Talk:Tali Hatuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of that discussion, see Talk:Tali Hatuel/Delete.
[edit] Page protected
I have protected this page due to a dispute over cited sources. Please resolve differences here. --Viajero 08:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
They are terrorists, not militants. Murderers, not martyrs.
Both The Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the deaths. The terrorists videotaped the children as they bled to death. This has become a common practice of Palestinian terrorist groups. The New York Times has reported the practice of filming attacks on Israelis on both 12 May and 13 May 2004 "The militant Islamic group Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and said they would release footage of the attack." New York Times. Reuters news agency reported on May 11 that Hamas filmed an attack: "Hamas said in a statement...it had film of the attack..."[1]
establishes the new practice of terrorists filming their attacks. NYT and Reuters cite two examples. INN cites one example.
---
Of all the citations brought by OneVoice, only the extremist settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva claimed that this particular attack was filmed. No other source claimed it, not even the usual array of right-wing Israeli media outlets. In such cases, the usual explanation for the discrepancy is that Arutz Sheva invented the information. This has happened many times in the past and OneVoice has been (all too willingly) misled by them several times before in Wikipedia. The details of the claim are also extremely doubtful and not at all like cases where an attack is known to have been filmed. If it was filmed that would have been from a distance and the filmers would have left immediately for obvious reasons. The claim stinks like standard A-7 lies. The "terrified toddlers" quote is also unacceptable. Anyone who knows anything about children will know that toddlers are the last people to be scared of gunfire. --Zero 05:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- Why does the above paragraph seem to focus on invective against a single news source and deal with the filming and the nature of this terrorist attack secondarily? It would be called ad hominum. A method of argumentation known as a logical fallacy.
- But when their parents are running around screaming, as one normally does when one is being shot at, I would expect the toddlers to be more than a little bit terrified. Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
- While I can understand why 209.135.35.83 finds it important to mention the filming of some terrorist attacks, I havn't managed to find any particularly reputable source that reported filming of this particular attack. I think we should mention it on any pages documenting terrorist attacks in which it is widely accepted that the attacks were filmed, but that is not the case in this instance. In addition, I don't think it is necessary to write quite so much about it. The murder seems, to me, to be far more important than the filming of it. --Caliper 22:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] To Be Added
June 16 2004, Ben-Gurion University in the Negev will award Tali Hatuel, murdered by Arab terrorists, a posthumous Masters of Arts degree in Social Work. Her husband, David Hatuel, will receive an MA in Jewish Philosophy at the ceremony.
Tali Hatuel, her unborn son and her four daughters - aged two to eleven - were shot dead at point-blank range by Arab terrorists from Gaza on May 2, 2004.
Is this still disputed? If so, what? It's been protected for nearly two months. Ambivalenthysteria 10:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I will certainly continue to delete the same crud if it is inserted again, but one can always hope that it won't be. --Zero 12:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm going to unprotect the page, and we'll see how it goes. Ambivalenthysteria 12:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] murder vs kill
Jay, I do not think "killed at close range" does the truth the complete justice it deserves. There is a difference between the definition of kill and murder. "Kill" can be construed as justified and murder cannot. We use different terms for politicians, such as assassinate, because they are specific, in this case, a defenseless woman and her four daughters was shot at point blank range with AKs. It is a clear cut case of murder, there was no self defense, the people were unarmed civilians, the people who committed this were of "sound mind." Calling it anything else is whitewash.
Guy Montag 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
- First, stop throwing out the noncontroversial edits with the controversial. You keep restoring a spelling mistake, as well as a reference to a separate attack as a "killing" despite nobody dying except the attackers.
- On the main issue, you've just answered your own question. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. I believe that it was murder, jayjg and Cragmont presumably do too. But as long as there are large groups of people who see the situation differently, we can avoid the appearance of bias by using a strictly factual word. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
Then find someone who thinks that it was a justified attack. Are you going to quote Hamas or the perpetrators? Do you see how ridiculous this fear of offending goes to? We have a definition for murder, it fits the case, it should be labeled with the defintion it fits, not a morally amigious whitewash.
Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)
- Yes, it is ridiculous, but people hold ridiculous beliefs. You yourself display with approval on your personal page a poster depicting the borders of Israel encompassing the entire area of the West Bank and Jordan, above which is superimposed a hand holding a rifle. I don't think I need to say anything else. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
- It does not follow that because someone holds a ridiculous belief, that one should refrain from calling a murder a murder lest the person with the ridiculous belief take offense.
In other words, you last argument is an ad hominem poisoning the well run around. Do you have an actual argument that can defend using one definition when there is a specific term in place for the exact instance listed in the article? It appears that you do not. Murdering civilians is against both state and international law, not to mention all standards of human morality. It is also the mainstream standard with which we judge actions of others. Wikipedia does not hold into account fringe definitions when others are available.
Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
- I already made my argument. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. This is not neutral. Normally I wouldn't be so pedantic, but on a topic like this where you and your opposition have such strong feelings, it's necessary. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
- And now, without waiting for an answer, you have broken the 3RR, assuming that applies to repeatedly changing one word of an article. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
Guy, you've now duplicated the opening sentence, which is extremely bad form. We don't have to call it murder, because by simply saying "pregnant woman and four young daughters shot and killed at close range by Palestinian gunmen", we give an entirely neutral account of the facts, yet also a horrific example of murder. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
Perhaps I had my emotions take the better of me. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't glossed over in the name of neutrality. I hope everyone understands. Anyways, I will self revert to Jay's version.
Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
Not at all. It was a bad copy edit on my part.
Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
