Talk:Hezbollah-Israel war continues for a third day

Comments?
Please place your comments here. Let's also keep it civil. Our intention is to work on a collaborative news project so let's work together. :) Ealturner 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [14/07 - 14:13:43] something else. [another source] [14/07 - 14:09:51] someone else denied [another source] [14/07 - 14:06:32] someone claimed something happened somewhere. [source]88.110.244.183 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: is it possible to maintain on this or another article, a timeline with events that are really confusing here. What I'm thinking of is something like


 * 1) no comments or rebuttals from lebanon or hezbollah in article. Doldrums 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) lebanese source(s?):


 * RE: The captured vs kidnapped thing. Israel has described the soldiers as being kidnapped. Hezbollah describe the soldiers as captured. It's silly if you ask me but to be NPOV we have to be careful how we use these words. Ealturner 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * kidnap implies illegality, capture neither does nor doesn't. so it makes sense to stick to capture, unless the illegality of the capture is is upheld by legal procedures or someone's claim of illegality is being reported. in short, "soldiers were captured", "israel said soldiers were kidnapped", " deemed it to be kidnapping" are all ok. Doldrums 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel says Hezbollah is an illegal organisation so, on the other hand, capture would imply an element of legitimacy to those who have captured. It is best to attribute these statements - with words like "claim" and "said" - to avoid argument that wikinews is siding with one interpretation. Ealturner
 * question is, are soldiers in military action "kidnapped" or "captured"? does it depend upon the formal status ("state sanctioned armed forces" vrs "militia") of the "kidnappers"? "capture" is neutral on legality, but perfectly describes the event, which is why it's appropriate to use. the current formulation (state and attribute both) is a reasonable, but lengthier alternative. Doldrums 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or is the question, was the Hezbollah raid a military action? Israel says no. Israel says there is no essential difference would the soldiers have been attacked at their posts by a bunch of criminals from inside Israel. Thus they use the term kidnapped. From the Israeli POV captured is not neutral as it implies the men were taken by non-criminals. Ealturner 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * israel is free to use whatever term they fancy. my point is that "capture" is appropriate for us to use, because it is neutral as to legality (it neither implies legality, nor illegality).Doldrums 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel would say Hezbollah is free to use its own terms. Wikinews is neutral to their feud. A word is by definition not neutral if one side objects to its use. I will concede on fact grounds that "capture" can be defended. Okay, I will concede ground to you here, you made your point well. :) But Israel's POV will need to be added because they, and also some other states*, have gone on record to say the soldiers were, I quote "kidnapped". UK and US. Al-jazeera also used the term "kidnapped" in a news report. I don't think it's as big a deal as we're making out. But if it offends people we as wikinews have to tred carefully. Ealturner 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll add those sources to the article if you haven't already. The Daily Star source refers to thursday so I'll add the details to yesterday's article. Ealturner 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * remember to not add substantial content to previosuly published article. "wikinews is not a work in progress" or somthing... Doldrums 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With the exception when there's a breaking news tag. I don't think it counts as substantial content as the article already mentions other parts of the Lebanon communications infrastructure were hit. Ealturner 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * now that an update article is being written (& published!), the previous article is no longer breaking! and indeed, the tag has been removed, if i remember. Doldrums 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true I still think the news was relevant. It's only a day and it did not change what was written, rather it added more detail. I thought that was okay, if it's not, my mistake. I will not do so next time. Ealturner 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

response to Nehushtan
we need to see if there is a response or rebuttal to this statement in the article. "The targets chosen are connected either directly or indirectly with terrorism, Israeli Air Force General Ido Nehushtan, said." Doldrums 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please leave your ID by putting ~ four wiggly lines at the end of your post. Welcome to wikinews and good point! Someone might disagree with that quote so we should look for any other quote on the reasons that concern Israel's targetting. Ie. are they deliberatley attacking civilians? Ealturner 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmm Doldrums 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up into sections
We may have to split the story into several sections to give better overview for the reader. Viewpoints? --Jambalaya 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no opinions have been voiced, I've added some sections to improve readability. --Jambalaya 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

soo much discussion
if there's goiing to be so much discussion, we shld probably do it on the IRC channel ("Live chat" on top of page). save a few edit conflicts. Doldrums 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I'm checking that out now. Ealturner 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * doesn't appear to be working... Doldrums 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

took a while, I'm on there now Ealturner 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation titles
The "Operation Just Reward" and "Operation Truthful Promise" attack names are pure propaganda like "Operation Iraqi Freedom",imo, and not news; but it seems I am in the minority. Neutralizer 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your view so one mention is probably enough (in the last article). After that it's "not new" and not news, no need to mention it here. We don't need to keep using the phrases. Ealturner 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can't stand those military euphemisms anyway :-) --Jambalaya 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * so we document it (so if someone twenty years later searches for it) and then ignore it. Doldrums 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good course of action; we can call it "Operation Just Document".:) Neutralizer 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, is "Operation Truthful Promise" a name Hezbollah came up with? I didn't think Middle Eastern militants named their attacks like the western world do? --Jambalaya 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was news. Now it's not. Obviously don't censor the word - eg. if it's an important part of a quote - but when it's not necessary don't use them unless we're agreed. Also it might be a style issue as well as POV to have to work both Operation names in when you mention one. Ealturner 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jambalaya - good point. If we can find the arabic of it we should put the arabic in with it. Ealturner 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the word "Operation" since it looks like the correct title is just "Truthful Promise". --Jambalaya 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Images
This image was removed for questions over license status. Putting it here in case questions clear up satisfactorily and we don't forget image. Ealturner 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Need a source on this
I want a source on the following information: "Five airplanes belonging to Middle East Airlines, and one owned by Najib Mikati, the former Lebanese prime minister, were evacuated to Cyprus after assurances were given to Fuad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, that they would not be attacked."

Reuters said four _empty_ planes took off, so this sounds like a conspiracy theory. Removing it until it is sourced. --Jambalaya 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * al-jazeera article listed in sources sez so. Doldrums 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's back in. --Jambalaya 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work, again, Jambalaya. :) As for the title change I'm not sure. No official declaration of war has been made. "Fight" might be better. Ealturner 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * al-jazeera has a strong POV, I wouldn't trust them unless another, more objective source reports it aswell.TiB 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * bull. Doldrums 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that is a very clever, well thought out response. Thank you for enlightening us.TiB
 * anytime. for less clever, less well thought responses see, , , ,  (ok, with the last one, looks like i'm getting carried away). Doldrums 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doldrums, This time seriously, I've learned something I didn't know. I will start reading them and hopefully I will come to the same conclusion you have.TiB
 * and sorry about the initial comment. u kind of hit a sore nerve. Doldrums 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I read on CNN.com, it seems like the Middle East Airlines planes were empty, but an additional private plane with the former PM took off after the United Stated brokered a deal (with Israel?) that let the planes take off before the airport tarmac again was holed out by Israeli planes. Intriguing. --Jambalaya 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Title change/definition of "war"
On an ongoing fight there are no strikers and retaliators, only continued fighting. no side has stopped fighting so no one can resume. I believe this title is more appropriate.TiB 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I might have messed up trying to update the rename on the main page, but I think its ok. sorry about that.TiB 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a war?


 * I like the idea but not sure it's right. What's your reason why it's a war? No official declaration has been made. Ealturner 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this qualifies for a "war". A "war" does not nescessary have to be an armed conflict between two or more sovereign states. Since Israel and Hezbollah are constantly firing back at each other this weighs in on a "war". Besides, the Hezbollah leader has recently declared an "open war" on Israel and Lebanese PM called it earlier today a "controlled war". --Jambalaya 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind "war" being used in the title, but if you want to use the term I think you need to start introducing the quotes from parties calling it a war in the first two paragraphs. For me this is the first this has been referred to as such, and who has declared it as a war is important, as is how - eg, has someone said it is a "holy war" or such? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  Can I also raise a POV objection. If this is a "war" then "Israel-Hezbollah war continues for a third day" suggests it is Israel that started the war. It should more accurately read "Hezbollah-Israel war continues for a third day". Ealturner 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bombing an other country angainst the explicit will of the bombed country is war. Even without writing "war" on the bombs. --Migello 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah leader vows 'open war' It seems to me Hezbollah is the open aggressor. They attacked first. Now they're using the word "war". It should be Hezbollah-Israel war. Ealturner 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or Israel-Lebanon war? --Migello 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Irano-Syrian-Proxy-Hezbollah-Israeli-US-Lebanon-US war to give it its fuller title. Ealturner 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment; Who started first is a matter of one's POV. Palestinian children on a beach were killed by an Israeli missle weeks before before any kidnappings happened. May I suggest that we all refrain from our own POV as to who we think is the "open aggressor" or "attacked first"; it's argumentative and distracting ,imo, and will not help us achieve NPOV. Neutralizer 20:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since Hezbollah are part of the Lebanon government, and they attacked Israel - a sovereign state - first, that would be Lebanon-Israel war Migello, surely? Ealturner 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you give this sense to the first party named. --Migello 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand you. Of course it could be said, is it a political order or alphabetical? The problem with Israel-Hezbollah is it reverses the alphabet order and makes it look Hezbollah is second because they were hit first, not second, as the case was. Hezbollah-Israel might make alphabetical sense as well as factual sense if this is a "war". And there are still open questions whether this is a war. I'm not convinced. Ealturner 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced either. See title is fine section. No formal declaration of war has been made on either sides. Jason Safoutin 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind "war" being used in the title, but if you want to use the term I think you need to start introducing the quotes from parties calling it a war in the first two paragraphs. Brian McNeil
 * This is the key test Ealturner 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved up the paragraph with Nasrallah's declaration of war and added Lebanese PM's "controlled war" quote. --Jambalaya 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we need one from one final party - Israel Ealturner 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Olmert's "Act of War" quote to describe Lebanon's action? That's not an annoucement of war is it? That's saying someone else is at war on you. Views... Ealturner 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree Ealturner. Jason Safoutin 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I read in a Jerusalem Post article that the Israeli military is using some sort of a "war room" in Tel Aviv. Just mentioning it :-)--Jambalaya 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added this "This comes after Ehud Olmert said Lebanon had committed an "act of war". I don't think this is enough to use war in the title though because it's not a quote of Israel making an act of war. But to be honest, it's very confusing. On the one hand they blame a sovereign state. On the other they say they're going after Hezbollah, a criminal gang of terrorists. I might shift into the "war" is okay word camp. Ealturner 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of "war" : "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. Until the end of World War II, participants usually issued formal declarations of war."

Formal declaration of war is sooooo 1945 then ;-P --Jambalaya 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Title is just fine
Please leave it be; we don't need another renaming "war". Neutralizer 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point and good pun! MyName 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The word war in the title is NOT right. For one, neither groups or governments have made a formal declaration of war. Jason Safoutin 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is my basic position too Ealturner 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There was never an official declaration of war for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" either. But everyone refers to that as a war. MyName 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "War on Terror"? :-p --Jambalaya 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * formal declaration of war? Which century are you talking about? --Migello 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya. Vietnam war, no declaration, just Tonkin Gulf Resolution. :) MyName 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * declarations were used, to define the state without or before using weapons. In the end of WWII tens of states declared war against Germanay and Japan. --Migello 22:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason Safoutin/DragonFire1024: Why are you so passionate about the title in the first place? Have you even contributed to this story? --Jambalaya 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Here are the problems I see. The actual article only presents the Israeli position/justifications and almost exclusively quotes from Israeli spokespeople.

"The targets chosen are connected either directly or indirectly with terrorism," Israeli Air Force General Ido Nehushtan, said.

''' "Nasrallah has issued his own sentence." said Ronnie Bar-On, the Israeli interior minister.'''

The Israeli military and Israel's ambassador to the UN said that the rockets fired into Haifa on Thursday by Hezbollah were manufactured in Iran.

Israel's chief of staff, Dan Halutz, said Friday

There is only one quote from Hezbollah and that one does not address the Israeli actions.Neutralizer 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find some more Hezbollah and Lebanese quotes. However, I've noticed that there are few named Hezbollah/Lebanese officials to quote. Most of them are unnamed and sometimes anonymous. --Jambalaya 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this perhaps just the Israeli propaganda machine working better than anyone else's, if so we may have to put countering quotes in a new article to keep news timely. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to go out but will join Jambalaya's search later. Could simply be it's not safe for the Hezbollah crowd to come out of hiding so we may just be stuck with the Israeli side of the story for now. I'll look for something from Syria and Iran when I get back. Neutralizer 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a quote from the Hezbollah leader. He vows "open war" on Israel source Ealturner 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's already in WN's story :-) --Jambalaya 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that noone found out or reported that at the UN many,many hours ago the Lebanese envoy made comments which could've helped NPOV this one-sided article. We should not be publishing one-sided articles which seem to publish rationalle for killing civilians as long as you drop some leaflets first. I don't think that is NPOV. Neutralizer 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah UAV
Give a shout if somebody find out what this drone/UAV thing Hezbollah used on the ship is. (Or better yet, add the details to the story :p) --Jambalaya 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only report I've yet seen. More news to come I suspect. Ealturner 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Israel
If Hezbollah began the "war" they should be mentioned first. H is also before I in the alphabet. Ealturner 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I is before L, but reverse is fine too. --Migello 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I is before L, but I figured changing Hezbollah to Lebanon would be another argument. Given you don't mind the change and the change makes sense on both alphabetical and chronological reasons I'll now change the title. (Let that "whole other argument" commence!)Ealturner 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We must not call or even imply that this is a war between Lebanon and Israel. There have not been a single clash between government Lebanese forces and Israeli forces. All skirmishes have been between IDF and Hezbollah, which happen to be based in southern Lebanon where Lebanon's goverment does not have control over the militant group. --Jambalaya 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this wrong. It should be Lebanon-Israel.

UN Security resolution 1559 2 September 2004. UN 1559 calls on Lebanon to disarm Lebanese and non Lebanese militias. Lebanon did not do this, evident in the attack on Israel. Lebanon breaks UN1559 so it is Lebanon not Hezbollah that is responsible to the International Community for the attack. It should be Lebanon-Israel Ealturner 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but again; the conflict is not between the states of Lebanon and Israel. --Jambalaya 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a mess isn't it? :) What do you think of this then?

''Olmert said Israel wouldn't halt its offensive in Lebanon until the militant group was disarmed. He made the comment in a telephone conversation with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Israeli government officials said.''

Probably needs a new story. Pretty significant. Ealturner 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We should wait calling it a Lebanon-Israeli war until Olmert or IDF says "against Lebanon" instead of "in Lebanon" --Jambalaya 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's wait for the first lebanon casulties. --Migello 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

News tickers
I would like to recommend these tickers from the Israeli newspapers Haaretz Daily and Jerusalem Post for the very latest news. I've noticed the one from Haaretz isn't always accessible, but there's one a ticker the site's homepage too. --Jambalaya 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest they are blatant POV sources and suggest they be ignored as such. Neutralizer 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The good thing about these is that they state the source if one want to investigate the matter further.


 * If I hadn't looked at the news tickers right now, I would have missed the information about a second boat hit by rockets fired from shore. Information which I am gonna add in the article right now. So they ARE useful and I'm gonna continue using them to stay on top of recent developments in this conflict. (They are of course not my only tool for finding related news!) --Jambalaya 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jambalaya, they look very good. Ealturner 09:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up story for Saturday
I've made a sketchy follow-up article for Saturday here. --Jambalaya 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Added information about the type of rockets fired, casualty information and some sources. I think its ready for publishing. TiB 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)