Talk:Coastal Road massacre

message: I've seen sources claim 9 died and two were captured. Presumably, Yahya Skaf was among those captured? Anyone got an RS? -- Kendrick7 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good question. changed paragraph. also used heb wiki. Amoruso 13:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one cite that said 9 dead Palestinians (presumbly the terrorists, though it failed to say that in so many words), 34 dead Israelis. I found a page on Google books that began "and 78 wounded. Four survivors were severely injured." but no way google was going to serve me the previous page. But, combined with the unsourced 36 figure for passengers, and the unsourced 11 figure for the terrorists -- that hints at the numbers adding up somehow. But it's still rather mysterious. If you have Hebrew citations port them over. -- Kendrick7 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many died?

message: This article relies almost solely on Israeli sources and is biased. There is a need to introduce other perspectives on these events, particularly since so many of the claims lack citations. --Tirpse77 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it was extremely biased; it hardly even scratched the surface of this horrific event. I've added more detail from a non-Israeli reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll go through it later to make sure that the sources of the information you inserted are clear as well. Even with RS, there is a tendency to rely on official Israeli sources, which at the time were subject to heavy military censorship. I agree it was a horrific event. --Tirpse77 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that one cannot use "official Israeli sources" in describing this is like claiming one cannot use "official American souces" in describing 9/11. Official Israeli sources are as or more reliable than any others; Israelis don't shy away from assigning blame to the relevant parties, even if they are Israeli. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such claim, but given the poor truthfulness of Israeli hasbara, one does have to be cautious and aware of the context. As you can see, I have used official Israeli sources, so obviously I do not believe they are always unreliable. Please do not try to assume my "emotional state" on Israeli sources. --Tirpse77 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made any assumptions or comments about your "emotional state", about which I have no interest; please stop using meaningless mimicry instead of meaningful rhetoric. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't fill Talk: pages with false equivalences. This was a horrific terror incident, period. No excuses, and we're not talking about any other events. As for the deaths, the TIME article says it wasn't security officers who tried to stop the bus, but "30 traffic cops, armed only with .38 revolvers and UZI submachine guns". Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was making excuses? Surely you agree that all violence directed at civilians is wrong? I think you should save your anger and misplaced indignation for somewhere it is needed. I am going to focus on fixing this article. Thanks. --Tirpse77 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on the incident and on the article describing it, not suppositions about the emotional states of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pots and kettles, Jayjg, it was your original sarcastic comment that prompted my response, and your further indignation about my alleged "false equivalencies" that prompted my further comment. If you are uninterested in other people's views, then keep yours to yourself as well. Let's leave it there, ok? --Tirpse77 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no "original sarcastic comment". Don't comment about me again; restrict your comments to discussions of article content. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I do not appreciate the attempts by Canadian Monkey to remove sourced material in order, apparently, to whitewash the contemporaneous criticism that severe blunders in the Israeli handling of the incident led to more than two dozen deaths. Have you even read the Washington Post article cited before making your totally unwarranted changes? The Washington Post article talks about an "ambush" and the deaths of 25 people as a result of botched Israeli decision making. Unless you can show some reason why the Washington Post is not an RS on this then please stop removing sourced material and trying to massage the article in this POV manner.--Tirpse77 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I similarly do not appreciate your attempts to subtly (and not-so-subtly) shift the blame for this horrendous act of terrorism from the perpetrators to the security forces who stopped it. You have been warned about this by another editor, above, and your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it seems that it is exactly what you are trying to do. The bus was not ambushed, and I have added a reliable source (TIME) that correctly describes the incident as being stopped at a roadblock. I will shortly add several more that state the same thing. Perhaps you’d like to explain why you insist on changing a factual, neutral description of the event (the bus was stopped at a roadblock), into a non-factual one (Ambush involves the use of surprise, hidden forces, which was not the case here) which subtly shift blame by making the roadblock operators into the aggressors, when he have multiple reliable sources using the neutral, factual description. The criticism of the security forces is still there – without your attempt at shifting the blame to them.Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's clear that it's not irrefutable that that Barak shot the dead body of Mughrabi and as a result, we cannot at this time put that claim in the article. And we can't make a WP:SYN by acting as if there's some debate upon this subject when no source mentions there is any sort of dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship of sourced material

message: Noticed that the part about Ehud Barak leading or being in the Israeli team fighting the hijackers was gone, saw it was reasonably enough removed 1 1/2 years ago because it wasn't supported by the ref, a 1978 Time story.  Found it remarkably hard to find RS's on it, but I remembered seeing a photo of him at the scene, so finally found something on it.  It isn't consistent with the part now in the article about it being the police only there, which is based on the old TIME report, so I'll change it. Needs work to get it better.John Z (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I can help with further revisions if you have a section in mind that needs work. ShamWow (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, there were three sources, including Fisk, in the article for it, and I know I've seen a photo, probably in a book, of someone who looks remarkably like Barak at the scene. I could find references for the photo on the net, but couldn't find a url for it that worked when I last looked a few months ago. Fisk says there is a videotape. Do you have a source that says that Barak was not there? John Z (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text: My recollection may be entirely in error, but I think I remember seeing a different photo, where the Israeli is some distance away, holding a gun, in half-profile, looking rather more like Barak.  Haven't seen the photo you link before. It could be a case of making a story up from photograph(s), but it is most natural to read Fisk's article as saying he has seen the videotape. There's no indication it was ever aired.  There is one ridiculous error or typo, suggesting that Barak fought them as part of the Lebanese army, but it doesn't seem to me to be enough to make it unreliable. The PMW article doesn't say he wasn't there, and the sentence written here certainly wasn't libellous, it just stated he led or was present. Could be right or wrong, but wasn't pejorative. Barak didn't become a famous politician til later, so if it is true he was there, it still makes sense that there would be no contemporary sources. Don't know at the moment what would be best to do here; better sources would be nice.John Z (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, I challenge the notion that the pic only looks 'vaguely' like him.  It's him. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not assuming anything. I'm just including relevant information provided by a relevant source. I didn't write that Fisk saw the footage, just that he reported that it exists. Being a professional journalist working in a renowned journal, the information he reports complies with WP:RS and must be included, specially taking into account tha there are at least two relevant sources reporting the event.Froy1100 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehud Barak

message: This is quite obviously a case of fertile imagination. Completely contradicted by other sources, not to mention that Ehud Barak was in Stanford University at the time. This was probably inspired by a photo showing somebody similar in appearance to Barak with rank of Captain removing weapons from the dead body (according to the English caption on the bottom left). As mentioned above it is obviously not Barak who at that time was a Colonel and in a year got promoted to a Brigadier General.In any case I amended the article with some more details. The Hugh McLeod sources are full of factual errors and I might remove those sources, or if there is any objection here, take them to RSN . Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehud Barak case amended

message: Wikipedia policy is that this term requires in line citation.  I will carry out the required changes. Note this is wikipedia policy, so probably not subject to the 1RR as any revert would be vandalism.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to NMMNG's edit summary in which he/she restored the multiple references to the word "terrorist" in the article, it doesn't matter if sources used the word terrorist. We don't use that word (or freedom fighter, etc.) in wikipedia's voice. See WP:Avoid (specifically WP:Terrorist). These are pretty clear-cut policies. Pretty sure many supporters of the PLO and certainly the PLO itself did not view the perpetrators as terrorists. "Terrorist" could be used if it is quoted and attributed to the source. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word terrorists 

message: Could someone explain why the home page of the National Insurance Institute of Israel is listed as a reference for each fatality? Thanks. Dalliance (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: List of fatalities

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coastal Road massacre. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808113829/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105308.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105308.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me, that the info box ought to list 48 dead. Certainly the article explains how many on each side were killed. If we wanted to break down those killed in the info box, we might want to use the battle box format. Or not. I am not an expert and will not make the edit myself. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  39+9=48 

message: Change "political settlement uniting of the Arabs with the Palestinians" under the heading "Motives" to "political settlement uniting the Arabs with the Palestinians". [The wording is still a bit awkward, but less grammatically so with the change] Coreybchapman (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: Replaced ungrammatical phrasing with: "...political settlement which would have the effect of uniting the Arabs with the Palestinians..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2018 

message: (First time I'm commenting and English is not my native language, sorry if I break some conversation rules, it's unintentional). Imri Tel-Oren, who was a relative of mine and died in this attack, is misnamed twice in this article: "Omri" in 'Bus Hijacking' and "Omry" in 'Fatalities'. The article also mentions his father Hanoch getting injured, but his brother has been injured as well in this attack so it could warrant a mention. I tried to correct the mistake but the article is locked, probably because it's a political battleground, but I don't think this particular minor change would be controversial, so can anyone with access make this edit for me? I would be grateful. For further proof, reference number 14 in the article mentions his name being 'Imri', while reference number 55 (in Hebrew) mentions his brother getting injured. Thanks Helpmechooseauser (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imri Tel-Oren 

message: This section should be tagged with  to avoid the impression that the list is exhaustive. Additionally, and to reiterate a point from above, the sourcing of each fatality to an insurance company is inappropriate, not least because no supporting information is actually found at that source. The infobox notes that 1 soldier died, but this fact is not noted in the article text.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-notable victims of disasters should not be listed, so the section has been removed. The soldier in the infobox has been marked as not verified in body. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Fatalities'' should be tagged, sourcing should be improved, soldier should be noted in article body