Talk:1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack

Massacre?

Are you really sure that it is NPOV to describe it as "massacre" and "suicide attack" ? --Magabund 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is defined as the mass killing of unarmed people, which this attack qualifies as. Boston Massacre and Wounded Knee Massacre are other examples. Driving a bus off a cliff qualifies as a suicide attack, as long as the attacker has suicidal intent, its a suicide attack, even though he or she may not be ultimately successful in committing suicide.--Exander (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Could someone provide reliable, scholarly sources that indicate use of the terms "massacre" or "suicide attack" to describe this incident? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviving this discussion because the sources are ... not good. JP and BBC sources are both dead links leaving just Ynet supporting key details by means of trivial coverage – short of the dead sources being restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the page to 1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack → Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 hijacking

or Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 hijacking and attempted suicide.

– He survived.

FourPi (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Does "405" need to be in the title? Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus suicide attack, Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack, and Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus hijacking are red links. Also, should "1989" be added at the beginning of the title for clarity, per WP:NCEVENTS? The second suggested title is definitely too awkward and wordy, and gives the impression that the hijacking and attempted suicide were two different events. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Almost dedicated journal abstract here has the bizarre phraseology of "commandeered crash", which I do not suggest we use, but it lends itself most to "kidnapping". I also agree that the first is better; the second a mouthful. The date meanwhile might be more meaningful than the bus number. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly, it wasn't really a "hijacking" in the normal sense – it was just a sudden turn off the road. A "hijacking" might imply more of a prolonged driving around or a standoff. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps that's where "commandeered crash" emerges from. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  So at this point I suggest just 1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Another way to be concise would be to drop "Tel Aviv–Jerusalem"; I found another candidate title in the List of Palestinian suicide attacks, which is Bus 405 suicide attack. That seems specific enough that it wouldn't need "1989". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer dropping the "Tel Aviv-Jerusalem" than the "suicide" as I think the "suicide" is a key aspect that shouldn't be elided. Andre🚐 00:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Except for it failing the key criteria if suicide, i.e. death. To be descriptively accurate, you'd have to at least say "attempted suicide attack", assuming the motive could be established. I've never before encountered the notion of attributing "suicide", not just "attempted suicide", to an event where the suicider is still alive. It just seems like descriptive malpractice and madness. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  It was absolutely not an "attempted suicide attack". It was a successful suicide attack that failed to result in a suicide. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  If the attacker was attempting to commit suicide, they failed, and when that happens, it is an "attempted suicide". If "suicide" doesn't require suicide to be called as such, I missed the memo ... perhaps we should rewrite the suicide page while we're at it. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The term "suicide attack" is an attack which is suicidal in its action and aims, but does not require consummation of the suicide, at least according to the sources here. It's a semantic distinction but really the only operative consideration is what most people call it, not if what they call it is extremely precise linguistically, e.g. "suicidal attack" isn't in common vernacular and the use of "suicide" as a modifier is different from its use as a noun. Andre🚐 01:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Any source for these novel definitions and linguistic exceptions? Iskandar323 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  [1] The question of what exactly constitutes a ‘suicide attack’ is also contested (Reference Moghadam and PedahzurMoghadam 2006b; Reference 65CrenshawCrenshaw 2007: 135–40). Suicide attacks are traditionally defined as attacks in which self-aware individuals purposely cause their own deaths by killing themselves along with their chosen targets (Reference Moghadam and PedahzurMoghadam 2006b: 18). Many authors further refine this definition by claiming that suicide attacks are attacks in which success is dependent upon the death of the perpetrator (Reference SchweitzerSchweitzer 2000: 78; Reference Moghadam and PedahzurMoghadam 2006b: 18–19). This so-called narrow definition thus excludes high-risk operations in which the perpetrator is prepared to die and might even anticipate death but has a chance of surviving. Other scholars, however, argue that the perpetrator’s intent to die is crucial and therefore adopt a broader definition that includes high-risk operations (Reference WinterWinter 2017: 4). Andre🚐 02:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the name is significant because it’s the first example of this kind of attack in the conflict, and his lack of success is not relevant because it’s a category, not a descriptor.

FortunateSons (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call surviving a crash a lack of success. Is their a source stating that his express intent was suicide? If not, then ... Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if he intended suicide (or knew his death was the likely result and was willing to do it anyway), that doesn't mean we need to have the word "suicide" in the title. The title should be WP:CONCISE, without including unnecessary extra commentary, speculation or details beyond what is necessary for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I think the current title has too much in it. You could remove at least one of "Tel Aviv–Jerusalem" or "405" or "suicide" and it would still be a perfectly recognizable title for the topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing here is actually pretty poor at the moment. The JP source is dead and two of the others are just summaries from prisoner exchange coverage. There's little in-depth substance other than in the journal article I've found, which doesn't say it was suicide, and says the motive appeared to be personal. The whole suicide angle therefore appears quite unsubstantiated both descriptively and in quality sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point. We definitely shouldn't have "suicide attack" in the title if there isn't a clear consensus in sources that this is what it was (or at least that this is part of a clearly-established WP:COMMONNAME for the incident). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Bus 405 hijacking attack or sth. similar would do fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Or no hijacking, because I do see the point that just grabbing the wheel for a second doesn't really fall into the domain of a standard hijacking. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Or course, that does depend on whether or not the person meant to die or at least accepted their self-inflicted death. If they believed they would survive, then it’s not particularly smart, but not a suicide attack. Assuming there is bad or no sourcing, just attack might be the cleanest solution, because kidnapping and attempted suicide does not convey the significant casualties. FortunateSons (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Replace 405 deaths with the year (1989) and leave off the suicide too as others have mentioned above. Using "hijacking attack" seems like a fair description. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Israel have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Note that the nom is blocked as a sock and can't respond. Instead of closing this, I am relisting to see if any of the suggested titles might win consensus, as it appears there is at least some desire to change the title. ASUKITE 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose replacement of the word "suicide" with the word "hijacking" because the perpetrator had no intention of holding people hostage nor driving the bus somewhere else. The fact that the perpetrator survived is a mere coincidence. He was lucky that he was not among the 16 who did die. Nonetheless, he did intend to sacrifice himself.
  I do agree with Fnlayson that more notable than the bus number is the year in which the attack took place. I would also add that the location is also more notable than the bus's origin and destination. I would therefore recommend renaming the article Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack → 1989 Kiryat Ye'arim suicide attack. I do see the pitfall of this proposal in that the attack did not take place inside Kiryat Ye'arim, but rather "near Kiryat Ye'arim".
  Bottom Line: the current name is probably the least worst option. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Unless there is an interview with the perpetrator attesting his intention to perish by his actions (i.e. established motive), the suicide label is just not really adequately supported. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no need to interview the perpetrator to determine motive. It should be self-evident that trying to kill everybody on the bus, while you are on the bus, is an intention to commit suicide in the process of committing mass-murder. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. And self-evidence isn't a sourcing standard. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Should add that not only is it not necessary to interview the perpetrator to determine the motive, in most cases, that's not how motives are established. If the perpetrator dies, then it's impossible to interview them, and perpetrators can, and often times do, lie about their motives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  All I see is you not providing a source establishing motive. In the absence of this, one could also plausibly deem this suicide allegation a BLP violation. We can't defame an individual by asserting that they attempted to commit suicide without the strongest of sources stating exactly that. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  This happened 35 years ago, so it's hard to find references. Those that I found, do not call it a suicide attack because it proceeded all the suicide attacks perpetrated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Therefore, we need to judge this historic event from a contemporary point of view, not from the point of view that existed at the time.
  

  It should be fairly obvious that while the probability for the perpetrator to have survived the attack was higher than 0% (the perpetrator survived), it was certainly much lower than 100% probability of survival. Therefore, the word 'suicide' currently in the title is absolutely justified. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  The journal paper that I've already added as a source comes six years after the incident and supports none of this. It is not the place of editors to assume what thoughts were flashing through the mind of someone grabbing the wheel of a bus. That's what sources are for. Source your position, or don't give it. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close. WP:BANREVERT Andre🚐 22:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's not really addressing the substance. Regardless of how it was started, an RM has progressed and been taken with seriousness by other editors since - more than the nom himself (who provided little rationale). Iskandar323 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  As far as the substance, WP:COMMONNAME. A cursory review appears to show that while some refer to it as a "terror attack," most seem to call it a "suicide attack" even though the suicide was merely an attempt, it's still a suicide attack. Even if I search for "Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 hijacking" it just comes up with links to suicide bombing. Andre🚐 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, for that matter, the exact title here is almost certainly pure Wikipedia invention. There are exactly two news pieces using the exact phrasing of this page title, and they are from 2022 and 2023, so in all likelihood taking their queues from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. Maybe we need a title whose main currency isn't in Wikipedia mirrors, but grounded in sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  While that's entirely possible, I'm not aware of an exception in COMMONNAME for cases of suspected citogenesis. Andre🚐 00:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  That would only be a concern if two trivial mentions in sources could establish common name, which they absolutely can't, so it's moot. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  This mention is not a trivial passing mention. The No. 405 bus attack marked the most deadly attack of the intifada to that date. It has been dubbed as the first Palestinian suicide attack, and it's from 2012. Corroborated in this book source, book source, and another one here. Andre🚐 00:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I spoke of the only two sources that used the exact page title used here as a phrase. Though incidentally, a source saying something is "dubbed" as something very much isn't confirming in its own voice that it is something; quite the opposite. It shows clear reluctance to use voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The first source, published by Taylor & Francis Terrorist Suicide Bombings, clearly says carried out the first suicide attack in its own voice, as well. Andre🚐 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, if we're going there, who knows how CRC Press works, but it produces technical manuals, so presumably you can just pay it to print stuff. I mean, just look at the cover image quality. In the fine print on the first page it says that neither the author nor the publisher take responsibility for the validity of the material, which is uncompelling to say the least. All of the sources you have produced seem rather lacking in the discussion of intent and motives, seemingly taking their casual statements as fait accompli – and none are in fact, detailed analyses of this specific event; they just use it as a historical waypoint and thematic touchstone. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Um, no. It's actually Taylor & Francis a reputable academic press. The fine print is standard legalese and a red herring. Intent and motives are irrelevant also, this is about the name of the article. Andre🚐 01:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but CRC Press isn't the academic part, and your book certainly isn't. Look harder for yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's because that book is also a training manual. It's still reliable and the disclaimer refers to the practical aspects, ie "don't try this at home." You're also ignoring the two Oxford academic books I linked about which both discuss the same thing, that this is considered the first "suicide attack" in their words. Andre🚐 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The next source calls is a "bus attack" again and again far more than it calls it anything else, so that supports "bus attack" – great! – and the next calls it an attack and then says it was viewed by Israelis and Palestinians as a suicide attack, which aligns with the dedicated paper that I have already shared which notes that it was claimed as a terror attack by both sides for political reasons – so these are the POV claims being identified by the source here, not declarative statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Aran, p.35, bus attack... the suicide attack and again 182, Aran the suicide attack on the 405 bus, clearly in the publication voice. In the other one, for the sake of argument saying that viewed as the first suicide attack doesn't support this COMMONNAME, even though I don't agree, we can agree to disagree and suspend that point. I'll find another source. Here [2] During the first few months of the second intifada there were no successful suicide attacks and only four failed attacks against military targets that did not lead to any Israeli deaths. The “first ‘real’ suicide attack did not occur until 4 March 2001, when a bus in Netanya inside Israel was attacked (three people were killed and fifty wounded). [02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)] Here's a military source from West Point. [3] Note c. The Bus 405 suicide attack (albeit, not a bombing) is considered “the first Palestinian suicide attack, despite the fact that … [the perpetrator] survived.” It was launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad in September 1989. From 2000-2005, Both Hamas and PIJ were also responsible for 65.5 percent of suicide bombings by Palestinian groups. See Efraim Benmelech and Claude Berrebi, “Attack Assignments in Terror Organizations and The Productivity of Suicide Bombers,” Working Paper 12910, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007, pp. 5-7. Andre🚐 02:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Support: 1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack, per BarrelProof and all of the discussion above. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also support 1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack. The 405 does not need to be in the title, nor does suicide. The year 1989 is important to distinguish from other attacks on buses in the vicinity, such as Jaffa Road bus bombings, 2016 Jerusalem bus bombing etc. In terms of WP:CONSISTENT, most articles at List of Palestinian suicide attacks don't use the word "suicide", and it also seems like WP:OVERPRECISION over just using the word "attack". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 1989 Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus attack per above. WP:NCE applies here.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support a more concise name, such as Egged Bus 405, based on the consistency with how things like United Airlines 93 which has redirects from 9/11 Flight 93 and United 93 crash or also of Indian Airlines Flight 814 which as a redirect from Kandahar Hijacking. Those would be both WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Using the name of the bus company instead of the route it is taking. TiggerJay (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.