Talk:2023 Neve Yaakov shooting

outside or inside
the lead says outside the synagogue, the boy says entered the synagogue. Haaretz has it as taking place outside as people left.  nableezy  - 20:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The shooting happened outside the synagogue. For my it is unclear how many left the synagogue, who were just walking along the street (the motorcycle pilot probably did not come from a prayer), and who was living nearby. Gunnar (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Settlement and in israel category
, why did you revert my changes here and here without any comment?  nableezy  - 20:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * fixing ping  nableezy  - 20:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies @Nableezy, the revisions have me confused. I am almost certain I didn't touch the categories.
 * Regarding Neve Yaakov, my mistake in referring to it simply as neighborhood, although I did not intentionally revert your edit. Do we all agree that "Jewish settlement" is the best designation for it? Mooonswimmer 21:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, Im guessing it was an edit conflict. But I think calling it an Israeli settlement as its primary descriptor in Neve Yaakov is that is the correct course, and also the categories should be removed again.  nableezy  - 21:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that half of the sources (most Israeli sources, BBC, CBC...) don't refer to it as a settlement but rather as a neighborhood, what do we think of a footnote along the lines of:
 * "Neve Yaakov is located in territory that was captured by Israel in the 1967 War and thus is not internationally recognized as Israeli territory. The status of the area is a matter of ongoing debate and disagreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli government, however, considers it to be a neighborhood of Jerusalem and not a settlement." Mooonswimmer 21:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm still not well-versed and assured on how to deal with categories, so feel free to add and remove whatever you and the other editors deem fit. It must've been an edit conflict as you said, since the only category I added was "2023 mass shootings", and I do not recall or see the need to have removed any. Mooonswimmer 21:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Youre avoiding what it is, occupied Palestinian territory, and just saying what it is not (not internationally recognized as Israeli territory). What it is recognized as is occupied Palestinian territory. As far as sources, NYT: In the attack on Friday, the Israeli police said that a gunman started firing at people at about 8:15 p.m. at a building used as a synagogue in Neve Yakov, an Israeli settlement in the northern tip of East Jerusalem., AP: Neve Yaakov is a Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem that Israel considers to be a neighborhood of its capital. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians seek east Jerusalem as a capital of their future state. The Forward: No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place in Neve Yaakov, a settlement in East Jerusalem, but Hamas and Islamic Jihad praised it as retaliation for military raid in the West Bank city of Jenin on Thursday. The raid left nine Palestinians dead there with an additional death elsewhere. The Associated Press described the Jenin killings as the deadliest West Bank raid in years. Israel said it was necessary to prevent a major planned attack on Israelis.  nableezy  - 22:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed that back and removed the massacre cats. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

, this did not occur in Israel, kindly remove the mis-categorization.  nableezy  - 04:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2023
Change "Israeli Settlement in Neve Yaakov" to Jerusalem.

I am not sure who wrote this article, but the shooting was in Jerusalem, inside of Israel (the U.N. and the rest of the world recognize Jerusalem as Israel, and the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel). Whoever wrote this part of the article is either miseducated, or antisemitic. With recent events in the world, I would suggest you rectify this mistake as soon as you can. 2601:645:4201:D060:8CA0:15F0:3F3E:2A75 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The shooting was in East Jerusalem, which is considered Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law.
 * Please refrain from comments like "Whoever wrote this part of the article is either miseducated, or antisemitic." Mooonswimmer 03:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done, as this was in an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem.  nableezy  - 04:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem
NYT - "at a building used as a synagogue in Neve Yakov, an Israeli settlement in the northern tip of East Jerusalem."

Reuters Israeli police described it as a "terror attack" and said it took place in a synagogue in Neve Ya'akov, considered by Israelis as a neighbourhood within Jerusalem, while Palestinians and most of the international community consider it occupied land illegally annexed after a 1967 Middle East war."

Haaretz "attack near a synagogue in the East Jerusalem settlement of Neve Yaakov"

This diff asserts without evidence that "most sources describe Neve Ya'akov as a Jewish area of East Jerusalem (the term "settlement" is used by Al-Jazeera only, and "neighborhood" by Israeli media)".

The statement about AJ is factually incorrect as demonstrated by the NYT and Haaretz quotes above who correctly refer to it as an Israeli settlement/settlement in East Jerusalem.

Unless someone else does it first I intend to revert this (it has been changed to the factually incorrect version three times now) unless I see proof that "most sources describe Neve Ya'akov as a Jewish area of East Jerusalem". Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * agree, "Israeli settlement" must be restored.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the articles, please. After a second look, I see 5 of the 14 cited preferred to refer to Neve Ya'akov as a "settlement." Tombah (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not how this works. Please can we focus on describing the tragedy and not bickering about hiding a basic fact. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again removed in a series of NPOV violating edits by.  nableezy  - 18:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the article's title
The majority of the titles of the articles reporting the shootings used the phrase "Jerusalem synagogue shooting." Why did we, in Wikipedia, pick "East Jerusalem synagogue shooting" instead? Tombah (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because, as a matter of fact, the attack occurred in East Jerusalem. I already provided two sources in the previous section that specifically say East Jerusalem. One of them is the NYT, not known for having a pro-Palestinian POV if that is what you are driving at here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a new one "in the wake of the shooting at an East Jerusalem synagogue" Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In which the title literally says "After Jerusalem Shooting Attack". Tombah (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HEADLINES, I am sure you know this by now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be titled as "2023 Jerusalem synagogue shooting", it should't be that specific in the title. Jerusalem is the name of the city and that is enough for the title. Sokuya (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The name of the territory this took place in is East Jerusalem, part of the Israeli occupied West Bank.  nableezy  - 15:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats absurd, and based on nothing. Nearly every source says this occurred in East Jerusalem. Im surprised the suggestion isnt Terror attack in neighborhood in Israel's eternal capital. This happened in East Jerusalem, so our article, and title, say that.  nableezy  - 15:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention that this is an act of terrorism until the reactions?
Also, please change the term "killing" to "murdered". You don't emphasize that this is terror and they were killed for being jews, and this wording gives the impression that this is like a mall shooting in America made by a lunatic. אניהעצמיהאני (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Claiming that they were killed "for being Jews" as opposed to their being targeted-- rightly or wrongly-- because they're "settlers" in the illegally occupied West Bank-- seems like it breaks the NPOV rule to me. I'll leave that one up to someone who actually has the right to edit accordingly. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:5096:98F3:7FD8:68D7 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. If it can be shown that most independent reliable sources call the attack a terrorist attack we can do that but per WP:TERRORIST we do not do that as a matter of course. "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Ditto "murdered", what do the sources use? In sources I haven't seen a motive ascribed to the killer although sources suggest it was a revenge attack. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Murder requires a conviction to use here, which is why it is not Murder of Mohammad Habali and instead Killing of Mohammad Habali.  nableezy  - 15:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The latest edits by replace killed with murdered and need to be reverted, as there has been no murder conviction (obviously).  nableezy  - 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

7 or 8 dead?
The lead/infobox is contradictory, only c4.com says 8? (+ 10 injured which doesn't seem right either). Someone can fix it up? Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME
I dont see what is being added by naming the suspect here, there isnt anything being gained from it. WP:BLPCRIME would at least require some reason to do so, and I fail to see it. And yes, having been recently killed himself he is still covered under BLP.  nableezy  - 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME will never be satisfied here, as there won’t be a trial nor an official accusation of a crime. It’s now entered into the history books as a severe terror attack and it is therefore encyclopedically appropriate to name the perpetrator. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats just an assertion, not a fact.  nableezy  - 00:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Motives
@Nableezy: FAZ clearly states that there is evidence that it was motivated by revenge. By contrast, the significance of the date, as IHRD, while featuring prominently in the reactions, has not actually been linked to events and its presence in the lead is frankly an irrelevance. It could be pure coincidence and only as related as anything else that happens on the date (aside from the obvious thematic linkage); it is not core information. FAZ: "Some commentators pointed out that the act took place on International Holocaust Remembrance Day." Just that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * restored, thanks for the source, also used it for the below bit.  nableezy  - 08:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * completely unacceptable to remove the clear personal revenge motive from the lead. Obviously deeply misleading and tendentious to exclude something so pertinent. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What? I didn't remove the revenge motive. But if you ask me, I don't think it's leadworthy. Tombah (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the motives are the most relevant piece of information for the educated reader, who may like to think about: Why is the Plalestinian-Israel conflict such a mess. As the assassin was not a Hamas hitman or similar, why did he choose to go for a killing spree? I personally strongly assume that he was a frustrated young man who grew up in a violent environment and to avoid future events like this, it is proably not helpful to weaponize the settlers but rather give the Palestinians a perspective and equal rights. Gunnar (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

grandfather
its covered originally here (Hebrew) and in English here, but the English doesnt give the name of the victims like Haaretz does in Hebrew. Here the JPost covers his release, and as far as I can see he is still under house arrest but never convicted. I dont think we can say that he was killed by such and such, but I think we can say, citing MEE, say was killed and the suspect was charged and later released. so im doing that.  nableezy  - 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Interview with father
The current 'news' source quoted for the reaction of the attacker's father has taken an interview with the clearly grieving and disconsolate father, mistranslated it and cherry-picking some throwaway lines to make it out as if he is actually happy about his son's death. The obvious reason why the interview is not transcribed more fully is because not a single more word from it would actually support the pointed and grimly ludicrous misportrayal. Either a source should be found with an editorial staff that actually gives two shits about accurate reporting and its own editorial integrity, and which translates it correctly and provides a full picture, or it should go. As it stands, it falls under WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending the emergence of some half-credible sourcing for the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: I know you couched this in attributions, but it's still WP:ECREE to me. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dislike reverting things in general, as long as it is not in wiki voice, people can draw their own conclusions. Fwiw, I personally think it is just rabble rousing bs, but that's just me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added another source in Arabic probably there is more Shrike (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The irony here is that no one reporting on it actually cares about the father's voice. The Israeli news wants him to be joyous and bloodthirsty; the Arab news wants him to be proud of his martyr son. What the father actually says is that his son was kind and he is, yes, proud of him (but generally speaking, not specifically re: events). He then gives some religious aphorisms along the lines of 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away', and then, what he actually says about a "wedding", when he's speaking coherently (and it isn't very coherent because he is in grief), he mumbles something about wishing he could hold a lunch, like at a wedding, i.e.: celebrate his son's life rather than mourn his death. The sources are all a disgrace. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2023
The youngest victim was 14 years old: https://www.timesofisrael.com/additional-victims-of-jerusalem-terror-shooting-idd-as-14-year-old-boy-father-of-3/amp/

Jordan and Saudi Arabia condemned it: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-01-28/ty-article/.premium/jordan-condemns-deadly-east-jerusalem-synagogue-attack/00000185-f774-d4a2-adb5-f77c51c80000 Marko8726 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz account of incident
I added this just now. According to this account, the target was not the synagogue and no-one from there was killed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite an admirable reminder of why Wikipedia is ideally meant to be WP:NOTNEWS --- since jumping on the first reports, which are always based on early police reports, is just a recipe for getting the basic facts wrong from the get-go. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "waited until Shabbat prayers ended" cited to the Guardian looks like rubbish if this account is correct. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not great work by the Guardian, which normally fact checks better than this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning this. I very much doubt we'll see anyone officially bring this up, but it goes against the narrative that the Israeli government and their supporters are trying to use here, and it's important to point that out. Also important to emphasize the fact that this is an illegal "settlement" in East Jerusalem, which means that Palestinians there are living under occupation and don't have equal rights with Israeli "settlers" in the same area 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:5096:98F3:7FD8:68D7 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just any old settlement either. Also located in Neve Yaakov, other than residential buildings and synagogues, and within 100m of the Ateret Avraham synagogue, is one of two entrances to the IDF's Central Command for its operations in the West Bank. Not necessarily relevant, but noticeably absent from descriptions of the place. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This information finally popped up in a source, and has been added. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1RR
you have crossed 1RR again just now. I have given you grace on this too many times, and you have ignored my suggestion to self-revert on two prior separate occasions. If you don’t self revert soon I will be opening an AE. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, better on the editor's talk page though? Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Tombah, User_talk:Tombah and User_talk:Tombah. These prior efforts at constructive discussion have not been successful. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Times in the past WERE NOT 1RR violations, but this time it is. I'll revert this one in a moment. But please stop pushing this irrelevant bit to the article's lede. No reason to include the perpetrator's background so early in the article, it does not belong there. Tombah (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also reverted was
 * this edit
 * here with no explanation and edit summary "Styling"
 * Care to explain that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Woah, looks like my mistake. I was in the middle of a editing streak, adding more and more material to the reactions section, and probably missed the edit conflict there. I can assure you it was not intended. Tombah (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator's background in the lede
The perpetrator being named after his grandfather who was murdered in a similar but reversed situation shortly before his birth, is clearly relevant.

Tombah, since you disagree, can you please explain how this could be not relevant? The horrific cyclicality of it will resonate with everyone. By deemphasizing the personal motive we risk implying a different motive – yet there has been no suggestion he was working for a militant group.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many killers had a personal motive of sort. Showing it in the lede is irrelevant to the point it looks like a justification for terrorism. The fact that somebody's grandfather was killed before he was born is not an excuse for going to a killing spree. It is an interesting anecdote, that's all. The lede is not the right place for analyzing the perpetrator's psychology. I don't see why it is leadworthy. Tombah (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every crime has a motive, and is an important aspect of criminology and explaining (not justifying) crime. An article about crime without mention of the motives of the perpetrator is no article on crime at all; it is something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not against putting the perpetrator's background in the article, I'm against putting it in the lede. Besides, we don't know what his motives really were AFAIK. We have only speculations. Tombah (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the editorial team at Frankfurter Allgemeine, which stated there is "some evidence that the attack was an act of revenge prompted by personal circumstances." Other than this being "some evidence", not "speculation", it is a greater stretch of the imagination that the death of arelative two days prior was absent from the perpetrator's mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this part. The lede mentions the 25 year old story, not the two days old story you mentioned above. Tombah (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure that the detail about the grandfather necessarily needs singling out in the lead: of the two circumstances, the more immediate death of a relative two days prior is the naturally salient point. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The boy went through his entire life labelled with the identity of his murdered grandfather. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I'm not saying he wasn't psychologically dogged by that throughout his life (and that the murderer literally got away with murder), but that was consistent factor throughout the individual's life - if there were to be a trigger, one might assume it would be the recent violence done against their family, not the historic violence. However, what I'm certain we can probably agree on, is that @Eladkarmel's erasure of all mention of the attacker's motives from the lead is rather unhelpful. Obviously relevant. Some talk page explanation would be a nice courtesy. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia claim to do original psychological analyses? And I really didn't delete all references to his grandfather. It appears later in the article as appropriate.Eladkarmel (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn’t delete psycological analyses. You deleted simple facts about a similar mass murder that is connected to this one. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the more relevant information on actual motives is being edited out of the lead, it is perhaps time to address the elephant in the room, which is the emphasis being placed on 27 Jan being International Holocaust Remembrance Day. While there is an obvious emotive reason why this information is being fixated on in statements and coverage, AFAIK there are absolutely no sources claiming that there is any evidence that this was in any way related to the attack (leaving it currently as a matter of pure coincidence). If one is looking for speculative red herrings in the lead, that would be the more obvious place to start, as the prominent placement of this implies a connection where none yet exists. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As well as not in fact being a synagogue attack afaics. Although at one point the shooter did fire at people exiting the synagogue, he had already killed 5 people further down the road by then and the other 2 deaths were at an intersection near where the shooter had left his car. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The wapo source given in the lead appears to be a total fiction attributed to the Israeli police:
 * "The gunman entered the synagogue in the Neve Yaakov neighborhood around 8:15 p.m. local time and opened fire on worshipers who were observing the Jewish sabbath, according to a statement by Israeli police. He then ran back onto the street, firing at passersby, and attempted to drive away in a car before being killed by Israeli security officers at the scene." Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AP is more careful but the phrase "outside an east Jerusalem synagogue" is stretching things, it's more like the attack happened on a street where there was a synagogue. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AP's title does say near a synagogue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a religious area, probably quite a few synagogues. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a synagogue name, Ateret Avraham, has appeared, unsourced. I'm not sure why this information is so elusive. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That name is given in the Haaretz article (together with a picture). But the headline says "in Israel", so they fell down on the job as well. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See this article in Hebrew:
 * תעלומה בת 25 שנה: מי הדוקר הסדרתי שרצח את סבא של המחבל? ("A 25-year-old mystery: who is the serial stabber who murdered the terrorist's grandfather") Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article started at 1997–99 Jerusalem stabbings. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

victims age
"The victims ranged from ages 20 to 70". should be changed to - "The victims ranged from ages 14 to 68". The 7 victims were buried and identified and every source can tell you that. Here are a few: The 7 victims of Jerusalem terror shooting named; include teen and synagogue sexton Israel to ‘strengthen’ settlements after shooting attacks Seven killed, three injured in Jerusalem synagogue massacre. I may also suggest adding the fact that a 14 year old teen and a 68 year old Gabbai of a Jerusalem synagogue were killed in the attack just as the lead of the "2023 Jenin killings" article mentions "one of whom was an elderly woman". Lonparis (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is the third request to correct the ages of the victims. The youngest victim was widely reported as Asher Natan, 14 years old, and the oldest was Shaul Hai, 68 years old. 24.228.115.125 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Add "Victims" section
Please add a section labeled "Victims" including the name, age and location/circumstance of each of the seven victims' death. This is relevant to describing the attack, it has become best practice in journalism, and is necessary if there is a section labeled "Perpetrator." 24.228.115.125 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2023
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. as proposed per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  02:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 East Jerusalem synagogue shooting → 2023 Neve Yaakov attack – The synagogue was not the target of the shooter, no one from there was killed. Proposed title has 56 hits. Although "East Jerusalem synagogue shooting" has 60 hits, it is because of false reporting immediately after the attack which said that the shooter waited outside and shot people leaving the synagogue- Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I was just thinking the same thing. I think a better name, though, would be 2023 East Jerusalem shooting. Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Yes, subsequent coverage is increasingly adopting 'Neve Yaakov attack' as a more accurately descriptive term for events that fixes the problem with the original terminology, which obviously implied a level of directness between the attack and the synagogue in question that has turned out to be misleading and based on incorrect facts from the earliest initial reporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Early reports saying "at" have not been confirmed, and this article already says "200 m past" a synagoge". -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Supprot, sounds much better. I would even remove the "2023", as there is no other major attack in Neve Ya'akov.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as there have not been dozens of attacks in Neve Yaakov, which need to be distinguished by year, the lemma Neve Yaakov attack is sufficient for today. Gunnar (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support proposed title or 'Neve Yaakov attack'/'Neve Yaakov shooting' Mooonswimmer 18:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.