Talk:Israel begins ground assault on Gaza Strip

You wikinewseditors as a collective and some of you in particular are useless.
How the hell can you let a shitty article like this be publiched? It is better to go to IDF:s own pressreleases and read about it. Editors of this article should be permanent banned just to clean up the mess of bad journalism. What a shame. Wouldnt have anything with wikinews to do for anything. international (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go back to the same box as Waldorf and Statler, they contribute more. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This puppetshow seems to prefer israelfriendly reporting over good one. Whouldnt set up a "box" at this bad show. You liek israel Brian McNeil? let me give you a prop Use it well.  international (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to want an anti-Israel bias, something we won't add in. I am opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza, but nonetheless will not let that stop me and others ensuring neutral reporting. We can't make allegations in articles. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Im out of words. Look at the article, that you btw have reviewed. It is only israelis that is quoted, israelis point of view. (have you heard of wath that make an acronym?). There is obviously a totaly comunity supported israelibais and hopfully wikinewsies are blind to it. Wether its on purpose by a few... Either its major clusterfuck and FAIL. My bias is certainatly not on the israeli side but this article, a first lead one, is pure israeli asslicking. And thats what editors and defender of it do, knowingly or not. Wikinews has FAILED international (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My, my, my! Someone turned over a rock. Just so others know I remember you. A friend of Neutralizer and similarly zealous Anti-American and Anti-Israeli POV pusher. Piss off or offer constructive criticism. Sniping is a terrorist activity. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case your described povpushingtendency would be really healthy. Sorry for you and others who pretend to be journalists cant recognise US/Israeli bias in this article if so tattooed into your forhead. international (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As per usual you avoid the challenge. Where is your specific constructive criticism? What credible source would balance this article? And why/how? That's right, you don't have an answer for that. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was written within half an hour of the invasion. Hamas had better things to do than say 'We're being invaded', but Israel had stuff ready to say. There is nothing else as nothing else had been said. Now, give up or get banned permanently. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to teach you two journalism. Just fucking readingskill. You didnt even read what i wrote a few lines up. "It is only israelis that is quoted, israelis point of view"

There have been shouting between israel and hamas for a week and hamas have said things that easy would fit the article like: Hamas said earlier... (in direct quotation).


 * "Reports state that Israeli forces are engaging in gun battles with Hamas troops as they enter the city. Hamas had warned Israel that any invasion would be fought in a violent battle, which Israel states could take several days before the military operation is completed."

This is weasly made. The 'notquote' is put in a context with followup by israeli statements.


 * "The military does not want civilians to be harmed during the assault, earlier dropping leaflets from the sky warning residents to leave the area immediately."

Leave where? anyone have a idea where? Maby it should be ment. Just hint that a good journalist should have a clue that palestineans are not winged and gaza is like a ghetto (ref int. for thoughtprovocation)


 * "Those who use civilians, the elderly, women and children as 'human shields' are responsible for any and all injury to the civilian population. Anyone who hides a terrorist or weapons in his house is considered a terrorist," added the statement.

So have this shit in the article is what? Like civilians can do anything about it when they are trapped inside gaza by the israelis! Why not write it in the article then. No, it make IDF happy to understand it have its boys/girls in Wikinews.

Congratulations, you missed that: Article sucks, is POV and IDFpropagandish. Article made the small statement traceble to hamas in a sentense ended with israeli coment/promise. Articlewriters have no clue/dont inform themself. Write articles about subject they obviously dont know a shit about. Futher conclusion is as Wikinews is its reporters: Wikinews is broken beyond repair sinse long time. international (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'tard, can't even provide a source, let alone read an article with a cynical enough eye to read between the lines. I see something where you can read, "Don't worry 'civilians', we'll only shoot you if a member of your elected government uses you as a human shield." Sometimes quoting an aggressor's words is the most effective way to condemn them. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all "'tard'"s out there is as cynical as you are. Wonder if it a good jounalistic trait to obscure articles? Anything more you demand a reader to do, exept spending more time to find sources than the writers? (there was so much news written about the conflict so your question for a single source for a hamas statement during the bombings before the groundattack make me wonder about you, your sincerity.) Anyhow, I took time to specify my critic and it fall of you like water on a duck. You Brianmc is, together with a few more, very much wikinews. More than others by time here and effort put in. One can say you personify the fail of Wikinews then. Well not realy alone. Dragonfire wrote most of this article and he is quite an old Wikinewspersonality. Unfortunatly this is crap from a journalistic view. So a last time. Any of my critic of the article that penetrait your stubborn point of view Brianmc (or other involved)? international (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I worte this as BREAKING NEWS. I could not find, AT THE TIME, a Hamas response. It seems that MSM is more biased if they cannot even print a sentence response in their articles. Can you find a legit Hamas response from a legit news source? Then add it. Don't come here and bad mouth me or anyone else. You have an account, do something about it. Don't disappear for god knows how long then come here and run your mouth like you are some god. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I sometimes read some articles here, some very good ones. But everytime it ends by some article thats bad and povish, specially the articles about conflicts usa or israel is involved in, and i remember why i gave up editing here. Though somtimes articles make me really angry, like this first lead one. And tonight I had time to waste trying someting I already regret. Cant change you, guys. With mouth of god or not, haha. international (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, already in th list of sources are enough material to make it right. But now is it to late. just bring it of the firstlead. international (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So write another article about the Hamas response. There is ALWAYS room for more articles. Its never too late to expand on a current event. There is no need to have your attitude that could easily be resolved with writing a few words or paragraphs in a new article, or when this was breaking news. I am not surprised by the response everyone gave you international. We do what we can with what we got. Since you yourself say this is a collaborative site, then collaborate. Do something about it. Fix it. But don't degrade everyone because you might hold a POV of your own on a subject. Just because we may or may not agree with what is happening, does not mean a good article cannot come out of a discussion, not an argument. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should edit this article yourself for breaking the neutrality rules if you will report as independent news journalist. You report the article as a first party just like you are President of Israel or Israel Military Commander. Without a proper edit for wording this article is a humiliation to wikinews' neutrality. It stays in the Wikipedia Main Page as the First News. That is why I came here and read and try to edit this mess you called breaking the news in the first place. Even the summary is not neutral "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area." after Palestinians have over a hundreds civillian casualties. The attack is not only against Hamas when you use cluster bombs over a city. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Gaza Strike Neutrality
"Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area." IDF allegedly claims the strikes are only against Hamas, yet over a hundred civillians are dead including children. IDF strikes with cluster bombs which leads heavy civillian casualties especially when used over a small city where civillians live crowdedly like Gaza. Cluster bombs does not pinpoint any particular target but an area. The bomb explodes into shrapnels and destroys a certain diameter. IDF Strikes targets Hamas, that is true, yet it is not obvious the target is only limited to Hamas gunmen. Another case might be more neutral. Saying airstrikes are [only] against Hamas, might lead to covering the heavy number of civillian deaths by IDF.

"Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes on Gaza, trading heavy fire with Hamas gunmen in the area." Israeli troops trade heavy fire with Hamas gunmen in Northern Gaza Haaretz Example

I will seriously edit this article by neutralizing.

"The military does not want civilians to be harmed during the assault, earlier dropping leaflets from the sky warning residents to leave the area immediately."

This is just a claim, you cannot present IDF claims like they are facts. Even mentioning IDF as "the military" not neutral, "the military" is US Army for an American citizen, and IDF for an Israeli citizen. Kasaalan (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My edited version


 * The Israeli military has confirmed that their troops have began a ground assault on the Gaza Strip. The assault also includes tanks and more air assaults, according to a statement issued by the Israeli government. For several days, the Israeli military had been massing over 10,000 troops and equipment along the Israel-Gaza border, in what was believed to be a preparation for a ground invasion.


 * "A short while ago IDF forces began to implement the second stage of Operation Cast Lead. Land forces have begun to maneuver within the Gaza Strip. The objective of this stage is to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of the Hamas in the area of operation, while taking control of some of rocket launching area used by the Hamas, in order to greatly reduce the quantity of rockets fired at Israel and Israeli civilians," claimed a spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a written statement. The Israeli military began a massive air assault on Gaza [] several days before troops entered the Strip. Many Hamas forces and government officials has been targeted, yet the operation also resulted in high civillian casualties of Palestinians.


 * Reports state that Israeli forces are engaging in heavy gun battles with Hamas troops as they enter the city. Hamas had warned Israel that any invasion would be fought in a violent battle, which Israel states could take several days before the military operation is completed.


 * Israeli government and Israeli Army claimed, they do not want civilians to be harmed during the assault, earlier dropping leaflets signed by the commander of the Israeli military, saying in Arabic they are "obliged to respond quickly and work from inside your residential area" because of "the activity of terrorist groups", from the sky warning residents to evacuate their homes. Yet Palestinians claimed "they had nowhere else to go and would stay in their homes."


 * "Those who use civilians, the elderly, women and children as 'human shields' are responsible for any and all injury to the civilian population. Anyone who hides a terrorist or weapons in his house is considered a terrorist" Israeli army declared.

News is no joke, if you will make 1 sided news like this, you can never be an independent journalist. This article still needs heavy editing adding casualties with Hamas, Palestinian and third party quotes. The article is not neutral at all by the first version, it has no difference from official IDF statements. Kasaalan (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kasaalan, I disagree with your proposed edit. Results and responses go in a new article, as they weren't available at the time the news was published (a few hours after the ground assault began.)  See Breaking news for our approach to this.


 * Also your edit missed the most egregious non-neutrality: the IDF statement said that civilians are not its target (and qualified that statement), but the wording of the article appeared (to me and some other contributors) to go much further by saying it did not want civilians harmed. Although it is very late to make any changes to a published article, I attempted to address this with an edit. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You say this is just breaking the news but the article still stays as News Article Number 1 in Wikipedia Main Page. "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area." Against Hamas is just another claim.


 * Israeli Troops Launch Attack on Gaza Published: January 3, 2009. And I can find more and more example if you like. This is really breaking any independent news rule I am aware of and neutrality statements of wikipedia. If it couldn't be edited in the breaking news hours, it could have been edited later in a more appropriate way.


 * All should mark this article as poor for neutrality, just as any other standard except layout.


 * Also anyone who you approves this article as neutral, and let it published without an edit, should better quit even e-journalism immediately, or research more on Israeli-Palestinian conflict history and for latest Gaza Strike in particular. This article only contains IDF statements, and it even reports them as solid facts and publishes them as first party.


 * Statements and declarations, whether written or spoken, are also claims, you report them as claim generally especially for disputed cases. Using the claim is not non-neutral at all, using it as "allegedly claim" is. Anyway reporting a statement as "does not want", like a first party, is like a joke for a news article.


 * The article contains many mistakes. It says IDF dropped leaflets saying leave your homes, alright but they have blockade for entrance and exit to the area, anyway, also they won't let people to return to their homes if they leave the area once. Israeli statements are generally only for Public Relations. Kasaalan (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a glitch with the sighted revisions system. When logged in I see "The military does not want civilians to be harmed during the assault" though my latest sighted edit (visible when not logged in) replaced this with "The IDF said that civilians are not its target,"

Have I misunderstood the way sighted revisions work?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I purged the page: surprisingly (to me) that fixed it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you said: ''Wikipedia Main Page. "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area." Against Hamas is just another claim.

I think you are talking about the English Wikipedia (as I don't think that phrase appeared on this site.) You could take that up with wikipedians, for example at w:Template talk:In the news.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That wikipedia refers to this article somehow but thanks for the link, I will also object there. "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area. And the sentence there is not neutral, but I try not to use "allegedly against" phrase as it might be unsuitable, do you have any suggestions for the wording. Also good work, at least now the article passes criterias other than neutrality, article is still one sided, yet it is in publishable shape. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes against Hamas in the area."


 * "Israeli ground forces enter Gaza after a week of airstrikes on Gaza, claims targetting Hamas, in the area. 6 Israeli soldier and 631 Palestinians are dead, over 300 civillians of at least 130 are children, 2700 wounded."


 * Can anyone suggest a better wording for above summary.


 * Source : GAZA MAP INDEPENDENT
 * Source : Israel ground war drives up civilian casualties By KARIN LAUB JERUSALEM (AP) 1 hour ago


 * Over 300 civillians are dead by now and over 130 of them are children. IDF uses Phosphorus Bombs over such a crowded and small city like Gaza, Bombing even Schools and Hospitals. Kasaalan (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made my proposal, to simply delete "against Hamas" from the headline, at w:Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. However a Wikipedia admin thinks that the headline satisfies Wikipedia policy: w:WP:ERRORS (though I think such a headline would be unpopular here at Wikinews.)  Different wikis have different ways of doing things.   --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks on your great help for wikinews neutrality on behalf of journalism. Kasaalan (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)