User:Ayenaee/!votes

!vote:Change Holit massacre to Holit Attack

 * Oppose.
 * TLDR
 * The arguments in favor of renaming confuse:
 * What happened: Attacks by Hamas and it allies on various Israeli targets (in all parts of the 7 October event), with
 * How it happened:
 * Attacks on military targets with civilian "collateral damage", or
 * Targeted killing of unresisting defenseless civilians with killing of armed defenders a necessary means to that end.
 * In English (1) is referred to as an "attack" (or perhaps military attack, battle, combat etc) and (2) as a "massacre". Being the more generic word, attack can refer to either generically but can’t describe the elements of a massacre. In this usage neither word is POV and each should be used as appropriate descriptively. The deaths in this case were overwhelmingly of the "massacre" pattern, so it is descriptively incorrect to not indicate this in the title. Counting of words is confounded for various reasons (not least of which is that, as above, "attack" is the more generic word so will be used more often) and should not be used to change the description of how the attacks happened.
 * Descriptive argument
 * I have just finished the table of sources I will use to update the article (see section below). I base my arguments on that, but since no one wants to wait for the update before this discussion, you will either have to verify my statements by reviewing my summaries of the sources, or AGF that I am being objective in my argument. As evidence my objectivity and GF I offer my !vote on the Nir Yitzhak move debate where I agree that the name should change because none of the elements of a massacre occurred in that attack. For this attack, however:
 * The attack (generic meaning) section, when written, will show that this attack was different from that on Nir Yitzhak in that there was only minimal resistance from the kibbutz residents. In terms of the sources most residents hid in their safe rooms, and were defenseless and unable to resist if the rooms were breached.
 * The general pattern of the attack (what was done) followed that of a massacre (how it was done). Militants went from house to house shooting at the metal shutters of saferooms to determine from screams from within whether they were occupied. They then attempted to breach occupied saferooms and where successful shot the unresisting defenseless occupants. In several cases they returned to houses and set them alight to force the occupants to exit so they could be shot.
 * Of the 15 deaths:
 * 11 of the 12 Israeli or duel citizenship deaths were caused by militants breaching safe rooms, sometimes with grenades, and shooting the unresisting defenseless residents they found inside (the other death was a safety team member who seemed to be fighting the militants alone)
 * 1 of 3 foreign workers killed was killed in a massacre situation, it is not reported how the other 2 were killed
 * Of the 8 reported injuries:
 * 2 of them arose from breaches of saferooms and killing of the unresisting defenseless residents inside, with 2 injured in these shootings.
 * 4 of them arose from an attempted but unsuccessful breach of a saferoom with a grenade where shrapnel entered under the door and injured 3 elderly people and a child, out of the 4 adults and 4 children in the room
 * 2 other injuries didn’t fit the massacre pattern
 * Therefore in this attack (what happened), the method (how it happened) in just under 80% of the reported killings and injuries to civilians, was factually and descriptively a premeditated massacre of defenseless unresisting people. To not use the word massacre to describe this is an inappropriate twisting of the sources. The word massacre here is being used purely descriptively.
 * Numerical argument 
 * I don’t believe the numerical argument "wins" over the descriptive one, but since some do, to assist the discussion, I have done the following analysis of all The sources:
 * Attack/Massacre = 5.6x (184 attack ÷ 33 massacre)
 * Terrorist/Militant = 11.3x (135 terrorist ÷ 12 militant)
 * So numerically attack "wins". But also numerically "terrorist" "wins" so why a guideline recommending the use of "militant"?
 * "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" are ideologically POV words referring to the same group of people with subjective biases in the way each is applied. Militant provides a more neutral word to bridge this bias.
 * Attack and massacre are not ideologically opposite POV words if based on an objective factual description:
 * Attack can mean the general thing Hamas did in every case: attacked a target
 * Attack can also mean how a belligerent attacks a target as in a military attack
 * Massacre while containing the basic elements of an attack, also includes the objectively determined method of attack which is killing unarmed unresisting people
 * Attack and massacre may have different subjective emotional values attached, but this shouldn’t disallow their use when they objectively describe how an event occurred
 * Why massacre occurs less frequently in sources
 * Once "massacre" is used once in reference to a particular attack, or in an article about a particular attack where the entire 7 October event is referred to as a massacre, it is established that the method of attack was massacre, and the more general nature of what happened (rather than how it happened) can then be referenced by the word attack.
 * Copy editing would require that massacre used less than the more general attack
 * Some editorial policy may not allow the use of "massacre" for various reasons which may be ideological or not. if ideologically based Wikipedia shouldn’t be following it
 * The takeaway here is that there are many reasons why attack may used more than massacre. But to use the numerical argument to misname what is objectively a massacre is not encyclopedic.

Counts of "Massacre", "Attack", "Terrorist", "Militant", and "Murder" in Holit updated references
I produced this table to inform the name change proposal for this article. Two reasons for the name change have been given at the time I’m writing this:
 * WP:Notability requires us to use "attack" instead of "massacre" because the former appears multiples of times more in the article’s resources than the latter.
 * WP:Neutral Point of View requires to use the more neutral "attack" [this isn’t addressed in this section]

Method

 * 1) the OP only uses the limited number of resources given in the article's AfD. When giving those resources I said they were only a small selection of many which were sufficient to show notability. I did say that if the article were kept I would investigate resources in detail and update the article. I have now completed the first part (resource selection) of that, with the resulting citations and summaries appearing in the section above this one. It is those resources that I use for the counting exercise.
 * 2) Russian articles were translated using Apple Translate, and Hebrew articles using Google Translate.
 * 3) The counting feature of the Safari browser was used to count each word on a page.
 * 4) No attempt was made to determine where the words appeared. The could have appeared in the main article body, in captions, in the title, in adverts for other articles on the page etc.
 * 5) Although point 3 means that the count isn’t totally in line with various guidelines or policies, it is a waste of time to refine the counting. If !votes were about counting mentions in articles, then the proposal would pass even on this unrefined counting basis by 5.6 to 1 (184 attack ÷ 33 massacre). Also the word terrorist would be used instead of militant by a count of 11.3 to 1 (184 terrorist ÷ 33 militant). This last statistic isn’t given to suggest using the word terrorist in the article, but to show the fallacy of basing decisions on counting words (which is why it's !voting rather than voting).
 * 6) I address both this and the NPOV argument further in my !vote.

Update of summary of articles
'' I respect all the religions associated with the site, nothing I say below is intended to disrespect anyone or anything related to it. If you think anything I say is disrespectful please say so here or on my User talk:Ayenaee and I will strike or amend it. '' I agree that the summary of the articles as given above is important to the discussion, but I believe that that summary is too high level to properly inform the discussion. My summary is:
 * Temple Mount article: Covers the mount broadly throughout its recorded history including all buildings that stood on or near it from all religions’ perspectives. It only covers geography in passing as part of it’s comprehensive treatment. Details:
 * The info box give all the names associated with the site from all religions‘ perspectives, and details the derivation of those names in the Terminology section.
 * It covers in detail the site’s religious significance to all the abrahamic religions Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
 * The history section covers all historical periods associated with the site from its first recorded habitation (1479 BCE) to the present day.
 * The article also covers all the current features. Its coverage is similar but in less detail tp that in the Al-Aqsa article. At least one of the features related to the gates  seems to be the same.
 * This article contains 13 main sections, with 12479 words (readable text) and prose size = 148kb. The history and buildings sections are more comprehensive than the Al-Aqua article, but go into less detail on each aspect.


 * Al Aqsa [compund] article: The aim of this article seems to be to only cover the Islamic history and buildings on the site presently. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just indicates that the article was intended be more focused on its subject. Details:
 * The info box only includes the Arabic name for the site and it transliteration and only that name is covered in the sefinition section (again nothing wrong with that given the article’s focus).
 * The history section only covers the hill from the start of the Islamic period (637 CE) to the present
 * The buildings section only discusses the Islamic building presently on the hill and their history. No other building of other religions on or close to the hill are mentioned.
 * This article contains 5 (6 if the standalone mosque article is included) main sections (Lead, Definition, History, Buildings and architecture, Current situations, and In popular culture).It contains 8561 words (readable text), prose size = 105kB. The history and buildings sections are less comprehensive (compared to the Temple Mount article), but go into much more detail on what they do cover.


 * Al-Aqsa Mosque: Detailed article of the prayer hall
 * I don’t have an opinion on whether or not this article should be merged into the Al-Aqsa [compound]. It does seem to be a comprehensive article. I don’t see any reason why the most important building on a religious site shouldn’t have its own detailed article, with additional information which might get lost if merged into the parent. To give a similar example, the St. Peter’s Basilica article is separate from the Vatican City article. I’m sure there are counter examples as well. In the rest of my comments I’ll only discuss the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa [compound] articles. Ayenaee (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose As I’ve said in my summary above my !vote only relates to the proposed merger of the Temple Mount article into the Al-Aqsa article
 * I oppose the merge because as my summary shows the two articles have different aims which would be muddied and diluted in any merger attempt. The Temple Mount article aims to provide a broad article with details on history and buildings over the whole recorded history of the site. The Al-Aqsa article aims to provide very deep detail over only the period of the site under Islam. Both currently provide notable, veritable, reliably sourced information within their respective aims. Both articles serve a purpose in the encyclopedia with less overlap or POV than stated.
 * I strongly oppose the merge because of practical considerations. "Wikipedia shouldn’t lead the news". The world can’t find a "merged" solution for this site, I don’t think Wikipedia should be trying to be ahead of that. Both articles fulfilling their separate aims are not too POV except maybe in 20th century information. But on close inspection all the fault-lines which cause this to be one of the world’s ?flashpoints are apparent. This isn’t the place to address these A merge of these currently useful articles would be bitterly debated on a paragraph by paragraph basis (possibly word for word: What should the merged article be named?). We editors try to not import the real life behind our articles into the encyclopedia but this is probably one of the most difficult topic areas to do that on. The current debates around the Israel-Hamas war are amongst the most toxic I seen in my editorship. Even if nothing else, this isn’t the time to make that worse. Ayenaee (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)