![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | On 9 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1990 Temple Mount riots to 1990 Temple Mount killings. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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: 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)
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)Alaqsa81090 alaqsa81090 ( talk) 10:14, 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)
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)Alaqsa81090 89.217.46.127 ( talk) 16:23, 7 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)
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)AlAqsa81090
84.227.142.232 (
talk)
14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, 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.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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · 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. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:44, 2 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)
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." ImTheIP ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Extensive source analysis
|
---|
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):
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)
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)
Extensive source analysis
|
---|
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "temple mount riots" (6):
|
"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)
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)
So called "Source analysis" is cherry picking partisan sources to fit the narrativeis 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)
topic-banned editor and replies |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The TBAN was set not to expire. It was recorded @
WP:AELOG/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles. For it to be lifted, it'll need to be appealed in the usual way.
El_C
20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | On 9 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1990 Temple Mount riots to 1990 Temple Mount killings. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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: 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)
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)Alaqsa81090 alaqsa81090 ( talk) 10:14, 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)
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)Alaqsa81090 89.217.46.127 ( talk) 16:23, 7 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)
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)AlAqsa81090
84.227.142.232 (
talk)
14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, 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.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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · 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. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:44, 2 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)
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." ImTheIP ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Extensive source analysis
|
---|
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):
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)
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)
Extensive source analysis
|
---|
Scholarly sources using the term "Al-Aqsa massacre" (8):
Scholarly sources using the term "Massacre at al-Haram al-Sharif" or the "Haram al-Sharif massacre" (2):
Scholarly sources using the term "Temple Mount massacre" (15):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Temple mount killings" (16):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "Al-Aqsa killings" (2):
Scholarly sources referring to the event as "temple mount riots" (6):
|
"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)
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)
So called "Source analysis" is cherry picking partisan sources to fit the narrativeis 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)
topic-banned editor and replies |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The TBAN was set not to expire. It was recorded @
WP:AELOG/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles. For it to be lifted, it'll need to be appealed in the usual way.
El_C
20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
|