Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Harry Smith is right when he says:
To fail to differentiate between these two [murder
and killing] is
to deprive the reader of information that is important.
That is why, after reporting the straight news that militants killed an
Arab youth, we ought to try and report some additional information.
I'm glad that you changed the reference to a "youth". The previous
statements on this even made different assertions about his age. Even
relatively innocent "facts" can be a basis for further confusion.
If we can find someone on the scene or related to it,
or who has a
moral/legal point of view about it, then we can quote them.
For example:
* A statement by Fatah defended the killing as "regrettable but utterly
necessary ... Anyone who gets in our way must die, it is the will of
Allah." (totally made-up hypothetical statement)
* A statement by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said: "These militants are
animals, they murder anyone who gets in their way." (also hypothetical)
Each of these sample statements provides the necessary information. One
source says the killing was NOT murder, and the other source says it
WAS.
They don't. Both of these statements avoid responsibility by
attributing the comments to an organization. What authority did the the
speaker have to represent Fatah policy? Was the IDF statement taken
from an otherwise anonymous press release?
The Wikipedia cannot, unfortunately, let the reader
know which source is
right but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that side @#$ is
usually right in these matters. (I'm not saying which bullet point @#$
refers to...)
This sounds like POV argument by innuendo
Ec