Talk:Al-Dalu family killing/Archives/2013/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Al-Dalu family killing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HRW investigation
Considering that the army corrected itself on the day of the incident about killing "Rabea"(the name spelled differently in all 3 sources), how relevant is HRW investigation a month later saying that they couldn't find "Rabea" on the list killed fighters on the official websites belonging to the military wings? (keep inmind this article is about 'Al-Dalu family') --Mor2 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and in general, we should avoid citing self published sources such as HRW press releases. Our aim should be to use reliable secondary sources to help us in giving due weight to each viewpoint. Marokwitz (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Restored neutral version
I have reverted edits made by Guinsberg because they removed content that I added to provide context to the article and because they restored POV content previously removed by Marokwit. - MrX 14:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had to revert your contributions because a lot of content was left out by yours and Markowitz' edits. To me, you were sacrificing, not adding, relevant information. Also, I'd like to know what is it that is being perceived as POV on the entry. Markowitz most important contribution was delete the "NYT controversy" section under the claim that it wasn't NPOV or something to that effect. The relevance of the section to the rest of the article is clear, in my view. I'd like to learn more about your objections. Myself, I think the views and allegations of all concerned parties - specially al-Dalu family members and the IDF - are well represented throughout the entry. By the way, I'd like to thank you MrX for warning me over the reversion rules before taking a meaure against me. Guinsberg (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you remove the background section that I had started? It seems that all you did was undo other edits to restore your favored version with no regard to the value of edits made by other editors. Also, please see the big yellow warning above and the 3RR vio warning on your talk page. Usually, if an editor self-reverts, they can avoid going to WP:ANEW. - MrX
- The one thing the "Background" added was that it identified the Israei jets as F16s. The rest of it contained only information already on the lead of the article. Considering the entry's diminutive size, I don't see why put the same information on different places of the entry. Guinsberg (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought the weapon was of some importance and intended to expand the background section. This does not really address the edit warring though. Being right or righteous does not justify this kind of editing, especially when other editors are trying to improve the article so it does not get tossed into the delete bin. - MrX 15:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please, add the weaponry information again. I apologize for having removed it in the first place. And you're right about my conduct. But I still think the information could be added already on the lead of the article, so as to avoid repeating the same information throughout the entry. Guinsberg (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't reinsert the information I added without violating the 1RR. - MrX 15:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- If consensus is created to reinsert, it certainly wouldn't be considered a violation. Ryan Vesey 21:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't reinsert the information I added without violating the 1RR. - MrX 15:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please, add the weaponry information again. I apologize for having removed it in the first place. And you're right about my conduct. But I still think the information could be added already on the lead of the article, so as to avoid repeating the same information throughout the entry. Guinsberg (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought the weapon was of some importance and intended to expand the background section. This does not really address the edit warring though. Being right or righteous does not justify this kind of editing, especially when other editors are trying to improve the article so it does not get tossed into the delete bin. - MrX 15:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The one thing the "Background" added was that it identified the Israei jets as F16s. The rest of it contained only information already on the lead of the article. Considering the entry's diminutive size, I don't see why put the same information on different places of the entry. Guinsberg (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you remove the background section that I had started? It seems that all you did was undo other edits to restore your favored version with no regard to the value of edits made by other editors. Also, please see the big yellow warning above and the 3RR vio warning on your talk page. Usually, if an editor self-reverts, they can avoid going to WP:ANEW. - MrX
Regarding criticism of the NYT
- On the topic of NYT, there's no way it's relevant to this article. In addition, we are using one source to accuse a living person as being racist (among other things). This clearly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Due weight. I've removed it as a BLP violation but will take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on request. Ryan Vesey 21:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Criticism of the NYT is completely off topic. This should be an encyclopedic article about the killing of the Dalu family. Marokwitz (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. Criticism pertains to the most significant article that the NYT produced on the deaths, and the description of funereal services by the correspondent. In my view, the section's link and relevant to the overall entry is clear. (By the way, the recent edits by IP number 177.98.134.130 are my own). Guinsberg (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)