Jump to content

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 1 November 2024 (→Requested move 12 October 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus to merge. Supporters of the merge argued, and opposers failed to compellingly refute, that the two separate articles constitute an unnecessary POV fork; they cover different aspects of the same event, and readers must read both articles to obtain a complete understanding of what happened, despite how all content could easily be contained in the same article. This is a disservice to our audience.
Please note that this does not determine what the combined article should be called, which requires further discussion. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need two pages on effectively the same event, but I'm open to changing my mind Mason (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree because the casualty count brings debate toward the term “rescue operation”, and it’s undebatable that the the death of >200 and injury of >400 and the loss of 3 Israeli prisoners of war can be dubbed a massacre. We should use the less ambiguous and more agreed upon term.
  • I agree because there was no massacre. The only source for that is Hamas. Satellite evidence shows that the 260 death toll claim is completely unrealistic. SuperSardus Talk 21:36, 8 June 2024 (CET)
Excuse me? I’ll remind you to ensure that you assume good faith. Personal attacks are to be avoided in talk page discussions. The other article was created after a search for an article on the killings returned no results. I searched “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” and “Nuseirat refugee camp attack”, which both returned nothing. I went to the page Nuseirat refugee camp and also saw no independent article linked. I thus concluded that no article had been made, and made one. Only later did I discover this article, which takes the POV of a rescue operation, which is a very different event than the killing of 210 people. Dylanvt (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps you missed the existence of this article. Now you know it exits, predates your article, and discusses the very same event. Why not merge them? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly instructed to assume good faith. This is a cornerstone policy here. It is best to familiarize yourself with the rules before getting so heated in discussions. JDiala (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that heated discussion are best avoided. I apologize to Dylanvt for assuming he saw this article before creating his article, I confused him with someone else. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read through this article I do feel it addresses a significantly different topic, with the focus being on the “mission” as a military operation, and I think it would be odd to say that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties. Dylanvt (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who is saying that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I think it's worthwhile differentiating between the rescue operation proper and the temporally adjacent fighting in and around the area. Furthermore, given the large scale number of civilian casualties, it seems entirely appropriate to have a standalone article devoted to that. JDiala (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the alternative RS claiming women and children, @JDiala, please provide at the other thread. Thanks -- Pg 6475 TM 21:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan rostie (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until things are clearer. On the face of it we have an operation that reportedly killed a lot of civilians and that has been described as a massacre and condemned by a senior EU official. See #Borrell above. It may be that a merge is desirable or it may be that there should be two articles, the recovery of the captives and then of the "massacre". Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree The articles should be merged. All of these word salad and preponderance of RS word usage arguments about whether or not to call it a massacre are irrelevant. Large numbers of people died in the rescue operation disproportionate to the number of people rescued, and information about that should be included in this article beyond just simply mentioning that a lot of Palestinians died (distinguishing between civilian, enemy combatant, or human shield is irrelevant when determining grounds for inclusion). A separate article is really only warranted if there is a lot to say about it beyond the context of the rescue operation or this article is running too long to meaningfully include the information here. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuseirat Refugee Camp Tragedy is a good choice for the combined article title. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I believe that the massacre and the rescue operation should remain separate because of the number of deaths inflicted to the Palestinians, it's more bloody than events like the Flour massacre and the more recent al-Mawasi attack, so the massacre deserves an article of its own Durranistan (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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." With this and the business with the pier, I now think a separate artiocle is warranted in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are unconfirmed reports of US involvement in this affair, more sources needed about that as well. U.S. Provided Intelligence to Israel for Hostage Rescue, but Degree of Involvement Is Unclear Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CENTCOM has officially denied this - https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3800955/centcom-statement-regarding-idf-rescue-operations-today/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CENTCOM denied that the humanitarian pier played a role; the NYT has newer reporting indicating that US intelligence was used. [1] and [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about the Palestinian casualties from the operation. The operation already has an article. Massacre or attack or airstrikes could describe this, but definitely not rescue operation. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue operation is how reliable sources describe it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that’s a separate article. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that there should not be two separate articles for this event. Separating the rescue of the hostages from the "Massacre" implies that the two would have happened without each other, this is obviously not true. Also, the language of "Massacre" with IDF as the "perpetrator" implies that the IDF is the sole perpetrator, when this is obviously contested. Human rights orgs like Human Rights Watch have condemned the taking of hostages and the use of human shields, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. Putting civilian deaths squarely on the shoulders of the IDF is incoherent. [3]HWR. Tobyw87 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this Washington Post article [4], this CBC article [5], and this France24 article [6]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be in favour of IOHANNVSVERVS's 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) 05:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, or support merging under 'Nuseirat refugee camp massacre'. This massacre is a rare instance of a massacre in the numerous Gaza wars being labeled such on Wikipedia, and the intentional killing of 200 people makes it one of the bloodiest single-events in this war, including raiding homes and executing their occupants. It is bloodier than every octoebr 7 massacre save for Re'im, yet not a single discussion has doubted wether these are massacres or not The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several October 7-related articles were moved from "massacre" to the more neutral "attack" on the grounds that some Israeli military position was nearby where civilians were killed, e.g. Nahal Oz attack, Zikim attack, Nir Yitzhak attack, Holit attack and Nirim attack.
    We have no idea exactly how many militants and civilians were killed here. A merger of the two articles under the proposed title in the move request below would probably be best for now. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case they were moved because of the significant military casualties. Several other massacres, notably be’eri had both military and civilians casualties (as well as accusations of friendly fire) as well as kissyfim massacre , but that does not change its naming. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger of the article on the "massacre" into this one. The latter is a blatant POV fork. The title says it all. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to “notforum”, but how exactly is calling a massacre a massacre a “POV fork?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look up Begging the Question when you get the chance Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a POV fork because the two articles are about the same event, with the primary difference being the point of view as a massacre rather than as a rescue operation --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The latter is part of the former and it should be under the name that isn't WP:FRINGE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger of two articles under the name "2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre". Israel has murdered more than 230 people for merely 4. If this is not a massacre, then what is? The major problem here is whether the operation should be called a rescue operation, and I think it can be placed in bold in the first lines of the introductory text, rather than in the title, since the people killed by Israel in the operation outnumbers by far those rescued. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. With over 274 deaths, this was one of the most deadly incidents of the war, and it definitely warrants its own separate article. It would be misleading to label the entire event as a "rescue operation" focused on four Israeli hostages, thereby downplaying the severity of the massacre. Furthermore, "massacre" is not WP:FRINGE given the substantial media coverage.[7][8][9] If anything, a merged article should be titled "2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre". Skitash (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check again the articles you provided. In all of them, the word 'massacre' is presented within quotation marks and not as a neutral term. I believe this indicates that its use is partisan. Galamore (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in my opinion this is a classical case of WP:POVFORK. It does seem that there were many casualites but the word "massacre" neccesarily implies intent. We still don't know if the numbers provided by Hamas are true, and if they are, how many were actually non-combatants. Galamore (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was intent. There have been several documented cases of family annihilations in this massacre, refer Al-Jamal family whose room the IDF stormed, executing several members of then falsely presented a story of them “hiding hostages”. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Al Jamal family who was holding the hostages- a war crime? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referencing a case whose only founding evidence was a tweet by an osint defender account on Twitter putting words into the mouth of the euro med report. Not even the IDF later on was able to make up its mind on wether he held one or several hostages, it is nothing more than baseless accusations to slander the dead journalists, as well as more fuel for Israel to manufacture consent to target and massacre civilians as it can just claim they were “Hamas operatives” or “holding hostages” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to a statement reported by reliable sources, that the iDF confirmed that Al Jamal wax a war criminal holding hostages. Take it up with the reliable sources. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…the reliable source which acknowledges that the only evidence of the slandered journalist holding hostages being the word of mouth of the idf (which mind you, has previously presented false accusations of murdered journalists being operatives) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We write according to what reliable source report - which is that the IDF confirmed this. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDF accusations aren't really worth a whole lot, given their well known track record for telling porkies. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And similar things could be said about Hamas and its "Health ministry", which are the sources for the counter claims.
That's not an argument- we go by what sources like ToI write. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToI are attributing what they write to the IDF, who are an unreliable source. Hamas is equally unreliable. GHM is considered reliable by most sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GHM has been shown to fabricate numbers and make false claims - [10] ", the ministry’s daily reports claimed that 72% of the dead were women and children, even as underlying data clearly showed the percentage was well below that." Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That issue has already been debated elsewhere and hasn't changed the reliability assessment for GHM. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An AP report says they fabricate numbers. That some people close their eyes to this is their problem. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can misrepresent the AP article if you wish, that's your problem. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the AP article verbatim - "the ministry’s daily reports claimed that 72% of the dead were women and children, even as underlying data clearly showed the percentage was well below that" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dylanvt, the massacre is large enough to merit its own article seperate from the rescue operation article. RealKnockout (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per IOHANNVSVERVS and TimeEngineer. Sources are reporting both the hostage rescue and the reported 200+ Palestinian deaths in the same articles. Reading the two Wikipedia articles on this event, there appears to be great overlap and possible duplication per WP:MERGE and WP:REDUNDANT. As the Wikipedia articles are currently written, the scope of the two articles appear to be the same. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dylanvt an others. While the killing of 274 Palestinians is linked to the military operation to rescue 4 hostages, the two events are separate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the event itself includes both the killing of 274 Palestinian and the rescue of the 4 hostages, which is why they should come under the same article but with the title stressing more on the massacre rather than the rescue operation. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they should come under the same article but with the title stressing more on the massacre in that case, let's make sure that the title is sorted out first, because the last we want to see is the killing of 274 Palestinians being misdescribed as a rescue operation or whitewashed with another title that doesn't give it its proper due weight. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I suggested... see my previous comment (Support merger of two articles under the name "2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre"). Chong Yi Lam (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the IDF kill them or did Hamas? KronosAlight (talk) 15:59, 10 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. I'm not aware of any other Wikipedia pages about similar events that are structured like this. There are not separate pages discussing the military vs civilian aspects of other remotely similar events, such as pages about battles, bombings, hijackings and associated rescue operations, etc. All of arguments for separate pages are better directed toward arguments about how to title, frame, or structure a single combined page. Niremetal (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The main event here is the rescue opperation, part of this are the cassulties in Gaza. It is not a different topic. Furthermore, the use of the word massacre is POV, no military opperations is without cassulaties, the aim was to rescue hostages, not kill people in Gaza Owenglyndur (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is not about the intentions of the IDF, because we don't know about that at this moment. Bold of you to assume they weren't there to kill as many Palestinians as they could. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact, they were there to rescue Israeli hostages. Owenglyndur (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included a daytime strike on a market area. FT "for Gazans in Nuseirat, the raid was one of the deadliest days in what has become the bloodiest war in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owenglyndur: "no military opperations is without cassulaties" - wrong. The best military operations have absolutely no casualties. Take any bloodless coup. Even Columbia has pulled off a hostage rescue without a shot being fired. Minimal death, destruction and damage is the hallmark of competent militaries; unlike the IDF, whose hallmarks are genocidal zeal and ever manner of international law and human rights abuse under the sun. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing the war zone in Gaza, to a sterile event in Columbia, big difference, sadly you do not seem to see that. If Hamas would not have Kidnapped Israeli hostages, non of this would happen. Owenglyndur (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not excuse the inaccuracy, nor does it excuse the 'history began in October last year' nonsense now being spouting, though at least this illustrates that the stance here is one of purely POV persuasion, not accuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't broad consensus that the title is POV. I don't agree that is it, and there is a robust argument happening in the talk section above. The objective of the operation was clearly to rescue four hostages, and according to the IDF, the only people who were killed before the hostages were extracted were people in the buildings. WITH THAT SAID, something like "Nuseirat Camp Incursion" covers both nicely. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requested move discussion is down below and linked in the article tag. Requested move to Nuseirat raid and rescue. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I'm interested in the views of those who support the merge. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. KronosAlight (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KronosAlight: It would be nice if you could explain why and perhaps answer the above question (just below it). M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statistics and claims about a “massacre” are, at best, dubious, given that they come exclusively from Hamas sources, i.e. a belligerent in the exact conflict discussed.
It’s entirely possible, and I do not by any means dismiss the possibility, that civilians were killed during this operation. It’s obvious to me that this was not intentional, because this was a rescue operation which multiple sources have confirmed were tested, trained and prepared for for many weeks in advance.
That doesn’t mean that many civilians didn’t, for one reason or another, die in the course of it, but to label it with the title “massacre” seems to me to be more politically motivated than anything else. One of the major interlocutors on this Talk page, for example, wrote such a dodgy article about a separate military incident in Gaza that when I took the time to try and balance out the claims of each side, what it’s possible to know for sure etc., very little was left of his initial article.
It is crucially important that Wikipedia does not itself become a biased battleground of one side seeking to assert its moral superiority over the other.
This was clearly a rescue operation in terms of the intention of the IDF. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the possibility that in the course of executing it, there may well have been many civilian casualties. Now, again, we don’t know who might have been responsible for that – everyone assumes IDF, but there’s no evidence for this that can be cited in support on this article. Given that Hamas have adopted the strategy of maximising the number of Palestinian civilian deaths in this war, it’s not obvious to me that we should assume it was the Israeli armed forces simply “massacring” civilians.
Therefore I think we should maintain this article as it is under this title, gradually merge in some of the unique citations, claims and perspective made in what is, in my view, the less neutral article, and have it all out here. There’s a number of anomalies which to my mind strongly suggest that the attempt to label this article with the word ‘massacre’ has more to do with the subjective political sympathies and inclinations of certain contributors than anything else.
For example, it took Israel about 3-4 months to finalise the total dead from the October 7th massacre. But apparently within about an hour of this attempt to extract Israeli hostages, the Hamas-run health authority in Gaza knew to within really quite specific numbers how many people had been killed. They couldn’t possible know the death toll in that time-frame, no state-power anywhere in the world could have. The US would have needed another 12 hours to finalise and identify the dead. And on top of that, methodologically the Hamas health authorities in Gaza don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants, which is why every public news report only says ‘x Palestinians dead’, even when we don’t know how many died, how they died, who might have killed them, etc.
For me, all of this strongly suggests we stick with the current article and its title, merge over and relevant information and citation etc. from the “massacre” and keep it neutral. Look, it’s clear from all reliable sources that this was an operation designed to rescue these Israeli hostages. It might also be the case that a morally unacceptable number of civilians were killed in the carrying out of that rescue mission. Both can be true at the same time. But when you refer to the entire event as a “massacre”, it avoids the central point: that this was a sophisticated military operation to retrieve hostages from semi-and-frankly-not-really civilian Palestinian residences in Gaza, that complications emerged, and we’re going to have to wait to know how many civilians were killed in the crossfire, how many the Israeli forces considered acceptable, what role armed Hamas combatants played, etc. KronosAlight (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was not intentional even if true (given the IDF's record, it's not something that I would assume), it still wouldn't make it any less of a massacre.
trained and prepared trained and prepared for killing.
“massacre” seems to me to be more politically motivated the same could be said about whitewashing the massacre of Palestinians.
This was clearly a rescue operation which resulted in a massacre of 274 Palestinians.
it took Israel about 3-4 months to finalise the total dead from the October 7th massacre did it take that long to call it a massacre? No.
when you refer to the entire event as a “massacre” did you read the question that I asked just above your !vote? M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in engaging with you any further. Wikipedia must be a neutral and impartial source of information. If you want to argue the ethical questions involved in the operation take it to another website. Wikipedia is not the place for it. My vote remains the same. KronosAlight (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dylanvt. See "Definition of a Massacre". Cambridge Dictionary. — "to kill many people in a short period of time", "the killing of a large number of people, esp. people who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves" -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dictionary definitions like this are not very helpful. The first one, for example, ( "to kill many people in a short period of time") would apply to virtually any battle. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until more information is revealed. This event took place less than a week ago in an extremely contentious conflict, so it can reasonably be expected that large amounts of information have yet to be reported on, clarified, or revealed. Whether or not a merge is warranted cannot reasonably be decided at this time. The extensive, heated disputing of even basic facts/claims in the discussion(s) above only highlight my point.
ArkHyena (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per SunDawn, Alaexis, etc. etc. Any civilian casualties inflicted during this operation were incidental to it, not the aim of those who put it together (and I doubt any proof will emerge to suggest otherwise). Words have meanings, and using massacre here is a gross distortion of what the word actually (and not rhetorically) denotes. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conflict has seen the complete upending of words that have specific legal meanings and definitions. We need not follow the lead of the extremists. The word "massacre" was bandied hours after the operation was launched. Where's the investigation and facts to back-up those up? How many Hamas fighters were killed? How many civilians? The official numbers coming out of Gaza from the Palestinian side don't differentiate between the two, and that is reason enough why the use of the word massacre is purely used for emotive reasons, not an actual reflection of what transpired that day. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the IDF "it was less than a 100" is of course, the unvarnished truth. Bad enough even at a 100 but it is perfectly clear that it was much higher. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of reasoning that only seems to apply to those whose humanity is questioned by some media outlets (for reasons that reason cannot explain). The meaning of Kissufim massacre is obviously unquestionable. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a forum. Galamore and KronosAlight have done much better than me in voicing their concerns about why we should be careful with our wording. You may have an ideological score to settle with Israel, or the IDF, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Best regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just calling it as I see it. so am I, but unlike you, I'm not casting aspersions on another editor. As far as I'm concerned, you just made yourself irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "gross distortion" of the "used in many RS" variety: how policy compliant. Because you can't have too much OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The massacre was an aspect of the rescue, just as the rescue was part of the massacre. The rescue operation page and the massacre page should be merged into a page named either "Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre" or simply the massacre. Jebiguess (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: They both cover the same event but with different perspectives. It would be much better to merge them both into the same article, and then rename that article to make it more neutral. Both articles are also relatively short, so merger will also improve the length of the article as well. Instead of having two shorter articles that have opposing viewpoints, it would be better to have one more detailed and neutral article that talks about both the massacre and the rescue operation. After all, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people and provide people with all of the facts. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of a merger under a new title of 2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre or something very similar otherwise Oppose. The deliberate killings of 200 people, while many more injured in a highly civilian area, is nothing but a bloody massacre. Disregarding this for 4 freed hostages is clear WP:POV. نعم البدل (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: The sheer number of victims that were killed during the operation definitely deserves its own article, not to mention that a lot of the international organizations and even sources described the killings as a massacre, so the merge wouldn't work if the title of the current article remains as it is, since it doesn't mention the massacre. However, I would support the merge only if the title of this article is changed to better reflect both the hostage rescue and the killings of innocents, some suggestions are: Nuseirat refugee camp killings and hostage rescue; Nuseirat refugee camp massacre and hostage rescue; Nuseirat refugee camp hostage rescue and mass killing, or some other variations which describe both, since the current title obviously violates NPOV. Nori2001 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into this article: Rescue is the primary topic and the collateral casualties should be covered within that article. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Beslan, rescue operations where the excessive number of civilian casualties give it notoriety have been aptly named in favor of the massacre that occurred as a result of the rescue operation. There is little reason not to do the same here, especially when numerous media reports have dubbed it a massacre. Jebiguess (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The hostage rescue has gotten its own articles about how it went down and Israel's tactics. The civilian deaths are different, and are notable enough given the sheer amount and Israels tactics. World leaders are also reacting differently to the two events, with the UN supporting the hostage rescue in one statement and condemning the massacre in another. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:POVFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. I’d note that a merged article will probably need a new name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: one event happened because of the other. The rescue of the hostages is the main event. If the hostages weren’t located in the vicinity, none of the civilians would have been caught in the crossfire. Vincenty846 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Main event is subjective. There are many sources that dub the event as a massacre due to Israel's wanton bombardment of the area, killing so many people for just four hostages. Jebiguess (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't they (the IDF) also kill 3 civilians including an American? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: seems like a sort of accidental WP:POVFORK. Keeping both doesn't seem useful - it's all part of the same operation, and it's not a large topic. Keeping this older page's title is the right move procedurally, as well as based on WP:NPOVTITLE. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's all part of the same operation All massacres are part of something else. That has never stopped us from dedicating articles to them. Besides, in this instance, the main event is the killing and maiming of hundreds of Palestinians. M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We normally have one or the other - either an article about a massacre, or about the surrounding operation/event. We generally don't have both, except in uncommon cases where a WP:SPINOFF is necessary, because there are many important details about a massacre that can't fit in the parent article.
    Clearly that's not the case here - Nuseirat refugee camp massacre isn't giving a lot of important details about deaths, it's just rehashing the same broader event under a different title. Thus it seems very much like a WP:POVFORK, albeit an accidental one. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be careful before asserting that a massacre was all part of the same operation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We certainly don't and the Kissufim massacre is testimony to that. M.Bitton (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a classic WP:SPINOFF, no? I.e. there's no room to get into details about Kissufim, Nirim, etc. in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, so spinoffs like Kissufim massacre, Nirim attack, etc. are used to provide details without the main article getting WP:TOOBIG.
    In contrast with this article, even if we included verifiable information very liberally with minimal curation (like the current long list of reactions), there's just not that much relevant and verifiable information (at this time at least), and no real WP:LENGTH concern to support a spinoff. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very poor excuse that I most certainly won't buy. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging under a neutral title, but oppose merging under the current title. Calling it exclusively a rescue operation and acting like the massacre of hundreds of people is a "spinoff" is just as POV, and a neutral title like 2024 Nuseirat attack (covering both the rescue operation and the massacre) would be reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think both articles pass WP:GNG. I'd be more open to something along the lines of M.Bitton's suggested Nuseirat rescue and massacre, but I'm opposed to merging under the current title.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to a neutral title, such as a 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre as these articles are clearly WP:POVFORKS of each other, as the issue templates on this article confirms. These events are not separate, but interlinked, ie it's the same event, so I see no justification for two separate articles. Unconvinced by the argument that the massacre undermines the rescue operation; history is littered with numerous examples of massacres during rescue operations, so this is nothing new, and RS supports the claim that this rescue operation was a massacre. At present this article is 2,500 words and the other is 1,200, so at 3,600, based on WP:SIZERULE: "Length alone does not justify division". If a merged version of this article grows beyond 8,000 to 9,000 words, then it can be split in the future, but at present arguments to wait/keep appear based in WP:CRYSTALBALL theories specifically about "expected future events", ie article growth. Failed to see other valid arguments for opposition to merging content, other than opposition to merging based on current title, which I also agree with. CNC (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since this is a clear case of WP:POVFORK as has been mentioned above, and a lot of content is already overlapping, but it needs to be under a new title to resolve the POV issue. The proposed title 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre looks good to me. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble with that title is it fails WP:CONCISE and WP:NCENPOV. Perhaps 2024 Nuseirat raid? BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE merge - keeping it as two separate pages is a good way to make sure both stories get told. Otherwise one of them is likely to get obliterated in a long edit war. We just need to make sure the pages are clearly linked, so readers can find both sides of the story. MWQs (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since this is a clear case of WP:POVFORK These are relating two versions of the same events, the only major difference is the perspective and sympathies of the tellers. Whatever flaws or difficulties there might be in compiling a reasonably NPOV account of the event, they aren't resolved by presenting two distinct and separate accounts. Perhaps more information might arise in the future (if there are investigative commissions for example), that could change, but not yet.Pincrete (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose/ disagree I concur with most of the statements from those opposing or disagreeing with the proposed merge. This was a massacre of intense proportions no matter the nature of the rescue operation. This was of a scale greater than any other historical mass killings in the Palestinian territories.
A case in point would be the Munich massacre, why not merge this with the Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre? You could argue that Nuseirat events occured at the same time but that is about it.
In supporting this move it would be akin to making the My Lai massacre all about the search (in this case the rescue) for a few Viet Cong operatives apparently hiding in the village and not giving the massacre itself any significance. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre is its own article partly because it covers distinct events, some years after the massacre, and partly since there's lots of content. By contrast here both articles are essentially about the same event, just framed differently, and the combined content (which mostly overlaps) could comfortably fit in one article without a WP:LENGTH concern. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the so-called Kissufim massacre even deserve a dedicated article? M.Bitton (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kissufim massacre, Nirim attack, etc. seem like classic WP:SPINOFFs, with too much combined info to fit in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel without it being WP:TOOBIG. That said there could be other options like merging Kibbutz attacks together or what not; feel free to suggest something there. — xDanielx T/C\R 14:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Kissufim massacre deserves at most a passing mention in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, yet it has it and other BS articles (all with the word massacre in them) have been created without anyone making a fuss about them. For the rest, I don't need to suggest anything more than what I already stated: a massacre on a grand scale such as the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre cannot be whitewashed.
This self-reverted comment explains perfectly what you're after (something I will never agree to). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Kissufim massacre isn't notable, AfD is the place to discuss that, we don't need to get into it here. Accusations of whitewashing don't seem like policy based arguments. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's accusing anybody. I said what I think, so you can keep your so-called advice to yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The idea that it might be possible to cover one subject without equally covering the other is disproven by the fact that after two weeks of constant activity, the "massacre" article still has almost no content that isn't already in the "rescue" article.
Many of the "oppose" comments are not really making any argument for there to be two articles, they only want there to be an article with the word "massacre" in the title. But what the title of the merged article should be is a separate question, which can be discussed immediately after the merge. Smyth (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could keep discussing it while waiting for the merge, here and at the "massacre" article, still waitin on an AfD for that one, y'know from any of those that are callin it a fork and all that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the title of the merged article should be is a separate question I disagree and I expect those who support the merge to come up with a article title that covers both events (so that the merge and the renaming are done at the same time), instead of just wanting a merge under this POV title so that they can sit on it for months on end.
they only want there to be an article with the word "massacre" in the title they can also say that you just don't want the word "massacre" in the title. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expressing any opinion about what the title should be, and I probably won't ever participate in any discussions about that. I only want everyone's attention to be focused on making one article as good as possible, whatever it's called.
It's difficult to discuss titles before we've decided whether or not to merge, because it isn't clear what scope the title has to cover. So a reasonable course of action would be:
  • First, commit to doing a merge.
  • Then, close down all existing move requests on both pages and start a new title discussion for the merged page.
  • Once the title has been decided, actually perform the merge.
Smyth (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case for two articles tho, which your procedure rules out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but keep the massacre wording after the merge for now - After the rename discussion is done on the sub-article, we can re-evaluate the wording. Regardless, the content on the massacre page isn't different enough to warrant its own article without a major rework. Jdcomix (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally oppose. I'm not sure whether we need two articles, although sometimes we do need two, see Battle of Bucha and Bucha massacre. But we certainly need the article on the massacre, it is what is the main topic, not the rescue operation. So if you would instead propose to merge it vice verse, I would support it. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you've given are of two totally separate events which occurred on different dates. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When is this going to be closed out? The clear majority of comments are in favor of merging, and the comments in opposition here are mainly just objections to the "rescue operation" wording of the title rather than actual arguments as to why the articles should not be merged. The articles describe related events that occurred in the exact same place at the exact same time. Unless someone can come up with an example where related events that occurred in the exact same place at the exact same time are given two separate articles, this discussion seems to have played itself out. I agree with those that suggest that a title other than simply "rescue operation" is needed; "Raid" or "Raid and Rescue" seem like good candidates. But that is an issue separate from whether the articles should be merged in the first place. Niremetal (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote: 1) most of those who support the merge haven't addressed the crucial question of the article's title. 2) there are various ongoing RMs, including Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre#Requested_move_12_June_2024 in which there is a clear consensus in favour of keeping the word massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a closure request here. Smyth (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, also per @Dylanvt: this should be treated the same way we treat Operation Golden Hand and its duplicate article. The question is what to title the resulting merged article[s], covering both a hostage rescue and carnage. – SJ + 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. These are POV forks of each other. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The definition of a massacre is very clear. Over 400 casualties and 200+ murders of innocent people is a massacre. See also: Re'im music festival massacre. The only way I'd support this change if this article itself was renamed to Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: As stated earlier, 'the sheer number of victims that were killed during the operation definitely deserves its own article.' Indeed, it really polarises the event into two scenarios here. Ecpiandy (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two articles overlap overwhelmingly in their portrayal of the same series of events but from contrasting perspectives. Any proposal for a standalone "massacre" article must convincingly establish a clear and distinct separation between the events labeled as "massacre" and those characterized as "raid"/"rescue operation". Most of the available sources don't sufficiently substantiate such a division. Arguments advocating for the designation of "massacre" based solely on casualty figures lack substantive merit. The term necessitates consideration of intent rather than merely quantifying the scale of destruction or loss of life. We can critique how Western or Arab media portray the conflict but ultimately we must prioritize reliable sources over personal interpretations. Mooonswimmer 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using this line of thinking, every October 7 massacre without exception should be labeled an attack because since Hamas said on the October 7 opening speech to not target civilians, intent is completely impossible to establish
the only justification for Wikipedia to merge this under the title “rescue” is if it views the lives of 274 Palestinians as less valuable than that of 4 Israelis The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, and I rarely use the word strong. 276 Palestinians were killed and 4 Israeli hostages were rescued. I disagree with WP:POVFORK, I don't know what article was created first, but it was always inevitable there would be two. At the bare minimum, there should at least be two articles, but if RS doesn't support the word "massacre", you could title it "Killings of civilians during the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation" or something along those lines (don't say "deaths" though, that's a too neutral term, they were killed by someone, you can say this without even passing morality judgement). Has anyone mentioned this possibility of having two articles but changing the title of the "massacre" one? Just to be clear, that's not my position, but it's better than effectively deleting the massacre one.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 13:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - POV fork Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

The Nuseirat massacre (initially codenamed Operation Seeds of Summer and renamed Operation Arnon[6]) was a raid carried out by Yamam, the Shin Bet and Israel Defense Forces with intelligence support from the United States[7] in the Nuseirat refugee camp on 8 June 2024 to recover hostages taken from the Re'im music festival massacre during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.[8 78.149.135.232 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original operation's name

Summer Seeds - זרעי קיץ 

הראש (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but label it correctly

While this allegedly was inteded to be a rescue operation (debatable considering israeli action over the past year). This was in fact a massacre, it is the only applicable term that accurately describes what occurred on the ground according to virtually all reputable reporting. Not labeling it as a massacre is simply disingenuous and dangerous. The level of civilian casualties exceeded 100 civilians. The dictionary desribes the term as "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" That is an accurate description of the events on the ground. It is important, not just from a morality perspective but also from a historical perspective. Let's make these decisions just based off of actual events instead of projecting biases. Andy chacha (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if merged, it is basically Wikipedia saying that it views Palestinians as subhumans who the mass killing of hundreds isn’t even worthy of being called a massacre or acknowledged, and that the lives of 4 Israelis have priority over 250 Palestinians. The merge should have been the other way around, but Wikipedia doesn’t consider bombing 100 Palestinians civilians as they pray at dawn to be a “massacre” so it’s really hopeless with this kind of admin and moderators The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is as unfortunate as it is shameful. I guess the hasbara field in occupied palestine is operating at full capacity for this to occur. My impression had been that Wikipedia had been combating that however I guess I am mistaken. I guess if this isn't going to be a place of factual reference, then my continued support of this website is a waste of time and resources. Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it. Andy chacha (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy chacha@The Great Mule of Eupatoria. Please join the discussion below. Also, even if you don't perfectly agree with the proposed title, please do indicate if you think its better than the current title.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2024

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat rescue and killings – There are two narratives about this event. For Israelis, this was a daring rescue operation to liberate 4 hostages. For the Palestinians it was the brutal killing of 250+ people in the span of a few hours. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia can't take sides. There is consensus to merge Nuseirat refugee camp massacre here, and while "massacre" has POV connotations, "killings" does not (see WP:KILLINGS), and has ample precedent (Dunmanway killings, 1971 Newry killings, 2014 killings of NYPD officers etc). The "2024" is unnecessary because there has only been one rescue operation in Nuseirat.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose - it seems like a reasonable attempt at a compromise, but it's a little odd to use "killings" in reference to a battle, even a one-sided battle with many civilian casualties. I think "rescue operation" is perfectly accurate, but if there are concerns that it sounds too positive, "Nuseirat raid" also seems concise and fitting. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Nuseirat rescue and massacre? This will cover both events without whitewashing either of them.
while "massacre" has POV connotations If it did, we wouldn't have Netiv HaAsara massacre, Alumim massacre, Kissufim massacre and Kfar Aza massacre (whose total casualties amount to less than half than those killed in the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre). M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those attacks had no military targets in sight, so the "massacre" label shouldn't be particularly controversial. In this case, anything with "massacre" would be a controversial WP:POVNAME. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your WP:OR-based "opinion" that I simply do not agree with. Those who commit massacres can claim whatever they want to justify the unjustifiable (they always do and sometimes, they even believe their own fairy tales), but what they cannot do is change the facts. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to argue that the operation had no legitimate purpose at all when we have pictures of the rescued hostages. WP:OR applies to content and isn't relevant in discussions like this. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing remotely legitimate about the killing of hundreds of souls for the the sake of rescuing 4. M.Bitton (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton would you still consider "Nuseirat rescue and killings" to be a better title than the current one? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: the current one is obviously not an option and "killings" doesn't quite cut it (as per the reasons that have been mentioned in this RM). The one that I fully support is Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to rank the three options, which would you assign #2 and which would you assign #3? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be more accurate as long as the article reflects the events and details. I do disagree that the term massacre has p.o.v. connotations, it may be emotive but the term has a defined and specific meaning that clearly applies in this event. That is my proverbial two cents Andy chacha (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat support, though I would best say to use “massacre”, this proposal at least acknowledges Palestinians being killed as opposed to the original title focusing exclusively on the mission itself without any references to a massacre The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we don't change titles to fit narratives, we use titles that reflect the reliable sources. Even if people were killed (as happens in many rescue operations), the event was a rescue operation, and this is how major sources portray it. Galamore (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so the “narrative” Wikipedia wants to follow is to dismiss 250 Palestinians being killed and prioritising 4 Israelis being rescued? Not the best look for a “neutral” website The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an endorsement of any narrative. Calling a rescue operation a rescue operation doesn't imply any judgement about collateral damage. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A massacre cannot be described as a rescue operation, and besides, the notability of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre has never been disputed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The retrieval of captives (or hostages) is a rescue. The killing of 250+ civilian bystanders is a massacre. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see the improvement. The suggested use of 'killings' would be misleading to readers, as if the killings were intended (is there a major RS using this term to refer to the event at all? besides Qatari-owned channels?) This was a rescue operation, which like many other operations, also had uninvolved casualities, that should not change the article titles like other operation pages. HaOfa (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a massive difference between a rescue operation with some casualties, and an operation that killed hundreds of Palestinians to get 4 Israeli hostages The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for 'hundreds'? ABHammad (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza health ministry, which is historically reliable and has been consistently cited. Sorry, the “umm akshually it’s the khamas run health ministry” isn’t an argument at this point The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The killings happened. We cannot know what the intent was, but if we do find out then that should be reflected in the article. Please focus on the question at hand.
250 civilians killed is a massacre, the word 'massacre' is already in the title of one of articles to be merged. The word 'massacre' should be in the title of the resulting merged article. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for 250 civilians killed? As far as I can tell, the Gaza Health Ministry alleges 250 killed total; given that Hamas militants engaged Israeli forces during the rescue, it would be reasonable to assume that at least some of those are militants.
In addition, the Gaza Health Ministry isn't reliable on individual incidents. This is comparable to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, where they overestimated casualties and falsely attributed blame. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like @XDanielx said, "rescue operation" fits perfectly. I've seen major WP:RS also using 'hostage rescue', but killing is not often used, at least not in titles. The Palestinian casualties—sources say scores/dozens (not sure how many militants)—should definitely be mentioned, but I don't think they don't belong in the title. ABHammad (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nuseirat refugee camp massacre is the article that is named after the massacre (a notable subject). The only reason the merge has been proposed is because some editors felt that the two (the rescue and the massacre) which took place at the same time can easily be covered in the same article, but that can only succeed if the massacre is not whitewashed, that's why I proposed the neutral title Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'massacre' would be here a POV violation since there was no intent to kill people, even if unrelated people were unfortunately killed. I'll also ask you to prove that the 'massacre' is a notable subject, Western sources do not portray the event in this way. Galamore (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proof is in the article whose notability has never been disputed. Also, the attempt to replace the word massacre has already failed miserably (see Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre#Requested_move_12_June_2024 for more info). M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton That's not a proof, a proof should come from neutral reliable sources that show the term 'massacre' is frequently used when referring to this event Galamore (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those who took part in that RM disagree with you (for all kind of reasons that I suggest you read). M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like many did not even get involved in that RM, probably out of expection that the merge that finally happened would take place. Why vote on a rename when you support a delete/merge? I don't see how that makes the massacre title notable (or neutral in the first place). That should be proven using WP:RS and not Wikipedia discussions. HaOfa (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the number of the involved (a respectable 25 in this case) is true for all RMs, the rest is your irrelevant guesswork. The article is notable (the massacre did take place and is covered and commented on in multiple RS) and anyone who disagrees with the word massacre should read the RM. M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hezbollah-affiliated al-Mayadeen? The extremist Mondoweiss? Qatar-run state media? If that's what you call respectable sources ... well, I don't think we have a serious base for discussion here. In Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. I prefer to rely on sources that consensus describe as reliable, we have enough of those on WP:RSN. There's no need to cherry-pick opinionated activist outlets. ABHammad (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I’m sure you’d rather the “reliable sources” Wikipedia uses to dismiss blowing up civilians as massacres that say Israelis get killed while Palestinians somehow just die in the same sentence Like the bbc
just because their governments do not worship Israel, and their client state the USA which cannot even condemn them for their crimes doesn’t make it a non-reliable source. Especially Al Jazeera which unlike your “reliable sources” that cannot even acknowledge that the 1 tonne bomb dropped on 100 people praying was by Israel, actually has reporters on the ground in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intent does not really matter here. The fact is that 250+ civilians were killed by the military. This is a massacre in my mind. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat support provided we go with "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" - this incorporates the names used commonly by RS. WP:NDESC makes it clear that this is an appropriate use of these terms together, and will accurately describe what happened, regardless of the intent of the participants. (Which we can discuss as WP:CRYSTAL all day long to no useful end.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support this too. If we use the “Intent” argument then not a single October 7 massacre should be labelled as such because Hamas alluded to not targeting noncombatants in its opening speech The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'
I agree with @Smallangryplanet @M.Bitton in naming the merged article 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'.
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria @Andy chacha and @Vice regent make a good argument for the use of the word "massacre'. It is already in the title of one of the articles to be merged and not including it in the merged article would violate NPOV. Isoceles-sai (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including "massacre" would be the NPOV violation, since it amounts to explicitly taking a side on the controversial matter of whether the operation should be considered a massacre. By using a plain factual title we can avoid taking either side (we're not stating that it's not a massacre), which is the only way to comply with WP:NPOVNAME. All the mainstream news organizations (PBS, NPR, CBS, NYT, AP, CNN) avoid "massacre" in their own voice for this reason; we should do the same. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When those whose voices count (the UN human rights experts who condemned the massacre) speak, the others take a walk. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources calling this a massacre are all partisan sources, like Francesca Albanese (the first expert they mention), whoever wrote that UNISPAL post (with language like "umpteenth massacre" and "Israeli Occupation Forces"), Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Mondoweiss, etc. Not sure why those partisan sources would be the only ones that count. Sources with a semblance of neutrality, like the ones I mentioned above, are unanimous in not using the word in their own voice and not taking a position on the matter. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're used to the boring song: anyone who states bothersome facts about Israel is ♪"partisan bla bla bla"♪... Anyway, there is a massive difference between the human rights experts and the usual cheerleaders of Israel (who lost all credibility). M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really denying that Israel is an occupying force? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether I consider Gaza occupied? My personal views on that aren't really relevant. Regardless, using extremely loaded language like "Israeli Occupation Forces" or "the Zionist entity" is a very clear indicator of bias. It's not really about whether or not the terms are accurate, it's about the refusal to refer to an entity by its actual name. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. So now we should not say 'Gaza' but 'State of Palestine'. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event, by definition, was a massacre. Now the word may also be emotive, but the fact remains that it was a massacre. It has already part of the title of one of the articles.
The Wikipedia definition: "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." Isoceles-sai (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That definition appears to be from Wikiquote? Definitions vary, but most definitions involve additional elements beyond that. Collins for example lists one definition with "cruel", another with "unnecessary, indiscriminate", and another with "wanton or savage". — xDanielx T/C\R 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre" - this seems the best way to incorporate both topics. I'm flabbergasted at some of the comments, particularly the ones claiming that acknowledging the disproportionate amount of civilian deaths is a "narrative" or POV pushing. A massacre is a massacre, it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do). I also agree with M.Bitton, human rights organizations like Euro-Med Monitor and the UN have more weight than news outlets who cannot even use active voice when the perpetrator is Israel. Removing massacre from the title seems like the first step to remove content during the merge resulting in an article where the hundreds of deaths are merely an afterthought. The point of the merge is to consolidate overlapping data. But we're stil talking about two different events, and they should be properly covered, starting with the title. - Ïvana (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do) History saw a plenty of massacres where the perpetrators did want to kill unarmed civilians. Galamore (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza_genocide#Genocidal_intent_and_genocidal_rhetoric. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre": This has been explicitly termed a massacre by Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister [11], as well as by UN experts [12], Doctors Without Borders [13], the EU [14], and Oxfam [15]. The use of this term by top diplomats and humanitarian organizations points to the severity of the events that took place, and to me, is sufficient to define what happened as a massacre. The title should reflect that reality to maintain accuracy and clarity. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CarmenEsparzaAmoux would you also support "Nuseirat rescue and killings" as a second choice? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" per @CarmenEsparzaAmoux and others. There already was a page for the massacre, and per @M.Bitton it was decided to merge them together as long the massacre is not whitewashed/downplayed. The title should now reflect the fact that content for both is and will be contained within it, if only one or the other is in the title that violates NPOV and the consensus reached for the merger, and doesn't reflect the content of the page. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any title with massacre. Massacre is inherently a POV title, and should only be used if it is the common name for an event. This does not reach that. No opinion on other changes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the best sources do not use these terms when describing the topic. PeleYoetz (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're way past that (the issue of the titles of both articles has been settled). This RfC is about the title that covers both (the rescue and the massacre). M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have stable titles without a consensus (so far) to rename, but the other is supposed to be merged into this one, which I think means 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation is the default name until there's a consensus for something else. It's also just the original title, before the accidental POVFORK. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus for the other article has been cemented with this RM. In other words, the natural title for an article that covers both has to be Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really our WP:MERGE process - we don't normally change the target's name, unless the merge discussion had a consensus to do so. By default, we just do the merge and leave possible renames to future discussions (as the closer did here). — xDanielx T/C\R 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what closing statement of the previous RfC says. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC? — xDanielx T/C\R 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, some editors, including myself, didn’t participate in that RM, because as a POV fork the title didn’t matter - the pertinent discussion was the merge discussion.
That RM has no bearing on the title of this article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, some editors who participated in that RM didn't participate in the RfC. It's not for us to judge what matters and what doesn't. The Rm was about what the community thinks of the title of the other article, something that is directly related to a possible merge of two article covering two distinct events (the rescue and the massacre) that took place at the same time. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with massacre as a bolded aka The UN experts, all 15 of them, signed a statement referring to this as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza" and the EU's Borrell, while congratulating the captives on their release, called the operation "another massacre of civilians" and a "bloodbath", that a bunch of US based sources refrained from the terminology is not really a surprise, although WAPO at least managed to quote experts who criticized the lack of proportionality and failure to take into account likely civilian casualties. Together with the other RS using the term, this is the least possible outcome until these potential war crimes are properly investigated.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need to combine both the rescue page and the massacre page. We can worry about pedantics of exactly what its called in a later move. We need to focus on calling this page what this was and removing the POV of it only being a rescue. Similar ideas I like: Nuseirat rescue and massacre, Nuseirat incident, Nuseirat hostage raid
with regards to BilledMammals arguments, most of the sources on the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre also don't always call it rescue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposed title is a reasonable compromise to provide NPOV for both aspects of this incident. RachelTensions (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose per Mountain of Eden and Necrothesp. The current name is the most precise and accurate for describing the event. Adding to that, sources using 'massacre' seem subpar, while more reliable sources avoid this language, and Wikipedia should too. The main event was a rescue operation, with the deaths as collateral damage of the operation. OdNahlawi (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main event was the massacre of hundreds of souls. The so-called "rescue" of four people doesn't even come close. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:RS that refers to the deaths that resulted from the operation as the "main event"? or would that be your WP:OR? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong support for "Nuserait rescue and massacre"
Ultimately, there is no avoiding the fact that at least *276* people were killed and almost 700 were injured. While only four people were rescued from captivity. It is astonishing there is even a debate here. I'm not sure people here even comprehend just how massive that really is. Framing this massacre as "just a rescue operation" conceals in the page what should absolutely be in the title. How can we really think for a second that the rescue of 4 hostages trumps the foremost mention of the death of almost 300 people?
Even if we want to take a purely clinical view, as was kindly laid out by @CarmenEsparzaAmoux, reliable sources completely vindicate this view. Which to reiterate, include:
1. The Norwegian foreign minister: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/6/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israeli-army-to-be-added-to-un-child-harm-list?update=2961797
2. The UN: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/un-experts-condemn-outrageous-disregard-palestinian-civilians-during-israels
3. Doctors without borders: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/our-response-israel-gaza-war
4. EU Diplomats: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/08/israel-rescues-four-hostages-in-gaza-taken-from-nova-music-festival
5. Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfams-reaction-nuseirat-operation-released-four-hostages-and-killed-least-274
An even more comprehensive list of sources is given by Raskolnikov.Rev.
There is basically no debate here. It should be called a massacre alongside a rescue. Genabab (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre&oldid=1254663238"