Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 15 December 2010

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

More AFD's

• August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba
• August 2010 West Bank shooting

Time permitting, the second could be made into a DKY. I am beginning to view these AFD's as a form of harassment, nominations designed to make good editors wast time defending notable articles.AMuseo (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that many notable incidents of terrorism that took place in the 20th century, before Misplaced Pages, could use articles.AMuseo (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate deletions

• I believe that the closing administrator's decision to simultaneously close three Israel-related articles Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was incorrect. I am writing to you because I recall, correct me if this is a false memory) that you created one of these articles and edited the other two.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements , , but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks , . there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.

The Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. , and, significantly, to be cited as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing) the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.

My objection to your deletion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.

Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Misplaced Pages articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Misplaced Pages standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737, 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot. There are many more Misplaced Pages articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, and about terrorism plots which were never were carried out. Misplaced Pages standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not?AMuseo (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• These three deletions are now being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13.AMuseo (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of June 2010 West Bank shooting

I have nominated June 2010 West Bank shooting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jmundo (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis

The list that was deleted can be found here where hopefully we can rectify the deficiencies that resulted in its deletion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Do you have any thoughts on how to do that? I think that the article is essentially an organizational list (you can see my response to Torchwood Who's good point on the AfD), and that its usefulness as such would be appreciated more if some more of the listed incidents got their own articles written. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. None of the incidents contained in this list http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_costly_or_deadly_hailstorms have an article about it, yet we do have a list. - BorisG (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but more articles would clearly help. Also, you gotta archive your talk page, it takes me two days to open it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I do that? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Help:Archiving a talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Crazy Water Park

Nice work. Terrible story, but nice editing. I just saw the story about the arson. Flabbergasted. Sadly, I was not surprised, merely horrified. It is certainly time for an article on the Islamization of Gaza. Since you're following the Water Park Story, you may find material that you could add to Islamization of Gaza. I'll be back, but probably not editing much more today.AMuseo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually planned to write the article when I read the news today, but then I saw that you already had. The article you refer to definitely needs to be written, though I think a title like Islamic coercion in the Gaza Strip might be better and avoid possible NPOV issues. If you haven't already seen it, I wrote an article on the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip), which has relevant material. Go back in the history to get the fullest version, as it has since been ravaged by apologists. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will. Nice article Thanks for the tip. All I need is time. The article on Islamization of Gaza has already been tagged, not for deletion, just an I don't like it tag. The reason I came here, though, is that I saw your latest post at the AFD review on the three terrorism incident articles. Remarkable. Though it will not convince everyone. I begin to believe that no amount of coverage, and no amount of impact on political events, in fact no amount of notability would dissuade some editors from deleting every article that they do not like. Today, one is arguing that none of the sources in a new article are "openly sympathetic to Israel and/or conservative Christian evangelism and thus cannot be considered to be unbiased given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The sources in the article include that notorious vehicle of Zionism and evangelical Christianity, the Associated Press. I suppose the only thing to do is to keep making rational and well-supported arguments. Thanks for doing so again.AMuseo (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I linked some pages to your Committee for Propagation article. But I;m thinking of the Islamization of Gaza article. I may spend some more time there today, and nominate it for DKY. I hope that you will have time to join me.AMuseo (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability and "events"

At the risk of polluting this space with the rantings of an apologist, I would like to ask you a question. Do you feel that each attack by Israel on or in Gaza or the West Bank merits an article? Does each attack by an Israeli settler on a Palestinian merit its own article? That is assuming that there are let's say 5 news articles about these attacks. nableezy - 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a few examples so I know what we're talking about? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That will take some effort. For now lets assume the following hypothetical events: an Israeli helicopter fires a missile in Gaza killing a.) 3 "terrorists" b.) 2 civilians c.) 1 child. Assuming that there are at least 5 news reports about this event for each a, b, and c, should there be an article on that specific "event".

Next lets take a different hypothetical set: An Israeli settler shoots at Palestinians near a West Bank settlement. He kills a.) 1 armed Palestinian b.)1 unarmed Palestinians c.)1 child. Same assumption as above, should we have an article on each of these events? nableezy - 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant actual examples. Hypothetical examples are naturally ambiguous. But I think that as a rough, general guideline, all fatal acts of violence should ideally be on Misplaced Pages. If they are not tied to a specific set of other acts of violence, they should have their own article individually or collectively; so, for example, Israeli targeted killings. If they are a direct response to a specific prior act of violence or a specific set of prior acts, they should be mentioned in the article on the prior act(s); so, for example, I make it a point to consistently describe Israeli retaliations to specific Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you meant actual examples, but I really dont want to spend the time finding and citing them. Far too depressing and no real point because I dont think those articles belong so, even if I were to find 20 news articles on a single Israeli attack, I would not write articles on them. I dont have as big a problem with "series" articles like Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010, though I dont think they merit articles, as I do with having an article on each individual rocket attack, or each stabbing, or each gunfight, or each "targeted assassination" or even each child killed by a sniper. If it were my choice, there would be an article on the Israel Gaza conflict and that article would contain a line "there were X rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel. Y of them landed in D city, causing E amount of damage and F casualties, among them G deaths (and so on for each city hit)." That would be near a line on the number of Israeli "incursions" and the damage and casualties caused. I dont see the point of repeating a bunch of news articles here and I cannot believe that any serious source, one that would call itself an "encyclopedia", would carry these kinds of articles. nableezy - 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably, part of the disagreement between us is just the classic difference between inclusionist and deletionist dispositions. That said, however, you should notice that I don't advocate creating separate articles for each Palestinian rocket attack on Israel; just for exceptional attacks, like the ones on Eilat. I would in principle support separate articles on each Israeli targeted assassination. Lastly, I think that your ideal article as you described it would be one-dimensional, lacking important aspects of the events, such as the motives, and thus unencyclopedic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we are reminding each other of what we have not noticed, I have not said one word about the article on the Eilat attacks. The stabbings however are straight news stories in my opinion and would only belong in an article on the events of the year or the talks where the latest might be relevant. nableezy - 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but it lacks any consideration of the world beyond the Middle East. There appears to be a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. There are hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots see:Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States by year, Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom including a large number on incidents of intended terrorism that never happened Category:Failed terrorist attempts, this makes it clear that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted and nominated for deletion whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. The quesiton is, why are articles about terrorism in Israel and the Palestinian territories regularly proposed for deletion and held to different standards Gaza Baptist Church than articles about the British Isles or the United States?02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But why do editors in the I-P topic area only create articles about attacks carried out by one of the parties to the conflict and not the other ? Under the discretionary sanctions editors are meant to "aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Focusing on attacks by one side in the conflict won't achieve that and imagining that others will correct the resulting systemic bias is unrealistic. Why not write one article about a notable attack by Palestinians and then write another about an attack by Israelis ? Both articles would have to be policy compliant anyway so what's the difference ? What is so difficult about a balanced approach to contributing with editors responsibly and actively making an effort to compensate for their own systemic bias ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I write an article about Beethoven, does neutrality require me to write another article about Brahms? (And then another article about Schubert, etc.?) I don't follow your logic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do. It's a diversionary tactic. Since the writer cannot answer the issues you and I have raised, he is diverting the debate to a new, red herring topic. All Wikipeida editors write about topics that they fancy. This is not a problem. In fact, it is an asset since when we care about a topic, we are more likely to have the facts at our fingertips. The problems come with poor editing and poor logic, such as voting to keep articles that appear to favor one's personal political convictions, and to delete those that don't - and devil take the rules. Some editors will try everything in an AFD, shifting their arguments, false arguments, strawman arguments, personal attacks, outright untruths (I have pointed out 2 outright assertions of untruth in ADD's this week alone), and good red herring to get an article deleted when the only real argument they have is Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it.AMuseo (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors either share the aspirations as the sanctions or they don't. It's up to them. It's an aspiration not an obligation. Logic isn't required to understand that there is a dependency between the neutrality of the I-P topic area, its breath of coverage and the focus/actions of individual editors. It's true that all Misplaced Pages editors write about topics that they fancy but the statement "This is not a problem" is patently false and naive. There's no diversion here. I have no interest in the AFDs or else I would have voted and I have no need for tactics because this isn't a battle. There was simply the hope that you might consider broadening your focus to be more inline with the aspirations of the sanctions because these kind of recent event based articles will continue to be written, many will be proposed for deletion no matter whether that is what should happen and many will be kept. Each article impacts on the overall neutrality and breath of coverage of the I-P topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see you give this lecture to someone like harlan wilkerson for a change. There's a guy with immense knowledge about both sides of this issue who exclusively writes from one side only. But you seem to prefer to talk about this only with people who you find to be too pro-I in the pro-I/pro-P equation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped to have a reasoned discussion with you and I dont see why that cant continue. Ill ignore some spectator comments if you dont mind. But it just so happens that a concrete example of what I have been asking about recently occurred. Should there be a Misplaced Pages article on this? Using that, and this and this and a number of other news stories as sources? nableezy - 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There should be an article on the Silwan riots and violence, and this incident should be included in it. Maybe I'll write it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But should there be a stand-alone article on a settlement security guard killing this Palestinian? Lets call it the September 2010 East Jerusalem shooting? nableezy - 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I would advocate deleting that article, but I also doubt I would participate in creating that article if 2010 Silwan riots or similar weren't written. The Arab ambush which (according to the police investigation) culminated in the shooting seems to have been part and parcel of the general phenomenon of Silwan riots and violence, exceptional only in that it happened to culminate in a fatality. So I think it would be like having a stand-alone article for every fatal Palestinian rocket attack on Israel, where my attitude would be the same. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The real question is here is would Nableezy and the other pro-P editors who voted to delete the articles about the events that lead to Israelis being killed vote to delete an article about an event that resulted in a Palestinian being killed. I doubt it. Anyone have any examples to the contrary? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I obviously take issue with how you choose to frame this event. To you this is in the context of "riots in Silwan". If it were me I would expand that context to the "Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and actions by Israeli settlers in that territory". That difference in how these things can be frames is what I think is the biggest problem with these articles. They each can be framed in a specific way that allows either "side" to present the issue in completely different ways. It ends up being a race to see who writes an article first. If I were to write the article now and discuss it in what I feel is the correct context I could then claim that an article that you make in what you feel is the correct context is a "POV fork" when they are actually both "POV forks". But here is another example. Should an article exist on this, using this, this, this, this, and this as sources? Your first reply to me is probably accurate, this comes down to an "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" mentality (at least for some of us, unnamed others will just vote based on the "party line"). This is how I see these things: every violent story from that region will have news stories written about it from Los Angeles to London to Jerusalem to Pyongyang. That doesnt make it anything more than a news story. We live in a time where every news story will be repeated around the world and then forgotten when the next story that gets people to click on the link happens. nableezy - 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re first question: are you really suggesting that an article Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and actions by Israeli settlers in that territory including the incident we're speaking of is comparable to an article 2010 Silwan riots including the incident we're speaking of? If so, I would say that our disagreement depends on what I consider a fundamental failure of common sense on your part and therefore I cannot respond. Re second question: Obviously even I as an inclusionist have a threshold. I can't say a priori whether the vandalism incident passes the threshold; I would have to look into the details. Not-thought-out gut response: an attack on a house of worship is notable if the place was destroyed or if there were serious injuries. In any case, it's more important that there be an article on the Mosque, and that article should include the incident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that for an article title. But I am suggesting that an article on the specific shooting can be framed in the context of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the actions taken by settlers in that territory. My point was the how an issue is framed is a question of POV. I could say the shooting should be treated as its own topic, you could reply that it should discussed in the context of Palestinian riots, I could reply that those "riots" should be treated in the context of the occupation and resistance to the appropriation of occupied territory. It depends only on POV and as such can only lead to problems here on how it should be treated. nableezy - 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, POV affects how things are framed. No, that doesn't mean that all imaginable framings are equally valid. It's hard for me to get more specific than that without a concrete example. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you judge what the level of validity is of a specific way of presenting an event? nableezy - 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I want to make sure I understand your position. Is it that the fact that there were deaths or a house of worship is destroyed that makes the above supposed article a notable topic, or is it that there are news stories about it across the world? Are the Palestinian attacks notable because they are "terror attacks" and all "terror attacks" are by definition "notable"? Is each drone strike in Afghanistan or Pakistan notable? nableezy - 01:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So obviously there must be a few examples where you voted to delete an article you felt was pro-P, right? Apropos voting based on party lines, comedy of the absurd, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If I give you those examples do you promise to stfu and let me have this conversation with somebody I respect without you butting in with retarded questions? nableezy - 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I will seriously consider your request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Once you finish considering it let me know what the answer is. nableezy - 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to see your examples first. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which I gather are not forthcoming. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of June 2010 West Bank shooting for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article June 2010 West Bank shooting, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of September 2010 West Bank shooting

The article September 2010 West Bank shooting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

More suitable for wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS; no evidence of lasting notability (since the event occured today)

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiftigerWunsch 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of September 2010 West Bank shooting for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article September 2010 West Bank shooting, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/September 2010 West Bank shooting until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiftigerWunsch 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• , fyi, In addition to the articles on individual terrorist atacks, I have started an article on the 2010 Hamas terror campaign.

Lists

I was looking at Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai. I added info from a recent article to the text. But I was surprised to see so few links. it should certainly be linked form a list of some kind. It was claimed by Al Aqsa. There is a List of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks which redirects to List of Palestinian suicide attacks. But there should be a parallel list of stabbings. And one of Drive-by shootings. Or do such lists exist and I am somehow missing them? Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai needs also to be linked to a list of terror incidnets in 2009, but I think there should also be lists of stabbing and drive-by attacks. Thoughts?AMuseo (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more persuaded I become that Palestinian drive-by shootings" should be an article , as well as a list. They kill both Palestinian Arab political rivals and Jews this way quite regularly, after all. I may not have time for a few days. If you like the idea feel free to start an articleAMuseo (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think incidents of Palestinian political violence should be organized by type. I already made a list of animal bomb attacks, which got merged, and a list of ax attacks, which got deleted and is now being improved in Brewcrewer's sandbox - see the links above on this page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're working on an article on ax attacks. One on stabbings is certainly needed. It is important and useful to put these incidents into context as tactics in campaigns of terror.AMuseo (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM

AFDs

Out of curiosity, is there a reason why you havent argued to keep September 2010 Gaza naval shooting? nableezy - 04:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it's the same reason I haven't argued to keep September 2010 West Bank shooting, a similar article I created at about the same time. I'm not sure whether such short articles should be kept or merged. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Exploding animal

I'm not going to edit war with you, I had meant for you to initiate discussion if you disagreed with my 2nd revert where I clearly explained why the reasoning in your 2nd addition was incorrect. The version you're adding is clearly pushing your anti-Palestinian POV - the Animal-borne bomb attacks article lists 5 attacks by Palestinians and 4 by others so saying it is a WP:SUMMARY is incorrect. Adding "mainly perpetrated by Palestinian militants" is not correct or neutral. Even if there were 10 attacks by Palestinians and 2 by others, it would still be a synthesis to say most were carried out by Palestinians. I also suspect that the Animal-borne bomb attacks does not contain all incidents of this by any stretch, andis likely that many other groups have used similar tactics, but they haven't been included in the article yet. Like I said, I'm not going to carry on warring, but I would respectfully ask that you self-revert unless you can provide a strong source for the fact that "Animal-borne bomb attacks are mostly perpetrated by Palestinians". Smartse (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we can't be sure that the collection of incidents we have on Misplaced Pages is reflective of the entire set of documented incidents, so I changed "mainly" to "many". There were other things you attempted to delete that these arguments have no bearing on. I don't have an anti-Palestinian POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for saying that you have an anti-Palestinian POV, I just can't see how anyone can think this is a neutral way to summarise the Animal-borne bomb attacks article. "Many" is still not appropriate - how many is "many"? To me many certainly means more than the five occurrences mentioned in the article. This basically boils down to the fact that I can't see how your text improves the article. I accidentally removed your addition of horses in my first revert, but then only removed the "mainly perpetrated" section in my second revert. Smartse (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nava Applebaum

Thank you for the help at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good work on the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 cargo plane bomb plot

Hey Jalapenos!

I noticed some of your edits to the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot on my watchlist. I just wanted to get your opinion on the actual purpose of the bombs -- whether they were meant to detonate on the cargo planes or whether they were targeting the Jewish synagogues to which they were addressed. One of the sources cited in the article, containing a statement from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, suggests that authorities believe that the bombs were supposed to detonate on the airplanes, rather than targeting the synagogues. Bomb was designed to explode on cargo plane - UK PM If that's the case, we may want to re-word the lead to make this clearer.

The other thing we should be careful of is undue weight in the lead. I originally had Al-Queda in the Arab Peninsula in the lead too, but I decided to move it down to the Responsibility section because there was not concrete evidence of this yet.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Please get back to me when you can. Happy editing! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Novem, I changed the motive based on the more recent assessments appearing in the media, among others in the Wall Street Journal article I cited. The British assessment that the bombs were supposed to explode on the airplanes seems to be outdated by now. The prime suspect of an attempted crime is certainly one of the most important elements in an article about the crime, so I think AQAP definitely belongs in the lead. Cheers, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

Do you have any thoughts regarding the suggestion made by Sean.hoyland? Adambro (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

I saw your sandbox on civilian/combatant casualties. Very interesting indeed, notable and well-sourced. You might wish to include comments and observations from from Col. Richard Kemp. In addition, next to B'Tselem’s figures, you might wish to add the following, However, B'Tselem’s figures are contradicted by Hamas, which admitted that its organization sustained casualties that were consistent with Israeli estimates. In any event, nice job.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added Kemp (as cited by Dershowitz in the context of this topic) and the problem with the B'Tselem figures. If you'd like to work on the article while it's in the sandbox, any help would be much appreciated. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the reason for my edit. You have reverted without any explanation on the talk page. Please do so. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		I just happened to stumble on your username and your userpage, and both were highly entertaining to me and made me laugh. If that's not worth a barnstar, what is? — Hunter Kahn 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Durban III

On 5 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Durban III, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Canada has vowed to boycott the United Nations Durban III conference, calling it a "charade" and a "hatefest"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hi there - FYI, you have been reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jalapenos do exist reported by User:Rami R (Result: ). Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you myself. I actually had your talk page open on "new section", but I got a phone call that lasted 2.5 hours, at its conclusion I've come to the realization that real life is pressing. As such, I'm withdrawing from the related discussion and[REDACTED] in general for at least a week or two. Rami R 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All the best in real life. I hope everything works out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom

I've pretty much done all I'm going to do on the Civilian casualty ratio article for the time being. If the result is acceptable to you, I think this can be promoted now. If not, then I think it will have to be rejected, because the nom is already very late and I don't think we can hold it open any longer to resolve outstanding issues. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave a note to that effect at T:TDYK. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jalapenos do exist, I noticed you removed POV from the article. Could you please tell me, who was the one to introduce that POV there. I mean who added that "1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" ? Thank you. I will check on your response here.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be Gatoclass, but you can check the history. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was too lazy to check the history. I thought you would know, but I guess I will go ahead and check it now.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Civilian casualty ratio

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Civilian casualty ratio, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian casualty ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10 civilian deaths for every soldier death? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of AE case

Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)