Talk:Passover massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event in this article is a March 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Do you have a source for the list of names? [1] (eg) puts the death toll at 19. I presume that some of the seriously wounded mentioned in that report subsequently died, to make up the quoted 30, but I'd like to see a reference supporting the figures in this article. Martin 20:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0le00 -- uriber 17:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name of this article

There have been about a dozen suicide bombings in netanya. This name imply there was one. We needa better name such as the Park Hotel bombing or Park Hotel massacre or passover massacre or Seder bombing in netnya.

Zeq 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "Passover massacre" seems to be the most common name. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Further discussion of the name of this article - and extensive discussion on the use of the word massacre in articles on civilian deaths in the Middle East conflict - can be found here. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name of the victims

I wonder if this is encyclopedic to have the name of the victims in the article. What if we had to list the names of the victims of all massacres ? More what information does this bring to the encyclopedia ? There is no relevant information with it... I suggest to remove this from the article and to let people click on an external link if they want the information. Alithien 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As tragic as this is, the names are not encyclopedic and could be considered as POV pushing. JoshuaZ 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen other articles with the names of the victims listed, but they don't seem overwhelmingly encyclopedic here. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. What would be the encyclopedic information in giving the names of the victims. It is not because other articles are not good that this one must be too. This is not an argument. Alithien 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Well, I'm not sure whether having the information helps the article or not. One could argue that removing factual and relevant information doesn't really improve the article. One could also point out that many other articles have lists of victims; e.g. Red Lake High School massacre, Osaka school massacre, Dipendra of Nepal, Columbine High School massacre, Jonesboro massacre, Dunblane massacre, École Polytechnique massacre, McDonald's massacre, etc. I guess the question is, why would you think the names, ages etc. of massacre victims was not "relevant information"? Perhaps Wikipedia needs some general standard on this. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What an old discussion...
I think the age, if relevant or particular (eg children), can be an information; as well as the sex in the case of particular massacres during a war. But giving the names of people who are dead (in any circumstances), who are not particularly famous, is not an information. I would add maybe their family would not be pleased about that...
Ceedjee (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust survivors

GHcool, why do you think that the Holocaust is relevant to this article? I'm curious to know. Imad marie (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC thought that the fact that Holocaust survivors were victims was was relevant.[2] Wikipedia should follow suit. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a person survives one disaster, only to be killed in another disaster, is always interesting and relevant. Especially if the disasters are related to prejudices, national identity, and so on. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)