Talk:2021 Jerusalem shooting

Terror

This is NOT a Mass shooting, but a terror attack. I guesse that I can say that what happend in the Bataclan theatre was a mass shooting too and not a "massacre"? the word "terror" is not even mentiond in the article. The Turtle Ninja (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This attack was a mass shooting, murder & a terrorist attack; it's in categories for each of those. The Bataclan attack was a mass shooting, a massacre & a terrorist attack; it's in cats for each. Jim Michael (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Per mass shooting article, where are the 3 or 4 deaths not including the shooter?Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of mass shooting vary, but the usual minimum when describing & categorising attacks on WP is at least 4 people shot (regardless of number killed). Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor removed the citation required tag, we cannot link to an article defining a mass killing in one way when the article details don't fit that definition, a usage which appears to have been invented by WP editors ie OR.(the cat as well is problematic).Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No-one's saying it was a mass murder or mass killing. Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I too removed the tag and 'mass shooting'. Either one has a citation to that effect or one cannot write it. The incident contradicts the link. Please, drop the nonsense. Will someone put this crap up for deletion? Such material can't stand as an independent article, but only in a list article of Civilian killings in the Israel-Palestine conflict, 2021.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

For now, I agree with The Turtle Ninja. This isn't a mass shooting and the tag should be removed. @Jim Michael:, if you believe that the usual standard on WP is at least 4 people shot, can you pull up some sort of reference or precedent for that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been the threshold for as long as I can remember for categorising attacks & list articles such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021. Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Thanks for sharing precedent. The only group who seems to use that definition is the Mass Shooting Tracker, and they no longer exist. There's no need for us to follow that precedent here, especially as it seems questionable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's the way WP has defined mass shootings for years. We have dozens of articles about them & it makes no sense to make an exception on this little-viewed article. Categorising mass by number of victims makes sense. To categorise as (mass) murder obviously requires victims to have been killed, but the death toll for a mass/spree shooting can be very low (for example, Darkley killings: 10 shot, but only 3 killed) or even zero (for example, 2018 Moss Side shooting: 12 shot, but none killed). Jim Michael (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I am curious if you know of any discussions for how and why this standard came into place. I looked and couldn't find it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I did briefly look through some of the country cats under that heading and the only one I saw with an explanatory text in the cat description was the Israel entry, it says, ambiguously, "Shootings that murder and injure multiple people" Again, I didn't look at all of the Israel entries but the ones I looked at were multiple deaths. So short of going through them all for every country trying to find a clear cut unambiguous explanation I would say that it firstly is misleading to wikilink an article with a different definition to an article where the circumstances are different and secondly, while the categorization may have been set up differently, I can't find any evidence for how it was set up. Even if there was a WP definition somewhere (a centralized discussion or a cat discussion) it would likely be OR if it did not agree with the article for mass shootings. So I think it best if we stay away from that for now.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass murder being a minimum of 4 killed & mass shooting being minimum of 4 shot has been standard for years on WP. It makes sense, although I don't know whether or not discussions were had about it. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's a standard, then there is a record of that somewhere and to me it makes no sense at all because it directly contradicts our own article on the subject which would likely make it OR even if there was an agreement written down someplace. I assume mass murder is the FBI definition mentioned at Mass murder.Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably a silent consensus, based on mass meaning at least 4 in regard to murder. Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Then this silent consensus must have developed across several early articles and they could be located. >4 people dead by shooting is both a mass shooting and mass murder, some (or even all, I didn't check them all) of the articles in the shooting cat are mass murders. So the division seems a bit arbitrary. If it was just me, well, it confused at least three editors and it would probably confuse more if they had seen it. Do the FBI have a definition for mass shooting?Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's more likely that consensus developed over a period of weeks, months or years over many articles, as more articles & cats were created.

I gave examples in this section of 2 articles about mass shootings that weren't mass murders, because their death tolls were 3 & 0 respectively. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's a terrorist attack, and should be classified as such. But it would only be a massacre if more than one person had died. Dunutubble (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No-one's saying that this shooting is a massacre. I raised the point of massacre being difficult to define because it's a similar issue to defining mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If the conclusion is that there is no way to show any prior consensus (besides yourself asserting that one exists) for what appears to be a somewhat arbitrary definition, I cannot see how it can be applied here, tbh (or anywhere, I would also object if I saw it somewhere else). The other way is to find rs calling it that and dispense with the contradictory wikilink. This seems something that could be addressed via a centralized discussion somewhere and a "noisy" consensus established. I am intrigued by it all the same, I will dig about a bit and see what I can find.Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This came up quite quickly on a first pass, seems to mix shootings/murders, note "For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 dies, the incident is not a mass shooting." (second line, second para).Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What counts as a mass shooting? The dangerous effects of varying definitions, researchers trying to get the US gov to make a definition, generally "Since then [2013, Sandy Hook], mass shootings have been generally understood to mean four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place." they instead "recommend that the definition of mass shooting should be four or more people, excluding the shooter, who are shot in a single event regardless of the motive, setting or number of deaths."

So far, this only serves to reinforce my impression that this is all rather arbitrary.Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Different orgs have different definitions of mass shooting; we need to have a definition, which on articles such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2021 is 4 people shot. A similar issue exists with the definition of massacre: we have articles about killings with a single-digit death toll which have massacre in their titles, but many killings with a much greater death toll - including the 2017 Las Vegas shooting & the 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings - don't. Jim Michael (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree a definition is desirable but it either needs to agree with the article or a consensus that can be pointed to. Else it's just made up by Wikipedians (OR). Which is what the Guardian article is going on about, made up definitions by different databases. 3 editors found it confusing and there are not that many here. In IP area, massacre does not get used unless RS use it which they rarely do and so the usual thing is a massacre altname sourced to the Arabic press. If there is local consensus for US lists (I'll take your word for that) it is not automatically applicable at this article where we have in fact reached a different local consensus which cannot be ignored absent some policy or formal process (RFC, centralized discussion, policy page/guideline).Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Title

If there is another shooting in Jerusalem in 2021 what will we call that? No.2? Shootings are regrettably common for the conflict, Five Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in occupied West Bank, we don't have articles for all of them.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The most common ways to disambiguate are to specify location, target, victim or month. Jim Michael (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

We can just change this article's title. Anyways, I would personally not be opposed to more articles about shootings in the area, no matter whether or not Jews or Palestinians are the ones being shot. Dunutubble (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is debate about this, some consider this kind of article as memorializing and not that notable, routine even. Assassinations of notable figures are obviously notable but this sort of thing is arguably not, most murders are not recorded in WP except perhaps as a list entry or something of that sort. It is generally unclear for a recent event if there will be any long term effect/coverage or whether it will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Others think differently. I am in two minds about this one atm.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This shooting is notable because the gunman acted for Hamas. Had this been an ordinary case of someone shooting their family or colleagues, it's unlikely it would have an article, or much media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We differ on "ordinary", the IDF kill people as well, 76 so far this year including 16 children, and excluding the large numbers killed in the Gaza flareup, none have an article, perhaps they should, it's a conflict, people get killed, that's what I meant by routine.Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

By ordinary I mean without an ideology; typical when someone kills several of their colleagues at work or family members at home.

Shootings happen all the time & the vast majority aren't notable. Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we can agree on that at least:)Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A crime's notability is significantly higher if committed by a designated terrorist group. If this gunman had been a 'lone madman' or someone acting out of personal revenge or a workplace dispute rather than a Hamas member, this would be unlikely to have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary label applied by the Western democracies for the most part (UN designated excepted), the outcome is the same, someone is dead. Whether Hamas killed them or the IDF did, if there is notability it is the circumstances that give rise to notability not a label. It's a bit like saying its notable because the killer was a communist. Which bit of WP:GNG do you refer to?Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What Jim appears to be saying is that this was carried out by an armed militant group whereas killings carried out by an army military group like the IDF, without provocation, out of thin air, with no known motivation, are not notable. One is a partial state actor (Hamas, being the elected representative of the people at least of Gaza) the other a full state actor, Israel. Essentially, if Israel shoots dead some fellow in the street, without provocation, it is ignorable. If Hamas does the same, it becomes major news. Jim's POV is of course neither logical nor legal (in international law, both types of killings are subject to criminal proceedings in theory) but it does reflect the systemic bias of the Western press, which in turn reflects the natural bias of the Israel press and military authorities.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course but some of the IDF killings do get international diverse coverage (like that 13 year old) and so are "notable" (WP style) but we usually don't do articles on those. On balance I am in the camp that would rather do away with all such articles and I definitely think there should be a cooling off period period before a rush to an article, someone dies, WP article an hour later when no-one has a clue whether it is really notable. I exaggerate, you know what I mean though.Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not using POV - I'm using WP notability as a guide. This isn't a Western thing - many non-Western countries designate various VNSA groups as terrorist. Most killings by state actors aren't notable - those which are have usually received a lot of media coverage (such as the murder of Sarah Everard) &/or have a high death toll (such as the Rann bombing). Jim Michael (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As a general thing, I don't disagree but this is the IP "conflict", where an occupier gets a free pass for his crimes while the occupied get the blame for fighting back while the death tolls are in no way comparable. I still say a terrorist designation does not add to notability per se, what you mean is that RS like to pick up on such angles and thus there is relatively more RS. Of course, Israel is well aware of this which is why your average Israeli spokesman can't go 5 minutes without mentioning Hamas or terrorism (and probably Iran for good measure). This and other factors lead to a systemic bias but we won't solve that here.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Targeting civilians isn't fighting back - it's attacking. Incidents being categorised as terrorist adds a significant amount of notability - articles have been deleted due to a lack of ideology because they were ordinary shootings, stabbings etc. Articles are significantly more likely to be posted to ITN if they have an ideology. We have articles such as List of terrorist incidents in 2021 & cats such as Category:Terrorist incidents in 2021. Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The IDF targets civilians too but when they do it its called fighting terrorism, let's not continue this because its a POV question and ours obviously differ.Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Some issues raised on this talk page aren't specific to this article & few people are going to read this TP, because this article has only had about 5,000 views. Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it's not notable?:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because of its low death toll. I maintain that, because of its perpetrator, it's notable. Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Image

. דרדק (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Israeli police? Don't think so.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Video of the attack. What's wrong??? דרדק (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The source. Also, I haven't looked at it but I doubt it is a "video of the attack".Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The video shows the scene of the incident, the rifle and the dead. I think it's worth adding to the entry. דרדק (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, the source, which also mentioned in the Commons page.

The video contains some important details, (for example - the rifle used by the terrorist) - I suggest we add it to the article.

מקף־‽‏ (Hyphen) 10:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support: I cannot think of much of a problem with this one. Dunutubble (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Weapon

The weapon that has been utilized isn't "Carlo", it's a Beretta M12 SMG. In this post there's a picture of the captured weapon, which is identified as Beretta. TheStriker (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

DW (a reliable source) says it was a "Carlo-type" SMG so I amended the infobox to say that. We can't really use the source you provided, sorry. Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)