Talk:Sunday Times says Israel is planning nuclear strike against Iran

Bias qualm
Let's make this quick, effective, and painless. My concern is that the article does not allow room for Israel to defend its threats. Thoughts? ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be added to explain Israel's fear of Iranian nukes and the threats Iran has made against Israel recently, but I don't think it is particularly biased right now. Just short on context and background info.
 * And a lack of context can cause neutrality problems. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran denies having nuclear weapons. Any "threats" made by Iran are not relevant to the matter at hand unless cited by sources. PVJ(Talk)(Newpages) 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well people don't always tell the truth. supposedly Isreal doesn't have nuclear weapons either. Iran has made threats against them, and although they don't say that they are going to develop nukes, Isreal thinks they're doing something and I would assume they think that they are secretly trying to develop nukes. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, I feel Iran is getting the shaft here. ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not really think this article is biased. Lack of background: possibly. But then: much of our background knowledge is based on news reports whose neutrality many people will ferociously (?) dispute. Adding background in such a case is quite a task, because it is almost impossible to do it in a way that does not provoke accusations of bias from one side or the other. Anyway, very hot topic and hopefully this article will develop nicely. Cheers- Hunter 08:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio qualm
text is too close to the source for comfort. &mdash; Doldrums(talk) 06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is mentioned enough to be fair, I think.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sensationalist
Aren't we blowing this article out of proportion a bit? Major news agencies may take to sensationalism in order to gain an audience, but I don't see why we should resort to those measures here at Wikinews. To me, the headline on this is the biggest problem with minor revisions needed in the article itself. "Isreal planning a nuclear strike on Iran" makes it sound like Isreal is prepping SRBMs at this very moment. It might be better if the headline read something in the neighborhood of "Isreal announces plans for strike on Iranian nuclear facillities." Also, seeing as the nuclear option is pretty much a "if isreal is forced to" issue, it might be better to make the nuclear option less of a major influence on the article. --Cousarr 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the current title. It makes it seem like Israel does have these plans while the article doesn't support this (Israel denies the newspapers clams). I've changed announced with Accused since the latter is more accurate. --Shaoken 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my first trip to Wikinews in the past few weeks. I'm a bit depressed that this is the first thing I see. The headline on the main page is ridiculous. A reader would get the idea that Israel was planning a nuclear attack on Iran in the very very near future. 164.107.252.198 07:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please change the main page? And the image really helps the article. Great job to whoever put it up.--Shaoken 11:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Accused" would be POV, since that would imply that what the Israelis are planning is wrong or illegal. PVJ(Talk)(Newpages) 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its clearly sensationalist, but that isn't itself a reason for objection, since sensationalist means "local exceses", not a global problem. People who care about it just need to take an interest & clean up the individual excesses. But one clearly needs to change the title from "Report says ..." to "The Sunday Times says ..." NGOs, think tanks, and governments issues "reports", while many people don't respect these sources, those often people are diffrent from the people who don't respect the Sunday Times. 134.157.12.17 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)