Talk:Passover massacre

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


List of names[edit]

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)

Name of this article[edit]

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)[reply]

Good point. "Passover massacre" seems to be the most common name. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

name of the victims[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It may not be encyclopedic, but at least it provides extra information, good for those who wanted to make a research thesis. --Rochelimit (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivors[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some say tomahto, some say tomayto[edit]

This edit war over what to call the area in which Tubas is located is perhaps the most idiotic edit war I have ever seen. Guys, the article is not about Samaria/West Bank. Jayjg, it was I, not MeteorMaker, who excised the offensive topynym from the sentence. It adds nothing. Don't you have better things to argue about? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed from the article for two completely different reasons[edit]

User:Pedrito removed the following material, based on his view that local school events have nothing to do with official PA position. Jamal Tarif and Jamal Odeh are local officials (Tulkarem district).:

Palestinian Media Watch claimed, however, that it glorified the "shahid" on January 21, 2003, the official PA daily newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida published a report saying "the Tulkarm Shahids Memorial Soccer Championship tournament of the Shahid Abd Al-Baset Odeh began with the participation of seven top teams, named after Shahids who gave their lives to redeem the homeland. Isam, the brother of the Shahid, will distribute the trophies."<ref>[http://www.pmw.org.il/murder.htm#murder1 PA Promoting and Glorifying Terrorism and Murder] Written and Compiled by Itamar Marcus ([[Palestinian Media Watch]]) </ref>

As can be seen from the quote, the material was apparently published in the official PA daily newspapers, based on statements made by and actions taken by PA officials. Now User:FayssalF has removed the material for an entirely different reason, i find it very weird jayjg that you ask others to use RS while you use very biased and unreliable sources!. Ignoring the inappropriateness of that personal comment, the material in question did not state the view as fact, but directly mentioned the source of the opinion. I'm having a difficult time understanding the new rationale for removing it. Perhaps FayssalF can explain. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against the material or that I doubt it may be true but sources need to be notable and reliable --especially for questionable claims. As you see, the pmw.org link is written and Compiled by a single guy called Itamar Marcus. Plus, the source is very biased and one-sided. I'd have no problem with the content if you can bring a very neutral and reliable source per all what is found at WP:RS. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t think PMW is problematic, and you are wrong to claim that it is written by a single person. Nevertheless, here' another source - [3]
So a soccer tournament organised by local officials and mentioned in the paper indicative of the official position of the Palestinian Authority? I think not. Does the paper reporting on this tournament make it an endorsement of the tournament? I think even less...
This is a case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Mentioning it as an isolated fact (and not part of the PA's reaction) would violate WP:UNDUE.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:06
The paper describing the tournament is the official paper of the PA. So when that paper describes something as "X", "X" is the position of the PA.
Ah, so the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reporting on terrorism (e.g. here), means they endorse such acts? So, by your logic, I could go to List of Hamas suicide attacks and add that the MFA supports such attacks? Please clarify before I go and do this...
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:14
the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports are the official Israeli position, yes. If such a report were to describe a soccer tournament held in in memory of the "martyr" Baruch Goldstein, it would be fair to say that the official Israeli position is the Goldstien is a martyr, and to infer support for his actions. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is subject to your selective interpretation? Uhm... Is there a Wikipedia policy on that? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:23
what is subject to my selective interpretation? NoCal100 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us re-capitulate... You state (in your edit summary and here) that an official PA paper reporting on a local soccer tournament in honour of some martyrs means that the PA fully supports the acts of said martyrs. That's not only quite a stretch, it's WP:SYNTH.
Unless the paper explicitly says "we endorse their acts" or "the PA supports their acts" you've got absolutely no case...
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:32
No, that's not what i state. Do read more carefully. NoCal100 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I notice that User:NoCal100 is willing to edit-war on this issue without participating in the discussion... pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:07
It's amusing you would post this right below my comment. NoCal100 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was actually an edit conflict. You still reverted twice before joining in. pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:14
If you saw an edit conflict and STILL added that comment, it is no longer amusing, but rather deliberate insertion of misleading information. I think you were better off with people thinking you were just inserting comical nonsense. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of PMW has been discussed at length before. PMW is an anti-Palestinian organization and I don't get it why some editors keep pushing for inserting material cited by the organization. Imad marie (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "PMW is an anti-Palestinian organization" is your opinion, which, even if true, is irrelevant. We do not exclude sources because of their political agenda. Regardless, the claim has been sourced to additional sources. NoCal100 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian Media Watch, the Zionist Organization of America and the recently defunct The Sun of New York, which didn't even make it into Wikipedia. You've got to be kidding... I've noticed, however, that you've re-worded the whole thing to the point of making it WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.
On a lighter note, if "[w]e do not exclude sources because of their political agenda", I suppose this makes the Electronic Intifada a fair source? Just asking for future reference...
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.02.2009 15:44
Being defunct is now a reason to exclude a source? That's certainly a fresh perspective. Where can I read about this policy? NoCal100 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're dodging the question (red herring much?). If "[w]e do not exclude sources because of their political agenda", I suppose this makes the Electronic Intifada a fair source?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 05.02.2009 10:25
Your question itself is a red herring. If you want to discuss the reliability of the Electronic Intifada , the forum you want is WP:RSN. This page is for improving the article. NoCal100 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Squirm all you like, if Palestinian Media Watch and the Zionist Organization of America are reliable sources, so is Electronic Intifada... Agreed? This discussion is not about Electronic Intifada, but about your dubious sources and your rationale for using them.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 05.02.2009 15:01
if you are questioning the reliability of ZOA or PMW - you are again invited to take it to WP:RSN, where I am sure you will hear that ZOA is a notable organization and a reliable source for ZOA's opinions. NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and how notable are their opinions on this matter? About as notable as Electronic Intifada's on matters regarding Israel. Are you sure this is the way you want to go?
pedrito - talk - 06.02.2009 07:27
This article is not Israel, and is not WP:RSN. This little game you are playing is not convincing anyone. NoCal100 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His argument seems sound to me and the comparison valid. Sincerely, anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.75.169 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prior editor -- IP 50.136.75.169 -- has been blocked for six months. Epeefleche (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"don't remove refs just because you can't find them online"[edit]

Hi Jayjg,

I assume, by your comment, that you have access to this source and have read it. Could you please provide a copy? According to WP:V, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 10:02

What an odd comment. The source is indeed "cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Specifically, it is Hussein Dakroub, "Militant Palestinian Groups Reject Arab Peace Overture to Israel," Associated Press, March 28, 2002. Author, Title, Publisher, Date. That's all that's required. There is no requirement for the source to be on-line as well. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I'm just curious as to the source's content and since you seem to defend it, I assumed you had a copy. You don't?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.02.2009 08:20
Pedrito, you removed the material with the following edit comment:"source could not be verified, could not be found online." Material does not have to be online to be verified or verifiable. If you're curious about the contents, there are ways of getting further information regarding this article. Deletion is not an appropriate response. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres or attacks[edit]

I think it should be attacks not massacre, the term of massacre indicate the bias of the source, which should not occur here, as Wikipedia is not bias to any side.

It is well sourced that the event is known a as a massacre. Interesting that you have not shown similar zealousness with regards to Cave of the Patriarchs massacre NoCal100 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather unfair comparison. The passover massacre was sanctioned and supervised by the governing entities of Gaza, which comprises the vast majority of Palestinians who live in the territories. Not only were the offenders a terrorist organization, they were also a recognized and supported government. The Patriarch massacre, however, is an unfit comparison because of how the attacks were planned and orchestrated, not to mention the motivations. Israeli's died at the behest of a government who continues to be enabled and supported at home and aboard, while the Palestinians were "massacred" by a disgruntled soldier and a radical fighter who had no affiliation with the Israeli government or Israel Defense Forces other than employment. I know, it's hard to see the difference. In regards to whether the article should be retitled, I'll abstain until a consensus is made for a title-change. For now it's safe to leave it alone, unless someone else has a better excuse other than semantics. This isn't a NPOV as innocent civilians were singled out and murdered simply for being citizens of an opposing country, they were not casualties of war. If it were the latter, then attack or something similar would probably be a more appropriate title. Please don't turn this into another 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, where every side must be satisfied regardless of bias. It is generally accepted that this attack was a massacre so until there is proving evidence claiming something else, changing it would be kind of silly. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Intifada?[edit]

Why was this added as a source? Surely there's something better for a statement that is contensted? I personally don't care either way about the statement, but the source should be a bit more mainstream and reliable. --Ynhockey (Talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a secondary source, reporting on (and quoting from) official PA radio and TV announcements. For this purpose, I think it's reliable enough (it's not like we supoect them of making up the quotes, is it?) MeteorMaker (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PA[edit]

What means "PA" in

In 2003, the PA sponsored a soccer tournament named ...

--Keysanger (what?) 12:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority. --Keysanger (what?) 12:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material and removal of source[edit]

User:Frederico1234 has in this edit removed both material about a poll, and a second source added regarding a soccer tournament.

  1. Regarding the first, an editorial from a newspaper's editorial board is not the same as an individual editorial; it must go through the same fact checking and legal oversight as any other newspaper article, and is therefore considered a reliable source.
  2. Regarding the removal of the source, it was added to point out that Palestinian Media Watch was not the only source for the claim in question. Can Frederico1234 explain why he removed the source, and misrepresented (or too narrowly presented) who has described this soccer tournament?

Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an editorial by the newspaper itself is not he same as some guest columnist, and there was no reason to remove that second source about the soccer match. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The removal of the Leonard Cole citation was unintentional. I didn't see that you had added it in your revert. I apologize for my mistake.
  • Regarding the New York Sun editorial citation, WP:NEWSORG states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.". There's no distinction being made between individual editorials and the newspaper's own editorials. Thus, such sources are not considered reliable even by Wikipedia's low standards. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline refers to editorials by specific authors; unsigned editorials are products of the editorial board, as stated, and therefore are as reliable as the news stories in the newspaper. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that it refers to only editorials by individuals? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It refers specifically to "attributed statements... of the author". General editorials do not have a specific author, they are the position of the newspaper itself. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the author is named, whether the piece is signed or unsigned makes no difference to an editorial's reliability. An opinion is an opinion. Whether it is that of an individual, a media publication, a government, or an organisation—it remains an opinion and is not reliable for encyclopaedic facts. It says so quite clearly in our policies on identifying reliable sources. An opinion editorial is acceptable only as proof of the author's own opinion, nothing else. Nightw 14:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did AIPAC write this?[edit]

It's a bullshit propaganda piece full of irrelevant shit inserted to inflame opinion against the Palestinians. We know it was an attack against civilians, do we really need to know a father was killed with his daughter? In an encyclopedia article? And a subsection called "Palestinian glorification of the attack"? Fucking seriously? Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to these topics. Whoever has more people editing the page gets to decide the truth. What a joke.

The prior editor -- IP 50.136.75.169 -- has been blocked for six months. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 33 external links on Passover massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial to the victims of an attack. And Ill correct that at the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre as well. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is policy however. nableezy - 16:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passover_massacre&oldid=1209652362"