Jump to content

Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Article should be moved

I think that this article should be moved to July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Both the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times have said that the shooting occurred at the Federation building, not the Jewish Center. Although it initially said it was the Jewish Center, CNN now says it was the Federation as well. Does anyone see a reason not to move the page? GabrielF 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is "July" needed in this article's title? It is unlikely there will be another shooting at the Jewish Federation this year. Also, is there any standard format for naming articles like this? The actual name of the place is the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, but perhaps what is meant in the title isn't "Seattle Jewish Federation" "shooting" but "Seattle" "Jewish Federation shooting"? --Lukobe 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Page history

We seem to have lost the page history. Was the move a cut-and-paste? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it was. That's a no-no, I'm afraid. The page will have to be deleted and the histories merged. If it suddenly goes red, that's the reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. It can take the server some time to catch up, in case it doesn't look right for awhile. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See also

How about you explaining on talk why you want to remove it, instead of continuing to do so? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant. The cases are not related, and its to early to have a comparative tally as per WP:RS/WP:V standards and including it at this point is an excercise in WP:OR.

--Cerejota 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the V or RS section you're relying on? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am attempting shorthand, not and excercise in wikilawyering. Essentially what I meant is that it is relevant as per your opinion, but not that of reliable sources, or that the claim that they are related meets verifiability, in that sense the entire text and spirit of thos epolicies applies, not just x or y section. Until this changes, the inclusion can be read as POV drive WP:OR. Wikipedia is not itself a WP:RS. Am sure you know more about thos than I do...--Cerejota 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has added an irrelevant link. As SlimVirgin has me under threat I won't revert, but this is also an irrelevant link that constitutes WP:OR at best, POV driven at worse, and diminishes quality by confusing the issues.--Cerejota 08:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am adding "Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin" as it is a relevant example of an assassination of a Jewish person. It is as relevant as the Buford shooting, that is to say, irrelevant to this story, but if we are going to have an NPOV article then we are going to have an NPOV article, even if it means including irrelvant links because they fit a given POV narrative.--Cerejota 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Buford shooting is relevant because it was a shooting at an American Jewish institution. I have heard CNN mention that incident when discussing this one. We might also add Hate crime or Shooting spree to the See Also section. The Rabin shooting is not relevant. This was not an "assassination", it was a shooting spree. Just because Rabin was Jewish, doesn't make his assassination relevant. If you're trying to add his assassination to make the article NPOV as you suggest, than you are violating WP:NOR, since you are the only one who is suggesting that there is a connection. Finally, if you feel that an addition to an article is irrelevant, the solution is NOT to add even more irrelevant links to prove a point. See WP:POINT. GabrielF 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Where is that CNN source? In the middle of doing original research you raise that I am doing the same, which just proves the point that its inclusion is done to further a POV. The Budford shooting is different for a number of reasons, the main one being that the shooting there was motivated by pure anti-semitism and racism, including the shooting of a Filipino postal worker. Whereas this attack is obviously motivated in reponse to the going ons in Lebanon.
While I personally deplore the action, in writing an encyclopedia we must not mislead readers into connecting things that are only connected in the mind of a certain POV, but remain neutral. The Assasination of Rabin is more relevant because it is the same type of motiviation, which just constitutes and observation of fact and not OR: jewish people killed because of actions of the Israeli state. That is an obvious non-controversial, factual connection and is not original research.--Cerejota 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The complete opposite of what you claim is true. —Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at editorializing

The FBI agent said "We believe it's a lone individual acting out his antagonism." He didn't say (although its implied) that it was just a "lone individual". Context is key. I think NPOV is better met by the direct quote. I dare not presume to tell readers what the FBI agent meant with what he said, which in the way the its currently written the article does. --Cerejota 07:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The quote is there. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Because you put it back... there is history you know? :D--Cerejota 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put anything "back." No idea what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing

Could people please pay some attention to the writing? The story has to flow, have a narrative, and not just be a collection of randomly placed sentences. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, what is the point of continually separating the quote? It is part of the story. And you have probably violated 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Cerejota, you are engaging in extremely unhelpful editing. Something lacking a source does not mean it is OR. Please review our content policies before continuing to edit. They are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Also review WP:3RR, which you appear to have violated. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Go look for sources yourself instead of being so lazy and unpleasant. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
A personal attack? Great.
Now, I put fact tags, which are there for the explicit purpose of signaling editors to the lack of sources. They exist for a reason, and I used them correctly. You seem to assume I was being lazy, instead of thinking I was looking for the citations, which is what you should be doing as per WP:AGF. --Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

(this is from my talk page--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

I think you have violated 3RR at the Seattle story. Please review WP:3RR. Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. If you have violated it, please take the opportunity to revert yourself. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not. As per WP:RR:
"Reverting without edit warring
As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there are intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'."
When I realized that indeed there was an edit war, I stopped and placed a NPOV tag in the section in question. NPOV tag is placing additional content not a revert, and proceed to engage in discussion in talk, not removing it. Now I ask you, as is my policy, to discuss things in the talk paghe they belong, not my talk page. I understand that policy requieres you inform me in my talk page, and I thank you for it, but lets move it now where it is relevant.--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are over reacting? Edit conflicts are a good thing, are what make wikipedia grow. Instead of getting agravated, perhaps you could discuss things before assuming things?--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not a good thing, and you were undoing my work, not adding to it; therefore you were violating 3RR. Most of what you have done is add the clean-up tag twice, separated the Muslim quote from the others, added citation tags instead of looking for sources, used provocative and completely false edit summaries (e.g. NOR!!!!!!), and reverted, reverted, reverted. In the meantime, others are writing the article, and others are supplying sources. Please think about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I didn't report you for 3RR even though you didn't take the opportunity to revert yourself when offered. However, if you continue to revert, I will report you. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and report me. I didn't violate WP:3RR, but I am willing to subject myself to a desicion. I will not allow an uncivil threat to silence me in this way.--Cerejota 08:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to report you. I want you to stop editing by undoing other people's work. It doesn't have to be the same material that is removed each time. See WP:3RR. Here are your removals (one is where you moved a quote out of the main text, rather than remove it, but you knew it was contested). You also didn't stop to check your facts (e.g. the FBI did use the expression "lone wolf") and you removed material pointlessly (e.g. why remove that the Federation was founded in 1926?):

As I said, when I realized that there was strong contention, I stoped editing and added instead a NPOV tag and explained in the talk page. WP:3RR is meant to stop edit wars from happening, not to stop people from editing. I sustain that the bulk of my edits where done before an edit war was apparent and when one was obvious I stopped. I removed only unsourced material, or material I explained as irrelevant or WP:OR. (For example, the FBI didn't mention "lone wolf" in the original linked article used as a source, or the original research regarding the connection of this attack to other attacks against Jewish organizations, which is orignal research if no independent source is doing the connection). Your diffs compared to the talk page compare this

And my edits on structure have for the most part stuck, you did do some valid corrections to it but it was done to better article quality without diminishing information.

So that leaves us with just one edit that is part of an edit war.

I think you overreacted, in particular your personal attack stands as an example, and you still haven't apologized for it.

As I said, if you have something, just go ahead and report me, I have full trust in the process, and if I am guilty, then I will pay. Anything else is just an uncivil attempt to intimidate a fellow editor who doesn't share your POV.--Cerejota 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of POV. It's a question of bad editing. It's that you have contributed nothing but trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's an understatement. The user is a troll, accuses other editors of his own actions, engages in WP:POINT, edit warring, adds tags without reason, and is incapable of discussing anything without engaging in personal attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops!!

I swear that I searched and searched, but did not find anything about the Jewish Federation Building shooting, so I created an article of which I was quite proud, and compliant with Wiki principles. However, going through the 2006 page, I found the link the this page, which is quite a bit more thorough. Any suggestions on what I should do? In addition, how can this be better prevented?


- NGC6254 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected your article here. Your article looks pretty extensive, so it may have some content that should be added here. I didn't see anything after a cursory scan, but I'd suggest looking at the last version before I redirected it in the page history and moving over any significant differences. Good work on your article - sorry that it was a duplicate :) GabrielF 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - Good work grabbing that image from the TV station. GabrielF 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

"She had reportedly covered her stomach with her arms in order to protect her fetus."

This material is not needed; too detailed and may not be true (the reportedly.) Provokes emotion. Also removing prevents edit war over replacing "unborn child" with "fetus".  ; - ) FloNight talk 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was actually the better solution, but I am a bit sensitive due to the personal attacks I have recieved for being bold.--Cerejota 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It was put back. That section is not NPOV until that is removed.--Cerejota 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Created page on Jewish Fed

Since this is an article on a shooting that took place there, not about the Federation, I have created a page and a redirect to that page (one with "The" and the other without "The"). It currently contains the text originally from here, and a one line mention of it gaining notoriety via the shooting. It is a stub and needs to be expanded.--Cerejota 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

August 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting

Regarding this related incident, it has been referred to in at least three current articles about the July 2006 Seattle shooting including KING5.com [1], The Daily Telegraph [2], and The Los Angeles Times [3]. —Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Cerejota 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

photo

I don't believe we can use the current photo in this article. It doesn't qualify as "fair use." --Lukobe 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please eloborate, as I am new to this and don't quite understand. Thanks -- NGC6254 09:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag on the image reads
Copyrighted

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. For more information, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting/Archive 1 . This particular use doesn't qualify. --Lukobe 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But this is a screenshot. -- NGC6254 23:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's not really being used for "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", is it? --Lukobe 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification -- NGC6254 05:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Labeling Robert Spencer as "right-wing" is unnecessarily POV, so I have removed that characterization. I think the quote is sufficient to let the reader know where Mr. Spencer's sympathies lie. Godfrey Daniel 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted and unexplained edit backk to the last good edit. And thata revert is possibly a violation of WP:3RR althought I am not sure. Will the wikiesquires please stand up? And please discuss changes.--Cerejota 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Your edits are problematic for the following reasons: One, you reverted back to your version, not to the "last good edit", so please don't try to play games. Two, you have been reminded of the 3RR many times, so you should be aware of it, and if you are unsure, you should self-revert. Three, the changes are yours, so you have the burden to explain them, not me. Four, your inclusion of a main/split article header should probably wait until the AfD for said article is finished. Five, your removal of inline links (2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) and placement in the see also section is less preferred than links in the body of the article which seeks to explain the conflict in the context of the article body, not as an ancillary topic. Six, your apparent motive for removing inline links and placing them in the see also section seems to be the basis for your subsequent addition of the unrelated link, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have explained all my edits in this talk page, and yet another false accusation of WP:3RR. I did revert to last good edit, even if it happened to be mine. You are just reverting me for fun. If you have disagreements, please express them, don't revert without explanation.
Four, your inclusion of a main/split article header should probably wait until the AfD for said article is finished says who? you? who are you? An artcile can be in AfD and we can include it until its removed. Besides, the section is not just a link to that page, but a valif rename to reduce redudancy (ie the title), it is called, erm, article quality?
Last I didn't remove any inline links at all so thats a false accusation. Look at the Diffs. I actually put the inline link in the first place, and then put it in "See Also" after someone else removed it. Please look carefully before falsely accusing people.--Cerejota 07:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "false accusation of 3RR", there seems to be a communication problem. I was responding to your claim that you violated 3RR. If that's not what you meant, look over what you originally wrote. You're right about the inline links; you didn't remove them, you duplicated them in the see also section and added another one, so I apologize for saying you "removed" it. I'm not clear on why you are duplicating links and adding an irrelevant link to the see also section. As for the section on the Jewish Federation, there is no need to split at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree: a page on a site that gained notoriety is different form a page on the event that gave it notoriety. One of the benefits of an online encyclopedia is that we must not conserve paper, so we can make pages if needed. I hope the site's page can be built up and information added, rather than people wanting to hide information and confuse things for whatever reasons. Duplicating links in a see also is common practice, as the see also serves as digest of the relevant wiki pages mentioned in the article. So you are just being a vandal.--Cerejota 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stick to the issues and avoid PA. You seem to be more interested in pushing your POV than in contributing to an encyclopedia. —Viriditas | Talk 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is funny!!! As to PA you are the only one who has engaged in constant unexplained reverts and personal attacks against me, and have engaged in vandalism. It is obvious that you are the one not interested in building an encyclopedia, at least not one that is NPOV.--Cerejota 05:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trolling this talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

what was going on in Israel

Since it would be OR to speculate to what the suspect refered to, and we have a responsibility to build the web, I think the links to both the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict should be included in the see also section. They are very relevant to the case, as they are the admitted motivation of the shooter (unless there are other notable events I am not aware off that the shooter might have alluded to).--Cerejota 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that is OR on your part. Please stick to the facts, and the facts alone. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is already linked in the article, so I am again, unclear as to why you are duplicating links in the see also section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This not original research: the suspect clearly said his motive was "what was going on in Israel": linking to what is going on in Israel is not OR, it is obvious. What would be OR is to include only one of the links. I don't understand why you oppose the building of the web and the inclussion of relevant information, according to the existing sources. I am replacing your vandalism.--Cerejota 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW I might be missing something, but I havent seen either of these articles linkes as inline text.--Cerejota 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A link to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict appears at the end of the JF section with text that reads "ongoing conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon." —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the official charging papers (linked at the article) Haq was making a statement not only about the current situation in Israel, but also in Iraq as well. I will add a paragraph detailing his motivations later. I think that will be more informative than listing things in a See Also section. GabrielF 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That is true, but until then why can we include the links?--Cerejota 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Including the links sounds fine to me, but there's no reason to remove content from the Federation section. Readers shouldn't have to go to another page to read a couple of relevant sentences. GabrielF 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any good reason for including a link to the Gaza conflict in the see also section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm, because the shooter says "what is happening in israel" is his motive? Since it would be OR to arbitrarly select any of the events, we must include all events.--Cerejota 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we musn't interpret anything like you have done. We can only cite sources and go on facts. Please stop adding your spin to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, there is no spin it that. We are not making any new conclusions or new theories or anything by including the links. The suspect clearly and verifiabiably said he did the shooting because "of what is going on in israel". Links to what is going on in Israel are not OR, but is ismply providing links to what is going on in Israel. Saying that the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict are what are going on in Israel is not OR, it is simply logical, wikipedia policy sanctioned context. Read WP:NOR, it is specifically geared towards the expression of new ideas that cannot be verifiable by sources (such as joining this shooting with others in the past), not to diminish contextual happenings. By including these links we are not introducing any new idea or theory, we are simply giving context to the comment of the supect, which nPOV requires we do. You are being highly illogical and not being useful. We have to build the web and this is best done by providing context.--Cerejota 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The context of this shooting is discussed in the article, and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is linked in context. Your decision to include a link to the Gaza conflict is your interpretation. We don't interpret what Haq says. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Haq didn't say he did because of "what is going on in lebanon" but because of "what is going on in israel". To choose the Lebanon conflct over the Gaza conflict is OR, as we are excluding a fact for orginal reasons. You are performing original research by doing this. Now, I have said that perhaps other things are going on in Israel that might inform a shooter of muslim origin and we must include them, but I dont know them...
Now that you mention it, then perhaps a link to "Arab-Israeli conflict" rather than to individual pages? Dunno, but article quality and building the web seem to require that we link to "what is going on in israel" which has bene my point all along.--Cerejota 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is not linked and has been actively deleted, so I don't understand your comment in this regards.--Cerejota 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're finally starting to think about the issue and actually discuss it. The fact is, the Lebanon link was added in the context of the Jewish Federation protest, where it belongs, so that answers your question. As for Haq, last I checked he mentioned the "middle east" and "Israel", and that should certainly be addressed in the body of the article without duplicating links. —Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You obnviously having been reading the talk page, as this very section was opened by me to discuss the issues. Your accusation I haven't is spurious.
I am not duplicating any links, I am sumarizing relevant see also links. This is done as amatter of routine in many articles as a convinience for readers. If we follow that logic, we must also make the link on the Budford case an inline link as an explanation on other attacks. It makes no sense and I am re-putting them. Please do not delete as this will violate WP:3RR.--Cerejota 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the source: "Six women were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man who told a witness he was upset about "what was going on in Israel."[4]. He didn't mention the middle east, nor Lebanon, nor Gaza, nor anything. So what is going on in Israel? For starters, those two conflicts. That is building the web.--Cerejota 05:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. You are duplicating links that are already discussed in the context of the appropriate section. For the most part, you seem to be trolling. —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Including links in the "See Also" section for clarity is not duplication of links.--Cerejota 11:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism and POV editing

I am not launching a personal attack, rather, I am upset my relevant, NPOV, sourced editing has been removed without real discussion by blanket reverts.--Cerejota 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a break from this article and come back when you have cooled down. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Site of the event

Again, a section titled Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle is fully redundant, and that is included in the title of the article. Its ugly and reads wrong.

In a related matter, no problem including the full text, if thats consensus, but I don't understand why an expanded article of the federation itself is not needed. It has gained notoriety, a standard for new articles. The contemporary trajectory of the site of the shooting is now of encyclopedic interest, regardless of how notoriety was gained.--Cerejota 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This has to do with the length of the article and the necessity of a split, not why an article is or is not needed. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats the issue, its not a split, its a new stub article, because the site is now notorious and worthy of an encyclopedic entry.--Cerejota 08:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Call it what you like; you split the article in this edit and previous edits, removing content. The subject of the importance of the article itself is not the issue. —Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This was not my original intention and when this was raised in talk I left the text intact, so this is a moot point. Please read the article. That is why talk pages are important.--Cerejota 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but I've read the talk pages. Please stop duplicating the Lebanon link in the see also section and please stop adding links just because you feel like it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read these talk pages, as they show I have explained all my edits. Please apologize for your personal attack saying I am putting links for fun.--Cerejota 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read the talk page and I've ignored most of your personal attacks. You haven't provided any justification for why you are adding duplicate and unrelated links to the see also section other than because you feel like it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You might disagree with my explanations, but they are for many different reasons than for fun as it obvious. I have not attacked you personally, I have pointed out your behaivior.--Cerejota 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Npov-section tag removed

I've removed the tag that was added by Cerejota without justification. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie. I explained the tag. Again you prove you don't read the talk page. Specifically here[5]. It was not unjustified. You might disgaree with it, but it is not unjustified. This is the third time you misrepresent and lie about one of my edits, fortunatelly there is a record for those with enough good faith to follow it. I ask you again to please cease personal attacks, vandalism, and trolling.--Cerejota 11:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Grow up. If you want to correct an error, you don't call someone a liar. Your edit summary read "npov section". It is a good habit to also add "see talk". Furthermore, you added your reason in the eighth section of a 19 section talk page and not to the bottom of the page. Finally, your reason doesn't appear to pan out. It's not a question of neutrality but of citation. If you needed a cite, why did you add a NPOV tag? In any event, I requested a citation, but I can tell you, I've already seen this cited several times, so it should be easy to source. If you feel it should be rewritten, then just remove it from the article (since it lacks a source) and place it on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
More personal attacks, great! Now, the reason talk pages have sections is so we can organize relevant talk items together. I put my comment in the relevant section of the talk page. I apologize for saying you were lying, but I this is the thrid time you "incorrectly" say soemthing about me, so its becoming a pattern consistent with willful lying. Now, this is indeed a question of NPOV, not of citation, as per the comment by editor FloNight, please revisit his comment to get illuminated. If you disgaree, then say so, but that means there is indeed an ongoing debate on the neutrality of that inclusion. NPOV specifically warns against needlessly inflmatory representations of fact,even if sourced and verifiable, and we must try to use an original voice whenever possible: Wikipedia is not a crime tabloid.
Hence "heroic" is not NPOV, althought it might well be the fact.
Furthermore, as per Abortion debate compromise, the categorization of a fetus as an unborn child is disputable and not NPOV. This is actually my main issue, if we can reword the line not to include that detail (ie potecting fetus/unborn child - its implied by saying she is pregnant). You see POV has very backhanded ways of entering a debate.--Cerejota 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Four words: It's already been removed. —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist?

It may or may not be appropriate to include a section on whether or not Haq can be considered a terrorist and whether this shooting can be considered a terrorist incident, as some authors have been writing about this. —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Viriditas, you have violated WP:3RR. Please revert your changes or be reported.--Cerejota 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you first show me how I violated 3RR? Thanks in advance. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gladly: [6] [7] [8]

--Cerejota 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...where's the fourth revert? 3RR states "an editor must not perform more than three reversions" in a 24 hour period. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the links is for two revisions 3RR states "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting".--Cerejota 12:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Which explains why you reverted five times, two of the three just over the 24 hour mark. Puhlease. —Viriditas | Talk 13:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced text removed

She first covered her stomach with her forearms to protect her unborn child and then, after being shot in the forearm, dialed 911 against the shooter's orders and calmly handed him the phone.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] Text removed by —Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is sourced[9] or [10](which is used as a source), but I support the removal on NPOV grounds.--Cerejota 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Still current?

Is it time to remove the tag calling this a current event? - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the tag is used to alert editors to the possibility of high-volume edits (and edit conflicts) during an event that has received recent publicity. Since that is not occurring, I would support the removal of the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another useful source

For those working on this, another useful source: Josh Feit and Brendan Kiley, Waiting Period: Jewish Federation Shooting Suspect Naveed Haq's Lost Summer, The Stranger, Aug 3 - Aug 9, 2006. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now cited one passage from that. Another source worth a look is Sara Jean Green, Gunman's mother had tried to talk him out of Seattle trip, Seattle Times, July 31, 2006. Basically, it says (among other things) that "His parents… for years had witnessed Haq's struggle with mental illness." Also that they "released a statement Sunday expressing their shock and sorrow over the shootings. "We could not have imagined for a moment that our son would do this senseless act. This is utterly contrary to our beliefs and Islamic values,"… I'm getting that last quotation into the article on Haq himself, but I think there is probably more worth mining. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a notable source, and are those notable authors? They suggest that the Israel-Lebanon war had something to do with it, but Haq himself has never mentioned it. I'm not sure why we should be quoting them. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

They are, respectively, the leading local weekly (The Stranger) and the leading local daily (The Times). Josh Feit is The Stranger's main political reporter. I couldn't say where the others fit in their respective papers' pecking order, but since it was presumably the biggest local story of the day, it's not exactly the thing you put cub reporters on. Each seems to have managed to get interviews with people close to Haq that the national press did not.
As for the Israel-Lebanon war having something to do with it: I have no personal opinion on that (frankly, my own reading, much like Feit & Kiley's, is that mental illness explains a lot more than politics here) but I've certainly heard the opinion much expressed here (I live in Seattle; on the evening of the shootings, the usual bus stop to get where I was headed that evening was within the closed-off zone around the Federation Building; they were still not sure whether there might be a second shooter.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota's heading changes

Cerejota, please stop violating en MoS. This is not es. Furthermore, your argument for changing the headers is not supported by the facts. Please stop edit warring and review WP:MSH. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring, the headers wer ein place for almost a day until you edited them to something else. Stop harrasing me.--Cerejota 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with your edits. Please cease with your personal attacks, which litter this page and the edit summary. This is the second time you have been warned. Calling Haq a "shooter" in the heading is a violation of NPOV, as he is still alleged at this point. Referring to him by his name is the best policy. —Viriditas | Talk 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What section of WP:MSH am I violating?--Cerejota 08:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And calling it "site" is way too ambiguous for an English language article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The headings are more informative. —Viriditas | Talk 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hate crime or terrorism?

Even though I changed the former header, I still dislike this one. Can someone come up with a better heading that does not use a question mark and is short and to the point? I would appreciate it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Debate on nature of shooting."--Cerejota 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, see "conciseness" in WP:MSH. —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Debate" as consice as it can get.--Cerejota 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't even like that section. It just looks like a slab of out-of-context quotes. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Can it be saved through paraphrasing? I didn't write it, but I did sorta request it, above. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how anyone could doubt that this was a terrorist act. Please read the definitions of terrorism here in Wikipedia, including the ones taken from dictionaries. Terrorists don't need to be affiliated with groups, and their actions are usually taken against innocents who have no direct connection to whatever issue the terrorist is protesting. Then, learn about Islam's extraordinarlily hostile stance towards Judaism through history. This stance is seen in the Koran, the hadiths, and the actions of Moslems since the beginnings of Islam, starting with the massacre of a tribe of Jews, a massacre that was sanctioned by Mohammed. As for the attacker's mental state, it has virtually no connection to whether or not it was terrorism. Although seemingly random attacks like this appear "crazy" to us, psychologists will tell you that most mentally ill people are not violent, and certainly not at random. The "mental illness" explanation is actually very weak.
I'm happy to discuss it, but I think that those arguing against terrorism need to prove their case, not the other way around. Godfrey Daniel 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as someone in Seattle—the place where this happened—and as a Jew, and as a Wikipedian, I want to argue strenuously against Wikipedia's narrative voice calling this "terrorism". That word figures prominently in Wikipedia:Words to avoid and this is hardly a clear-cut case. Cite someone who calls it that? Fine, along with citing others who disagree. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "how anyone could doubt that this was a terrorist act": because no one who knew him seems to think that would have been characteristic of him; because he was not a particularly political person; because he appears to have had a lot of mental problems and problems relating to women; and because he just sort of stopped in the middle of it all, which is much more suggestive of a messed-up person acting out—fatally—than of someone with a clear plan and intent. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal and changes without discussion

1) The headers with the proper name of the shooter and of the site are not WP:MSH complaint, and are ugly and redundant.

2) The sealso on Hate Crime on the "Terrorism or Hate crime?" section has been removed. Why? There is a see also to a page on "Definition of Terrorism" and balance require we also link to Hate crime. I do not understand how there could possibly be any disagreement on this.

3) The jewish federation calls the shooting a hate crime in its website. This is very relevant sourced and verifiable information from a primary source and is being removed for unknown reasons.--Cerejota 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what I said above, "terrorism" and "hate crime" both presume that we should take Haq to be a genuinely politically motivated person. Interviews with various of his friends (see the Feit and Kiley article referenced above, for example) suggest that he may basically have been an angry, mentally disturbed young man, who put a veneer of politics on a pretty random shooting spree. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Changing to "Motivation" per Jmabel. I've also moved the see also links inline to avoid duplication. —Viriditas | Talk 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Just curious...Does this article really belong in the "Religiously motivated..." category, and if so, why? Is it because he called himself a muslim? I haven't read anything that he was against Judaism (lived in seattle at the time), and from everything i've read in the article, it seems instead to be an ethnicly motivated (or racist) act. I guess it depends on what precisely he meant by "Jew," whether ethnic or religious or both, but the criminal charges against him, the sourced editorials, and the article itself all seem to argue against using the "religiously motivated..." category. Rather than removing un-categorising it myself, i'd rather first see why people put in that category in the first place. thanks --Chalyres 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs there; it seems a bit of a stretch (though not an enormous stretch). - Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the categorisation, though it can obviously be re-instated. If anyone does change it back, could you also explain why? Thanks. --Chalyres 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg

Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1137178123"