User:Ayenaee/sandbox 4

Hi User:WikiJunki. Thanks for the effort you’re putting into the article and the attempt you’re making to listen to the !voters. I am a non-Israeli Jew who supports a Jewish homeland in Israel, while believing that Palestinians have a right to their own territory. When edit I try to objectively ensure that all voices get heard (I know I fall short of this). I applaud your attempt to listen to !voters. I think editors who listen and compromise as you have should be encouraged, even if they bring opinions that not all agree with. Having said that I don’t think the latest edits and comments are hearing what the majority of !voters are saying. I am not going to !vote, because the way the article is now, even including suggested changes, its going to be deleted, and I’d have to agree policy wise. I do however think the concept of this articles if written with an NPOV title and unbiased content could be important. We shouldn’t hide these attacks, but we should include all attacks. So rather than !vote I’d rather give my advice on how the article is going wrong: The article title even after the proposed changes is not in line with most of the "Wikipedia policy code" that’s been thrown at it: I could cite more problems, but these are definitely sufficient for deletion of the article. If I were working on this article, I’d ask for it to be draftified instead of deleted (which it will be), and then spend much longer reworking it to fit the various issues that make it unacceptable. As a start I would rename the article as 2023 Violent attacks on civilians in the Israel and Palestine and in the lead define this as all attacks on civilians anywhere in Israel including the territories by any militants, terrorists or military with appropriate citations showing this group exists. The article should be written neutrally to report the incidents without subjective judgement on those incidents.
 * WP:MOS:TERRORIST: This basically doesn’t allow the use of the word terrorist on en.wiki. I understand Hebrew and I’ve read the he.wiki article on which this is based. And, yes, it uses "terrorist" in the title and throughout the body. I don’t know he.wiki policies but it obviously allows articles to be written from a Jewish-Israeli world view, probably because every Hebrew article refers to these attacks in that way. En.wiki doesn’t.
 * WP:NLIST: the notability requirement for the list is that the group (as defined by the title and lead, supported by RS) needs to be widely reported as a group in reliable English sources. I find very little support for any title related to attacks (let alone "terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens (of all beliefs) in the normal sources I use. JStore has research papers from which I could makes an argument that "attacks on Israelis" is a notable group discussed, but I think that would likely still be considered POV.
 * WP:CANVAS: I’m not sure if asking the two wiki projects to participate would be considered canvassing. But even if that’s not the case, all that would do is import the war into the article. It’s unlikely to lead to an unbiased end result. Asking members of the Palestine project to edit an article about terrorist attacks on (mainly Jewish victims) seems to totally ignore their worldview and beliefs. I tried to do this once (less broadly than approaching projects) and it took total silence to my request to make me understand how arrogant I was being.

massacre move analysis
The result of the move request was: moved. I was very tempted to close as "no consensus" on the grounds that not a single !voter cited the correct controlling policy, which is WP:NDESC. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME do not apply and were not fashioned for the circumstances of this discussion. But NDESC does rely on WP:NPOV, and that still leaves the characterization of reliable sources as the controlling factor, although in a slightly broader manner than supporters suggest. I might have entertained the argument that, by nature of being a descriptive title, NDESC considers the content in the article in whole, instead of the specific turns of phrase journalists choose. The citation of The Guardian was particularly sloppy, given that the article also refers to it as a part of a pattern of "assuault"s and takes the tone of horror in covering the entire tragedy. Overall, however, the tenor of the arguments in support are solid. The opposition, by contrast, leaned largely on a pragmatic assessment of the events of the attack. Combined with the opposition being outnumbered 5 to 9, I see consensus to move. No prejudice against an RM from "Holit attack" towards something like BarrelProof🟢 [?]'s "Attack on Holit kibbutz". theleekycauldron🧹 [she] (talk🧹 • she/her) 3:55 am, Today (UTC+2) The following close was vacated per a participant request - the discussion has been re-listed for more comment and an admin close. The result of the move request was: Moved - It was a common ground of people on both sides of the discussion that "attack" likely prevails over "massacre" in descriptions of this event in reliable sources numerically. This was by itself a very strong argument in favour of moving that would take a strong numerical and/or argumentative showing in the other direction to close as not moved. The strongest point in opposition was essentially about whether "attack" was also an accurate descriptor. Ayenaee🟡 [he] argued very forcefully and convincingly that it was a massacre (and I agree: it was a massacre, and I thank Ayenaee for their contribution to this discussion). For this reason, it was hard to give a lot of weight to the argument that "massacre" is a POV name, since it is clearly accurate given the facts. Showing that it was a POV name would require casting doubt on it having been a massacre from non-fringe viewpoints, but this was not done and likely could not be done. However the argument that was less developed in this discussion was about whether it was inaccurate to describe it as an attack. To overcome the point about "attack" being the WP:COMMONNAME it was necessary not just to show that "massacre" was accurate, but to show that the name we would otherwise favour under WP:COMMONNAME was inaccurate to the extent that "massacre" should be favoured. However, this was not shown decisively. As פעמי-עליון🟡 [he] pointed out - every massacre is also an attack. I did consider a relisting of this discussion, however the recent surge in voting in favour of the move makes it unlikely that the outcome would be changed. If any one on this thread would prefer an admin close to this controversial discussion, come and find me on my talk page and I will happily vacate and give you the opportunity to get that - but you may be waiting some time as there is a month+ backlog in RM discussions needing closing.(non-admin closure) FOARP🟢 [he] (talk🟢) 5:54 pm, 14 February 2024, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC+2) Holit massacre → Holit attack – The term "massacre" is loaded and thus WP:POVNAME. That would be ok if there was a "significant majority" of sources that called it that, but there aren't. Of the sources that were quoted for SIGCOV at the article's AfD, most used the word "attack" (emphasis mine): The Guardian: "Shachar and Shlomi Matias, who died in the Hamas attack on Holit kibbutz" New York Times: "was killed while at home in Kibbutz Holit during the Hamas-led terror attack on southern Israel." Al-Jazeera: "Al Jazeera visited Holit, a kibbutz near Gaza which was attacked by Hamas fighters on October 7." Politifact: "Vach was explaining the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Holit kibbutz". Haaretz: "The tank operators who came with their tanks actually broke the attack [referring to the attack on Holit]" VR🟢 [?] talk🟢 6:26 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) — Relisting. – robertsky🧹 [he] (talk🧹) 7:06 am, 17 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:32 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:32 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:33 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:33 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:33 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:34 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 8:34 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) I’m not against this discussion happening, but I had hoped it could wait until I updated the article using all the resources I’ve found. As I said in the AfD the resources I found there were just used to show initial notability. I have been working on collecting and summarizing resources in my free time for this article for over a week (26 resources vs initial 5). I’ve found the resources I will use but haven’t yet summarized them all. Note that there are several articles covering the same attack, but from different perspectives. I might not use all of them in the final article, but will use most. If it is necessary that this renaming process take place now, you shouldn’t consider, the AfD resources, but rather those in my User:Ayenaee/sandbox where I’m collecting the resources. Where the table says "SUMMARY" it means I still need to to do one. You’ll have to look at individual articles for this purpose, because I don’t note whether an attack is called a massacre or not. I also start toning done some of the more emotional wording in the source (although there is some left which I remove in writing the article). I’ve become used to replacing terrorist in resources with militant in my summaries and similarly with massacre to attack.

I still think it would be better to focus on Nir Yitzhak where the update is complete, in terms of this question, and withdraw this one till the actual update is complete. But that’s VR’s choice. This one will definitely need relisting if it continues, because I expect it will take at least another 5-7 days to complete. It’s attack section is simpler than Nir Yitzhak, but it’s C&H section is more complicated. Ayenaee🟡 [he] (talk🟡) 9:26 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+2) Support If the sources are tending to call this an attack, then Holit massacre is a POV name. If this changes, we can revisit it down the trach. Cinderella157🟢 [he] (talk🟢) 10:12 am, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC+2) Support "attack" as NPOV. Sammy D III🟡 [?] (talk🟡) 3:14 pm, 10 January 2024, Wednesday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC+2) Attack on Holit kibbutz? None of the above-quoted sources use "Holit attack", which lacks clarity about whether Holit was attacking or being attacked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof🟢 [?](talk🟢) 6:36 pm, 12 January 2024, Friday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC+2) 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. Ayenaee🟡 [he] (talk🟡) 11:01 pm, 14 January 2024, Sunday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC+2) The takeaway here would be that you are making an argument for what is essentially a personal preference, while tacitly acknowledging WP:COMMONNAME, the evidence in support of the common name and the WP:NPOV aspects of the present name, which must be considered in terms of the prevailing policy at WP:AT. Cinderella157🟢 [he] (talk🟢) 1:31 am, 15 January 2024, Monday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC+2) Thanks for your comment. I’m saddened that I’m not granted AGF even in the form in which I present my !vote. To clarify: it was not my intention to argue a personal preference or to tacitly acknowledge anything. My conclusions are based on a thorough review of resources which I’ve provided. I argue in GF and openly that: Whatever the article is named, what happened at this event is clearly what would in English be described as a massacre by any objective standard, supported by references. COMMONNAME should not be blindly applied for the reasons I state. No one has to agree with me, but neither should they mischaracterise what I’ve said. The closer can decide on how convincing or otherwise my arguments are. Ayenaee🟡 [he] (talk🟡) 6:03 am, 15 January 2024, Monday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC+2) I have not assumed that you have acted in bad faith. What I have done is to observe that your preference is not supported by what the articles (overall) are calling it and that your argument is contrary to the prevailing policy (WP:AT and WP:NPOV) at several points. Consequently, your view should be largely discounted per WP:RMCI. Cinderella157🟢 [he] (talk🟢) 6:48 am, 15 January 2024, Monday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC+2) Strongly oppose. For all the reasons Ayenaee stated above. The fact is that Hamas militants infiltrated the unprotected Kibbutz, went from house to house, murdered 15 of the kibbutz's residents in cold blood, among them women, children and elderly, and wounded many more. In common English this event is definitely a massacre. GidiD🟡[?] (talk🟡) 11:22 am, 16 January 2024, Tuesday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC+2) You do realize that Ayenaee above stated that English sources use the word attack more commonly than massacre? VR🟢 (Please ping on reply) 10:26 am, 20 January 2024, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC+2) Strongly oppose per Ayenaee. --Yorkporter🟡 [?] (talk🟡) 11:39 pm, 18 January 2024, Thursday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+2) Oppose: Per sourcing—particularly that mentioned above—there is good evidence that Wikipedia can neutrally state that the event was a massacre. Further, it seems readily known as a massacre, to a degree (in English) that I'd say crosses the threshold for COMMONNAME. ~ Pbritti🟢 [he] (talk🟢) 3:12 pm, 19 January 2024, Friday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC+2) Can you provide evidence that massacre is COMMONNAME? So far, all evidence, including that by Ayenaee, is that "attack" is more commonly used than "massacre". VR🟢 (Please ping on reply) 10:26 am, 20 January 2024, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC+2) oppose per Ayenaee, the methodology is well-explained by him(/her?). פעמי-עליון🟡 [he] (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk🟡 1:28 pm, 24 January 2024, Wednesday (29 days ago) (UTC+2) Another thing: every massacre is an attack, but the most notable part of this attack is the massacre. Even if we can't determine the goal of the terrorists (whether it was to slaughter, kidnap, occupy or something else) we should choose the definition that emphasizes the most notable feature of this topic (just like it would be stupic to rename Bashamem inscription to "Bashamem stele base", even though it was indeed a base for stele dedicated to Ba(al)shamem – because the most notable feature of this artefact is the dedication inscription, and not it being more generaly an inscribed base dedicated to Ba(al)shamem). פעמי-עליון🟡 [he] (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk🟡 2:04 pm, 24 January 2024, Wednesday (29 days ago) (UTC+2) Support Insufficient sourcing to apply massacre label so POVname.Selfstudier🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 9:08 pm, 1 February 2024, Thursday (21 days ago) (UTC+2) Support. Since it has been shown that the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is to call this an attack rather than a massacre, that's absolutely what we should be calling it. The opposes above seem to be saying we should reject that commonly used descriptor based on detailed analysis of what happened in the event. Obviously there are some sources calling it a massacre, so this approach isn't entirely original research, but in the context of choosing a name for the article, such analysis is largely irrelevant and should be rejected. That's not at all to play down the severity of the tragedy which occurred, but the central point is that if sources predominantly call it an attack, then so should we. — Amakuru🧹 [?] (talk🧹) 4:33 pm, 5 February 2024, Monday (17 days ago) (UTC+2) Support: as has been pointed out several times since November-ish, sources simply don't refer to this as a massacre, but as an attack. Thus the current titled is loaded and not NPOV. Dylanvt🟡 [he] (talk🟡) 8:32 am, 13 February 2024, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC+2) Support per Amakuru, it isnt even close on common name, attack is exponentially more commonly used than massacre, and thats according to the data from somebody who opposes tht move. If it were close then we could look at things and analyze, but it isnt close so this is an obvious support. nableezy🟢 - 7:06 pm, 14 February 2024, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC+2) Support: The clear majoritarian language for this event in the sources aligns with the proposed move. The arguments against it appear to rely more on independent reasoning over the nature of the event, not the sourcing. Iskandar323🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 10:04 pm, 20 February 2024, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC+2) Support. Opposition here is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how titles are chosen on WP. When we use descriptive titles we still rely on usage in RS. In this case the only question to address is which of the two reflects usage in RS better. Whether massacre is a more accurate description than attack is irrelevant. For better or worse, the undeniable massacre at Holit is almost universally referred to as an attack in RS. We simply follow usage in RS. —В²C🟢 [he] ☎🟢 10:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2) close challenge Hi FOARP🟢 [he], thank you for your effort on this close and your compliment. But with all due respect I appeal to you to reverse your decision and let an admin close, even if that takes some, it’s important enough to wait. The outcome of this close is difficult not only because it’s a CTOP, but because it has implications for all articles about warlike action related to unarmed citizens (existing and future). So although I respect your thinking, I would like the close to be by an admin, making the unassailable interpretation of COMMON official having considered these implications, if that’s the outcome. I’ll put this on your talk page as well, I just want my appeal to be here for other participants to see. Thanks again. Ayenaee🟡 [he] (talk🟡) 6:28 pm, 14 February 2024, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC+2) It’s not true that the decision here has implications for other titles. In each case we reflect usage in RS when referring to each topic. Whether it’s attack, massacre or anything else depends entirely on usage in RS. Period. —В²C🟢 [he] ☎🟢 10:59 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2) +1 Selfstudier🟢 [?] (talk🟢) 11:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2) I'd just like to state for posterity that had FOARP not explicitly stated that they were vacating their own review, I would have simply upheld their close the same way I would opine on it if it were challenged at AN: they were within their discretion to make the close, despite not being an admin. It is only them voluntarily agreeing to have someone else make the close, and not just review theirs, that made me write a rationale of my own. theleekycauldron🧹 [she] (talk🧹 • she/her) 5:04 am, Today (UTC+2) 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.