Talk:Current events/Archive 9

Discussion from Current sports events

66.167.253.66 05:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC): See Talk:August 2004 in sports about adding an icon next to Olympics stories. Two broader questions are implied by that thread:

• are there situations where stories within the main chronological section of a current events page warrant some mark which relates them together?
• if so, is the technique of using a small right-justified icon to mark them a good implementation?

I contend there are occasions like the 2004 Summer Olympics where it seems appropriate to highlight a daily series of related items on an otherwise chronologically ordered page. I like that approach better than having two separate articles or separate chronological sections.

Another, less-ideal example of a place that could use the same technique is on the U.S. presidential election, 2004 page. One could mark Kerry items with a donkey, Bush items with an elephant, etc. to make it easy to find items about each candidate. It becomes less ideal if it renders an article cluttered with too many types and instances of icons.

Last time I checked, the Olympics was a newsmaking sports event. So, yes the newsmaking Olympic events should be included in Current sports news. "Antonio Hear Me Loud Babeeeeeeeeeee!!! Martin"

NYT

I just added a link to a New York Times story ([1]), which somehow doesn't seem to require subscription. Can others confirm this, is it a cookie thing? - pir 10:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to work fine, even in Lynx rejecting any cookies. Rafał Pocztarski 21:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The key is the last bit of the link: "&partner=NYTHEADLINES_INTL". This is a feature designed to let webloggers link to NYT articles; it tells the NYT web site not to check for membership. I don't know what other values are acceptable, but this one seems to work. Michael Z. 19:15, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Legal news?

How about a separate section for ongoing notable trials on the right? Like upcoming elections, ongoing events, add ongoing trials as a separate group? Then we could have things like the Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant and other such trials over there. It would separate them from other ongoing events, but still list them. Include relevant country as well, like we do for election news. --Golbez 19:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. Don't forget Michael Jackson trial and Saddam Hussein trial as well. Seems that at least these four different legal proceedings (in the U.S.) have significant news weekly if not daily. Jewbacca 20:39, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

No one's objected so I'll try it out. Major trials outside the US need to be included too, but I don't know any. :P --Golbez 16:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the section on elections is good, but there are "long-term" historical events (swift boat, RNC) associated with the campaign that can be considered to be significant in their own right. Because these subissues need a header, I reinstated presidential campaign as an ongoing issue.MPS 1445 29 Aug 04 (EDT)

Najaf

It seems that there has been news about "Najaf" in particular almost every day this week. At what point does "The conflict in Najaf" become a separate "Ongoing Events" category? On the other hand, just because it's in the headlines every day doesn't mean there aren't other Iraqi cities where significant conflict is going on... MPS1200 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Controversial Item

what do we do with news such as this (Reuters)? Current Events? 209.135.35.83 18:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We read it and laugh. And move on. :) Jewbacca 18:09, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Calendar on the top right

Is the calendar on the top right in Current events supposed to be clickable ? Ditto for August 2004. -- PFHLai 04:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

They are, but only for those days which have news stories. -- Arwel 11:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing happens when I click on any of the dates, including those in August. I might have typed in the wrong codes for Sep. 1st & 2nd. Or is my browser acting up ? -- PFHLai 08:49, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Just found out that it only works when I am not logged in. Rather odd and annoying... :-( -- PFHLai 04:34, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Iran uranium situation

Yes, it is all well and good that Iran can potentially create five nuclear weapons with the amount of yellowcake uranium converted to uranium hexofluoride. But does anybody know how much power they can generate on that same amount?

Who's attacking whom?

Often a political campaign in a democratic country will complain that an opposing campaign is "attacking" its candidate for office. The Wikipedia should not endorse these complaints but merely report them.

For example, the Kerry campaign began in March 2004 to label the Bush campaign was "an attack machine" and complained that their opponents were engaging in negative campaigning. They have consistently portrayed their opponents as (a) having no worthwhile proposals of their own and (b) concealing this via relentless unfair criticism of Kerry.

Rather than buying into the Kerry campaign's POV, our Wikipedia articles should report neutrally on their rhetoric:

• The Kerry campaign called Pataki's remarks "a venomous attack" (assuming it was the campaign that evaluated Pataki's remarks that way, and not just a Kerry supporter who happens to be a Wikipedian).

It should go without saying that this goes both ways, but I'll say it anyway: any attempts by the Bush campaign to label criticism of Bush as "attacks" should also be labeled in the same way.

• The Bush campaign called Kerry's remarks "a deliberate misreading of Bush's MSNBC interview" and blamed the Kerry campaign for inciting the terrorism at the Russian school (assuming the RNC actually said this)

Note that the bullet items above are hypothetical; I'm just using them as examples of the type of thing we have to do, to remain neutral. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • "Venomous attack" was used by the nice kerry people in relation to the Vice presidents RNC speech. It shouldn't have been used. Mea culpa. - 195.7.55.146

I disagree with the contention that "A attacked B" is inherently POV. A claim of political attacks may in some cases be disputed, but it is often perfectly clear that an attack was made. If it is clear, then the attack may be reported neutrally. If attack status is disputed, *then* it is only "B complained that A attacked B" that can be reported. The statements that are alleged to constitute an attack should, of course, be reported somewhere. I think perhaps those people who are stating that attack status is POV are interpreting "attack" as "unjustified attack"; justification is indeed POV. 195.167.169.36 15:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Beslan school siege

Two hopes:

• That this hectic bullet-upon-bullet reporting style doesn't become an acceptable normal style on Current Events.
• That in a couple of days, one of our Master Editors will condense this frantic narrative into three or four succinct phrases summarizing each day's events.

And a comment:

• A blow-by-blow timeline (with times given, as each development breaks, and links to the pertinent news stories) would be much more helpful on the actual article page (like we did for the 11 March attacks in Madrid).

Admittedly, it's a huge story. But I don't think we're handling it as well as we could. –Hajor 18:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I consolidated one of the days' events, only to be reverted scant minutes later, as it was "one of the most important things happening in the world right now", or something similar. *sigh*

James F. (talk) 00:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Pity. Try again in a couple of days' time? –Hajor 03:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And that someone will actually put the 'current events' page timeline in the right order --Cynical 19:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello Current Events people! (I seldom edit this). I think we need to categorize a lot of the events that happen during the year. I know that we already do this (Category:2004 in sports etc), but we are perhaps not doing it consequently. I've created the category Category:Conflicts in 2004 and I wonder what you think of this. I want Category:2004 to cover "What happened in 2004?". Without conflicts and stuff like that, it lacks major parts. Other missing things seem to be the US Presidential campaign, which I can't find from the 2004 category. Thus we might need Category:2004 in politics etc. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Iraq Occupation/Restoration

I really don't see the big difference. There are still just as many troops in Iraq as there was before. Iraq is just as unstable, if not more so. I don't see anything to tell me that "the occupation has ended" beyond one person saying so on television. -- The same person, mind you, who also said the war is over, when in fact the rate of causalities has not declined. -- The armed conflict is ongoing. I'm really not sure that these terms are legitimate. True, the American government uses them religiously, but I don't think that substantiates anything. Kevin Baas | talk 00:01, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Inflammatory

Saying that Israeli forces shote a girl while she was sitting in school is inflammatory and incomplete. Please retain an unbiased version to avoid the image (that popped into my head) of a soldier standing in the classroom firing at the child. - Tεxτurε 15:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The truth hurts, but failure to sugar-coat it should not be viewed as inflammatory. Nelson Ricardo 00:07, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think my change sugar coated but rather gave more information. I have no opinion on the latest entry. - Tεxτurε 17:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In both these instances, there were gun battles taking place between gunmen and Israeli troops. Both are armed with weapons firing 5.56mm rounds, some of which were received under the Oslo Accords. Some people have weapons firing 7.62mm as well. Nevertheless, the UN reports that it was an Israeli round which killed the two children. This is highly questionable. (See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/06/fallows.htm "Who shot Mohammed al-Dura" and the reports indicating that he was killed by Arabs, perhaps deliberately.) Let's keep it NPOV and not make assertions that are uncomfirmable. You may have seen the film of Arab gunmen shooting weapons by holding the weapon out and firing with no aim whatsoever. This behavior is common. I have seen it repeatedly. Lance6Wins 15:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You cannot believe either Side, both lie. Usually, when there is a gunfight both sides report it, The palestinians celebrating a martyr, the Israelis a successful operation. In this instance there is only there are two conflicting versions, so both should be given. Read here: [2]

Better yet, read this collection of materials regarding these two incidents. It shows clearly how differently the two incidents cited in the Guardian article are reported. Just today the Australian Prime Minister John Howard characterized the car bomb attack in Jakarta "This is not a nation that is going to be intimidated by acts of terrorism" [3]. Terrorism. Car bomb in Jakarta. In front of Australian Embassy....the same act carried out in Israel is rarely called terrorism by many people in the West. As Steve Goodman said, "it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles" [4] 209.135.35.83 18:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention the firing of Qassam rockets into towns and the mortar shelling of communities. Two acts of violence designed to target non-combatants specifically....virtually no one in the West calls these acts terrorism...unless someone in their own country/state/town/backyard is targeted. Lance6Wins 18:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that is refusing to mention that they are firing on people who have stolen their homes, State sanctioned criminals under international law. And if the Australian embassy was blown up by a suicide bomber inside Israel it would of course be referred to as Terrorism! What utter folly!

This is a discussion about a specific episode. What all this argument about others countries perception of terrorism in Israel has to do with it? Enlarging the focus without a reason is not going to bring any benefit. --Balubino 01:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

deletion of 1-7 Sep 04

Who deleted the current events from 1 to 7 Sep? Shouldn't there be a link that directs the reader to these older stories? 13:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've reinstated them. It looks like User:The King Of Gondor pressed "Save page" twice in quick succession and the page got accidentally truncated. It happens sometimes, no big deal as it's easily fixed. -- Arwel 14:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Really, I am. -- The King Of Gondor 18:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North Korean mushroom cloud

I just wanted to point out the increasing usefulness of this page. I saw a reference to the North Korean mushroom cloud here, with links to appropriate background information, hours before I could find so much as a single article anywhere else on the web. Even now, there are links to more background information than any "real" news source could boast, and the North Korean explosion tidbit has been superseded by a Saudi electoral tidbit which is now not being reported anywhere mainstream, while Wikipedia already has a report and links to useful background information... Just wanted to make a note of this. Tuf-Kat 07:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ain't it cool? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Current Event or a VfD candidate?

I've never been involved with this page before, so I'm not quite sure exactly what qualifies as a current event. I looked over the archives but couldn't make a call on this one, so I thought I should bring it to the attention of the regulars here. Is a bill not yet approved a current event? If not, should it be sent to VfD as What Wikipedia entries are not #16 A news report? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RSS feed

What will it take to have a web feed for the current events page or for the wikipedia home page?

Lot of people use RSS to stay updated with the latest news. The latest version of Firefox has enhanced support for syndication! Sridev 20:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sports policy?

I realize there is a Current sports events page, but not everyone is a sport nut and would be going there. Does anything qualify as important enough a sports event to be listed on main Current Events?

e.g., the 2004 World Cup of Hockey final is Ice Hockey's biggest story of the year, excepting perhaps the Stanley Cup final. Is two lines on CE too much?

Radagast 03:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that some sports events deserve to be listed here, and so do some others, but generally speaking they tend to be removed with the comment "Don't you know that current sports events exists?" or similar. Opponents argue that the current events page would be "flooded" with sports events if we even so much as whisper the word "golf major". Positions are entrenched, so I've given up trying to argue the case. -- Avaragado 11:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I was overzealous in removing the World Cup story. For my part, I'll try to be more selective in the future. - Mateo SA 14:54, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bias favoring rebel POV in Iraq

Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories slants the coverage even more in favor of the rebels than those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop.

Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction.

Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides.

The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.

The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.

News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wantonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that the US is wrong. Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument.

If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is more than one group of rebels, and more than one Viewpoint. Don't forget there are those who ant to stoke up a civil war, and those who want a union of three states who are actively fighting each other as well as anti-US and Collaberating Iraqi activists.

If the U.S kills dozens of civilians, the U.S kills dozens of civilians. Suggesting otherwise is maintaining a US POV. As it is, The cities of Fallujah, to name one, is not under U.S occupation. If local Doctors say they are treating Civilians their position is more believable because they are actually there. The U.S is not there, so for them to say absolutely that no Civilians were killed suggests they are in control of a God-Like omnipresence.

too much analysis

Entries in this Current Events page are becoming too cumbersome. Please leave out detailed analysis - such analysis should appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Please limit your entries to one or two sentences. Kingturtle 04:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I started chopping the Nader story down and people went and added stuff back (it's been really trimmed now). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made this suggestion on the Talk page of User:Mateo SA, and User:Kevin baas replied on that page that such a belief does not represent Wikipedia consensus. OK, let's discuss that here, then. What is the consensus of the community concerning the use of the Current events page? My understanding was that it was a place to add maybe two or three sentences, which linked to Wikipedia articles in which more information could be included (where appropriate), and an off-site link to a news article with all the details. On the article about the mother of the dead soldier from Iraq being arrested for her protest at a Laura Bush rally, do we really need two extra sentences in which a third person, not directly involved in the dispute, talks about how she's trained to deal with protesters? I think the use of excessive prose on Current events is an attempt at an end-around to include POV. RickK 18:22, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I've been misrepresented by RickK: I said they do not necessarily represent the consensus. Now that that correction is out of the way... I think that we should not have more than a brief paragraph. We should write just enough to give the reader an accurate and neutral view. The amount of text necessary to do this varies depending on the complexity and intensity of the issue, but I don't think we would ever need more than a brief paragraph. For example, in the Laura Bush rally issue cited above by RickK, we do need the fact that she bought a ticket. The first impression is important, it's quintessential that it be neutral and contain information that is critical. Kevin Baas | talk 18:33, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Why is the fact that the lady bought the ticket worth including in our article, when it can be found in the article that's linked to? Please note: My politics has nothing to do with my concerns about this article. And others. RickK 19:25, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

As formerly mentioned: first impression. Without it being mentioned, people will form the opinion (prejudice) that she was trespassing; that she did not buy a ticket. With it being mentioned, people will know that she did buy a ticket and therefore was not trespassing, and furthermore that she was wrongfully arrested. That's a pretty big difference. That's what I meant when I said "information that is critical". Kevin Baas | talk 19:35, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of having a Current Events section is to provide a convenient set of links to topics and persons in the news, in order for users to gain background and context to the news. Note that this is not the same as trying to report or analyze the news itself. We have looked silly in the past trying to report "breaking news" on the main page (for example back in April and the Ryongchon disaster); professional news sources (of which there are many on the web) utilize extensive fact-checking, vetting, and weasel words when reporting on breaking events, for good reason. The collaborative approach that works well for reference material is simply unsuitable for news reporting, IMO. Given this, I'd prefer to see the Current Events section be as unadorned a list of links as possible. Jgm 18:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this; simply say what happened, with as many internal links and a few external links (but for pete's sake, one or two is sufficient - at one point the Nader story had five links!). No extra details that should go in an article, and no minor news stories like that rally one. Sorry, but I don't really see why it was no CE to begin with. --Golbez 21:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez's above statement. Kevin Baas | talk 00:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Regarding external links, would it be worth just linking to a Google News search on the topic? That way the use gets a range of articles, constantly updated, and from different POV. -- Chuq 01:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be two or three new sources (one is too susceptible to POV and incompleteness, four is too many), and then a google search link sounds like a good idea. But I don't thing the link should replace the direct news links. Kevin Baas | talk 13:51, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Please label POV

Kevin wrote above (about Laura Bush & the female heckler):

...people will know that she did buy a ticket and therefore was not trespassing, and furthermore that she was wrongfully arrested.

If it was your purpose to let people know that she was wrongfully arrested, then by definition you were including a point of view in your news capsule. This is not wrong in itself, provided it's clear that it's your POV and not the official view of the Wikipedia.

But generally we Wikipedians do not assert our own points of view when writing neutral articles. We quote another, more prominent source -- and often even quote a contradictory source if it's an important controversy.

Some questions this news story raises include:

• How much right does a protester have to interrupt someone else's public speech?
  • Does the price of admission give each audience member an unlimited right to "share" their opinion, at events whose organizers do not request audience participation?
• Do liberal hecklers have 'more rights' to interrupt or even shout down a conservative speaker than anti-liberal hecklers?
• Is removing a heckler -- no matter how gently she is "guided out of the area" -- ALWAYS constitute police brutality?

Forget for a moment what MY opinion on any of these questions is. Let's consider how WE as Wikipedians writing about current events should deal with these questions.

I would suggest, for example, text like:

• A female heckler was arrested for "trespassing"; civil rights group XYZ called it a "wrongful arrest"; or,
• Professor Jeffrey S. Peech of Yale Law School observed that most cases of defiant trespass are dismissed and added that he thinks the law has been abused to favor the rich and powerful to suppress the free speech rights of the weak and underprivileged.

Can we agree on something like this? --Uncle Ed 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the line about her being charged should be left out. Kevin seems to have included the information he did to counter-act the implication of stating that she was charged, in an attempt at NPOV. The simplest thing to do is to leave out the second line, which is POV, and just say:

U.S. presidential election: At a campaign stop in Hamilton, New Jersey, Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq in February, is arrested after disrupting a speech by First Lady Laura Bush. (CNN.com) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/17/bush.protester/index.html) (CBS News) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/politics/main644005.shtml)

195.92.67.71 13:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the law is not POV. If a republican heckler got arrested at a democratic campaign for heckling (which they have done a lot this year, without any democrats attempting to violate their civil rights), the republicans would cry bloody murder. They would be as adamant about that being wrong as some people are about it being okay if democrats are arrested for heckling republicans. Last I checked, we were all americans. The law is not POV, although some people's application of it may be biased/hypocritical.

If we're going to include anything more than a link to an article, we should have a description of the subject of the article. In this case, the article is not about trespassing or any criminal activity for that matter - we should tell them what the article is really about. I'm sure a lot of people all around the world actually did trespass that day, but there isn't an article about each one of them. Why is this particular event, where a person did not trespass, so significant?

I think Ed Poor's two listed options are fine, but the facts should be specific to the case. In this case, the fact that she bought a ticket is specific to this case, and clearly shows that she should not have been arrested. Also "civil rights groups called it..." and "Professor Jeffrey..." introduce POV or insinuation, respectively. We should, instead, be precise, objective, and specific to the case. Something like "the case against her was dismissed" would be more fitting.

Now let me answer the questions:

• How much right does a protester have to interrupt someone else's public speech?

  EVERY right, legally speaking.

  • Does the price of admission give each audience member an unlimited right to "share" their opinion, at events whose organizers do not request audience participation?

    The price of admission gives each audience member a right to be admitted.

• Do liberal hecklers have 'more rights' to interrupt or even shout down a conservative speaker than anti-liberal hecklers?

  No.

• Is removing a heckler -- no matter how gently she is "guided out of the area" -- ALWAYS constitute police brutality?

  No. No one has alleged brutality. You are the first person to mention it. Arresting someone who has committed no crime constitutes police injustice, which is worse than a crime by a civilian because it is a crime done by the very institution that is supposed to prevent crime.

Kevin Baas | talk 14:26, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Oh, and FWIW, I would like to make a correction to the anon's post: I did not make any edits to the paragraph on the civil rights violation. (the para that is the topic of this thread) Kevin Baas | talk 14:32, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Political Debates

Is it really good to have the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the USA listed as an ongoing event? Of course it is taking place right now and it's a hot topic in the USA, but if this stays in, basically every important political debate of every nation can be added, not? Unlike for example the U.S. presidential election this debate will have zero influence outside of the USA.

Anti-Israeli bias

The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:

Two Palestinians are killed by Israeli troops returning fire after an Israeli soldier was killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. The troops have been engaged in that part of the northern Gaza Strip since yesterday, September 29.

1. It downplays the killing of the Israeli soldier
2. It does not clarify whether the "Palestinians" who were killed, were armed (although "returned fire" implies this)
3. It seems designed to give the impression that Israel is conducting a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter.

If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include a comment attributed to that source, like:

• "This is another example of Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of freedom-loving Palestinians. Those hypocrites say they love democracy, but they don't even respect elementary human rights," said Mustapha al Fahda, leader of the Alliance for Palestinian Democracy.

I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired the first shot, like this:

• An Israeli soldier is killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops returned fire, killing two Palestinians.

Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try hard to avoid letting bias creep in. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you are returning Fire, it surely means the fire was Coming in both directions. Ireally don't see how it downplays the death of the soldier, perhaps you can further Ellaborate, and it most certainly does not give any impression of Wholescale slaughter. TWO. Not two hundred, not two million.. TWO. How on earth could anyone come to the conclusion that was " a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter."?

The Palestinians did not shoot first. The observation post was in the Northern Gaza Strip. how do you think it got there? Did they magicly appear? Get real!

Are you saying the story is okay because "returned fire" clearly says that the Israeli observation post was attacked first? Or are you saying that the story is okay because it (correctly) gives the impression that the observation post fired the first shot?

Or are you really saying that you want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that Israel is an "aggressor", so that every attack by Palestinian Arabs on Israel soldiers is a "response" (i.e., justified in self-defense) while every atttack by Israli soldiers on Palestinian Arabs (armed or unarmed) is "bad"?

If so, please recall that NPOV forbids the Wikipedia to endorse or reject any controversial view. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)