| Revision as of 03:46, 19 March 2011 editPassionless (talk | contribs)3,461 edits →Accusations spouted as fact← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:59, 19 March 2011 edit undoRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Accusations spouted as fact: out of lineNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. ] ] 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. ] ] 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :It sure is , and ]?--] (]) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | :It sure is , and ]?--] (]) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. ] (] ⋅ ]) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. ] ] 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ::Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. ] ] 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:59, 19 March 2011
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details |
 | Palestine Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Proposed rivolous deletion request
I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a new Act passed by US Congress and named for one of the victims! I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if there was a foundation and a comedy tour created for one of the victims. I am not sure how one could claim this article to be wp:event, if the article is sourced for 2001,2010 and 2011! May I please recommend you to take the template off ASAP. It is a bad faith edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can always take it down without discussion, but than a discussion of the AfD begins. Also, the things that followed seriously lack notability, where I'm from when someone dies there is a very good chance a trust is started in their name- awards, grants, parks, buildings, scholarships, and so on, so these don't really add notability. Passionless -Talk 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how many "murders" get mentioned in books by a different authors. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: I just don't like it --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The US congress act which was made a year or two later, has no mention of the murder victim outside of the title. It is a quite general act which does not appear to be in response to the incident. It would be like naming a car-safety bill after a random person who died in a car crash, the bill was needed regardless and is in response to the whole situation, not just one small event. Oh, oops I put the template for 'uncontroversial page deletion'....uh, how do I add the correct one that starts the !vote?? Passionless -Talk 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've no idea. I usually write articles, and do not nominate ones on deletion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The US congress act which was made a year or two later, has no mention of the murder victim outside of the title. It is a quite general act which does not appear to be in response to the incident. It would be like naming a car-safety bill after a random person who died in a car crash, the bill was needed regardless and is in response to the whole situation, not just one small event. Oh, oops I put the template for 'uncontroversial page deletion'....uh, how do I add the correct one that starts the !vote?? Passionless -Talk 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how many "murders" get mentioned in books by a different authors. Really your template for this article was added with the only reason: I just don't like it --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? What about US congress Act? Is there "a very good chance" for that to occur too? Listen, please don't take neither mine time not yours, better take the template out, or nominate the article on deletion, and let the wider community to decide.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The event already has an article, it's called Koby Mandell. The information is largely the same. They should just be merged, problem solved. —Ynhockey 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the article Koby Mandell, but I am strongly oppose merging the articles. Koby should has an article on his own, but this article should be a separate one. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP1E they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under WP:EVENT,WP:VICTIM, and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I will accept your suggestion to wait for the end of the AfD, but please don't remove merge templates in the future. Merge templates should only be removed if either the request if obviously frivolous (i.e. can be considered vandalism), or there's a consensus not to merge over a long enough period (usually 1 week, similar to AfD). —Ynhockey 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the merge template for now. First we have to see what will be the result of DRs. Merge template just adds to confusion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP1E they should be merged. But that would be if the people/event was notable enough to survive deletion under WP:EVENT,WP:VICTIM, and WP:BIO1E. Passionless -Talk 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I support the merge per WP:BIO1E - to be coarse, the kid did nothing aside from get killed that would merit a separate article on him and on the murder. Please note also that the Koby Mandell Act never passed and as such does not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like the Act did pass--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That source doesn't support that claim, but I found a Forward blurb about Congress passing it and a JPost opinion piece which indicates that it was signed, so I'll add those. We should be able to do better than this, though. Is there no actual news coverage of its being signed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- wheee Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Final clarification (as I wrote in the article): the bill itself was never passed, but elements of it were added to an omnibus spending bill, which passed. Per Jewish Journal source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Really
You must know that "Scottish Friends of Israel" is not a WP:RS. Must I take it to WP:RSN? Passionless -Talk 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please go ahead.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of sourced information
user:passionless removed a section that was sourced by wp:RS because ... who knows why. Please revert yourself and discuss any feature substantial edits to the article before you make them.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did explain that edit, it was located in the edit summary which said- "coatrack, synth, not sure, but I know it has nothing to do with the murders from 2001." And as I said that section has no relevance to the murders of 2001. Passionless -Talk 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Accusations spouted as fact
There is no source which says Palestinians committed the attack, many say they believe Palestinians committed the attack, but of course this is only an accusation and people are innocent until proven guilty, which I believe no was has been, correct? The anonymous phone call also adds nothing as the phone call might have come from anywhere, even Sharon himself could have made that call which blamed Palestinians. Passionless -Talk 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It sure is , and besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's way out of line, dude. Stick to discussing the sources and don't make gratuitous racist comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone with a hand could of course. Mhhh, personally I don't trust information from non-textbook books anymore than I trust facts comnig out of fiction novels. They have no legal duty to supply the truth, well to the extent of causing harm, unlike news sources, and they do not rely on respect or have peer reviewing like many other sources do. Passionless -Talk 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
