Talk:Iman Darweesh Al Hams

On what basis?

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)

You guys are funny. You slap an NPOV notice on any article about Israel that displeases you without even bothering to dispute any aspect of the article's neutrality. It's as if you think NPOV means "Potentially Harmful to Israel". The IDF conduct link is in there. What a joke. Lt. William Calley also committed atrocities while soldiering under the US military code of conduct. As if the existence of laws stops criminals. You guys are really funny. --Alberuni 20:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cut the Rhetoric and answer my questions please. --Josiah 22:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have it backwards, Yoshi. If you dispute some aspect of this article's neutrality, you are supposed to bring up your issues on Talk first so that they can be resolved. --Alberuni 01:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but I agree with you. I actually don't agree with the NPOV notice. But when edit wars are happening (as was the scenario between you and the other person), there is no justification to remove it.--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On what basis was the NPOV notice added in the first place? - Mustafaa 00:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add it.I don't know--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV is obvious. The article is written as if this was a typical murder done by those bloodthirsty Israelis. For those who harp and stir hatred on sad incidents like this, remember what caused it: rockets were continuously fired into the Israeli cities. BTW, were those who do it ever investigated? Or it was also the Joos who did it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"POV is obvious" doesn't quite cut it. According to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

So what's your description? Any specifics? - Mustafaa 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. It uses the highest possible estimate of casualties, that of the Al-Mezan Center, ignoring the many other estimates, all of which are lower.

2. It is highly selective in the quotes used, and then follows up by pointing out that the soldiers later admitted that they lied to get their superior in trouble. I consider both of these POV. Jayjg 21:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. is easily fixed, and I see no evidence of 2. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Perhaps it's easily fixed by you. Whenever I try, it's immediately reverted by Alberuni. He's not shy about reverting you on the Dore Gold page either, perhaps he'll revert you here too.

2. Um, quoting soldiers who later said they lied? What is the point of quoting admitted lies? Jayjg 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"admitted lies" or truths later retracted under political pressure? I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. - Mustafaa 22:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too naive and trusting, Mustafaa. ;-) Jayjg 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa makes a relevant point. If something that they later denied is quoted, it should be mentioned that they later retracted their comments.--Josiah 22:56, 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)

I use Google news (rather than "normal" google) for stuff like this. A search for "soldiers lied iman" (sans quotes) produced the following results which mentioned some lieing. CNN Jerusalem Post Maariv Int.. To quote the last of the 3 articles, "According to the two, the soldiers who claimed that the platoon commander had carried out the procedure lied in an attempt to frame him."--Josiah 03:50, 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 don't think so. I removed it along with a slight rewording of the beggining paragraph for redudancy reasons.--Josiah 23:10, 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.

Number of militants Israelis claim to have killed is irrelevant to Iman page, number of children killed is

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fine. Jayjg 22:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

HS claims

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, such articles are ever a point of contention and are always POV.--Josiah 18:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

article links

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?

military police investigation

"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 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)

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)

I see. So the article needs to distinguish the two investigations, then. - Mustafaa 13:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Things that should be corrected/updated

1. 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. [1] (third paragraph)
2. 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. [2] Castrovalva 08:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. I have included a link to the story describing Captain R suing uvda for defamation. unfortunately its in hebrew. an english link should replace it.

I've linked to the jerusalem post instead. Moriori 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Captain R's religion and last two sentences

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)

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)

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)

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: [3]. What last two sentences are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

New version

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)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Jayjg's version was much more NPOV.Heraclius 03:50, 19 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)

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)

I disagree with most of your additions.

Guy Montag 18:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whitewash

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)

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)

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)

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 Maarivarticle (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.

hebrew ref about acquittal

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/w/index.php?title=Iyman_Hams&oldid=175270175

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article clearly only tells half the truth

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)

My revert

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)

Rename consideration

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)

Tags

The tags on this article to which you objected were removed by somebody, whatever. Quis separabit? 19:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The ones you added are there. Since there is no argument, I'll remove them. Happy to address any specific concerns. I just oppose driveby tagging-Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just to check whether this is noteworthy, I've reread through this and it's not a happy article, but the event is noteworthy, not only for the extraordinary direct evidential basis (tapes) for the incidednt, but the shenanigans of justice that constitute the aftermath.

The poor state is not to be blamed on editors but on the realities reported in the sources, which are so self-contradictory, absurdist to the point that would make a Dadaist wince, that you can't write any section without contradicting what is said elsewhere. Captain K didn't know it was a girl, but he did know it was a girl. He didn't "verify" the kill, but he did verify the kill, etc.etc. depending on which verdict you highlight. The article can only assume some encyclopedic form of narrative cogency if some future academic study of the whole legal history of the case emerges. It might be noted that the judge who awarded him huge damages was Noam Sohlberg, a settler in Alon Shvut also memorable for his giving the green light to the demolition of Susya - i.e. a legal mind living in an illegal settlement ruling that a legal settlement where title is beyond dispute, must be demolished as illegal, the same sort of twisted logic that runs through the judicial history hinted at here.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Injustices

@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:

• a) Maurice Papon's post war and last years and posthumous medals
• b) IRA terrorists on active duty (or their families) awarded damages from the British government
• c) Franjo Tudjman and Gojko Susak living long enough (and not in a joint cell in the Hague) to see their evil plans come to fruition, including stealing Istria and Dalmatia on their way out of Yugoslavia, and, to rub salt in the wounds, getting treatment at Walter Reed Hospital by the Clinton administration
• d) The sadistic treatment and slaughter of hundreds of civilians including hundreds of children at Beslan

Let us not (as Gerry Adams) always used to say, engage in "selective condemnation". Yours,

Quis separabit? 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing distinctive about Israel's history. It more or less compresses Irish history in the 17th-18th centuries, to cite just one parallel. Most modern Ist world nations began as colonial enterprises, so there's nothing unique there. In both cases secular design was informed powerfully by biblical myth. The indigenous were fucked up in the usual manner, as they have been throughout world history when colonial/imperial experiments are made. So of course, in documenting some aspects of this process in the I/P conflict, I'm not engaged in "selective condemnation". There is no justice in history: there are only histories that encompass all the relevant details, as opposed to national myths. I'm not Noam Chomsky, with a finger on every pulse of imperial violence in the world. I work here, because it is a neglected area, and the cognitive gap between what is known, and what gets reported in the mainstream press, is a yawning one. I fill in some gaps. People who know nothing of my real life or research interests think all of this is obscurely obsessive i.e. anti-Semitic. Ah well. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: "People who know nothing of my real life or research interests think all of this is obscurely obsessive i.e. anti-Semitic." -- no please that is not so. I don't think that. We have communicated previously (Gaza Strip-related stuff, and I pretty much just asked questions). I am impressed by your knowledge, erudition and articulacy. I also believe that while you have your own strongly-held beliefs you are pretty fair for someone with such an intellectual arsenal who could use an endless array of dizzying reflinks and polysyllabic words or trendy accusations to confuse or enrage, but you don't. I don't think you are "anti-Semitic". I regret causing you to even imagine I did, if that is what happened. Quis separabit? 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I appeared to imply you shared that view. Of course you don't. I should be the one to regret that my carelessness led you to waste your time on what looks in hindsight like an extorted compliment, and thus a cause for my regret. 'Strong beliefs' should probably read 'ethics': the pleasure of ageing is to lose all that 'belief' baggage one carries from the past, as experience whittles it down and thought tries to retrieve what is useful there only in the form of rational judgements about value. In the round I think one can say that in this area, either strong ethical/ethnic feelings or sheer curiosity for narrative complexities attracts editors to contribute, and that the former motivation is deeply problematical. Ethics are, really, contra naturam (red in tooth and claw) but, more cogently, an obstacle to penetrating deeply into the nature of the world, how things/man/institutions function. One of my tests for accurate judgement is to analyse whether, in a context of interpretative conflict, ethics trumps curiosity, or curiosity gets the better of ethics. I hope that, over time, the latter impulse improves its superiority to the former, so that legitimate sympathies never get in the way in looking at facts. That is not to deny my 'strong feelings'. Rather than write an essay, as I am at risk of doing now and observing the can of worms each word opens up, I'll close with the proverb:Amicus Plato (i.e. ethics), sed magis amica veritas.

I enjoy having editors who are very precise and meticulously focused on the empirical, at my shoulder on editing wiki. In the Gaza pages I have rarely had reason to challenge your judgement in correcting my material. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)