Talk:Tom Hurndall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Hurndall article.

Contents

[edit] Sniper and POV

~~The word sniper in the second sentence seems POV and unsubstantiated to me. He is described on four other occasions as a soldier Moriori 01:52, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a POV issue. The IDF does deploy some soldiers explicitly as snipers. The issue here is whether this particular soldier was working as a sniper or not at the time of the shooting - a question of fact rather than opinion. I don't know the answer to this question. --Zero 02:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is definitely POV. It is someone's opinion that he was a sniper, without evidence. There is no evidence this soldier meets the wikipedia definition of Sniper (or anyone elses). Whether or not the IDF "does deploy some soldiers explicitly as snipers" is not the point. He was called a sniper and until that is ever established, it is POV. Moriori 06:40, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I changed it, though I agree it's not a POV issue. The news sources describe him as a "soldier", and it seems (though is not explicitly stated) that he was carrying a standard-issue military rifle, not a sniper rifle. It also makes more sense, because a soldier with a standard rifle might mean to fire a warning shot and accidentally hit the person, but a sniper generally would not be that inaccurate. --Delirium 02:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Your comments are noted (and welcome) but it was POV to me. What could motivate someone to deliberately write the word sniper without any evidence to show he fits the wikipedia def of Sniper? Is bias POV? Moriori 06:40, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Could simply be misreading. If someone shoots someone else from some distance, people might automatically assume he's a sniper. --Delirium 08:47, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

This recent article described him as a "sniper" adding that he was an "award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight." That sure sounds sniperish to me. --GD 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zero0000, Arutz-7 is a news agency. Who decides which news agencies may be quoted? Added article to the Oasis, please join us there. OneVoice 12:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support just keeping two or three of the more mainstream sources (NYTimes, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, whatever). Since they all seem to report the same information, there's no reason to link 8 of them, and given the choice we should prefer moderate centrist news sources. If something was only reported in a far-left or far-right paper, that'd be another matter, but I don't think that's the case here, so I don't really see what adding a controversial source gains us. --Delirium 20:29, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
There is certainly no need to link many sources. INN has three salient characteristics:
  1. It runs through information on many news papers, translates into English and cites its sources (Die Welt for instance). Thus we were appraised of the French money laundering probe and the OLAF report without having to gain facility with each European language.
  2. INN seems to get the story out one or days in advance of other media sources. Items that I read on INN on Tuesday are in the NPR report on Thursday morning.
  3. INN covers in detail and up to the minute the wide variety of activity of Israelis.

These are reasons to read INN. OneVoice 20:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, without going into that debate, I think in this particular case, the INN story doesn't add any information that the other stories don't, so don't think it's really best to link it, given its controversial nature. If it did have information nobody else had, I wouldn't mind linking it. --Delirium 21:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, in fact it seems that there is an error in the INN report in this case. OneVoice 21:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protected

This article has been protected due to a edit war between OneVoice and Zero. -- Viajero 15:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected now, as the dispute seems to be resolved. --Delirium 01:56, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taysir convicted on 27 June 2005

I have come across a very brief AFP news snippet reporting that Taysir was convicted of manslaughter on June 27, 2005. This update should go into the article with an appropriate link to an online report. 203.198.237.30 28 June 2005 05:31 (UTC)

[edit] A disgusting example of POV from certain editors of this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Hurndall&diff=19053069&oldid=19052662 User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eliram tried to sneak in a weaselish excuse for the IDF by attempting to marginalize and isolate the sniper who killed Hurndall as a "bedouin soldier of the IDF". Since when did users become so determined to push a certain point of view (in this case, that although Hurndall was killed, it wasn't by a "true" Israeli) that they'd actually make such insulting revisions to an article? Particularly under the deceptive summary "clearing up a false implication." What? What "false implication"? That he was an Israeli?

This is nauseating. And it has to stop. A crime committed by a member of the IDF should not be spun into something it isn't. People who edit like this are worse than Fox News. You're lying, and you know you're lying. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest bit? TheMusicMan 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Right now, he's *still* trying to isolate the soldier from the IDF. In his most recent edit, he silently tried to list the man as a soldier, instead of as a sniper. The news reports described him as a sniper. The Israeli Defense Forces themselves named the man as a sniper. The weapon he used to committ the crime was a well-known sniper rifle used by the IDF. The *JUDGE* of the case described the man as a sniper. Yet we still have people attempting to describe him as an ordinary soldier (not to mention, a "bedouin soldier"). It's bloody racist, and it reeks of a chronically prejudiced POV.

This has to stop.Avivle 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online Videos

There are two videos which I think should be linked from this article:

  1. IDF spokesperson lying about Tom having a gun: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/164505
  2. Actual video from Tom's murder: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/165209

Any objections? Mgaines One tilde to few to include the date, original post 4/21 Mgaines 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I've removed the "children paralysed with fear" comment from the intro. If it's to be included, we need a good source and it has to be written in neutral language. I also added some refs and that a previous court case had found the soldier guilty of manslaughter. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to directly quote the BBC News citation. This way, there can be no over or under dramatization -- it is exactly what the cite brings. -- Avi 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death place?

Does anyone know where Hurndall died? It wasn't in Gaza, but in a hospital somewhere nine months later. -- Avi 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think one of the sources says London. -- Avi 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETom_Hurndall_9964.html"