Talk:Iman Darweesh Al Hams

message: 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)
replies: text: If the numbers killed aren't relevant, and it's only about Iman, then leave all the numbers out and link to the Operation Days of Penitence article for those who want the bigger picture. Jayjg 21:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolls have such poor reading comprehension. Iman was not a militant so the number of people who the Israelis killed and claimed were militants is not relevant to Iman. Iman was a child so the number of people who the Israelis killed who were children is relevant to Iman. --Alberuni 22:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Children were casualties. So were militants.  This is a page about Iman, not about the total casualties, which is readily found in the linked article. Jayjg 22:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fine. Jayjg 22:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Iman, whose death occurred during an Israeli military incursion into Gaza that "killed at least 133 Palestinians, including 31 children (according to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights". That's NPOV. I'm glad you have decided to stop obstructing this article just because your political bias is against documentation of Israeli atrocities. --Alberuni 22:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of militants Israelis claim to have killed is irrelevant to Iman page, number of children killed is 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is hardly about who "deserves" to be shot, since I doubt most would say a child shooting at a combatant deserves to be shot either. I wonder though who would condemn the mujahedin if they killed Jewish 13 year old girls performing recon on them. Ricardo Dirani (talk)   —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If a sentence like that is to be included like that, it ought to be reworded. Like maybe something like "Palestinian children are routinely recruited for reconnaissance, and in rare occassions as suicide bombers." I do agree, however, that as it was written it was out of place.--Josiah 18:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe someone could write a POV essay about Palestinian violence against Palestinian children, including recruiting them to be suicide bombers; it could modelled after this one: Israeli violence against Palestinian children. Jayjg 17:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, such articles are ever a point of contention and are always POV.--Josiah 18:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sarcastic suggestion.  However, if various editors succeed in turning Wikipedia into a POV mess of Israel-bashing, as they are currently attempting to do, then I might take it more seriously. Jayjg 18:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: HS claims

message: "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)
replies: text: The first source at the bottom explains the issue: he was initially cleared of "unethical" behaviour, but "suspended for poor relations with subordinates". - Mustafaa 19:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that was a result of the internal investigation; the MP investigation had not even been completed when he was suspended.--Eyl 13:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  So the article needs to distinguish the two investigations, then. - Mustafaa 13:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed this text from the second section entirely; I moved the part about the claims of lying to the first section, and the part about the MP investigation to the third section; I also changed the first & second sections to make it clearer that the investigation in question was an internal investigation, and removed the link to the article (which was dead).--Eyl 18:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  military police investigation 

message: # The audio recordings mentioned in the article appear to be those from a military post that was not part of the outpost in question.  There are also allegations that it was edited.   (third paragraph)
# In mid-January, one of the prosecutions witnesses contradicted his earlier testimony.  In early Febuary, a second key prosecution witness admitted he and other soldiers had been lying.  In light of this new evidence, the Judge ordered R's release.  The prosecution have not yet dropped the indictment.  Castrovalva 08:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked to the jerusalem post instead. Moriori 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that should be corrected/updated 

message: 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)
replies: text: It mentions it once in the intro, and once in the article body.  His ethnicity is relevant because it became a matter of controversy in Israel, and because it clarifies that not all Israeli soldiers are Jews. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand Druze is a religion, not an ethnic group. I still do not see its relevancy though. An Israeli citizen is an Israeli citizen. How would it be different if he was Jewish? Also, has anyone been able to verify the last two sentences with an English source? --Dejitarob 05:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Druze is both an ethnicity and a religion, and that fact that he was Druze, and that this was revealed, became a source of controversy (and therefore notable).  See for example: .  What last two sentences are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain R's religion and last two sentences 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Jayjg's version was much more NPOV.Heraclius 03:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Trying a compromise solution, with more proper sources:
* Removed description of Operation "Days of Penitence" as it is linked to article of the same title, and also to avoid unnecessary back and forth reversions.
* Adding documented evidence since it is on video - this should be acceptable to those who want to make sure the story is told properly from the girl's perspective.
* Removed "Death Controversy" as the controversy is reasonable alluded to in the first paragraph without mentioning what could have been false accusations (these accusations are already later under IDF investigation).
* Removed an unsourced claim regarding "waiting impatiently to see an Arab pass by to kill him."
* Put sentences under sections they belonged in to smooth flow.
* Added a "Palestinian witnesses" section if more evidence needs to be added there as found and sourced.
* Removed a lot of redundant information as well as broken links.
Ramallite (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Which ones specifically? The only major addition is a documentation of the actual video that aired on TV, others are just rearrangements of text for the most part. Ramallite (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I had removed part of the intro because the stuff you stated is already in the linked article (which is no longer linked, it looks like), plus it seemed an unnecessary point of contention. Looks like most of my stuff is intact! See, it wasn't my additions per se! You just had to reinsert the "Druze" reference, eh? :)   Anyway, looks ok to me from an encyclopedic standpoint Ramallite (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: 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)
replies: text: Is your only objection to the introduction?  That was added, yesterday apparently, by User:MathKnight.  Perhaps you should get in touch with him. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems somewhat dubious:
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)
thread_title: Whitewash

message: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/008/050.html
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hebrew ref about acquittal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article clearly only tells half the truth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rename consideration

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211230405/http://www.counterpunch.org/harel11272004.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/harel11272004.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041015015219/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1012-06.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1012-06.htm
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) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605042653/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7032 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7032
*Added  tag to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_301046.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704154542/http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=462&CategoryId=3 to http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=462&CategoryId=3
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) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified