Talk:Israeli barrage of Gaza continues with strike on PM's office
This article is clearly biased and is not fit for publishing. It is a shame it wasn't removed earlier.
It should be clearly stated that the purpose of the attack is to pressure the government into freeing the captured soldier. The targets are not civilian targets but government offices, the same government that kidnapped the soldier.
When did wikinews become the voice of the arab world? TiB 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments. If you feel the article is biased please make specific points and/or correct or add additional clarifying information. Jobrahms 11:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased and is not fit for publishing. Just for arguments sake: it's not clearly biased to me. Claiming an article is biased without referring to parts of the article to be fixed is not helping.
It is a shame it wasn't removed earlier. It just got published this morning. Makes me wonder how soon is soon enough.
It should be clearly stated that the purpose of the attack is to pressure the government into freeing the captured soldier. It is in the article.
The targets are not civilian targets but government offices The word civilian is only found in the Attacks labelled "war crimes" section of the article. The Amnesty International press release is not referring to the attack on the offices of the Palestinian government, but to the attacks on the power station, bridges, roads and other infrastructure. I'm not sure if Amnesty International would call government offices military targets, I think they would consider them civilian to.
When did wikinews become the voice of the arab world? This is a long shot, but i would say at it's founding. As i understand, though i might be wrong, wikinews is a voice of the world and that includes "the arab world" if such a world even exists. 83.160.232.32 13:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
usual predictable accusations of bias
editIn response to the unsigned comment above I have added information about Israel's stated reason for the attacks and changed the order of the article. Please make any specific POV arguments on this page. Jobrahms 11:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It might be wise to replace barrage with a word that stirs up less emotions.
- The Attacks labeled "war crimes" section could be made into a separate article
- 83.160.232.32 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about "bombardment"? I suppose "attack" is OK, but it's just getting a little repetitive...
- I think the Attacks labeled "war crimes" should stay in this article. At this stage, at least, it's not getting too long and it seems better to have just the one Gaza attack article to work on (and argue over!).
- Jobrahms 13:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like attack and i don't have a problem with repetitiveness. How about "Israeli attack on Gaza continues with bombardment of PM's office" or "Israeli attack on Gaza continues with bombing of PM's office"? 83.160.232.32 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- They are both fine, even barrage is fine by me aslong as you state the reason for the attack.TiB 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be clearly stated that the hamas government that was hit is the same organization that captured the soldier and refuses to free him despite international pressure.
about the amnesty internation statement, I don't believe a word they say, but you might do so I didn't remove it.
Also, it was me who wrote the first comment, I wasn't home so couldn't sign. TiB 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- TiB - I'm sorry, but your additions were both badly written and were clearly biased. The reasons for Israel's attack are highly complex and cannot be stated as a simple fact. Your statement "This is the same prime minister who ordered the capture of the israeli soldier and refuses to free him despite international presure and criticism." is unsourced, badly written and not even capitalised correctly. By all means add to the article, but improve it, don't degrade it. Jobrahms 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
quote 83.160.232.32: "It is in the article." - Yea, at the very very end of the article.
- I don't think it was ever at the "very end", but anyway, it's now in the first paragraph. Jobrahms 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I didn't have the time to recheck my spelling.
Quote of reuters:
"Israeli forces thrust into the southern Gaza Strip this week as part of efforts to free the 19-year-old corporal, Gilad Shalit, seized in a cross-border raid last Sunday. It was the biggest such incursion since Israel withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza in August after 38 years of occupation."
Even reuters admits that this is the reason for the attack, so why not say it in the article?
Quote Bush: "Freeing Israeli troop key to ending crisis"
How can you say its not the reason for the attack?
And another thing, How can you quote Ismail Haniya twice, and not give even one counter quote of the other side? isn't that bias?
- TiB Reuters and George Bush aren't NPOV. That doesn't meant hey're wrong but when we SPECULATE on aims - eg. to free Gilad Shalit - we must cite our sources. We can't write as if that's fact even though the facts currently support that interpretation - Israel have had a soldier they claim was kidnapped and have demanded his release. Likewise, SPECULATION that Israel is using the kidnapping as an excuse to target civilians rather than terrorists - these must be cited, everytime. While it is fact Israel has blown up some civilian infrastructure - bridges, power plant - it is still currently speculation that this is their only aim. If we have to have speculation we need it balanced on both sides. Ealturner 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article has is written such that we get POV situations. Eg: "freeing Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli tank gunner captured by Palestinian militants on Monday". The word captured is controversial. It would be better to phrase this "freeing Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli tank gunner they say was kidnapped by Palestinian militants on Monday". This gives a voice rather than pushes Wikinews opinion, which we aren't supposed to have. Likewise the phrase "deliberate attacks against civilian property" is an opinion and must be attributed to Amnesty International Ealturner 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Civilian damage: deliberate or incidental?
edit- More on the phrase "deliberate attacks against civilian property." We have to be careful using the word "deliberate". To give the impression it is the intention of Israel to target civilians is POV. However; the targeting of such things as powerplants and bridges may also target the people holding the soldier. So from the Israeli perspective the civilian effects are incidental, not the aim. Although the attack on the power plant and bridges were intentional we can't say they intended to damage "civilian" infrastructure. To be neutral we need to attribute that to AI. Effects on civilians from an Israeli POV are incidental, not deliberate. Ealturner 23:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the fact that the soldier was kidnapped by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is just that, a FACT, not opinion, they actually confessed it and are proud of it. It is also FACT that the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the currently ruling party, the hamas. So, In affect, it is the palestinian government who has kidnapped the soldier and should be held accountable for it, which is exactly what Israel is doing. TiB 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whilst it is true that the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of Hamas, they are (1) not the only group claiming to have captured Shalit; and (2) not under direct control of Ismail Haniya. Hamas is more a collection of factions than a single political group. Statements such as This is the same prime minister who ordered the capture... are unhelpful to the development of the article.
- As to your earlier point: I am sorry but I didn't have the time to recheck my spelling; if you don't have the time to do a proper, well-considered edit, then note your points on the Talk page urging somebody else to make the changes. Incorrect spelling and punctuation in published articles will not help Wikinews' reputation.
- And another thing, How can you quote Ismail Haniya twice, and not give even one counter quote of the other side? The article in fact has precisely one quote (in two parts) from Haniya and one quote (in two parts) from Olmert. There was also an indirect quote from Regev. (This was also the case at the time of this accusation.) Even putting that aside, instead of just whinging about it on the Talk page, why did you not add an appropriate counter-quote if you felt it necessary?
- Ealturner has dealt with your points regarding Reuters and Bush. Jobrahms 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Earlturner - they are civilian targets, whatever the Isrealis aims where in attacking them. I understand that they were attacked on purpose and not by off target missiles so I fail to see how the phrase deliberate attack on civilian targets is anything but statement of fact.