Jump to content

Talk:Dolphinarium discotheque massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Why are you listing the names of the jewish victims? You are never listing the names of the palestinian victims.

What Palestinian victims? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is 'you'? You?
I have found no reference to any Palestinian victims apart from the bomber; who i guess is not really a victim.Boomshanka 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that he/she is talking in more general terms, maybe feeling that articles covering events with palestinian victims are less likely to list the names of those who lost their lives than articles covering events with israeli (or Jewish) victims. "You", in this context, refers to any and everyone who has ever written or contributed to any such article. 30 July 2007

Is WP supposed to list the name of each victim in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Imad marie (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope whoever is responsible for removing the names of the victims from all of the pages of attacks us proud for having robbed them of one final dignity.

massacre

[edit]

Why is this attack called "massacre"? where are the RS that are calling it "massacre"? RS would be a non pro-Israeli reference. Imad marie (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proposed alternative, and since when do reliable Israeli sources not qualify for WP:RS? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Dolphinarium bombing or Dolphinarium attack. And I think http://www.ynet.co.il and http://www.terrorism-info.org.il are not RS. Imad marie (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about terrorist-info.org.il, although looking at the actual site, it seems to present copies of authentic documents, which means that even if its editorial interpretation is not reliable, the facts are. As for Ynet, it is regarded as a highly reliable source on Wikipedia, probably as reliable as Middle East news sources get. In fact, because of the freedom of press in Israel, all 4 major publications (Yediot Aharonot/Ynet, Ma'ariv/NRG, Haaretz and Jerusalem Post) are considered at least as reliable for Israeli and Middle Eastern topics as their oft-cited British (BBC, TheGuardian), French (AFP, France 2) and American (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Times, etc.) counterparts.
About the name change, I completely disagree, it's a massacre by definition, no reason to sugar-coat or censor the definition. In this context, a 'bombing' is generally any such attack not aimed at civilians, or perhaps an attack which did not claim sufficient lives to call it a massacre. In any case, 'bombing' and 'attack' are very ambiguous, and should only be used when there's a serious dispute between the two sides. However, in this case, both sides seem to agree that it's a massacre (so far on Wikipedia - I am still looking for Arafat's condemnation speech, which I think I had somewhere on my computer, to see what wording he used). In any case, if this article's title is changed, then Deir Yassin Massacre should definitely be changed to Battle of Deir Yassin.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the English-versions of non-English publications cannot reasonably be considered to have equal authority with primarily Engligh publications with regard to determining the appropriate English name for something. Second, Ynhockey, who was born in Russia and who lives in Israel, and whose only real exposure to living in a primarily English-speaking environment was living in British Columbia "in between the years," does not get the nuances of the word "massacre" as it is used in English. The Dolphinarium attack was a bombing by definition. Very few native English speakers, among whom I number, and Ynhockey does not, would objectively choose "massacre" as the first description of this attack. "Massacre" connotes one-on-one killings, not a bomb blast. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "massacre" can be tricky, if we are going to call any attack with civilian casualties a massacre then the list will be endless. So let's follow the same standards used in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in Mandate Palestine; we don't call an event massacre unless it was cited as so in a WP:RS. Imad marie (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing tricky about the definition. This is a slightly different case from 1948 attacks, about which books were written, at least some of which inevitably call the events massacres (especially books written by those opposing the side which committed the massacre, e.g. Noam Chomsky on the vehement anti-Israeli side). I have found over 2,000 pages on Google calling the event a massacre, but it's hard to sift through a bunch of useless blogs and minor news sites which don't qualify for WP:RS. By looking at the first page, it seems that all notable Israeli sources, such as a Ministry of Education and Foreign Ministry, refer to it as a massacre, as well as right-wing sources like WorldNetDaily. While these are pro-Israel sources, they are notable enough for Wikipedia's WP:RS. All that remains now is for you to find reliable sources which dispute the massacre claim, and you will have a valid argument. So far, no reason has been given by you (or anyone else on this page) to dispute the word massacre. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey is mistaken. As I have noted elsewhere, "massacre" connotes a lot of things that were not true of the Dolphinarium bombing; it is a tricky definition. And the choice of a name by the Israeli government or a right-wing, pro-Israel publication cannot be considered objective and should not be used in preference to the name given by mainstream English media, which most broadly use the term "Dolphinarium bombing" based on my search. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at google news archive in 2001, searching for the word "Dolphinarium", non of the sources in the first two pages (Jerusalem Post, highbeam, BBC , Time) refer to the attack as "massacre", they call it: Bombing, attack, suicide attack... Let's follow one standard here, you don't want the opposite side (pro-Palestinian side) to name any Israeli attack with civilian Palestinian casualties a "massacre", like Gaza beach blast (2006) for example. Imad marie (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you do not quite understand the meaning of the word massacre, if you say that the Gaza beach bomb was one. Secondly, please do not make controversial page moves without attaining clear consensus first. You can do this by formally requesting a move at WP:RM, or attracting more editors (although, keep in mind WP:CANVAS when doing this - it is okay for example to post this on WP:PALESTINE's talk page, but not individually asking your preferred users to comment). Thirdly, please do not insult the memory of the victims in the national memorial day today - if you want to do something with this article, please save it for after the memorial day is over. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, you do not quite understand the meaning of the word "massacre!" Tegwarrior (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comment to be inappropriate, try to choose better words in the future. First it seems it's you who did not understand my comment, what I was saying is that we must have one standard, what applies here applies in Gaza beach incident, that is regardless of what I think of it as a massacre. Second, if you ever find me canvasing, report me, other than that I don't need you to tell me about it. Third, next time I edit I will ask you if it's a special day for the Israelis and if it's OK with you for me to edit.
Aside from that, I will post this matter on the related project page, we have a number of articles called "massacre" when they should not be, and all of them should be discussed uniformly. Imad marie (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitively, I tend to agree with Imad marie. I have always found the word "massacre" a bit too dramatic. However, it does seem to be a common practice on wikipedia. Take a look at the List of events named massacres. It includes many events throughout history that could have been described differently, including similar suicide bombings. So I suggest we just leave it be. -- Nudve (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nudve, I think almost exactly as you do. My main reason for sticking with this version is that, although a massacre is easily defined but it's a loaded term, it is common on Wikipedia for events generally referred to as massacres, and for the sake of consistency, there's no reason to change this article's name. I take Wikipedia policies and guidelines very seriously, and even though some articles named 'massacre' may hurt my personal POV and I might have a case for renaming them, there is no reason to according to policy, so I don't involve myself with that. If Imad marie wants to rename all articles about massacres, he is welcome to try, but it will be quite difficult because massacres are not limited to Arab-Israeli conflict articles, and there may be an overwhelming amount of discussion from editors completely uninvolved with the Arab-Israeli conflict, while alone will stall any progress. I only hope that no double standard is introduced that if the article name is indeed changed sometime in the future, then other similar articles like Deir Yassin massacre, Safsaf massacre, etc. will be renamed in the same way. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you suggesting? we name every single attack in the I-P conflict with civilian casualties a massacre? I was suggesting to use the same standard used in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, we don't name an attack a "massacre" unless it was named as so in a RS. Imad marie (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an RS, you simply refused to acknowledge these sources because they are generally pro-Israel. For example, WorldNetDaily. I apologize if you do acknowledge them but didn't notice the above comments, by the way.
Also, I'm not suggesting that every attack with civilian casualties be named a massacre, only actual massacres. There are a few things which all need to apply for it to be a massacre:
1) Casualties need to be only or predominantly civilians/unarmed personnel
2) The attack must have been purposefully aimed at either civilians or otherwise unarmed personnel (this rules out most modern-day IDF attacks on Palestinians, and Palestinian attacks on armed Israeli soldiers)
3) The attack must have a certain amount of deaths at the very least. I think at List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, we agreed on 10; I guess anything about about 5 is technically okay, as long as all other conditions apply, but right now low-casualty massacres on Wikipedia are generally not called massacres in articles names, like bus suicide bombings, etc.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a very important sense of the word: impunity. To call something a massacre suggests that the attackers were able casually to make their attack, with no concern for the victims' ability to defend themselves. A suicide bomber, disguising himself to fit in with his victims and so to avoid capture or the thwarting of his plans, does not meet this sense. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockney is right. Certain events in history such as the Dolphinarium massacre and the Deir Yassin massacre so grossly violate any standards of decency that they can only be described as a massacre. --GHcool (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are plenty of terms with which to describe such things. History unfortunately has created a need for them. "Suicide bombing" would be a very accurate description of the Dolphinarium attack. "Massacre" probably is a good description the Deir Yassin attack (as the facts of it are normally presented), but "atrocity" would capture the moral sense. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my position before, one standard should be set for all. I opened a thread about this here. Imad marie (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word massacre is best avoided in almost any context. I think Dolphinarium Bombing is better, because it doesn't have the hollow ring of propaganda to it. The word massacre should be reserved for events like Babi Yar or Musa Dagh, where thousands or tens of thousands were put to the sword.
The argument that "if they use it then we can use it" is childish and beside the point.
Calling an article "the Dolphinarium Massacre" or "the Deir Yassin Massacre" is announcing, "Hey, guys, I'm making a point here, I'm telling you who the bad guys are." Read the New York Times coverage of the Dolphinarium bombing. They never once use the word massacre, but you sure get the idea what it's all about. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I also dislike the word "massacre". I also agree about the "scrambling for titles" argument. However, [[List of events named massacres, List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war mentioned above all include incidents with a death toll of far less then tens of thousands. Are we really going to start changing them all? -- Nudve (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about changing them all, but let's start with this one. If you don't like the word, don't use it, just because someone else does. Let's make this article better than all the others that are cheapened by propaganda slogan words. Anyone who reads past the first sentence will understand what the incident was about, without having the point made with the delicacy of a jackhammer. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bad feeling about this. I think it will trigger a major edit war. Meanwhile, let's wait for more comments -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. It will trigger a major edit war. This isn't a case of good guys vs. bad guys, as Ravpapa puts it. This is a case of calling a spade a spade. --GHcool (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. What you mean is that you think massacre is bad, should be avoided, but you fear that hotter heads than ours will take it the wrong way. Better the article be mediocre and without strife than outstanding but contentious. I agree. Let's leave it be. ("In every argument, there is always someone on your side that you wish was on the other side." Jascha Heifetz) --Ravpapa (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My initial suggestion was, we don't use "massacre" unless it was mentioned as so in the media, that is RS, and we should apply this uniformly to all related articles. This way we will not have any "childish" behaviors like Ravpapa said. Imad marie (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, here are two reliable sources that call it a massacre: [1] [2]. --GHcool (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RS issue has gone a bit too pedantic. Newspaper editors don't really consider Wikipedia naming conventions before printing "bombing" one day and "massacre" the next, so this whole scramble for google results isn't really that helpful. If there's a real issue of naming conventions (and as I said, I think both Imad and Ravpapa have good points), then maybe this should be taken to the village pump.
Another thought: Meanwhile, perhaps it should read "Doplphinarium massacre refers to..." rather than "was a". It's more subtle neutral, I think. -- Nudve (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nudve, I find your suggestion acceptable. Not so with Ravpapa's version. It hurts the balance/NPOV of Wikiepdia, especially with articles like Deir Yassin massacre, which could very well be called Battle of Deir Yassin, but are not, because the fact is that both were massacres. Nudve's version uses the word 'massacre', but is less loaded per your request. I suggest we go by his version for now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, what about the rest of Ravpapa's latest revision? I think it's generally pretty good. -- Nudve (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most are semantic differences, so I don't care either way. Just the title is important. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have started a thread on this issue at the Palestine Collaboration project. GHcool and Ynhockey will certainly want to read what I wrote there, as I quoted them both directly. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing this in the project talk page is better, the scope of this discussion is beyond this article. GHcool, about the links you provided, the first one is from the Israeli education web site, that's a pro-Israeli reference, and the second, was quoting "Silvan Shalom" and you know that doesn't count. Imad marie (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Silvan Shalom's claim may be POV (although claims of officials are generally accepted on Wikipedia if there's no reliable source disputing the claims), the other website is okay. If it will make you feel better, I'll add a link from WorldNetDaily as well. Per WP:RS, generally pro-something (possible POV) sources are only dubiously reliable if someone (i.e. another reliable source) is disputing them. If there's no such dispute, the source is fine. Do you have any sources saying that it was not a massacre? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "massacre" in American English connotes attacks on civilians by soldiers, particularly in colonial wars with native populations. It suggests an attacker who faces no real possibility of resistance, and who can take his time in his butchery. Suicide bombings just frankly miss this connotation, as do bombings from aircraft and any number of other sorts of barbaric attacks. The choice of the term to use for this article really should come from a source where English is the primary language. Non-native speakers are unlikely to understand the connotation of the term "massacre." "Bombing" is a far more accurate English appellation. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. "Massacre" denotes that the attack was indiscriminate of civilians. This indiscrimination is the key factor of the event. "Bombing" does not contain this subtlety. --GHcool (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha! Read what you just wrote, GHCool: "Bombing" does not contain the subtlety of indiscrimination. If that's your argument, I'm moving the article. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tegwarrior, you have been warned and blocked in the past for making controversial edits without attaining concensus first. There is a centralized discussion currently taking place at WP:IPCOLL, and I suggest you post your opinions there, if you want. Otherwise, please wait until consensus is reached and don't put down others' arguments. At least, it will prevent your edits being reverted and the page protected, which will hurt everyone else. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GHCool put down his argument. I just noted that it didn't make a lick of sense. I expect that, upon reflection, he'll agree.
I might add that googling "Dolphinarium bombing" gives a bunch of references to this attack, while "Dolphinarium massacre" gives mostly links to incidents of fishermen killing porpoises.
Do you think you're qualified, Ynhockey, to comment with any authority on this page on what's the most appropriate English name for this attack? Are you a native speaker of English? Tegwarrior (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that the most descriptive title that could be given for this attack is "Dolphinarium discoteque suicide bombing." It's a bit long, but it makes clear the method of the attack as well as that the target of the attack was not military, and in four words it gives a pretty clear understanding of what happened. "Dolphinarium massacre," frankly, (aside from the fact that a "dolphinarium" is an aquarium that contains dolphins, which maybe is what this discoteque's building was ages before it became a discoteque) suggests that the building was taken over by a group of armed attackers, who ultimately killed most or all of its occupants. What I'd like to know, particularly after seeing at Talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Massacres the thoroughness with which suicide bombing attacks in Israel have been given Wikipedia articles with "massacre" in their titles, is, what is the significance of the word "massacre" to those who want to use it for this article? I mean, if we clarify that the place was a discoteque, as in the title I suggested above, that makes it pretty clear that the target was civilian, so wouldn't that fulfill any desire to make clear that the attack was on civilians in the title? So again, what is so important to you about the use of the word "massacre?" I'd like to be able to keep any sense of the word that you think belongs, but I think there are a lot of senses of the word that don't belong; perhaps a compromise can be reached that will satisfy us all. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sounds like anyone who supports the use of 'massacre' wants to push a certain POV. This is not the case. Not sure about the other users, but personally my main goal is to avoid double standards. There's no reason why some very similar attacks should be called 'massacres' and others 'bombings'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your only objection to using 'bombing' in this title as opposed to 'massacre' is that other "very similar attacks" have been called 'massacres?' What do you think is the difference in the sense of the words that makes this significant? Tegwarrior (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As was already explained to Tegwarrior above, a massacre is an attack that deliberately targets innocent and defenseless civilians or POWs. A bombing is just a just occurs any time a bomb explodes. Massacre is more appropriate in this context because it contains the motivations of the killer and the criminal nature of the act. --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... but it also contains the connotation that the perpetrator acted with impunity, which is not the case here. Doesn't the title "Dolphinarium discoteque suicide bombing" accurately convey the motivations of the killer and the criminal nature of the act? Why not, if you don't think it does? Also, please don't presume that you can explain to me the meaning of words that I am already completely familiar with. Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable, Ynhockey, to find any very similar attacks where the victims are Palestinians that are called "massacres." For example, the 1996 shelling of Qana, in which a UN position where civilians had taken refuge was shelled by the IDF, is not called a massacre. The incidents that you noted at Talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Massacres were not bombings, but rather (consistent with all of the senses of "massacre") instances in which soldiers took over villages and then murdered people. And I can't even find any of the pre-1948 terrorist bombings by the Irgun with article titles that include "massacre" (most don't have articles at all). Can you give an example of a bombing attack on Palestinians that has an article with the word "massacre" in its title? Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to suicide bombings as 'similar attacks', but to any on the ground killing of defenseless civilians by militants. The difference with non-suicide bombings is that the bomb was the militant's direct weapon, therefore it is clear that in these cases a militant purposely targeted civilians, which fits the word massacre. Funny you should mention the 1996 Qana shelling, which has actually been called a massacre, and the article does mention it in the lead section. The reason the article is not called 'massacre' is because the claim is disputed (similar to Battle of Jenin vs. Jenin massacre), therefore it would violate WP:NPOV to use the word. Also it's interesting that your argument is entirely based on semantics instead of everyone else's argument, which is based on content/(N)POV. You may therefore want to add your 2 cents in the centralized discussion and not keep replying here, because this discussion will have little influence in the end compared to the other one. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you originally said that they were "very similar attacks." Have you backed down on that characterization? I noted above (apologies for not responding in a timely manner; I wasn't paying attention to this article until very recently) that you missed the sense of impunity in your list of characteristics of a massacre; do you understand what I mean by that? And why did you write "on the ground killing?" Do you think that carpet bombing, for example, cannot be the means of massacre? Why not, if that's what you intended to indicate? Tegwarrior (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the attacks are quite similar. Using a gun or a bomb against unarmed teenagers hardly makes a difference. Carpet bombing on the other hand, is not similar at all (although it can of course be a means of massacre). Although again, please direct your arguments to the centralized discussion, because even if we agree on a version here, it won't matter at all because of the other discussion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

To the user who added the POV tag: what is the reason behind the tag? I think the article is fairly balanced, and have just removed irrelevant information to make it more so. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ynhockey,
The POV-tag was me as I was working on the paragraph (which originally only included Israeli casualties) that you just edited. If context is to be given, it should be balanced.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.10.2008 07:06

Discussion re: sourcing and attribution to Hamas

[edit]

Below is a copy of a conversation User:Pedrito and I have been having on our talk pages, copied here to continue the discussion.

Hi Ray,

terrorism-info.org.il is not a WP:RS. Furthermore, Hamas never claimed or admitted responsibility and Islamic Jihad said they didn't know who did it [3]. Even the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn't link the attack to Hamas.[4]

The new source you added doesn't pin the bombing on Hamas either. If you insist on adding this info, please find a mainstream reliable source that supports it explicitly.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.01.2009 14:06

Pedrito, I examined the site, and it appears professionally done, is not self-published, and has a staff and editorial control, more than surpassing the requirements of WP:RS. Furthermore, a Jerusalem Post article is as good as you're going to get. The requirement is verifiability, not confession for attribution of violence. I'm going to copy this conversation to Talk:Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing, please respond there. Ray (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you might want to have a read at WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG. Hamas was never accused of having done this. If you want to make that exceptional claim, you'll need an exceptional (or at least mainstream) source making it (explicitly).
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.01.2009 14:21
As to the source's quality, it might help if, in lieu of giving me links to policy and guidelines I know reasonably well, you actually provided information as to the caliber of the site's reporting. Because so far as I can see, it appears reasonably mainstream, high quality, and accurate, and its self-stated editorial policies fall within the general presumption of reliability. If you claim it's a questionable source with a poor reputation for fact-checking, one should hope you would be able to present some evidence for existence of said reputation.
As to the other, we have an article in a mainstream newspaper (the Jerusalem Post) directly giving responsibility for the bombing to a Hamas operational planner. It is difficult to see how a newspaper claim could possibly be more direct. Your standard is bizarre and far above the requirements for WP:V. It is a far from extraordinary claim that Hamas conducted a suicide bombing (in fact, terrorism is their primary mode of operation), and I do not find it in the least unusual that the Israeli foreign ministry's page, containing as it does no information from more than 6 days past the bombing, might not have information that came to light later. Ray (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this source? -- Nudve (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Thanks, Nudve. My search was on "Dolphin Disco", so I didn't turn that one up. Silly of me. Ray (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] Regarding your first claim, the site describes itself as "dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community", the site is run by a retired IDF Colonel and is as self-published as it gets. No mainstream source cites or references them. If you want to insist, we can take this to WP:RS/N and get an outside opinion...
Regarding your second claim, a source linking the Dolphinarium attack to Hamas in passing is not going to cut it. Either you find the source on which they base their statements or you don't have a case. This is hearsay vs. documented facts.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.01.2009 14:53
P.S. The times article, an opinion piece five years after the fact, is circumstantial at best.
Pedrito, you've gone off the reservation. The New York Times and the Jerusalem Post together, with no countervailing RS, more than suffice for the requirements of WP:V. Wikipedia's standard is not proof in a court of law. And that a site is biased, does not render it unreliable (or Wikipedia would be poor indeed). You're welcome to take this to WP:RS/N, or any other method of dispute resolution you would prefer. Ray (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few others: [5], [6], [7]. -- Nudve (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pedrito has put terrorism-info.org.il up in a discussion for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.G51g7 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Painting

[edit]

Can someone explain to me why this picture Dolphinarium_discotheque_suicide_bombing_by_Victor_Brindatch_oil_on_canvas_painting_100x130.jpg is relevant for inclusion in the article? It is titled after the event, but the picture does not relate to the event. How is a picture of George Bush relevant? Basically, it has the same title as the event, but that does not mean it is relevant to understanding the article. There are criteria as for why the picture should remain in the article. I will remove it again if no one gives me a valid reason for keeping it in. El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to answer your question "How is a picture of George Bush relevant?" -->> President Bush is mentioned in the Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre#Aftermath section: "President George W. Bush demanded that Yasser Arafat condemn the terrorist act." -- 2015.ww (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to your "why painting is relevant" inquiry and reasons for keeping it in, my take is, this tribute has been introduced three years ago [8]. Then, for three years straight, while the article was in steady development by several editors as it seems, the inclusion of artwork was never challenged (and, I expect, no copyright issue to worry about either). So essentially, it just became part of the story. So when I revert removal of this picture, I return to the long-standing stable version of the article, where valid reasons would be needed to remove it (rather than to keep).
If there are still objections to having this picture in, surely it can be discussed further -- but I believe this piece, by now, deserves better from us than a removal by bot.
Also a reason, I think, as we editors and we readers have different ways of expressing ourselves as well as different ways of appreciating the ideas, while text is certainly main information medium here on en:wikipedia, a great lot many also benefit from visual expression, no doubt. So I believe, there is value in keeping the image in the article, and there is absolutely no harm in just leaving it the way it is.
Thank you. --2015.ww (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that it is already in so we shouldn't take it out? That is not a valid argument. The picture was apparently added by the grandson of the painter, which in fact raises concerns of its own. I will request a third party comment. El ₵id, El ₵ampeador ‡ {Talk} 19:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apparently we can't get a third opinion because we haven't talk about it enough, which seems like a weird policy. But anyway, I fail to see any rational reason for keeping it in the article, other than the fact that it has been in here for a long time. As I alluded to, the painting was added by the painter's grandson, who also uploaded the file in the first place. The artist does not have a wiki article on him. There is nothing making him notable, and the fact that the painting is named after the event does not make it relevant to understanding the topic of this article. If anything it confuses the issue, as it is not mentioned in the text at all. Again, the painting is not notable, the artist is not notable, and the painting is not relevant Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the third party comment mentioned, just another editor with an opinion. I tend to agree with @El cid, el campeador: what purpose does this painting serve? Outside of Tel Aviv (all of Israel if you want me to be really generous), someone looking at it wouldn't be able to make the association with the Dolphinarium bombing. Its resolution is also poor, although I could forgive that since it may be a photograph of a painting. That it was added by the painter's grandchild also makes it suspect. Cid: I can't find the policy you refer to though (I looked at MOS:PERTINENCE). Paris1127 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

[edit]

The Dolphinarium is no longer standing - it was demolished in May 2018 as reported in several sources including the Times of Israel. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/shows-over-for-tel-avivs-dolphinarium-eyesore/)

Please update the Dolphinarium site section from:

"Since the bombing, the Dolphinarium discotheque has sat abandoned on the Tel Aviv beachfront, covered with graffiti. For years, family members of the victims have unsuccessfully campaigned to permanently preserve the ruined building as a monument to the attack; however, the site is currently up for sale to property developers.[42] Memorial services to the victims of the attack are held every year at the site by friends and family of the victims."

To:

"Since the bombing, the Dolphinarium discotheque sat abandoned on the Tel Aviv beachfront, covered with graffiti until its demolition in May 2018. For years, family members of the victims had unsuccessfully campaigned to permanently preserve the ruined building as a monument to the attack; however, the building was demolished in order to extend the promenade along the coast. Memorial services to the victims of the attack were held every year at the site by friends and family of the victims."

--JonnyDKeen (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC) JonnyDKeen (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fish+Karate 09:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas affiliation

[edit]

Which source shows the Hamas affiliation, and what is the nature of that affiliation?

The article repeatedly describes his connection to Hamas, yet I cannot see what that connection is or why it is relevant. Presumably he had some ideological connection with Hamas, but to be affiliated means to be an official member. And the constant emphasis of this quasi-fact suggests that it is highly significant when it doesn't really seem to be. I think the intended effect is to place the responsibility of the attack on Hamas rather than the individual, which is arguable but not factual.

Also, there is an entire paragraph about a transfer of money which an IDF-related intelligence organisation declares to be irrelevant. I'm not sure why that paragraph is even in the article.

sign your posts with four tildas (~ ~ ~ ~), and we go by what the Reliable Sources state 50.111.52.253 (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The next day, Israeli-Arabs barricaded themselves in the Hassan Bek Mosque opposite the Dolphinarium site and threw objects at the police."

[edit]

Well, this is a pretty appalling distortion. Per every source but Channel 9, what actually happened is that a mob of about a thousand stone- and firebomb-throwing Israeli Jews besieged the mosque, screaming "death to the Arabs," until they were dispersed by police. See YNet News, The Guardian, the L.A. Times, and the U.S. State Department.

74.15.24.91 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of entrance to the Dolphi disco a few moments after the explosion.

[edit]

There are images of the scene of the tragedy from the Dolphi Memorial site: http://www.dolphi.org/www.dolfi.ru/images/terakt/dolphiafterexplode.jpeg. One could include the photo with the same caption: "Entrance to the Dolphi disco. A few moments after the explosion." I have seen similar photos on the Mai Lai Wikipedia page and the like, so why not add this in for documentary purposes?

 Not done: The image would need to be free of copyright issues and be released under the correct license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre&oldid=1252294339"