Talk:Israeli attacks in Gaza kill 17

statements unsupported by sources

• "Israeli spokeswoman later stated that the women were targetted in response to the gunfire from the men in the mosque"
• unattributed "Two women were gunned down by Israeli soldiers". sourced to Al Jazeera and Reuters reports.

 — Doldrums(talk) 14:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The BBC states that at least 17 people were killed in a single day on Friday, including two women shot during the siege of a mosque in Beit Hanoun. I have removed the "targetted in response to...." statement for now and have replaced it with a report of a Zionist massacre in the area. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't see either the BBC or [1] or [2] attribute the deaths specifically to Israeli fire, whereas [3] and [4] do.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reuters[5] attributes the women's shooting to Israeli soldiers.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

and an apparently eyewitness account[6]. — Doldrums(talk) 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias qualms

What I'm concerned about is that it's making Israel look like Great Satan; additionally the article does not contain any sort of defense or rationale on Israel's part. I wish to get this resolved as quickly as possible. On that note, anyone working against the discussion will be ostracized. If we work together, we should resolve this issue in no time. —this is messedrocker (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted a Zionist spokesman saying that the intended targets were suspected Palestinian militants who were planting explosives or who had carried out rocket attacks. That should be sufficient defence for the (possibly non-existent) regime. As for the article's tone, I guess there's little one can do to make the murder of unarmed women seem like a justifiable action. As for resolving disputes we can take care of that easily provided we all agree to discuss changes before making them. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

list issues here.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "Two women were gunned down by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on a crowd that had formed in front of a mosque in which the Hamas men had taken refuge." from what i can make out, the shooting occurred when the militants were being smuggled out, not when a crowd gathered.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• The shots were directed at the "human shields", in order to disperse them, thereby resulting in the murders of two innocent persons. This also raises the interesting question of why the Zionists would shoot unarmed women in an effort to keep the resistance fighters (who were the supposed targets) from escaping. Perhaps we should point that out in the article? PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

the sentence, placed in the lead paragraph, does not make it clear what were the circumstances under which the shooting took place. indeed, it misleads as to the circumstances, implying "crowd gathered, Israeli soldiers fired".  — Doldrums(talk) 16:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following quotes by the women, Hamas and the Zionists clearly explains the objectives the crowd had. As I said, our readers are not fools. I am publishing for the time being, feel free to unpublish if any other qualms turn up. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 02:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I have reworded this sentence to imply that the women were trying to help the Hamas members escape, as the quote suggests. Publish?--DCo1 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is no need for the rewording. A local woman has already been quoted saying that the crowd had gathered to get the Palestinian men. Our readers are not imbeciles, we do not have to explain quotes to them. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 02:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

lead paragraphs should summarise the rest of the article, not hide significant facts in a misleading way. — Doldrums(talk) 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even a point of contention? We could add a half-dozen extra words to ensure that readers who only read the lead paragraph understand a point they probably would have inferred anyways, or we could omit these words. Why do either of you care? Reword, don't reword, whatever, it doesn't matter. Just publish the damn thing, honestly. Is it so important to win this little contest?--DCo1 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "israeli aggression" is not neutral.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Israel began taking offensive action against Hamas. That is aggressive, hence the term "aggression". PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

aggression is a loaded term, implying unprovoked attack. alternatives such as assault, raid, air strikes, action, operations avoid this.  — Doldrums(talk) 16:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Assault seems appropriate, I have gone ahead with the change. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See? Now wasn't that quick and painless? We should have these kinds of to-the-point discussions more often. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias at its' core?

1. Since when are terrorists fighters? Thus this article is dishonest and fails at NPOV.
2. Don't the Israelis have video of the 'women' shooting some of their human shields per the earlier BBC radio reports? Any comments?
3. Did the 'human shields volunteer to be matyrs to make the IDF look bad? Informed people want to know.

Did the 'human shields volunteer to be matyrs to make the IDF look bad? Informed people want to know. Hamas says that they volunteered, but I don't entirely trust them on this point, and we certainly can't speculate on what we don't know. As for the terrorists/fighters distinction, I think that any article on Israel will be too biased for you if you need loaded words.--DCo1 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it is no longer news...

There is no time to 'talk' about it... counter-point within the article and move along, the news story "is what it is" according valid news points. -Edbrown05 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[7]. i have little inclination to join in.  — Doldrums(talk) 08:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that there is no need to treat our readers like idiots. There are three quotes which explain the women's motives, without us having to explain it to our readers. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

just by the choice of words by that arab pvj we already see this is biased , he should not be allowed to edit any articles in this matter.