Talk:2022 Tel Aviv shooting

Corrections

The title should be changes to "terror attack" instead of "shooting", as it's very clear that it's not the case of some random shooting but a well planned racist terror attack by a Palestinian terrorist. Also, the terrorists weren't lone wolves, as they had terror organizations behind them (ISIS and the Islamic jihad for example) who supported them and supplied them the materials for the attack. 77.137.67.10 (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't include terror in the titles of our articles about attacks. Shooting is included as that's a usual & relevant way of describing such things - regardless of ideology, planning etc. It's not yet known which - if any - groups the attacker was a member/supporter of. Jim Michael (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not really true - June 2007 UK terrorist incidents , Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2008, many others. Red Slapper (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If we took away the "terrorist" parts of both those titles, we would have:

• June 2007 UK incidents
• Incidents in Iraq in 2008

The word "terrorist" in both examples serves as a specifier, unlike in this case. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

change the name from 2022 Tel Aviv shooting to 2022 Tel Aviv terror attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuval dolberg (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Too long and unconventional, this could also be confused with 2022 Bnei Brak shootings which happened in a suburb of Tel Aviv. My personal preference would be "2022 Dizengoff Street shooting". Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with naming it after the street is that although most Israelis have heard of it, most of the rest of the world haven't. If there hadn't been high-profile attacks there, far fewer would have heard of it. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Attacks from the 90s as background

How are attacks from the 90s background for this subject? If this information should go anywhere, shouldn't it be on the Dizengoff Street article? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They're also relevant to this article because they were committed on the same street by attackers of the same ideology. That's a strong background connection. Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And what imaginary ideology is that? The attacks in the 90s were linked to Hamas. In 2016 and earlier in March, Islamic State. This attack is as it stands unaffiliated. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hamas & Islamic State are both Sunni Islamist groups. That's far from imaginary. Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad brush. Hamas is a national political body, at least at one point elected, with a fairly clear and pointed ideology. Islamic State is an acephalous and amorphous terror group with an extremely unclear ideology since the fall of its embryonic caliphate, though generally sowing chaos seems to rank highly in its thinking. This attacker was also neither. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hamas & IS have both frequently carried out suicide bombings in the name of Sunni Islam. Both groups are clear about their demands & aims, even though Hamas are more organised.

The Perpetrator section says that his ties to any militant groups are unclear. If you know that he had nothing to do with either group, please add that relevant info to the article, backed by a RS. Jim Michael (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It is no one's responsibility to prove a negative. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. This falls under biography of living person guidelines, which means no unsubstantiated conjecture. Unclear means unknown, and Hamas, for one, have already declined to claim responsibility. My point is that the attacks in March are useful background in that it helps frame the attack within the current pattern and climate of violence in Israel, but attacks from the 90s do not - they just distract from the core information of this article. Why are readers being made to wade through recollections of attacks from 1994 in order to get to the main information about the subject that they clicked on a link to get to? There is background, and then there is needless and tangential historical backfilling. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't say that Raad Hazem had nothing to do with militant groups, because we don't know that.

They do frame the attack, because they're previous major attacks which took place on the same street, as part of the same conflict. There are millions of people outside Israel who know of Dizengoff Street only because of the attacks there. Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic. You seem to be assuming that they have SOMETHING to do with militant groups without any evidence. That is a far more fallible position than assuming nothing, i.e.: no connection, based on that same absence of any evidence. We don't need to say they had nothing to do with militants, because that is the default position we must assume without information. For all we know, this is a mental illness-driven lone gunman attack, a.k.a. the same as almost every mass shooting by a white person ever if you are to believe the US media. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned past attacks on Dizengoff in the "Background" section simply become the shooting took place on the exact same street, a street that has been frequently targeted by mass murderers. It's one line, so readers aren't exactly "wading through recollections of attacks from 1994" in order to get to the bulk of the subject matter. I don't really think it's superfluous or harmful to bring them up. Mooonswimmer 19:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not assuming either way, but you seem to be assuming no connection. There's likely a connection because a Palestinian carried out the attack in Israel after a string of Palestinian/Islamist attacks during late March. Also, much of the response by the media, politicians & Palestinian groups assumes or strongly implies such a connection. Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming precisely no more of a connection than can be assumed from the lack of information. There's actually more likely to be the opposite of a connection since the family appears to be Fatah-aligned, which is obviously the opposite of being Hamas-aligned, in addition to being a world away from Islamic State-aligned. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So what if Hazem was from a Fatah family? That would still make him related to the topic of Palestinian militancy. Which is what the line mentioning the Dizengoff Street is about. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So are mass shootings in the US part of a trend of angry white man militancy? Or is it just that much easier to lazily draw dots between Palestinians? 'Militancy' suggests organizations and ideology, and even the information on this page is geared less towards group membership than it is towards an individual with other troubles. It says he had financial issues, received death threats from his neighbours and acquired a gun accordingly. Sounds like a man on the edge of poverty and his own mental health. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This article doesn't say that Hazem was a member of militant group. If an attacker is known to be - regardless of his demographic, location or ideology - that should be stated in the relevant article(s). This section is about whether or not this article should mention the previous notable attacks in Dizengoff Street. You're the only person who has said on here that they shouldn't be included. Jim Michael (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because I find the connection more than a little tangential. As a parallel, if there were major protests in Taksim Square in Turkey, I wouldn't expect a Wikipedia article to dredge up every past instance of protests in Taksim Square. However, perhaps on a more concrete note, I see that we currently don't actually have a reliable, secondary source supporting the connection. The Aljazeera article only references the relatively recent 2016 attack, not the 20 yearr-old 1994 or 1996 ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it likely that an article about a future major protest or attack in Istanbul's Taksim Square would mention the major protests & attacks which have occurred there in its Background section, to inform readers of its history of unrest. Jim Michael (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)