Talk:Terror suspects arrested in connection with bombing public bus in Israel

Review of revision 1706546 [Not ready]
I stated in the article that Hamas did not claim responsibility for the attack. The bombing of a civilian bus is a proiri a terrorist attack. I never once said Hamas carried out a terrorist attack.

if you checked the al jazeera article it was sourced from reuters.

I added another source for the celebratory gunfire. I dont know how to change the title but if i could i would lowercase the attack and change it to bombing. In the news article I state the Israeli police and Clinton refer to it as a terrorist attack, and in all other instances I use the word bombing. Also I never claimed Hamas carried out the attack and I specifically mention they have not accepted responsibility. Eframgoldberg (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone would tell me how to change the title I will.Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As for my style of writing, I do not see it sub par to any of the other articles written here. I was objective as possible, my grammar was fine, and I covered both sides. I reported the facts from the article and refrained from any personal opinion. Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're using the vector skin, up at the top of the window to the right of the star there should be a drop-down menu. 'rename' (or 'move', but I think it's 'rename') is on that menu.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If I took every paragraph break out of your above remarks, ran them all together in a completely unstructured manner, then I'd have a "stream of consciousness"; it is, an 'unstructured story'. Please try and make the article "look" like other articles (see WN:SG). You've put up one paragraph. The requirement is a minimum of three. When you make the article start to look like others, then you may-well see how to order and present the facts logically and the requirement to use an inverted pyramid style layout will make more sense.
 * In the interim, please understand that review isn't supposed to be used until the article is in a state that a reviewer need not make substantive changes (correct details, and otherwise become involved with the 'content' beyond copyediting). --Brian McNeil / talk 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was written as three paragraphs I dont know why it got squished together, I fixed that and the other concerns. Eframgoldberg (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has a clear structure to me. What happened followed by some international reactions followed by a summary of what led up to this and where things stand. Eframgoldberg (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I added quotes to the word "terrorist" to emphasize the fact that Hamas does not believe themselves to be a terror group. 76.100.136.17 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Previously signed comment made by Zellfaze (talk) while logged out Zellfaze (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1706595 [Not ready]
Can someone give me specific objective reasons of what else is wrong besides my "style" of writing. Furthermore there is nothing in the way it is written which conflicts with the style guide. I would appreciate specific references as opposed to general opinions.

Review of revision 1706911 [Not ready]
If someone else wishes to "fix" this article they are welcome to. I feel completely frustrated in my attempts to introduce some balance into the news stories. For the current conflict there are 6 covering events in Gaza, and 0 covering events in Israel. I am disappointed to see this become a soapbox for the Palestinian cause under the guise of neutral and bias free reporting. I am not talking as much about the content of the articles themselves, but the lack of articles covering the conflict in Israel. I have been supporting Wikipedia and its projects since at least 2005 and will not be donating any more money to what I perceive as a statistical bias in the articles. I am sure that if this was not my first time trying to write an article I would have been more successful but I do not have the time to dedicate each day to take it upon myself to make sure news in Israel is being covered. Furthermore articles posted such as this one "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamas_claims_Israeli_jet_shoot-down;_report_of_Israeli_soldiers_captured?dpl_id=591045" falls claim to the same criticisms which was preventing my article from being published those being lack of NPOV, unreliable sources, as this story turned out to be false, as well as poorly written with incomplete sentences and tense changes. Eframgoldberg (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * News-writing is, often, nowhere near as-easy as people think. It's a completely different style of writing to that found on Wikipedia; or, in fact, to that most people will casually employ. Skill at it only comes with practice.
 * It does seem most unreasonably unfair to resort to a form of "blackmail" to try and get your contributions published without compliance with the style and content guides. Donations are what keeps all the WMF projects running, but the vast majority of funds cover Wikipedia; my own donation to the WMF easily covers one month's worth of what English Wikinews costs the WMF. So, unless you're arguing that Wikipedia is equally biased as you assert Wikinews is, threatening to withold your donation does other projects more harm.
 * Lastly, I object to Wikinews being referred to as "a soapbox for the views of &lt;insert name of group or organisation I dislike&gt;". Doesn't work like that. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

C/E
It needs a lot more c/e. I have done all that I can for tonight. I have to sleep because despite it being Thanksgiving tomorrow, I still have to work in the early AM. The article is severely outdated and the events in it are different from what the sources say now...aside from the work I have done on it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

C/E and trying to clarify ambiguous wording
I completed a couple of revisions, restructuring a couple of elements. I tried to clarify some of the wording such as the sources of reports, the bus driver's suspicion, and structural ambiguity of some of the quotes. I would appreciate it if the bus driver's lack of suspicion were made clearer, as the wording is slightly confusing.--Brylie Oxley (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)