Talk:1990 Temple Mount killings

Title Not Appropriate ?
When I google search in English "Temple Mount Riots" in get 360,000 hits. When I search "Al Aqsa Massacre" I get 1,160,000. When I search this title "1990 Temple Mount Riots" ONLY 70,300! What gives ? I thought the policy at Wikipedia was clear. By ALL rights it should be Al Aqsa Massacre- EVEN if or exactly because the word massacre is offensive to those who perpetrated this crime condemned unanimously in the UN security Council. The USA voted for condemning Israel only 1 time in roughly 35 years.

Yeah, same.This is a massacre we are talking about here but the title clearly accuses the Palestinians of rioting, yet in the article it says “Palestinians on the Temple Mount began throwing stones at Jews worshiping, on a religious holiday, at the Western Wall below”,then it says “Zeev Schiff, the respected defense correspondent of the newspaper Haaretz, said the Palestinians began throwing stones only after mosques in the nearby village of Silwan announced through loudspeakers that Jewish extremists had come there”.Basically,there were defending their mosque from these extremists who were going to tear it down. That's not right.--Da Dashz (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research
Original research: Large parts of this article are based on how the interpretation of a video instead of external and reliable sources. POV: Sentences such as "These are the Al Aqsa Martyrs and their wounds" or "though no Israeli was injured enough to stay in hospital" are not exactly NPOV. It also doesn't help that no reliable source calls these riots Al Aqsa Massacre. There has been a lengthy discussion on when to use the word massacre on the Wikiproject Israel-Palestine collobaration, and given the contentiousness of the word massacre, reliable sources calling it massacre are needed, and google news search only gives eight hits, and of those most are not reliable. Novidmarana (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing Original About It
Are you suggesting this was a riot by Palestinians ? This is refuted in almost all reports of the event in every media after the initial reports. In fact Mike Wallace based his report for 60 mins exactly on this point - How wrong the initial press reports were - that this was more war crime than crowd control. As evidence, Mike Wallace states that "not one Israeli spent more than a night in hospital - That is NOT original research or biased - It is fact. Same with the Village Voice, see wikipedia . These are not nuetral or credible sources ? PHRIC was considered by the US State Department as a "credible Source" as a result of the report mentioned in the article . PHRIC delivered the death certificates of the dead and they were confirmed by the UN.

That is why the UN Security Council- a credible organisation, with out the US veto, demanded the investigation - The US Ambassador voted FOR it. I suppose the US Ambassador was biased against Israel ?!?!

Had this been an riot by Palestinians, the wounds should have consistently been in the legs as Israeli Military claims is standard practice for crowd control. International law forbids shooting unarmed civilians - Riot or not !

Additionally, had this been a riot by Palestinians , endangering public saftey , this matter would be long forgotten and not a nagging - violence inspiring tool of extremists. The world, including you , should refute this article with nuetral facts , and not a nuetrality tag or NPOV/POV.

Calling this a riot, in light of the extensive research of credible press and non governmental - governmental organistaions , as well as describing these orgaisations as not credible , is in itself POV editing.

I entirely disagree.

alaqsa81090 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Alaqsa81090alaqsa81090 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So bascially you are saying that all the initial press reports are wrong, but that Mike Wallace corrected this, what means that we should entirely focus this article on his specific POV and treat his observations as a fact? Nope, that is not what NPOV means. NPOV also does not mean that we should suppress that the CBS report was hugely controversial and heavily criticed at his time. It also does not mean that we do not mention at all what has happened before the riots broke out, that the march of the Temple Mount Faithful was banned, that stones were thrown on worshippers and so on. This is a very one-sided depiction of the events, and while you do not need to agree with the other side of the story, the other side of the story needs to be mentioned, too. There is also no place in this article for the interpretation of a single video, and the commenting on the Zimir commission report, claiming that the video shows something different is entirely inappropriate, see No original research for that. And the language is still strongly POV. And the title is not appropriate, too as it is not the name under which these riots are commonly known. And so on and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RS source calls it a massacre...Michael P. Prior (1999) Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry Routledge, ISBN 0415204623 p 93, rioters don't go around shooting themselves in the head....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli press reports should be discounted as RS as Israel is Politically motivated to lessen their own culpability...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Blaming the Victim
The intial reports were wrong - The NRSK TV Norway report a year later came to the same conclusions as 60mins Mike Wallace, the Village Voice article Sects , Lies and Videotape as well. By calling this a riot you imply that POV of intial reports that Palestinians, started it , endangered Israeli worshippers etc. were correct , but over time as the facts are looked at , such "riot " claims are just feable attempts to blame the victims. Typical for western press, who self-censor not to offend Israel , to make Palestians responsible for the loss of their land , now to justify the masssacre.

The analysis of 1 Video should change or correct all press reports that came before ????

Let us add a section on the second video of the Massacre/ Riot. CBS s 60 min Mike Wallace shows a video of stones thrown by Palestinians over the Western Wall. The world saw it in the intial reports. Cut from that video was a pan down to where the Israelis were praying. Surprise there were NO Israelis there. They had already been evacuated to safety. The second video shows the thrown stones landing on an empty Wailing Wall Plaza. This second tape explains why no Israeli spent more than a night in hospital, because no one was there when the stones were thrown - Wallce was right to release both videos to back up his evidence. Anyone, including a Jew, who holds Israel to account is criticized.

Because Mike wallace was critisized means that his facts are wrong ?!?! He is one of the most repected journalists in America.That is another fact.

Additionally, there are other journalists in the rest of the world who do not self-censor (or censor as you appearently are attempting to do) and they have not been silenced - Your comment that nothing from reliable sources was found on a search of google news is surprising and VERY POV. Who may I ask are you to evaluate what is reliable ?!?! Is that not a little ethno - ego centric ? Because something is reported differently, in another language , from a perspective different from yours it is not reliable or does not exist. You seem hasty to be un-objective.

Try a google search and see how many hits you get for Al Aqsa Massacre. You can not revise, edit , or delete it all ! No matter how much a revisionist you really are !

Blaming the victim does NOT work.

I am too busy to debate this further, will improve the article , and release more video such as interviews with the "martyrs" families, pictures of their death certificates etc.

And you can continue in vain to revise history.

89.217.46.127 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Alaqsa8109089.217.46.127 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow the tone of you response does not make me very confident that you are interested in a neutral article. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR and refrain from accusations of censorship and revisionism. All I did was pointing out that there are different views on this incident, something this article does not mention at all. I also pointed out that personal interpretation and analysis of a video has no place in the article. And lastly, the language is hardly NPOV and the sources given are not verifiable, please provide proper citations so that other can check the sources. Novidmarana (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So I deleted most of what is here on the grounds that it is a mixture of POV and OR. Feel free to rewrite but keep in mind that personal interprations of videos have no places, sources should be reliable and should not be cherrypicked to support only a certain POV. Even if you do not agree with the Israeli, the Israeli version is notable and must be in the article in the interest of neutrality. There was some factual material in the article, but given that it was intermixed with OR and POV statements it would have been hard to save this material. Novidmarana (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

using the perpetrators account as though it is RS is misleading and and an inaccurate method of compiling an article. I'm sure Ted Bundy would love to write up his side of the story to lessen his crimes..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikicensorship ?
Having checked Novidmarana`s talk page, I see that this person or people may be using multiple names, AKAs. That this person or people have been accused of wiki-stalking - POV editing - being a Sock Puppet and violating wiki rules ( see the talk page of novidmarana). As it will be impossible to develop the article under his / her / their subjective POV style editing - I choose NOT to wiki war - rage.

Additionally, I call into question if anything wiki is possible under this person`s /peoples norrow vision.

PLEASE READ HIS/HER/THEIR TALK PAGE !

84.227.142.232 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)AlAqsa8109084.227.142.232 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks and from unfounded accusations. If you want to discuss the content of this article do so; if you want to accuse other of censorship etc. do it somewhere else. I stated above why the first article version is not suitable for Wikipedia. I understand that you are in possession of a video that in your opinion proves what has really happened. Unfortunately that is completely irrelevant for this article, as Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If you want to change how this event is perceived by the press and the world, then by all means, lobby, open your own webpage, write letters to the editor. But Wikipedia is the wrong place for this kind of advocacy.


 * Again, I invite to edit this article, if you are willing to respect WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Even if you think that you know the truth, you have to respect that other people disagree and have to acdept that other peoples viewpoint has its place in the article, too. If you feel that the initial press coverage was wrong, then this should be mentioned, instead of assuming that only coverage by CBS depicts the truth. The reason is not only WP:NPOV, but also that this change in the tone of the press coverage would be notable in itself. Novidmarana (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of text
Well, apparently it has been discussed already on this talk page, without a result, but lots of fighting. Sounds like this could be an important article, but only if sourcing and neutrality is of a high standard. Using a youtube video and interpreting this video violates WP:OR, the language is not exactly neutral, the article mainly describes the point of view of one side and the sourcing is atrocious. Surely there must be better sources, newspaper articles, academic studies or whatever. Sorry if I deleted viable parts, but the main part was a mess, and distangling the good from the bad would be more work than starting from scratch. Afroghost (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of editing is to do exactly what you say is too difficult. If you can't be bothered or are unable to do edit then leave it for other more able editors....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and editors watching videos
Can the various editors inserting this material please explain how a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of various videos, including Youtube videos, complies with WP:NOR and WP:V? Can they explain what makes alaqsa81090 (YouTube) or alaqsamassacre81090 (IKBIS) a reliable source? Can they explain how phrases like "One can clearly see in this video that they were not in any immediate danger" comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV? Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If videos aren't supposed to be cited then why does this exist? — [ Unsigned .]
 * That exists to help cite reliable and verifiable videos. Youtube definitely is neither. prashanthns (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What would annonymous have to do to get the videos accepted as sources? Ask CBS for the master tapes? Factsontheground (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The CBS report should do. It should be available right? prashanthns (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is going to pick out the relevant pieces of footage from it? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

useful link
One day when this becomes a real article, this link will come in handy. I don't feel like jumping into the fray on the actual article page right now, so you guys feel free to do with this as you will. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1988-1992/165%20Summary%20of%20a%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inqui —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest that the new article The first massacre of Al-Aqsa Mosque be merged here, as it appears to be WP:Content forking following edit wars at this article. MuffledThud (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to merge here. Chesdovi (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: it would make more sense to just AfD the other article, considering it is completely unsourced. Cute article name though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to merge here. Did it.Achamy (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

POV
Request to organize the article as so. 1) Background/Overall 2) Palestinian narrative 3) Israeli narrative. There are clearly contradicting and polarizing viewpoints on this issue. Wikipedia is not around to take a political stance but to show ALL sides of the issue and leave the reader up to decide. This is NOT a polemic or an Op-ed. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia. Achamy (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
I tagged this article with a POV tag. Among many other problems, it reads like an op-ed, the fact Jewish worshipers were attacked is hardly mentioned and isn't in the lead, the term "massacre" is used in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1990 Temple Mount riots → Al Aqsa Massacre — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC) As the sources in the article (or a quick Google search) show, this is the far more common name for the event. And the notability of the event had nothing to do with the riots, but rather with the killings of the rioteers. Night w2 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Night w2

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose The common usage name of this location in English is "Temple Mount" rather than "Al Aqsa". Even if "al-Aqsa Massacre" gets a few more hits than "Temple Mount riots", neither phrase gets enough hits be considered a common usage name. "Al Aqsa massacre" strikes me as more strongly POV. This name was used by the PLO as the title of several books and a video, and this seems to explain the higher hit count. Kauffner (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- "Massacre" is POV. Furthermore, I thought that Al Aqsa was the name of a mosque, not of the whole mount (but I maty be wrong).  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I have some cocerns as to the neutrality of the proposed title. It the very least Massacre sould in lower case.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that it is demonstrated to be the most common designation for the event, it would be most neutral to use that name (cf. Senkaku Islands); picking an alternative, lesser-used name would be picking sides. I don't think capitalisation is a big deal, though since it be a title it would be most grammatically correct to capitalise it (cf. My Lai Massacre, Dak Son Massacre), but again, I don't consider this a big deal. Night w2 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where has it been "demonstrated to be the most common designation for the event"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nomination above, a simple Google search will bring up 35,800 (including 69 books) for "Al Aqsa Massacre" v. 6,640 (including 15 books) for 1990 "Temple Mount riots". According to the BBC, the current title is what Israelis call the event, while the proposed title is what it is dubbed by Palestinians. "Taking a side" seems inevitable, but policy dictates that we use the most common designation in order to maintain a sense of neutrality. Night w2 (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting slightly different results on google.com compared to your .my search, but 1990 "temple mount riots" gets more hits than 1990 "al aqsa massacre". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "1990" isn't part of the proposed name. The "1990" in the current title (and in Google searches) is necessary since there were also riots in 2000. Night w2 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2000 riots are also occasionally referred to as "al Aqsa Massacre". Also, notice that most of the results are for a video from Norway, and a surprisingly large amount from posts by some guy named alaqsa81090. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/23/IMG/NR057523.pdf?OpenElement
 * In 1990 Temple Mount riots on 2011-05-25 05:52:08, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 1990 Temple Mount riots on 2011-06-08 00:02:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

1990 Temple Mount riots → 1990 Temple Mount killings – The reason the incident is remembered and often referred to as a massacre is because Israeli Border Police killed 17 Palestinians and injured 150 more. Calling it a "riot" is incorrect because it misses the point and because the Palestinians don't think there was a riot (no material damage to al-Haram f.e). "Al-Aqsa massacre" is of course the proper name, but that one has already been discarded. Im The IP (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the terminology used by sources, not neutral. The Palestinian mob was incited by the terrorist group Hamas and preachers who called on them to attack via the loudspeakers. They attacked not only the police keeping order on the mount, but also hurled large blocks of stone at peaceful Jewish worshipers a hundred feet below at the Western Wall plaza. The police, which initially used non-lethal means, switched to live fire due to the risk to themselves and peaceful civilians. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 11Fox11's description of the Temple Mount killings is one-sided. As is the Wikipedia article itself which appears to have been "lobotomized" of a lot of useful content. The event is remembered because of the large number of Palestinian casualties - not because of any supposed rioting. Im The IP  (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose So called "Source analysis" is cherry picking partisan sources to fit the narrative. Per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME we shouldn't change the name --Shrike (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, selective presentation of pro-Palestinian sources unconvincing. For sure this riot is remembered due to the large amount of casualties, but calling it "killings" omits important context of the larger event in which they were killed, violent riots against Police and Jewish prayer-goers. Should 1992 Los Angeles riots be moved to 1992 Los Angeles killings? I think not, not neutral.--Hippeus (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "1992 Los Angeles killings" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. If you think my presentation is "selective" then feel free to add sources showing that "Temple Mount riots" is the preferred name. Im The IP  (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

*Support Based on the fact that most reliable sources refer to it as "killings" or "massacre" vs "riots", as seen in the section called "Source Analysis", this article should be renamed as per the suggestion. Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The user don't have 500 edits yet so cannot !vote --Shrike (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As per Source analysis.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as while the amount killed is significant the event was wider as there was a large riot. Free1Soul (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The sources clearly favor either killing or massacre. Although it is not unusual for Wikipedia to use the term massacre (1929 Hebron massacre or Cave of the Patriarchs massacre for example) I prefer the more neutral "killings". It is notable that relatively few sources favor the euphemistic "riots". The title should further reflect what actually occurred and it is clear from the sources that the principal issue here is the disproportionate response by Israeli authorities in breach of International Law, condemned across the board, including, unusually, by the United States. I note that this article would appear to have been thoroughly whitewashed over the years in favor of the Israeli narrative and I have made edits to remedy this deficiency.Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Compare 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, in which hundreds or thousands of people were killed, but is still called "protests", since that was the cause and the killing were only the result. Likewise, this article is about the incident. The nature of the incident was a riot. In the incident there were killings. But the main subject of the article remains the incident, which at present is reflected in the name of this article. If the name of this article were to be changed to "killings" or "massacre", it would imply that the incident was a planned killing or massacre, which it was not. This was a riot, which escalated, with people getting killed in the proces. Note that there is a redirect from Tiananmen Square Massacre to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and I propose to make a redirect 1990 Temple Mount massacre as well and redirect it here. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OTHERSTUFF and not a policy-based argument. I'll also note that the Hosay massacre is not called the Hosay riots, the Kent State shootings is not called the Kent State riots, the Jackson State killings is not called the Jackson State riots, the Sharpeville massacre is not called the Sharpeville riots, the Langa massacre is not called the Langa riots, the Lattimer massacre is not called the Lattimer riots, the Marikana massacre is not called the Marikana riots, the Orangeburg massacre is not called the Orangeburg riots, and so on. Im The IP  (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so that is not "other stuff"? In any case, my argument is valid, sorry. I don't know why those other articles are called the way they are called, perhaps they are misnamed, in any case, this is not a "massacre" but a simple riot that got out of hand and got a few protesters killed. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I can understand your desire to imply that it's the Palestinians fault for rioting, something which is not actually known for a fact, read the reports, other than the Israeli one obviously. There are two problems with this, first, I can extend your faulty logic and say it is the fault of the extremist stone layers and then their parents for having them and so on and secondly, more importantly, only one side had access to automatic weapons and used them indiscriminately on civilians (that is a fact) resulting in a large number of wholly unnecessary deaths. Easily referred to as a massacre but I can live with killings.Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not implying anything, although usually rioting is not appreciated by any government, and is frowned upon in most cases. In this case, the "rioting" was accompanied by coordinated acts of violence, so yes, I'd say the perpetrators were at fault by all standards. If a violent mob can't be stopped by peaceful means, it will be stopped with violence. It may have been excessive or not, that is not the issue here. In any case, please refrain from personal insinuations.
 * Calling this a "killing" or even "massacre" reflects from the real issue of the article, which is the riots, their background, their progression, including, but not more than that, the killings that occurred during them. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument is based on WP:COMMONNAME. As shown in the source analysis below, the Common Name for this event is either the Al Aqsa/Temple Mount massacre/killings but not the "Temple Mount riots". Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not editors' opinions. kindly revert the edit to the list of the sources. Both you and Debresser are involved in this discussion and it is not your job to reformat your opponents' arguments.  Im The IP  (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what your argument is based upon. And I disagree with the application of that argument. When writing this encyclopedia we are not bound to sources in all details. In this case sources seem to predominantly use an exaggerated name. Some use the more neutral name, some don't, for whatever reasons. We should use the name that best fits this incident, which is "riot".
 * If I shouldn't have collapsed the list of sources, then you shouldn't have reverted my edit... In any case, my edit was repeated by another editor,, so there seems to be some kind of consensus that your wall of text is not needed. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * My strongest argument is the sheer number of sources that either use the term "massacre" or "killings". Thus, you must understand why an edit that can be construed as "hiding" your opponent's arguments would be an unwelcome edit. There is no "consensus" or policies that allows people to reformat their opponents' talk page comments, so please don't do it.


 * Your claim that the word "killings" is exaggerated perhaps stems from your unfamiliarity with the event? Israeli Border Police killed 21 Palestinians and wounded 150-200 more in about 30-45 minutes. That level of violence is much more intense than many of the articles which calls similar events "massacres". Im The IP  (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "My strongest argument is the sheer number of sources" You have stated your argument ad nauseam. "Your claim that the word "killings" is exaggerated perhaps stems from your unfamiliarity with the event" Now you are holding me for a fool. I think you really should allow editors to disagree with you. Don't try to own this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Source analysis
I've conducted an analysis on how scholarly sources (here defined as published journal articles or books) refer to the event. According to my count, 25 refer to the event as a "massacre" (15 for "Temple Mount massacre", 2 for "Haram al-Sharif massacre" and 8 for "Al-Aqsa massacre") and 18 to "killings" (16 for "Temple Mount killings" and 2 for "Al-Aqsa killings"). I haven't counted how many refer to the event as "Temple mount riots" yet, but the number of such sources appear to be in the minority. Most usages of the term "Temple Mount riots" refer to the riots following Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on September 30, 2000. Since "massacre" implies "killings," I contend that there are 25+18 = 43 scholarly sources supporting the title "Temple Mount killings" and many fewer for "Temple Mount riots." Im The IP (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):



"Haram al-Sharif massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):



"Temple Mount massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):



"Temple mount killings"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):



"Al-aqsa killings"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):



"Temple Mount riots"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "temple mount riots" (6):



ImtheIP, since the source analysis is an integral part of your reasoning, I think you should move this paragraph and the collapsed section up the page to where your initial comments are otherwise editors will be confused and think this is a separate discussion about something else. At the very least your initial comments should point to this section. And yes, I agree with you that it is a breach of the talk page guidelines, as well as just simple bad manners, for editors to unilaterally reformat your work.Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussion, not long one-sides posts. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is incredibly poor form by these two gentlemen. I'll more the section tomorrow and if they reformat it again I'll have to file an administrator complaint. Their behavior is completely unacceptable. Im The IP  (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

1990 Temple Mount riots → 1990 Temple Mount killings – The RM immediately above on a straight count was 5 to 3 against the proposal. 3 of the 5 were socks of a well known sockmaster and another was since topicbanned. In addition, the extensive source analysis (repeated here) clearly shows either killings or massacre as the NPOV name and the current name as POV. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):



"Haram al-Sharif massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):



"Temple Mount massacre"
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):



"Temple mount killings"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):



"Al-aqsa killings"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):



"Temple Mount riots"
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "temple mount riots" (6):




 * Neither. The trouble with analyzing sources is that Israeli sources will coalesce around one point-of-view while Palestinian sources another. "It was a riot." "No, it was just protests." "It was killings." "No, not just killings, a massacre!" How can Wikipedia be neutral? 1990 Temple Mount clusterfuck? The previous RM cited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests as an example. Since then, that's been moved to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre per this discussion. Based on the current lead sentence, perhaps 1990 Temple Mount riots and Al Aqsa massacre. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: A quick check on google scholar shows 30 hits for 'Temple Mount killings', 23 hits for the stronger still 'Temple Mount massacre', 25 hits for 'al-aqsa massacre', and 25 hits for 'Temple Mount riots'. Overall it is quite clear that 'Temple Mount' is in the name in majority usage, while 'killings' (and/or 'massacre') is the prevalent descriptor of events. Also per NPOV. This source, (while yes a final thesis,) is rather instructive on the balance of terminology: "In 1990, twenty Palestinians were killed and one hundred fifty wounded by Israeli police in what is known as the “Al-Aqsa massacre” by Palestinians, and “Temple Mount Riots” by common Israeli view." Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support Temple Mount massacre, since that is also majoritarian terminology across the various word combinations (50 hits across the two 'massacre' variants on scholar, versus 30 for 'killings' and just 25 for 'riots'). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There you go. “Temple Mount Riots” by common Israeli view and “Al-Aqsa massacre” by Palestinians. Therefore "1990  and " for a neutral point-of-view: 1990 Temple Mount riots and Al Aqsa massacre. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the source analysis there aren't really any Palestinian sources, the majority of outside (ie independent) sources use killings or massacre. There is no need to pander to the minority in this case. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A similar "source analysis" was presented in the previous RM and I note one of the opinions expressed there: So called "Source analysis" is cherry picking partisan sources to fit the narrative. A problem with this is that these cited articles may have a different focus than this Wikipedia article; their scope may be different. I think a better approach is to analyze the content of this Wikipedia article to evaluate whether the current title best reflects the content of the article. I see "riots" appears twice in the lead and then three times in its categorization: Category:1990 riots, Category:Riots and civil disorder in Israel, and Category:Riots and civil disorder under Israeli Civil Administration. Perhaps "riots" are described in the article body, but they aren't labeled as such there. The body discusses "throwing stones" or "missiles". I suppose that could be construed as rioting, but it could also be construed as self defense. "Killings" just appears in the Short description "Riots and killings of Palestinians in Jerusalem during the First Intifada" (along with "riots", supporting my "why not both?" view), and in a report published in Journal of Palestine Studies listed under §Notes (which belies the idea that "there aren't really any Palestinian sources" – clearly that's a Palestinian source). I see under §International response that the UN "Expresses alarm at the violence which took place" – there's the "clusterfuck" term I was looking for! A better, more concise title would be 1990 Temple Mount violence. The article's lead and body can then describe the nature of the violence as throwing stones or rioting and killings or a massacre. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The main point is that "riots" are POV and no-one has adduced any evidence in contradiction of that and we have sourcing explicitly confirming it is the Israeli POV. Massacre is a bolded aka/redirect so that has already been accepted, I also support that title but I am not going to make a song and dance about it when killings is a slam dunk. The cats are just a function of the existing POV title and will be deleted if there is a new title so that's neither here nor there. So called "Source analysis" is cherry picking partisan sources to fit the narrative is just an evidence free assertion and therefore worthless. I can equally cherry pick the UN report Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life, the only human life lost being Palestinian, due to their being killed by Israeli forces. The Journal of Palestine Studies is a US journal with US editors published by TnF (England). I suppose one can forgive someone thinking that's a Palestinian source merely because it says "Palestine" in the title. Last but not least, no need for a new invented descriptive title when we have commonname available (killings or massacre). Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rashid Khalidi is or was editor-in-chief. Based on his Wikipedia bio I'm unconvinced that the journal doesn't lean Palestinian in its views. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He's an American historian born in New York City. But moreover, this is just ridiculous. It's a peer-reviewed international publication. End of. It also publishes Israeli academics. Ofc. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, support as an improvement on the current title, based on the Ngram. "Killings" was the dominant contemporaneous term. "Violence" is not an invented term, it actually led "riots" in contemporaneous usage. Views became more polarized circa 2010 as "massacre" and "riots" took the lead, but "killings" has since made a comeback. Violence has sunk to fourth place. I suppose killings are more violent than mere stone-throwing. We should invite back since they were active in the November 2020 discussion and are still active on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Idk if it was ever lifted but I thought that they are subject of an indef tban in Arbpia area Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is clear that these were riots in which 17 people were killed, so this should stay at the present title. People get killed in riots. In addition, I don't think that 17 qualifies as massacre, although this is clearly my subjective opinion. In any case, it is clear from the article that this was a provocation by rioters, and using the name "massacre" here only plays into their political agenda. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Was your tban lifted? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea. I saw a notification that I was mentioned, so added my opinion. That topic-ban was instituted a good few years ago, don't these things expire? Debresser (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If the link I gave above is the relevant, it was an indef, I think you would have to ask for it to be lifted, maybe check with ElC? Anyway, if it is in place, you ought to delete your comments here as you will be in breach otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll ask him. In any case, I came in good faith, as I saw in a notification that I was mentioned here. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure. And I am sure wbm1058 pinged you in good faith as well. Nevertheless, tho... Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't actively follow or attempt to stay up-to-date on the WP:AEDR list, but I don't see listed there. I hate to see the balance of consensus decided by behavioral issues and don't see any problem with allowing Debresser's !vote to stand, but advise him to tread lightly with his responses to other editors, since he's on everyone's radar. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean but I'm sure that you would not want to send out the message to all those persons in receipt of a tban that they are now free to participate in RFCs, RMs and so on, thereby rendering the whole point and purpose of a tban moot? If the tban is lifted, that's different (btw I did mention it albeit indirectly in my nom statement). Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I searched the page histories of Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee, Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community, and Editing restrictions/Voluntary, and I didn't find any history of editing restrictions ever imposed on Debresser. If you find anything I missed, let me know. His block log shows three limited-duration blocks in 2021, the most recent was a 1 month Arbitration enforcement (Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles) Topic ban violation but again I'm not seeing where this ban was formally recorded. The available sanctions include five items relating to sockpuppetry, BLP violations and page protections, etc. Presumably the rationale for the block was an "appropriate remedy" under the "contentious topics procedure" (topic bans are part of the standard set) which was "issued without further warning" after Debresser was made aware that this is a contentious topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems some confusion with the time stamps here, ElC reply predates your reply by half an hour or so and it says right there in ElC reply where the sanction was logged. If there is some difficulty there, I don't see that it needs to be dealt with at this RM? Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Funny how time flies when you're researching Arbitration Committee procedures. I did not see their reply until I was about to save the page. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, out-of-scope for this RM. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Topic-ban enforcement isn't a beat I generally work as an administrator. I'm sure the closing admin will consider this appropriately. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The TBAN was set not to expire. It was recorded @WP:AELOG/2021. For it to be lifted, it'll need to be appealed in the usual way. El_C 20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support - as much more commonly used than the current title. The topic-banned editors comments should be hatted.  nableezy  - 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, looking back at the prior move request, there was exactly two valid oppose !votes. Every other one was by either a sock of a banned editor.  nableezy  - 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)