Talk:2015 Shvut Rachel shooting

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

WP:WESTBANK[edit]

That naming convention specifically disallows using Samaria as the name of a modern region the way it is used now. That should be removed, and if it is not done so later today I will do it myself. nableezy - 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fascinating. And how extremely collegial of User:Nableezy to post a public threat instead of, for example mentioning this rule to me. Er, flagging me. Nableezy, since you brought this up, wold you be willing to share a link to this rule? Where/how does one locate such an arcane ruling in the WP labyrinth? Is there a search function? Some means by which users are notified of such rules except - as I have discovered once or twice - by stepping unto an unmarked landmine? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current version mentioning both names appears like a reasonable compromise. 2601:240:CC02:E8D6:259E:B2FD:87BE:71D7 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted that in an edit summary. You restored Samaria. Im correcting that now. And the link is in the section title. And there wasnt a threat. Try not to be so hysterical in the future. nableezy - 15:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Special:Contributions/2601:240:CC02:E8D6:259E:B2FD:87BE:71D7 correctly surmised, it seemed like a reasonable compromise. It follows the almost universal policy of using the geographic name used by the people living in the place, as well as being the accurate and familiar Bible name. I did not realize that the headline was a link. unusual. but, thank you. I will read it when I get a chance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not a reasonable compromise. There was an arbitration case over the use of Judea and Samaria for the West Bank, and the result is that naming convention. We dont use settler speak for place names in Palestinian territory, sorry. Finally, again, stop saying I threatened you. Thats just being foolish. nableezy - 16:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wrote West Bank/Samaria. It still seems like NPOV to me since it reflects the actual usage in the region under discussion. Nableezy threatened me with sanctions when he posted his message along with that huge, dire yellow block filled with threats of sanctions. I have started a lot pf pages, and only when I wade into this are do I get threatened. If he intended to frighten me away from editing in this topic, he has probably succeeded. It is extremely unpleasant. I used to enjoy editing, before I met Nablezy. But I will finish work on this series of terrorism pages first.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to play the victim because no one's actually going to buy it. All of your "contributions" to the topic at hand are absolutely worthless and totally lacking in objectivity-- as per the case for the "individual dead Israelis deserve their own pages" BS brigade on Wikipedia.
Also, killing Israeli soldiers isn't "terrorism". The guy who got hit in the head with a rock is not some kind of innocent victim.
The kyle 3 (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When did I threaten you with sanctions? What are you babbling about? Stop making things up, it is extremely unpleasant. nableezy - 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as a point of fact, you started by writing in Samaria, and later in Judea and Samaria. You added Samaria to West Bank after that was replaced with an edit summary pointing you to WP:WESTBANK. Again, stop saying plainly untrue things. nableezy - 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, being aggressive and imagining that there was any way on earth that I could divine what your edit meant. I'm not a mind reader. You seem to be trying to chase me away by your unreasonable and accusatory attitude. How on earth do you expect other editors to understand the arcane code in which you speak? I'm trying to figure it all out, but every time I try - like by writing an article that seemed - to me - to be just as valid as the articles about terrorism in the U.S. or France, I get jumped by aggressive people like you. Sheessh.03:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Click on the link genius, thats how you figure it out. Stop imagining things. K thnx bye. nableezy - 12:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "2015 in Israel" link[edit]

The West Bank is not part of Israel. It makes sense to edit the bottom of the page as a result, considering this fact.

The kyle 3 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "Possible Ramadan Connection" part[edit]

Hamas and ISIS are enemies and otherwise totally unrelated to one another. That portion of the post just seems to be about disseminating Likud-style propaganda in intentionally trying to draw a connection to ISIS's attacks in late June.

The kyle 3 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section is well-sourced. replaced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Getting rid of it again. Try not to be such a "settler".
The kyle 3 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas / Muslim Brotherood[edit]

ER, Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood, if the Muslim Brotherhood isn't Islamist, what is?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Gregory, is the fact that your edits are all about trying to make the insinuation that Hamas is connected to, or working with ISIS, and that these attacks are tied to the ISIS Ramadan attacks at the end of June.
This is blatant falsehood, not least because Hamas and ISIS are enemies and actively in a state of open confrontation as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned.
Hamas is Nationalist-Islamist. ISIS is Salafi Jihadi/Wahhabi-Takfiri. There's a big big difference to anyone who actually cares to pay attention/not actively mislead people.
The kyle 3 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, Kyle, is that while in Gaza they might have an open confrontation, the situation is not always the same ( Ansar Bayt Al Maqdis (ISIS) had been working together with Hamas against Israel 1) and they are actively working together in the Sinai peninsula 1 2. 5.144.49.18 (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of three of your sources are rubbish and, I think, show you up for what you are. There's a lot of claptrap coming from Israel over Hamas being one and the same with ISIS, and then you have Sisi simply not liking them because of their connection to the deposed Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.
Hamas is Islamist-Nationalist (and so the Wahhabis of ISIS see them as heretical) and there's not really any evidence to the claims of Hamas and ISIS colluding in the Sinai. It's by and large Israeli nonsense of the kind they've been rattling off since AQ became such a hot issue.
The kyle 3 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you're heavily implying in linking to the 2015 Ramadan attacks carried out by ISIS. I'm deleting that editorialism again because it's pointless and leading-- which is exactly how you intended it to be, Gregory.
The kyle 3 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see another user has removed your baseless, leading editorialism. Good on him, I must say.
As it stands, I've reverted some of your changes considering you're really the polar opposite of even remote objectivity when it comes to this state of affairs. The kyle 3 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed another link[edit]

I changed "Islamic terrorist incidents in the 2010s" to "Israeli settlements" considering the former is all about listing the work of Al Qaeda and other international Jihadi movements, and as a result, the latter is considerably more relevant in the case of this shooting.

The kyle 3 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I am changing this link again, considering that "Israeli settlements" as a category is more relevant then "List of Islamist terror attacks in the 2010s", which is full of unrelated articles. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions on Ramadan section[edit]

  • Nableezy's assertion is simply false. He has clearly not read the articles he has deleted. This is certainly improper behavior, and with the article currently at AFD it feels sneaky.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have read the articles, thank you very much. Washington Post never once mentions France, Tunis, Kuwait or Somalia. CBN, even though it isnt exactly a reliable source, also never once mentions Tunis, France, Somalia or Kuwait. AFP likewise never once menitons Tunis, France, Somalia or Kuwait. You cannot connect topics that the sources do not, that is a straightforward violation of WP:OR. Also, kindly stop commenting on editors, I have yet to say what I think of your behavior so please return the favor. nableezy - 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles I referenced are about the idea of Islamist militants scheduling attacks during Ramadan. I took you to be denying this claim (i.e., asserting that the referenced articles did not connect to the attacks on Danny Gonen and near Shuvat Rachel. I can now see that your wording was ambiguous, but, as I wrote, these assertions are "like" the assertions cited in 2015 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cant write that if the sources dont. nableezy - 06:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR in the lead[edit]

@E.M.Gregory: I do not know what you are quoting in the cited sources which says that the attacks are part of a larger pattern of surge of attacks in summer and autumn. The Haaretz source says the reasons might have to do with the Al-Aqsa clashes, which happened in July and afterwards? The NYT simply says that the attack is the first one since the attacks in June. I would like a clarification before this is inserted. I have removed this for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Shvut_Rachel_shooting&oldid=1196692980"