User talk:Hummingbird

Hi there.
I have reverted your edits because YouTube isn't reliable to us and all the content of the page is already well sourced. Cheers. --Diego Grez return fire 01:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * hello. before doing so, have you seen this video in any of the sources? can the reader of the article easily watch the video by himself? have you watched it to take a stand if it is reliable? have you checked who uploaded the video to make sure the video wasn't copied? well, it was uploaded by the IDF itself. Hummingbird (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I watched the video. It doesn't adds much, and the sources have videos. Don't they? Also, we don't use YouTube commonly as sources --Diego Grez return fire 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * for me, as a news consumer, things weren't clear until watching this video. the video taken from the activists' side is not clear as this (thanks to the night vision). many people think the IDF start shooting with no warning from the air. many people think the IDF was equipped with machine guns (while it carried paintball guns and handguns as secondary arm, used only with a premission of the command). this is a source of a first degree of importance, while it can't be seen in any of the sources. so, the article might have plenty of sources, but this "little detail" can change the whole message the article may convey. there's a "half-truth" and there's the truth, and the media should supply the truth, and not part of it. Hummingbird (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a YouTube video is reliable is irrelevant here. The problem is that the video is subject to interpretation. Weren't there some on the other side who claimed that they were fired upon before being boarded? The video wouldn't show that if it was clipped not to show it. This is the reason for reliance on secondary sources: it makes it harder for editor opinion to infest the article and make it a mob-rule thing. --68.161.179.64 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)