![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus defaulting to keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Alberuni, on what basis are you:
1) Removing the NPOV notice? 2) Removing the link to the IDF code of Conduct page?-- Josiah 17:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On what basis was the NPOV notice added in the first place? - Mustafaa 00:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1. is easily fixed, and I see no evidence of 2. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, can someone provide any sources on the soldiers (or some of them) later having claimed to have lied? None of the links at the bottom mention it, nor does a quick Google search yield anything. - Mustafaa 00:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interesting - Maariv says that 2 of the soldiers claimed the others were lying (the other two talk about the commander lying.) No "change of testimony" at all (contra the anon edit that inserted that statement.) I will change the article accordingly. - Mustafaa 15:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So are any further grounds suggested for keeping the NPOV tag? - Mustafaa 15:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made a couple edits to begin to bring the article to neutrality. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 10:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The quote you removed is entirely relevant, while the claim you replaced it with is false. And "militant" does not equal "combatant". And "anti-terrorist" is the IDF's self-description, not by any means NPOV. - Mustafaa 14:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please put the NPOV back on for the last paragraph is a complete piece of shit. Yes it is sourced but its up for some debate on whether the facts are there, as well as the usage of "terrorist" is quite out of place. Not to mention the spelling errors.
Iman was not a militant so the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis that the Israelis claim were militants is irrelevant here. -- Alberuni 20:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The number of children killed clearly is relevant to this article; it helps one judge to what extent Iman's case is representative. - Mustafaa 22:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
HS wants to insert the claim "Palestinian children are routinely recruited for activities such as reconnaissance and suicide bombings", and added a whole bunch of links purporting to demonstrate this. The claim that they are routinely recruited for suicide bombings is plainly false, as any list of suicide bombers should show. The claim that they are routinely recruited for reconnaissance is irrelevant - unless HS maintains that children doing reconnaissance deserve to be shot... - Mustafaa 17:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
since we've gone back and forth a few times, i'll comment. i would think links to racist and slanted articles would kind of impede the pursuit of NPOV, wouldn't it? the one from chronwatch is absolutely ridiculous. there's no supporting evidence, so the only reason i can see for keeping it up is to either distort the facts, or make people laugh out loud at the absurdity. the ones from israeli insider and counterpunch are equally slanted, just at opposite sides of the spectrum. but pawning off opposing viewpoints as neutral or fair doesn't pass the bullshit test. if you want to do that, go work for fox news.
so does anyone care to comment on why they keep restoring those crappy links?
"A separate Israeli military police investigation into the killing cleared "Captain R" of wrongdoing, accepting his claim that he had aimed his shots at the ground near where Iman lay. Two of his men claimed that the soldiers who had given damning testimony to the IDF were lying in order to frame their commander, while other soldiers claimed that they too had taken part in the shooting of Iman al-Hams, not just their commander"
The first sentence is incorrect and should be removed; the military police investigation did find him guilty of wrongdoing (there would not have been an indictment otherwise, for one thing). The sentence needs to be deleted, and the rest of the paragraph rewritten appropritely (possibly moved down). I'll do it in a few days if no one has an objection (e.g. a source stating the investigation did not find him guilty)-- Eyl 10:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions Captain R's religion twice in the beginning of the article. I fail to see how this is relevant and contributes in a neutral manner to the alleged events and circumstances. Also, one link referring to the video of the Palestinian man near the incident was down (as the rest of the Ha'aretz links appear to be), the other is in Hebrew so it is not verifiable by an overwhelming amount of the English Wikipedia community. The only video I could locate of "Captain R" on google detailed the incident in great detail, but I did not notice anything about a man nearby. -- Dejitarob 08:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've significantly altered the new version because it was both innacurate, pov and unbecoming of wikipedia standards. The organization was extremely flawed, the introduction had innacurate information which basically rested on a pov which was false, mainly that the commander had indeed "confirmed the kill". Other sections copied an entire op ed from Haaretz and included it as part of the article. This information was in a broken link from an op ed before the investigation found the commander innocent, hence contradicting the relevent information. I've condensced the information where it can be condensced instead of spreading it over random sub articles. Please comment on this edit instead of blank reverting to a previous version.
Guy Montag 04:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[bickering deleted] Please stick to writing the article. - Willmcw 05:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Anyways, when Heraclius gets back from his block, he can go ahead and list his objections in talk.
Guy Montag 18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ramallite (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with most of your additions.
Guy Montag 18:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The introduction had to be cleared up. I added some information left out from the previous version, leaving redundent information out, and balanced some pov statements. I also reorganized some material. I am not touching sourced information.
Guy Montag 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Its just that the introduction has to be as brief and to the point as possible, with the rest of the article fleshing out the information. My biggest addition to the previous version was the introduction, which I worked pretty long on to make as npov as possible. As for the Druze addition, I had actually removed another mention about the fact that he was Druze farther into the article because someone was trying to make a point that he was Druze. I found that fishy. Mentioning it once is fine, but over and over and it looks suspicious. I like this article as it stands now too. Pleasure to work with you.
Guy Montag 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The version of the story in the article does not correspond with what I have read in various sources. It seems like a pro-Israeli whitewash. Accordingly, I have added a NPOV dispute tag.
Here's some sources which don't read anything like this biased article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10355507 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1874109,00.html
There is a blatant piece of Israeli propaganda, totally unsourced in the introduction:
[quote] a military court cleared him from all charges and found that he shot in the direction of a Palestinian adult suspect, who was probably the terrorist who sent the girl, as the commander claimed. [/quote]
Firstly, I haven't found any news reports of any adult suspects (there is one in the article in Hebrew saying 'that the video tape from the event revealed a Palestinian man about 50 meters from the girl, walking away from the scene toward the houses of Rafah. "Captain R"'s lawyer claimed it was a militant, who had probably sent the girl to the "No man's land" as a decoy or bait'. But this is a claim, which seems pretty weak, and not only that the credibility of the source has to be in doubt - an Israeli newspaper is hardly a neutral source in respect of this issue). Secondly, I have found no reports that the girl was sent by anyone. Thirdly, it implies that there was a terrorist who sent the girl. Fourthly, the girl was an unarmed schoolgirl.
All in all, totally lacking in neutrality. 87.74.12.83 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
On March 6, 2005, a report in the Israeli daily "Yediot Aharonot" entitled "The video of the killing: Was the girl alone?" stated that the video tape from the event revealed a Palestinian man about 50 meters from the girl, walking away from the scene toward the houses of Rafah. "Captain R"'s lawyer claimed it was a militant, who had probably sent the girl to the "No man's land" as a decoy or bait. [8]
On November 15, 2005 a military tribunal acquitted Captain R and cleared him from all the charges against him. The court revealed that the accusations that he "comfirmed kill" on the girl were based on false testimonies and a video that show suspicious Palestinian figure near the girl, probabely the terrorist who sent her. [9]
87.74.12.83 21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html
a source in the footnotes doesn't read anything like this story. The tape evidence is basically glossed over. I don't think anyone has come up with anything to say the tapes are fake.
87.74.12.83 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Not fake, but as the article states, there have been allegations they were edited. In addition, the court determined, in its verdict (as described in a lengthy Maariv article (Hebrew link) - which included a post-trial interview with R - that R's radio had been initially switched off, and therefore he did not hear the observation post's identification of her as a child. It also describes several other discrepencies in the media version of the incident, such as pointing out that contrary to publications saying thet her bag was filled with books, it was in fact never determined what was in it - the bag was buried rather than risk opening it.-- Eyl 17:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to point out that the bag being buried with the motivation of avoidng the risk of opening it is extremely unlikely. Since a bomb would have cleared the IDF if there was a possibility it existed a controlled explosion would have have taken place and the remains of the bag would then have been examined rather than burying possibly live ordinance. This article is clearly at variance with both the widely reported facts of the case and the universal distaste at Israel's targeting of children (see www.rememberthesechildren.org/ for up to date statistics). Finally captain R's succesful defence can not be used to contradict the initially widely reported facts of the case, there have been almost no convictions of Israeli soldiers despite in excess of seven hundred children being killed since September 2000.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/008/050.html
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
reasonable version before redirect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iyman_Hams&oldid=175270175
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
by not giving the details about the case which led to the aquittal of "Captain R", not discussing the problems with the video/audio evidence, and not mentioning the fact that the soldiers under "Captain R" did everything they could not to have work under his command. This article does not pass the criteria for credibility. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut eliminated a piece of text that requires, as Ynhockey notes, reliable sources for its contentions. It formerly had a link to Al-Jazeera which is now, apparently, dysfunctional. If those reliable sources are not forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, the rule is that the text may be eliminated. It is improper to elide the material as 'not notable'. It is not advisable to come to a page, after I had, in a comment on my page, alerted you to the case as bearing comparison to that of Samir Kuntar, in order to wipe out information on it. One should edit according to procedure, and Ynhockey has shown the way to do it. Nishidani ( talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Best I can see, the girl's unfortunate claim to notability is only the incident with Major R. As such, it makes sense to rename the article in a way that establishes this. Off the top of my head, "Iman Darweesh al-Hams incident", "Iman Darweesh al-Hams killing", "Iman Darweesh al-Hams, Major R incident". Israeli name for the events is "Major R incident". MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) c MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The tags on this article to which you objected were removed by somebody, whatever. Quis separabit? 19:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani —— there are plenty of injustices to go around in the world; just for starters consider these (serious) snowflakes at the tip of the iceberg:
Let us not (as Gerry Adams) always used to say, engage in "selective condemnation". Yours,
Quis separabit? 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iman Darweesh Al Hams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iman Darweesh Al Hams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_301046.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus defaulting to keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Alberuni, on what basis are you:
1) Removing the NPOV notice? 2) Removing the link to the IDF code of Conduct page?-- Josiah 17:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On what basis was the NPOV notice added in the first place? - Mustafaa 00:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1. is easily fixed, and I see no evidence of 2. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, can someone provide any sources on the soldiers (or some of them) later having claimed to have lied? None of the links at the bottom mention it, nor does a quick Google search yield anything. - Mustafaa 00:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interesting - Maariv says that 2 of the soldiers claimed the others were lying (the other two talk about the commander lying.) No "change of testimony" at all (contra the anon edit that inserted that statement.) I will change the article accordingly. - Mustafaa 15:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So are any further grounds suggested for keeping the NPOV tag? - Mustafaa 15:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made a couple edits to begin to bring the article to neutrality. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 10:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The quote you removed is entirely relevant, while the claim you replaced it with is false. And "militant" does not equal "combatant". And "anti-terrorist" is the IDF's self-description, not by any means NPOV. - Mustafaa 14:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please put the NPOV back on for the last paragraph is a complete piece of shit. Yes it is sourced but its up for some debate on whether the facts are there, as well as the usage of "terrorist" is quite out of place. Not to mention the spelling errors.
Iman was not a militant so the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis that the Israelis claim were militants is irrelevant here. -- Alberuni 20:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The number of children killed clearly is relevant to this article; it helps one judge to what extent Iman's case is representative. - Mustafaa 22:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
HS wants to insert the claim "Palestinian children are routinely recruited for activities such as reconnaissance and suicide bombings", and added a whole bunch of links purporting to demonstrate this. The claim that they are routinely recruited for suicide bombings is plainly false, as any list of suicide bombers should show. The claim that they are routinely recruited for reconnaissance is irrelevant - unless HS maintains that children doing reconnaissance deserve to be shot... - Mustafaa 17:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
since we've gone back and forth a few times, i'll comment. i would think links to racist and slanted articles would kind of impede the pursuit of NPOV, wouldn't it? the one from chronwatch is absolutely ridiculous. there's no supporting evidence, so the only reason i can see for keeping it up is to either distort the facts, or make people laugh out loud at the absurdity. the ones from israeli insider and counterpunch are equally slanted, just at opposite sides of the spectrum. but pawning off opposing viewpoints as neutral or fair doesn't pass the bullshit test. if you want to do that, go work for fox news.
so does anyone care to comment on why they keep restoring those crappy links?
"A separate Israeli military police investigation into the killing cleared "Captain R" of wrongdoing, accepting his claim that he had aimed his shots at the ground near where Iman lay. Two of his men claimed that the soldiers who had given damning testimony to the IDF were lying in order to frame their commander, while other soldiers claimed that they too had taken part in the shooting of Iman al-Hams, not just their commander"
The first sentence is incorrect and should be removed; the military police investigation did find him guilty of wrongdoing (there would not have been an indictment otherwise, for one thing). The sentence needs to be deleted, and the rest of the paragraph rewritten appropritely (possibly moved down). I'll do it in a few days if no one has an objection (e.g. a source stating the investigation did not find him guilty)-- Eyl 10:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions Captain R's religion twice in the beginning of the article. I fail to see how this is relevant and contributes in a neutral manner to the alleged events and circumstances. Also, one link referring to the video of the Palestinian man near the incident was down (as the rest of the Ha'aretz links appear to be), the other is in Hebrew so it is not verifiable by an overwhelming amount of the English Wikipedia community. The only video I could locate of "Captain R" on google detailed the incident in great detail, but I did not notice anything about a man nearby. -- Dejitarob 08:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've significantly altered the new version because it was both innacurate, pov and unbecoming of wikipedia standards. The organization was extremely flawed, the introduction had innacurate information which basically rested on a pov which was false, mainly that the commander had indeed "confirmed the kill". Other sections copied an entire op ed from Haaretz and included it as part of the article. This information was in a broken link from an op ed before the investigation found the commander innocent, hence contradicting the relevent information. I've condensced the information where it can be condensced instead of spreading it over random sub articles. Please comment on this edit instead of blank reverting to a previous version.
Guy Montag 04:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[bickering deleted] Please stick to writing the article. - Willmcw 05:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Anyways, when Heraclius gets back from his block, he can go ahead and list his objections in talk.
Guy Montag 18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ramallite (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with most of your additions.
Guy Montag 18:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The introduction had to be cleared up. I added some information left out from the previous version, leaving redundent information out, and balanced some pov statements. I also reorganized some material. I am not touching sourced information.
Guy Montag 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Its just that the introduction has to be as brief and to the point as possible, with the rest of the article fleshing out the information. My biggest addition to the previous version was the introduction, which I worked pretty long on to make as npov as possible. As for the Druze addition, I had actually removed another mention about the fact that he was Druze farther into the article because someone was trying to make a point that he was Druze. I found that fishy. Mentioning it once is fine, but over and over and it looks suspicious. I like this article as it stands now too. Pleasure to work with you.
Guy Montag 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The version of the story in the article does not correspond with what I have read in various sources. It seems like a pro-Israeli whitewash. Accordingly, I have added a NPOV dispute tag.
Here's some sources which don't read anything like this biased article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10355507 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1874109,00.html
There is a blatant piece of Israeli propaganda, totally unsourced in the introduction:
[quote] a military court cleared him from all charges and found that he shot in the direction of a Palestinian adult suspect, who was probably the terrorist who sent the girl, as the commander claimed. [/quote]
Firstly, I haven't found any news reports of any adult suspects (there is one in the article in Hebrew saying 'that the video tape from the event revealed a Palestinian man about 50 meters from the girl, walking away from the scene toward the houses of Rafah. "Captain R"'s lawyer claimed it was a militant, who had probably sent the girl to the "No man's land" as a decoy or bait'. But this is a claim, which seems pretty weak, and not only that the credibility of the source has to be in doubt - an Israeli newspaper is hardly a neutral source in respect of this issue). Secondly, I have found no reports that the girl was sent by anyone. Thirdly, it implies that there was a terrorist who sent the girl. Fourthly, the girl was an unarmed schoolgirl.
All in all, totally lacking in neutrality. 87.74.12.83 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
On March 6, 2005, a report in the Israeli daily "Yediot Aharonot" entitled "The video of the killing: Was the girl alone?" stated that the video tape from the event revealed a Palestinian man about 50 meters from the girl, walking away from the scene toward the houses of Rafah. "Captain R"'s lawyer claimed it was a militant, who had probably sent the girl to the "No man's land" as a decoy or bait. [8]
On November 15, 2005 a military tribunal acquitted Captain R and cleared him from all the charges against him. The court revealed that the accusations that he "comfirmed kill" on the girl were based on false testimonies and a video that show suspicious Palestinian figure near the girl, probabely the terrorist who sent her. [9]
87.74.12.83 21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html
a source in the footnotes doesn't read anything like this story. The tape evidence is basically glossed over. I don't think anyone has come up with anything to say the tapes are fake.
87.74.12.83 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Not fake, but as the article states, there have been allegations they were edited. In addition, the court determined, in its verdict (as described in a lengthy Maariv article (Hebrew link) - which included a post-trial interview with R - that R's radio had been initially switched off, and therefore he did not hear the observation post's identification of her as a child. It also describes several other discrepencies in the media version of the incident, such as pointing out that contrary to publications saying thet her bag was filled with books, it was in fact never determined what was in it - the bag was buried rather than risk opening it.-- Eyl 17:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to point out that the bag being buried with the motivation of avoidng the risk of opening it is extremely unlikely. Since a bomb would have cleared the IDF if there was a possibility it existed a controlled explosion would have have taken place and the remains of the bag would then have been examined rather than burying possibly live ordinance. This article is clearly at variance with both the widely reported facts of the case and the universal distaste at Israel's targeting of children (see www.rememberthesechildren.org/ for up to date statistics). Finally captain R's succesful defence can not be used to contradict the initially widely reported facts of the case, there have been almost no convictions of Israeli soldiers despite in excess of seven hundred children being killed since September 2000.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/008/050.html
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
reasonable version before redirect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iyman_Hams&oldid=175270175
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
by not giving the details about the case which led to the aquittal of "Captain R", not discussing the problems with the video/audio evidence, and not mentioning the fact that the soldiers under "Captain R" did everything they could not to have work under his command. This article does not pass the criteria for credibility. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut eliminated a piece of text that requires, as Ynhockey notes, reliable sources for its contentions. It formerly had a link to Al-Jazeera which is now, apparently, dysfunctional. If those reliable sources are not forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, the rule is that the text may be eliminated. It is improper to elide the material as 'not notable'. It is not advisable to come to a page, after I had, in a comment on my page, alerted you to the case as bearing comparison to that of Samir Kuntar, in order to wipe out information on it. One should edit according to procedure, and Ynhockey has shown the way to do it. Nishidani ( talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Best I can see, the girl's unfortunate claim to notability is only the incident with Major R. As such, it makes sense to rename the article in a way that establishes this. Off the top of my head, "Iman Darweesh al-Hams incident", "Iman Darweesh al-Hams killing", "Iman Darweesh al-Hams, Major R incident". Israeli name for the events is "Major R incident". MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) c MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The tags on this article to which you objected were removed by somebody, whatever. Quis separabit? 19:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani —— there are plenty of injustices to go around in the world; just for starters consider these (serious) snowflakes at the tip of the iceberg:
Let us not (as Gerry Adams) always used to say, engage in "selective condemnation". Yours,
Quis separabit? 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iman Darweesh Al Hams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iman Darweesh Al Hams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_301046.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)