Talk:2005 Shilo shooting

message: Certain parts of the article indicate a clear political slant---rvitelli  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvitelli (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2007

message: I have been forced to revert User:Doom's constant meddling with the text because it is performed without explanation. The original text was drafted according to the sources cited in references, following closely the language there. It is not, I repeat, not POV to call an Arab of an area defined as 'Palestine' or the Palestyine Occupied Territories, as a Palestinian. It is not  POV to note that newspaper reports refer to his death as a 'suicide'. It is POV to say he was killed when no authoritative sources confirm this. Please document changes according to WP:RS. And edit step by step so one can follow the reasons behind what you are doing.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2008

message: Someone is playing with the cats and thinks 'only' four dead means one cannot tag it as mass murder. This defies the technical literature which defines mass murder as from 3-4 in any one place and time. SeeRonald M.Holmes, Stephen T.Holmes, Murder in America, Sage Publications, London 2nd ed. p.54ff. 3-4 = mass murder  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see :Category:Mass murderers. "The following lists individuals who have committed mass murder, defined as the killing of four or more people in a single incident. This category is not to be used for terrorists, or for those who carried out massacres in service of a state." Either or, not both. If there is a disagreement, I will be happy to lock the article while the discussion is carried out on the talk page to prevent edit warring. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CAT justification/Mass Murder

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Shiloh settlement shooting I would like to rename this article 2005 Shiloh shooting. The discussion showed many editors in favor of the reverse merge and others in favor of renaming, and between them, there was a definite majority for this rename. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: On 15 September 2020,  added the category of Zionist terrorism to the article, saying "mentioned and sourced in the article".  There's no prose in the article describing this as Zionist political violence, and for us to do so is original research.  I'm inclined to remove the addition; does anybody object?  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the category because the attack was mainly motivated by Zionist and objection to withdraw of the Jewish presence from the Gaza strip. But if you wish it might be more appropriate category would be :Category:Jewish religious terrorism which is more explicitly stated in the citations, such as this one: 1. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Jerusalem Post article to which you linked doesn't ascribe the attack to any religious motivation, though.  It describes Weisgan as being Jewish, but does not claim that the man's religion (or his targets') motivated the attack.  That JP link and this article overall describe the incident as attempting to stop the Israeli disengagement from Gaza; I suppose that could be described as political or nationalistic terrorism, but the sources don't.  (I do note, however, that the category of terrorist incidents in Asia in 2005 can and should be replaced with terrorist incidents in Israel in 2005, but that edit can be made alongside resolving this one.)  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The same source lists the perpetrator as a "Jewish terrorist" in both the title and the lead sentence. I don't think it can get any more obvious than that. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not disputing that Weisgan was Jewish, but the sources don't say it had anything to do with his attack.  Being Jewish doesn't mean that his religion had any bearing on his motives.  On the contrary, the sources explicitly state that his motives were secular or irreligious: .  Does the prose, any of the sources in the article, or any supplemental sources specifically say that Weisgan's religion (or any religion of his targets) were relevant to the attack?  To put it another way: Weisgan was also a 'male terrorist', but that doesn't mean his gender or sex had anything to do with the attack.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Zionist" categorization