• edit
• history
• watch

• At least fourteen people die after a minibus hits a roadside bomb in Afghanistan's Herat province. (Voice of America)
• Turkey launches an air strike on PKK positions in northern Iraq. (AP via Google News)
• Southern Israel attacks
  • Eight people are killed and dozens are injured in southern Israel near the Egyptian border, after a string of terrorist attacks on a highway targeting two civilian buses and cars as well a military bus responding to the attacks. (Ynetnews) (New York Times)
  • In retaliation, Israel launches an air raid on the town of Rafah killing five Palestinians terrorists from the Popular Resistance Committee according to officials in Gaza. (The Guardian), (AFP via Sydney Morning Herald) (New York Times)

• South Korean banks temporarily stop making household loans to stop the growth of household debt. (Yonhap)
• August 2011 stock markets fall
  • The DAX, CAC 40, Nasdaq drop over 5%, the FTSE 100 index by 4.5%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 3.7%. (BBC), (New York Times)
  • Gold hits a high of US$1,826 an ounce. (BBC)

• More than 60,000 people are homeless after flooding in the southern Pakistani province of Sindh. (Pakistan)
• An Australian Broadcasting Corporation helicopter goes missing near Lake Eyre in outback South Australia with journalist Paul Lockyer, pilot Gary Ticehurst and cameraman John Bean feared dead. (AAP via Melbourne Herald Sun)
• Five people die on the first day of the Belgian Pukkelpop festival when a hurricane hits the festival field. The rest of the festival is cancelled.

• A rabbi in the U.S. state of New Jersey has been indicted for alleged sex crimes against two 13-year-old Israeli boys who were visiting the rabbi through a scholarship fund. The two boys had reported the abuse separately following their return. (Jerusalem Post)
• Seven people are killed and 17 injured after a fight in a western Venezuelan prison in the town of Cabimas. (AP via Google News)
• The BBC airs a special edition of its Crimewatch programme aimed at identifying people involved in the 2011 England riots. (The Telegraph) (The Guardian)

• Roch Wamytan is elected President of the Congress of New Caledonia by the Congress of New Caledonia with 32 votes. (RNZI)

HP buys Autonomy

• Support, Autonomy is the largest software company in UK such a large takeover deal does not occur everyday (even though it seems like it). YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is quite significant, as it is part of HP's strategy to move away from PC-based hardware to tablet technology. We may be seeing the end of the PC era. JimSukwutput 13:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Haha, no, the PC era is still in full-force and will continue to progress. Tablets are no competition whatsoever. Not yet, at least. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: looks like a big deal, but I note that it only appears on my regional TV news coverage (I am in the same TV region as Autonomy's Cambridge HQ), not on national news. But if it is posted, surely the £ price is more relevant: the company is listed on the London Stock Exchange. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

HP is an American company so why not use Dollars? Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Because HP is not being bought: a company listed in a UK stock market, where prices are in UK currency, is. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The big news here is that HP decided to drop the PC business, the tablet business, the handhelds, the Palm, and WebOS, the later two they bought just 2 years ago. The Autonomy acquisition announcement is only intended to sweeten the news about the total disaster in the personal devices business. Crnorizec (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

... resulting in an equally disastrous drop of their share price of almost 30% in two days... Crnorizec (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Autonomy is probably the most notable British IT company. And probably the most notable non US one other than SAP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you mad? (term of endearment not NPA) Lenovo, Wipro, Infosys, TCS, and im sure countless others.Lihaas (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And there is ARM too. Quite a few of them are hardware, but I take the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ok this seems ready. The question is which monetary unit. Since the target article is a UK company, it make sense that pounds are used, right? RxS (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd agree with pounds. I don't think there are any relevant policies for this, but Kevin McE's reasoning for using pounds is pretty solid. JimSukwutput 04:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The deal doesn't seem to be over yet, according to many sources: Crnorizec (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Crnorizec. The amount is decent, the companies as well, but the deal is not officially concluded yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack in Israel

• Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)

• Propose new blurb: "In Southern Israel, a series of coordinated attacks by militants killed eight Israelis and wounded more than 40." Doesn't mention Palestinians as suggested by other editors. Wikifan 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - not a major attack; Syria crisis is much bigger, so is the Anna Hazara-issue. Polozooza (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose ditto. Attacks with more casualties happens every other day. JimSukwutput 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • terrorist attack does not happen every day.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • sure - but there are bigger ones happening all the time. The attacks in Turkey from the PKK are not on the Main Page either, nor are the Israeli counter attacks in Gaza in which five Palestinians where killed. The attack(s) simply are not major enough. To include these and not others reaks like POV-pushing. Polozooza (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing? Please explain. Attacks happen all the time, but none on this scale. There is an on-going war between Turkey and the Kurds but this attack occurred independent of an actual war, rather - a minority within the Palestinian Authority launched an attack on Israeli civilians in a pre-meditated manner. More similar to the attacks in Europe or USA (which are always featured in the main page, including bomb plots.). This was not an ordinary fire-fights between soldiers and militants. So your comparison is dubious at best. Wikifan 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a minority within the PA launched the attack. Your insistence on this particular unproven claim, and the article's lack of reliable sources, are probably what Polozooza refers to as POV-pushing (in addition to the fact that this is a much smaller incident compared to, say, the roadside bomb in Afghanistan that killed 24 civilians yesterday). JimSukwutput 05:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm switching my vote to Strong Oppose in light of Wikifan's relentless POV-pushing, both in this nomination and in the article. This nomination probably wouldn't have passed anyway, and it certainly shouldn't pass now that it has been used as a political platform for some user in open violation of Misplaced Pages standards on reliability and neutrality. JimSukwutput 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What standards? What policies? Please be exact in your accusations. Relentless POV-pushing? That is a mouthful. Ever heard of No Personal Attacks?

• Comment: BBC and other sources are reporting that Israel has begun fighting back with airstrikes in Gaza. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - series of attacks in Israel followed by retaliatory airstrikes on Gaza, I'd say this incident is of wide interest. Propose the updated blurb:

Israel performs air strikes in the Gaza Strip, following an earlier series of attacks in southern Israel. The death toll itself isn't really significant but I'd say the event is. Swarm 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What makes this any different from any other similar story in that part of the world out of probably hundreds over the past 20 years? HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Because its a widespread coordinated attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Reasons for oppose are absurd. This incident is unique because it is one of the first major attacks carried out directly from the Gaza Strip into Israel. The coordination between the Palestinian movements was unlike any other seen in the last several years. The death toll is totally irrelevant and quite honestly rather offensive editors would cite that as a reason for dismal. The idea that more dead bodies = more relevance is absurd. The notability is what counts, and this event is receiving huge recognition - including from the United Nations. This is definitely more notable than the winner of a Golf Tour which is on the main page. Get on this quickly admins. I would change the blurb though, something like "A series of coordinated attacks by Palestinian militants killed seven Israelis and wounded more than 30 in southern Israel." Wikifan 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources are saying that the militants were Palestinian, as opposed to, say, Egyptian? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an RS from the article. Editors shouldn't comment here until they read the actual wikipedia article. Wikifan 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And which part of the news article supports the claim? All I see is that the Israeli government thinks the attackers were Palestinian. I'm sorry but we don't parrot the views of the Israeli government as reliable around here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said, read the article.

• Among those killed was the chief of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), Kamal al-Nairab. The five others that were killed were also members of the terrorist faction.
• At that point, one terrorist detonated his suicide vest near the bus and the other two terrorists opened fire on security forces arriving on the scene. Two other terrorists on the Egyptian side of the border also opened fire. Russo said that Egyptian security forces shot and struck two terrorist on their side of the border.

As an admin you should understand the importance of assuming good faith and not infer editors who cite verifiable sources as "parroting the views of the israeli government." Israeli army engaged in an open fire fight with Palestinian militants. Israel is just as reliable as NATO/USA/Canada and reliable sources routinely accept their claims as evidence. And in any case the blurb does not mention Palestinians. Wikifan 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested blurb reads "Palestinian militants". No reliable sources appear to me to be reporting as such. If we move outside Israeli borders, everyone, even Fox News, seems to be steering well clear of attributing responsibility, as they (and we) should in the case of a serious crime. You, on the other hand, are reporting the views of Israeli government sources as fact. Until those views are accepted by independent sources as correct, it is improper to report them as fact. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is an RS. I'm merely citing the journalism done by reliable sources. You are suggesting there is an absence of evidence when the burden of proof is well defined. If it suits you the blurb could be changed to "gunman" or "militants.

Substitute "all" for "none" and you've got in one. BBC, AFP, LA Times, FOX News -- none are putting their hands up and attributing the attacks to Palestinians. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no on-going dispute over who perpetrator this attack. No sources suggest anyone other than Palestinians committed these acts. Israel’s response to the terror attacks from the Sinai Peninsula came swiftly Thursday evening when the Israel Air Force bombed the southern Gaza Strip, killing the leadership of the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), who had orchestrated the attacks. this complaint is thus trivial. Wikifan 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the Jerusalem Post doesn't take precedence over unanimous reliable international sources when it comes to the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for what? the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Those "international sources" you cite do not support your claims that there is some conflict about who committed these acts. Most of these organizations rely on general newswires anyway and "parrot" other news organization. The problem with these "international sources" is they are slow to pick up information while Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (both RSs) are more likely to update news as it arrives. And like I said before, the blurb doesn't have to say "Palestinian." If this act was not committed by Palestinians as you infer it would make it even more notable. Right now we are arguing from a lightening rod. Editors who have entered "oppose" failed to provide proof to support their opposition other than their own opinions. Wikifan 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, I still can't get out of my head the view that this is just another of many conflicts based on Israel's artificial borders. That some simply say it is important just suggests to me that they have a particular interest in this area, thus making it POV. How about you look down the page to something you have no interest in, like the NZ storms, and give it some thought, rather than just concentrating on your favourite country and only pushing item for that area? HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No reason not to post both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your above comment. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The notability of this event is well established. Accusing editors of "POV-pushing" without a shred of evidence is upsetting, especially considering the restrictive nature of ARBPIA. The only editors who are making it their "POV" are those who automatically reject events in Israel simply because they involve Israel. Wikifan 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pushing for (self) censorship is one of the classic tactics of pro-Israeli debaters. ALL military events are upsetting matters for those with personal interest, but we don't post most of them. And what the heck is ARPBIA? That you use insider jargon proves your particular and probably insular interest, and hence probable POV position on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ARBPIA. I really don't understand the merits of your comments. Are you suggesting there is some sort of shake down going on here? This is a notable event, established by verifiable sources, and the only arguable dispute is whether or not the perpetrators were Palestinian which is irrelevant as far as whether the event is notable enough to be featured. Your "complaints" consist attacking other editors and assuming bad faith. Try reading the article maybe? Reactionary editing and ones' opinion becoming part of an editing philosophy is precisely why ARBPIA exists. Wikifan 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you have understood my comments at all. You are looking for POV in my posts, where none exists. I shall surrender now to the common bullying that occurs on these topics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd support this ordinarily, but the article uses right-wing Israeli sources almost exclusively. This manifests itself in the article's unquestioning support of the Israeli government position that the people killed by Israel after the attacks were the "perpretrators" of the attacks. As I said above, international sources are not taking that link for granted. I'm not confident that this article is either neutral or accurate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Right-wing Israeli sources." Please explain. The above oppose appears to be a nice blurb of SOAP. This isn't a forum to spread your views of the Israeli government. Wikifan 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. 2/3 of the references are mainstream Israeli news sources, the other 1/3 are international. Mainstream news sources generally lean right or left, that certainly doesn't mean they're unreliable. Swarm 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the inference? That Israeli news sources are inferior to non-Israeli sources? Uh? Wikifan 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When its a matter involving Palestine they are hardly neutral. Just like you wouldn't trust the Japanese media with something that might be critical of Japan. Or to give an example closer to this event I presume you wouldn't be happy to take the word of Al Jazeera at face value - even though clearly they are a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Jerusalem Post is a certified RS. Are we not going to trust American news sources that involve Al Qaeda because the US military is busy bombing Al Qaeda hideouts? AJ is an RS (unfortunately IMHO) so they are to be trusted as any other source. Misplaced Pages is all about verifiability, not truthiness. If a known RS happens to be biased well that's not our problem to deal with. Any complaints should be deferred to RSN. Beyond that it's just editor conjecture. Wikifan 22:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To maintain neutrality we have to give due weight to the different sources. If only Israeli sources are making a claim and international sources are avoiding it, then we shouldn't be making it on the front page. If we're going to follow Al Jazeera's line for example then we wouldn't be posting this at all and would be posting Israel's retaliation instead. Reliable sources must be balanced against each other. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To give a recent example where US sources were probably bias I wouldn't take the word of CNN over the US downgrade at face value - especially if international sources were holding off on a claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You can be as principled as you want, but I doubt too many people are going to be willing to post an article with such a lack of diversity of sources, especially when the topic is related to Israel vs. the Arab world, and especially when those sources are from one of those two areas. -- tariqabjotu 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand. This isn't about principals - but policy. A reliable source is a reliable source. Less than half of the sources are from Israeli, and many of the Israeli sources like this one is a re-broadcast of Reuters. News is news, it is totally bigoted to say one source is unreliable because of its place of origin. If editors are making contributions based on that philosophy then something dramatic needs to happen to reverse those kinds of thoughts from infecting edits. The only reason Israeli sources made up most of the citations (when this was proposed) was because the event happened in Israel. When shootings happen in the US (such as ft hood - which made the main page), domestic media catches on quickly while media in other nations take a bit longer. Same goes for the incident in Norway where European media caught on more quickly than US. But it doesn't matter - an RS is an RS. Then again I kind of understand this mentality considering Golf and some Indian guy not leaving his jail cell is considered more worthy of feature-status than this. Wikifan 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, about 60% percent of the sources are Israeli. As of now. Right now. As of 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tangential to this topic, but some media outlets are excellent sources for football results, but very dangerous on sensitive political matters, so yes, it's quite valid to judge a source's impartiality in relation to a particular topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd. A reliable source is a reliable source. Its place of origin is irrelevant in the eyes of Misplaced Pages policy. Most editors should know this and an admin heavily involved in the editing topic area should know this. There are currently 41 refs as of this edit - 25 sources are Israeli. Of those 25, 3 are re-directs or mixtures of foreign media. So roughly half the sources are 100% Israeli news. The four or five Israeli cites that quote US/German/UN officials can probably be found in American newspapers. Anyways, this complaint is trivial (and probably bigoted) and still doesn't provide a reasonable excuse why this event is not notable enough to be featured. Wikifan 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, if your aim is to make a point about Israel/Israeli sources, okay, but that's not going to get the item on the Main Page any faster. If all the content can be found elsewhere, why don't you just get it from elsewhere? -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, what is the problem with Israeli newspapers? Seriously? No one here has provide a shred of proof to suggest these sources are somehow inferior to other newspapers. Please be explicit. What exactly is so sinister about the Jerusalem Post? What Misplaced Pages policy supports the above philosophy? Wikifan 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense that newspapers of a particular nation are going to be more favorable to their own nation in their coverage. Reliability on Misplaced Pages is not defined equally in every context; in sensitive political events, we need a higher standard of reliability. If the Israeli newspapers' reporting on this event are perfectly reliable and neutral, why can't you find any international source to back it up? Let me remind you that press freedom in Israel is one of the worst in developed countries, according to Reporters Without Borders.

(edit) In addition, not even your "reliable sources" back up the claims that you are making, here or in the article. Your source claims that a leader of the PRC was killed in a retaliatory attack. You then inferred that the PRC was responsible for the initial attacks. That is completely original research. That's not even what the Israeli government is claiming, and in no way is the Israeli government a reliable source. JimSukwutput 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not about common sense, but verifiability. WE as editors don't get to decide what is reality, this isn't a blog or a forum. And why do you put "reliable sources" in quotation? What sources do you question exactly? The issue of whether or not these attacks were committed by Palestinians is really a trivial issue of whether this should be a featured story.
• All sources have pointed fingers at Popular Resistance Committee, and none have denied it - other than the PRC and Hamas themselves. I really don't understand your complaints here, are you suggesting Israeli sources are inferior to European or American news? Plenty of international cites are in the actual article, assuming you read it - which I sincerely doubt considering your puzzling claims here. If you have a problem with specific sources take it up at RSN noticeboard. But right now your criticisms border on bigotry, not policy.
• Reasons for support are solid and right now have yet to be challenged. Oppose revolves around A) Dislike of Israeli sources (even though article contains a diversity of sources at the moment) B) Opposition to the belief that Palestinians were behind this attack, which is irrelevant to whether or not this incident deserves to be featured. So more challenges?
• And this manic obsession over Israeli sources compromising reliability (I guess that's the inference right), need I remind everyone here that the #1 featured story on Misplaced Pages Anna Hazare agrees to leave his jail cell is backed by over 50% citations from the nation in which the featured story is taking place - India. And India's press freedom is rated 36 places behind Israel. Not that RWB is an RS. Double standards much? I didn't see any complaints during that article's proposal. In other news, It seems the conflict in Israel has mutated to even greater proporations - 1 and 2. And before you write off the sources because they happen to come from an Israeli newspaper - though internationally published - check the byline. Notice the REUTERS signature? Do you see it? Honestly, the reasons for opposition are underwhelming at best and not grounded in policy. And now that we know even more about the story, it is time a third party needs weighs in here, look at the facts. Precedents have been set and it is time this event gets featured. Assuming it is featured, the blurb of course needs a serious, serious rewrite. I wrote a short proposal above if anyone wants to take a look. I'm sure others more experienced in this area of wikipedia can think of something more balanced. Wikifan 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this long tirade. Let me just point out that, as countless other users have mentioned, your source does not claim that the PRC was responsible; it claims that the Prime Minister of Israel made this particular claim, but that PRC had denied involvement. The rest was what you inferred from your sources. What I don't get is why you would spend hours writing up long angry responses accusing numerous other users of bigotry (i.e. anti-Semitism) and ignorance when the complaint is so simple and obvious. If you have a source that says PRC was responsible, rather than saying that the PM of Israel claims that they are responsible, then mention it. If you don't, then your claim is unsubstantiated. Your continual refusal to acknowledge this problem - as well as your misleading comments about the actual content of your sources - raise serious doubts about your honesty. To be frank, I was considering a switch to support, now that the deeper significance of the attacks is more obvious. But your POV-pushing in the article is making any such support impossible. I strongly suggest that you move away from the article and let other users clean up the POV mess you left behind. There is no way that this nomination is going to succeed otherwise. JimSukwutput 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Like I said before, please explain this "POV-pushing." The article is solid at the moment, if you think I have violated any policies please be more explicit. And as far as whether or not the attack was committed by Palestinians is irrelevant. Your beef with excessive Israeli sources has been responded to (no challenge yet), your claim that Palestinians may not have done this has been responded to (the article does not say, "PRC is responsible, end of story), the reference to Reporters Without Borders was exposed as dubious because a current featured article relies on a majority of Hindu cites and that story isn't get half the international press this one is. So other "POV-pushing" and attacking me as an editor, start focusing on the article. Perhaps someone here should re-file an ITN if that is possible, with a better blurb? Wikifan 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I said earlier that I surrendered to the bullies here. I will just make this observation. In truth, Wikimedia's ban on POV pushing should effectively prevent us ever discussing an event involving Israel. Many of you, on both sides but particularly Israel's, simply cannot help yourselves. I know you can write millions of words on this, thinking you can justify this based on past persecutions, etc, but it's still POV. Please note that I am no longer commenting on this event (I HAVE given up on that), but on the style and quality of discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support the posting of this as its a coordinated attack and appears to be significant. Oppose any mention of Palestinians in the blurb as its unclear whether they were involved - the BBC don't directly link it. Even Sky haven't linked it as more than the word of the Israelis, and they give nearly equal weight to Hamas' denial of involvement and they are usually pretty happy to jump on news quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's a tense part of the world, just the sort of thing our readers will be looking for. Articles in good shape. I don't understand the ref problem, a large amount of Israeli sources for a Israeli story? I'm not seeing the problem, though I agree with Eraserhead1 about not naming Palestinians unless it's a lot more clear who's guilty. RxS (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing of great significance here. It's just another round of battles and skirmishes in the perpetual war between Arabs and Israelis almost since the beginning of time. --Ohconfucius 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment' The article seems problematic for NPOV, with 57 "reference" links of which 25 are to the right-wing Jerusalem Post. The Post stories seem to back 100% the Israeli government position that these attacks are a useful justification to bomb Palestinians. If this is an international news story worthy to be featured on the Main Page, the article pointed to should be based on NPOV international news sources. Sharktopus 21:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• 'Comment Its important to recognise that a lot of people have significant issues with the way the Israeli government behaves with regards to these events - and even if you don't agree with that POV if you want to post stories like this you do have to respect their opinions. Overall I really don't think it should be that difficult to switch out the Israeli references and replace them with more neutral international sources - its not as if there's a massive shortage of coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In the retaliation attack on Gaza, six people where killed (among them a child). This retaliation attack does not have an article of it's own, let alone that it would ever be mentioned on the Main Page. Then why mention this attack and not the second one? In the recent Afghan bombing, over twenty innocent people where killed. In a mosque in Pakistan, six people died and on a Belgian pop festival, three people where killed. We simply cannot include all these events on the Main Page, and I see no reason why this particular attack should be. I could write an article on the August 2011 Gaza Airstrike but it probably would be deleted, let alone that it would even be considered for the In The News section. Polozooza (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from creating other articles. As far as bombings go in Pakistan/Afghanistan, I'm not an expert but that is not a sufficient reason to deny this story a platform. Lest we forget foiled bomb plots, terrorist attacks in Norway, and a whole load of other incidents have been featured with a fraction of the excessive outrage here. Body count is irrelevant. The fact is these events mark a huge change in the Israeli-Arab war, and is not just another "incident" as we see weekly in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Also, at least according to the article, Israel targeted the homes of the PRC, killing the leaders. The son (child) who happened to be in the same building was also killed, this is in the article and is part of the event. Editors need to actually read the article before commenting here. Sources should not be an issue because the India story relies more than 50% on Hindu-based news sites, and Indian media is ranked 30+ places behind Israel. So that clearly wasn't an issue. In this article, all the refs are an RS. Editors who think there is a problem with a specific source, go to the top of the article and click on "discussion" and open up a new section. Wikifan 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an article about Israel's retaliatory strike is likely to be deleted if created. More likely that it will be merged to this one as being undoubtedly linked, as Israel has called it 'retaliation'. So I feel a section about it would be perfectly valid. --Ohconfucius 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

However, we are under no obligation to follow the Israeli government's narrative in this incident. Almost all attacks like this, whether by the government or by terrorists, are "retaliatory" in some way. I'm pretty sure a lot of Islamic terrorists regard their attacks as "retaliation" for some past incident with the West. Besides, in this case there is no evidence that the PRC was actually responsible - for all we know, the Israeli government may be using the attacks as an opportunity to eliminate the PRC leadership, which is not something that they haven't done before. So I don't think it's obvious that the Israeli government's attacks should somehow take up a section within the article. There is no reason why retaliation by the government is somehow more "legitimate" than retaliation by the terrorists, and in any case the claim that it is a retaliation is very much in dispute. JimSukwutput 05:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh? Jim, check yourself here - no SOAPING. Unless an RS draws a moral equivalence between Gaza attacks and Israel's response such rhetoric doesn't belong here. Anyways, I think the "air raids" articles was a complete fork and certainly belong in the main page. IT didn't have the correct template. This makes no sense at all. We never create forks about America/NATO/British response to attacks/terrorism, not only on their home country, but in on-going operations. That is POV-pushing Jim. The air raid article needs to go. Wikifan 21:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no WP:SOAPING in my comments. I simply said that the Israeli government and Hamas have differing claims about what happened and it makes no sense to assume that either side is correct. That is NPOV, the core of Misplaced Pages's principles. Your tirades about "moral equivalence" is exactly what is at fault here. At Misplaced Pages, we do not judge whichever side has the higher moral ground. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would accuse me of POV-pushing right after calling me an anti-Semite for expressing the simple opinion that it is not our responsibility to take a particular side in a conflict. JimSukwutput 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure a lot of Islamic terrorists regard their attacks as "retaliation" for some past incident with the West. Besides, in this case there is no evidence that the PRC was actually responsible - for all we know, the Israeli government may be using the attacks as an opportunity to eliminate the PRC leadership, which is not something that they haven't done before." = SOAP. Where did I call you an antisemite? Wikifan 11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a political opinion, that was a statement of several very relevant historical facts. Frankly, if you regard the statement of historical facts as SOAP, you really shouldn't be accusing others of pushing a particular POV. Have I said on which "side" of the conflict I stand? No. And let me just say - to satisfy your curiosity - that I'd consider myself to be on the "Israeli side" a lot more than on the "Palestinian side". But that is irrelevant. If you actually wish to enter a discussion about my personal opinions, you could do so by privately contacting me; here I do not let my personal political opinions get in the way of reality, even if reality seem to support the ideology of another "side". Your obsession with classifying every user based on "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" POV is exactly the problem here. I know at least one other user here who is very much a supporter of the Israeli state, but you treated him as a "pro-Palestinian" simply because he disagreed with you on some specific (and pretty irrelevant) point, then proceeded to accuse him of anti-Israel bigotry. That is simply unacceptable behavior. You're not blatantly breaking any rule, but you are pushing a not-so-subtly concealed political agenda and insulting a lot of well-meaning contributors in the process. JimSukwutput 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Syria

• Nominated by Strange Passerby (talk · give credit)

• Syria concludes its use of military force against protesters

I couldn't work "Syria says it has" into that without it sounding awkward. In other news, the U.S. is ready to announce sanctions on Assad . Marcus Qwertyus 09:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Without even clicking on the CNN video, I can see from the still frame the subheadline "activists argue snipers still active". Also, it just seems like common sense that we might not want to simply rely on the Syrian president's word. Great news, but I don't think we should post until this has been independently confirmed. Swarm 17:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And today, news headline say that they killed 10 people after opening fire on tens of thousands. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 17