Talk:United Nations condemns Palestinian rocket attacks and Israel's 'disproportionate' response
What the hell is going on in here? The UN condemed both sides! (as the article sources state!) Isn't wikinews suppose follow NPOV? this is not right. 84.108.240.181 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of the three cited sources only one does not specifically mention Israel being criticised in their headlines. "this is not right" isn't a solution to what you perceive as a problem. Proposing an alternative headline is. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to Reuters, "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel for using "excessive" force in the Gaza Strip" and said "I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism". It therefore seems clear that the actions of both parties have been condemned by the UN so the article title should reflect this. Adambro - (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since 84.108.240.181 is editing from Israel I wanted to give him an opportunity to suggest an alternative headline. Writing "this is not right" and tagging an article to take it off the main page is not appropriate when constructive suggestions would be more appropriate. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am still new to wikinews. I came here because I was looking for a balanced article about the clashes in gaza. 84.108.240.181 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since 84.108.240.181 is editing from Israel I wanted to give him an opportunity to suggest an alternative headline. Writing "this is not right" and tagging an article to take it off the main page is not appropriate when constructive suggestions would be more appropriate. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to Reuters, "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel for using "excessive" force in the Gaza Strip" and said "I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism". It therefore seems clear that the actions of both parties have been condemned by the UN so the article title should reflect this. Adambro - (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the issue was not resolved, I do not understand why the tag was removed. 84.108.240.181 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Suggetion for title: United nations condemns Israel and Hamas for violence. 84.108.240.181 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The tag was removed because (a) The title was factually correct - albeit not comprehensive, and (b) The content of the article is NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aaaand.... This little "storm in a teacup" is why I'm opposed to the page move restrictions we ended up with WMF-wide a while back. Had that not been in place the IP who raised the NPOV issue could have registered an account and fixed the title - a drama-free solution. However, specifying "Hamas" in the title would not have been appropriate as they have not claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks, nor been proven to be responsible. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The title is not neutral
editI second the above concern that the title is biased and one-sided. Let me illustrate: Your source mentions: While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children," said Mr Ban. The present title dismisses the killing of sivilians as a mere "response", while Palestinians' actions are spelled out without euphemisms. A better and neutral title would be United Nations condemns growing violence in the Middle East. --171.161.160.10 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- What you are seconding is a comment written before someone changed the article name. The original title, at the time of the first complaint above, was "United Nations condemns Israel for Gaza violence". --Jcart1534 - (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, the present title is just as biased as the previous one. 171.161.160.10 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like your suggested title, as it is the least provocative in an always heated topic. Or how about tweaking the current one to something like, "United Nations condemns Palestinian rocket attacks and Israel's 'disproportionate' response"? --Jcart1534 - (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No reply...going to go ahead with a change. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like your suggested title, as it is the least provocative in an always heated topic. Or how about tweaking the current one to something like, "United Nations condemns Palestinian rocket attacks and Israel's 'disproportionate' response"? --Jcart1534 - (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, the present title is just as biased as the previous one. 171.161.160.10 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Uncorrect datas
editThe article suggests that Israel launched an offensive answering to the Hamas rockets, and killed one israeli, right? Well this is not exactly the truth.
Just BEFORE that Hamas launched those rockets and killed the israeli citizen, 11 (ELEVEN) palestinians were killed by an airstrike, among them not less than 4 children. So it's unrightful to say: israelis attacked in reponse to hamas rockets. In truth, last week israeli continusly bombed Gaza Strip and killed no less than 27 palestinians.
The rocket offensive started AFTER this 11 people massacre, and was 'awarded' with an airland offensive that killed no less than 125 palestinians and wounded hundreds. Among them around 30 kids and countless womens. Even a ONG hospital (Medical Relief) was destroyed and the only ambulance set on fire.
So, to say that israeli offensive in Gaza strip is offensive, but to the memory of more than 30 palesinians killed, among them, in 28 february alone, 3 brothers - Deib, Omar and Ali Darduna, 11, 14 and 8 years old, and Mohammed Hammuda, 7 years old, killed on 28 february in Jabaliya.
I hope that this information shall be included, or 30 palestian lives doesn't not worth like a 1 israeli?--80.104.204.87 11:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect title, again
editThe article reports Ban Ki-Moon condemning stuff. As I understand it, that is not the same as the UN condemning them, because as Secretary-General - a high-level functionary, not some kind of head of state analogue - he can't claim to represent the UN (no individual truly can, particularly absent a resolution). The title needs changing to reflect this. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)