Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack

Victims

Why does it matter that all victims were male? They were all male because in orthodox synagogues there's a separation between men and women, and because women do not attend weekday morning prayer. It's not that the terrorists consciously chose not to harm the women present: it's that no women were present.

Removed the reference to the takbir

There's clearly an insinuation that the attackers were acting out of some kind of "jihadist" rationale. This is wrong-headed because the perpetrators ostensibly were affiliated with one of the most left wing (read: not remotely Islamist or Jihadist) militant organizations, and the attack wasn't carried out for "jihadist" reasons.

The kyle 3 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This was all properly sourced. If you disagree with it you must bring an RS to the discussion that proves this is untrue so it can be debated here and a consensus be brought as to whether or not it should be included. - Galatz^Talk 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Gone again, bud. NYT was maybe the one really objective source and that mentioned the use of the takbir in passing, without trying to make any grandiose claims or sensationalism out of it. We both know that PFLP affiliates are really the furthest thing from conservative Islamists or "jihadists", so the fact of the matter is that the link to the "takbir in jihadism" subsection is intentionally misleading.

The kyle 3 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you "properly source" something from a newspaper that makes lying or otherwise un-objective claims, then the lies are still lies.

As we both know, Israel and the worst of the pro-Israel element does feel it to be in their interest to lie to the world and try to claim that they're fighting "jihadists" on par with the likes of ISIS or Al Qaeda, despite that being not at all the case in reality.

Pulling it again because there's no point to that sentence outside of pro-Israel editors here trying to misconstrue the attack as some kind of "international jihadi" one.

The kyle 3 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Since you cannot find any sources disputed the claim, it stays. Those are the rules of WP. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. - Galatz^Talk 13:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The 5th death

The article has been updated to show that there are now 5 civilian deaths rather than 4, however is that accurate? Yes, he died of his wounds he suffered from the attack, however is that stat considered a death from the attack? When you look at Operation Protective Edge, the article shows what the deaths were that were reported at the time the war ended. There are multiple soldiers still in a comma from that war last year, and if they dont wake up they will have died because of the war, however is that still considered a death and are the statistics updated for that? I would think after a period of time it would no longer be directly associated with it. Any thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to my thoughts that it should be only 4 civilian deaths, I have reverted it back to 4 with the 5th death mentioned during the victims sections. - Galatz^Talk 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to object and insist the edit be overturned back to "5". It is indisputable that the 5th civilian death by the hands of the terrorists was in fact directly related to the original attack. I don't think that the length the doctors were able to keep Howie Rothman in a medically induced coma changes the fact that he was killed because they took a meat cleaver to his head. If he had died a week after would it have made a difference? The primary cause of death was brain damage, which happened then and there on scene. If you like to note after, the one death took place 11 months later(though the victim never woke up), that would be accurate and acceptable however the number is still "5" because they did effectively kill 5 civilians that day. Speaking of your Protective Edge Point-I'm of the opinion that if sadly perhaps there are more casualties directly related to Operation Protective Edge, they should be updated-but I admit perhaps it isn't so clear cut in the case of soldiers where there might be other contributing factors. However the soldiers' injuries are unequivocal and to be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Coffeegirlyme (talk)· 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is there seems to not be updated consistently on WP and across the news outlets, not to update the death count. For example, November 2015 Paris attacks is a pretty major event. The WP page and the news continue to report the death count as 130. 99 people were also critically injured. I would imagine that some of those have or will die from their injuries but the count stays at 130. Do you have any president of other examples where counts are updated a year later? - Galatz^Talk 21:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If events are not updated on WP then that is I'd imagine simply lack interest to do so-not necessarily a precedent against it. There is also a matter of how large the event is and how easy is it to keep track of the victims including their individual circumstances. I'm not personally up to date on the November 2015 Paris attacks, though if the count hasn't been updated-it isn't a comparable the present example considering the size and complexity of the situation. That and it has only been three months since the event-which perhaps isn't adequate time to fully evaluate the aftermath. This situation differs from the current event of discussion which was smaller, more specific and over a year ago. Therefore I don't see your argument's validity. As for an article on WP that does update death counts appropriately even on a larger scale see 2011 Norway Attacks. Do you have a clearly comparable example which notes further deaths caused by an original attack that were specifically not updated later in the total death count?

As for news outlets confirmation of the death count see here where there is specific update on the victim in question. In thisnewer article the attack is mentioned in larger context, including not only the 5th Jewish victim but the Israeli Druid officer who was killed in the attack. I restate my objection that there is no reason not to include the fifth civilian casualty. Coffeegirlyme (talk)· 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you Galatz because you have solid arguments. However, my experience is that casualties who die after the specific event are included (there doesn't appear to be a rule) and off-hand the Duma arson attack included in the info chart 2 people who survived it and died later, one several weeks afterwards. I don't know what the policy lay of the land is, but in this area one must apply the same criteria over all I/P pages. In any case sites like http://matzav.com/r-chaim-yechiel-rothman-ztl/ do mention him as the fifth victim, and sourcing wise, therefore, we have grounds to justify MM's edit.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)