Talk:November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack

Names

It seems that everything I look there are difference spellings of the names of the people involved. Its what always happens with these translated names. I created redirects to this page for all spellings I can find of the names being widely used. If I missed any feel free to add more redirects. Lets just try and be consistent within the article of what we are using. - Galatz (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Article title

I noticed the article was moved from November 2014 Jerusalem Light Rail vehicular attack to 2014 van attack on Jerusalem Light Rail. Although this is a van rather than a car last time, a van is a more specific subsection of a vehicle. The articles 2008 Jerusalem vehicular attack and October 2014 Jerusalem Light Rail vehicular attack say vehicular not car. Although I did change any uses of car to van in the article earlier, it makes sense to clarify it there, but does it need to be clarified in the article title? Just thinking vehicular makes more sense for consistency between the article titles. Any other thoughts? - Galatz (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter that the two last attacks happened at light rail stations ? A driver intentionally rammed his car into a group of pedestrians in all the cases, I think it doesn't matter if they were standing at a bus station, light rail station or just happened to stand on the sidewalk. "<time> <location> vehicular attack" works and "vehicular (terror) attack" is what seems to be the common name for such events in the media. It sounds a bit awkward, though. “WarKosign” 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The current title is terrible. The target wasn't the Light Rail, it was the pedestrians waiting at the light rail. For consistency, I prefer "November 2014 Jerusalem Light Rail vehicular attack", though I'm open to other suggestions since it's a bit clunky. Would also support, "2014 Jerusalem Light Rail van attack". Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be much less clunky. What about for consistency both this article and the October one be renamed to **Month** 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack. Its clean, simple, to the point, plus its consistent with previous similar articles. - Galatz (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, go for it! Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, moved both October and November consistently - Galatz (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just "vehicular" is such a clunky word. I don't think Anglophones ever really say vehicular. Vehicle is probably the word we want. I googled "vehicular attack" (7000 hits) and "vehicle attack" (100000 hits). To me, it looks like the Israeli English press has somehow tended to use vehicular, while the English language press in English-speaking countries use Vehicle.ShulMaven (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New York Times calling them: "deadly vehicular assaults" [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/middleeast/a-leaderless-palestinian-revolt-proves-more-difficult-to-curb-.html?ref=world&_r=0}ShulMaven (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@ShulMaven: Westerners use the word vehicular most often (in my experience) in combination with manslaughter, as in "vehicular manslaughter", as sort of official and even connotating extreme actions. On the one hand, I think that would apply quite well here, but on the other, we're not using the term "vehicular manslaughter" specifically. sudopeople 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: As you've said, "The target wasn't the Light Rail" but I do believe it plays an important role. The Light Rail itself has been a flashpoint in Israeli-Palestinian relations. It's possible in my opinion, that pedestrians in these two attacks were symbolically targeted at light rail stations specifically. At any rate, it's notable enough that the press has almost always included "Light Rail" in their headlines and subheadings regarding these attacks. sudopeople 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the link to the Montreal attack

Outside of the perpetrator using his vehicle as a weapon in the attack in question, it has nothing to do with this event or any of the other ones listed. I remember Netanyahu's inept attempts to connect ISIS and Hamas as one and the same, and regardless of how you feel about Hamas, the fact is that they aren't associated with ISIS and their motivations for doing or condoning anything violent are very different then those of ISIS.

74.12.53.251 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack was a radicalized Islamist, looks similar to me.ShulMaven (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not at all similar. Hamas is far from perfect in the way of there being things to criticize, but it is in no way on the same level of IS-style radical Islamism, and to suggest that it is the same is disingenuous to say the least.

Hamas is at least partially Palestinian nationalist, and violent actions carried out by operatives or sympathizers are based around the actions of the Israeli state, not some vague "call to Jihad" that you might see from the likes of a Salafi Jihadi or an IS sympathizer.

If you want to keep trying to claim that the two are hand in hand, I can't stop you. You'll still be wrong and look like a fool (like Netanyahu), though. The kyle 3 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You can argue that the motivation of the terrorist was different, but the sequence of events sounds very similar: a Muslim man who identifies with a terror organization intentionally rammed his car into a group of uniformed and armed men killing one of them. He was subsequently shot dead. "See also" does not imply "this other article is exactly the same", it only says "this is somewhat related, you may consider it relevant" “WarKosign” 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is the problem arises when pro-Israel elements try to push the lie-- and it is a lie-- that Hamas is somehow connected to IS or has the same goals in mind. The reality is that the rationale behind this attack in Jerusalem and the one in Montreal are really very different from one another. In the context of Jerusalem, if the target was specifically members of the IDF or the Border Police, then it shouldn't be classified as "terrorism" to my mind, but that's besides the point and leaking into my personal opinion on the incident.

I would agree that "see also" does not equivocate to "these events are exactly the same", but again the problem is that there are people here who are trying to insinuate as much. I would suggest just leaving the broader category of "use of vehicles in terrorist attacks" or whatever it is instead of continually linking to the Montreal attack. The kyle 3 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They are "tangentially" related as Manual of Style/Layout#See also section describes, but so are many others. I can't find a single source linking the two together outside of Wikipedia. I think the reference is much better suited to related categories as @The Kyle 3: describes. sudopeople 20:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Another attack

There was another attack.

Do we need a separate article for each, or should this one become "november vehicular attacks" and if yes - why not add the October attack and make it "Fall 2014 vehicular attacks" or such? The attacks are similar, considered by Hamas part of the same "resistance" and are probably going to be referred to and analysed together in the future. “WarKosign” 07:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, not in Jersualem, never mind. “WarKosign” 08:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)