [which] avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue." You claim there is a "partial consensus" for (presumably) "attacks"; there seems to be equivalent support for "invades" on this page. Polling is evil, so I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, other than to repeat my request for you to outline under what circumstances you would accept that Israeli has invaded. Are there any? 184.108.40.206 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You believe opinion polls are evil and then expect me to continue a serious discussion about hard news with you? Sorry, I feel I'm being taken for a ride here. Ealturner 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now I understand where you were coming from with the phrase "polling is evil". Wikinews is about neutrality not the most popular idea.Ealturner 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You said "polling is evil" be were not slow to do a "google poll" on the word invade? If you're going to be wrong don't contradict yourself too. It makes me look nasty. Ealturner 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Straw-polling and google counts are not comparable, one being a survey of editorial opinion, the other of third-party sources. On wikipedia we'd refer to your insistence on "correcting" third-party sources as original research.
- If you're going to be wrong don't contradict yourself too. It makes me look nasty. — I can't begin to parse this. 220.127.116.11 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the concensus is behind the word "attack" which has yet to be objected too on neutral point of view grounds. Let's move on. Go to my talk page if you want to say anything unrelated to this article to me. Ealturner 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't believe we're still on this! It seems quite clear to me (and, I think, most of us) that the article itself is not biased and does not deserve the NPOV tag. I'm happy with "attack" (it's a damn sight better than the original "pushes into" which most definitely was POV). Jobrahms 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for my part in extending this discussion to date Ealturner 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- no blood, no problem Jacques Divol
- Hmm... I just came back to this article because it was in my Watchlist, and I have noticed that it has grown into an article almost entirely from Israel's POV. There are NO quotes on how Israel's military action has effected Palestinian citizens, which deeply troubles me. ~ clearthought 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)