Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please refer to the RfC below. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

---

I have restored the page to its original, NPOV title: "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack". The term "massacre" is a highly loaded and generally not NPOV. The vast majority of articles on such attacks are labeled "attack" or which a more specifical noun ("shooting", "stabbing", "bombing", etc.) A few articles do use the term "massacre", but only after it is established as a WP:COMMON NAME by reliable sources. Additionally, this page was created under the NPOV term "attack". Anyone wishing a different term has the burden of achieving consensus before a page move is made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Both @ShulMaven: and @ThaddeusB: have moved the article today between attack and massacre. When ThaddeusB moved it back he stated it was due to NPOV. The word massacre itself does not imply any POV in either direction. On wikipedia, the definition of Massacre is defined as "the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent" which it clearly was. To me this means it was not an attack, it was a massacre. If you review the article List of events named massacres there are plenty that have such few number of deaths. What makes this one POV and not those? I feel we need a consensus on the title and keep it at that, not move it ourselves. Any other thoughts? My opinion this was the perfect definition of a massacre rather than an attack, they were praying, you couldn't get more innocent and helpless. - Galatz (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, the default title in any dispute is the title chosen by the original author, which here is "attack". Thus, I was free to restore the original title per WP:BRD alone. Second, massacre is a loaded term. It is an implicit condemnation in a way "attack" is not. Third, take a look at Category:Attacks in 2014, for example. In nearly every case the attack could be described as a powerful party attacking a helpless one. Yet, only 1/22 articles is labeled "massacre". The reason is exactly as I decsribed: it is a non-neutral term that is only used on wikipedia when reliable sources establish it as part of a common name. We do not make judgements - we report the judgements of reliable sources, which as this point are using the term "attack" in far great number than the term "massacre". --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote when I moved the page, the Mercaz HaRav massacre and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre seem to be directly relevant examples. And there are sources calling it a massacre The Telegraph [1] the Times of Israel [2]. I thought this was an obvious name. There are no firm naming convention, except that the name needs support in reliable sources. Daily mail [3]ShulMaven (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that reliable sources establish a title, but it is what the majority/most reliable say, not any old source. Let's take a look shall we?

• NY Times: "Four Killed in Jerusalem Synagogue Attack" [4]
• Washington Post: "Palestinian attackers storm Jerusalem synagogue, killing 3 Americans, 1 Briton" [5]
• BBC: "Bloody attack at Jerusalem synagogue" [6]
• The Guardian: "Three Americans among four killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack" [7]
• Times of India: "Four killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack" [8]

Between these 5 sources, the term "massacre" is used precisely once - in a direct quote by a third party. Nice try on The Telegraph, but the title of that article ("Baroness Warsi slapped down over Jerusalem massacre comments") makes it clear that is not the main story on the event. The main story ("Jerusalem axe attack: Briton among four killed" [9]) doesn't use the term. The Daily Mail is a sensationalist tabloid, and barely considered a reliable source. Every other source that uses the term massacre that I can find is a Jewish paper, and thus hardly neutral. Indeed, that fact alone is strong evidence that the term is non-neutral. Frankly, it baffles me that anyone could think massacre to be a neutral term in the same sense as attack is.

As to those other articles, I would assume that reliable sources over time evolved to give the attack a common name with the term "massacre" (note both occurred several years ago, so there has been plenty of time to establish a common name). That may well happen here eventually, but at this time it has not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can feel the term massacre is POV. The word has a very clear definition. Look at Miriam Webster here [10]. Its a verb meaning: 1) violently kill (a group of people), 2) to easily defeat (someone or something) 3)to do (something) very badly : to ruin (something) because of lack of skill. Its pretty black and white. This fits every single one of those definitions, its not POV vs not. Its the definition of the word. - Galatz (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Meets the definition of" and "is a neutral description of" are completely different things. Basically every attack in Category:Attacks in 2014 meets the definition of massacre, yet are not titled as such. Why? Because reliable sources do not consistantly use the term to describe the event, just as is the case here. Quality news sources understand massacre is a loaded term and are very hestitant to use it. If you don't understand it is a loaded term, then in your dialect of English perhaps it is not, but in most dialects it is.

The norm for such articles is to use the term "attack"; the vast majority of reliable sources use "attack"; the article's original title was "attack". The burden of proof this should be called otherwise is on you. Merely stating it meets the definition of massacre is insufficient. It certainly meets the defition of an attack too!

BTW, even the recent events linked from List of events named massacres are mostly, in fact, not titled "X massacre" on Wikipedia. Most likely the 1/22 events inCategory:Attacks in 2014 titled massacre should not be either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you argue that Wikipedia has a Cave of the Patriarchs massacre but this is only a synagogue attack. Really???ShulMaven (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source usage determines an article title. The vast majority of RS use the term "attack" here. Furthermore, your comment betrays the fact that "massacre" is non-neutral. If massacre is neutral, then your comment that about being "only a synangogue attack" would make no sense. Your own language indictates that you view massacre as a severe event (I do too), which is a form of non-neutral judgement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" implies that the attacked party could defend itself. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "attack" as "to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)". Calling what happened in Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue an "attack" also constitutes a POV, in my opinion. It suggests that the praying men were not defenceless, that they were somehow valid targets. While I did not participate in the switching of names back and forth, I strongly believe that the NPOV title should be "massacre".Galastel (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a consensus, as of now. I'll move the title back. This discussion can resume later.ShulMaven (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Rearranging this discussion in the order in which it was written. It was disingenuous of ThaddeusB to disarrange it.ShulMaven (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Um the comments were made at the same time, as clearly marked by the use of (edit conflict), and arranged by the order of what I was replying to. There is no mandate of chronological order - people place comments after what they are replying to all the time. Indeed, that is the more natural thing to do. Please refrain from nonsensical personal attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, please make a policy based argument, not argue over dictionary definition. Insisting on arguing massacre is a neutral term is a losing battle - I can provide dozens and dozens of sources that call the term "inflammatory", "sensationalist", "loaded", etc. A dictionary doesn't usually convey the full connotation of a word - that is not its purpose. But, none the less, see the Dictionary.com (Random House) definition - "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." I'm sorry, but that is a very strong judgement on the perpetrators, not a neutral description of them. I would suggest massacre is always non-neutral. The only time it can be used is when it is established as a common name. That isn't the case here. There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about the term attack, and it is the term perferred by RS by a huge margin at this point.

Here are the criteria:

1. Recognizability
2. Naturalness
3. Precision
4. Conciseness
5. Consistency

On #1, the vast majority of sources have described this as an "attack on a synagogue" or a "synagogue attack". Only a few use the term "massacre" at all, let alone as their main noun. This point favors "attack". On #2, the vast majority of source have described this as an attack so that would be the more likely search term. On #3, we'll have to agree to disagree about which term's definition and connotation is more appropriate. Number 4 favors neither option. Number 5 vastly favors attack. Roughly 60% of similar articles use "attack", 35% use a more specific noun (bomings, shooting, etc), and 5% use massacre. In every (justified) case of "massacre" (some obsecure articles may be wrongly named), the term is used because reliable sources have overwhelming established a common name for the event. That hasn't even remotely happened here. If it does, then we can move the page. See also Talk:Virginia_Tech_shooting#Requested_move. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a consensus, as of now. I'll move the title back. This discussion can resume later.ShulMaven (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is based on strenghth of argument, not numbers. You have zero policy to stand on. Since you have inappropriately moved the article back to your preferred version in the middle of a dispute, I will tag the article as being in a neutrality dispute instead of edit warring over it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion you have the stronger argument, does not mean it is. I suggest rather than tagging the article as not being neutral that the proper renaming convention be followed. If ShulMaven hadnt already, I would have suggested this to him, but I suggest you put in an official move request and consensus and allow the admin to decide if it moves or not. - Galatz (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Except the original title was attack. It is ShulMaven, not I, who judged consensus and made inappropriate page move. An involved party should not determine consensus. (And you still haven't made the slightest attempt to justify your position based on anything but a dictionary defition, which is not part of the page title policy.) Tagging an article as disputed is precisely what you should do when there is a dispute, not edit warring over it. This is getting absurd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, contemporary, real world naming conventions often give extra weight to the people mose directly affected. i.e., we let French people name French stuff, Buddhists name Buddhist stuff, etc. Courtesy migh suggest giveing extra weight to the voices of Jewish newspapers and columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ThaddeusB. I've seen no serious argument in favour of massacre advanced. There was a bit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the suggestion that "massacre" and "attack" are equally NPOV - well, then why not use "attack" and make everyone happy? In particular, I find ThadeusB's list of reliable sources compelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then, let me try to advance some serious argument in favour of "massacre". And let me use the definition of "massacre" from Dictionary.com, quoted above: "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder." Was this killing of civilians at prayer necessary? No. Was it indiscriminate? Yes. They were random men who happened to be saying their morning prayer in a random synagogue. Large number of human beings? I count 4 dead and 8 wounded as a large number, but that's really a subjective argument. Barbarous warfare? Is there anybody here who would argue that terrorism is not barbarous? Thus, by not calling the event a massacre, we are refusing to acknowledge that what happened was an indiscriminate attack on defenceless civilians and a terrorist act. I argue that not acknowledging the above is strong POV.Galastel (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Atlantic:"Hamas Endorses a Massacre" [11]
• The Telegraph:"Baroness Warsi slapped down over Jerusalem massacre comments" [12]
• The Times of Israel: "Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox shocked by synagogue massacre" [13]
• AOL: "Prayer massacre: Three Americans among four rabbis killed as Palestinian militants storm Jerusalem synagogue" [14]
• NBC News Three Americans Among Four Rabbis 'Slaughtered' in Jerusalem Synagogue [15]
• Arutz Sheva:"Thousands Attend Funerals of Har Nof Synagogue Massacre Victims" [16]
• San Jose Mercury News:"Jerusalem massacre" [17]
• The Jewish Press: "Har Nof Massacre" [18]ShulMaven (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Haaretz: "The massacre in Jerusalem and my fading hopes for a happy ending" [19]

and on the morning after:

• Daily Beast (Newsweek): "After the Israel Synagogue Massacre: A New Intifada?" [20]
• Irish Independent: "Israelis return to massacre site" [21]
• The Jewish Voice: "Bloody Massacre at Jerusalem Synagogue" [22]

• Clearly 4 Jewish sources, an editorial (The Atlantic), a quote which isn't even the word massacre (NBC), and an obscure paper (SJ Mercury) are of superior quality/more neutral than the NY Times, BBC, Guardian, Washington Post and other 95% of all source that use "attack"?! Again, the questions isn't does "any" sourec use massacre, but what the majority and best quality sources use. That is "attack". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Event names often take time to settle. But I do give some weight to the fact that massacre is the word people who witnessed this bloodbath have used, and the word that the NYTimes quotes them using [23] “It was a massacre of Jews at prayer.” That phrase already has scores of GoogleNews hits, today breakout quote. “It was a massacre of Jews at prayer.”ShulMaven (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the (near) victims will use massacre, precisely because it is a non-neutral emotionally charged term. Would you really expect such people to be the most neutral? (I also said it the future the majority of RS may use massacre, but they don't now and it is not our job to try to predict the future.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Goldberg - "Hamas Endorses a Massacre" - [24]
• Yossi Klein Halevi - Tuesday’s massacre - [25]
• Andrew Sullivan - "A Massacre of Jews at Prayer" [26]ShulMaven (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Headline writers were not binary on this, many chose neither attack nor massacre:

• [The Forward (Jewish leftist)] - "4 Hacked and Shot to Death in Jerusalem Synagogue Bloodbath" - [27]

• [Times of Israel] - "The silence of prayer, shattered in a synagogue bloodbath" - [28]

• [Vos is Neias (Haredi)] - "Jerusalem - Unbearable Grief, Rivers Of Tears And Unspeakable Sorrow: Israel Buries Victims Of Synagogue Bloodbath" - [29]
• [Hamodia (Haredi)] - "Bloodbath in a Shul" - [30]
• [Dallas Morning News] - "Synagogue slaughter puts Israel on edge" - [31]
• [Bloomberg] - "Palestinians Kill American Rabbis at Jerusalem Synagogue"
• [Washington Times] - "3 Americans killed by ax-wielding Palestinians in Jerusalem"
• [The Daily Mail] - "This was a Cruel Murder of Those Who Came to Pray"
• [National Post] (Canada) - "Two militants storm Jerusalem synagogue with meat cleavers and a gun, killing four"
• [NBC News] - "Three Americans Among Four Rabbis 'Slaughtered' in Jerusalem Synagogue" [http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/three-americans-among-four-rabbis-slaughtered-jerusalem-synagogue-n250556ShulMaven (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC

The following discussion 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.

---

Should this article be titled "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack" or "2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre"? See discussion above for arguments. ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre - As discussed above, I believe that massacre is a specific type of attack. Based on that I feel Massacre or more specific to this particular case. Although I do agree attack is more widely used in the media, to me that argument is the same as saying more sources call an incident a "killing" vs a "stabbing." We had the stabbing incidents last week, the article is called Stabbing because its more specific for the incident. - Galatz (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre - For the reasons I've explained above. In short, because I feel that "attack" is POV in not acknowledging the indiscriminating, unnecessary and brutal manner of what happened, nor it being a terrorist act against unarmed civilians.Galastel (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, let me elaborate: the way I see it, when we have an item X, and we refuse to call it X, we are making a statement that X is in fact not X. Which is POV.

And there's something else too: we have the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the "See Also" section. That is, we are suggesting that the two are alike. And the two are alike: in both cases, a terrorist entered a place of prayer, and proceeded to attack the defenceless worshippers. Only difference is the numbers.Galastel (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre Ever since the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, massacre has been the go-to word for events of this ilk. Events, that is, where armed members of one group seek out unarmed innocents because of their identity and cold-bloodedly slaughter them. (See also: Hebron massacre)ShulMaven (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  "Go to word" - maybe for you, but not for RS and not on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack - (didn't realize I needed to restate my position, but since everyone else feels compelled to...) The best quality sources exclusively use "attack". Google News indicates the vast majority of all news sources do as well - 98,800 hits for "Synagogue Attack" vs. 1,370 for "Synagogue massacre" (both numbers are inflated as Google always does for some reason). To do anything but follow RS is POV and requires a strong reason. Ones personal interpretation of a dictionary defintion does not quality as a strong reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack Five dead does not constitute a massacre. A massacre implies that most or all of the people present were killed or injured. I'm sorry if news outlets are misusing this term, but there it is. WP:NPOV trumps everything else that is not one of the WP:Five pillars. By the way, this is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that "a majority have to have been...?" Certainly not true of many of the most famous massacres in history.ShulMaven (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

[32], [33], note the use of the word 'wholesale'. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com? Seriously?ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you cull through Category:Lists_of_massacres_by_country and see how many events with 5 or less dead are there and titled 'massacre'? Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• • I'll try to find how many people were in the synagogue on that morning. However, generally on a regular weekday, a regular synagogue in Israel would have about 10-15 men. Assuming that was the case here (which is likely), 4 dead and 8 wounded answers your criteria of "most people present were killed or injured".Galastel (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The real question is, why do you equate this event to such horrors as El Mozote massacre or Karai Kadipur massacre? Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack Use of the term "massacre" in the I-P topic area of Wikipedia has been overdone in the past. "Attack" is less sensationalist and used more often in the sources.71.37.7.163 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre Appropriate term for this incident as ShulMaven says. Crystalfile (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre is a more precise description and is used by many NPOV sources, as mentioned above in discussion.Spud770 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  "Many sources" listed above constitutes about 3 good quality sources, an editorial, and a bunch of Jewish sources which are obviously not going to be super neutral on the subject. Meanwhile, roughly 95% of all sources and all the the cream of the crop sources (as established by long standing reputation) use attack. Once again, the question is not whether any source uses massacre, it is what the majority use. It seems many people are willing to substitute their personal judgement for RS judgement. That isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't side with the 5% because we personally like the term better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  Wikipedia could side with 5% of not-voters if they were correct. But they're not. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre; more precise and accurate. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I see a lot of votes, but not much reasoning offered. Since a lot of people commenting have little Wikipedia experience, I will echo Abductive - this isn't a vote. The outcome will be determined by strength of argument, not numbers. If you have an actual, policy-based argument supporting "massacre", please make it. In the mean time, let see what the 25 most influential English-language news sources have to say:

Of the 25, two are specialty sources and not covering the event. Of the other 23, every single one uses the term "attacks" multiple times. Only 3, none of which are in the top 10, use the term "massacre" even once outside direct quotations. Of these, the NY Post and TIME use "attack" first and most often. Only The Daily Mail arguably prefers massacre. It's not a great source, but whatever let's count it. And, let's be generous and call the Post and TIME ties and give massacre Daily Mail. That is a 20-1-2 "score". So, 20/21 (95%) of top new sources with a preference prefer attack. NPOV means following the sources and the sources say "attack". --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thad -- are you cherry-picking? For example, what about "Baroness Warsi slapped down over Jerusalem massacre comments" in The Telegraph? Jerusalem’s Jews and Arabs Are Fearful After Massacre" in the Wall Street Journal? "Massacre dans une synagogue à Jérusalem" in Le Monde? I'll stop there, because it appears to me that you are in fact cherry-picking. Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre There are plenty of examples of massacres with five people or less being killed and it is a more precise description. - SantiLak (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Attack Now that I think it over, even though it is a horrible event, the fact that so many major news sources refer to it as an attack is reasoning to change it to attack. - SantiLak (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack per WP:COMMONNAME - BBC - HAARETZ - CNN - Fox News - The Telegraph - Reuters - USA Today - The Wall Street Journal - The Jerusalem Post-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I really like the table ThaddeusB provides. He lists the most influential (at least by some metric) names used for the attack/massacre. The top English-language sources seem to have a preference for attack, and I prefer changing the name to that.VR _talk 03:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre A massacre is defined by Wikipedia as "a specific incident which involves the violent killing of many people – and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. No clear-cut criteria define when a mass killing is a massacre." Nobody disputes the fact that in this case the attackers were armed and their victims were not, and it is clear that a significant enough number of people were killed for this to be the top story on many international news outlets around the world, which would not have been the case if it was a less significant number of people. The word "attack" can be used when one armed party attacks another, and is not as accurate for this case as is "massacre." "Attack" is better when there are parties who claim both sides were armed and fighting, in which case "massacre" is used politically, but that is not the case with this incident.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the article named "attack" on Wikipedia are not incidents where on armed party attacks anotehr armed party. Indeed, that is a very bizarre interpretation of the word. If I say to a friend "I was attacked after work last week" does that mean I was armed?!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre - I am the original creator of the article, and while I originally used the word "attack", now (with more information) I believe "Massacre" would be more appropriate. Inkbug (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre - Per the above discussion, and examples. NB to Thad -- Jewish and Israeli aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g., your reference above to "Jewish sources"). And we don't typically say: "let's ignore the RSs in the country where the event took place, or the RSs that cover a certain religion." I'm not swayed by that argument. What's next -- ignore what Ebony and Jet have to say about a civil rights issue, because even though they are RSs they happen to cover the Black community? If it's an RS, it's an RS -- we can't start introducing such discrimination here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche makes an important point.ShulMaven (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying we should ignore the 95% of RS that don't support the term "massacre" because national papers disagree. I am sorry, but that is not even remotely neutral. That is like saying the article on Kim Jong-un should only consider North Korean sources. The Jewish/Israeli (and I'm sure you realize term term Jewish is both a religious and ethnic term, so no actual reference to religion was even intended) can be considered but they certainly cannot override the other 95% of sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack - The sources presented above overwhelmingly support using the term Attack and so far no one has been able to dispute this. It's an open and shut case if we follow the sources which is our responsibility. And even if this weren't true, 5 people being killed by 2 assailants is by no means a massacre unless you're redefining the word; one of the deaths was a cop who was involved in a gunfight with the assailants. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack - The only other version of the page is in Hebrew and its title is "The attack at B'Nai Torah". The event can be a massacre but the title of the article should be as NPOV as possible and since everyone agrees that it was also an attack that should be used. Also newspapers make money by sensationalizing events. That's their business model. Wikipedia is not a business so we should not be imitating sensational news reporting by a minority of news organizations. Doing so discredits Wikipedia.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Hebrew title translates as "the terrorist act at Bnei Torah"Galastel (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with User:Galastel in that "pigu'a" in Hebrew does not have the neutral ring of "attack", so invoking the Hebrew wiki in support of the neutral term, as User:Monopoly31121993 did, is a bit of a misrepresentation which may not necessarily dishonor Wikipedia but does not constitute a constructive contribution to the debate. Note that Hebrew University bombing is similarly called a "pigu'a" on the Hebrew side. Tkuvho (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: there's now also a French wiki page. It's called "Massacre de la synagogue de Har Nof à Jérusalem". Again, "massacre".Galastel (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre - Faizan 12:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a vote; you need to present your argument. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Others above have not left a point in elucidating this stance. Anyhow, "massacre" would be more suitable due to the specificity in this case. Faizan 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack The incident was clearly an attack, and the word "massacre" is intentionally emotionally-charged and therefore in appropriate to an encyclopedic article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here is Robert Melson's definition of massacre: As a basic working definition, by massacre we shall mean the intentional killing by political actors of a significant number of relatively defenseless people... the motives for massacre need not be rational in order for the killings ot be intentional... Mass killings can be carried out for various reasons, including a response to false rumors... political massacre... should be distinguished form criminal or pathological mass killings... as political bodies we of course include the state and its agencies, but also nonstate actors... pp. 482-3 of Melson's "Theoretical Inquiry into the Armenian Massacres of 1894-1896" Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 481-509ShulMaven (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre is a more precise term than attack. Hence the term massacre is better for the description of this event. The fact that it is also an attack is not a sufficent reason to use "attack" in the title: this attack is also an event, yet nobody thinks of the changing the title to "Jerusalem synagogue event". The only reason not to use the word massacre would be if it would not correspond to the definition of a massacre. It has been shown by other commenters above that is does correspond to this definition (slaughter of defenseless innocent people by armed persons). This definition is neutral and does not seem to depend on a point of view. Hence arguments about neutrality and emotional charge are not relevant in this case and might harm the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.93.183 (talk • contribs)

  "The only reason not to use the word massacre would be if it would not correspond to the definition of a massacre". That is not true. Please see article title policy. There are several criteria used to determine a title which have nothing to do with accuracy... Wikipedia must remain neutral, which means following the sources. The sources overwhelmingly use "attack". Additionally, a term being "accurate" does not imply it is also neutral. I could accurately describe someone without a college education as being "ignorant about certain things" but I wouldn't put that in their article - that would be horribly non-neutral. Instead I would say "X did not attend college", which is neutral. Being "accurate" is insufficient justification for "massacre"; the term must also be neutral, which it is not. It is a emotionally laden judgmental term. If it were merely a technical term, reliable sources would use it, but overwhelmingly they do not. We should not substitute our own judgement for that of reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre Nobody should change the article name again until a majority consensus is reached. — I support the massacre term given the circumstances of the attack. Quis separabit? 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, no one will be changing the article title until this RfC is complete. The term "majority", however, does not belong in the same sentence as consensus, which has nothing to do with number. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: you're right. I do know that; I was typing fast and furious and got careless. Quis separabit? 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment in no way claiming to be an expert on the technical usages of the terms "massacre" and "attack", I don't remember seeing either one being really clearly defined. Is there some reason that another possibility, like maybe "2014 Jerusalem synagogue killings," is apparently not being considered. I don't remember having ever seen a clear definition of "massacre" and "attack" at least to me seems to imply some sort of organizational involvement which I'm not sure is the case here. It seems to me that "attack" might be used more than "massacre" based on what I see above, but if neither word is really clearly and well defined, as I think might be the case, then "killings" is more neutral, self-explanatory, and maybe less problematic. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack only because massacre connotes a larger group. I should note that having the dispute tag means it is less likely this article will be posted on the front page. See WP:ITN under nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre to repeat jersey92, a massacre is defined by Wikipedia as "a specific incident which involves the violent killing of many people – and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. No clear-cut criteria define when a mass killing is a massacre." This accurately describes the events and was used in various sources. Salmonpate (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• "No clear-cut criteria define when a mass killing is a massacre." How exactly, can it accurately describe this incident then. To some people it might be a accurate term, but to others it is a highly charged judgmental term... Attack, killings, murder, violence, slaughter, deaths, event, incident, slayings, and dozens of other terms accurately describe the event. The question isn't is term X accurate, but is it neutral and used by a majority of reliable sources. Attack passes on both counts. Massacre fails on both counts. Some of the others are neutral, some aren't, but none is widely used the way attack is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• There why not call it 2014 Jerusalem synagogue killings? Because politics and POV? Abductive (reasoning) 02:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Killings" is at least neutral, so it has that advantage over "massacre". It does, however, have the other problem - it is only used by a small minority of reliable sources (roughly the same # as massacre, so a 20:1 disadvantage to "attack"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I continue to support massacre, however I have just noticed that there is support in the press for Pogrom

Foreign Policy - "It Looked Like a Pogrom" - [35]

International Business Times - Jerusalem Terror was a Scene from an anti-Semitic Pogrom [36]

there are more, but it is an option. specific. widely-recognized term. I do wonder precisely what place "neutral" has in this conversation. We need a title that is objective, accurate, and supported by reliable sources - just as we need when editing any article. But surely ThaddeusB cannot be suggesting - as he almost appears to do - that it is necessary to take a "neutral" position about how to describe the planned, intentional, deliberate seeking out of an ethno-religiously identifiable space and group of unarmed and unwary victims for slaughter?ShulMaven (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am suggesting taking a neutral point of view. That is one of the pillars of Wikipedia! The fact that you think siding with the extreme minority (roughly 5%, or with your new suggestion <1%) of sources is neutral (or that neutrality is not even needed?), suggests to me you are not able to think neutrally on this subject. If reliable source start referring to this event as a massacre in significant numbers (i.e. much higher than 5% of the time), then we can consider the term. Until then, insisting on using it is substuting your own judgement for that of the sources, which is not neutral. See also, for example, the "terrorist" debate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The emphasis on the alleged 5% by User:ThaddeusB is misleading. Certainly it is not true that 95% of the newspapers use the term "attack". Tkuvho (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What actually is certain is that you have provided no evidence for your claim, while I did back mine above. I looked at the 25 most influential news sources (according to one estimate) and found 95% preferred "attack". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I just did a careful count based on the table of the 25 news outlets that you yourself provided above. Out of the 25, only 14 use the term "attack". Two outlet speak of "attackers" which arguably cannot be used to support renaming to "attack". Now by my calculations 14 out of 25 is 56%. This is far less impressive than the 95% figure to which you seem to cling. Note that the body of this article also uses the term "attack" but we are not discussing the body but rather the title. The figures become even less impressive when one notes that some of the news outlets use deliberately misleading titles such as Al Jazeera, which are not so far from the CNN fiasco that we report on below. Tkuvho (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

First, you obviously didn't read the list "carefully" if you are basing anything out of 25, as only 23 sources are relevant (the other 2 being speciality sources that don't cover this). Second, who said we are talking "only about the title". I certainly wasn't. I carefully examined the body of the article in all cases. Only three use massacre in the body of the article, all 23 use attack. Of the 3 that use both terms, only one arguably preferred massacre (the other two I generously graded as neutral despite using attack multiple times while using massacre just once). Third, if you limit it to the title only then precisely 0% of the sources use massacre. ZERO. Last I checked 60% (14/23) >> 0% (0/23). Fourth, the fact that you refer to CNN's initial mistake on location when covering a breaking story as a "fiasco" shows you are incappable of viewing this situation neutrally.

Please by all means provide contradictory evidence that suggests massacre is prefered by RS if you can. Until then all you have is your opinion of what the event should be called. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well 14 out of 23 is still far less than 95%, namely less than 61%. This is further reduced if we take into account deliberately biased pieces in Al Jazeera and the like. As I mentioned above, the use of "attack" in the body of those articles is irrelevant as the body of this page also contains mentions of "attack" and nobody is objecting to that. The issue is the title, in accordance with the name of the section that you yourself have chosen. Tkuvho (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't accept the false premise that only the (newspaper) article title has any bearing on our article title. That is a pretty rediculous idea - of course all the words used to describe the event count. Second, if I did 61% is still far more than 0%. How can you possibly argue for a title supported by 0% of top sources using your criteria? Third, you don't get to decide sources are "deliberately biased pieces" without evidence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my comment concerning the CNN fiasco. The fact that they issued a correction does not make the original mistake any less forgivable. If you cannot accept that, this certainly shows that you are incappable of viewing this situation neutrally as you chose to put it. Tkuvho (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyoen who would describe sources they don't like as "deliberately biased pieces" ios clearly not being objective. A mistake is a mistake, not an indication of deliberate bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre Previous examples of course. Ex: Four were killed in Bisbee Massacre and recorded as massacre. so many massacres can be see here that were marked as massacres. --Anton^Talk 15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  As previously noted, even the recent events linked on those pages are largely not titled massacre on Wikipedia. (For example, "Virginia Tech massacre" is actually Virginia Tech shooting.) And that doesn't even take into consideration the vast majority of all mass death events, almost none of which are named massacre. "Previous examples" overwhelmingly favor attack.

Something like the Bisbee Massacre is a historical event which developed a common name over time. If the common name was Bisbee Robbery, the article would be titled as such. Note it isn't "Bisbee massacre", a judgement by Wikipedia that the event is a massacre, but rather "Bisbee Massacre", a proper noun. How is a common name established? By reliable sources, of course. This event is too recent to have a well established common name, but so far the vast majority of sources refer to as a synagoge attack not a synagogue masssacre. As always, we should follow the sources, which means opting for attack. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

some of these things are not like the othersThe Virginia Tech shooting, a school shooting, a tragically familiar event involving personal grievances or problems, and is therefore not a good comparison here. This was an event in an inter-ethnic conflict. A quite different category. 2 events proximate in time and space are the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and the Mercaz HaRav massacre. You will also find massacre used, on Wikipedia in conflicts in, for example, the 2013 Adra massacre, Khan al-Assal massacre, and Hatla massacre in the Syrian civil war and the 2013 Gujba college massacre in Nigeria. It is the most appropriate and accurate term.ShulMaven (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Federal Government College attack, 2014 Gamboru Ngala attack, 2014 Lamu attacks, and dozens upon dozens of others meet your definition even better than this event and yet are not titled massacre. Why? Because the vast majority of sources did not call those events massacre, the same as is the case here. (Note, in all cases the local media did use the term massacre.) The two exampes you site, because known as the X massacre over time. That may eventually happen here to, but hasn't happened yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Until such time as this event is widely known as the X massacre, the title should be what the vast majority of sourec call it which is an attack.

The Virginia Tech shooting is actually quite illustrative. For a very long time the article was indeed titled Virginia Tech massacre, as people were incappable of rationally following sources in the heat of the moment. With perspectitive, it was finally remained in accordance with policy (following the majority of all sources) only recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just reading an article about the police officer who died, it begins, "Coverage of yesterday’s massacre in Jerusalem has..."[37] 'massacre' is hotlinked, so I clicked and, 2 days ago, same writer opened with "murdered" "attacked" [38], now he opens with massacre. I don't think that articles from the day of are dispositive. I suggest that we all back off and see what develops and what commentators continue to say here in the days and weeks to come.ShulMaven (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As per Wiktionary The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people. And, etymology says "slaughterhouse, butchery". --Anton^Talk 04:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's for proving my point about the non-neutral nature of the term of the term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre. This is accurate, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack – This is an insane debate, and I cannot even believe it is being had. "Massacre" is a value-laden, and not even an accurate descriptor of the events. "Attack" has precedent on Wikipedia, and it is also neutral and descriptive. There is a reason we have October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack. Reliable sources by-and-large do not call this a "massacre". Given that there is no clear common name for this event, we must use a WP:NDESC title. A WP:NDESC title must be non-judgemental and neutral. "Massacre" is neither non-judgemental or neutral, and is in fact quite absurd. It is an example of false equivalence. Are you really going to equate this minor event with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre? No. That doesn't make sense, and it does the readers a disservice. This was an attack, pure and simple. This type of PoV pushing needs to stop. If we're going to call this a "massacre", then we might as well call the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict the "Gaza Massacre". RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack. 7 dead is not a "massacre", and painting it as such is emotive journalism and therefore not WP:NPOV; 300,000 dead is a massacre. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack or Killings. Totally uninvolved here. These are much more neutral terms than massacre, especially when you consider the number of deaths. The first use of massacre was apparently referring to St. Bartholomew's Day massacre which had between thousands to tens of thousands dead. As Benlisquare pointed out above, it can even refer to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Seven deaths is many magnitudes below this. (10^0 vs 10^5) Also, the consideration must be taken of the (nationalist?) media's tendency to sensationalize issues. Still, condolences for the victims. starship.paint ~ regal 13:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack The word is npov and less emotive. Moreover, aside from the perpetrators, only 5 people died. That's simply an insufficient death toll for it to referred to as a massacre, particularly in light of the definition of the word, which explicitly states that it is the killing of "many" people. As other editors have noted, actual massacres, like the Deir Yassin massacre or the Sharpeville massacre, are simply not comparable to this relatively minor flare up in an ongoing ethnic dispute in a hotly contested region. JDiala (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack per what sources say, as listed above. i know the pain is fresh but "massacre" implies that many people were killed and in my view the exaggeration/color violates WP:NPOV. for those mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED that policy is not about word choice, which is a matter of style and tone - it is rather about things like having a picture of Mohammed or not, or showing a picture of a penis in an article about anatomy or not. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack, Massacre?? Really? Who's considered as a massacre? Israeli government or other independent media and official governments' condolences?? Ok. Let's change the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict as 2014 Gaza Massacre!! Current title is clearly violation of WP:NPOV — Maurice Flesier (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre. The UN Security Council has described these events as a "despicable terrorist attack", thereby clearly commenting on a moral dimension of the event. The page should certainly adopt a calm tone in reporting on the moral dimension as expressed in RS. The alternative term, "attack", fails to express this essential dimension of the event. Tkuvho (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Attack (or "Incident") Per User:Jersey92's move of Shuja'iyya massacre → Shuja'iyya Incident (2014). The justification: "Prior title coverys a disputed opinion, not a fact" is as accurate then as it is now. Interestingly, Jersey92 supports "Massacre" for this article. Most interesting indeed. --66.56.0.66 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The best comparison is the USA, which regrettably has one of the highest rates of civilian initiated mass killings anywhere in the world. "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is not called a massacre, even though stacks of dead kids could be easily labelled as such, and for good reason. "Massacre" is an inaccurate, POV loaded term. Even the Tiananmen Square massacre now quietly redirects to "protests", and I think fascist troops murdering students with tanks qualifies as a massacre. --66.56.0.66 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think you are missing the point. Everyone agrees that the incident in Jerusalem involved armed people attacking unarmed people. All of the evidence also indicates as such. (The only fatalities on the side of the aggressors occurred at the hands of police later on.) Nobody disputes this. At least one side in the incident in Shuja'iyya claims both sides were armed and battling. The evidence also indicates as such (there were fatalities on both sides). The two situations are not comparable. Please keep the politics out of Wikipedia. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So I suppose that means the Sandy Hook children were also "armed and battling"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that that was not a massacre. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack sources are not required to be neutral, Wikipedia is. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Massacre since "if it looks like a massacre, sounds like a massacre, moves like a massacre, then it's a massacre". IZAK (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 05:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre You attack a military base, maybe a police station. When you go into a synagogue and start using axes as part of a premeditated plot to hack away at those in prayer, then you have a full-fledged massacre. Tke the two definitions at the article Massacre: "A massacre is a specific incident which involves the deliberate slaughter of unarmed people" or "a verb that means to kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, especially brutally and indiscriminately". I don't see how this doesn't fit. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  The question isn't what "fits", many terms fit, but rather what is the most neutral, accurate term. According to reliable sources that term is "attack". We don't substitute our judgement for that of reiable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The term "massacre" is the more neutral term. We are talking about a pointless attack on innocent people. No strategic purpose is served. "Attack" suggests some reason. "Massacre" suggests bloodthirstiness as the only reason. "Massacre" is more in keeping with the particular act. A way to state this is that the word "attack" is less neutral. This is because the target was merely a group of people engaged in prayer. One of the definitions for massacre at Merriam-Webster is "cruel or wanton murder". The shortage of justification for this act renders the term "attack", relative to the term "massacre", the less neutral term. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Massacre is a highly charged political term, as your own words point out. As such, it can not be used without strong reliable source support, which doe snot exist here. You are substituting your own judgment that the perpetrators were "bloddthirsty" and/or "cruel and wanton" for that of RS. This is precisely why it is non-neutral - you are making judgements above and beyond that an attack happened. A highly judgemental term like massacre must be justified by a preponderance of reliable, not editorial judgement; and the vast majority of reliable sources use "attack" as has been demonstrated multiple times... There is no justification for defining the term attack as "serving a strategic purpose". If I say I was attacked on the street by a mugger, what is the supposed strategic aim? If I say a man was beaten in a mob attack, does that mean the mob was waging war?

incidentally, the main definition offered by MW is "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". Again, who is "helpless" and was constitutes "circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" are highly political judgements, and should be left to RS to determine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We are comparing two terms. We are not evaluating one term in isolation. The word "attack", relative to the term "massacre", suffers from the slight defect of being slightly less neutral. That is due to the nature of the incident under examination in our article. A military base or even a police station could have strategic importance. The word attack is more appropriately applicable to the same incident happening at a military base, for instance, and less appropriately applicable concerning a house of worship. Indeed "attack" is the less neutral word in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre As both terms are commonly used, the more specific term is the right one for Wikipedia. To verify, I looked at another murderous attack on praying people, one hour from this location by car. It is called the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Correctly there is no duscission on that masacre whatsoever! gidonb (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  The thing is "massacre" is in fact not widely used by RS, as evidenced in the above discussion. As has also been explained, articles on Wikipedia named massacre are generally so because that is the common name that developed over time, not because of editorial judgement. We don't over ride what RS say, we repeat it and here RS say "attack" by a huge margin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since both are in fact used by RS, we should use the most accurate of the two. Not a question of overriding but of providing quality to the readers, given a choice between two different terms. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

gidonb, I believe everyone here is in agreement on that. I believe the disagreement is over what is an objective method to determine which is the more accurate of the two terms. Rustandbone (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Massacre. There is nothing remotely of any strategic importance to a group of Jews praying. They were "attacked", yes, but the senselessness of it takes it beyond "attack" and into the more descriptive realm of "massacre". Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Attack. Most of the reason for "masssacre" seem to be emotive. Reliable sources call it an attack, and that's good enough for me. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think that would make a better title and serve as a more neutral description of the events. If individual editors feel that it is a massacre, that is well and good, but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox about whether something is an attack or a massacre. If reliable sources call it a massacre (and I really don't much care what the Daily Mail calls anything), that can certainly be mentioned. However, the lists posted above seem pretty clear that the vast majority have avoided this level of sensationalism. I really don't think that we should be following the lead of the Daily Mail, New York Post, and other tabloids. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Attack If the above listing of headlines and articles from the "25 most influential English-language news sources" is accurate, it would seem to indicate that "attack" is the common term being used to refer to the event. If there is a different, objective measurement that one could provide to indicate that "massacre" is a more common term being used to describe the event, that could very well change my opinion. Rustandbone (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Attack. That's what sources are primarily using, even ones with a strong bias like the Jerusalem Post. (I searched news for the synagogue's name and did not include either "attack" or "massacre" in the search.) Nearly every !vote for "massacre" here is arguing on the basis of the user's own personal view of what constitutes a massacre, not on the judgment of the sources. (Some of the !votes for attack are also doing this, but more people are pointing to sources.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Neither – Use the term "slayings". "Massacre" is too strong because we have a relatively small number of deaths. "Attack" is not strong enough because attacks may or may not result in casualties. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Determining consensus

This RfC has been open for awhile now and the majority of people are choosing to use the word massacre. The problem with this is that because this is not a vote, consensus needs to be achieved through argument validity.

25 most influential English-language news sources

I've argued, along with many others, for using the term attack. As seen in the 25 most influential English-language news sources posted above, attack is clearly the preferred term. Since Wikipedia is built upon policy, then taking into account WP:WEIGHT makes it very clear that using the term massacre is inappropriate, and to date no one has been able to dispute this. In order to move this RfC along, can we start with having some editors make a case for why this Wikipedia policy should not be upheld. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on WP:CRITERIA the title should be based on the following criteria and based on consensus.

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

The only title that meets those 5 items AND has the consensus you mentioned is massacre. I think that is clearly what the title should be. - Galatz (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Galatz, you left out the most important part of that section: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."[40]

So I'll state my case again: I've argued, along with many others, for using the term attack. As seen in the 25 most influential English-language news sources posted above, attack is clearly the preferred term. Since Wikipedia is built upon policy, then taking into account WP:WEIGHT makes it very clear that using the term massacre is inappropriate, and to date no one has been able to dispute this. In order to move this RfC along, can we start with having some editors make a case for why this Wikipedia policy should not be upheld. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As has been shown above both are used by sources, which is why I did not include that part. Although you might say a percent of those 25, but no where in WP:WEIGHT does it say we can only look at those 25. As ShulMaven showed above there are several other RSs that use massacre. Since wikipedia is built on policy, unless there is a policy that says these 25 beat all other RS then I think the argument of them is moot. - Galatz (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1.) There are plenty of published reliable sources supporting both attack and massacre. And note that many of the 'attack' headlines herald stories that use the world massacre. 2.) More significantly, many, many individuals have taken the trouble to weigh in. With those favoring attack citing policy, neutrality and headlines, and some arguing that there were too few deaths to count as a massacre. While those supporting massacre (presently in the majority) tend to argue on grounds of precision, accuracy, specificity and greater suitability or appropriateness to this event. Several get technical, pointing out that in this event the perpetrators were armed and attacking unarmed victims, making massacre appropriate and attack less so. Once we ask for opinions, we should listen. 3.) Consistency. Despite assertions to the contrary above, there are numerous recent examples of similar events being called massacres on Wikipedia. 4.) Precision. The comments above are certainly correct that massacre is a more precise term that attack. 5.) Recognizability. Massacre instantly conveys a vivid sense of the type of event we are talking about (brutal slaughter of defenseless victims by armed assailants) by contrast, attack conveys far less, while being no more concise.ShulMaven (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1) If this is true, it shouldn't be hard to take an objective list (like I attempted to do) and show how "plenty" of source use both terms. So far are you have done is cherry pick 10 (including at least 5 Israeli sources, an op-ed, a very small paper, etc.) or so of the 10,000 sources and say they are the norm. That is only evidence that someone uses the term, not that it is common

2)Wikipeida doesn't work by vote. People who offer their opinion, but don't bakc it by policy have little weight no matter how many in number they are

3) Consistancy overwhelmingly favors attack. Looking at all the articles in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2014, most could by some measure be called "massacres", yet only 5-10% are so labeled (and I would argue most incorrectly so - I plan to rename them after this RfC is over). Meanwhile about 50% are named "attack" and 40% with a more specific, but completely neutral word e.g. "bombings"

4) Our own article on massacre states "No clear-cut criteria define when a mass killing is a massacre." How can a term with no clear-cut definition be more precise?

5) Recognizability (more or less) means the term moost likely to be searched for. Since 95% of top sources (by my count) prefer attack, how could you possibly think people are more likely to search for massacre? --18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Galatz, you clearly don't understand how WP:WEIGHT functions. Since the overwhelming majority of sources have used the term attack, it is our responsibility as editors to uphold Wikipedia policy, which at this time is to use the term attack. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I do understand how it functions. You are only looking at 25 sources and extrapolating that to cover everything. There are many other RS that use the term massacre. Yes, in your limited selection there is a minority which would fit into what you are describing. To only look at 25 is not wikipedia policy, all RS hold equal weight. When you look at all RS then it does not fit into this limited minority described by WP:WEIGHT. You need to look at what the policy clearly states and not bring in other factors that it does not.

When you say "some arguing that there were too few deaths to count as a massacre" however that point too is moot. Wikipedia policy isn't what people think a word implies. I gave the dictionary definition of the word which clearly this event fits into.

I agree we ask for opinions and we should listen. I am listening to everything you are saying however based on wikipedia policy I do not think you have made a case for attack. Its cut and dry. Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and you are pulling in other factors that are not policy. - Galatz (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

SomedifferentstuffPlease re-read WP:CRITERIA and help work on developing a consensus. Even if we had an accurate survey of sources - we do not - titles are based neither on statistics nor on up/down votes. But on consensus. Re-reading the discussion, I see something of a trend towards massacre, with some editors arguing stridently against (often repeating the same arguments and sources). Nothing like a consensus. I find it interesting that new editors continue to follow the tag on the article and weigh in. Is there some need to rush this decision that I am unaware of?ShulMaven (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Galatz you have merely stated your prefered title is the "only one" that meets the five criteria, yet you have not even shown that is does meet the criteria, let alone that it is the only one. Stating something does make it true. You'll note, I actually did look at the five criteria (before the RfC was even started) and explained why "attack" better meets several of the criteria (the others being ties). --ThaddeusB (talk)

I believe all the points have been made above but here they are again

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Everyone would definite recognize this title

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Yes readers would definitely search for this title

Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Distinguished from others

Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Definitely not too long

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles. Many similar patterns have been shown above

As WP:CRITERIA states if more than one meets all 5 you go with consensus. Since both meets all 5 what is the just cause for not going with consensus? - Galatz (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, consensus has nothing to do with number of votes. You do not seem to understand that as you continue to use the two as synonyms... Users *might* recognize the title, but they are much more likely to recognize attack as that is what nearly all sources use. Users *might* search for massacre, but they are more likely to search for atatck as that is what nearly all sources use. Conciseness favors neither title. Consistancy has not been shown to favor "massacre". Isolated examples of historical events have been offered. That shows that when a common name is established massacre can appear in the title. It has not been shown that a common name has been established including the term massacre here. The vast majority of articles on attacks are, in fact, labeled "attack"/"shooting"/"bombing". Consistancy overwhelmingly favors attack. Sources overwhelmingly favor attack. Massacre is an imprecise (and emotionally laden) term. It is not neutral, a core pricniple on Wikipedia. The title should be attack. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we will ever agree on this, rather than continue to argue I am going to personally declare a WP:SNOW and drop out of the argument. You are an admin and know the policies better than me. Although I don't agree with your conclusion I do not see the need to continue this since I feel we are just going in circles. I would rather focus my attention on improving the content of the article than worrying about the word attack vs massacre. - Galatz (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for finally making a policy based argument in your second-to-last post on the subject. I too will try to refrain from making the same points over and over again from now on, no matter how many more people post the same basic opinions w/o attempting to refute any of my actual points. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a point to this, beyond the dubious pleasure of bickering? I mean, Is there some need to rush this decision that I am unaware of? Why not let the conversation continue as long as new editors/WPreaders continue to weigh in?

The way I see it, "Massacre" answers the Precision clause better than "attack", for reasons amply explained above. I think in the above discussion, most people going for "massacre" were talking about accuracy, while most people going for "attack" backed this up with this term appearing in many newspapers (though in many other newspapers, the term "massacre" was used, as Galatz says). So really, it's a question of which criterion should take precedence. My opinion is we should go with accuracy, but that's just my opinion. Either way, I think whichever way the decision goes, the other option should be set to redirect to the page. I think as far as Naturalness goes, people will be searching for both wordings.Galastel (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely.ShulMaven (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Galastel, 5 people being killed by 2 assailants is by no means a massacre unless you're redefining the word; one of the deaths was a police officer who was involved in a gunfight with the assailants. The overwhelming majority of sources use the term attack, not massacre; per wikipedia policy the article should be retitled to 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD Re: the "massacre" question, this incident, while brutal and tragic, does not meet Wikipedia's own definition of massacre, which begins: "A massacre is a specific incident which involves the violent killing of many people. According to the dictionary definition, "many" is a synonym for - among others - "numerous," "multitudinous," and "countless." That we know six people were killed on the spot and one died later makes clear that the number can be counted. However, the dictionary definition of "attack" includes "an aggressive and violent action against a person or place. Synonyms: assault, strike, onslaught, set upon with violent force.". Thus, the word "attack" more accurately describes the incident. = my two cents. saraw1 (talk) saraw1 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New proposal for article name ---- Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue attack

Given that article titles should be as specific as possible, I propose renaming the article to Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue attack. There are many synagogues in Jerusalem [41] and we should be as specific as possible. To show how problematic the current title is, think of having an article titled 2014 Los Angeles church massacre, even though there are hundreds of churches in Los Angeles. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong support – Both neutral and precise, this proposed title is the best way forward. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This would be perfectly acceptable to me, although I'm not sure it really addresses the "attack" vs. "massacre" debate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you are the same ThaddeusB who argues that we are required to derive article names from the phrasing most commonly used in headlines and that people will have trouble finding an article labled Jerusalem synagogue massacre rathern than Jerusalem synagogue attack? It is difficult to take either ThaddeusB or Somedifferentstuff seriously.ShulMaven (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We're not using a common name, because there is no one universal common name for this attack. Therefore, we are forced to craft a WP:NDESC title. A WP:NDESC title must meet our title criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe I ever said anything about "headlines" then you are quite mistaken, I actually explicitly said I was using the article text (not headline) to draw my numbers on "attack" vs. "massacre". This proposal is to make "Jerusalem" more specific, which is OK, but really a non-issue for me either way. I already said I don't think it does much to answer the actual point of debate, though. As to who can or cannot be taken seriously, your talk page seems to indicate you have a hard time being objective on Israeli–Palestinian issues, so I'm not sure I'd be opening the credibility can of worms if I were you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the "Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue" part. Whether attack or massacre still remains to be decided. Galastel (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Galastel, with less than 50 edits on Wikipedia [42] do you feel you have a strong understanding of policy? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong - no. Some - yes. Did I do anything significantly wrong while editing the article? As for me participating in the discussions on the talk page, I never pretend that my opinion is aught more than my opinion on any given question. One is free to disagree with what I say, or even to ignore it. Nor do I pretend to have more experience than I actually do. And on this particular issue, I have merely seconded what ThaddeusB said: that while making the first part of the title more specific might not be a bad idea (though I understand ShulMaven's reasoning too), the main issue is still the massacre/attack question. Are you saying I should not participate in this discussion at all? Galastel (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Given your response here, I welcome your input. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Attack and Massacre are not the only options. "Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue murders" is much more accurate. "Attack" applies to some random idiot shooting at the White House and breaking a window. There were homicides here. "Massacre" is simply to inflammatory and too sensationalistic. Massacres usually involve on the order of ten or more people at least. "Killings" will also work. We should avoid both attack and massacre. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  Murder is a legal term and should not be used outside the context of someone convicted of that crime. Killings is ok, but less widely used than attack. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term and can not be used here without a preceding legal judgement. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose John Kennedy wasn't murdered because his assassin was shot/not found? A death listed as a homicide where intent is shown and not otherwise justified is a murder by the plain meaning of the word. Killings is also fine. The pedantry and nitpicking here (I am not targeting you, Thaddeus), is preventing this from being listed at ITN, and my assumption is that 90% of the people here would like that. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the non-neutrality is holding it up at ITN (and perhaps a lack of consensus too, that is unclear). I didn't say no one was murder, just that Wikipedia doesn't name articles "murder" without a legal proceeding. A court of law, not editors, decide what is a "justified" killing. (Note also Assassination of John F. Kennedy not Murder of John F. Kennedy.) The difference between "massacre" and "attack" is quite substantial, not mere "nitpicking". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• (e-c) Wholehearted agreement with Medeis. At least to me personally, when I see the word "attack" it is almost always followed by the phrase "by (whomever)". Not seeing the party who did the "attack" named looks "off". "Murders," "Killings," and other similar nouns generally don't get used in the same way, or with the same construction, and might be better as they don't seem to have the same unanswered question involved. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, do you think all of these articles should be renamed? --- Federal Government College attack --- 2014 Gamboru Ngala attack --- 2014 Lamu attacks ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My response is that three articles (assuming that you found all of them, which I admit is probably irrational on my part with 4.5 million articles here) strikes very few people as being a case for the use of the word "all," and that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might apply in any event. The people at WP:MILHIST would probably know better about the usage of the term in general, but, yeah, based on what I know, I think those three might well be suitable for renaming, particularly as they all seem to be from this year. It would probably make sense to see what titles are given to articles about older similar events which have been discussed in literary journals and books as more or less historical events and see how those events are described in those works. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

These aren't from a search, I just copied those 3 from a post on this talk page. Please post any examples that support your argument. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother to read the discussion above... "Attack" is in fact the MOST common term used on Wikipedia, as has been pointed out multiple time. Bombings/shootings is a close second, and massacre is way way behind. See Category:Attacks in 2014 and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2014, for example. (Or Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010, or another random year, if you think this year is unreliable.) Every article offered as an example of "massacre" thus far is a historical event with an establish common name. Precisely zero are solely descriptive titles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Newest proposal for article name ---- Jerusalem synagogue massacre

If there had been a Los Angeles church massacre an event, say, in which a 2 Arians rushed into a Trinitarian mass and slaughtered 4 priests, I assure you that we would have an article entitled Los Angeles church massacre The title should read Jerusalem synagogue massacre and not the name of the congregation because Based on WP:CRITERIA the title should be easily findable. Unlike the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre where the name of the famous location was used, this congregation is not familiar to people outside the immediate community. Everything in in the long RFC still applies. Red herrings are a great wast of time and energy.ShulMaven (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Instead of being disruptive by creating an irrelevant subsection, why don't you participate in the ongoing discussion above ---- Be aware that this type of disruption can get you blocked from editing (your "newest" proposal is almost exactly the same as the current title of the article) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the best proposal in my view. The name of the synagogue does not meet notability requirements. Adding to the confusion, the synagogue is referred to by different names in various sources. The year of the attack also seems superfluous. There have been no other similar massacres in synagogues in Jerusalem (at least since the First Crusade, and I doubt that would cause any confusion as to which event this title refers to).Spud770 (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the "2014" is neither a distinct idea, nor an improvement. Surely this is not the only incident in history that can be described as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As an isolated event - not part of a broader war - I believe it is the only one.Spud770 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As Spud770 says, Jerusalem synagogue massacre meets all WP:CRITERIA best by being recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. This was, thankfully, an almost unique event. A synagogue massacre in Jerusalem.ShulMaven (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying something meets the article title criteria doesn't make it so. It is neither the most recognizable, the most natural, most precise, or most consistent title. It also is a non-neutral description. (I have actually explained why in detail above, not just stated it as fact.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Compare the proposals in the following table.Spud770 (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed name	Recognizability	Naturalness	Precision	Conciseness	Consistency
2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre (current)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue attack	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
Jerusalem synagogue massacre	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

You really don't get it do you? Making a table summarizing your belief is not argumentation supporting it. I have argued why my belief is correct. You have simply stated yours is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is entirely based (as far as I have seen) on what is most common. This is not a valid argument in this context. We're not using a common name, because there is no single common name for this attack, as mentioned above. That is why we should choose a WP:NDESC title. The table above is very useful to that end.Spud770 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you clearly have only read a small portion of what I wrote (and what RS use is still highly relevant - that is what defines recognizability/naturalness). I have twice gone through each criteria and explained why attack is better for each (well conciseness is a tie). I have also explained many many times why massacre is non-neutral. And, you still haven't provided a shred of argumentation as to why the new suggestion meets the criteria better, you have simply stated it to be so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The best way to determine whether a term is non-neutral is seeing if NPOV sources use it. In this case some do. Regarding precision: you have not shown that 'attack' is more precise than 'massacre.' The definition of 'massacre' is far narrower than 'attack.' (For that reason it has been used in many RS.)Spud770 (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you can add the Wall Street Journal to the 'massacre' list. Link

One could possibly go with the United Nations Security Council and name this "2014 Jerusalem despicable terrorist attack" but this seems too long. All in all, "massacre" doesn't seem like an unreasonable paraphrase for "despicable terrorist attack". Tkuvho (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjectives such as 'despicable,' 'cold-blooded,' and 'horrific' - as fitting as they may be - can't be used in the article title because they don't satisfy the criteria above in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Spud770 (talk)

• If you want to be very precise you can use killings, but massacre is 1) more negatively charged and 2) the situation doesn't really reflect a large order of magnitude of deaths like the word does. Merriam-Webster: the violent killing of many people - 5 killed by 2 assailants certainly doesn't match up to the historical massacres of hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands.
• @Tkuvho: If you really think that "massacre" doesn't seem like an unreasonable paraphrase for "despicable terrorist attack", then I'm afraid that I have to question your level of competence in English. starship.paint ~ regal 07:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The full definition of "massacre" in Merriam Webster is "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." This definition does not limit the term to the killing of a large number of people - indeed there are many examples of massacres throughout history involving fewer than ten people (eg: Boston Massacre.) However, the term "massacre" does limit the circumstances and nature of an attack or killing - i.e. it denotes a specific type of attack, one that involves usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, which is undoubtedly an accurate and precise description of the event in Jerusalem.

Some editors above have argued that "massacre" is a POV term. I would suggest that "attack" might be equally POV, as it ignores, and perhaps even downplays, the very specific cruelty of the attack.

(Side point: In America, the term "school shooting" is the media's term of choice when a mass killing occurs in a school, although many such killings fall under the definition of "massacre." On the other hand, acts of political or religious violence in the Middle East are often called "massacres," even by neutral media sources, as in this case. See List of massacres in Israel and List of massacres in Lebanon.) Spud770 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. 6 people dead is not a massacre. (4 victims, 2 perpetrators) DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)