Jump to content

Talk:August 2010 West Bank shooting attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Who was killed

[edit]

An Israeli MFA brief says the people killed were "civilians". Third party sources such as this or this or this or this or this say that the people killed were "settlers". Why exactly should the lead follow the chosen language of the Israeli government instead of what third party sources say? nableezy - 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious Nableezy, how would you classify a mid-30s pregnant mother of six?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is she an Israeli settler? I would "classify" her as an "Israeli settler". Could you explain why you insist on editing at this website without any regard for WP:NPOV? nableezy - 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are edit warring to maintain your POV. Interesting. And despite your blatantly dishonest statement that Hamas is "designated a terror organization by the free world", they are not. A small number of countries designate them that, not the "free world". nableezy - 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly only " small number of countries" are the free world.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nice. It completely misses the point, but it is so very nice of you to let us know what you think. nableezy - 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now you consider JPost to be a biased source, eh Nableezy? Don't stop, keep it up, you're doing great.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources have their bias. Would you care to actually respond to the issues instead of forcing me to respond to inane diversionary comments? nableezy - 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to any comment you don't agree with to be "diversionary."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I refer to ones that do not address the issue as diversionary as they are meant to divert from the issue. To repeat, mutliple sources call the people responsible for this attack "Hamas militants" or "Hamas gunmen" and also refer to the victims as "Israeli settlers" or "Jewish settlers". Is there a reason you insist on only including what the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Jerusalem Post would rather call these people in place of what many other sources use? And why we are bound to use the language only found in your favored source? nableezy - 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to classify them as "civilians" if there isn't a reason for it. The vast majority of people are civilians so this does not need to be pointed out. We don't say "human beings were killed" either. The fact that they were settlers is mentionable because they're status in the westbank is illegal by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Hamas as "terrorists" is also pov, since this is a minority view within the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat broad spectrum of countries, including Japan and Jordan considers them a terrorist group. What is the criteria for deeming something a terrorist group? The IRA, ETA, and al-Qaeda are not recognized as terrorist groups by everyone. Metallurgist (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadest spectrum don't. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, a similar talk discussion occurred at Hamas. According to B'tselem, an Israeli does not lose their civilian status simply because they are in the presence of settlements or residents of settlements. I know some people believe murdering a pregnant woman is different if said woman is an Israeli settler, but the reality is it doesn't make a difference. We can debate semantics all day, but IMO the goal here is to strip the fact that Hamas has a policy of targeting innocent civilians. The fact that the civilians are settlers is well emphasized. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Majority supported "settler" over "civilian" at Hamas talkpage. No one has said that Israeli settlers aren't "civilians", but this does not need to be mentioned: [1]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it needs to be mentioned. They are settlers by virtue of living in settlements. Soldiers can technically be settlers. The victims are still civilians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As majority of all people are civilians, this does not need to be pointed out unless there is a specific reasons for it. The majority of people are not settlers, so it tells the reader something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are civilians with a special status, in that they have chosen to live in settlements in the occupied territories, an overtly political act. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Gatoclass, special status they belonged to settler partisans, we even know who they voted for, I guess the killing event was also an overtly political act. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion might be relevant. Talk:Hamas/Archive_12#Settlers are legitimate military targets. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gato, the victims are civilians - period. What if the victims were civilians happening to traveling in the settlements, but not actual settlements? What if the victims were Israeli Arabs? Then what? Editors are placing too much focus on the settlement-aspect, and right now it isn't particularly relevant. All rights groups have said over and over and over again, attacking civilians is just as illegal if the victims happen to be settler. But I guess ignoring b'tselem rights group is okay when it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Civilians with special status?" Does that mean that they should be singled out for Special treatment? Christ, I thought I saw it all, apparently not.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are holocaust analogies really necessary? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, They're not. Got a little carried away. Apologies if I offended. My bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. nableezy - 03:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please explain how "Israeli settlers" is not the most accurate description for the people killed in this shooting? nableezy - 03:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgist, How is "Israeli settler" and referring to Kiryat Arba as an "Israeli settlement" "POV" ? [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Editors are fixated on the fact that the victims were settlers, but ignore the reality that they are civilians. They are settlers by virtue of living in settlements, this is not controversial. What is controversial is trying to obfuscate their civilian status by inferring the settler-identity as a pejorative deserving of death. It is the POV of Hamas that Israeli settlers should be uniquely targeted for being settlers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. Nobody is "obfuscating" anything, nobody is claiming these people are "combatants". "Israeli settler" is not an "identity", and nobody has said that these people "deserve death". Stop saying these moronic things if you want people to take you seriously. Yes, that is the view of Hamas. I dont see your point in raising that, but you have not explained how "Israeli settler" is not the most accurate description for these people. nableezy - 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Settler has become a pejorative term designed to somehow justify their killing. Maybe this is not the intention of editors here WP:AGF, but this is the connotation that will come through. This is POV and should be avoided. - BorisG (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop saying moronic things." Okay Nableezy. I agree with you Boris, that's what I've been trying to say. I am assuming good faith but it is pretty obvious what the result will be if the the victims are vilified with settler-buzzwords. Whether this is the goal of certain editors remains to be seen, let's hope not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but that is just not true. "Israeli settler" is not a pejorative term, it is what Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories are called according to countless reliable sources. I have shown a number of reliable sources from a variety of English speaking regions call the people killed in this attack "Israeli settlers". How about something like "unarmed Israeli settlers"? nableezy - 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, reliable sources refer to the victims as civilian, including B'tselem. Their status as settlers is not being disputed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide those sources, I would like to see them. I know that status is not disputed, which is exactly why it should be in the article. nableezy - 02:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian spokesmen argue that because the settlements themselves are illegal in many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, may harm them. This claim is unfounded: non-legality of the settlements has no effect whatsoever on the status of their residents as citizens. Civilian population is entitled to all protections granted to civilians under international law. Security forces' use of the land on which Israeli settlements were established, or affiliation of some vacant Israeli security forces, does not change the status of the other residents living in them and certainly does not legitimize... Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see that source also calls them settlers? You want to include that they are civilians that is fine, I dont think anybody objected to that. But how should these people be primarily described? The fact that they are settlers is just as relevant as the fact that they are Israelis. Something like "B'tselem condemned the killings and said that arguments by Hamas that settlers are valid targets are without basis in international law. According to B'tselem, the settler population is civilian and retains the rights of civilians under international law." would be a fine addition. But many more sources use "Israeli settler" as the primary, and in more than a few cases the exclusive, description of these people. nableezy - 04:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you arguing Nableezy? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That when we say who was killed it should say "four Israeli settlers were killed". nableezy - 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about four Israeli civilians from West Bank settlements of Beit Hagai and Efrat were killed...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, BorisG. And if we wikilink Beit Hagai and Efrat then wiki-reader could click to find out that those are West Bank Israeli settlements.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why you oppose using the label most sources use and insist on using a label that most sources do not use? When the people killed are almost universally called "Israeli settlers" we should also call them "Israeli settlers". I provided a number of links that exclusively call them "Israeli settlers". Most sources that cover this "event" say "four Israeli settlers were killed". They do not say "four Israeli civilians were killed". nableezy - 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt a vote. Could somebody please explain why we should not use what most sources call the people killed in this attack? nableezy - 21:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nableezy. We should follow the terminology of the majority of sources. Gatoclass (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? The victims were civilians that happened to be living in settlements. Comprehensive and authoritative references refer to the victims as civilians, including B'tselem. Their settler status is more than evident. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not noticed that I provided a number of sources from different English speaking regions that all call these people "Israeli settlers" and do not use any other label for them? Have you come up with a reason why we should not use what most sources use for the primary description of these people? nableezy - 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The victims are civilians says B'tselem and international law. General news, most of which is simply regurgitation, is hardly persuasive. The victims were civilians living in settlements, and they were settlers. A soldier can be a settler technically. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP:NPOV is what. If the sources call these people settlers so too should the article. That B'tselem says they were also civilians should also be included. But that isnt the primary label used by the sources and as such it should not be the primary label used in the article. That label should be "Israeli settlers". nableezy - 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word we choose should serve the reader's understanding of the matter best. We do carefully reflect the sources, but we never choose the exact wording by simply counting the newspapers using this or that language. Can someone please address the question from the style point of view? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask at what point in the article the contested wording is being proposed? It's not actually clear from the preceding debate. Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead I guess. This sentence: "Four Israelis were killed after Hamas members attacked their vehicle" --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well regardless, I still think we should stick to the terminology used by the majority of sources. What we could do is link the term "Israeli settlers" to Israeli settlements. That article specifies in its opening lines that the settlers are civilians. Gatoclass (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, from a brief search I can see that ~3/4 of the news call the victims "Israelis" and ~1/4 "Israeli settlers". IMHO, counting sources to prove a point is a waste of time. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly when you have search terms such as the ones you used. Those results are meaningless, you need to actually read the sources. To illustrate the point, one of the results on the first page of your search is this. That page contains the words "west", "bank", "four", and "killing". But it has nothing to do with this topic. nableezy - 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did three or four different searches and briefly read 10-15 random results that came up. But it doesn't matter. We should not choose the wording by simply counting sources. Can we please address the style and the depth and the readability of the article instead of discussing google queries? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majority is meaningless. Clearly we could source both "civilian" and "settler". And not that there is anything wrong with settling generally, see Shanghai infobox for instance ;) However Beit Hagai and Efrat are Israeli settlements in West Bank, where the event happend. "Civilian" is more exact though, and no WP:V issue here. This document, mentioned earlier list the event as PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS issue and B'Tselem is a secondary source, most clearly saying so. Wiki being encyclopedia, maybe should disambiguate, on behave of Wiki-reader and do use civilian opening lines of this article, i.e. lede. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the policy say that we should use the exact language of the sources? As nableezy said earlier, sources have their POVs, but Wikipedia should be NPOV. Nableezy says that we should explain what's wrong with his version, but I will ask: what's wrong with my version? BTW someone says it unnecessary to say that they were civilians because the vast majority of humans are civilians. However it may not be so in a conflict zone, and hence clarification is important. I'd say my version above does not disagree with any sources, or with the article body, and thus any opposition to it exposes some editors' desire to somehow hide this important clarification. - BorisG (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What BS. My version does not disagree with any sources, or the article body, so "any opposition to it exposes some editors' desire to somehow hide this important clarification." nableezy - 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does my version contradict ANY sources? - BorisG (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does mine? nableezy - 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but mine is more complete, while your new version is redundant. Settlers from settlements. If they are from these settlements, they are automatically settlers. If you insist to say settlers, it means you are trying to use POV language (yes, sources do use POV language). - BorisG (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what pray tell is "POV" about calling Israeli settlers "Israeli settlers"? nableezy - 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But "my version" contains no such redundancy. The version in the article is not "my version". nableezy - 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply sorry, gentlemen, but the current version (Four civilian Israeli settlers from the West Bank settlements of Beit Hagai and Efrat were killed after Hamas members attacked their vehicle) is a failure. Let's try first to reach the consensus on what we want to say in the lead, and then how. Sounds good? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to be a little bit constructive, some questions regarding the lead:
  1. do we call the attack "Palestinian attack", "Hamas attack" or "terror attack"?
  2. do we call the attackers "Hamas gunmen", "Hamas militants" or "Hamas members"?
  3. does the settler status of the victims to be mentioned?
  4. does the civilian status of the victims to be mentioned?
  5. does the presence of a pregnant woman among the victims to be mentioned?
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I'm talking to myself here. Anyway, my answer is:
  1. "Hamas attack" or "terror attack"
  2. any
  3. yes
  4. yes
  5. yes
Thus, the proposal:

he 31 August 2010 West Bank shooting was a terror attack near Kiryat Arba, carried out by Hamas militants. Four Israeli settlers were killed after gunmen attacked their vehicle. The four victims, including a pregnant woman, were civilians from the West Bank settlements of Beit Hagai and Efrat.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ElComandanteChe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see why most of those things should be mentioned. Why exactly should the fact that one of the victims was pregnant be mentioned in the lead? Most of the people who are pushing that here were opposed to mentioning the number of children killed in the lead of Gaza War, saying it was "unnecessary detail". That number is not in the lead of the article now. Hell, the some of the same people arguing for including this and the word "civilian" forced even the number of civilians killed in that conflict out of the lead. We just have totals in the lead there, yet here some of the same editors making one argument there make a seemingly contradictory one here. I wonder why that is. Why should the most POV way of describing this attack, "terror attack", be used when a number of sources decline to go any further than saying it was "an attack". For each of the sources linked above, they only use the word "terror" or some derivative of that word when quoting somebody. Yes, some sources use that language, notably the Israeli media, but that does not mean that we should use that language in the narrative voice. Why should the settlements the victims were from be included in the lead? nableezy - 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here we go:
  1. Pregnant woman is unusual and dramatic fact. And, excuse my cynicism, it's a kind of "double kill". Also, I have added it to satisfy the people pushing "civilians" before "settlers", hoping they will accept it as a kind of "balance". Merely compromise, if you wish.
  2. "attack" instead of "terror attack" is great, I'll change it. It was put instead of "Palestinian attack" which looks even worse to me.
  3. Basically, other articles are not relevant, but I'll be glad to help with Gaza war NPOV, if you think I can.
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how in the name of NPOV the pregnancy aspect is not included in the lede. All reliable sources emphasize this aspect and per WP:LEAD the notable aspect of a subject should be included lede. at this time the lede, with all the hamas spokespeople glorifying the death, it reads like a hamas recruitment poster.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably because nobody said it was "in the name of NPOV" that it should be removed. And also because the lead actually does include that. Perhaps you are confusing this article with one documenting something that happened in Israel. That is the only explanation I can think of for your edits and for your thinking that this article's lead does not include "the pregnancy aspect". nableezy - 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nab, agree with you, Boris should not have commented on other editor motives. It is inappropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what pray tell is "POV" about calling Israeli settlers "Israeli settlers"? Can you please tell us what the word settlers adds to the (already mentioned) fact that these vicitms were from Israeli settlements? - BorisG (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, my impression is that Nableezy and Agada do agree with the current lead wording. If I'm right, and if it's ok with Boris too, we've got a stable consensus version, victory. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out)The lede seems fine, but I do have a question. Hamas are a terrorist group, why are they not described as such? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel are a terrorist group, why are they not described as such? Because wikipedia is not a place to express opinions, we try to be neutral. Public awareness (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a country, not a group. The country are also not a terrorist organization. Hamas however are a terrorist organization[3], would you are to reply to my question now? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that Hamas is a political party. It is an opinion that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Wikipedia is not here to state opinions as facts. If you can't understand this, than there is nothing anyone can do for you. Public awareness (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact they are a terrorist group, please do not try to argue it. It is not an opinion, they are a designated terrorist group. I shall change the lede accordingly The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/LAM. As Gatoclass says above, if that's what the RSs say ...--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is many things. It is equally "neutral" to describe them as "freedom fighters" as it is to describe them as a "terrorist group", both of those POVs are held by a significant number of people. There are a handful of states that regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. Wikipedia is not under any obligation to follow the "designation" by those states. It is obligated to include the prominent view that Hamas is a terrorist organization where it is relevant, and if you look in the Hamas article you can very easily see that it already is. Trying to make it so any mention of Hamas is proceeded by "the terrorist organization" however is not anywhere near what WP:NPOV requires of us. The very idea that the results of a google search of hamas terrorist is a reason to "change the lede accordingly" is absurd. It has as much validity as arguing that every mention of Hamas should be proceeded with "the resistance movement" because of these results. nableezy - 06:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not equally neutral, as far more reliable sources term them terrorists. Even the country they claim to fight for condems almost everything they do. Also, far more then "A handful" of countries call them terrorists, and most Major countries in the world do. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What country do they "claim" to fight for? And how does that "country" "condem[n]" what they do? What is a "Major" country, and which ones call Hamas a terrorist organization? It is in fact a handful (Israel, the US, Canada, Japan), and there are not in fact "far more reliable sources" that "term them" terrorists than a resistance organization or freedom fighters (many more sources do neither). Especially when you start counting Arabic reliable sources. But even without that, there are a plethora of sources that say Hamas is a resistance organization. nableezy - 20:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansionist nonsense

[edit]

This happened in the West Bank. The West Bank is not in Israel. Not even Israel claims that the West Bank is in Israel. nableezy - 22:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nab, do you believe that such a title, including words like nonsense is helping to build a consensus. What its function was? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis problem

[edit]

Right, so we have a statement from an Isreali settler saying they are all peaceful juxtaposed with a report about their fairly brutal retaliation. Obviously, this juxtaposition of two distinct newspaper reports do imply that the man is a hypocrite. The NY Times did not report this quotation in the context of their retaliation, so I can agree that its inclusion here is a bit problematic. Still, I'm not sure how problematic: this kind of rhetoric is common, and so are retaliations, and crucially, the disconnect between the two is also very common. I would recommend removing the quotation, but I do not think this is so disparaging to call it a BLP violation. Vesal (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I of course agree with this, and would add that the quote, while sourced, adds no value to the article but is merely a soapbox for racist speech. There is also the problem that the secondary source is proved wrong by a primary source in the next sentence, so it again, should be deleted. If the relevant policies are not changed, and the quote not removed, I will remove it myself next time I stop by.
Actually, the source could stay in the article, just it would have to be in presented in another form, such as "the occupying Israelis continue to blame the Palestinians for all violence and falsely claim to have always been peaceful", though this analysis would require a source. Public awareness (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement would this be? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Public Awareness, you truly do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. The basis for source material in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not "truth". What the settler says is an assertion, well-sourced in The New York Times, it doesn't mean it's true. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ed`s request on my talk page I have self reverted the quote out. Are there any reasonable grounds for it`s exclusion? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user:Public awareness is a sock of user:Passionless. Passionless is topic banned from I/P conflict. That's why I reverted. Besides there is no reason to remove sourced text because somebody does not like it. Broccolo (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the reasonable grounds for its inclusion? The problem is that the Times does not report it in juxtaposition with reports about retaliations. That irresponsible bit of WP:SYNT is attributable only to editors of this article. Vesal (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the Times does or does not report is not really our concern. It is a well sourced quote which was given in response to the murders. I do not see how it can be construed as synth? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a fairly subtle synthesis problem, so I will try once more to explain the problem, and you may decide if you are bothered by it or not. I won't argue this any further. Consider an analogous example, an example that actually would bother me a lot more: President Obama stated in his election campaign to create 8000 new job positions.[1] Between 2009-2011 unemployment in the US increased by 8%.[2] I would say such juxtaposition of two distinct sources is problematic because Wikipedia would be implying that Obama is not living up to his promises. It is a bit similar here, but maybe not as drastic. Regards, Vesal (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a WP:SYNTH problem whatsoever, a single quote in response to the attacks is just that. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources please explain how a single quote from a single source can be synth? Or of course it can go back in. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

al-Karmi

[edit]

Can somebody please explain why this article is labeling this person a terrorist in the narrative voice? And why a collection of "editors" feels justified playing lawyer, forgetting that the rule that is "non-negotiable" is this one? And, oh by the way, you cannot revert me on the basis of another editor being a sock. nableezy - 04:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the source used he cannot be called a terrorist. The source calls him an operative, as should the article based on the source used. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on August 2010 West Bank shooting attack. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:August_2010_West_Bank_shooting_attack&oldid=1256557319"