Talk:Mercaz HaRav massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Mercaz HaRav massacre is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Israel Portal
Mercaz HaRav massacre is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

As stated by most reputable news sites the father had been previously involved with Hamas. By ststing that his family is not invovled with any organizations you are misleading your readers. Thank you for your time and I hope this can be included within the article and if not just pull the family line out of your writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.204.72 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to find a news source? We have a current source here that disagrees with what you're saying. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Name of article

I mean realy - massacre? A sad event, true, and I can see how in western eyes this will lok as a massacare, but this is just another terror attack in Jerusalem. If we start labeling them all as 'massacres' we'll hve to think on something new to describe some realy shocking ones. Again, this attack is shocking - but I rather think it's have to be something more to get such a label.

We use the term "Terror attack in Jerusalem 6 Mars 2008" (translated) on no-wiki, maybe it (or something like that) may be a good title here too? Mewasul (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not call it "shooting" or some other NPOV term? ~~Josh~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, but I don't think the term "terror attack" is wrong used in this case. By the way, creating an account gives you a lot of profits, such as the possibility to move pages correct. Mewasul (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree terrorist attack is good too. Massacre seems like a term that is sort of post facto designated. I will probably get an account. Be well. ~~Josh~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be merged with 2008 Jerusalem yeshiva attack. —Nightstallion 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that an obvious title is: "Terrorist attack at Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva (March 6, 2008)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.52 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a MASSACRE...wiktionary defines massacre as: The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people. Sounds like this matches the description. It was a massacre. What else would you call it? Why is it not a massacre? Please, Oh uneducated masses, tell me what a massacre is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.139.237 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, my educated friend, tell me what isn't a massacre then. Herunar (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "school shooting as a form of terrorism"? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

several things: 1) It's not specific to this incident 2) the nearly identical "Cave of the patriarchs Massacre" is called as a massacre by Wikipedia. 3) so is the Ma'alot massacre, another near-edenticl incident 4) so is the Avivim school bus massacre NOTE: these are both mass shooting of Israeli school students by Arab terrorists

I think we have to respect the precedents in Wikipedia and call this the Mercaz HaRav massacre.Thomas Babbington (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington.

[edit] Take two at article name consensus

Please give us your two cents regarding the proper name of this article (and perhaps also Mercaz HaRav). Once we work things out here, we can make one move to the proper name.

It seems to me that there are two issues. The first, rather small issue, is the question of which letters should be capitalized in merkaz harav (intentionally all in lower case). Second, is it a shooting, massacre, terrorist attack, etc? Or, from a totally different side, do we go with "2008 Jerusalem yeshiva attack" or something of the sort? -ReuvenkT C 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference between "shooting" or "massacre", but "terrorist attack" should be avoided. I don't contest that it was a terrorist attack, but there is simply no non-WP:OR and NPOV way of defining what is or is not a terrorist attack. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Shooting will always be the most neutral term for these things, so I strongly support it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In principle it's not less of a massacre than the "Columbine High School massacre" and other similar school massacres: lone gunman enters school, shoots down as many as he can. In this case, the motive was horrifically more malicious- targeting no individual, but rather targeting an ethnic group. He did not murder the victims because of personal feelings against them, but because they were Jewish-looking in the place that symbolizes Jews most: a yeshiva in Jerusalem.
Unlike in those cases, the murderer had no direct personal association with the school. In most of those cases the gunman committed suicide (except for the "Port Arthur massacre (Australia)" ). Here, he had no intention of doing so, other than by activating an Explosive belt as another means of premeditated murder. His goal was simply to kill as many Jewish children as he could. He committed an act of war against innocent civilians. Intent, means and method factor in to the perception of the attack not less than its numerical result. Shilonite 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The current title is very poor, in my opinion. This was a massacre of students in a yeshiva (a type of school or seminary) by a Palestinian terrorist, in Jerusalem, and yet none of these bolded words are in the title. At the very (very) least the word "massacre" should be in the title, but at least some of these other words should be as well. If someone searches for this article, those are the words they are going to use to try to find this -- as I did, and I was shocked to see what the title actually was. 6SJ7 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A "shooting" could be anything from a nut firing a BB gun in the air at a beach, to well, this. I think the title should convey the fact that people were murdered. What constitutes the threshold for "massacre" is probably inconsistently applied throughout Wikipedia, depending on... --Leifern (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Massacre is the obvious choice, as it seems to be consistently used for school shootings, e.g. Columbine High School massacre, Dunblane massacre, and all but one of the others in Category:School massacres. As for the capitalisation, it is standard transliteration (and the yeshiva's official one going by their website) to have words following "Ha" capitalised, e.g. Ramat HaSharon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there are really two issues in the title: One, what happened, and two, where did it happen. As for issue one, there seems to be a growing consensus for the word "massacre" as opposed to "shooting". But I wonder if even "massacre" is enough. As Number 57 points out, we use "massacre" for such things as Columbine. But this incident involves not a couple of students who went off the deep end and started shooting people, but a terrorist attack. How about "terrorist massacre"? It may be that the evidence for "terrorism" increases in the days ahead, in which case we can just go with "massacre" immediately, and reconsider the title in the future. (And yes, I know what WP:WTA says about "terrorist", but I don't think it applies here.) Issue two: I suspect that the vast majority of the English-speaking world (including me) never heard of Mercaz HaRav before today. The media headlines are not blaring the name of the school, so I think most people still will not have heard of it tomorrow. The words being used are "school" or "yeshiva", and I think one of those should be in our title as well. The first example for comparison that came to mind was Sbarro restaurant massacre. A lot more people know that Sbarro is a chain of restaurants than know what Mercaz HaRav is, and yet we still have "restaurant" in the title. The fact that a terrorist massacre took place in a school has at least as much significance (and, I would say, more) than the fact that one took place in a restaurant. So for these reasons, something like "Jerusalem yeshiva massacre, 2008" would be a much better title than what now exists. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was certainly a massacre, it fits the definition of it, and the term is applied to other similar articles, along with what the media is terming it. Shooting does not convey what occured. Epson291 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It does not meet the definition of massacre, though I appreciate the media's need to sell newspapers by hyping events. Massacre's are traditionally committed by a number of people with a considerable number of victims, i.e. the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (~10,000 killed), or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (~400 killed) or the famous Wounded Knee Massacre (~300 dead, ~500 perpetrators), both usage examples given by our own wiktionary. That category is misnamed, imo. -- Kendrick7talk 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree completely. There is no scientific definition of "massacre". Even if we go with the definition that talks about a "considerable number of people", I think it depends on the circumstances. And guess what, one of the most famous "massacres" in history, at least in the U.S., involved the killing of seven people. See Saint Valentine's Day massacre. Here there were eight. When a terrorist walks into a school and starts shooting, and kills eight people, that's a massacre. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That Chicago mob killing involved multiple perpetrators, dressed in police uniforms. I'm sure the next day headlines[1] sold lots of papers; the name stuck long after it was determined this was just an atypical mob killing and not the bad behavior of Chicago's finest. There's also the Boston Massacre, only five dead, but again, multiple perpetrators, dressed in uniforms. I wouldn't be absolutist about the uniform issue as that's not the connotation in the original French, but that's also a running theme. -- Kendrick7talk 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is simply no requirement for multiple perpetrators to have a "massacre", and it is wrong to invent such a requirement in order to downplay this incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Specific proposal

Based on the discussion above, does anyone have any strong objection to Jerusalem yeshiva massacre, 2008 as a title? Alternatively, 2008 Jerusalem yeshiva massacre, which is probably more conventional, but I personally dislike the titles with the years at the beginning. I will leave the "terrorist" aspect for another day, but am proposing this compromise now so we can get this article un-move-protected and moved to a better title. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shooting seems OK here. I don't want another endless edit war over the use of the word "massacre" in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, e.g. Battle of Jenin (previously Jenin massacre), Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (previously List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada), etc. -- Kendrick7talk 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The title is fine as it is. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for moving it to 2008 Jerusalem yeshiva massacre, per my comments above. Epson291 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree to 2008 Jerusalem yeshiva massacre, per Epson291 and above discussion. -ReuvenkT C 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Until Columbine, I had never heard about that place either. Turning this event into a generic Jerusalem yeshiva is, I dunno, lame. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree about putting the year in the title. This assumes another one had occured in another year, or prepares us for another massacre in the future. Let's hope this won't happen again. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree about putting terror in the title, but I expect it to be laced throughout the article. The definition of terror attack is this event - killing unarmed minors in an educational institution --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose Mercaz HaRav massacre. A lone gunman wielding a machine gun and emptying 500-600 bullets is not a shooting. There seems to be little consistancy or consensus about what constitutes the threshold between a shooting and a massacre. It seems that most massacres are termed shootings, though there are plenty of examples of school massacres being titled that way, even a whole category. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, a person shooting people isn't a shooting? A massacre is a group of armed people killing people who are not: e.g. the original Port Arthur massacre (China), or the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. It's not hard to see how this incident doesn't fit the definition. The way more minor events are declared "massacres" has even been parodied in song. Possibly rampage is more precise than shooting. But, I'm off to fix the name of that category as it is wholly inaccurate. -- Kendrick7talk 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought Massacre was out. Guess not. In that case, both Mercaz HaRav massacre or Mercaz HaRav shooting are fine by me. If I had to pick only one, I would go for massacre.-ReuvenkT C 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mercaz HaRav shooting is a neutral title. If someone is looking for a more POV title, I suppose "Mercaz HaRav killing" would do. However, to call it "terrorist attack" or "massacre" is is highly POV. It's a good thing to keep titles as less biasd as possible.Bless sins (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The term massacre is not POV in the context of a gunman walking into a school and killing several unarmed students. The Battle of Jenin was a battle with a military, and User:Kendrick7, it was highly presumutious of you to go today and change the name of the Sbarro restaurant massacre to Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing without discussion. I do agree with Shuki that Mercaz HaRav massacre is the best title. It is being defined as a massacre by the international media as well, including the New York Times, the Independent, the AFP wire, the Times, and the Telegraph. Epson291 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are several terms to refer to the event as "shooting": China view, Telegraph, UK, BBC, The Guardian. Others refer to it as an "attack": Jewish telgraphic agency.Bless sins (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are more sources that refer to the event as a shooting: The age, Ynetnews, Globe and Mail.Bless sins (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It is quite clearly not a POV title. Massacre is defined as "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings", and this is obviously such a case (as was the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre). On the other hand, claiming it is not a massacre is a clear POV. I support Shuki's title per my reason above, and Epson291's sources provide ample referencing for such a title. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The term "massacre" is quite controversial. See List of massacres for the full controversy of usage of this term on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because a term is controversial, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used when something quite clearly is as it is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) POV, Number 57? No. Wikipedia isn't trying to sell papers (the NYT example is a letter to the editor, anyway) and should be using this word correctly. Otherwise, labeling something a massacre when it isn't is just a game of victimization olympics, bordering on newspeak: when actual massacres occur people won't pay attention. -- Kendrick7talk 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia isn't trying to sell papers. However, it is trying to be factually correct. Can you explain how this does not meet the definition of a massacre? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can point to many Israeli actions and show that they meet the definition of "massacre" as well. Can you show me how this event doesn't meet the definition of "shooting"?Bless sins (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that there are several actions committed by Israelis that could be called massacres (such as the one I listed above), the fact that you choose to bring up the fact that you "can point to many Israeli actions" in this context just proves that you are approaching this from a pro-Palestinian POV. We are discussing the title of this article, not anything else. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Baruch Goldstein shooting called the cave of the patriach's massacre? Is there a difference between Jewish and Muslim Blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.17.50 (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that whatever was used as the title for the Baruch Goldstein shooting (Cave of the Patriarchs massacre) should also be used here. The two cases seem to be similar. --Stevenschulman (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the gunman did kill a large number of people, then it should definitely be called a massacre as in other school massacres and the examples given above. I, however, believe that there is still a limit to what constitutes as massacre. If a gunman goes in and kills two persons, is that a massacre? By all definitions, I don't think so. The number of people killed in this event was small in comparison to any other massacre described in Wikipedia. I could not come up with a specific definition of what number of deaths constitutes a massacre, but I am not comfortable with calling 8 people dead a "massacre". Herunar (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The pressis calling ita massacre. Why is this discussion taking place in a vacuum, asthough wikipedia editors got to decide what an event iscalled. the press is calling ita massacre. We should, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.182.48 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The press also calls it a "shooting".Bless sins (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Only five people were killed in the Boston Massacre...204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when a number of soldiers or police kill civilians this is termed a massacre. That's not the case here. -- Kendrick7talk 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have a concensus around Mercaz HaRav massacre Morningside Clio (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Morningside Clio

Not really. -- Kendrick7talk 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Mercaz HaRav massacre is the best title. Reason is: the Boroch goldstein incident. that is a massacre according to Wikipedia. there is no important differnece between the two: man with a gun walks into building and starts murdering people who essentializes by presuming them to be his enemies. If you call that one a massacre, you have got to call this one a massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.33.150 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

160.39.33.150 makes a valid point. It really is impossible to continue to call the Baruch Goldstein incident the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and not call this virtually identical incident a massacre.

Thank you. It really seems unjustifiable to call one a massacre and the other a shooting.

I note further that the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre discussion page has no one objecting to calling it a massacre. I ask everyone who objects to calling this the Mercaz haRav massacre to ask him/herself what the real difference is? A lone gunman in each case. Thomas Babbington (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

WHAT IS A MASSACRE While there is no absolute definition of a massacre, the appelation necessarily connotes a particular horror, the sense that this is more horrible than most acts of murder. Usually, because teh dead were unarmed and had not offended the murderer by any action, except, of course, by being in some hated category. Thus, the victims of The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Mormons killing non-Mormons), or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre (an Israelis killing Arabs) offended only by being members of the "wrong" group.

That said, what makes one murder a massacre and another not a massacre is simply that people call one a massacre and another not. Here it is pertinent that some newspaper headlines are indeed calling this a massacre. Massacre fails to derail talks [1] Eight held in yeshiva massacre [2] Settlers vow revenge over Jerusalem massacre [3]

The Guardian, of London, is not a newspaper generally sympathetic to Israel. Yet their headline says Massacre.Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Thomas Babbington

[edit] Reaching a concensus

It looks pretty close to a concensus. Moreover, the argument that several similar incidents, especially the Hebron shooting are listed as massacres by Wikipedia seems compelling. I move that we change the name to "Mercaz HaRav Massacre" with whatever alternative names seem necessary going forward, especially as we see which name sthe press is using.Morningside Clio (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Morningside Clio

  • I agree as well. --Leifern (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. I believe that the comparable cases, notably the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre and the fact that major newspapers have used the term justifies this change.Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
  • This certainly looks like a concensus. both here and in the section above. Not unanimity, but certainly concensus. Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
  • (ec) This being a shooting not a massacre, as it was committed by a non-soldier acting alone -- why y'all want to glorify this is beyond me. But, to be fair, the word massacre is misused in any number of other wikipedia articles, although occasionally simple for reasons of linguist parity of famous historical events (i.e. the "second" Hebron massacre, "another" Port Arthur massacre). I'm working on fixing other misnamed articles and will come back to deal with the wikiality being generated here as needed. (If I live that long -- there's apparently a "massacre" a year or even week in the Boston metro area; I didn't realize I lived in such a dangerous place!). -- Kendrick7talk 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • HOLD ON there Kendrick7. there is no rule that a massacre id by definition committed by soldiers. Indeed, many of the most famous were not. The Armenian massacre was the work of ordinary Turks and Kurds. The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Mormon civilian vivilantis. The Munich Olympics massacre perpetrators were, civilian terrorists. On St. Bartholomew's Day ordinary French citizens (Catholic) massacred ordinary French citizens who were Protestant. You can't just go about making up rules like thisThomas Babbington (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
  • Agreed, I guess. As I have stated on this page, I really think it should be "Jerusalem yeshiva massacre" as very few people are going to know the name of the school or search on it. However, my proposal does not seem to have caught on, so fine, let's at least change "shooting" to "massacre" which, Kendrick's re-definitions aside, is what it was. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure I'm the one redefining this. I'm still looking for any article on any lone gunman attack called a massacre prior to the so-called second Hebron massacre in 1994. If the word has changed meaning in the past decade after 400 years, I'm simply pushing back. -- Kendrick7talk 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is possible that the use of massacre to describe particularly horrifying multiple murders committed by lone gunmen is new. Words acquire new meanings all the time. when there are new phenomena to describe, new meanings are almost inevitable (the alternative is that we get new words.) The point, however, is that it has become very common to apply the word massacre to politically and non-politically motivated multiple murders carrried out by individuals armed with guns. the Nepalese royal massacre is a notable instance. This seems to fit the category. Thomas Babbington (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Thomas Babbington

I never heard of the Tsuyama massacre until User:Number 57. Tragic. But it does effectively make the point that murders of this type are widely described as massacres. Thomas Babbington (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Thomas Babbington

Hrmph. The Tsuyama massacre article doesn't have any English sources. and the sources for Hungerford massacre don't look like they use the term massacre either -- instead calling it a killing spree, shooting, mass killing, etc. "Widely described" and "widely described by wikipedians" seems an important distinction. -- Kendrick7talk 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But, I'll concede that the meaning of "massacre" has evolved since the 1990s (which I still blame on yellow journalism which encyclopedias should over the long term strive to rise above) and this article's current title isn't a one-off. So I can't fairly object to it's use here. Sorry for being such a nit. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with naming it the "Mercaz HaRav massacre". It is also a school shooting, but as multiple people were killed it also counts as a massacre. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree.Bless sins (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someone provide sources that refer to it as a massacre? I think the naming of the title should be based on the most prominent usage among the sources cited. Most I've seem refer to a shooting, but maybe I'm missing something? Tiamuttalk 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Bless sins's rationale for rejecting this title is pretty compelling (not). I did a text search on news.google.com (which contains news sources that should at least have some credibility), and neither "Mercaz HaRav massacre" nor "Mercaz HaRav shooting" gets any significant number of hits, whereas "Mercaz HaRav" gets quite many. This is because the news organizations haven't agreed on a common term yet. I am lost as to why this is not a massacre: a man walks heavily armed into a school and starts shooting at anything that moves, reloads, shoots some more, reloads again, etc., until he is shot dead. His purpose was clearly to kill as many people as possible, his target was students, and he clearly planned and prepared for it quite extensively. This was not a military operation that involved military targets, this was not any kind of pre-emptive strike to prevent a worse attack; there was no motivation for this except the will to kill as many people as possible. There are only two possible reasons not to call it a massacre: either not enough people were murdered, or else any mass murder of Jews simply doesn't count as a massacre. Since I can't imagine that anyone on Wikipedia could possibly harbor such hateful thoughts as the second option, I'd like to know: what is the minimum number of people who have to be murdered before it's considered a massacre? --Leifern (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Leifern; are people who harbor such hateful thoughts as the second option, banned from Wikipedia? Let's not pretend; people filled with hate are not only here (in Wikipedia); but are much more motivated then the average Wikipedian; although I have no one particularly in mind. Itzse (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Epson291 supplied plenty of links above referring to it as a massacre. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • And I supplied plenty of sources that call it a shooting. The term "massacre" is quite POV. This "shooting"/"massacre" happened in the midst of Operation Hot Winter where Israel killed about 40 Palestinian civilians, a larger death toll than what occurred at the seminary. Secondly, no one so far has provided a valid objection against "shooting".Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Completely irrelevant and indicative of the POV problem here. A massacre is a massacre, no matter what the pretext or justification. There are people who think that Baruch Goldstein was right to be angry - again, completely irrelevant. I have provided an objection against the term "shooting," and it's this: a shooting can also mean that someone shot a single shot from a BB gun at a target 300 yards away and hit a bush next to them. This was a deliberate attack with the sole intention of killing as many people as possible. If an Israeli walks into a library in Gaza City and starts shooting as many students there as he can, it would also be a massacre; no matter how many Kassam rockets have been fired at S'derot and Ashkelon. --Leifern (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
            • The third perfectly valid reason is that this isn't a massacre in the traditional sense of the word. I'm willing to defer to the wisdom of the mob and the 24 hour news cycle here, but this shouldn't be arbitrarily left off your list of so-called legitimate concerns. -- Kendrick7talk 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Sure, but then we need objective criteria for what constitutes a massacre and it has to stand up to some kind of test when applied to incidents that are commonly known as massacres. --Leifern (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Itzse (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with "massacre", though would prefer "Jerusalem Yeshiva" in the title, rather than "School no one has heard of". It's just going to be a lot easier to find via Google, I imagine. IronDuke 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] multiple shooters?

I feel this edit removed information that helps explain irreconcilable news sources. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a frequent occurence in these type of situations - due to confusion, rumors, and hysteria. Irreconcilable news sources are only worth mentioning if they are still irreconcilable after the "dust has cleared". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I too disagree. (Full disclosure: I added the deleted information to begin with.) I think that although yes, this does often happen, it in effect shut down the city of Jerusalem for a few hours (and believe me, I know. I was on a bus to Jerusalem when the attack happened. But this isnt original research - I sourced it.) Since it had a major effect on the city of Jerusalem, I think it is notable. -ReuvenkT C 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WorldNetDaily

World net Daily is hardly a reliable source, esp. for saying that the attack was called "heroic" by Fatah-affiliated groups. This is claim raises a redflag.

If this is indeed true then the news are very significant and other (mainstream) news sources can be found on this. Bless sins (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added something about the parades held in the Gaza Strip to celebrate the killings, sourced to the New York Times. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That is quite alright and can be included. However, it is not the same as Fatah websites calling the killings "heroic".Bless sins (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I noticed you buried it under "international reaction". The Palestinian celebrations of this cowardly slaughter really ought to be in its own section, above the "international reaction." It is part of the story itself. At the moment, the Palestinian celebrations are scattered around the article. I am going to pull them together now. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Being the fair and reasonable guy that I am, I included Abbas's condemnation of the massacre in the same section. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Should we also have an "Israeli section"? A section that would include Jews chanting "Death to Arabs" in response to this shooting[2].
What about an American reaction section, that would include commentary from American political figures?Bless sins (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How is it ridiculous? A Palestinian did this, and some Palestinians are praising it, while others are condemning it. Why is it unreasonable to have a section just for Palestinian reaction, near the top of the article? I also think that when we are done hashing this out, there should be a one- or two-sentence summary of the Palestinian celebrations and other reactions placed at the end of the intro. I do not necessarily object (for right now at least) to putting Israeli reaction in the same section, and I am going to add some more of it (from the "Kershner" (New York Times) ref at a later time. This will probably require some reorganization of that section, because Olmert's spokesman made a specific comment about the Hamas reaction. (Also read the link that you cited, BlessSins, where it says among other things that "Hamas will not claim this honor yet", or words to that effect.)
For right now, however, can we agree on one tiny little thing? Do we really need the Israeli and Palestinian flags in that section, with the bullets (if you'll pardon the phrase)? Do you have any objection if I change it to regular paragraph format, without the flags? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the flags, or the bullets, are hindering you from adding content or improving the article in anyway. The problem is that I can make sections on "UN reaction", "American reaction" and so on. In the end how many separate reaction sections do we want? If you want sections for all of these, I'm fine. I just want to make sure that Palestinian reaction isn't the only one we consider.Bless sins (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't Palestinian reaction be singled out? This was not done by an American. It was not done by a Norwegian. It was not, for that matter, done by an Egyptian, a Syrian or an Iranian (though, based on the possible Hezbollah connection, they may have paid for the bullets). It was done by a Palestinian, and Palestinians then danced in the streets over a bunch of dead teenagers. That deserves mention, and not burial under a pile of reaction from China, Canada, Guatemala or wherever else.
As for the flags and the bullets, I didn't say they were preventing me from doing anything. My point is that they make that section look choppy and confusing. How about we just write in prose, as if this were -- oh, I don't know, an encyclopedia? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is, I don't know, an encyclopedia, then let's get rid of all those bullets we have. By your logic we should also single out Israeli reaction since the event happened in Israel. The victims were Israeli. The seminary was Israeli. It is Israelis that are calling out "deaths to Arabs" in "revenge" for this attack.00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)
The changes I have just made satisfy all of your comments. If you want to remove the flags lower in the article, be my guest. And I left in the part about the Israelis who called for revenge. As between one group calling the slaughter of innocent teenage students "heroic" and dancing on their graves, and another group crying out for revenge in their grief, I certainly think both belong in the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I have a silly question. Is the attacker actually a Palestinian or just an Arab? Because if he is a Palestinian, then the reaction of the Hamas probably deserves its own section. But if he's not related to the Palestinians at all, I believe it should be categorized in the international reaction, or probably we can group all Arab reactions together since this is part of the larger conflict. By the way, did any other Arab country make a statement about it? Can anyone find a source and add it to the article if there is? Herunar (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that he was both a Palestinian and an Arab, or, if you wish, a Palestinian Arab. Or an Arab Palestinian? I'm not sure about that one. So regardless of terminology, the Palestinian reaction is particularly significant. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There are now pictures up on commons. I got permission to use them and have fowarded the email to OTRS. Unfortunately, the photographer didn't include a Declaration of consent, so that could be a bit of a problem, we'll see. -ReuvenkT C 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've included one in the article. If it becomes a problem, we can replace it. Yahel Guhan 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image

that image is quite disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.252.89 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.255.219 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture seems appropriate considering the seriousness of the event. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the photo, but I'd also just like to say that it is also quite disturbing. It does indeed give off the intended effect... Gary King (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It definetly shows how awful the shooting was, but is it possible to find one that is a little less gruesome? 76.17.165.241 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is too a school shooting

Someone fired guns and killed people in a school. What's so hard to understand about that? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a terrorist attack at a school. Read school shooting. Columbine was a school shooting. This is not. -- Y not be working? 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A school shooting is when someone opens fire at a school. It doesn't matter what the motive is. All sorts of idiots with all sorts of motives have done those things, and this is the latest one. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"School shooting refers to gun violence primarily in educational institutions, especially the mass murder or spree killing of people connected with an institution. A school shooting can be perpetrated by people who have a mental disabilty, expelled students, alumni, faculty members, outsiders, or even regular students who still attend the school. Unlike acts of revenge against specific people, school shootings usually involve multiple intended or actual victims, often randomly targeted. Most of the school shootings that have occurred have ended up with the perpetrators killing themselves and others." And even here, Mercaz HaRav meets the definition. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does meet the definition from the wikipedia article Arbeit Sockenpuppe referred to. I see, however, that the article is not sourced.Bless sins (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Then someone should source it. That doesn't change the fact that this is a school shooting. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is that ashool shooting like columbine are caused by the personal problems of troubled individuals. this puts them in a differnet category thatn this shooting, which was apparently part of the ongoing Islamist jihad against Israel.George Bancroft (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)George Bancroft

I think it should be listed in school shooting. It's not a terrorist attack since he didn't belong to a group. LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a "school shooting" as that term is commonly understood, any more than Yassir Arafat is a serial killer based on the people he killed or ordered killed. I further urge anyone who does not think this was a terrorist attack to cease contributing to this article or articles like it. IronDuke 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motivations

This is a difficult section. Obviously, it's all speculation. I'm sure we can find opinions in credible sources that characterize it variously as an act of a deranged psychopath, an attempt at genocide, etc., etc. I'm not comfortable only including those speculations that would seem - to some people at any rate - as legitimate political grievances. It might - perhaps inadvertently - provide some tacit moral justification for the murder. --Leifern (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LA Times article

Across divided Jerusalem, a day of grief The article has good info on the background of the gunman and the reaction in Israel. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction

'Hundreds of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the building and chanted "we want revenge" and "death to Arabs."' This is simply not true. I watched the funeral on live TV. Cymruisrael (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

'Yuli Tamir, Israel's Education Minister, who made a condolence visit to the yeshiva two days after the shooting, was forced to leave after when she was verbally attacked by dozens of youths outside building, who called her a "murderer". She said: "This reminded me of the days before (former Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin's murder. It's unfortunate that that there is a public which cannot put limits form itself. I only came to pay my respect to the murdered, not to engage in politics."' Yuli Tamir is reminded of the days before Rabin's murder because she, exactly like Rabin, insisted on going uninvited to a place where she knew she would get a hostile reaction. Having incited the reaction, she then complains about it. Cymruisrael (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Tamir was invited by the head of the Yeshiva.[3] Please at least get your facts right before having a rant. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not that important, but the source provided doesn't mention that she was invited by the head of the yeshiva, it just says that she was invited. But the article does state that "Tamir first visited the middle school, where students outside shouted at her to leave. The school's head rabbis asked that Tamir discontinue her tour, but she insisted on visiting the yeshiva high school as well." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It states that "Some students protested Tamir's invitation". пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On a separate note, why is the Academic subsection in the Reactions main section limited on the view of one person? This is clearly POV since only one side is represented; I'm sure there are plenty of Jews who think Arabs/Palestinians are inferior. If we can't get two contrasting reactions or at least a reaction from a pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian "philosopher" or academic then this subsection (which is almost entirely a single quote) should be totally removed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the section, but that's not how POV works; see WP:YESPOV. If you have another sourced viewpoint add it. Of course, long term one viewpoint might not deserve its own section. -- Kendrick7talk 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read the section, now removed, I support the removal of this blog material as a violation of WP:SOAP. -- Kendrick7talk 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I watched it live on TV is not a WP:Reliable source Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The two sources cited contradict each other - one says it was ultra-Orthodox, the other Orthodox (a distinction that's quite meaningful in Israel); it's unclear how many, whether they were affiliated with the school, etc., etc. --Leifern (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the sources say "hundreds" that gives you a number. Secondly the marchers probably didn't give out their business cards so the only way to identify them would be by appearance, hence the discrepancy.Bless sins (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A comment that demonstrates both yours and the reporters' ignorance about the matter - you don't need business cards to tell the difference between charedi and "merely Orthodox" individuals. --Leifern (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I couldn't find a report. However, re-reading the paragraph and the sources, it would appear that the paragraph needs re-writing. Because of the juxtapostion of the two sentences describing the funeral and then the chanting, the inference from the article is that chanting took place during the funeral, yet the sources do not back this up. Cymruisrael (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Left?

I've added a red link for this, as it's unclear who is being referred to. I'm sure at one point this meant the Left Camp of Israel, and now is perhaps means Progressive List for Peace? I'd stub out a dab page, but I'm not really sure. I'd just be, er, winging it, no pun intended! -- Kendrick7talk 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Both those parties are now defunct; it's aimed at all the left-wing parties (Labour, Meretz) and organisations (Peace Now, Yesh Gvul etc) - basically anyone who is pro-concessions or anti-settlements. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BBC interview of principal's wife

I'd really like to see a source on this, rather than what an editor is transcribing from memory.[4] Even with a source, I don't believe this woman has the theological expertise to make such judgments about the status of the Ten Commandments in Islam, so I'd want some sort of rewrite that doesn't just convey this false information (diatribe) as if it were fact. I can't attempt to do that without a source. -- Kendrick7talk 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tali Fahima

Under the heading of Reaction_Israeli, I suggest adding:

  • The condolence visit paid by high-profile leftist activist Tali Fahima to the mourning tent set up by shooter's family. (This, and reactions to it, was covered in the press,* at least; I'm not familiar with broadcast media coverage)

--Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
(* N.B. – on or about March 13) -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: Upon finding and rereading the Haaretz article (March 11, 2008), I find the incident insufficiently notable for inclusion in the mainspace article. Rather, I've added it here and on her article's Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] update

The Israeli police finally briefed the Knesset last week with more details and there version of the timeline. On top of that, the article is missing the controversy about the first police at the scene who did not confront the terrorist, as well as the exact details of Dadon and Shapira's actions. The current article is still using early references that have since been corrected (no 500 bullets, only six magazines spent, etc...) Normally, I'd refrain from asking others to update a page, but I have a lack of WP time in the near future. --Shuki (talk)

[edit] Reactions sections

I'd like to point out to everyone the disparity in the quality of sourcing between the respective sections on Israeli and Palestinian reactions. Israeli reactions are sourced to high-quality reliable sources, but the Palestinian reactions, aside from two quotes from the papers of record of India and the US, are sourced to the likes of freerepublic.com and a blog. This is probably not a good idea. Please come up with alternatives or I will be forced to find equivalent quotes/reactions from more reliable sources and replace them. (Note that one of the blogs purports to have a translation from JCPA. From what I see the translation is not inaccurate, but JCPA itself is not a reliable source, as anyone who has read an evisceration of one of their "Israel Campus Beat" reports knows.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Not all of the sources are high quality. Someone keeps adding an editorial that talks about an "attempted pogrom" in the shooters neighborhood, and includes their own personal observations about it being ironic that there is a peace monument located nearby. Unless news articles make the call to use that language it is just rhetoric and doesn't belong, just like the personal observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthedunes (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Its the editorial on the subject from Ha'aretz. I don't think it gets higher quality or more encyclopaedic view than that. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dunes point is true still. What is significance of editorials here? I don't think we should include editorials unless the dry news says it has a significance, otherwise the "rhetoric hyperbole" are just given an excuse to be included that do not add but opinion. --Arzkibar (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point to which I am sympathetic, except a large part of this article is composed of "reactions" which are basically opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that is why in a few weeks, I think we will propose to merely delete that section that has served it's purpose of WP:RECENTISM. I think that these sections might be tolerated in the short-term, but in the long term are virtually meaningless. --Shuki (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Onthedunes argument- Ha'aretz represents a reaction of a significant portion of Israeli society. Why is this reaction worthy of being deleted, particularly since they intentionally used such an emotionally charged term to describe the reaction of the so-called protesters in this incident? The description in the Jerusalem Post meets the definition of what a pogrom is according to Wikipedia--Orestek (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you that whatever is printed in Haaretz does not represent even a sizeable minority of Israeli society and this is shown in direct relation to its minor print numbers and relatively unvisited website. When talking about deletions, I'm referring to the whole section, not just Haaretz/Jpost, Rabbi Eliyahu's lecture and this insignificant riot. And BTW, calling it a pogrom is just trying to find a way to turn a specific term used against Jews (like Holocaust for one) in order to embarrass Jews. I ask you, why can't the term 'riot' be used to describe Jewish rioters? What is the WP:POINT that we have to describe Jews rioting as a pogrom? Is this word used in any other context (French Arabs, Dutch Arabs, etc...) , or only here? --Shuki (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Listen, we all know that Ha'aretz represents a particular stream of thought in Israel, and to quibble over the size of it is meaningless. The point is that it is a notable enough point of view to be in most articles where varying points of view are to be represented.
About the use of the word "pogrom", I think it was used by Ha'aretz deliberately to shock, yes. But that does not mean that we do not recognise its use. (Is it used elsewhere? Yes, frequently. I was a participant in cooling down an edit war fairly recently over the use of the word to describe ethnic riots in an area completely irrelevant to diaspora history. It is one of those words that has outgrown its origin.) --Relata refero (disp.) 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is misunderstanding of how to use editorials here. The other opinions appear in news articles, secondary sources, while this opinion is a primary source whose significance is not known (clear from the disagreeing between you two). We would need someone else to say that this opinion of the editorial is important I think. --Arzkibar (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astal

Sources such as the following are unreliable for claiming that Dr. al-Astal is calling for genocide. Because of this, the content violates WP:BLP.

Source:

  • [5] Israeli government website. No more reliable on Palestinians than an Iranian government website on Jews.
  • [6] A blog. Posted by a surnameless "Solomon", whose credentials are unknown.

Bless sins (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also see comments here.Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)