Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre

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

Massacres[edit]

I have been involved in a dispute over the use of the word "massacre" in the article Dolphinarium massacre. The dispute has implications for many articles in the wikipedia, and especially in our little fiefdom.

The arguments for calling the article "Dolphinarium massacre" rather than "Dolphinarium bombing" are essentially two: first, it was, in fact, a massacre ("let's call a spade a spade", wrote GHcool), and second, the other guys use it - why should they have more massacres than we have? "It hurts the balance/NPOV of Wikipedia," writes Ynhockey.

If you detect a note of sarcasm in my description of these arguments, I apologize. I am trying to control myself, but I am overcome by my sense of how perilously absurd both these arguments are. Absurd because (a) there is no agreed definition of massacre (how many dead? how evil the perpetrators? How helpless the victims?) and (b) because the fact that Palestinian editors use the term more freely than pro-Israeli ones (if that is true - I never actually counted) hardly means we have to rush to make up the difference. Perilous because the use of this word has vaulted us into a battle of rhetoric which threatens to undermine the entire credibility of the Wikipedia.

The word "massacre" is worse than the gaudiest peacock word cited in the style manual. It is only editorial, and contains no information. It is loaded with connotations of Genghis Khan, rape and pillage. What's more, it weakens rather than strengthens the import of an article on Middle Eastern violence.

Let's expunge it from our vocabulary. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool's argument of calling a spade a spade is actually very logical. Also you place my quote in your own selected context, which is different from the original, but I don't really care because this discussion is about the general use of the term and not on the Dolphinarium article specifically. In any case, WP:RS call many events massacres, and there's no reason why we shouldn't. Despite being generally pro-Israeli, I wouldn't want to see Deir Yassin massacre, Safsaf massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, etc. renamed to 'battle of ...', and ask that Arab massacres of Israelis are also left alone. Granted, if the status of an attack as a massacre is disputed (but not as WP:UNDUE), I agree that the word should not be used. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockney is correct. Let us discuss this on Talk:Dolphinarium massacre so that we don't split the discussion and have to repeat ourselves in two places. --GHcool (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the place to discuss the dispute, this term is used in multiple articles, and one standard should be set for all, whether is it a Palestinian or Israeli attack.
About GHcool's argument, "let's call a spade a spade", are we going to name every single attack in the I-P conflict with civilian casualties a "massacre"? that's inflammatory, problematic, and impossible. I find it logical that we don't use "massacre" unless the naming has been used in a RS. Imad marie (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the argument that the claim of massacre for the Dolphinarium attack, and many similar attacks, is not disputed by anyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that even you agree that it was a massacre, but only want the word removed from Wikipedia because in your opinion it's a loaded/POV term. There are sources calling it a massacre, even if you don't like them. Israeli officials have also called the attack a massacre.
In my opinion, attacks which are called massacres and the claim is not disputed, should be named thus on Wikipedia. So far I have not seen many problematic cases, so why fix something that isn't broken? The only really problematic case I recall is Battle of Jenin vs. Jenin Massacre, but that's because the term was highly disputed there, and many reliable sources were dedicated to disputing the massacre claim. Not so for this attack and many others. Ironically, there are even quite a few right-wing sources that dispute the Deir Yassin massacre's status as a massacre, although that is of course WP:UNDUE. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles that are titled "massacre" Dolphinarium massacre and Sbarro restaurant massacre, both articles are not named "massacres" in the media. And there are still other articles in the I-P conflict named massacres, this term should not be used that easily. Imad marie (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Dolphinarium massacre [1][2] was an attack by a Palestinian suicide bomber on June 1, 2001 at a Tel Aviv discotheque frequented by Israeli teenagers...

I would suggest to rename "The Dolphinarium suicide attack"... Ceedjee (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the Palestinian attacks called massacre, those are the ones I found, maybe I missed some:

I have so many objection to this! 1) why create a separate article for each attack? and most of those articles list the name of every single victim, why? 2) the use of the term massacre is inflammatory, and not used in the RS. I hope we can find a better NPOV for presenting this. Imad marie (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of these would more accurately be called "suicide bombing." Why do they all have less descriptive names than they might? Shouldn't we strive toward more accuracy as opposed to less accuracy? Some of you, along with the Government of Israel, apparently feel that it is important to emphasize the helplessness of the victims by using the term "massacre" rather than "suicide bombing," although I am unaware of any effective immediate defense against a suicide bombing. It makes sense for the Government of Israel, which is of course partisan on such issues, to want to do this, because the more they do it the more they convey the impression that Israel is a helpless victim in its conflict with the Palestinians, something that is the opposite of the truth. Why should Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral, prefer a term that obscures the exact form of the attack in order to emphasize the helplessness of the attacks victims? Clearly, "suicide bombing" is very descriptive of the physical form of the attack, and "massacre" is not. What consideration could possibly outweigh this simple fact? Tegwarrior (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. The evidence weighs against you. --GHcool (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have forgotten quite a few! Here's a non-comprehensive list, which I'm sure you would also like to rename (I have purposely removed historical Arab massacres of Israelis, because I'd like to know your reply to these particular ones):
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make a clear (and IMO fair) argument, we don't call an attack massacre unless it was called as so in RS. Leaving it for the editors to interpret the technical meaning of "massacre" is problematic. Imad marie (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm sure Imad marie would be in favor of calling the Dolphinarium massacre a massacre since RS's callit as such. --GHcool (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is amusing, in a way: I was going to make a posting explaining why all the Palestinian atrocities have to be called "massacres," then here comes Ynhockey to do it for me. Quite simply, a certain faction of editors is upset that WP uses the same terminology ("xyz massacre") for Israeli atrocities during and after the 1948 war that most sources use. In retaliation they've decided to enforce terminology which is certainly defensible on factual grounds, but which only a few use, for Palestinian atrocities during the 2nd intifadah.

The Google Test can be treacherous, not least because Google's result count is only approximate, but carefully framing the search terms and trying multiple variations can yield some insight, especially when the difference in results from one term to another is so drastic.

For example, a quick "google test" on the terms "qasim OR qasem OR qasm 1956 border-police" shows that roughly 90% of sources contain the term "massacre." Conversely, searches for "dolphinarium bombing palestinian 2001" (and variants thereof) show a roughly even balance between sources which contain the term "massacre" and sources which don't. Note that this isn't about whether they use the term "Xyz Massacre," just whether they happen to use the word "massacre" anywhere on the same page. Searching every permutation of "kfar/kafr-qasm/qasem/qasim 1956 border-police" and "kfar/kafr-qasm/qasem/qasim-massacre 1956 border-police" I find that about 1/3 of sources explicitly name it the "Kfar Qasem Massacre." Searching "dolphinarium 2001 bomb OR bombing OR bomber" gives 281,000 hits; searching "dolphinarium-massacre 2001 bomb OR bombing OR bomber" gives 899.

The contrast becomes even more stark when we use Google Books instead of the whole internet, which is likely influenced by the thousands of pages which repeat Wikipedia content. Of eight book hits for Kfar Qasm terms, one, Benny Morris's lauded Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956 uses the term "Kfar Qasm Massacre," which is presumably where we got the terminology (WP's articles on these events seem to rely very heavily on Morris.) Of 174 book hits for the Dolphinarium terms, not a single one uses the term "Dolphinarium Massacre." The results are very similar for Google Scholar.

Of course this is only one paired example, and although I chose the pairing and the refinement terms ("1956 border-police" and "2001 bomb*") more or less arbitrarily, it might well be that another pairing gives drastically different results. These types of issues come up so often that I may well devote some time to writing a computer program for them; it would be interesting to come up with a table of results. Anyway, the point is that the "XYZ Massacre" terminology seems to be on pretty firm reliable-sources grounds for the 1947-56 atrocities, and on pretty poor reliable-sources grounds for the 2001- atrocities.

If I had to speculate about why this is, I'd say there are two reasons. One is that there is a historical distance from the Israeli crimes. Using a term like "massacre" or "ethnic cleansing" for something that happened 50 years ago does not carry the same condemnatory weight that it does for something that happened last Thursday; and for what weight it does carry, scholars have simply had more time to consider the issue and decide on appropriate terms.

The second reason is that while "massacre" simply means something like "killing of helpless or unresting people in circumstances of atrocity or infamy," it most often connotes something like, "systematic, methodical killing of helpless people one-by-one." That obviously applies to shooting your PoWs, but not to blowing up kids in a discotheque.

This is the very same issue, actually, that caused so much semantic argument on Battle of Jenin. Palestinians accuse Israel of committing a "massacre" during that battle; investigators from HRW and Amnesty charged that Israel killed helpless, unresisting people in what were prima facie war crimes. However it's clear that no systematic, methodical house-to-house slaughter took place, so Israel's defenders rally around the "no massacre" banner. It's interesting to note that while some editors have vociferously insisted that Wikipedia describe allegations of a massacre in Jenin as totally debunked, they vociferiously insist that suicide bombings - even those which were clearly aimed at uniformed, armed enemy combatants - are always "massacres." It seems clear that a double standard is in operation. <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi,
I assume there are several sources naming the events massacres, others attacks, other battles, other fair revenge~q. All WP:RS (event he last one).
The problem is therefore here not to have a WP:RS source naming the events a way or the other.
The problem is : 1. to find the title to most used a pertinent way and if not possible (bec there are several solutions), the most neutral one.
I would suggest you argue that way.
Ceedjee (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


An interesting analysis Eleland, but I have a few comments:
1) There are enough WP:RS for the modern massacres calling it by that name. The ratio is different (with other terms like 'bombing') for the same reasons you provided, although there's another very obvious reason you didn't mention - time. This is expressed in two ways:
a) Events called massacres even by about half the people even 20 years ago could be commonly known as massacres today, simply because accepted terminology changes over time. Therefore, the sheer amount of people calling a massacre a massacre isn't the most important thing.
b) Recent events have very little chance of being in books, as most of the historical books on the I-P conflict have been written before the Second Intifada, or during that period, when the term might still have been contested.
2) There weren't many suicide bombings against military targets, and those that happenned usually involved vehicles and other weapons (like the recent bombing near a crossing to Gaza with the jeeps). I don't vociferously (or otherwise) insist on these being called massacres, not sure who does.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the disagreements here about what is a massacre and what isn't just accentuate my main point - the term is purely editorial and conveys no information. What makes a massacre? Do the victims have to be innocent and noncombatants? Then Musa Dagh was not a massacre. Do there have to be a lot of people killed? Then the Boston Massacre wasn't a massacre. Really the only defining characteristic of a massacre is that the perpetrator is a really, really bad guy. And that doesn't seem to be something we at the Wikipedia should be saying.
The reliable source argument is irrelevant. Sources can be completely reliable in their recitation of facts, and still be biased. When a reliable source calls something a massacre, that doesn't make it a massacre. If the source says that 452 people were killed, that can be reliable, but the characterization of an event as this or that is purely editorial, no matter how reliable the source is.
No, unquestionably the best way to resolve this problem is to eschew the word entirely. Let's not call anything a massacre - not Deir Yasin, not Dolphinarium, not even Babi Yar. Let's make the point about how horrible these events were without resorting to cheap inflammatory rhetoric.
The only massacre that should be called such in the Wikipedia is the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, because that's the title of the movie. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I understand your point but I disagree on some parts of this.
  • I share your mind, and I think you are right, concerning all the potential bias associated with the use of this word, even when from wp:rs.
  • We cannot get rid of this that easily. Eg, for Deir Yassin, what would you replace massacre by ? Certainly not battle; which would be extremelly poved...
  • even if wp:rs can be considered as biased, when there are convergence and high consensus for the use of the word, I think massacre should be kept...
Ceedjee (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like we have a consensus that "massacre" is a problematic word. However, as Ceedjee said above, finding alternatives may prove tricky. I'd like to mention here, as I have on the Dolphinarium talk page, the List of events named massacre. It includes numerous events from all times and places. Maybe it's about time Wikipedia had an official naming policy as to what constitutes "battle", "operation", "massacre", "incident", or else. Once we have that, we can start naming articles systematically, the way an encyclopedia should. I say, let's take it to the village pump, consult the admins, and see how it develops. -- Nudve (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some alternatives:

  • Dolphinarium suicide bombing
  • Deir Yasin (combine the article on the village with the article on the Etsel killing; after all, this is really the only reason the village is notable).
  • List of military actions against civilian targets in the 1948 war (this has the advantage of allowing inclusion of actions where fewer than 10 civilians died, thus increasing the number of entries in the list at least fifty-fold, and more than doubling the number of casualties).
  • Hebron riots
  • List of civilian casualties in civil strife prior to 1948
  • Babi Yar

Egads, man, use your imagination. Plenty of respectable publications get along fine without the word (NYT, London Times), we should be able to manage as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I'm fine with "Dolphinarium bombing". It's the general policy I'm concerned about. As for Deir Yassin: Many villages depopulated in 1948 that are far less known have articles on Wikipedia, and I don't think their notability was ever questioned. Deir Yassin massacre is a pretty long article with a long discussion history, so I doubt whether a merger is an option. Also, I have a strange feeling some people might object to moving it. -- Nudve (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find Nudve's suggestion to be a good one, we need a uniform policy for calling an attack a "massacre", leaving it for the editors to interpret the technical meaning of massacre is controversial. and WP:VP might be a good place for that. Imad marie (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can all agree that a massacre is an attack in which defenseless and innocent civilians are targeted deliberately. The Dolphinarium massacre clearly fits this description. --GHcool (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are not reading my previous arguments. To repeat: are we going to call every single attack in the I-P conflict a massacre? the list would be endless. We have many incidents during the first and second intifada where Israeli tank/plane shells killed civilian Palestinians inside their houses, are we going to call all those incidents a massacre because it fits under the technical term? Imad marie (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@GHCool : "a massacre is an attack in which defenseless and innocent civilians are targeted deliberately"
I would rather say "a massacre is the killing of defenseless civilians or pow's who are targeted deliberately".
@RavPapa, Nuvde and Imad marie
I think finding a clever rule policy is a good think but a clever rule/policy will not get rid of the word "massacre". WP has a problem with the affective connotation associated with the use of the term but that doesn't prevent the fact some events because they were "massacres" had an extremelly important historical impact. The most relevant information concerning Deir Yassin is certainly it was a "massacre". Ceedjee (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceedjee (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial preference was to use the media for that, I suggested that we use the same term that is used by the mainstream media, I really don't see any other "smart policy" that we can use. Imad marie (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceedjee may very well be right. I didn't demand that the word "massacre" be eliminated altogether. I would not rule out the possibility that at the end of the process, keeping the "massacre" title in all articles will be decided to be the least of the available evils. but at least we will have addressed the issue-- Nudve (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the limit of my capability of properly speaking English, I would participate to such a debate. I have much to say concerning this.
I would like to carry your attention to p.74 of this book and particularly the second paragraph :[1]
Ceedjee (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when to use, rather when not to use[edit]

All this discussion about what the word "massacre" means brings me back to my original point: The use of "massacre", "atrocity", "catastrophe", they all weaken the impact of an article, rather than strengthen it. These words - let's call them vulture words, as opposed to peacock words - draw the reader's attention away from the facts of the article, and focus attention on the author's opinions. When readers see an article titled "Dolphinarium massacre" their immediate reaction is, skip that. Let's find something more interesting to read, something with substance.

You should all be arguing not about when we should use the word, but how we can avoid it. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not use the word -at least- when :
  • there is not a wide consensus among (wp:rs AND neutral) sources to characterise the events as a massacre;
  • there is another wording that is more factual, precise AND more neutral in the sense of WP:NPoV.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there's nothing wrong with the word, and disagree with your observations. However, when an attack's status as a massacre is disputed (e.g. Battle of Jenin), then the word should not be used. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
  • "when an attack's status as a massacre is disputed..."
How can we state if this is disputed ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're asking. Some attacks are often referred to as massacres, but some say that they weren't massacres at all. If this is the case (unless it's undue weight), we should avoid the word, IMO. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was not clear.
If we use this rule, that means that if someone find just 1 WP:RS where the characterisation of the event as a massacre is not used but another one is used, we have to replace the word in the title.
Is this what you mean ?
Ceedjee (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that if at least one RS is found that clearly says 'attack was not a massacre', then the word should automatically be avoided. There are of course exceptions, per WP:UNDUE (e.g. plenty of sources calling attack a massacre, 1 or 2 saying that it wasn't). In other words, I'm advocating the way it has worked on Wikipedia until now. Again, refer to Battle of Jenin vs. Jenin massacre as a perfect example. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Ravpapa; it is a word to avoid. Too emotive, un-encyclopedic. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee has provided a fine suggestion, it is a balanced midway point. We cannot use the term for every attack with civilian casualties, and on the other hand, no need to drop the term if this is how it is known to people through mainstream media.

Ynhockey, until now you have not answered my question, do you think it's possible to label every single attack in the I-P conflict that caused civilian casualties as "massacre" ? Imad marie (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note this from massacre disambiguation page:
  • Wiktionary:massacre, the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to "the usages established among civilized peoples" (International Humanitarian Law term from the Martens Clause).
  • List of events named massacres.
Carol Moore 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
@Imad marie, as I wrote above, a massacre isn't just an event that caused civilian casualties. That definition is too broad. The key point of a massacre is that defenseless civilians (or POWs) are targeted and murdered. That's the difference between the Dolphinarium massacre, in which the attackers targeted teenagers for the "crime" of dancing the night away at a disco, and the Battle of Jenin, in which the attackers targeted armed terrorists. --GHcool (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the evidence has been ruthlessly edit-warred out of Battle of Jenin, we have very good evidence from Arial Sharon, backed by WP:RS (Time Magazine) that the operation in question was intended to hit and punish regular Palestinians. Furthermore, we have solid RS evidence that there was at least one "up-against-the-wall" massacre in Jenin in 2002, although that's been ruthlessly edit-warred out too. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to explain (or self-revert) the edit you made here, which appears to be totally unjustifiable, and a case of you wiki-stalking me. PRtalk 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imad, I have answered that question multiple times, perhaps you have not read my numerous comments on this and the other talk page? Aside from GHcool's explanation above, I'll quote myself (from the other talk page):
“ There are a few things which all need to apply for it to be a massacre:
  1. Casualties need to be only or predominantly civilians/unarmed personnel
  2. The attack must have been purposefully aimed at either civilians or otherwise unarmed personnel (this rules out most modern-day IDF attacks on Palestinians, and Palestinian attacks on armed Israeli soldiers)
  3. The attack must have a certain amount of deaths at the very least. I think at List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, we agreed on 10; I guess anything about about 5 is technically okay, as long as all other conditions apply, but right now low-casualty massacres on Wikipedia are generally not called massacres in articles names, like bus suicide bombings, etc.
 ”

—Ynhockey, Talk:Dolphinarium massacre

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, reviewing some of the bus bombing articles, I have noticed that they were called 'bombing' and moved. I notified a user who moved some of them, User:Lanov, of this discussion, FYI. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) I know that I'm the one who brought Jenin into this but I don't want to get into that debate. I do not believe that anybody here is advocating for Wikipedia to refer to Jenin as a "massacre" in its own voice. I am certainly not. Nor is anybody arguing for moral equivalence between blowing up a discotheque full of kids and attacking a city in order to capture enemy militants. Frankly these are straw man arguments and do not advance the discussion.
There are some events which are undeniably known as "massacres" or "catastrophes" or the like. Malmedy massacre, Nedelin catastrophe, even Saturday Night Massacre which doesn't fit any definition of "massacre" except by analogy. There are also some events which undeniably fit the definition of "massacre" but which are not generally named as "massacres." When was the last time you heard of the "Oklahoma City massacre" or the "United Flight 93 massacre?" It would be inept and unprofessional for Wikipedia to title articles with these terms, accurate as they clearly are. I believe the same applies to most of the Palestinian suicide bombings which we insist on terming as "massacres." Of course they're "massacres." They're also "suicide bombings." They're also "martyrdom operations." They're also "homicide bombings" and "Islamic terrorist attacks" and "armed struggle against the occupier." All of these terms are literally accurate; all of these terms carry moral and emotional baggage. Most sources, especially journalistic sources which feel an obligation to be neutral, use the term "suicide bombing." Anhere it example I believe Wikipedia should follow. <eleland/talkedits> 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, you have a point there, but this will be very strange, because some suicide bombings are called massacres by almost all (e.g. Passover massacre), some by about half (e.g. Sbarro restaurant massacre), and others still by a few {e.g. Dolphinarium massacre). It will cause many disputes and considerably hurt consistency to name some of these as 'massacre' on Wikipedia, and others as 'bombing' or whatever. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project should seek to have some consistency. "Massacre" is a loaded word, but the best solution would be to use it according to some defined criteria (eg more than 10 dead, killers saw the whites of their eyes, whatever) and where it's in regular use (eg Boston massacre, even though in that case there were only 4 dead and they were hardly "innocent women and children"). I know we're cheapening the currency, but it's the only way to escape the dreaded Google Test and avoid leaving ourselves hostage to the blogosphere. PRtalk 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey and GHcool, maybe I was not clear in my question, I will try to be clearer: one possible technical interpretation of massacre is: "the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". Under this technical interpretation, literary dozens of massacres have been committed during the first and second intifada's, from both sides (Israeli and Palestinian). So are we going to create an article for every single assault that caused civilian casualties and call the article (The X massacre)? this is nonsense, and it would be WP:POINT. So clearly we need a standard to follow other than the technical interpretation . I hope I am clear in my argument. Imad marie (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At another article, Ynhockey makes the argument that "massacre" should be used for, e.g., the Dolphinarium attack, because other "very similar" attacks are so called. I will demonstrate now that this is not true by giving a long list of exceptions:

I have tried to limit this list to attacks at a single, fairly clearly civilian target. I drew these articles from the list at The "civilian attacks" Infobox "what links here" page. There are more articles there that include "bombing" in their titles, but I tried to excluded those that were multiple target attacks or that were against a target of arguable military significance. A brief perusal of the other articles listed there suggests that, as I would expect, "massacre" is a term reserved for attacks against defenseless civilians by an individual or group armed with guns and light weapons. Attacks perpetrated with explosives tend quite strongly to be called "bombings."

In short, the insistence that articles on certain bombing attacks in Israel have "massacre" in their title as opposed to "bombing" has no discernible precedence in articles about events outside of Israel.

Tegwarrior (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but even in the examples you provided it can be argued that the analogy is flawed. Most of those attacks are not called massacres except by fringe and other unreliable sources. Moreover, because it's not the I-P conflict, they may not use 'massacre', but get away with other terminology we avoid in I-P articles, notably 'terrorist attack' (1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, for example). Therefore, the situation for I-P and non-I-P articles is very different when wording is concerned - this is the status quo on Wikipedia, and I don't necessarily endorse it, although we can't change it with this discussion.
As I said in the previous discussion, your argument seems to be semantic - i.e. let's use the term massacre for massacres which were done with small arms, but not for massacres committed with explosives. Therefore, I take it you're essentially agreeing with GHcool and myself to call a spade a spade - you're only disagreeing with what the word massacre usually refers to (and essentially disagreeing with Ravpapa's suggestion to avoid the word entirely). If the other users in this discussion agree, we can move forward with this assumption, and work towards a solution on a semantic level and not a content-based level.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to think that the word "massacre" should be used with a lot of caution; in the "Battle of Jenin," for example, I think at one point different people on the Palestinian side (maybe even the same people ...) were arguing simultaneously that a brave defense had been mounted and that it was a massacre; doesn't work that way. Anyway, I think a good, working definition for "massacre" would be an attack on defenseless victims with small arms, and that "suicide bombing" is a better description for close-quarter attacks with large explosive devices. More distant attacks, like artillery shelling or aerial bombing or delayed, non-suicide bombings, might be called "bombings" or "bombardments," and possibly, if it is pretty clear that defenseless civilians were targeted, "atrocities." Tegwarrior (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion so far has perfectly clarified the meaning of massacre:

  • "the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" (Wiktionary)
  • "historical distance" (User:Eleland. Eleland suggests 50 years as the limit
  • the victims have to be killed one at a time (also Eleland)
  • passes the "google test" (again Eleland)
  • More than 10 people killed (This is the criterion for getting into the List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
  • An event called "massacre" by a publication deemed a reliable source (Ynhockey)
  • An event called "massacre" by a lot of publications deemed reliable sources (Imad)
  • The killing must be committed by the use of small arms (Tegwarrior)

I could go on, but I think you get the point. We can't agree on what a massacre is. Supposing we actually did agree, and wrote the canonical definition of massacre somewhere in the depths of the Wikipedia style manual. Do you think that would make the word any clearer to the reader? Because, to the reader, the word massacre means, primarily, one thing: an act done by the bad guys. Good guys don't do massacres, only bad guys. And I don't think the Wikipedia should be promoting good guys and bad guys.

No, there is only thing to do to the word massacre in the Wikipedia - use the delete key.

Look at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. As I remember it, that event was refered to widely in the media as the Tiananmen massacre. Yet the word does not appear in the title of the article.

Why is it so hard for you guys to let go of this word? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I prefer the title "Dolphinarium massacre," I actually don't mind Tegwarrior's suggestion of renaming the article to "Dolphinarium discoteque suicide bombing." --GHcool (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new title is more factual, richer in information. I think it is better.
@Ravpapa.
If somebody comes and read "Deir Yassin massacre", he will think it talks a horrible thing made by bad guys. If he comes and read "Deir Yassin battle", he will think pro-Zionists have invaded wikipedia. And mutatis mutandis, he will think wikipedia has been invaded by pro-Palestinians if he read Jenin massacre.
I think we are not here to take care about the susceptibility or sensitivity of the reader. We must take care of facts.
I think the systematic in-between position is as bad as any extremist position.
Let's call a cat, a cat.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested combining the articles on Deir Yassin and Deir Yassin massacre. Since there is very little in the article on the village, this wouldn't be a big deal, technically.
But if Deir Yassin is a big problem, start with the little problems. There are 28 articles in the Wikipedia about the Middle East conflict that have the word "massacre" in the title (by Ynhockey's count). If we fix only 27 of them, I think we are doing pretty good. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined not to put too much weight on the passage of time, particularly with regard to non-political attacks. "Columbine massacre" probably doesn't trouble very many people as a title. Also, to my thinking, the "political" attacks that might be called "massacre" would probably be outright terrorist events, where the intent was to appear brutal in line with the term "massacre." My thinking is that most of these would be hostage situations where the ransom demands were things that no one would ever expect to be met, and the attackers basically wanted to get into the headlines and then demonstrate what sociopaths they are. The Munich Olympics massacre is the prototypical example of this. (This has never, to my knowledge, been an effective political tactic, but some people don't seem to get that.)
The one bombing event that, contrary to my repeatedly stated position that a massacre should involve small arms, seems appropriately called "massacre" to my mind is the Passover massacre. I'm not entirely sure why that is. Part of it, no doubt, is the association with the holiday; I guess that suggests the impunity that I think is connoted by "massacre." Also, the fact that it targeted basically a private party as opposed to taking place in a very public place implies a greater amount of control of the situation by the perpetrator.
Tegwarrior (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@RavPapa.
I don't know all of these events but I think that could be a good idea to discuss all of them here at once and see how we can fix these issues and remove the expression massacre.
I agree that if we can remove, for good reasons, the expression massacre, that should be done.
nb: There have been around 20 massacres performed during the 1948 War. I already think that for these events that have articles, the fact it was a massacre is the most relevant information but we can see this case by case... My only concern could be with Tantura; I would remove massacre. Concerning Deir Yassin, the massacre is more famous than the village. So I would merge both in the article named massacre. Ceedjee (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "all at once" approach is a terrible idea that's doomed to failure and edit wars and will be a months-long discussion ending in no agreement. The "one massacre at a time" approach would be much more productive. --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"all at once" approach is needed, because the same standard it set for all, we don't need to repeat our discussions in every related article. And probably the involved editors in other articles should be invited here so that we will not have edit wars. Imad marie (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a very bad idea to try and hammer out each of these descriptions, throwing the door even wider open to partisan editors incited off-wiki. We need a policy on this matter, and I don't think it would be very difficult to create. It's disturbing to hear editors calling for non-policy solutions. PRtalk 12:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily advocating all at once. One at a time is fine with me. As the old Zionists used to say, another goat another dunam (עוד עז עוד דונם). And if you want to start with the terrorist attacks, that's also fine with me. Because, as I have said repeatedly, the word massacre weakens rather than strengthens the impact of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the most effective thing would be to advertise our intent, invite comment and build consensus, and then do it all at once. I'd be inclined to leave a "A proposal to change the name of this and other similarly named articles has been made" at the talk page of affected articles, with a link here. I'd go for starting with changing a lot of the "massacres" to "suicide bombings." Tegwarrior (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is a misunderstanding in my statement.
I didn't suggest to remove the massacre expression in all articles at once.
I meant we discuss if the expression can be removed not just for one article but in dealing with all of them, at once...
It would be a 3-step work.
1. Find all the articles
2. Gather all the ones that have similarities
3. Suggest and discuss modifications.
Ceedjee (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, and after we gather all related articles, perhaps we need to come up with a standard definition of "massacre", if this is possible. Imad marie (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre Table[edit]

Israeli casualties Palestinian casualties
Before the start of first intifada
After the start of first intifada

Evaluating list of massacres[edit]

Please check list above, ofcourse the list is not comprehensive and needs expansion. My personal objection, is to the series of articles created about the attacks carried out by Palestinians after the start of first intifada, which were maybe named this way to make a point. Imad marie (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known that Jenin Massacre is a more popular title than Battle of Jenin. There were 3 times as many Google hits for "massacre" than there were for "battle" last time I checked (though it has to be said that many references to massacre were the right-wing blogosphere screaming that no massacre had occured). Perhaps most significant is the argument made here, which, although it was bitterly resented by some editors is perfectly straightforward. The event was described as a massacre in the first place and nobody (other than Shimon Peres) ever retracted what they'd said - the angry defenders of Israel admit the last part themselves! PRtalk 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we start discussing one group at a time? I suggest starting with the series of suicide bombings as it was initially discussed above. Imad marie (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, all of the above fit the description of "massacre" and deserve to be labeled as such. I advocate the status quo. --GHcool (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have consensus now that Dolphinarium massacre should be moved to Dolphinarium discoteque suicide bombing. Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(At some point, it may be helpful if a neutral party could move this discussion either to a subpage here or another spot for centralized discussion. It looks like a fruitful and respectful conversation, so maybe some of the discussants could say whether or where the thread might be moved. Best wishes, HG | Talk 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_peacock_terms#Massacre. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa, it seems that most editors here think that the use of the term "massacre" is necessary in some articles. Imad marie (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, in as few as possible. Ceedjee (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the move, I believe the same rule should apply for all the series of articles about suicide bombings carried out by Hamas and Al-Jihad. Imad marie (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reaction to HG's comment here above, I suggest that we transfer this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I get no objections, I will move the rest of the suicide bombings articles. Imad marie (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the pages:

Imad marie (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find most of the new titles better.
But I don't share the principle of changing this unilateraly...
Good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I strongly object, and I don't think you heard enough opinions about the issue. I still don't get it, why is Deir Yassin a massacre while a suicide bomber killing dozens of civilians in a bus is simply an attack? I demend that you roll this change back. BTW, I don't mind giving up the word massacre altogether, but then we'll have to do without it in ALL articles, not only those telling about Arabs killing Jews. DrorK (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only moved the pages after reaching consensus here. Imad marie (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 hijacking" for the first one? This title is not perfect, because it doesn't make clear that this was effectively a mass murder, but I think it is more descriptive than any other possible title, without having the title become excessively long. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DrorK: Boker Tov Eliahu (This is a Hebrew expression said to a late riser). The discussion on this subject has been going on for a few weeks; it has been well advertised, both on the this talk page, the talk page of the Dolphinarium article, and at Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms. Imad marie's action, though perhaps precipitous, reflects the consensus of at least 10 editors who have participated in the discussion.
Nonetheless, your point is well taken. I have consistently contended throughout this discussion that the use of the word "massacre" should be avoided everywhere, not just in articles about Arabs killing Jews. On the other hand, I have said that use of the word weakens, rather than strengthens, the impact of an article; you can scroll through this discussion to find my arguments. The renaming of these articles has improved them, and I would advise editors to make the same improvement in articles dealing with civilian deaths of Arabs at the hands of Israelis. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of balance and NPOV, I've taken the liberty of moving the "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre" article to Cave of the Patriarchs attack. --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the list of massacres in Arab villages in 1948, and I have two comments. (1) Safsaf massacre, al-Kabri massacre, Balad al-Shaykh massacre and Ein al-Zeitun massacre may be merged into their respective village articles, since those are mostly about the massacres (and subsequent depopulation). As for the titles, one option is "incident", which is too obscure. Another might be "raid". What do you think? -- Nudve (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unlike Deir Yassin, these villages/massacres are not well known. I think it would make more sense to merge the village articles into the massacre articles, because the only remaining notability of the former villages is the events that took place there when they were depopulated. Tegwarrior (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me, although some of the villages already have infoboxes. My main point was that there's no point in having two articles that talk about the "massacre", and I'm glad you agree. -- Nudve (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out an important issue about the process of decision making. 10 editors is by no means a quorum for such a discussion. If only 10 editors found their way into this discussion then it wasn't properly advertized. The suggestion should have been rejected on the ground that 10 people are not enough to discuss it. If necessary, the person who suggested it should leave personal messages to editors on the history list of the articles in question, and encourage them to join the discussion. I am active in 3 Wikipedias, in Hebrew, Arabic and English, and some other Wikimedia projects as well (and I do have a "real world" life, as you can imagine), and I cannot follow all of the discussions held in all of these projects, and response immediately in those discussions I manage to follow. This discussion is very sensitive, and the person who initiated it should have known that, and should have abandoned it once he saw there were not enough participants. May I remind you all, that Wikipedia is not a political parliament. We do not use parliamentary tactics here. All we care about is conveying knowledge in the best and most accurate way possible. DrorK (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the term "massacre"[edit]

Part of the reason I think the word "massacre" should usually be avoided is that until quite recently it was mostly an anachronism, at least in American English. When the word was used accurately, it was invariably to refer to incidents in the colonial wars with Native Americans or over-the-top strike busting of the late 19th or early 20th century. As an anachronism, it took on a much less serious colloquial meaning: in current use, "massacre" was mostly a sports term, indicating that one team had thoroughly outplayed its opponent.

The original meaning of the word started to be restored beginning with, I think, the Columbine massacre. Prior to the Columbine incident, similar incidents would generally just be called "shootings." I'm not sure what exactly about the Columbine incident it was that brought about the resurrection of the word "massacre," but a couple thoughts on the matter:

  • Unlike most shooting incidents, this was not essentially a sniper picking off people but staying in one place until stopped. The Columbine attackers apparently wandered the hallways of their school looking for victims during the attack.
  • Also unlike most shooting incidents, there were two attackers rather than just one.
  • The Columbine incident was also the first attack perpetrated by school students in their school that got a lot of press play. It was a strange event, and it was hard to put into context. The attackers did not come across, in press reports about them, as distraught individuals who had mentally broken down somehow; it was very much as if they did it because they were bored. This "strangeness" probably contributed to the need to attach a different word to the incident than just "shooting."

With this newly defining event for the modern use of the word "massacre," it has begun to be used to describe similar events. The Virginia Tech attack of last year is commonly called "massacre," although the main commonality between it and the Columbine incident is that they both occurred at schools and involved firearms, and a lot of people were killed. The Virginia Tech shooter, by most accounts, had had a mental breakdown, he acted alone, and he attacked mostly in one spot. I suspect that had the incident occurred prior to the Columbine incident, it might have only ever been called "shooting."

Anyway, I think care should be used in employing the word "massacre." If its use strays too far from events like the Columbine incident, its meaning is likely to become incoherent, and it may devolve back into being a sports metaphor.

All of this, obviously, is my anecdotal perception, and others no doubt will disagree.

Tegwarrior (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles mentioned above, the Enlgish word "massacre" is used as a translation to the Arabic terms مجزرة (majzara) or مذبحة (maðbaħa) or as a translation to the Hebrew term טבח (tevaħ). These Arabic and Hebrew words are usually understood as "mass murder". These words are highly judgemental, and are not well defined. No one can tell when a deadly attack turns into a majzara/tevaħ, and even when there is an agreement about the criminal nature of the killing, no one can tell how many people should be murdered in order to call such a horrible event a majzara/tevaħ. I cannot tell whether "massacre" is indeed a proper translation for the Arabic/Hebrew terms, all I know is that this translation is common in the English speaking media. In my opinion, the use of the word "massacre" in this context is not very informative but rather judgemental, and therefore should be avoided. However, there is a great rule in the NPOV philosophy that similar events should be described with similar terminology. Therefore, if one uses the term "massacre" to describe a deadly attack of Jews on Arabs, then he should use the same word to describe a deadly attack of Arabs on Jews, and needless to say, he should use the same word to describe similar events that happened elsewhere in the world. DrorK (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drork, sort of as a summary of earlier discussion, "massacre" in American English has a strong connotation of being a gun or small arm attack. In any case, I think it is sort of fruitless to try to find "equivalent" terms to use in an asymmetric conflict. What is the corresponding term for "suicide bombing," for example? Generally an attack from a fighter jet or from a helicopter gunship is called an "aerial attack" in the American media, with barely any negative connotation, certainly not as compared with "suicide bombing" (this may be largely because when we Americans hear the term "aerial attack," it is never us who is being attacked).
I'd like to add to my earlier comments that another contemporary, pre-Columbine use of the word "massacre" was in describing the killing of animals, particularly as in harvesting dolphins or whales, and generally with a bad connotation but in a "politically correct" sort of way; if you were not an environmentalist or animal lover, you would probably think it stupidly obnoxious to hear of "massacres of whales."
Tegwarrior (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are taking this discussion into irrelevant aspects. The only asymmetry we deal with here is the type of weapons used by each side and its efficiency, and this is irrelevant to the discussion. Also, the exact meaning of "massacre" in American English is only partly relevant, because in our case this English term is used as a reference to two or three terms commonly used in Arabic and in Hebrew. You judge the meaning of a word by the context in which it appears, words don't have a general meaning of their own (I believe Gottlob Frege explained this quite thoroughly). DrorK (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to tell me what is relevant and irrelevant to this discussion. And recall that this is the English language Wikipedia, and that it ought to strive to make sense in English without regard to whatever meanings other languages might take from its words. Tegwarrior (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't presume you invented the English language, and it seems to me you don't know enough about its relations with other languages. Furthermore, this whole discussion seems to me a bit misleading - I have a strong sense that the trigger for it is political rather than linguistic. As I said above, a discussion of 10 people is not enough to decide on such a huge and sensitive issue. For the time being the former status quo should remain. You may ask more people to comment on this issue. You can start with the list of contributors to the articles in question. I really try to assume good faith here, but I have to ask you to be frank and tell me what's the real motivation of this discussion. If the whole idea is making a political point, we should abandon it immediately. DrorK (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrorK: It was I who catalyzed this discussion. I am a native English speaker, and have worked for the last 30 years as a professional journalist and writer. I speak fluent Hebrew and some Arabic, as well as a number of European languages (poorly), so I believe my knowledge of English and of its relations to other languages is adequate. I live in Israel and am a supporter of the Israeli cause, and many of my contributions to the Wikipedia have been on Israeli subjects (you can read Music of Israel - that is primarily mine). I cannot speak for the motivation of others, but, for myself, my motivation was to improve the quality of the Wikipedia as an unbiased and accurate source of information. I believe the elimination of the word "massacre" from an article improves it, just as the removal of peacock terms like "superb", "the greatest" and so on improve the quality of an article. I therefore believe that the renaming of these articles has only made them better, and I would advise editors who have contributed to other articles dealing with civilian casualties of the Middle East conflict to follow suit.

The argument that "if they use the word, then we can use the word" is so specious and noxious that I hate to think where it will take us. There is enough gratuitous propagandizing on the Wikipedia as it is, to use it to cheapen the quality of our own articles seems about the dumbest thing we could possibly do.

The argument that not enough people have participated in the discussion is simply an argument to do nothing forever. I have been involved in not a few discussions of this type on the Wikipedia. Discussions that include this many participants are rare, and the rational tone of the discussion is a rarity and a bright spot in the usually turgid and caustic polemics on Middle East topics. Take a look at the talk page of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni if you want to see what this discussion could have been.

In sum, Drork, I disagree with you. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful and encouraging comment, Ravpapa. Tegwarrior (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had the discussion been about the use of the English term "massacre" and its implications on the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia - I would have supposted doing without this term altogether. It is a poorly defined word, which is very emotionally charged, and therefore not very descriptive. However, this discussion ended up in a politically motivated action, to delete the word "massacre" from descriptions of mass killing events of Israelis by Palestininans, while keeping it in the descriptions of mass killing of Palestinians by Israelis. This is totally unacceptable, and a violation of the NPOV and fairness principles. Furthermore, you cannot just raise a fundamental question like whether or not to use a common word in the English language, and be satisfied with 10 opinions. It is simply not enough considering the nature of the dilemma. There is no rule about how many people should have a say before making a certain decision, but a person should be fair and use his common sense to realize that a certain issue is too controversial and therefore requires further discussion with more people. If the discussion doesn't attract enough people, the person who initiated the discussion may invite people to join it. There is a list of contributors to every article, each of them has a talk page. It's quite a burden to leave so many messages, but if the issue is important , it is worth while to pay the effort. DrorK (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand your argument correctly? You believe that the word massacre is inappropriate, ill-defined, and should not be used in any of the articles dealing with civilian deaths in the Middle East conflict. However, we should restore its use in the case of articles dealing with Israeli deaths, even though it is (in your view) totally inappropriate, because it is used (also inappropriately) in articles about Arab deaths. In other words, make our articles just as bad as theirs.
That's a good idea. It restores the symmetry of diatribe.
Sorry for being sarcastic. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key word here is consistency. Either you use a word or you don't, but you have to be consistent about it. A famous joke says that when the Swedish decided to drive on the right side of the road, some joker suggested that the change be introduced gradually: for the time being only buses should switch sides. The situation created here resembles this joke. You deleted the word "massacre" from certain articles and left it in others, thus you created political bias. Personally, I don't like the word "massacre" and had you deleted it from all articles (at least all of those dealing with the Middle East conflicts), I would have supported you (though other people may disagree). However, the current situation is totally unacceptable. DrorK (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is the appropriate name for an incident, as in Safsaf, in which 52 men are captured by an army, bound, and then shot dead? You are the main person insisting on political considerations here, Drork - it is a bit as if you are insisting that all knifings be called shootings, as a matter of political balance. Tegwarrior (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was right then. You are motivated by emotions and political views rather than by the will to convey information in the most accurate way. You are trying to disguise it by throwing the blame on me. I could ask you in return how you would call an event in which a person blows himself in a room full of elderly people who came to celebrate a religious holiday, with an explicit intention to kill them, but I don't expect an answer. All I want is the acknowledgement that your judgement isn't relevant here, because your emotional involvement, as seen in your posts, is too deep. DrorK (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted above that the Passover suicide bombing is one that I think more reasonably than the others could be called massacre, for reasons that clearly don't interest you. And, I am pretty certainly a lot less emotionally involved than you imagine, and I would hazard, a lot less emotionally involved than you are. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at last we are making progress. Excuse me, Tegwarrior, for reading into your remarks, but what I hear you saying is: I agree that the word "massacre" is a loaded word reeking of propaganda, but I can't think of a better, more neutral word when referring to what happened at Safsaf. So let's see what can be done here.

Please! Read into my remarks. That's what they're there for. Any misunderstanding can be clarified in discussion.
I would actually put it the other way: "massacre" is a word that had become remarkably unburdened with negative connotation. See my comments on it having become a sports metaphor above. But it has, following the Columbine attack, come to be associated with a particular form of attack on innocent victims. (I hope I don't screw things up too much by imposing my responses within your comments.) Tegwarrior (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of terrorist attacks on Jewish targets, the replacement of the word massacre was relatively easy, because a suitable alternative was readily at hand. In the case of Palestinian civilian casualties at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the problem is much more difficult, because of the way editors have chosen to structure the information.

I generally agree, but note that there are attacks against Jewish targets that I believe are correctly called massacres. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a suggestion, which I believe will remove the scent of propaganda from these articles without reducing their information content or emotional impact. Each article titled "xxx massacre" has a sister article titled "xxx". For example, the Safsaf massacre article has a sister article on Safsaf.

I suggest the following: (1) merge the two articles in each case: Safsaf with Safsaf massacre, Deir Yassin with Deir Yassin massacre, and so on. Then (2) write a single article on "Israeli military actions against civilians" and summarize the stories of all these events.

This would have a number of salubrious effects. First, it would make the information more accessible. A reader wouldn't have to look in two different articles to find information about the tragedies that befell a particular Palestinian village, and a reader looking for information on Israeli military actions against civilian targets would not have to look in eight or nine different places. Secondly, it would greatly reduce, if not remove altogether, the impression of propagandizing which is apparent to the most casual reader who isn't emotionally involved with this issue - not the least by removing the word massacre from the titles of the articles. Third, I believe that by combining all the massacre stories into one article, the emotional effect would be stronger, without impinging on the accuracy or objectivity of the writing.

I know this is a major project, much more complex and sensitive than the mere renaming of a slew of articles, but I think it would be worth our while.

I think this is a very good idea, and that actually the framework for this is largely in place: there are articles, or at least lists, connecting most of these events. It would be good to standardize and clean up, though. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Tegwarrior, I thought your analysis of the history of the use of the word massacre was interesting but pretty completely wrong. The word has been current throughout my adult memory, and that covers a heap of years. Here are some events that were called massacres in the mass media over the last 40 years (all of them preceding Columbine):

  • Hama massacre of 1982, 30,000 killed
  • My Lai massacre, 1968, 600 killed
  • Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein, 1989, tens of thousands killed
  • Nigerian civil war, 1970, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands killed
  • Sabra and Shatilla, 1982, 1500 killed (the high estimate)
  • Halabja, 1988, 5000 (Opponents of Assad killed, mostly with poison gas)
  • Tiananmen Square, 1989, 500 dead
  • Bosnia, 1995, 8000 dead
  • Qana, 1996, 106 by artillery fire
  • Algerian civil war 1990s, tens of thousands killed (see List of Algerian massacres of the 1990s)

As I say, all of these were called massacres in the press. Moreover, many of them did not involve small arms - Hama was mostly destroyed by tanks and bombs, the Kurds killed by poison gas, a popular method of killing Ibos was to pack them into a grass hut then burn it, and so on. So neither of your theses - the the word was revived from nonuse by Columbine, and that massacre suggests the use of small arms - is correct. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote before that you live in Israel, but that you are a native English speaker. I don't know the extent to which you have lived in America, but we are an extremely insular society, where events outside our borders, if they are even noted at all, are regarded as almost other-wordly, and certainly as if they have very little directly to do with us. (I personally am very ashamed of this aspect of my country, because along with this exceptional ignorance and disinterest with the rest of the world, we easily do more that affects the rest of the world than any other country. If we were a blind mouse, no big deal; but we are a blind elephant.)
Anyway, in America, these events that you list were noted by a very small portion of the population, and they did not have much effect on our perceptions. Lopsided basketball games were still enthusiastically and without irony or malice called massacres. It was not until the Columbine incident that the word "massacre" returned in the American vernacular to its original meaning.
So I wonder, do you base your disagreement with my history on a strong understanding of American culture? If so, I'm a bit surprised, but I'd like to hear more about how we ended up with such divergent understandings.
Tegwarrior (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that I think most of the events in your list included one aspect of "massacres" that I think is generally missing from suicide bombings, and that is that the attack or attacks are made with impunity. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Added FYI: googling "massacre sports" just now, I just got 2,580,000 hits. The Munich Olympics massacre was #10; the rest of the top 10 are purely about sports results and some are quite recent.) Tegwarrior (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tegwarrior, I really don't understand what you want. This is not an American encyclopedia, but an English language one. English is spoken throughout the world and not only in America. There are also millions of non-native speakers of English who use English resources, and they should be considered too. I also don't understand your remark about impunity. It is very hard to bring a suicide bomber to justice because he usually kills himself while murdering others. If he stays alive he is indeed brought to justice. Israeli soldiers were in several cases accused in Israeli courts of unjust killing of Palestinian civilians and were punished. After the Kafr Qasim massacre, for example, an Israeli court convicted Israeli soldiers for killing civilians, claiming the order they executed was an "obviously illegal order" and therefore should have been refused. I don't see where this discussion leads us, and I wonder if we should go on with it. As I said, the word "massacre" is not the finest in the English lexicon, but this is the word we have to work with, because I don't see how we are going to rephrase all the articles in which it appears, and earasing it selectively is creating a political bias. Just leave things as they were, and let's free our valuable time for more important issues. DrorK (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to List of countries by English-speaking population#List in order of native speakers. Most of the English-speaking population of the world is American.
I have been thinking that "impunity" is not exactly the right word. "At will" is more what I mean, although that is not a broadly used term.
Tegwarrior (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in the United States until 1974. After that time I was a foreign correspondent for AP, and was pretty intimately aware of American press coverage.
A quick search of the New York Times archive shows the word was used 4894 times between 1981 and 1998 (the year before Columbine). And the NYT is very circumspect about using the word.
Perhaps they had a small effect on your perceptions because you weren't paying attention. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fair to say that as a foreign correspondent for the AP, you have had a rarefied perspective on world events, and that impressions that you have gotten are not shared by most people or by very many Americans? Would it also be fair to say that you were not directly exposed to American culture over this time? You don't have to believe me, but I would guess that over my lifetime - and I do, incidentally, pay more attention to foreign events than all but a handful of other Americans that I know, AND I am not particularly a sports fan - when I have heard the term "massacre" used, probably 80%+ of the time it has been in reference to a sporting event. The proportion has, I think, fallen a lot since the Columbine incident. You're obviously free to think that I wasn't paying attention, or to dismiss my account for any other reason you like. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of native English-speakers in the British Isles, the Indian subcontinent and Oceania, not to mention millions of non-native speakers around the world (you may count me among them) and yet you insist that the English of America is the unquestionable standard. I also don't understand your use of the term "at will". I really lost you in this discussion. DrorK (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this discussion? Only to accentuate the total lack of consensus about what the word means and how it has been and should be used? But I thought we already all agreed on that. I thought we all decided that the word massacre has very little place in the Wikipedia, because of its lack of clear definition and its potent connotations of good and evil. So let's get back to the real work at hand - getting rid of it. We got rid of it in about half the articles. How do we get rid of it from the rest? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Let me repeat to you a question I posed to Drork: What do you think is the appropriate name for an incident, as in Safsaf, in which 52 men are captured by an army, bound, and then shot dead? Or if you prefer, what do you think is an appropriate name for an incident, as in Munich, in which gunmen take a group of athletes hostage, make some outrageous demands, and then kill their hostages? In any case, you don't have the consensus you imagine to eliminate the term. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to get rid of it, you'll need to rephrase many articles, and move quite a few of them to new titles. This is a lot of work, and you should consult quite a lot of editors in order to carry it out. As I said above, consistency in using terminology is more important than the accuracy of this terminology. We can live with a term that is not well defined, however we cannot live with different terminology used for similar events. Therefore, you cannot carry out this project gradually. You should replace the word "massacre" in many articles at once. I wish you all the best of luck in pushing forward such a project, but for the time being, you should restore the former status-quo for the sake of consistency. DrorK (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I think we go in the bad direction. Let's satisfy everybody and answer the following question :
  • which articles currently having the word massacre in the title could be moved ?
(and to be constructive, let's try to find one where Palestinian were victims bec. we have just moved 20 where it was the contrary).
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking it as if there were a consensus about the name changing, but there isn't. First of all, as I said here several times, there are not enough people involved in this discussion to make such a radical decision as avoiding a certain word in so many articles. Secondly, it seems to me you don't understand my view of this issue. The former "status quo" should be restored. Either you use the word massacre or you don't. It's not a question of where we can get rid of this word. If we get rid of it, it should be done in all articles all at once. We could addresse as many editors as we can find, have a serious discussion and go on a project to replace the word "massacre" in all articles, preferably also in those dealing with other conflicts. This is not going to happen in the near future, and we are currently not in a position to redefine the word massacre and decide where it should be used. Therefore, until further notice, this discussion should be abandoned, and the "status quo" before it started should be restored. DrorK (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drork, in the table above, you can see that 20 articles (!!) have been titled "massacres", when most of those attacks have not been labeled as so in the media, the way I see it, this is WP:POINT. So clearly we need to set a unified criteria for naming an attack a "massacre", we cannot name every single attack in the I-P conflict with civilian casualties a massacre. Imad marie (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drork,
Apologize me. Indeed, I had not taken your point but I was not convinced by your arguments :-(. I try to answer you.
For my point of view, the idea of statu quo is not applicable to wikipedia. There is no negociation, armistice lines and no reason to stay in a bad situation to avoid an alleged war (???).
I was not happy that User:Imad marie had proceeded to the moves but he warned, asked for reactions before and he has just fulfiled WP:Be bold policy...
My personal view is that we cannot move back to the former titles because most of the new ones seem (to me) more neutral and more accurate. I was a little bit "shocked" by your argumentation that the fact it was better...
On the other way, I agree that all should have been moved at once. That is the reason why I suggest we move forward and go on in the process of renaming some articles. And I suggest, but just to cool down the issues, that we now focus on articles were the victims were Palestinians.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the term "status quo" in quotes, because I didn't use it in its common meaning. What I actually meant was: the last stable versions of these articles that were not affected by this discussion. Now we are talking about two different issues, and we have to focus on one of them:
  1. The use of the word "massacre" - here my view is clear: (a) This issue involves many articles in the English Wikipedia, some of them don't deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict at all. This issue should be discussed by many more editors. (b) Either we use the word or we don't. We cannot confine it to certain articles, or avoid it in certain articles, because then we create a political bias.
  2. Having more accurate names to several articles - some people claim that the word "massacre" is used inaccurately in the titles of several articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. This issue should be discussed per article. The rule of thumb here is that similar events should be described in similar terminology. Race, religion and nationality cannot be regarded as significant differences for that matter.
As for what User:Imad marie did, I truely am sorry for saying that, but the fact that he moved only articles dealing with killing of Israelis by Palestinians, and didn't bother to look into other articles using the word "massacre", lends his action a bad taste rather than boldness. DrorK (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are making bad judgments, and also not recognizing the problem we had. Creating a series of 20 articles entitled "massacres" is ridiculous, and disruptive. If you think that the same problem exists on the opposite side, then go ahead and suggest a change. Imad marie (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I suggest we stop discussing about what should have been done or not be done because this is going to slip in a bad direction. I think for the global picture, having only cared about articles were Israelis are victims could only lead to problems. And here are they. :-(
But that is done.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceedjee, where did pro-Palestinian editors create such long list of "massacres" articles? AFAIK, all the massacre articles with Palestinian victims are called so in the media. Imad marie (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DrorK,
I think you are rigth concering point 1a. This doesn't just concern articles related to I-P conflict . On the other hand, concering 1b, the answer of the community will be to fulfil wikipedia rules with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Undue and WP:NPoV and we would discuss much for nothing concrete (I fear). So, I would suggest we don't use other arguments that these ones...
For 2, I would say that I (personally) prefer the new title of all the articles that were recently modified. So, I would say, what would be next...
What are the different minds concerning RavPapa's idea : the merging of Deir Yassin massacre into Deir Yassin (and the quivalent ones) ?
I already said I didn't agree (because nobody knows Deir Yassin except for the massacre) but the big advantage would be to "neutralize" once for all the issue. If Deir Yassin is only known for its massacre then there is no need to remind in the title there was one : see Titanic and not Titanic naufrage. bad exemple : Sinking of the RMS Titanic and RMS Titanic.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should treat the Kafr Qassem killing as an event type 1, and the suicide bombing in the Sbaro restaurant as an event type 2. There are different circumstances of course, but if you call one of them "massacre" then the other one should be called "massacre" as well. I don't think it is a good idea to incorporate the Deir Yassin massacre into the article about Deir Yassin. There is a lot to say about this historical village (it doesn't exist anymore) which is not related to the massacre, and there is a lot to say about the massacre which is not directly related to the village. We cannot solve POV problems by compromising the proper way to convey information. DrorK (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, the article on Deir Yassin is three paragraphs long, and all three deal directly or indirectly with the Irgun action there. What is the "lot to say about this historical village" that you have to add? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Deir Yassin article actually deals with what happened there in 1948, then it should indeed be merged with the other article, however a "red link" should be left for anyone who wishes to write about the village itself. I am not too acquainted with the history of this specific village, but we have articles about all kinds of villages and locations. I wouldn't discourage anyone who wishes to write about the residents and their life until the village was destructed in 1948. DrorK (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A way out ?[edit]

Hi, there is a disagreement. As I see it, there is a consensus to say that the word massacre is not the best but no consensus concerning the way to deal with this issue. Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using RS[edit]

User:Jayjg has renamed the Passover attack to "massacre" per RS. Personally I don't mind that, if it's OK everyone this rule can be applied for all. Imad marie (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complain with User:Jayjg or discuss it here or on the talk page, but playing tit-for-tat games is childish and so kindergarten. And if you are moving pages, then at least fix double redirects. If you don't have the time to do that, then just don't move the page. Novidmarana (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the right place to discuss the move, the scope of this is beyond the article's or the editor's talk pages, and I posted a notification about my comment here on the concerned editors talk pages.
Now, I really hope we can set a standard for using the term, Jayjg seems to tend to use RS, and I tend to use RS too. Imad marie (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You somehow missed similarly renaming the Deir Yassin massacre, Qibya massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Safsaf massacre, Arab al-Mawasi massacre, Eilabun massacre, al-Kabri massacre, Balad al-Shaykh massacre, Ein al-Zeitun massacre, etc. Work on those first. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massacres exist on both sides, but the way I see it, the pro-Israeli side overused the term. Imad marie (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the anti-Israeli side overuses the tactic. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're in the news, sort of[edit]

"Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia," HonestReporting.

"The entry 'Massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war,' for example, lists only those allegedly committed by Jews."

Tegwarrior (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this was your idea, I congradulate you for your sucess. I don't see, however, how it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia project. DrorK (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war[edit]

Hi, going on the former discussion...
This article is currently ok but very poor extremelly sensitive. I think we should rename this Massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War.
The reasons are :

  • giving a list is not a good way of editing wikipedia. We should comment such events and expand this to an article. But not performing WP:PR. I have references and analyses of the "massacre" aspect of these events and coming from several historians with different feeling (Benny Morris , Ilan Pappe , Yoav Gelber , Rashid Khalidi)
  • 1948 Arab Israel War -> 1948 Palestine War is not a pro-Israeli bias. The fact is rather that the war didn't last from 15 mai 1948 to mid 49 but started on 30 nov 47 and lasted to mid 49 in what scholars name the 1948 Palestine War
  • massacres were performed from both sides but against Jews only before 15 mai 1948. Starting reporting the events only after 15 mai gives the feeling only Arab Palestinians were massacred.

I will do all the jobs, answering all comments, but before starting the job, I would like to get some global agreement on the principles...
Don't hesitate to ask any questions or make any comment ! Ceedjee (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "1948 Palestine War" could be regarded as a pro-Palestinian bias. This name may seem neutral, but it actually follows Arab conventions. "1948 Arab Israel War" sounds much more neutral, at least for those who are acquainted with the different namings in the different languages involved, even though it is not 100% accurate, because the State of Israel was established on the 14th of May 1948, while the war started on the 30th of November 1947. There were events after the 14th of May that might be regarded as massacres or war crimes against Jews, although they weren't carried out by Palestinians who lost most of their power by this time, but rather by Arab soldiers from the various armies which invaded Palestine/Israel. DrorK (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrorK,
I agree with you that 1948 Palestine War is felt as pro-Palestinian by many people. The problem is that it is the name used by all historians to refer to that war (even strongly pro-Israeli). As far as I know, it doens't follow Arab conventions. This has already been debated and the consensus was to used historians wording... (I try to find the link and add this).
What massacres were performed by Arabs after May 15 against Israelis ?
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles I read about this war were written either in Hebrew or in Arabic, and in these languages the difference in terminology is very noticeable. If the "1948 Palestine War" is indeed a common term in English, and does not carry significant political connotations for the avarage English speaker, then I don't mind using it. The rule of thumb here is whether I can tell by the terminology whether the writer is Israeli or Palestinian. If the term "1948 Paletine War" for itself leaves me ignorant about the writer identity, then it is okay. DrorK (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "1948 Palestine War" is a term that is hardly used universally by scholars today. It is called the 1948 Arab-Israel War by Lacquer, Shapira, Gerber (who, in addition to calling it the "war in Palestine", also refers to it as the War of Independence), and many others.
Nor is the statement that "massacres were performed from both sides but against Jews only before 15 mai 1948" accurate. It is true that during the war of 1948 Arabs did not massacre Jews, but only because they were busy losing the war. However, from 1951 to 1956 1300 Israeli civilians were killed or wounded by Fedayeen crossing the border from Jordan. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa,
Sorry but you are wrong. The big majority of today's scholars talk about the 1948 Palestine War. [see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_War#References]. I asked GH where he archived the former discussion concerning this. (Laqueur wrote a book about '48 war ?).
According to Benny Morris, in 1948 - conclusions, after may 48, Arabs did not massacre Jews because they had not opportunity to do so... Nevertheless he points out that when the Jewish Old City surrender on 29 May, the Arab Legion soldiers protected all their prisonners and none of them were injured (whereas all Irgun and Haganah members expected to be massacred!). 2 Arab irregulars were even shot when they wanted to attack prisonners...
That is an exemple of the material I would like to develop in the article.
Before 15 May, there is of course, the Kfar Eztion massacre, Hadassah convoy and some others.
I don't know why you talk about that but from 1951 to 1956, according to Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, a few hundreds of Israelis were killed (not massacred) between '49 and '56 and... between 2700 and 5000 Palestinian Arabs.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, look at 1948 Arab-Israeli War#References. I have not read them all, but most of them refer to the war as the Arab-Israel war or the War of Independence. And the list of references there is considerably longer than the list in the Palestinian version of the article on the same (or approximately the same) topic. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for your comment that hundreds of defenseless Israeli civilian victims of Fedayeen terrorism were "killed" but not "massacred" - it only accentuates my point that the word massacre has no place in the Wikipedia where this discussion is concerned.
I am being deliberately provocative, because I feel a bit cheated by the way this discussion has gone. I thought we had a consensus that the word massacre was to be avoided in all articles. But, after it was eliminated from articles about Israeli casualties, suddenly the consensus disappeared.
Not that, from my own POV, I am particularly upset. Because I believe that the liberal use of the word massacre in articles dealing with Arab civilian deaths, combined with the polemic and defensive style of writing of most of these articles, only reduces their quality and reliability in the eyes of most readers.
Incidentally, I suppose you know that Benny Morris has repudiated many of his conclusions since writing that book. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cover too many points in the same edit. I cannot answer all of these (for clarity).
What you say about Benny Morris is not at all right. But this is the issue here and has nothing to do with all that have been said before. I suggest we focus on the issue of the word massacre and the 1948 issue and do not jumb in all directions.
What you say about the references in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War is not correct. They deal about the whole A-I conflict but when they focus on that war, that is not the case (see below). Ceedjee (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note here that Wikipedia distinguished between two phases of the war: The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which started on November 30, 1947, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which started with the Israeli declaration of independence. -- Nudve (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is this article about? 1948 Palestine war --Ravpapa (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered about that myself. I think it serves best as a disambiguation page of sorts between the two aforementioned phases of the war. -- Nudve (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Here is what was said before here concerning the topic of the 1948 Palestine War : [2]
As a summary : the 1948 Arab-Israeli War started on 15 May, 1948. But the war between Palestinians and Jews started as soon as 30 November 1947. Historians refer to the full period as the 1948 Palestine War and there is no more study that is published on the period that start the events at 15 May; all start them at 30 Nov.
@Ravpapa. Being upset and provocative is not an issue. But try to stay cool anyway :-)
Ceedjee (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RavPapa and others on this subject. The Jewish-Muslim conflict did not begin after WWII. See the article 1929 Hebron massacre for references. Actually the conflicts predate WWI. Phil Burnstein (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/About_the_use_of_the_word_massacre&oldid=1037752878"