Talk:2003 Route 60 vehicle shooting
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 Wikipedia, 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.
|
Untitled
editRemoving prod on the assertion that detailed coverage related to major law suit more than a decade after the event establish enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sources...
editNone of the sources indicate that this attack alone was disruptive to peace - they indicate that this was one of several. Therefore, the insinuation that it was this attack alone is not verified by the sources. Also, the "interpreation" is that of the reporter, not the government. I have also removed all mention of Qawasmeh - Haaretz did not link him to this attack, and what it did say was that the IDF had been looking for him for two years. Therefore, to associate Qawasmeh's death with this attack and to COATRACK it with four citations for the same sentence is incorrect. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Multiple articles discuss this incident as one of many disruptions to the peace process that summer. A few of these are in article. As far as I know, MSJapan is the only person who has introduced the idea that "this attack alone" disrupted the peace process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Except you very [1] clearly wrote "the (emphasis mine) attack was described as disruptive to the peace process" not "this attack, as well as others was described as disruptive". Do you really not see the difference in those two statements, and how the first does not reflect the actual statements made in the articles? Look at the diff.
- The problem is that you consistently write what you think happened, then afterwards you go google terms to find sources where names appear so you can add them to support what you think, but you're not actually reading the sources. Then you blame other people because what you wrote isn't supported by fact. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Qawasmeh assasination
editThe articles on this targeted assassination of Qawasmeh. who was the Hamas terrorism commanded in the Judean Hills/Hebron area at the time of this murderous ambush discuss the ambush in which Tzvi Goldstein was killed and other injured as part of the increase in Hamas capacity, will, and intention to commit acts of terrorism in this region which led to the decision to designate him for assassination. I try to report what sources say, not to base my editing on my personal opinion that "process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event," as MSJapan does above. Moreover, News articles in Haaretz the Philadelphia Inquirer and other reputable papers are not merely the "reporter's" "interpretation" , thees papers have editorial processes and reporters have to back their assertions up with sufficient evidence to satisfy editors. Not a perfect process, but the best we've got. So, let's try to keep relevant articles on the page and rely on them - mot our personal opinions - to record the events as they happened and were responded to in 2003.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your personal POV is showing - "murderous ambush"? The point is that by you placing one sentence in this article in an aftermath section about Qawasmeh, you are tying it to this event, saying that "because of this attack, Qawasmeh was killed" and that is not what happened, nor does the Israeli media even say that. He was looked for for two years. There are approximately three or four events mentioned along with this attack in every article on it, and Qawasmeh was not deemed responsible for this attack. Therefore, you cannot insinuate that he was. The claim you are making above tying the incidents does not appear in any of the sources. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Gunmen emerged form hiding along a road to shoot up a car - killing a man. That is what a "murderous ambush" is. Plain English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whose usage? Yours, or the source? That's the issue, and that's really a lot of the issue - you're not paraphrasing, you're rewriting information to put it in inflammatory terms that suit your point of view of the incident. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Gunmen emerged form hiding along a road to shoot up a car - killing a man. That is what a "murderous ambush" is. Plain English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)