Talk:Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because the other article is about the operation to rescue hostages, while this article is about the killing of civilians in the refugee camp surrounding this operation. --Dylanvt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those details about the killing of civilians in the refugee camp during this operation belong in the article about the operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article shouldn’t be speedy deleted because there is a lot of details specific to the massacre that is already being published, for example, euromed human rights monitor reported that “the Israeli army used a ladder to enter the home of Dr. Ahmed Al-Jamal. The army immediately executed 36-year-old Fatima Al-Jamal upon encountering her on the staircase. The forces then stormed the house and executed her husband, journalist Abdullah Al-Jamal, 36, and his father, Dr. Ahmed, 74, in front of his grandchildren. The army also shot their daughter, Zainab, 27, who sustained serious injuries.”
Eyewitnesses stories like nidal abdu witness: “crazy bombardment” hitting. “[It was] something we never witnessed before, maybe 150 rockets fell in less than 10 minutes, while we were running away more fell on the market,” he said. “There are children torn apart and scattered in the streets, they wiped out Nuseirat, it is hell on earth,” he said.
A lot of testimonies existing and details are still coming up need to be written about the massacre itself that would be a lot to fit in a small section in the IDF operation article.
Not to mention that massacres usually have independent articles alone, similar to other massacres in this conflict such as Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, Holit attack, etc whose casualties are less than 20 yet have entire independent articles. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if a massacre which killed 22 people and was part of the broader October 7th attack isn't redundant, then it makes zero sense that a massacre which killed 200 people wouldn't be notable enough to warrant its own article. Albert Mond (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge with rescue article, resolve naming concerns there

This is being discussed here as well: Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

This appears to be heavily

WP:NCENPOV - there's not a common name for the massacre, although if there had to be one at least in reliable media coverage it's rescue. The operation overall is being characterized as a massacre by the PA and Hamas, a rescue operation by Israel, (which is far more common in media reports I'm seeing). It's possible as news comes out that this will be independently notable, but reading through the provided sources I strongly err towards this at least based on current media coverage, redundant to the rescue operation article. Massacres can have independent articles, but the context of the linked articles is quite different, with the event being one discrete military action (massacre) within a broader context. Ultimately I hope this can just get merged and given sufficient weight in the rescue article (and any concerns about naming resolved there) but if not I do think there's grounds to bring it to AFD. NativeForeigner Talk 20:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I second the above Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a discussion at the other talk page here: [1]. No need for a parallel discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move comments across - I checked there wasn't already one but was late by a full 2 minutes! NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly objecting to moving this. Rationales discussed on other thread. JDiala (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging the articles and renaming this simply as a raid or operation or something neutral like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this Washington Post article [2], this CBC article [3], and this France24 article [4]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be in favour of the above proposal as an alternative. I believe that we ought to have either a single article dealing with the event in its totality and having an NPOV name (like "raid", "attack") which makes clear the violence, or just have two separate articles. JDiala (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging. Oathed (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging. The events are inextricable. It makes no sense to have two articles that each frame the same events in different ways. That's a recipe for two separate POV articles when a single NPOV article is clearly the preferred, encyclopedic approach. Niremetal (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support to merging this into the massacre article, and keeping that article titled as a massacre — IмSтevan talk 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging this into the hostage rescue article. It makes no sense to have two articles discussing the same operation. -Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection requested

I have submitted a request for protection on this page to slow down edit warring and IP vandalism. Boredintheevening (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas involvement

@Tobyw87: The content you added ("According to the IDF, Hamas pays Palestinian families to hold the hostages in their houses, which may account for the high casualties.") does not in any way support your assertion that Hamas took part in this massacre. Please self-revert as this is misleading. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not misleading. According to Amnesty and international organziations, the holding of human shields is a war crime. The fact that they involve Palestinians in hostage taking means they are in harms way, which puts moral culpability onto Hamas for them dying during in any rescue operation. Also, reported cross fire battles between Hamas and the IDF in a dense urban environment also implicates Hamas. I will not self-revert. Tobyw87 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hamas as a listed perpetrator

Hamas reportedly engaged in firefights with the IDF in a dense combat environment, and certainly contributed to the casualty counts that occurred. It is misleading to say only the IDF contributed to casualties, since their own cross fire killed Palestinians. Also, their use of human shields (Paying Palestinians to keep hostages in their houses) increased the risk that any civilians were in during a rescue operation. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is extremely biased and are just claims by the IDF Waterlover3 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera is recognized as an acceptable source on Wikipedia, so is Times of Israel.Tobyw87 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if al jazeera posts a claim from the IDF does that make the IDF claim correct?
al jazeera also reported that the 3 israeli hostages died in the attack does that make it a hardend fact? Waterlover3 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we apply the same logic to October 7 and list the IDF as a perpetrator since they also contributed to the casualties by indiscriminately firing at civilian areas?1234 Also, you shouldn't treat IDF allegations as facts until a proper independent investigation takes place, just as you do with those from Hamas. - Ïvana (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, I agree---which is why it is entirely inappropriate to call this a "Massacre", since there has been no independent investigation. What we know is hostages were rescued and civilians died in the process. The moral question of who is responsible is very much contentious, right now it looks like the IDF and Hamas are both responsible. As for October 7th, it isn't the same since Israel did not put its own civilians at risk through the use of human shields, which is internationally recognized as a war crime.Tobyw87 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking that NATO report like it's supposed to change anything ignoring the massive conflict of interest as with anything coming from Israel allies. A lot of the NATO members are currently funding/selling weapons to Israel. Both Amnesty international and HRW had proper investigations and found no evidence of Hamas using human shields. Israel has multiple military facilities near or even within civilian areas (like Tel Aviv) but of course that it's not interpreted as using human shields. But that discussion is irrelevant to this one. Right now it definitely doesn't look like both parties are responsible, your claim is not supported by any of the sources used here unless you ignore
WP:SYNTH and try to jump through loops by arguing that anyone contributing to casualties should also be considered a perpetrator. Both the IDF and Hamas (plus people on the ground like hospital officials) have confirmed that at least dozens of civilians were killed as a result of this operation. That fits the definition of massacre. If you believe that we cannot name it as such until a proper independent investigation takes place then we should apply the same logic to hundreds of other articles, starting with this list. Massacre is not a legal term and it has been used by multiple RS to describe this event. - Ïvana (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't just NATO, it is also the the UN Secretary General, the EU, and US. Macron. All have made several statements accusing Hamas of using human shielding. You can hide behind Amnesty and HWR all you want, but major international bodies all seem to be saying the same thing. I reject this is WP:SYNTH, since all of these articles agree with the statement I am saying---you just reject the claim that Hamas uses humans shields, which is belied by many articles suggesting they co-locate their own operations in schools, mosques, and hospitals and pay civilians to keep hostages, which puts them at risk.
As for the definition of "Massacre". Yes, I can disagree with the use of that term on any article without an independent investigation that attempts to adjudicate blame. It is obviously not morally neutral as you seem to be implying here, especially when the IDF is listed as the primary perpetrator (But many articles cited here contest this entirely). You just want to push a narrative instead of saying the obvious, which is Hamas and the IDF share blame here. Tobyw87 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EU, Macron, and Biden are hardly unbiased entities and have provided full throated support for the IDF. The consensus amongst human rights orgs is that while Hamas does not take enough care to distinguish itself from civilians it does not intentionally co-locate in civilian areas for the purpose of shielding. Your arguments are facetious and as other commenters have pointed out, by your own logic the IDF would be responsible for the deaths on october 7th as well. The claim that Hamas uses shields is just that; a claim, and that should be contextualized.
Unless you provide proof that the majority of the deaths were caused by vague allegations of human shielding, it is only logical for the article to reflect the established facts. 206.225.72.14 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for you to adjudicate bias from these sources---that's actually WP:SYNTH, if you have sources that say that bias means that the EU, UN, US, etc. cannot make clear statements regarding the use of human shields, cite it---otherwise that's just your own opinion and should not be reflective in this article. UNWRA has condemned the co-locating of rockets in its schools, only one of many examples such things occurring. There's already claims and evidence that one of the houses used to keep 3 of the 4 hostages was the house of a Palestinian journalist. He is among the dead and apparently so is his family. [1]Tobyw87 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-hamas-terrorist-and-journalist-was-holding-3-hostages-in-home-alongside-family/
Am I mistaken, or did Kentucky Rain24 just strikethrough a bunch of other people's replies in this thread? Albert Mond (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I was mistaken, it was somebody else. Albert Mond (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was not me, but non extended confirmed editors are not allowed to edit this talk page, per
WP:ECR, other than to make specific edit requests. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

added 3 israeli hostages to the death count

Why is the IDF "Extremely biased", but Hamas is not? None of these claims have been verified by 3rd parties yet and you want to accept them whole cloth. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No conflict party is more reliable that the other, thats why we say “per <party>”. We can’t omit one in favor of the other, that would be a gross violation of
WP:NPOV Stephan rostie (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, which is why I believe Hamas should be put as a listed perpetrator, since through their direct actions and human shielding they led to the deaths of many civilians as per many sources cited here.Tobyw87 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would add UNRWA as well. Due to hostages being held at their camp and their established relationship with Hamas. Daniel Souza (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork

This article is exactly and only a Point of view (POV) fork, as described on the relevant Wikipedia policy page. You might not want to put in a lot of effort into editing this article, since its chances of long-term survival as a separate article may be slim... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that describing the mass murder of 210 people as a "rescue operation" is the chief POV thing here. Anyways, my own stance is that if it's to be merged, we need a more neutral title for the other article. Otherwise we can have separate articles discussing the rescue specifically as opposed to the harm to civilians (including levelling of entire neighbourhoods). JDiala (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Framing this event as ('a rescue'+'incidental massacre') vs. ('a massacre'+'during which, one hostage was retrieved') is a huge issue of striking balance. The former risks validating a tone of genocide apologism. I am also shocked, although unsurprised, by the sheer number of rapidfire edits that attempt to minimize or justify the mass killing of Palestinians by the Israeli occupation. I think the issue of how to manage/curate these articles needs to be taken up at a much higher level, hopefully by people who are editing in good faith. Boredintheevening (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article actually gas less focus on the casualties - a single short paragraph- than the original article. It is clear POV fork created to have "massacre: in the title Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is arguable that the rescue operation here is the fork. The only way if this is a fork that has to be merged under a “rescue” is that the lives of 4 Israelis are worth more than 200 lives of Palestinians. It is already a struggle to acknowledge any massacres by Israel as a massacre on Wikipedia and this fits the definition. The best option is to keep them either seperate, or merge under an article that explicitly uses the word “massacre” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rescue operation article came first, so it can't be a fork Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that some blatant POV of the worst kind should remain just because it "came first" has no basis in either policy or commons sense. M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the other article has POV issues, you should fix them there. But creating another article to cover the same event , just from a different POV is not the way to solve it, and in fact runs seems to run opposite to the policy mentioned above about POV forks Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you that the other article is not POV is rather worrying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, go fix it there, then, but don't create a POV fork Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is forcing you to contribute here. But if you comment on my comments, I will probably respond. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention of the raid was to free hostages, and it succeeded in freeing hostages, so it would be difficult (and very NPOV) to avoid referring to hostages in the article title -- unless it were to be renamed as "Operation Summer Seeds" or similar (which you would probably also dislike). Meanwhile, if you think it had overwhelmingly negative effects, then the answer is to add valid sourced reliable information to that effect to the main article -- and NOT to create a POV Fork! AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in debating the operation's morality or lack of it here, but you guys are reinforcing my point -- having one article describing X as good and another article describing X as evil is the exact precise definition of a POV Fork. If the "people at a much higher level" do take an interest in this article, don't be excessively surprised if they abruptly delete or merge it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's discussion about this here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to move forward, we should discuss what the title that covers both should be. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the discussion I linked to above is all about Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Please refrain from wasting my time. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is, take the time to read it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

separating my comment from the mumbo jumbo In order to move forward, we should first discuss what the title that covers both events both should be. M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, it is discussed at the other article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation#Requested_move_9_June_2024 0
Take the time to read. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

separating my comment from the mumbo jumbo In order to move forward, we should first discuss what the title that covers both events should be. For those who have trouble understanding English, I'm talking about "discussion" (I'm not interested in a proposed move). M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed moves involve discussion and are the way to arrive at an agreed title Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever! If someone other than KR feels like discussing it, then please ping me. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stop adding "Hamas-run" and "Hamas controlled"

There is consensus not to write this. It's unnecessary, not the common name, and an attempt to push a certain POV. Look at any other article in this topic space, it's never used and always reverted when added. Dylanvt (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see quite a few articles using this. Could you link to the discussion where this consensus was reached? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed many times, for example
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, or Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), or Bombing of the Gaza Strip, or etc. etc. etc. is it used. It's not called the "Hamas-run Health Ministry". It's called the "Gaza Health Ministry". Dylanvt (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nableezy: maybe you can provide even more guidance on this. Dylanvt (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there has only been one formal discussion on this - but that came to a consensus that we should clarify that it is controlled by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally sources have stopped using "Hamas-run" for the Ministry of Health and most often attribute it either to the Gazan Ministry of Health or Palestinian health officials. The Palestinian Media Office still gets occasional "Hamas-run" in some sources. But the MoH rarely does. See for example Washington Post simply saying "health officials", NYTimes saying "local Gaza health officials" and "Palestinian health officials", Reuters saying "Palestinian health ministry officials" and "Hamas-run government media office" referring to the MoH and the PMO respectively. There is no reason to include "Hamas-run" for the MoH, there may be reason to include it when first introducing the PMO though. nableezy - 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC
I'm not sure that's accurate. Just in the past week all of the following have clarified that it controlled by Hamas:
  1. AP
  2. BBC
  3. France24
  4. The Guardian
  5. Reuters
  6. Times of India
  7. Times of Israel
  8. Voice of America
I didn't look beyond the first page. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the 31 sources used here, in the ones that reference the ministry (some only attribute the figures to health officials from nearby hospitals), only one article from ToI uses "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry". None of the other ones use "Hamas-controlled", "Hamas-run" or anything similar.
I would like to understand the editorial decision behind adding that statement. It seems that the only purpose is to cast doubt on information coming from the ministry. Their numbers have consistently been deemed reliable by organizations such as the UN, HRW, and WHO (in fact, they are often lower than other estimates). - Ïvana (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources currently in the article, both the BBC and France24 also use "Hamas-run" or similar. Others provide context by saying that Hamas runs Gaza, and others still simply attribute to Hamas officials and don't mention the health ministry.
It is to align our article with reliable sources; if reliable sources think it is important to make it clear that this isn't an independent source then we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many reliable sources report this as simply coming from Gazan health officials or the Gaza MoH. Pretending like the only things sources do, which we should align with, use "Hamas-run" or similar. Others provide context by saying that Hamas runs Gaza, and others still simply attribute to Hamas officials and don't mention the health ministry. is quite far from the truth. And you do that citing VoA and Times of India. nableezy - 22:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the AP say Hamas run with the health ministry? It does say "The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government in Gaza" but it consistently just says the health ministry when referring to it. Much the same with the Reuters. It says, over and over, Gaza's health ministry. Times of Israel has an obvious bias here, as does Voice of America. Times of India isn't really the type of source Id expect somebody who was interested in relaying material from the best sources to cite, but go off I guess. nableezy - 19:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:IMPARTIAL. Also, for the sources used in this article that you singled out, France24 says "health officials in the Hamas-run government" - not the same thing. BBC mentions the "Hamas government media office" which is a different entity and already mentioned in the lead. - Ïvana (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The BBC says the Hamas-run health ministry. Regarding France24, what else can they be referring to apart from the Health Ministry?
IMPARTIAL means following the sources; if our sources don't treat parties equally then we can't treat parties equally, as that would violate
WP:FALSEBALANCE. Further, there is a relevant difference between the parties here; the Israeli Ministry of Health is obviously controlled by Israel, but the Gaza Health Ministry is not obviously controlled by Hamas. This may explain why reliable sources see the need to provide additional context. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Where does the AP say Hamas run with the health ministry? It does say "The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government in Gaza" but it consistently just says the health ministry when referring to it.
In the sentence you quote? Saying it on every mention isn't necessary, either for their articles or for ours. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is part of the government, not that it is "Hamas-controlled", and when referring to it then it simply says "Gazan health ministry". And in fact, in their article about this topic they actually never say "Hamas-run" or anything similar to it, only saying At least 274 Palestinians, including dozens of children, were killed, and hundreds more were wounded, in the Israeli raid that rescued four hostages held by Hamas, Gaza’s Health Ministry said Sunday. ... Israel’s massive offensive has killed over 36,700 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count. It said 64 children and 57 women were killed in the latest raid, and 153 children and 161 women were among the nearly 700 wounded. Another article about this raid says The raid also killed at least 274 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, deepening the suffering of people in Gaza who have had to endure the brutal war and a humanitarian catastrophe. The ministry does not distinguish between fighters and civilians in its tallies. Nary a Hamas-run there either. So you ignore the source that is actually focused on this topic and then pretend like another article that also refers to the ministry without any qualifier backs up your position here. Huh. nableezy - 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BilledMammal. There is a multitude of sources reporting it is run by Hamas, which indicates it is, which indicates it should say so in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammals own sources don’t do what he claims they do. Most sources do not say Hamas-run with the health ministry, that meme has died long ago, and we’ve already had related rfcs on the parent article. Yall just making us go through this same thing over again is tendentious. nableezy - 19:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AP - The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government in Gaza (referring to the GHM)
  2. BBC - The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza
  3. France24 - according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry
  4. The Guardian - according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry
  5. Reuters - the Hamas-run government's data (referring to data from the GHM)
  6. Times of India - Hamas-run Gaza's health ministry
  7. Times of Israel - Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry
  8. Voice of America - Hamas-run Gaza health ministry
we’ve already had related rfcs on the parent article Can you link the RfC's you are referring to? As far as I know, the only RfC on this question is the one I linked, which found consensus to include the content. BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already responded to these, but for your benefit I can repeat myself here. Where does the AP say Hamas run with the health ministry? It does say "The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government in Gaza" but it consistently just says the health ministry when referring to it. Much the same with the Reuters. It says, over and over, Gaza's health ministry. Times of Israel has an obvious bias here, as does Voice of America. Times of India isn't really the type of source Id expect somebody who was interested in relaying material from the best sources to cite, but go off I guess. nableezy - 20:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a health minister who is a Hamas political party member, that is all, just like every minister of anything in any country is a political appointee. But the UK's health minister isn't Tory-led, and Israel's finance ministry isn't "Religious Zionist-led" in normal speech either just because Smotrich is finance minister.
Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional sources about this event clarifying the relationship between Hamas and the GHM:

  1. ABC News
  2. Agence France-Presse
  3. AOL
  4. The BBC
  5. CBS News
  6. DW
  7. France24
  8. The Guardian
  9. Gulf Times
  10. Haaretz
  11. The Independent
  12. Saudi Gazette
  13. Sky News
  14. Washington Examiner

It is common for sources reporting on this event to clarify the relationship, and the only formal discussion we have had on this question found consensus to include it - we need to do the same here. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an eccentricity of some sources' writing style, quite frankly. The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, whose executives were appointed by Joe Biden. To call it the "Democratic Party-run Center for Disease Control and Prevention" would technically be a statement of fact as of today, but it would be a bizarre turn of phrase to include at every mention of the CDC in an encyclopedia which also has entire articles about the government and federal agencies of the United States. Our own article on the Gaza Health Ministry acknowledges, with sources, that the UN, World Health Organization, The Lancet, and Human Rights Watch have all found numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry to be reliable, so what exactly is being communicated when we add "Hamas-run" in front of the historically reliable Ministry of Health in an area where Hamas is the currently existing government? How is it any different from doing the same thing for any other similar organization in any other country? It seems redundant. Albert Mond (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems redundant and POV because that's exactly what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to keep in mind that Hamas isn't equivalent to the Democratic Party; it's much closer to the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region or the Nazi Party. The party and the state are inextricably entwined, to the extent that significant portions of the army belong to the party, not the state. It would be odd to clarify that an agency is run by the Democratic Party, but far less odd to clarify that it is run by the Nazi party.
Additionally, unlike in Nazi-run Germany or Ba'athist-run Iraq, it isn't self-evident that a Gazan Ministry is controlled by Hamas due to the fact that Gaza isn't a state - Palestine is, and Palestine is controlled by Fatah. Because of this sources may - and the articles I've linked demonstrate they do - believe that it is important to clarify the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It's important to keep in mind that Hamas isn't equivalent to the Democratic Party; it's much closer to the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region or the Nazi Party. ..."
Very normal and unbiased thing to say. Really tells a lot from where your insistance comes. And no, they don't look like even a bit. Hamas is Islamist, but Palestinians are majority Shâfi'î, so does Hamas. Iraq, on the other hand, was historically the center of Hanafism (a totally different madhhab of Islam). Today majority of Iraq is Twelver Shi'a, as for the Sunni Muslims (which are the minority) Iraqi Arabs are majority Hanafi, while Iraqi Kurds are majority Shâfi'î. Saddam, only in the late '70s and '80s (against Iran) followed a Hanafî Islamic thought, because majority Shi'as were rebelling against him. Naturally everyone would say that what Saddam was an Iraqi Arab nationalist, his sunni preference was a part of it. This has nothing to do with Hamas. It's like saying secular but god believing Jewish and Hassidic Jews are the same. It's a very racist and sectarian thing to claim. I'm not even going to reply the Nazis claim, because it's an obvious slander. However, one can point out to the fact that it's not Hamas who created camps for people, in fact it's the opposite.
Kemkhachev (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have said, is a classical "strawman argument". You try to prove that Hamas is nothing like the Ba'ath party or the Nazi party by comparing the ideologies of those parties. However, the above comment never tried to say that the ideologies are similar. It compared the ruling parties in one-party states that are intertwined with the state institutions with each other. I suppose even you can't deny that Hamas ruled in Gaza a de-facto one-party state, and that's the difference between and the Democratic Party that was pointed out. By the way between these organizations (Ba'ath, Hamas and the Nazi Party there is at least one thing in common: their shared antisemitism. Winnie49483 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas is not a one party state, it has tolerated several political groups in Gaza and military groups that it fights alongside, including Fatah which it previously ousted. Wether you think that resisting a violent occupation that punishes civilians, massacres protesters, and stands currently accused of genocide fits the same definition of “antisemitism” as an industrial slaughter of millions of jews because of a demented ideology is not relevant to the discussion, and may also be “foruming” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that simply attribute to health officials or the ministry of health:
  1. Washington Post: Degran and other health officials said 210 people had been killed and 400 others wounded in the blitz. ... In eight months of war, more than 36,800 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants but says the majority of those killed are women and children. (another reason not to include this, as in this case the health officials reporting the figures are not just from the MoH). Also another article: The rescue operation on Saturday that freed four Israeli hostages and killed more than 270 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, was one of the most dramatic and deadly episodes of Israel’s war against Hamas. ... The Gaza Health Ministry said at least 274 people were killed; it was unclear how many were combatants.
  2. NYTimes: Scores of Palestinians, including women and children, were killed during the rescue operation, according to local Gaza health officials. The Israeli military said it had targeted militants who had threatened its forces as they sought to extract the hostages. Neither the Israeli military nor Palestinian health officials provided a breakdown of civilians and combatants killed in the raid. ... The Gaza Health Ministry said at least 274 people were killed; it was unclear how many were combatants.
  3. Reuters: In an update on Sunday, Gaza's health ministry said 274 Palestinians were killed - up from 210 it reported on Saturday - and 698 were injured when Israeli special force commandos stormed into the densely populated Al-Nuseirat camp to rescue four hostages held since October by Hamas militants. ... Gaza's health ministry said another 798 Palestinians were injured in the Israeli raid, and one of them, 4-year-old Tawfiq Abu Youssef, was in critical condition when visited in hospital on Sunday by his father Raed. (also includes Israel's ensuing air and ground war in Gaza has killed at least 37,084 Palestinians, the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory said in its Sunday update. The ministry says thousands more dead are feared buried under the rubble. which says health ministry in the Hamas-run territory, which however is very different from calling the ministry "Hamas-run"
  4. CNN: Two days after an Israeli military operation rescued four hostages being held by Hamas in Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, killing more than 270 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, new details are emerging about what was one of the most dramatic and deadly events since the war started. ... The latest figures from Gazan authorities say 274 Palestinians were killed and 698 injured – which would mark one of the deadliest days in months for people living in Gaza. The IDF has disputed those numbers, saying it estimated the number of casualties from the operation was “under 100.” CNN cannot independently verify either side’s figures. Gaza’s health ministry does not distinguish between civilians and militants.
  5. NBC News: In the Nuseirat refugee camp, Palestinian families mourned after at least 274 people, including dozens of children, were killed during the raid, according to local health officials. The Israeli military acknowledged there were casualties, but estimated the number was less than 100 and said it did not know how many were Hamas fighters. NBC News could not independently verify the death toll. ... More than 37,000 people have been killed in Gaza, according to local health officials, since Israel launched its offensive in the enclave following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, in which some 1,200 people were killed and around 250 others taken hostage, according to Israeli officials. More than 100 people are thought to remain held captive, with at least a quarter of them believed to be dead.
  6. Al-Jazeera: The announcement about the raid in Nuseirat on Saturday came as Palestinian health officials said at least 210 people were killed and wounded in Israeli attacks on central Gaza. Local residents said Nuseirat had come under heavy Israeli drone and air raids, with children among those killed. ... The Ministry of Health in Gaza released images of bloodied patients, including children, lying in the corridors of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah after the Israeli military claimed targeting “terrorist” infrastructure in what appeared to be part of the rescue operation.
  7. AP: The Ministry of Health in Gaza released images of bloodied patients, including children, lying in the corridors of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah after the Israeli military claimed targeting “terrorist” infrastructure in what appeared to be part of the rescue operation. ... Israel's massive offensive has killed over 36,700 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count. It said 64 children and 57 women were killed in the latest raid, and 153 children and 161 women were among the nearly 700 wounded.
  8. al-Ahram: Palestinian health officials condemned the "massacre," reporting over 274 people killed and 698 wounded during the raid.
nableezy - 21:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which says health ministry in the Hamas-run territory, which however is very different from calling the ministry "Hamas-run". I disagree that it's very different, but perhaps this will allow us to find a compromise; on the first mention we can say "The Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza reported..."
Your concerns don't appear to apply to this wording, while I feel it would address my concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont support that either. We have wikilinks for a reason, and the government that the Gazan Ministry of Health runs under is a topic appropriate for that page. nableezy - 22:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: You keep insisting that Hamas controls the ministry when there is no proof of that. GHM's own article a) cites a doctor deniying it and b) states that the ministry operates under the jurisdiction of the government (as all ministries do). Unless by control you mean b), which is evident and doesn't need to be spelled out. I also think your parallelism between Hamas and the Nazi party is inappropriate and done in bad faith and it doesn't even help your argument - we are talking about Gaza, not Palestine as a whole. Gaza doesn't have multiple factions that would warrant the need to say who's in charge of any government entity operating there. It is to be expected that a local (to put it that way) ministry will be in the local's government territory and jurisdiction. That same argument can also be used against your suggestion of using "Hamas-run Gaza". As opposed to what? Is there a part of Gaza controlled by another party? Should we also say "Likud-run Israel"? Your reasoning would make sense if, for example, Fatah was the party in charge and Hamas somehow had it's own ministry or agencies. But that is not the case and nothing happening here is out of the ordinary to justify the double standard. - Ïvana (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue double standards, you can argue that there is no proof (aside from, I assume, the thousands of articles in reliable sources), you can argue it isn’t necessary, but none of that matters - we follow the sources, and editors personal opinions should have little relevance.
That is why the one formal discussion we had on this question found a consensus for inclusion, and why we should include it here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except following the sources here doesn’t quite mean what you think it does and the RFC you’re referencing predates the shift by the sources to largely stop prefacing GHM with Hamas-run. The last RFC I’m aware of is the infobox RFC at the main page. Where your insistence on saying Hamas-run and attributing only Palestinian figures was shut down as the POV-violation that it is. nableezy - 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources describe the GHM as reliable. It's reliability was discussed at RSN and many sources backed up that assessment then and they still do. This business of tagging GHM with Hamas run is just unnecessary filler, the only attribution needed is GHM itself. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the sources being currently cited in this article do not use "Hamas-led", "Hamas-run", "Hamas-controlled" or any variations of the sort. Plenty of non partisan mainstream RS do not use it as showed by nableezy so it's not as if there is an universal consensus that we are not following. In general, sources are moving away from it, because the numbers are reliable. Also I don't see how the conclusion of a 7 months old RfC regarding the wording in a specific article means it should be applied to every single article related to the war, like nothing happened in between. - Ïvana (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    ping on reply) 04:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Requested move 12 June 2024

WP:KILLINGS
) and covers the idea of "massacre" but in a neutral way. Two anticipated objections:

Finally, the move target should be "Killing of civilians during X", where X is the name decided for

WP:CONSISTENT. Currently there seems to be a lot of support for moving that article
to "Nuseirat raid and rescue".
ping on reply) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Strongly oppose not moving to a title explicitly calling it a massacre. Calling a massacre a massacre is not “POV”, just like calling an eastern olivaceous warbler an eastern olivaceous warbler is not POV. There was intent, airstrikes, killing civilians and executing them in their homes. Just because the victims are Palestinians and the perpetrators are Israeli does not make it less of a massacre, and the euphemisms ought to be stopped. There are many less deadly articles fhat are referred to as a “massacre”, so it’s only right to call the bloodiest single day event in this invasion as such The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per The Great Mule of Eupatoria. Skitash (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Massacre" is POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, though proposer's rationale is mostly good. It's just that many sources are calling it a massacre, though perhaps not a majority.
  1. Al Jazeera
  2. again
  3. The Intercept
  4. El País
  5. Middle East Eye
  6. again
  7. The New Arab
  8. again
  9. and again
  10. and again
  11. Mondoweiss
  12. again
  13. Democracy Now!
  14. AFSC
  15. WSWS
  16. Middle East Monitor
  17. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor
  18. Truthout
  19. Common Dreams
  20. Palestine Chronicle
  21. Al Mayadeen
  22. Press TV, which cites:
    Josep Borrell - Reports from Gaza of another massacre of civilians are appalling
    Hakan Fidan - there is no doubt those who perpetrated the massacre in Gaza will eventually be held accountable
    Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik - Appalled by reports of another massacre of civilians in Gaza
Dylanvt (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ping on reply) 13:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not POV to call it what it is (a massacre), just like it's not POV to call a murder a murder. That's what they are, there are no other sides to take into consideration. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the "massacre" label is so obviously accurate as to be neutral (and thus exempt from the
WP:POVNAME requirement), why is it that only less-neutral sources are calling it that (in their own voice)? Just from a cursory search, PBS, NPR, CBS, and NYT don't refer to it as a massacre. AP and CNN quote Hamas calling it a massacre, but don't call it that in their own voice. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
1. PBS is not discussing the killings in depth, it is an article about how those killings/rescue operation will impact the peace deal.
2. NPR again is about the rescue operation as a whole, not specific to the massacre of the civilians
3. CBS also is about the raid generally, not primarily about the civilian deaths that resulted from the raid.
4. Ditto for the NYT.
In sources that comprehensively cover the impact the operation had on civilians, those sources refer to it as a massacre. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, these mainstream articles don't focus specifically on killings, but they do all cover killings, all but one even have "kill" in the headline. So I don't think their scope explains why they don't use refer to killings as a massacre. I would presume they didn't use "massacre" because there are perfect good alternatives, such as "killings", and they generally default to more neutral language. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only less-neutral sources are calling it that (in their own voice)? I guess you missed this important announcement:

UN human rights experts today strongly condemned the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza during a hostage rescue operation in Nuseirat Refugee Camp, which killed at least 274 Palestinians, including 64 children and 57 women, and injured nearly 700.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying this
UNISPAL article, with its colorful language like "umpteenth massacre" and "Israeli Occupation Forces", is more neutral than the most mainstream news agencies such as AP? — xDanielx T/C\R 17:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I said what I'm saying. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it also has the merit of being true. Just because most of the American press can't bring themselves to say it, doesn't prevent "more neutral" people from saying it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you think the New York Times is "more neutral" than Al Jazeera or The Intercept? Dylanvt (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify for those who can't read between lines, I'm saying that "neutral" does not mean "toeing the line of the State Department" or "pro-Western" or "Islamophobic". It means "neutral".) Dylanvt (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, AJ was established by and funded by a dictatorship. It is little more than the mouthpiece for the Qatari ruling regime. As they say, he who pays the piper calls the tune - you're welcome to try and disprove this by pointing to AJ articles criticizing any aspect of the Qatari rulers. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, NYT was established by and funded by a dictatorship. It is little more than the mouthpiece for the US ruling regime. As they say, he who pays the piper calls the tune - you're welcome to try and disprove this by pointing to NYT articles criticizing any aspect of Western imperialism. Dylanvt (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is constructive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not, words do have meanings. The NYT is a publicly traded company, not a government actor. It was founded by 2 individuals, not a government entity, it is funded today by ad and subscription revenues, not government handouts.
If you want to read NYT article criticizing what you call "US imperialism", there's no shortage of it, Here's a starting reading list
there's an article in this encyclopedia about
American Imperialism - check and see hpw many times the NYT is used there for criticism. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
And what about the Intercept? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intercept exposed the NYT for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's systemic bias in Western media against describing massacres of Palestinians a massacre. The rule needs to be more malleable for this subject. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general comment, I hate how every source is bias in this conflict. Sources that don't have pro-Western bias are usually pro-Palestinian. The only ever time things get labeled with a point of view here is when the other side gives in, like with western sources and the Flour massacre. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: Multiple sources and international organizations have called it a massacre, so changing it would downplay the severity of the killing of over 276 people, which is definitely considered a massacre. We should wait on whether or not a decision is reached on the merge discussion, if it is than the new title will have to mention both the killing of innocent civilians and the hostage rescue in order for it to not violate NPOV, if the articles don't merge than the current name should remain. Nori2001 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are plenty of sources calling it a massacre, and there is obvious precedent for using the word "massacre" in article titles, such as in the case of the Netiv HaAsara massacre and Kissufim massacre. Albert Mond (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Nori2001 and others. Plenty of RS call it a massacre and there is a precedent for similar articles to use this wording even when the events covered are a consequence of a bigger event (for example Be'eri massacre). We should also wait til the other merge discussion reaches a consensus. - Ïvana (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The tendency to only address Israeli brutality with euphemisms is becoming nothing short of a conspiracy on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thats not an encyclopedic name. Also there is no way to describe the dead as all civilians. I wouldn't call it a massacre, but 'killing of civilians during' is way too bulky. TimeEngineer (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Kissufim massacre has received that name despite the fact that over half the victims were active duty Israeli soldiers. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and at this point
WP:SNOW closure is proper. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Strongly oppose. Holy euphemism. I understand why you requested the RM, but "killing of civilians during" in a singular event is extremely euphemistic especially when there are numerous sources calling the event a massacre. The Great Mule of Eupatoria and Nori2001 also had great points. Jebiguess (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per @Albert Mond's points. Also the change would turn this into weasel words. Carlp941 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AJ article about all the WP goings on here. Doesn't look like much support for a move away from massacre at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stating the obvious, AJ does not decide WP article names, and its article merely reports on the ongoing discussions, without supporting one or the other. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's obvious, don't state it. Nor did I say that AJ decided article names. It's just a comment. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This seems to have a lot of sources backing it up. Even in articles that don't explicitly say the attack was a massacre, it mentions officials and groups that do. Here are some additional sources:
It seems left-wing American and foreign sources dub this a massacre. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If usage is in the ecosystem, that is, referred to a lot by the media even if they themselves are not naming it that, then there is certainly a case for massacre. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. In pretty much every article they cite some Hamas official or Arab leader who calls it a massacre. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UN experts condemn outrageous disregard for Palestinian civilians during Israel’s military operation in Nuseirat (UN experts, 14 June)
"UN human rights experts today strongly condemned the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza during a hostage rescue operation in Nuseirat Refugee Camp, which killed at least 274 Palestinians, including 64 children and 57 women, and injured nearly 700." Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have the UN too. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, per arguments by Users The Great Mule of Eupatoria, and M.Bitton. -Mardus /talk 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Per The Great Mule of Eupatoria and Albert Mond + UN human rights experts also called “the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza” in its last report Stephan rostie (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, per voices of the UN human rights experts. BTW, this got picked up by TRT news. --Masssly (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above, numerous sources refer to it as a massacre, the number of people who were killed and the nature of them being non combatants. I don't believe the policies shared can be invoked in this instance to claim bias as there are articles where fewer civilians were targeted that have the word "massacre" as part of their title. I would support a title change such as "Nuseirat refugee camp massacre and rescue operation" as this captures that it was both a massacre and a rescue operation. EvilxFish (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with VR's
WP:POVNAME, which requires that a significant majority of reliable English-language sources use the name. The oppose !votes largely seem to ignore this policy. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"less neutral ones" - every source has some level of bias when it comes to the IP conflict, so this really isn't a valid criticism. furthermore,
WP:POVNAMING
notes that:
"In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity."
Not sure what other words you could use for a mass killing of civilians other than the term massacre, which multiple reliable English language sources use. War crimes against Palestinians are downplayed by Western media sources. It's not ignoring the policy, its recognition that 1. the massacre of these civilians is notable outside of the general IDF operation and 2. articles that discuss this massacre in-depth refer to it as a massacre. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Furthermore, the UN human rights experts describe it as a massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed every source has some bias, but very mainstream sources tend to make a reasonable effort at neutrality. As mentioned above, PBS, NPR, CBS, and NYT don't refer to it as a massacre, while AP and CNN only quote Hamas calling it a massacre. Surely these are all more mainstream and relatively more neutral than Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, etc?
In any case, the
WP:POVNAME
standard is a "significant majority" of reliable sources, and if we ignore the neutrality of each source, it nonetheless seems clear that there isn't a significant majority referring to the event as a massacre.
Yes, clarity matters also, but I don't think anyone has mentioned any concerns with the clarity of killings? This point is normally brought up when there's a widely recognized common name (as elaborated in
WP:POVNAMING), which isn't the case here. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please refer the article I linked regarding the "reliability" of western sources regarding this issue. Whitewashing war crimes is not a "neutral" position. Again, the articles you purport to be neutral aren't extensively covering the civilian causalities, they are simply covering the Israeli operation as a whole. Articles that do discuss the massacre of civilians in-depth refer to it as a massacre. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Intercept's claim of broad bias in Western sources seems like an extraordinary claim which isn't supported by a consensus on Wikipedia.
WP:RSP doesn't mention neutrality concerns for the very mainstream Western sources I mentioned, but it does say Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
One trusts that you realize the circularity inherent in that comment. Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I trust that you understand that, circular argument or not, if the Intercept says 'these Western sources are biased', and
WP:RSP says "these sources are fine", we should go by RSP, not the Intercept. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The intercept is a biased source? Biased against what, exactly? All sources are biased, not all of them are reliable, which the Intercept is. Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the Intercept was biased, but that it does not guide our evaluation of sources on Wikipedia, and where it contradicts our guidelines, we go by our guidelines. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has raised that issue at
WP:RSN regarding bias for the NYT etc, so it is a bit presumptuous to assume what consensus is before anyone has posited it. And yes I would consider the Intercept left-wing. All sources are biased as Selfstudier said, but again that just goes to how sources frame issues. I misspoke when I said "reliable" - I meant "neutral" - NYT, WaPo, NPR, etc etc are certainly reliable for the facts they choose to include, however again none of this refutes the fact that they have not really done in-depth focused reporting on the massacre itself, and sources that have have called it a massacre. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose - the current name works fine, and it would be better to wait until the result of the merger discussion between this article and the one calling it a "rescue operation", which could also help reduce the POV problem by giving a merged article a new title. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The two arguments brought up by the nominator are
WP:COMMONNAME and concerns over title neutrality. Regarding the latter grievance, would the nominator support a move of Re'im music festival massacre and similar articles to "Killing of civilians during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel"? I understand that the word massacre carries weight and may be interpreted as implying intention, but the arguments presented regarding neutrality seem weak to me. We may as well argue whether to move this article to "Collateral damage of the Nuseirat raid and rescue" if we want to be diplomatic and euphemistic to remain "neutral". Yue🌙 05:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Strongly oppose removing the word "massacre". We could possibly add that it was connected to the rescue raid, but currently that's a separate article, we just need to {{see also}} at the top of each, leave the names alone. We need it to be a name, not an abstract, details can go in the intro section. MWQs (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per all of the excellent points already made. I also would like to mention that it is significantly less neutral to arbitrarily decide that this incident was not a massacre because "massacre" is an emotive term – this would be a move with a tangible POV, i.e. that indiscriminately killing a large group of people all at once, regardless of context or cause, is somehow distinct from a massacre... because of the context and cause. Which is not neutral. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using a more dispassionate title doesn't mean we're deciding that the incident was not a massacre though. It's just a matter of preferring more objective language, and not taking an explicit stance on whether less clear labels apply or not. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of Palestinians were massacred. That's a fact that cannot be whitewashed. M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The title should be clear as to what took place. "Killing of civilians" is the same sort of mealy mouthed soft language non-statement that tries to deflect the reality of what happened as phrases like "officer involved shooting". LamontCranston (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

1) Add the date of the strike on the school to be on 6th of June. 2) Modify the casualty numbers Source for the changes: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150721 Airyleech (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre&oldid=1230846221"