Talk:Iain Hook

NPOV

The article violates NPOV by failing to include the results of the Israeli investigation or the fact that Hook had reported that day he was under attack from 22 Palestinian militants. THF (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link or citation for the Israeli investigation.Pustelnik (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is also rather vague on certain points. For one thing, I'd be curious to know what authority is possessed by an inquest in Ipswich (of all places) over a death in Jenin. That sort of perspective -- knowing whether this is the equivalent of a serious inquiry, or a grandstanding act by a local council -- would be important to our readers. Ray^Talk 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

British law requires an inquest to be held in the case of non-natural death of a British citizen abroad, the inquest often being held in the jurisdiction of wherever the body was actually repatriated. It has nothing to do with the "local council," and is not discretionary. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the section headings violate NPOV (what coverup?) and MOS. THF (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The cover up is the refusal of the British government to release its records on the incident, documented with an external link to the government site. Feel free to provide a link to the Israeli investigation. The article has links from major US and British newspapers. The inqust in Ipswich was done because he was a British citizen. Please explain how a sniper, from this distance, would mistake a 6 foot plus redhead for a Palestinian? Pustelnik (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cover up" is clearly a non-neutral way to say "refusal of the British government to release its records on the incident." You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, as you are arguing about the incident, rather than about how to get this article to comply with Wikipedia policy. THF (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then provide a link to the Israeli investigation> Pustelnik (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to have a page on Iain Hook, with a paragraph about his death? It seems odd, to say the least, how it is now.Fuzbaby (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I propose this article be renamed.Fuzbaby (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's Wikipedia custom to cover the event, not the person for people who are notable only for one event (see WP:BIO1E). This is done deliberately to prevent excessive exhumation of the lives of private individuals, and to keep the Wikipedia on notable and relevant subject matter. Ray^Talk 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't yet read that. I was just basing off the Rachel Corrie article, also notable only for one event. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie has become a celebrity of sorts -- there's enough published information about her to make her notorious in death, as she was not in life. I don't have a high opinion of it, but Wikipedia's job is just to report, not to commentate. Iain Hook has not undergone such a dubious apotheosis. Ray^Talk 02:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to the widow and children here

It wasn't just for lack of sourcing that I removed the names of Mr. Hook's wife and children. They're entitled to a presumption of privacy, as private persons affected by tragedy, under WP:BLP. Ray^Talk 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here as a result of a request for input on WP:BLP, I am inclined to agree with ray. The names of the family member's are not needed. A reference to his wife and X children is sufficeint.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is an request for input, where is the link for it. It should be added to the talk page. [1] Kasaalan (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Ray. I don't see any relevance or importance of the names of family members. If Iain Hook was a extremely notable celebrity and the names of family members was widely disseminted then maybe but I suspect the vast majority of articles on Iain Hook and his death don't mention the names. We don't even have an article on Iain Hook. Incidentally, even if the wife has made a public statement and even if you feel that justifies inclusion of the wifes name (which I obviously dispute, there are a lot of cases when one or more family members of someone relatively unknown make a public statement) it doesn't explain the relevance of the names of the children. Indeed the sons were even given the surname of the father which while likely, neither source even mentions this. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all I don't agree any privacy issue exist, since the names appeared on multiple British sources like, BBC or The Guardian, and I don't consider the family would want any "privacy" or "shame" by their names listed in any way, since they made press statements and public memorials while press is involved.

Second, the children's name might be somewhat unrelated, but the article is missing his wife's public expressions already, so it should be one way or another added. I will add her wife and family's statements per reliable sources for improving article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The policies are too general. "living individuals who are not directly involved" Hook's family is directly involved to the case not "loosely". We have a different case than just "personal privacy", I would skip his children names, and only may put her wife's name since she make the announcements generally. However, after a deeper search the case is different, whether we include names or not. Apparently the case is intertwined since Iain Hook's 2 children are military officers, that is why Britain made some interesting talk over "government security" or such. Whether to include names or not, the children are related to the case. We should look for a better review on the case. Where can we ask for such a policy debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you asserting that reliable sources state Iain Hook's children are at risk because their father was killed? Or that they were involved in the killing? If not, then I still don't get the relevance of the childrens name. In terms of privacy, bear in mind two things. 1) Generally speaking, if there is merit to include the names now, that means there is merit for all time. In other words, if you include the names now, they should never be removed. Yet just because a few sources mention the names now, does not mean they will mention them 10-20 years from now. And as I've stated, I expect most articles on Iain Hook and his death do not give the families name even now. Also, wikipedia is commonly the first result for any search. This means that for the rest of their life searches for these people are likely to bring up this wikipedia page. Do you really assert that 10-20 years from now, when it's easily possible the people involved have moved on and no longer wish to be associated with that part of their lives, it is appropriate for us to still link it to them when many of the news sources may be no longer available and most other sources may not mention them when discussing the death? The simple fact is that in many cases, the families and friends of victims (and perpetrators) are publicly identified and make public statements after the event. Unless they have a clear, long lasting, relevance to the case, then it is unlikely it is appropriate to include their names, and often their statements. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting "reliable sources state Iain Hook's children are at risk because their father was killed" or "they were involved in the killing", ray sounds like asserting that claim. Family members made public statements with their full names, so I cannot assume they seek "privacy" of their names in the first place. Or any real privacy issue is involved, while their names are already mentioned in highest read British news sources. BBC and Guardian is in the first page of google when you search iain hook's name, along with wikipedia or counterpunch.

The settlement that is related to "British security" which is possibly related to his 2 sons who are military officials, and after Ray even tries to trim his sons' job which may be a key issue to the settlement, as "unnecessary detail" even I clearly explained earlier, currently the case is more complicated than just to mention family members' names or not.

By the way I don't care if Ray cares what BBC says or not, however in BBC, British sources say its a settlement, after British courts find Israeli side guilty they pay money to the family while claiming it is ex gratia, I cannot tell why Wikipedia should set a title as "payment", if it will be neutral to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"related to British security" probably means that some diplomat's career is over if the details of the deal are released. I doubt that it will affect the safety of your granny in Hants. Pustelnik (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't military service compulsory in Israel? So isn't that akin to saying they are male between 18 and 22? Fuzbaby (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Iain Hook is British, how israeli army regulations is related to his military official sons. Kasaalan (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iain Hook. 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/20110725072531/http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50081575.pdf to http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50081575.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214152351/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/14fa6f6d6c7bef9985256c79006da171%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/14fa6f6d6c7bef9985256c79006da171%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041221204418/http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2002/stat-22nov02.html to http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2002/stat-22nov02.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)