Talk:Lions' Gate stabbings

[unnamed section]

I removed this nonsense paragraph once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lions%27_Gate_stabbings&diff=684629296&oldid=684627511 why was it put back? Could editors please read what they add in rather than just cut and paste, and repeat materialJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

McIntyre removed sourced section about the stabbing victim who rushed from his house to rescue stabbing victims when he heard them screaming. Sourcing place where he lived is relevant, especially since many readers of this article may not understand the the "Muslim Qusrter" is, in fact, a mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhood.18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. The source links this information to the incident and one of the casualties. I support restoring it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The information is not relevant to the article at all. I support removing it. The fact that the area is a mixed one is completely irrelevant, and we do not need to refer to 'The Muslim Quarter' at all. We do not, in similar incidents go into such detail about the area where an attack took place.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oct. 4 stabbing

McIntyre has now twice removed sourced information on October 4 stabbing incident that was added to the "Impact" section because reliable sources state that the pair of back-to-back stabbings caused Israeli authorities to bar non-resident Palestinians form the walled city for the remiinder of the Holy days of Tabernacles in order to provide security to Jewish pilgrims. This is disruptive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He's removing stuff based on his POV rather than Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately this article is probably under a 1RR restriction so I can't edit it anymore today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, damn. I probably just violate that. I'll quit for the day now, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

this material was removed because the English makes no sense. I have proposed an alternative wording. In response to the 3 October Lions' Gate stabbing, and to other recent attacks, the Israeli government temporarily barred Palestinians from entering the walled Old City of Jerusalem.[25] The ban will be effective for two days, during the Jewish holy days of Sukkot when many Jews make pilgrimages to the city's holy places. Palestinians who live, study or work in the Old City are exempted from the ban.[24][26]

These attacks include a stabbing in the early hours of 4 October in which a Palestinian teenager, who was identified by relatives as Fadi Alloun, attacked a 15-year-old Israeli with a knife,[23] wounding him before he, the assailant, was shot and killed by police. Before attacking, he had posted on his Facebook page: "Either martyrdom or victory."[24]

Stop the nonsense claims about disruptive editing, and please accept that the present version just does not make any sense.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

1RR

I think I just violated it. Reverting an aggressively disruptive editor. Is there something I do now? Like a confession booth where I can seek absolution??E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You both violated it, but there wasn't a notice so let's assume neither of you knew. Don't do it from now on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As per requesrt. NMMGG's misreading

Stub here, had you checked, referred to the infobox having a link to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015), which is, precisely a pathetic stub. I replaced it with =List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, which happens to be the main article. You misread that, I am getting tired of these misreadings, as a reference to the article Lions’ Gate stabbings. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that your little list project is the main article of anything. In the future kindly post your concerns about my edits on the relevant article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That, again, is not the point. You obviously thought the stub referred to was the article, and not the infobox crap. This habit of shifting the goalposts off the problem indicated towards what interests you makes dialogue pointless. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the actual edit, or do you just want to nitpick about something I said in the edit summary, apropos "pointless dialogue"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary provides the reason for a revert. Your edit summary's reason is false, since, undoubtedly through disattention, you thought I was referring to the article, whereas I was referring to a link to a nonsense article in the infobox. You screwed up, as we all do. What's it cost to fess up? The point is, if you are going to revert someone, find a solid policy reason for it. Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason for my revert, stated quite clearly in my edit summary, was the fact this article is not a part of your list project. Try to read more carefully. But since you obviously don't have a problem with my actual edit, please don't take this as an invitation to continue this discussion. Feel free to get the last word in if you need to, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your refusal to see the obvious is almost unconscionable. Since I am convinced no one around here is intransigently stupid, I will repeat the obvious.

I wrote in my edit summary

The stub is just that. The main article is this.

Any reader would not that I am removing a stub (Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015)) and, since the editor wants a link to this general theme, replacing it with the only article that deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2015, namely the main article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015.

The point is, you found nothing odd in the stub being there, since you had the page on your watch list. But you objected when I edited to replace a meaningless link to a virtually empty page, with one that lists all the major incidents for 2015. The implication is obvious. You find my edits objectionable, but not those whose crudity I try to fix. As to a link, to either of those pages, I don't care in the least. You misread, for whatever reason. Accept it. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that being completely uninvolved here - an edit summary of "The stub is just that. The main article is this." looks seriously vague. samtar ^(msg) 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When you think an edit summary is vague, you examine the content in context to clarify. This is normative also in literacy coursework: context defines meaning. Do I really have to start up a course here for the abcs of reading, which is an allusion of course to Ezra Pound? I really am beginning to believe that these problems are arising because I still read books, don't use cellphones, don't thumb tablets, don't use twitter or facebook, and do what they used to teach you in Bubs : parse sentences. Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He just explained the real issue. He thinks I reverted him because it's him (and not, say, the fact I didn't edit this article for days before that link was inserted as the first part of two successive edits) and is now venting here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

lead

Where is Adele described Arab residents standing by and laughing as she was attacked, and telling her to "die" when she pleaded for help for her son. discussed or cited in the body of the article? Also, why are there so many direct quotes of single words from sources? Why "grassroots"? Finally, we generally dont wikilink within quotes, see MOS:QUOTE. nableezy - 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't put the Adele Biton quote into the lede, but, since you asked, it took about 2 seconds to google a source: [1], apparently from a broadcast interview.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I put it there and it was sourced in the body of the article to US News and World Report [2], which I hope meets your RS standards. Most of it was also already sourced to the The Independent [3]. Was pretty hard to miss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I didnt see it mentioned in the body. Which is why I asked. I still dont see it mentioned in the body. nableezy - 06:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Search the article for "laughing". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was searching for "die". nableezy - 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be there. It shows that some Palestinians have the same moral disorders as some Israelis, cf. laughing as this kid dies.

The video, which has since been removed from YouTube, appears to show Israelis laughing and shouting at the child as he lies bleeding on the street. “Die, you son of a whore,” one man shouts repeatedly

Video: “Palestinian Child Bleeds to Death while Israeli Police & Civilians Watch, Shouting Insults” Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to find another martyr to SOAPBOX about because here's video of that kid stabbing people (including a 13 year old) and running at the police with a knife. Not exactly the same, now is it? The only similarity here is that in both cases Palestinians attacked Jewish kids.

Kindly stop your SOAPBOXing. This is not your personal blog. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this boy didn't "bleed to death" or get shot, despite what the Arab media (which some people take as RS despite all evidence to the contrary) reported - [4]. He got hit by a car and is recovering at the expense of of the Israeli taxpayer in an Israeli hospital, where some of the people he'd have liked to kill work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources

User:Johnmcintyre1959, In your edit today [5] at Lions' Gate stabbings you cast doubt on the accuracy of reports in major international newspapers, citing an alternative account to a small, unreliable source Middle East Eye that does not appear to have journalists working in or near Jerusalem. It is important to use reliable sources. I have just added some details from Al Jazeera to that account. Please take time to read some pages on sourcing and editing, or request a mentor, because your editing, particularly your use of unreliable sources, is disruptive.

fyi, selectively removing comments you don't like form your talk page is regarded as bad form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is directed at JM, then why is it here, and why have you not given any evidence of this claim, of removing material from a talk page?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI Your claim is not backed up by facts. I pointed out that one of the sources used the word reportedly, even you with your wild misuse of sources, and continual OR can check that is correct. You can point me to something that states Middle East Eye is not an RS before making that claim that I cannot restore it. Your POV disruptive editing is shown here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lions%27_Gate_stabbings&diff=685586521&oldid=685585977 You claim that this was removed because keeping this article focused, by removing broad sweeping assertion. tight definitions help make good articles However I added this in as it was in the RS. The previous version stated that This widely publicized attack is understood to have "quickly sparked a spate of similar assaults" and other forms of anti-Israel violence across the country. As I pointed out the claim that this is anti-Israel violence is not backed up by the RS. I improved the article. You should restore my wording, it is more relevant than much of what is on here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's going to need to show that Middle East Eye is RS, not the other way around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

More material that is not required.

Despite his best denials Talahma has been made into a hero by Palestinian Arabs who wear t-shirts imprinted with his image. He is now admired by Arabs who call him “the lion,” and “the thunder” that unleashed the new uprising, on their Facebook pages. and his use of the word clarify when he means corrected EMG has not answered the point i made that this material

Talahma has been made into a hero by Palestinian Arabs who wear t-shirts imprinted with his image.  Halabi is now admired by Arabs who call him “the lion,” and “the thunder” that unleashed the new uprising, on their Facebook pages. 

is definitely not notable, and is irrelevant to this article. This article is now about a series of attacks, not one. Start a new page for this individual, and put this there. I suggest that this be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yet more disruptive editing. Perp/terrorist attended campus rally honoring Talahma as a martyr , then proceeded to the Old City where he attacked a Jew with a knife. replacing this material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I regard this as clear vandalism since this inappropriate removal has been discussed and reverted before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The rest of the changed just made by the highly disruptive User:Johnmcintyre1959 (under investigation as a sockpuppet) also need to be reverted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Visit by Prime Minister to victim in hospital

Such visits are legitimate parts of the story. Reverting edit by Johnmcintyre1959.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Such visits have nothing do with the article, paricularly in a section labelled victims. The quote by Nehtnayahu is irrelevant to the victims, it needs to be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Victim of terror attack visited in hospital by Prime Minister. A legitimate part of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Section removed again by Johnmcintyre1959. [6] I have reverted his edit, but consensus should be obtained here before removing this information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This infromation is far from a legitimate part of this story, it is only tangentially related, and should be removed. Since the addition of material needs consensus (not the removal of disputed material) EMG will need to demonstrate clear consensus here to keep this irrelevant material.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you leave it in place and allow other editors to weigh in while the question of whose sockpuppet you may be is being hashed out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything you have to say on sock puppet allegations should be added to the investigation. It does not belong here, and it irrelevant to this issue. Let us see if other editors can come up with reasons why this irrelevant material should stay. I suggest you accept that without strong backing it is eligible to be removed as the onus is on the editor adding it to come up with reasons for keeping it.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing the "Israel" references

Jerusalem, especially East Jerusalem, which is being encroached upon by the occupation and the illegal "settler" movement, is not "part of Israel" outside the minds of the Israeli government and other Palestinian-hating and rabidly pro-israel types. I am editing this page accordingly and removing the pretense that East Jerusalem or Jerusalem or the occupied West Bank are "part of Israel". King leer01 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. You are not allowed to edit pages relating to the Arab Israeli conflict until you gain more Wikipedia experience. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Not allowed", ha ha. That's pathetic. King leer01 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy-- It's a simple matter of facts versus fiction. Jerusalem and more specifically occupied East Jerusalem, are not universally considered part of the Israeli state proper.

Who says otherwise? Netanyahu, the "settlers", the more rabid pro-israel "advocates" in varying nations.

Otherwise, it's just not. If I'm not allowed to edit to establish that fact, can you point me to someone who's got enough "wikipedia experience" who will? King leer01 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Read the link I gave you above. I or someone else will revert any edits you make to these topics. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Answer my question. Do you apply the same rule to new editors who are Israeli, "diaspora" Jews, or otherwise rabid hasbara types? King leer01 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This rule applies to everyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you apply it, as a seeming Israeli, to new editors who are on wikipedia solely for the purpose of lying in the service of the online hasbara campaign?

Do me a favour and edit the parts that refer to Jerusalem as "part of Israel", then, if you've got the "experience" here. We both know that what Jerusalem is a part of is a contentious issue depending on who you talk to-- I think it's really just a part of Palestine but I'm not going to edit that in as some kind of objective fact. King leer01 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination to remove references/categories to "israel"

Jerusalem, and especially East Jerusalem, illegally occupied by Israel. are both not universally considered to be "part of Israel" in the most objective sense. King leer01 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling "settlers" what they are

I'm also going to suggest that Israeli settlers, from the illegal and unrecognized "settler" movement in East Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian West Bank, be referred to as "settlers" as opposed to "civilians" as some kind of generality. These people are not "civilians"-- if they are, to what state are they civilians of?

If they're Israeli, then why are they not in Israel? King leer01 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the context of the State of Israel, the whole of the Jerusalem municipality is in Israel according to the 1980 Jerusalem Law, which affirms the De-Facto annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967.

According to Israel, and to people like you. Not the case for anyone else-- it's fairly obvious that Jerusalem isn't universally considered part of Israel, and that East Jerusalem is under Israeli occupation, replete with the illegal "settler" movement and their land theft campaign. King leer01 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the context of the international community, East Jerusalem is not part of Israel There is no international consensus saying that East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian territory, because many countries belive in the idea of a shared international Jerusalem (Read: Positions on Jerusalem). If you soley take the international community side, you are giving Wikipedia an agenda that is opposite to the sources it used.

No, the "shared city" or "corpus separatum" notion refers to the whole of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is still under occupation by the israeli army and is considered to be part of the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank.

I do take the international community side, versus the Israeli and more glaringly the Palestinian-hating side that claims that there is no occupation and that Jerusalem "belongs to Israel". King leer01 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

: All the Jewish residents in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel and all non-combatants who are not members of any armed group are civilians, regardless of the politics serounding their residence. All the Jewish settlers of the West Bank are citizens of the State of Israel. Also all the Israelis who live in France are citizens of Israel. Understand the logic? T

If the illegal "settlers" stealing Palestinian property in East Jerusalem are "citizens of Israel" then they better get back to what's recognized as Israel proper. The "settlers" are a hostile belligerent force in the context of the occupation, and have no problem willfully attacking and killing Palestinians, or at the least abusing them and destroying their property. To claim that the "settlers" in light of these kinds of activities are "no different" from some yuppie in tel aviv is absolutely ridiculous.

I "understand" how insane Israeli "logic" is. In the real world, "settlers" in the occupied West Bank are not "in" Israel and can't claim to be "simply citizens of Israel". Likewise, the concept of "Jewish birthright" isn't automatically recognized as some kind of indisputable fact just because you want it to be true. King leer01 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The UN special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nikolay Mladenov stated: "I condemn the brutal terror attack that killed two Israelis in Jerusalem..."

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement: "The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms the attacks on Saturday, 3 October in the Old City of Jerusalem, including the killing of two members of an Israeli family and injuries to Israelis and Palestinians in subsequent incidents in various neighborhoods in Jerusalem."

Therefore, your request to rename the "Israeli civilians" as "settlers" is invalid via the sources used.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Shorthand-- no, it's not invalid, and I'm going to wait on opinion of others as opposed to putting it to bed just because some Israeli thinks that the West Bank "belongs to Israel" and that the "settlers" are "innocent civilians". King leer01 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Source

This piece has some relevant information and a picture we probably can't use, but maybe we can? I don't have the time or inclination right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The page is filled with Propaganda

This page is filled with Propaganda copy-pasted from Pro-Israeli site such as 'The Guardian' so don't take this page seriously✌️ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit-request to fix a citation's title and add a note that the ban was lifted on the 6th of October under the section titled "Impact".

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

The edits should be done in the section titled Impact.

Firstly, in the ref with the name "TwoDaysHasson" I would like the title to be changed:

−

Day After Stabbing Attacks, Palestinians Barred From Jerusalem's Old City for Two Days 7

+

Day After Stabbing Attacks, Palestinians Barred From Jerusalem's Old City for Two Days

Secondly, an addition could be added that the ban for Palestinians to enter the Old City was lifted on the 6th of October 2015 (see the reference below). For example:

−

Palestinians who live, study or work in the Old City are exempted form the ban.[29][30]

+

Palestinians who live, study or work in the Old City are exempted form the ban.[29][30] The ban was lifted on the 6th of October.

• Why it should be changed:

For the first edit, it should be changed because is no "7" at the end of the title if you visit the citation http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.678757 (the "7" was properly an typo from a wiki-editor).

For the second edit, I don't have any strong opinions on why other than that the ban was lifted.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The Hurdy Gurdy Man (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)