Jump to content

Talk:Hatla massacre

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

Massacre?

[edit]

The trend in Wikipedia has been to label similar events such as Battle of Haffa, Battle of Tremseh, and even the deadly Battle of Jdaidet al-Fadl as battles rather than massacres. I believe for consistency's sake this page should be renamed to Battle of Hatla, otherwise contributors to Syrian pages must seriously reconsider their policies on past pages. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this is not like those. We have plenty of Syrian "massacre" articles, that are similar to this one (start out as battle, end up as massacre). FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not like them? Massacres are pretty common after regime offensives, in which case the 2012 Homs offensive can fit the bill as well. Exactly how is Hatla different from other battles where massacre of greater proportions followed regime victory? The article clearly states that the massacre refers to 60 Shiite villagers, both fighters and civilians. In other words, it lumps combatants and civilians together into a singular event. All four examples that I brought up can count as massacres in that scenario. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that mainstream media calls this a massacre, and that's what matters. And yet again, I don't see you complaining about all the other Syrian massacre articles we have for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did protest in the past that Tremseh specially, but also Haffa was called a battle and not a massacre (though perhaps under a different username). I just found it inconsistent on Wikipedia's part. If we're going by the mainstream media, I really don't see the mainstream media calling Haffa, Tremseh and Jdaidat al Fadl as battles either. It seems to be a name made up (and popularized) by Wikipedia editors, much like Rif Dimashq or Homs offensive. The media was always clear in treating Haffa and Tremseh as successors to Houla and Qubeir, but that doesn't seem to have phased the empirical capacity of Wikipedians to judge what's a battle and what's a massacre. The opposition's hype of the events in Fadl and Artouz also succeeded in creating a large media buzz about a massacre there. There's as much argument to call Hatla a battle as there is to call Tremseh or Fadl. Again, as I originally said, consistency is key here. At the moment it seems every new article gets formatted on a whim with very little cohesion with past ones. NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it it's not that a massacre took place after the battle, a fact neither reflected in the article nor in the media, but rather it's the sheer coverage of the mainstream media labeling the whole incident as a massacre without distinction between battle or wanton murder. That argument would most definitely make sense. Now the only question is whether we can apply it everywhere equally. NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the following page for countless precedents: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war Unless you get all those renamed too, don't get your hopes up about this one. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what a massacre is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre Sovetus (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to use the most common name. Had you stuck by that argument, I would respect it. My problem is that Wikipedia editors tend to improvise and label incidents like Tremseh and Jdaidat al Fadl battles even while the media refers to them as massacres. Yet they would not do the same for Hatla. The burden of change should not be on me, but on the intransigence of those with a double standard. You can play semantics, or you can establish a consistent criteria of strict adherence to common name policy. NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a thing as precedents. And you seem to be selective in which articles you want renamed. And yes, mainstream media call this a massacre, Google is your friend. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hatla massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hatla_massacre&oldid=1177550928"