Jump to content

Talk:2002 Hadera attack

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


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result:
Moved to 2002 Hadera attack. Opposers could be compelling; however, the supporters were stronger with more policy-based rationales. Additionally, supporters appeared to lean toward this choice of titles rather than the initial proposal. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Mitzvah massacre → Bat Mitzvah attack – The only reliable source that refers to this as a massacre is the Independent but only in the headline and not in the article body and headlines are not a reliable source per WP:HEADLINES. Within the article body it is described as an attack and the the other source given in support of the naming also describes it as an attack. Thus reliable sources do not refer to this event as a massacre. An editor previously attempted this move in 2021 but was reverted as "undiscussed", so here is the required discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The current name is used by other reliable sources, including academic ones such as this one: "U.S. networks showed amateur video of the bat mitzvah massacre, and also a video made earlier by the Palestinian killer,"- See "Different cultures, different coverage. (Perspective On War)" , by Neil Hickey in the Columbia Journalism Review (Vol. 40, Issue 6), March-April 2002, Columbia University, Graduate School of Journalism, Getty Images has also used the name in the caption of its images of the massacre: [1], and other sources include The Jewish News Syndicate ("He helped mastermind the 2002 Hadera bat mitzvah massacre ")[2] Izzy Borden (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hickey is a journalist, 30 year tenure at TV Guide after his stint as a contributing editor at CJR, not an academic, I'm afraid. Parts of that article were published in Alternet (an unreliable source) and you can see there that he calls it a murder and an attack as well as a massacre and only in the context of passing mentions of what other news outlets were reporting. He also got the date wrong. He says Al Jazeera covered it (a reliable source), let's find that and see what they called it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JNS, read the byline "The main headlines", passing mention only. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CJR is one of the best sources out there, and passing mentions are sufficient to establish what an event is called, years after the fact. Feel free to take either one of these source to the noticeboard. Before you spend more time moving the goal posts, let me remind you what you wrote in your rationale for the requested move : "reliable sources do not refer to this event as a massacre." I've shown this to be a false claim. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't using it as a name there. nableezy - 14:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to the subject of this article as "the bat mitzvah massacre". Izzy Borden (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nableezy, regardless it is becoming clear now that a preponderance of RS call it an attack. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
After some searching around, there are in fact plenty of RS describing it as an attack but I am beginning to wonder if this article name should even mention a Bat Mitzvah (why is Mitzvah capitalized anyway?), it perhaps should be 2002 Hadera attack or similar? Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed OR 2002 Hadera attack: As distastful as this sort of discussion is, and by no means with any intent to diminish the tragedy involved, words like 'massacre' need to be used cautiously and only be used only where it is proportionate to do so. A US 'mass shooting' story from just today involved 7 dead, which no implication of it being a massacre; it then describes the Robb Elementary School shooting (19 dead) as a massacre, but this also remains as a 'shooting' on Wikipedia. So there is the sourcing point that SelfStudier has raised and then there is a broader point about consistency in the way in which comparable atrocities are portrayed on Wikipedia. Leaning towards 2002 Hadera attack for consistency with similar pages, which use year and the relevant geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Attack" is a vague term, also bearing a gist of legitimacy, as in military attack. Unfortunately events of this type has become routine in Israel and no longer "big news", with relatively little discussion and no established "proper names". Therefore the title must be descriptive. I would consider the title 2002 Hadera terrorist attack. At the same time I agree that the term "massacre" is rather emotional and should be used in wikipedia titles only if its usage is reasonably widespread. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
"Bat mitzvah massacre in Israel leaves seven dead". The Independent. 2002-01-18. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
Knightley, Phillip (1995-06-01). "The cheerleaders of World War II". British Journalism Review. 6 (2): 40–45. doi:10.1177/095647489500600208. ISSN 0956-4748. U.S. networks showed amateur video of the bat mitzvah massacre, and also a video made earlier by the Palestinian killer, twenty-four-year-old Abdel Salam Hassouna, who is seen declaring: "I am doing this to avenge all the Palestinian martyrs."
Flatow, Stephen M. "Soccer and terrorism". Heritage Florida Jewish News. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
"Tit for tat, yes but not forever". New Vision. Retrieved 2022-06-29. THE Palestinians are clearly forgetful people, so Avi Pasner's taskis probably hopeless. The Israeli government spokesman said after last Thursday's massacre of Israelis at a bat mitzvah (coming of age) party in Hadera that "we are going to teach the Palestinian Authority a lesson they will not forget" but Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been administering these lessons to the Palestinians for over forty years now with no result.
"The Terrorist Ruined His Morning Coffee". Haaretz. Retrieved 2022-06-29. Where were Shavit and friends the day after the explosion at the entrance to the discotheque at the Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv? or the night of the murder of an entire family in Beit Yisrael? Or the night of the attack on the bus on its way to Immanuel? And the massacre at the bat mitzvah in Hadera? Did they cry out then? Or maybe those attacks didn't take place in fortresses of "secular normality," or "democratic," "Western," humanist" venues, as Shavit described Moment and its denizens, in an interview with Razi Barkai.
"Arafat hemmed in after birthday massacre". iol.co.za. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
"Israeli warplanes strike after banquet massacre". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
"Bat Mitzvah" might not be needed in the title but "massacre" definitely is. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that it is an alternate name, but anecdotal evidence about individual results is just that, and there are a ton of sources that use attack and not massacre. And any number of anecdotal results can be offered to match yours, eg [3], [4], [5]. And the search results demonstrate it is not the common name. A set of users, including some opposed here, have demanded that article on Israeli violence not use terms like massacre when the overwhelming majority of sources do not use that as the common name. That same standard should be followed here. But thanks for seriously offering as a "reliable source" one that has some racist dog whistles like "THE Palestinians are clearly forgetful people". nableezy - 03:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
racist dog whistles
IDK why a Ugandan newspaper (and one of the country's largest papers of record) would have a reason to somehow be racist against Palestinians, especially when the article was pretty balanced as a whole. Read the article here, Tell me what's "racist" about it, and why you're basing a judgement on an entire news article based off of the first sentence. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is actually from Gwynne Dyer and published as an opinion piece Happy End To Revenge Tragedies in The Telegraph, and merely syndicated in the Ugandan paper. As far as the dog whistle, the lessons Ariel Sharon had been "teaching" the Palestinians included the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Quite the happy ending huh. I also see no response to the incredibly transparent double standard being advocated here. nableezy - 03:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these sources, Indy + IOL, ONLY use the word in the headline, which, as stated in the opening statement is irrelevant, per WP:HEADLINES. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunutubble: I have a copy of Knightley, Phillip (1995). "The cheerleaders of World War II". British Journalism Review. 6 (2): 40–45. doi:10.1177/095647489500600208. ISSN 0956-4748. it is an article about WWII reporting and the quote given is not anywhere in it. Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The morning coffee source is an opinion piece by then Israeli Knesset member, chairman of the now defunct Democratic Choice party so that's worthless. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves us with the behind-paywall Telegraph and BJW and the Heritage Florida Jewish News. In the latter, the only mention of the subject is a trivial one in list format, though, for what it is worth, it calls it the "2002 Hadera bat mitzvah massacre", which could equally support the move towards a title more akin to the 2002 Hadera attack alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph does say "seven people died in a gun massacre at a celebration banquet" but also says "a Palestinian gunman's attack in the town of Hadera killed six Israelis and wounded at least 30 others." and 6 is correct, not 7.Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.heritagefl.com/story/2015/05/01/opinions/soccer-and-terrorism/4377.html is an opinion piece, it says so right there in the url. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's also more or less just a list, so I think we can deem it generally useless and unreliable from whatever angle we care to contemplate it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ive also verified that The cheerleaders of World War II does not contain the quote claimed by Dunutubble. Did you actually see this source or did you pull that from somewhere else? Because either you are making up what a source says or you are violating WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT by pretending to have verified a reliable source when you have not done so. nableezy - 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a mistake with the control+shift+k function as I meant to give a different link. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the Colombia Journalism Review. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, but that is the same Neil Hickey source offered up above. Yes, he calls it a massacre. He does not give it as a name however. If Bat Mitzvah massacre is not the common name of this event, and the search results indicate it is not, then it should not be the title of the article. nableezy - 14:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To me, someone completely unfamiliar with this specific event, both lowercase names seem like more general terms that could easily apply to any ‘attack’ or ‘massacre’, throughout past or (G-d forbid) future history, that occurred during a Bat Mitzvah (compare to a topic such as ‘Wedding massacre’ or ‘School shooting’). If the article title were changed from ‘massacre’ to ‘attack’, that concern would be even more pertinent.
Whatever consensus is reached here regarding ‘massacre’ vs. ‘attack’, it may be more ideal (and resilient) to treat the entire article name as a proper noun (i.e. ‘Bat Mitzvah Massacre’ / ‘Bat Mitzvah Attack’). Contemporaneous newspaper headlines can be correct in styling those words as lowercase, but two decades later an uppercase / proper noun treatment is likely justified for significant events (especially when no other contextual details are present in the name).
Consider the anonymous future reader who is not familiar with the event. Might she, solely from the article title, more likely believe the article will refer to a specific event or rather think it describes a more generic class of tragedy?
Alternatively, we should consider other, more specific options; for example:
‘Hadera Bat Mitzvah massacre’ / ‘Hadera Bat Mitzvah attack’,
‘Bat Mitzvah massacre (Hadera)’ / ‘Bat Mitzvah attack (Hadera)’,
‘2002 Bat Mitzvah massacre’ / ‘2002 Bat Mitzvah attack’, or
‘Bat Mitzvah massacre (2002)’ / ‘Bat Mitzvah attack (2002)’.
Jim Grisham (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but in that case descriptive titles need to be neutral. As your quote specifies. We have, across a range of articles in which Israeli forces have killed scores of civilians, seen users argue, successfully, that they are not typically called massacre in reliable sources and so our articles should not. See for example Talk:2008_Bureij_killings#Requested_move_19_June_2022. In fact, the first user to oppose here, a banned sockpuppet, proposed changing the name there to incident, an incident in which nine civilians were killed without provocation or being near any military target. But for some reason, that doesnt apply here? Care to explain that to me? nableezy - 02:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your point; even if consensus is reached on what the ‘common name’ should be (and considering that what is common in one part of the English language-speaking world may be quite uncommon in other parts), that guidance document also mentions using the place name in the title when appropriate, and says:

      “Ambiguous (…) names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.”

      There are likely many options in addition to the several that I listed as possibilities above. I have no further opinion on this topic. Jim Grisham (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that sea of red the words "Bat Mitzvah" are everywhere, a transliteration of a foreign phrase meaning a coming of age ceremony but "2002 Hadera" (date and place) is more the usual practice in WP. Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While that's certainly a common practice, especially for events that have no other distinctive features, it s far from being a rule, and many counter-examples similar to this one exist: Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, Easter Sunday Massacre, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, 2008 Christmas massacres, Passover massacre, Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, Kampala wedding massacre etc... Izzy Borden (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without assessing whether each of these has a strong common name case, and for what, it is difficult to determine whether an argument from consistency exists here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not that difficult, note the capitalization. Although "Bat Mitzvah" has been capitalized, it shouldn't be, it's just a phrase, not an identifier as such. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the capitalization here nor Kampala wedding massacre|here]]. Holidays like Christmas or Passover are capitalized, it has nothing to do with the "event name" Izzy Borden (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Kampala wedding massacre is actually another pretty prime example of editorializing on Wikipedia since not a single source title, or accessible source main body copy, actually uses the term "massacre" ... as an aside, like many such events, its notability seems questionable in hindsight from a WP:SUSTAINED perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation always amuse me. I am not talking about names, I am talking about identifiers (places, dates). So 2002 Hadera (noun) is objectively better than 2002 (nonnotable phrase) (noun). Selfstudier (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you appeal to "other stuff exists" (claiming your favored title is supposedly "more the usual practice") and when that is shown to be false or misleading, you dismiss it. Make up your mind. You may believe that '2002 Hadera <noun>" is objectively better, but since I haven't heard that you are the authority on what is "objectively better", in going to treat that assertion in the manner it deserves - that is, just another opinion by a random editor, based on nothing more than a personal presence. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This probably improves with age as a general rule, since the recognizability of many tangentially linked phrases likely fades with time. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and the linked examples seem to show otherwise. Are you seriously trying to claim that Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is less recognizable than "1929 Chicago killing"? Izzy Borden (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That particular example seems to have a fairly strong WP:COMMMONNAME case, but if it didn't, at least "1929 Chicago (noun)" would tell me the time and place, because there have been a lot of valentine's days, in a lot of times and places. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Hadera_attack&oldid=1256554532"