Talk:Hollywood notables condemn Hamas and Hezbollah

According to my instincts the title of this article should be "Top Hollywood notables condemn Hamas and Hezbollah." As it stands the subject and the verb do not agree in number. -- Wikipedia user Erpingham
 * User:Davodd fixed it. --SVTCobra 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish bias
I'm not sure if this a real issue or if I'm just imagining it, but the two "influential Hollywood signatories" are Jews. Singling them out seems to raise the issue of whether there was a Jewish bias to the advertisement, but without making the accusation openly. If there is a controversy over bias, I'd rather it be made clear: who is claiming it, what the facts are, etc.


 * I never though of it in that regard. I think few people know of either of them, or that they're Jewish. They're in a category for themselves since they're not actors or directors. Rune X2 08:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A solid majority of signatories were not Jewish, but the article picks out 2 Jewish, and relatively non-famous signatories to identify as influential in Hollywood. That seems like a veiled reference Jews controlling Hollywood and this advertisement being Jewish propoganda.


 * ok. To be honest I didn't know they were Jewish, and it didn't occur to me that it could be important. I was just trying to pick some of the most notable of all three groups (actors, directors and others) without mentioning them all. Perhaps you can edit the article to get a more natural selection? You can see the ad here: http://www.webloggin.com/images/hollyad.gif Rune X2 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

neutrally writtent 'POV subject', but newswothy?
Article could be ballansed by another POV expressing the view that Israel is a terroriststate, if any US actor could say that without geting career problems. Hollywood=Israelfriendly. It is not that suprising that these people making this statement but probably a good thing if you are a supporter of Bush:s 'war against terrorism'. I call it less newsworty expression of support of US current politic. international 08:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

npov
"terrorist organisation" is pov, use of the term must be attributed and other views noted. response from hamas & hezbollah shld be reported, or if unavailable, their previous response to such an accusation shld be mentioned. Doldrums 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * “terrorist organisations” was a direct quote from the ad. I think it was evident, but I suppose it could be quoted. As for balancing it with “terroriststate” “Israel friendly” etc. This is news, not a debating forum. This particular news piece happens to be about a statement made by some Hollywood notables, I'm sure there are other news pertaining to others calling Israel nasty things. Rune X2 09:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess every article in itself must be NPOV, so some "calling Israel nasty things" should be addad. international 09:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for responding to the concerns. it is important to give hamas and hezbollah a chance to respond to the charges. if we can't dig up any response to the present one, we'll report any previous response to similar charges. Doldrums 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Hezbollah or Hamas had anything to say to the add, which to my best knowledge they haven't, that could have been included. However every piece of news is about this news only. If you want the whole background story you'll have to go to wikipedia. Ie. while the reporting should be neutral, it is not necessary to state that what some say is not a universally held belief.


 * And the bit about Kidman visiting Israel has nothing to do in this article, as it is a difference news piece. You should create another article for it.


 * Anyway this is yesterdays news. Rune X2 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is yesterdays publicity stunt you mean... Not a serious news article, just a fancy way of rasing money and generating publicity. 212.111.50.168 09:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * agree that Kidman's visit to israel is not relevant, including it amounts to original research. but an oppurtunity for hamas/hezbollah to respond must be given.
 * here's an old quote by Mahmoud Zahhar, "leader" of Hamas, from his profile on bbc news :
 * "Although the international community has called on Hamas to renounce violence, Mr Zahhar has insisted his organisation has the "right to resist" Israeli attacks. "We are not playing at terrorism or violence. We are under occupation," he said. "The Israelis are continuing their aggression against our people, killing, detention, demolition and in order to stop these processes, we run effective self defence by all means, including using guns.""

Doldrums 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather let people decide for themselves if they care or not. To me it does seem over the threshhold for news. If 50 top union leaders or 50 top neurosurgeons or 50 top big game hunters take out a full page article, let them have their say. It's not like wikinews is so choked up with articles that letting readers decide for themselves is impractical. And I'd like to lean on the side of more news and less censorship. (unsiged by IP 70.107.24.200)

Kidman's visit to israel show that she is expressing a view baised to the Israeli view on the conflict, not a general condemnation of terrorism international 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is speculation on your part. In any case, there are 85 signatories. Do you want to single everybody out and speculate on the possible reasons for every one of them? Rune X2 10:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, in article its sourced. Here on talk we are allowed to speculate but I see it as an clearification. Kidman seems to bee the higest profile in this thing. And plase dont revert anymore. I hope you are familliar with the 3 revert Rule. international 10:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no reverted anything you've done, except for when you deleted a paragraph I had inserted. As for Kidman's, possible coming trip to Israel, I think we're going to need some arbitration here, as I consider it irrelevant, speculative and somewhat absurd thus to single out one person of 85 signatories for special treatment. So I'm going to have to ask you to keep it out until we reach some sort of consensus here on the talk pages.


 * Neither do I find it necessary to include whole paragraphs and quotes previously made by Hamas, as this news item is not about Hamas – but about a statement made by some Hollywood persons – a terse statement on the bottom (and one that covers both organisations) should suffice. Else we could go into depth on how many states and international organisations consider them terror organisations, what defines a terror organisation, etc. But this is what Wikipedia should do, not wikinews. Rune X2 10:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This part of the quote; " civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas" needs to be addressed. It is over the top POV to blame the resistance groups for the deaths of Lebanese civilians by Israeli bombings. I am sure there are numerous quotes available from Hamas or Hezbolah stating that they did not "initiate" the bombing of Lebanon and I will look for those quotes after work if noone else finds them first. In the meantime the article is not NPOV. 65.95.149.190 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from a direct quote. You can't hardly go in and edit quotes to make it seem less pov. The quote is the whole story. Referring to it is not pov. Rune X2 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If is is "over the top POV", then that's a problem, but it isn't our "over the top POV", it is that of the signatories and material to the report. It doesn't need countered or neutralised. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

the quote
"We the undersigned a...." I dont think it is nessesary to have it as it is obviously uninformed at the best. I remove the whole quote as it is the source to resent disput and npove-tag is removed without consensus. international 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Get a grip. The quote is the article. And weather you or the Queen of Sheba dislikes it, considers it uninformed, misleading, wrong and evil and what not is quite irrelevant, as it is not and never has been POV to refer directly what other people says. I call this constant destructive behaviour of your for unacceptable vandalism. Rune X2 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Get a grip. The quote is the article" Well, if so the article should be deleted as wikinews is not a spinnforum. The article is problematic as its was written with focus to promote the 'the hollywood notables' onesided condemnation. Article must show some ballance. Ex. to use the title "Top Hollywood notables onsided condemn one side in Israel-Hezbollah conflict" whold help alot. And what does "stop terrorism at all costs" mean. Actors are not expert at solving the worlds problem I hope everybody understand. Its allmost Wackynewsy!


 * And stop be a dramamonger and call me things. Vandalism is not a word for generall attacking. Take this as an advice or go and read policy. international 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read again. I called you nothing, but I did call your unreasoned deletions for vandalism (although I believe you just called me "dramamonger" – but I guess I’ll live) Rune X2 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Intl. The quote is extremely POV and much too extensive. The news here is that the celebrities did this thing and the quote is readily available in the blatantly POV sources. Neutralizer 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but the "quote" belongs. Yes it is extremely POV, but that is what this article is about isn't it? To report on the POV of these "Hollywood elite"? If not to point out what they actually said, then why any article at all about it? --SVTCobra 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And just below this article is one in which Mel Gibson has some things to say about Jews. That is very POV too, yet it is quoted so the reader can see for himself and make up his own mind. And when Bush or Blair or Kerry or whoever has something to say, that is POV too. Yet it should be referred, because it is up to the reader to decide not us. As long as the quote is direct and unmanipulated. Rune X2 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rune, I think it is perfectly OK to say including Lebanese civilian deaths, because that is what they did. They just didn't say who literally killed them. Israel is not disputing that there were civilian deaths in Lebanon, they just claim they were justifiable.--SVTCobra 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually right now it seems ok if noone cuts back on the quotes by the other side. Neutralizer 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops; ok I put back the rest of the other side's quotes; didn't realize it had been cut back. Neutralizer 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research
Wherein the statement:

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die. We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

- do you find basis for saying they blamed them for the deaths of ALL the civilians and the sentence "including the civilians that were killed by Israel's bombing of Lebanon." – this is simply your own speculation, not supported by a quite brief statement. It is WP:OR and should not be included. Rune X2 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is OR. It is a very small logical leap at best. What else could they mean? Hezbollah wasn't exactly lobbing rockets into Lebanese towns. (Although, I think I read one overshot and hit Gaza, but I digress.) --SVTCobra 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it is a leap that is unnecessary to make unless one distrust the reader to make his own conclusions, or want to foster some conclusions on him. I believe articles should just be reported as are with a minimum of added on speculation and pre-treatment. And lets give the readers the respect of trusting them to have the intelligence to come to their own opinions on what should be thought of it all. But it’s not like it’s a point I wish to press. The whole case is starting to become a tiresome, when it is really a very straightforward news-piece. Already I see a whole paragraph on the bottom, which had previously been removed (by someone else) has been reinserted. Rune X2 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * we do consensusbuilding here international 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)



guess im to tired to play rocketscei...journalist now, I missunderstood. 'including the civilians that were killed by Israel's bombing of Lebanon' is ok. international 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

new title suggestion
"Hollywood notables onesided condemn Hamas and Hezbollah but not Israel"

Correct description and dramaturgy to article, put a finger on the problem with their statment. international 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That'd just be silly. Why not change the lead story of "Man confesses to 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey" to "Man unilaterally confesses to 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey". --SVTCobra 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is understood that their actions and words are their own. --SVTCobra 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But this title change the focus of the story away from just megafoning their very onsided statement and the quote can be added without unbalansing the article. We cant edit the quote. international 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood notables condemn Hamas and Hezbollah but not Israeli bombing of civilians. international 00:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And neither did they condemn Ireland or Iceland or Al Qaeda – in fact there is an infinitive amount of things that they did not (and not a word on bombing). You can of course debate weather they are notables, but beyond that the title says concisely and precisely what they did. Why don’t you trust the reader to make up his own mind, about what they should have done instead? Rune X2 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * international, I don't understand what your obsession is. Here is a headline from August 6: "Iran bans Shirin Ebadi-led human rights group" should that be "Iran bans Shirin Ebadi-led human rights group but not Human Rights Watch"? No, it shouldn't. You can't put everything that people don't do in the headline. By your logic, as I see it, we might as well have "Hollywood notables condemn Hamas and Hezbollah but not Israeli bombing of civilians and completely forget to mention the way the state of Israel was created in the first place" --SVTCobra 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok I drop it international 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)