Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 19 November 2014

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Palestine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Israel Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Judaism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Is Warsi English?

I am not sure why the Warsi episode is reported under the heading "England". Apparently we are talking about the legislative branch of Great Britain, not England. More specifically, it still has jurisdiction over Scotland, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Tkuvho (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"allah hu akbar" or "allah akbar"?

Usually the expression is quoted as "allah Akbar" in western sources, without the "hu". What's the source for the "hu"? Tkuvho (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that our article Takbir prefers the form "Allahu Akbar" which is still different from what appears in the massacre page. Tkuvho (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty minor thing to try and focus on, don't you think? The kyle 3 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein massacred Muslims at prayer in Hebron how we forget the other terrorists

It's interesting how some individuals on this site will try to make every excuse for Baruch Goldstein's actions whilst at the same time pretending that whenever a Palestinian does anything, "it's just because of their implacable anti Semitism and their hate" or some kind of statement like that that's rooted in hyperbole. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)(talk) 18:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein committed a horrific massacre. The kyle 3 is an aggressive, partisan, and uncivil editor.ShulMaven (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shulmaven I don't think you have any ground whatsoever to accuse anyone else of being "partisan" or otherwise unbiased considering the sort of people that you associate with here on a regular basis.

You refer to the Palestinian West Bank as "Judea and Samaria"-- enough said, in my opinion, as to what you're about. The kyle 3 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum and its not a place for a political argument. The only discussion should be on the question raised by the original posting user. Stop. - SantiLak (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph on what the attackers allegedly "screamed"

I see no point in including this unless they actually made their motive for the attack clear in the verbal sense. There's no point in including "they shouted the takbir" because we all know that this isn't just some kind of spontaneous attack or rooted in theological rationale or anything like that. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Objection. In a hate crime, the words the perpetrators scream are absolutely pertinent. This perp shouted Allah hu'Akbar It is reliably sourced. It belongs in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a "hate crime". Again, unless the perpetrators said something specific as to their motives for carrying out the attack when they were doing so, then what they said or didn't say otherwise is not relevant. The kyle 3 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What the attackers shouted is evidence to the reason they perpetrated the attack. Thus it is relevant. And as ShulMaven says, it is well sourced.Galastel (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Did the attackers shout anything in the way of specific rationale as to why they were carrying out the attack? You can pretend otherwise, being who you are and all, but we really both know that the takbir isn't "evidence" of any kind of specific rationale, being a generic slogan that hasn't any ultra-specific meaning to it. The attack was carried out because of the recent turmoil and especially because of Israeli actions towards Palestinians and Palestinian property/cultural-religious sites-- unless they were saying "this is for Al-Aqsa" or something similar, then there's nothing to show that what they were saying was or is relevant.The kyle 3 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is incredibly relevant. It shows it was religiously motivated. Was what the person who shot Yehuda Glick said to him right before shooting not relevant? Was the incident in Brooklyn today when a Jew was beat up on the subway while being called "Dirty Jew" not relevant to the beating? - Galatz (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how it's "incredibly" relevant. It is religiously motivated in the sense that it partially has to do with "settler" groups talking about "reclaiming" the temple mount and rebuilding over Muslim and Christian holy sites-- but the takbir has nothing to do with those specific reasons, being a perfectly generic religious slogan that crops up in multiple situations with multiple kinds of inflection in its use. The kyle 3 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I doesn't matter what you think the WP:RS report it so that all what we need.--Shrike (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Shrike. - SantiLak (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. Regardless of the source, it doesn't change the fact that it's trying to make something out of nothing, as I keep saying. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter what I think, especially considering I'm interrupting your little circlejerk over this particular insertion into the article.

I find it funny that you're reporting me for "edit warring" because I'm changing different aspects of this article to sound more impartial-- but on the particular subject as hand, the issue of Israeli newspapers turning someone going "Allahu Akbar" into some kind of big stink doesn't change the fact that the takbir doesn't mean anything in the way of showing a motive for carrying out the attack. Once again, if the perpetrators said something specific, like stating that they were specifically taking revenge for Palestinians killed by Israelis, or the actions of the "settlers" towards the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, then that would be a different story all together. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to take a look at WP:CIVILITY and come back with a different attitude. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that embraces cooperation and following policy, not your desire to start political arguments or insult other editors. - SantiLak (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, I don't think I will look at WP:CIVILITY, especially considering that not being civil isn't my problem just because Shulmaven alleges it is. If you're going to jump in accusing me of "starting political arguments"-- something that all the people waxing hard over this event as part of their pro-Israel position have been doing-- or "insulting" other editors, then you should at least read what I was writing here and respond properly to that. If you do care that much that you respond to me in other places, I mean. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I read what you wrote in the section above and you were clearly trying to start a political argument. By arguing reasonably over why material should or shouldn't be included is completely you wouldn't be doing anything wrong but you clearly aren't doing that, you are instead insulting other editors, ignoring rules on necessary sourcing, and refusing to engage in cooperative editing. - SantiLak (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was clearly trying to "start a political argument" based on what evidence? Beyond disagreeing with Israeli Jewish editors who seem to think that referencing how the attackers said "Allahu Akbar" is some big breakthrough or somehow determines the motive, I mean.

Once again, saying that slogan alone doesn't mean or prove anything isn't "trying to start a political argument". It's stating a fact and nothing more-- barring the fact that we all know why this attack happened, because of the ongoing situation and especially because of the encroachment of the "settlers" and the maiming/killing of Palestinians by Israelis. Don't even try to pretend that the two sources they linked to that "necessary part of the article"-- the "Daily Mail" and the "NY Post"-- are anything close to useful, valuable sources, because they're tabloids. Don't try to pretend that the likes of Shulmaven or Galastel are remotely interested in "cooperative editing", because they're not. The kyle 3 (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't been here for 24 hours yet, and already there's someone telling me what I am or am not interested in.Galastel (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you already have gone on record in other talk pages in trying to portray any Palestinian violence against Israelis as being "anti Jewish bigotry" instead of anything else. No, it couldn't be because a boiling point has been reached or anything like that. It couldn't be because of "settler" and IDF violence against Palestinians and the abject disregard for Palestinian claims and Palestinian property-- it "has to be" baseless 'bigoted' violence. Do you see why I might start to think that you've got a specific line of thought to push? The kyle 3 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's relevant. First clue: it is reported by the RSs. So it is relevant to them -- for wp purposes, that trumps whether it is relevant to any wp editor. Second clue, of course while there are many uses of the phrase, it is often used as an Islamist (and sometimes Islamic) battle cry. Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of those RSs are tabloids, sensationalist publications that are pretty much held in very low regard when it comes to their status as newspapers. If the perpetrators are actually affiliated with the PFLP, as has been alleged, then the last thing you would expect them to be would be Islamists, considering that group is far-left and secularist. Again, I have to state that if what they were shouting is to be tied into their rationale for the attack, i.e. revenge for the abuses of the IDF and the "settlers", then you would think that something a lot more specific would have to go on record. The kyle 3 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The kyle 3 is not only the type of aggressive, foul-mouthed editor who gives editing on WP a bad reputation, he if disingenuous. If he truly believed that the fact that witnesses heard the attackers shout AllahuAkbar was poorly sourced, he would have googled it - not taken it to talk. Googling shows that it is in the morning after article in the Washington Post and several other reliable newspapers - including the New York Post which, like the Daily Mail, mixes screaming headlines, lurid photos and gossip with reliable news. The kyle 3 may in fact have a strategy here, one that I see used too often on WOP, to wit, drag out endless arguments on Talk pages to make it difficult for good editors with whom they disagree on political issues to edit.ShulMaven (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kyle - they are RSs for this, and of course there are other RSs covering it, such as here. BTW - Kyle, have you ever edited wp under another name or as an IP? Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can be sure that I do appreciate that kind of "endorsement" coming from someone like yourself. I have yet to see any evidence of undue aggressiveness or foul-mouthed language on my part-- although I agree that those who subscribe to Bibi and the Likud party are pretty "dirty", and it isn't something to be proud of. Speaking in seriousness, I find this obsession over someone saying "Allahu Akbar" and this idea that "it has to be evidence of the motive for the attack" to be pretty funny. Daily Mail and the NY Post will have mentioned it because they want to make it into something like "the evil Muslims attack the poor innocent Israeli Jews" and otherwise try to connect it to some kind of baseless Islamist action on par with what the Salafi Jihadi or Takfiri carry out-- which isn't the case in this case, by any standard.

There doesn't have to be "endless arguments" over this. I gave my rationale as to why it's not really relevant-- especially considering there's nothing more then "witnesses say that the attackers said this", and nothing in the way of justification for why that deserves to be mentioned. I can't stop the users who seem to be obsessed with shoe-horning it into the article, but I can state over and over again as to why it doesn't have any purpose in the article in question. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This has already been responded to. It is noteworthy because the RSs reflect it. Just as we "keep" articles, on the basis of the fact that the RSs have covered the topic. We rely on them. Not on Kyle's - or any wp editor's - POV. You may not like how wp works, and think it should work differently, but your assertion that "nothing in the way of justification for why that deserves to be mentioned" is flatly incorrect, and has the potential of leading you to mislead others. Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article title

I have restored the page to its original, NPOV title: "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack". The term "massacre" is a highly loaded and generally not NPOV. The vast majority of articles on such attacks are labeled "attack" or which a more specifical noun ("shooting", "stabbing", "bombing", etc.) A few articles do use the term "massacre", but only after it is established as a WP:COMMON NAME by reliable sources. Additionally, this page was created under the NPOV term "attack". Anyone wishing a different term has the burden of achieving consensus before a page move is made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Both @ShulMaven: and @ThaddeusB: have moved the article today between attack and massacre. When ThaddeusB moved it back he stated it was due to NPOV. The word massacre itself does not imply any POV in either direction. On wikipedia, the definition of Massacre is defined as "the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent" which it clearly was. To me this means it was not an attack, it was a massacre. If you review the article List of events named massacres there are plenty that have such few number of deaths. What makes this one POV and not those? I feel we need a consensus on the title and keep it at that, not move it ourselves. Any other thoughts? My opinion this was the perfect definition of a massacre rather than an attack, they were praying, you couldn't get more innocent and helpless. - Galatz (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, the default title in any dispute is the title chosen by the original author, which here is "attack". Thus, I was free to restore the original title per WP:BRD alone. Second, massacre is a loaded term. It is an implicit condemnation in a way "attack" is not. Third, take a look at Category:Attacks in 2014, for example. In nearly every case the attack could be described as a powerful party attacking a helpless one. Yet, only 1/22 articles is labeled "massacre". The reason is exactly as I decsribed: it is a non-neutral term that is only used on wikipedia when reliable sources establish it as part of a common name. We do not make judgements - we report the judgements of reliable sources, which as this point are using the term "attack" in far great number than the term "massacre". --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote when I moved the page, the Mercaz HaRav massacre and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre seem to be directly relevant examples. And there are sources calling it a massacre The Telegraph the Times of Israel . I thought this was an obvious name. There are no firm naming convention, except that the name needs support in reliable sources. Daily mail ShulMaven (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that reliable sources establish a title, but it is what the majority/most reliable say, not any old source. Let's take a look shall we?

• NY Times: "Four Killed in Jerusalem Synagogue Attack"
• Washington Post: "Palestinian attackers storm Jerusalem synagogue, killing 3 Americans, 1 Briton"
• BBC: "Bloody attack at Jerusalem synagogue"
• The Guardian: "Three Americans among four killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack"
• Times of India: "Four killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack"

Between these 5 sources, the term "massacre" is used precisely once - in a direct quote by a third party. Nice try on The Telegraph, but the title of that article ("Baroness Warsi slapped down over Jerusalem massacre comments") makes it clear that is not the main story on the event. The main story ("Jerusalem axe attack: Briton among four killed" ) doesn't use the term. The Daily Mail is a sensationalist tabloid, and barely considered a reliable source. Every other source that uses the term massacre that I can find is a Jewish paper, and thus hardly neutral. Indeed, that fact alone is strong evidence that the term is non-neutral. Frankly, it baffles me that anyone could think massacre to be a neutral term in the same sense as attack is.

As to those other articles, I would assume that reliable sources over time evolved to give the attack a common name with the term "massacre" (note both occurred several years ago, so there has been plenty of time to establish a common name). That may well happen here eventually, but at this time it has not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can feel the term massacre is POV. The word has a very clear definition. Look at Miriam Webster here . Its a verb meaning: 1) violently kill (a group of people), 2) to easily defeat (someone or something) 3)to do (something) very badly : to ruin (something) because of lack of skill. Its pretty black and white. This fits every single one of those definitions, its not POV vs not. Its the definition of the word. - Galatz (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Meets the definition of" and "is a neutral description of" are completely different things. Basically every attack in Category:Attacks in 2014 meets the definition of massacre, yet are not titled as such. Why? Because reliable sources do not consistantly use the term to describe the event, just as is the case here. Quality news sources understand massacre is a loaded term and are very hestitant to use it. If you don't understand it is a loaded term, then in your dialect of English perhaps it is not, but in most dialects it is.

The norm for such articles is to use the term "attack"; the vast majority of reliable sources use "attack"; the article's original title was "attack". The burden of proof this should be called otherwise is on you. Merely stating it meets the definition of massacre is insufficient. It certainly meets the defition of an attack too!

BTW, even the recent events linked from List of events named massacres are mostly, in fact, not titled "X massacre" on Misplaced Pages. Most likely the 1/22 events inCategory:Attacks in 2014 titled massacre should not be either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you argue that Misplaced Pages has a Cave of the Patriarchs massacre but this is only a synagogue attack. Really???ShulMaven (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source usage determines an article title. The vast majority of RS use the term "attack" here. Furthermore, your comment betrays the fact that "massacre" is non-neutral. If massacre is neutral, then your comment that about being "only a synangogue attack" would make no sense. Your own language indictates that you view massacre as a severe event (I do too), which is a form of non-neutral judgement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" implies that the attacked party could defend itself. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "attack" as "to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)". Calling what happened in Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue an "attack" also constitutes a POV, in my opinion. It suggests that the praying men were not defenceless, that they were somehow valid targets. While I did not participate in the switching of names back and forth, I strongly believe that the NPOV title should be "massacre".Galastel (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a consensus, as of now. I'll move the title back. This discussion can resume later.ShulMaven (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Rearranging this discussion in the order in which it was written. It was disingenuous of ThaddeusB to disarrange it.ShulMaven (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Um the comments were made at the same time, as clearly marked by the use of (edit conflict), and arranged by the order of what I was replying to. There is no mandate of chronological order - people place comments after what they are replying to all the time. Indeed, that is the more natural thing to do. Please refrain from nonsensical personal attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, please make a policy based argument, not argue over dictionary definition. Insisting on arguing massacre is a neutral term is a losing battle - I can provide dozens and dozens of sources that call the term "inflammatory", "sensationalist", "loaded", etc. A dictionary doesn't usually convey the full connotation of a word - that is not its purpose. But, none the less, see the Dictionary.com (Random House) definition - "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." I'm sorry, but that is a very strong judgement on the perpetrators, not a neutral description of them. I would suggest massacre is always non-neutral. The only time it can be used is when it is established as a common name. That isn't the case here. There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about the term attack, and it is the term perferred by RS by a huge margin at this point.

Here are the criteria:

1. Recognizability
2. Naturalness
3. Precision
4. Conciseness
5. Consistency

On #1, the vast majority of sources have described this as an "attack on a synagogue" or a "synagogue attack". Only a few use the term "massacre" at all, let alone as their main noun. This point favors "attack". On #2, the vast majority of source have described this as an attack so that would be the more likely search term. On #3, we'll have to agree to disagree about which term's definition and connotation is more appropriate. Number 4 favors neither option. Number 5 vastly favors attack. Roughly 60% of similar articles use "attack", 35% use a more specific noun (bomings, shooting, etc), and 5% use massacre. In every (justified) case of "massacre" (some obsecure articles may be wrongly named), the term is used because reliable sources have overwhelming established a common name for the event. That hasn't even remotely happened here. If it does, then we can move the page. See also Talk:Virginia_Tech_shooting#Requested_move. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a consensus, as of now. I'll move the title back. This discussion can resume later.ShulMaven (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is based on strenghth of argument, not numbers. You have zero policy to stand on. Since you have inappropriately moved the article back to your preferred version in the middle of a dispute, I will tag the article as being in a neutrality dispute instead of edit warring over it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion you have the stronger argument, does not mean it is. I suggest rather than tagging the article as not being neutral that the proper renaming convention be followed. If ShulMaven hadnt already, I would have suggested this to him, but I suggest you put in an official move request and consensus and allow the admin to decide if it moves or not. - Galatz (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Except the original title was attack. It is ShulMaven, not I, who judged consensus and made inappropriate page move. An involved party should not determine consensus. (And you still haven't made the slightest attempt to justify your position based on anything but a dictionary defition, which is not part of the page title policy.) Tagging an article as disputed is precisely what you should do when there is a dispute, not edit warring over it. This is getting absurd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, contemporary, real world naming conventions often give extra weight to the people mose directly affected. i.e., we let French people name French stuff, Buddhists name Buddhist stuff, etc. Courtesy migh suggest giveing extra weight to the voices of Jewish newspapers and columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ThaddeusB. I've seen no serious argument in favour of massacre advanced. There was a bit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the suggestion that "massacre" and "attack" are equally NPOV - well, then why not use "attack" and make everyone happy? In particular, I find ThadeusB's list of reliable sources compelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then, let me try to advance some serious argument in favour of "massacre". And let me use the definition of "massacre" from Dictionary.com, quoted above: "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." Was this killing of civilians at prayer necessary? No. Was it indiscriminate? Yes. They were random men who happened to be saying their morning prayer in a random synagogue. Large number of human beings? I count 4 dead and 8 wounded as a large number, but that's really a subjective argument. Barbarous warfare? Is there anybody here who would argue that terrorism is not barbarous? Thus, by not calling the event a massacre, we are refusing to acknowledge that what happened was an indiscriminate attack on defenceless civilians and a terrorist act. I argue that not acknowledging the above is strong POV.Galastel (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Atlantic:"Hamas Endorses a Massacre"
• The Telegraph:"Baroness Warsi slapped down over Jerusalem massacre comments"
• The Times of Israel: "Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox shocked by synagogue massacre"
• AOL: "Prayer massacre: Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue"
• NBC News Three Americans Among Four Rabbis 'Slaughtered' in Jerusalem Synagogue
• Arutz Sheva:"Thousands Attend Funerals of Har Nof Synagogue Massacre Victims"
• San Jose Mercury News:"Jerusalem massacre"
• The Jewish Press: "Har Nof Massacre" ShulMaven (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Haaretz: "The massacre in Jerusalem and my fading hopes for a happy ending"

and on the morning after:

• Daily Beast (Newsweek): "After the Israel Synagogue Massacre: A New Intifada?"
• Irish Independent: "Israelis return to massacre site"
• The Jewish Voice: "Bloody Massacre at Jerusalem Synagogue"

• Clearly 4 Jewish sources, an editorial (The Atlantic), a quote which isn't even the word massacre (NBC), and an obscure paper (SJ Mercury) are of superior quality/more neutral than the NY Times, BBC, Guardian, Washington Post and other 95% of all source that use "attack"?! Again, the questions isn't does "any" sourec use massacre, but what the majority and best quality sources use. That is "attack". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Event names often take time to settle. But I do give some weight to the fact that massacre is the word people who witnessed this bloodbath have used, and the word that the NYTimes quotes them using “It was a massacre of Jews at prayer.” That phrase already has scores of GoogleNews hits, today breakout quote. “It was a massacre of Jews at prayer.”ShulMaven (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the (near) victims will use massacre, precisely because it is a non-neutral emotionally charged term. Would you really expect such people to be the most neutral? (I also said it the future the majority of RS may use massacre, but they don't now and it is not our job to try to predict the future.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Goldberg - "Hamas Endorses a Massacre" -
• Yossi Klein Halevi - Tuesday’s massacre -
• Andrew Sullivan - "A Massacre of Jews at Prayer" ShulMaven (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Headline writers were not binary on this, many chose neither attack nor massacre:

• - "4 Hacked and Shot to Death in Jerusalem Synagogue Bloodbath" -

• - "The silence of prayer, shattered in a synagogue bloodbath" -

• - "Jerusalem - Unbearable Grief, Rivers Of Tears And Unspeakable Sorrow: Israel Buries Victims Of Synagogue Bloodbath" -
• - "Bloodbath in a Shul" -
• - "Synagogue slaughter puts Israel on edge" -
• - "Palestinians Kill American Rabbis at Jerusalem Synagogue"
• - "3 Americans killed by ax-wielding Palestinians in Jerusalem"
• - "This was a Cruel Murder of Those Who Came to Pray"
• (Canada) - "Two militants storm Jerusalem synagogue with meat cleavers and a gun, killing four"
• - "Three Americans Among Four Rabbis 'Slaughtered' in Jerusalem Synagogue"

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article be titled "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack" or "2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre"? See discussion above for arguments. ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre - As discussed above, I believe that massacre is a specific type of attack. Based on that I feel Massacre or more specific to this particular case. Although I do agree attack is more widely used in the media, to me that argument is the same as saying more sources call an incident a "killing" vs a "stabbing." We had the stabbing incidents last week, the article is called Stabbing because its more specific for the incident. - Galatz (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre - For the reasons I've explained above. In short, because I feel that "attack" is POV in not acknowledging the indiscriminating, unnecessary and brutal manner of what happened, nor it being a terrorist act against unarmed civilians.Galastel (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre Ever since the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, massacre has been the go-to word for events of this ilk. Events, that is, where armed members of one group seek out unarmed innocents because of their identity and cold-bloodedly slaughter them. (See also: Hebron massacre)ShulMaven (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  "Go to word" - maybe for you, but not for RS and not on Misplaced Pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack - (didn't realize I needed to restate my position, but since everyone else feels compelled to...) The best quality sources exclusively use "attack". Google News indicates the vast majority of all news sources do as well - 98,800 hits for "Synagogue Attack" vs. 1,370 for "Synagogue massacre" (both numbers are inflated as Google always does for some reason). To do anything but follow RS is POV and requires a strong reason. Ones personal interpretation of a dictionary defintion does not quality as a strong reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack Five dead does not constitute a massacre. A massacre implies that most or all of the people present were killed or injured. I'm sorry if news outlets are misusing this term, but there it is. WP:NPOV trumps everything else that is not one of the WP:Five pillars. By the way, this is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that "a majority have to have been...?" Certainly not true of many of the most famous massacres in history.ShulMaven (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

, , note the use of the word 'wholesale'. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com? Seriously?ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you cull through Category:Lists_of_massacres_by_country and see how many events with 5 or less dead are there and titled 'massacre'? Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• • I'll try to find how many people were in the synagogue on that morning. However, generally on a regular weekday, a regular synagogue in Israel would have about 10-15 men. Assuming that was the case here (which is likely), 4 dead and 8 wounded answers your criteria of "most people present were killed or injured".Galastel (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The real question is, why do you equate this event to such horrors as El Mozote massacre or Karai Kadipur massacre? Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack Use of the term "massacre" in the I-P topic area of Misplaced Pages has been overdone in the past. "Attack" is less sensationalist and used more often in the sources.71.37.7.163 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre Appropriate term for this incident as ShulMaven says. Crystalfile (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre is a more precise description and is used by many NPOV sources, as mentioned above in discussion.Spud770 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  "Many sources" listed above constitutes about 3 good quality sources, an editorial, and a bunch of Jewish sources which are obviously not going to be super neutral on the subject. Meanwhile, roughly 95% of all sources and all the the cream of the crop sources (as established by long standing reputation) use attack. Once again, the question is not whether any source uses massacre, it is what the majority use. It seems many people are willing to substitute their personal judgement for RS judgement. That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. We don't side with the 5% because we personally like the term better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages could side with 5% of not-voters if they were correct. But they're not. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre; more precise and accurate. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I see a lot of votes, but not much reasoning offered. Since a lot of people commenting have little Misplaced Pages experience, I will echo Abductive - this isn't a vote. The outcome will be determined by strength of argument, not numbers. If you have an actual, policy-based argument supporting "massacre", please make it. In the mean time, let see what the 25 most influential English-language news sources have to say:

Of the 25, two are specialty sources and not covering the event. Of the other 23, every single one uses the term "attacks" multiple times. Only 3, none of which are in the top 10, use the term "massacre" even once outside direct quotations. Of these, the NY Post and TIME use "attack" first and most often. Only The Daily Mail arguably prefers massacre. It's not a great source, but whatever let's count it. And, let's be generous and call the Post and TIME ties and give massacre Daily Mail. That is a 20-1-2 "score". So, 20/21 (95%) of top new sources with a preference prefer attack. NPOV means following the sources and the sources say "attack". --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre There are plenty of examples of massacres with five people or less being killed and it is a more precise description. - SantiLak (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Attack Now that I think it over, even though it is a horrible event, the fact that so many major news sources refer to it as an attack is reasoning to change it to attack. - SantiLak (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack per WP:COMMONNAME - BBC - HAARETZ - CNN - Fox News - The Telegraph - Reuters - USA Today - The Wall Street Journal - The Jerusalem Post-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I really like the table ThaddeusB provides. He lists the most influential (at least by some metric) names used for the attack/massacre. The top English-language sources seem to have a preference for attack, and I prefer changing the name to that.VR _talk 03:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre A massacre is defined by Misplaced Pages as "a specific incident which involves the violent killing of many people – and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. No clear-cut criteria define when a mass killing is a massacre." Nobody disputes the fact that in this case the attackers were armed and their victims were not, and it is clear that a significant enough number of people were killed for this to be the top story on many international news outlets around the world, which would not have been the case if it was a less significant number of people. The word "attack" can be used when one armed party attacks another, and is not as accurate for this case as is "massacre." "Attack" is better when there are parties who claim both sides were armed and fighting, in which case "massacre" is used politically, but that is not the case with this incident.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the article named "attack" on Misplaced Pages are not incidents where on armed party attacks anotehr armed party. Indeed, that is a very bizarre interpretation of the word. If I say to a friend "I was attacked after work last week" does that mean I was armed?!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre - I am the original creator of the article, and while I originally used the word "attack", now (with more information) I believe "Massacre" would be more appropriate. Inkbug (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre - Per the above discussion, and examples. NB to Thad -- Jewish and Israeli aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g., your reference above to "Jewish sources"). And we don't typically say: "let's ignore the RSs in the country where the event took place, or the RSs that cover a certain religion." I'm not swayed by that argument. What's next -- ignore what Ebony and Jet have to say about a civil rights issue, because even though they are RSs they happen to cover the Black community? If it's an RS, it's an RS -- we can't start introducing such discrimination here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unassessed Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Unassessed Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment