Talk:Bat Ayin axe attack

POV/Palestinian terror attack

The attack was carried out by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group that doesn't represent the whole Palestinian society. Be should be specific and avoid contentious words and systematic bias. --Jmundo (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article should be deleted or merge to the parent article, we don't need an article for every attack of every conflict around the world. --Jmundo (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The attack was not carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the article does not state that Palestinian Islamic Jihad represents all of Palestinian society, and "contentious words" are appropriate when multiple reliable sources use them. Please try to stick to the point when removing sourced material. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't directly used the POV charge term "Palestinian terror attack", some of the sources provided described the murderer as "terrorist". Also the term is linked to the Palestinian political violence article (tagged for neutrality), do we have a source where the perpetrator state his intentions as political? --Jmundo (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very few of the three-word strings in the article are directly used in the sources; if they were, we would run into copyright issues. However, the sources are very clear that the incident was a Palestinian terror attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the sources, nobody question that the incident happened in Palestinian, the issue is the linking of "Palestenian terror to the POV article about Palestinian political violence, a similar discussion is happening here. I don't know why is so difficult to write a simple and neutral lead. --Jmundo (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what your problem is with the link to Palestinian political violence, but in an attempt to end this trivial discussion on what is a really obscure article, I removed it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is an obscure article and should be deleted. --Jmundo (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Take the example of 2010 Pentagon shooting, does the lead says "an attack by American anarcho-capitalist"? I know this article suffers from wp:ownership so I won't edit it, because I'm not interested in edit warring. --Jmundo (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jmundo, if you want to refer it to AFD on the grounds of WP:NOT#NEWS, I think you would have a fairly solid case. Personally, I am going to edit it because I find the lead overtly pointy. I expect WP:BRD to play an active role, but I hope we can get some slightly better wording here. Ray^Talk 03:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the original comment that started this thread, I find this article to have allot of POV issues. Let's try not to turn the tradgic killing of two kids into a chance to demonize people. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the original version I think the really egregious stuff from the lede has already been taken care of. My comments are thus stricken. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

notability

how's is this even notable? 1 stabbing warrants an entire page on wikipedia? then every attack on List of terrorist incidents, XXXX should get is own page. There were no repercussions either to talk of (shalit's kidnapping or the killing that started the war in 2006 are notable). (a mentions on the Palestinian political violence page maybe warrant, however.122.167.182.246 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know your cultural background, but in general, killing two kids with an ax for nationalistic purposes is newsworthy. Besides, notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and the references listed in the article clearly indicate the story's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Brewcrewer, why did you revert me edit without explanation? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_Ayin_axe_attack&diff=654530284&oldid=654527925 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

you're funny. I reverted without explanation your revert without explanation.[1] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit wasnt a revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And this is why there is an ongoing discussion. You altered content without any explanation. Fine. Let's break it down:

The article was improved because you did the proper formatting.

POV might have been introduced (I'm not even going to say intentionally or not) because you put the Palestinian response above the Israeli. That might sound like a childish argument but there is a concern about giving prominence to one side.

You removed the term "domestic". I honestly am so sick and tired of dealing with what side of the line Israel controls that I don't care. But I assume changing "domestic" in tandem with te above looked like a good reason to revert.

I am sure a hybrid of the 2 edits would work fine but I'll let brew take a second and give his own opinion since I could be just assuming the worst. Again.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are stalking me! "Domestic" was removed from the Israeli response because the attack did not happen in Israel. "Domestic" can only be used if it happens inside a country. I realize that it is difficult for you to comprehend this fact but you should not take it out on Wikipedia. Palestinian response was put first because it happened in the Palestinian territories. Just like at the Charlie Hedbo shooting article the french reaction was put first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Reactions If "Domestic" should be used anywhere, its in the Palestinian section, but I accept its removal and only have "Palestinian", "Israel" etc. This way we avoid the dispute. Thats why I removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. Bring it down a notch. Yes I looked at your edits because there is an ongoing AE. No, it is not hard for me to comprehend. Chill out.

So your reasoning is because it happened in the "the Palestinian territories". It would be just as easy to say that it was in land that is controlled by Israel so it "domestic" was an appropriate header. I mentioned a hybrid. Try out another edit that you think will work better.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

According to a dictionary:[2] "Domestic" means: "of or relating to one's own or a particular country as apart from other countries", so it doesn't matter if Israel occupies the area, domestic is still not appropriate usage in this case. So why cant you just accept that we remove "domestic" altogether and only have "Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought. How about putting Israel above Palestine in the reaction section since I comes before P? I don't really care that much (even though I see no harm in "domestic"). My point is that the original content that you removed was good enough and was then changed in a way that could lead the reader (intentional or not).Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are trolling around. The AE should really be about you, not me. Why would we want to put I before P? So at the Charlie Hedbo shooting article, Albanian reaction should be before French because A is before F in the alphabet? What was the "original content that I removed was good enough and was then changed in a way that could lead the reader?" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

SD. I disagree with Cptnono about the AE complaint. But I also note that he called it off in a gentlemanly fashion days ago, when it looked like petering out inconclusively. I don't happen to agree with him here either ('domestic') is definitely wrong (Israel before Palestine however is correct). But you're wrong to typecast him as a troll and you should strike that out. He's a rational editor, rule-observant and amenable to compromise. Don't take even deep disagreements here (even dislikes) personally. Never hold a grudge if reported, in particular. It is a right, and reflects a perception that may be right or wrong, but functionally is also a useful reminder, whatever the case, to exercise care and caution. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You can redact your personal attack. I've given you my reasoning if you care to address it.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this discussion. Since only Israeli reaction is listed in that section, the heading "Israeli" is the one that would be most informative to readers. Why make a pov case out of it? Zero^talk 10:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to say domestic why is the Palestinian reaction separated? Given that it happened in the Palestinian territories that would make the most sense. Even if you wanted to make the unsubstantiated leap that Israel should be under that heading, Palestine certainly should. Im just getting rid of the sub-headings. Im added the palestinian flag, though Id say all the flags should be removed nableezy - 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the recent edits. I would also agree with both being under something titled "Domestic" or maybe even another approach. I don't believe flags were part of this discussion.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)