Jump to content

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2025

[edit]

Change opening paragraph language to be more neutral. Change: "On 8 June 2024, during an operation to rescue hostages held in the Nuseirat refugee camp, the Israeli military killed at least 276 people and injured over 698, according to the Gaza Health Ministry and Palestinian health officials.[b][12] The operation's objective was to recover hostages taken during the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. The Israeli military acknowledged fewer than 100 Palestinian deaths.[13][14][15]"

To: "On 8 June 2024, the Israeli military successfully carried out a mission to rescue four Israeli hostages kidnapped by Gazan militants and held at the Nuseirat refugee camp. The Gaza Health Ministry and Palestinian health officials claim at least 276 Gazans were killed during the operation, though the IDF claims Palestinian deaths were fewer than 100." Gmotola (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen You may know that an editor cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by WP:ECR until they are extended-confirmed. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They cant? The page is unprotected tho 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen Enforcement of ECR is often manual. This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way. See here, under technical limitations. Also, here, under "Resolution Path for ECR Topics." Johnadams11 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah mb. I don't think that the first sentences of the lede are going to change anytime soon tho because the new wording sounds like it's on the side of praising the IDF "the Israeli military successfully carried out a mission to rescue four Israeli hostages kidnapped by Gazan militants" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bold remove and lede rewrite

[edit]

Feel free to revert and discuss per BRD. Closetside (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't move the title without proposing it first and gaining consensus. Firestar464 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold per WP:BRD, you reverted without a substantive reason. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS assumes consensus until a substantive disagreement. Closetside (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2025

[edit]

Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raid – This would be similar to the Entebbe raid and is succinct. This accurately says it was a military operation without emphasizing either the Israeli perspective of a hostage rescue or the Palestinian perspective of a massacre. Closetside (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)? — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair NPOV name. While it is clear it was a hostage rescue operation (as evidenced by the rescued hostages), many pro-Palestinian sources call it a "massacre" due to the operation's death tool. The name is not corroborated in neutral or pro-Israel sources, which would be required for massacre to conform with WP:NPOV. However, I do understand their POV, they say so many civilians were by purposely and needlessly during the raid. On the other hand, pro-Israel sources emphasize the Israeli hostages rescued. Therefore, raid is a fair name. Closetside (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Closetside I find "raid" to be a euphemism and we would never/should never use "raid" for an event in which civilians were killed by the hundreds. Instead I propose something like "Nuseirat rescue and mass killings."VR (Please ping on reply) 20:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:CONCISE-ness is desired, then Nuseirat attack also works (disambiguator is not necessary, since this is clearly the WP:PTOPIC and overshadows December 2024 Nuseirat refugee camp attack).VR (Please ping on reply) 20:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCENPOV, massacre can only be used if a descriptor is "generally accepted" and is the main word to identify the event:

If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.

Support move. The prior discussion did not follow the applicable policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion below with Vice regent, I prefer "Nuseirat rescue and killings". I don't support "mass killings" because it's either redundant (is this a "mass rescue"?) or implies that the deaths of civilians was intentional. I also no longer support the term "raid" for similar reasons.
The central dispute in the article is whether the deaths of civilians was collateral damage from a justified military operation/raid, or whether hundreds of civilians were intentionally killed separately from the hostage rescue. It's not, as the OP says, a dispute over whether a hostage rescue occurred.
The most WP:NPOVNAME would be "rescue" to refer to the hostage rescue aspect, and "killings" to refer to the death of civilians. The title "raid" implies the entire event was a military raid, the term "massacre" presupposes the death of civilians was unjustified. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an encyclopedic title which is neutral and does not favour any side of this conflict. We should use it. WatkynBassett (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Raid" implies there was a mission (the rescue) and the use of force. It encapsulates the event. HeloPait (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy/WP:SNOW close - there have been multiple discussions about the title since the article was created.
In terms of proper RMs, we had one in June proposing to move to Nuseirat raid and rescue that failed to gain consensus after two months. A related discussion proposed another move to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre but it seems that nothing came out of it, although seeing the tally now (and removing blocked socks...) that would have resulted in consensus to move back then. Next we had a MR to merge "Nuseirat refugee camp massacre" into "2024 Nuseirat rescue operation", which was successful after 4 months. Following that outcome, a final request was opened in October for more than a month that resulted in the move to the current title.
Perhaps OP should say what has fundamentally changed since the last time we did this, which was the result of multiple lengthy discussions up to that point, discussions that were - by the way - infested with socks. In fact if you look at the last discussion, almost half of the oppose votes were socks, compared to a single sock on the support side. Even if you also remove the people that got topic bans since then the consensus is still 2:1. I don't see a compelling reason to rehash this discussion. The arguments so far seem to be that the title fails NPOV, something that was already addressed multiple times. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has fundamentally changed since the last time is the recognition by ArbCom that several editors have disruptively applied different standards for "massacre" (User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics) depending on which group was being targeted. Specifically, the area was found to be terrible because editors would ignore policy in favour of WP:POVPUSHING.
WP:NCENPOV specifically mentions "massacre" as a word that should only be used if it is the generally accepted title when referring to an event. I'd like to see a compelling reason for why we should keep a title that clearly violates policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a fundamental change of any relevance here, as ArbCom did not specify that this POV-pushing was being done by any particular side/POV. In fact, as I noted, some of the most active editors in that discussion who were pushing for the position of not using "massacre" were topic-banned, including BilledMammal, who you are now citing. There has not been a fundamental change to the information available in reliable sources about this article's topic, nor to the way in which RS refer to the events in question.
I'm also not really sure why you are insisting that ArbCom came to any conclusions on this page and its title when it clearly and explicitly did not. The case's outcome – including, it must be said, the banning of multiple socks who were (POV)pushing to remove the (RS originated) phrase "massacre" in the title post-merger – highlights the serious problem of off-site canvassing targeting this page and focused specifically on the title.
Finally... it's unclear to me what further evidence is required for a compelling reason here, given the countless citations from reliable sources editors have provided for this title being generally accepted by a variety of RS of varying professional, national, and even ideological backgrounds. It meets and exceeds the standards set in NCENPOV. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: (ping) Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: Compelling reason would mean "generally accepted", so the majority of sources. Otherwise, the term "killings" would be the best neutral choice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is WP:CONCISE and maintains WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. - Amigao (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Massacre is also a pretty POV descriptor. Snow close as proposed by Smallangryplanet is strange considering they are the only opposer – consensus can change. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Massacre is a loaded and POV term, not appropriate as the title for an article discussing a military action that had civilian casualties. We can discuss the allegations of a massacre in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 13:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close RfC for WP:DEADHORSE per @Smallangryplanet. It was agreed to merge the two topics only if the Nuseirat massacre was not whitewashed in the final result, and the title inclusion of "massacre" was affirmed as being part of that in a separate RfC. The claim that "raid" is a neutral option as it reflects neither the "Israeli or Palestinian perspective" is also not the case, as "raid" aligns entirely with the Israeli description of the event whereas the removal of "massacre" erases completely not the "Palestinian" perspective, but the one contained in significant RS.
To repeat what was said in the last RfC on the matter: "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)."
The opposite would be the case: By removing "massacre" and reducing it to "raid", it violates NPOV by erasing and whitewashing the massacre as described in RS.
As I noted in that RfC, here is some of the extensive RS that call it a massacre:
https://theintercept.com/2024/06/10/nuseirat-massacre-israel-hostage-rescue-gaza/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-eu-outrage
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-experts-gaza-condemnation-14jun24/
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal
https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-11/the-israeli-army-massacre-to-free-four-hostages-in-gaza-the-bombings-came-from-all-directions.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/10/headlines/israel_kills_274_gazans_including_64_children_in_attack_on_nuseirat_that_freed_4_hostages
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-war-west-celebrated-nuseirat-massacre-how
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/nuseirat-massacre-dehumanising-palestinians-first-step-towards-their-extermination
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes
https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240613-diamonds-and-coal-dust-slaughter-at-nuseirat/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240610-no-warning-just-bombs-heart-wrenching-testimonies-from-gazas-nuseirat-camp-massacre/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240611-palestine-this-week-the-nuseirat-camp-massacre/
https://www.newarab.com/features/massacre-midday-no-warning-israel-attack-nuseirat
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/surviving-nuseirat-massacre-gaza/
Here are the other RS that were cited in that discussion by @Isoceles-sai and @Genabab:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/nuseirat-anatomy-of-israels-massacre-in-gaza
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes
https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-10/14/0014-victims-of-israeli-massacre-in-al-nuseirat-rises-to-22-martyrs,-80-injured
https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/
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 Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there seems to be no standard naming convention here. Some such raids are labeled attack, for example the Nir Oz attack which should really be massacre as there was less of a fight there in some other places in which it's labeled "massacre". However, there is a key difference regarding October 7th and this. There's very little dispute that Hamas fighters deliberately murdered civilians in these kibbutzim, that mass murder was an objective of these attacks. Whereas in this raid the primary goal seems to have been to rescue the hostages and we can't easily assert that it was mass murder. We don't know how many of the fatalities were civilians and how many were combatants and there's a reasonable case to be made that civilian casualties were collateral casualties from covering fire meant to extract the rescue forces and hostages rather than the results of indiscriminate mass murder. RM (Be my friend) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dozens of partisan sources, including WP:MEMO which is WP:MREL despite your claims it is a reliable source. Your burden is, per WP:NCENPOV, is to use the "generally accepted" word for an event. That means across all points of view, not just leftist or Arab-oriented publications. You cannot add "massacre" unless it is the primary word used by reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing "massacre" with "killings" would be the best title imho. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess I would support "mass killings" as a suitable compromise.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that a large majority of the sources also use the word raid in their articles, and some of them only include the word massacre as an attributed quote (i.e. WaPo/Guardian). Middle East Monitor is dubiously reliable as a source, and the Middle East Eye articles are opinion pieces. The MEE non-opinion pieces refer to it as a rescue operation, and only use the word massacre in quotes. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose and moratorium for 12 months: As has been previously pointed out by smallangryplanet, there is an extensive canvassing campaign on this page to change the name. Needless to say, this goes against WP:Canvassing. As such, we should employ a moratorium as to prevent canvassing from impacting this page. I will also repeat what I last said on this issue:
"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? There is basically no debate here. It should be called a massacre alongside a rescue."
"Raid" is not very neutral. Alongside the sources which call it a massacre (per Raskolnikov's post), Raid conceals what really happened. I mean 64 children died. Imagine if 64 children died in any other context, it would be called a massacre with just that alone. This is no different. Genabab (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raid is the more accurate term. Wikipedia is not in the business of policing morality as you seem to be hinting at. If 276 people died in an operation to save 4, that still doesn't mean you get to call it a massacre. The circumstances matter. This was a military operation that involved a firefight and then bombardment as covering fire. Most importantly, we don't know for certain how many of those 276 people who were killed were combatants and how many were civilians. We don't know how many of those 64 children could have been 16 or 17 year old combatants. RM (Be my friend) 01:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> that still doesn't mean you get to call it a massacre.
@Reenem Nope. As you know, and as Raskolnikov has shown, dozens of sources that are considered RS also say this is a massacre. Plus, you do get to call it a massacre because something that kills 300 people is what a massacre is.
> . Most importantly, we don't know for certain how many of those 276 people who were killed were combatants and how many were civilians. We don't know how many of those 64 children could have been 16 or 17 year old combatants
Currently, there is no evidence that any of them were. Assuming all fatalities were combatants is ungrounded. Genabab (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention how you've completely glossed over the canvassing shown by Smallangryplanet Genabab (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those sources are very clearly partisan, as has already been pointed out. And no, a massacre is not "a large number of deaths." The Battle of Stalingrad killed far more than 300 people but I hope there's no need to explain why it wasn't a massacre.
As for the deaths, we don't know how many were combatants but it's pretty reasonable to assume at least a fair number were, given that combat took place there with one of the rescuing force killed during the raid. We cannot simply assume that all of the Palestinian fatalities were civilians. RM (Be my friend) 11:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> A lot of those sources are very clearly partisan
Partisan doesn't mean not Reliable. Guardian, Al Jazeera, Washington Post, the UN (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) are all considered reliable sources... Alongside the others listed above.
> The Battle of Stalingrad killed far more than 300 people but I hope there's no need to explain why it wasn't a massacre.
Because almost everyone who died there was a soldier. But we know that isn't the case here. Quoting from here, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/13/international-criminal-court-investigation-israel-hostage-rescue-raid%7D
"The Gaza health ministry, whose numbers have generally proved reliable, says that at least 274 Palestinians were killed in the operation and more than 600 wounded. The ministry does not distinguish combatants from civilians, but it reports that the dead included 64 children and 57 women, or 44% of the total. Given that many of the men who were killed in the course of the operation were in a nearby market, we must assume that a good proportion of them were civilians as well. That is a horrible civilian toll." Genabab (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was already pointed out that some of those sources are questionable by Wikipedia's own standards. And while one can pull up numerous sources calling it a massacre, there are plenty of others calling it a raid.
Women are obviously noncombatants. A "child" in this case is anyone under 18, and Hamas is known to recruit teenage males under that age, which means teenage male combatants are potentially among the child deaths listed. There's simply no way of knowing how many were civilians vs combatants. Again, a lot of civilian deaths doesn't make it a massacre. The Stalingrad comparison still holds, as the number of civilians killed there still vastly exceeds this operation and in fact the civilian death toll of that battle alone is potentially comparable to the death toll of this entire war. RM (Be my friend) 12:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> It was already pointed out that some of those sources are questionable by Wikipedia's own standards.
Like which ones?
> And while one can pull up numerous sources calling it a massacre, there are plenty of others calling it a raid.
Which is precisely why the current title is Nuseirat resuce and massacre. The previous RFC on this topic compromised by including both in the title. This RFC wants to remove any mention of a massacre at all which goes against NPOV.
> There's simply no way of knowing how many were civilians vs combatants.
Well that's what you're asserting. But that's not what RS' say. Kenneth Roth who was the former executive director of Human Rights Watch (among others who made a similar point to him) said that the majority of those killed were civilians. You are relying on your own speculation with a strange invocation of Stalingrad as if that has any relevance here at all. Not to mention the argument that "some teens are allegedly recruited by Hamas => any and all mention of child deaths can be chalked up to military casualties" is flat on its face ridiculous. Genabab (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Middle East monitor for one. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And no, we don't automatically include a loaded word when the narrative is disputed. Obviously you can't expect sources to explictly state that it's not a massacre in the title the way other sources say it was a massacre.
The point is that there's no way to know how many of the dead were civilians. Even if a majority were, that doesn't take away from the fact that a substantial portion of the dead could have been combatants. This was clearly a military engagement and loaded terms such as "massacre" should be used sparingly. RM (Be my friend) 12:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Middle East monitor for one. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Middle East Monitor isn't deprecated first of all, and is already widely used on wikipedia. Secondly, it is but one source among many, again including UN, NYT, Guardian, etc.
> And no, we don't automatically include a loaded word when the narrative is disputed.
Good thing it isn't automatic then! Because as I said, there was already an RFC about this. And the RFC concluded that due to the massive amount of sources calling it a massacre, both names would be included. I also reject the framing that in this context "raid" isn't also a loaded word.
> The point is that there's no way to know how many of the dead were civilians.
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia is about what Reliable Sources say. And many RS's conclude that the majority were in fact civillians. Your personal speculations as to whether or not there were "substantial portion" or a "fair number" of militants is not at all relevant here. We go by what the sources say... Genabab (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support raid seems to be the most neutral term, also used in other cases with civilian casualities comparable or larger than the number of dead combatants. Rescue and (mass) killings is longer, and attack provides less immediate clarity to the reader, but are also superior to the current title, with the same concern applying to Operation. Particularly, it is clear that massacre is used as the primary name by biased sources, but no such clarity exists within sources with weaker or no bias, therefore not constituting a WP:Commonname. FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raskolnikov.Rev. Despite claims that the only sources that call it a massacre are "Pro-Palestinian", we have multiple different RS using the word massacre to describe and name the event, including ones which can hardly be called "Pro-Palestinian" such as The Washington Post. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Widely described as a massacre by RS.[4][5][6][7] Skitash (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as others have said, RS have referred to this as a massacre. the current title captures both Israeli and Palestinian POV and clearly distinguishes it from the other Israeli attacks on Nuseirat Refugee Camp, including December 2024 Nuseirat refugee camp attack, Al-Sardi school attack, Attacks_on_refugee_camps_in_the_Gaza_war#Nuseirat Rainsage (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support to operation (preferred) or raid: As I outlined above, a large majority of the sources being used by others here to support the term massacre either only do so with attribution (quotes) and also refer to it as a raid or operation (not in quotes), or are opinion pieces, or are not particularly reliable. Saying most RS have referred to this as a massacre is wrong. The RS themselves call it a raid or operation or attack, and massacre is usually only used when they are quoting someone. Some sources:
The only major, reliable news source I came across that used the word massacre without quotes, was Al Jazeera. As seen above, a far larger amount of RS primarily use operation or raid in their "voice", and any use of the word massacre is in quotes, attributed to someone else, and outnumbered by the use of operation or raid. As such, operation or raid is the WP:COMMONNAME, and should be moved accordingly. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC) Stricken "operation" per comment below ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary search method was: [publisher] + "Nuseirat" June 2024 or "Nuseirat" June 2024. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not support a moratorium, regardless of the result. All examples of off-wiki canvassing presented are months old, and there is no evidence to suggest this particular RM has been affected. All bolded supports/opposes here are accounts with over 1000+ edits.ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 To be clear: I'm not saying any specific editors here in this RM are linked to the canvassing effort, but the fact that there is an ongoing effort of this kind (you are wrong to say it was only from months ago, the latest canvassing attempt was several days ago on the 17th right as we saw a spike in activity here), and the timing of it appearing is very worrying and I still believe is worth a moratorium. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: There's documented evidence in reliable sources of several pro-Palestinian editors canvassing this page. [8] [9] Here's what was sent on June 11, 2024, 2 days after the start of the first requested move:

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation was brought to my attention by H. As a priority, can we assemble the same blitz team we had when we tackled Lily Greenberg Call (or whoever we can bring together) to engage with this article.

Page 68 in the attached "dossier" in my first link. This accusation that pro-Israel accounts are canvassing this RM is bizarre because literally all of the evidence points to a sustained pro-Palestinian canvassing campaign targeting this very page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess > This accusation that pro-Israel accounts are canvassing this RM is bizarre
How is it bizarre? What makes you think the evidence Smallangryplanet gave does not suggest canvassing by pro-Israeli editors/accounts? Genabab (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess The Jewish Journal and Aaron Bandler are not reliable sources. Bandler worked at the Daily Wire (link) and Daily Caller (link), ultra-fringe far right outlets that are deprecated, and the Jewish Journal is of the same kind, with its main funder – who "expect to see their investments reflect their politics" – being the far right Adelsons (link). His paranoid rants are of zero value, and in fact his articles and social media feed – including the one you linked – are all on their ow evidence of canvassing aimed at this and other pages. The aim is to get their readers to alter the Wikipedia pages they highlight in the name of countering "sustained pro-Palestinian canvassing". As it happens I've just noticed that the "Wiki Bias" off site canvassing outfit that targeted this page on the 17th (link) as the RfC was running to call for the removal of "massacre" from the title...also effusively praised Bandler's piece. That should say enough about how concerned these outfits are about actual ongoing canvassing.
The Bloomberg piece does not say what you're saying at all. It just mentions that there was conflict about the page. There is nothing about a "sustained pro-Palestinian canvassing campaign" targeting this page in it, and the fact that actual RS make no mention of this at all while Bandler does is on its own an invalidation of this claim.
On the other hand I have linked several ongoing and explicit canvassing attempts (link) not just targeting this page, but specifically to remove the term "massacre" from the title.
I don't understand how you can not be concerned about that but instead make claims from fringe sources about "sustained pro-Palestinian canvassing" – while I'm always WP:AGF, this only heightens my worries about the impact of such actual canvassing, and why there was a spike in activity on this RfC right when the latest canvassing attempt happened. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the !voters in the last RfC were identified as part of the canvassing operation by the article. That includes Ivana (who was permanently banned during WP:ARBPIA5 for canvassing) and a few others.
Your ad hominems against the author and ownership is interesting but don't cast doubt on the piece itself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This event has been covered by dozens of sources, so picking only 12 is not at all representative of WP:COMMONNAME (which requires "a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources"). The operating policy here is WP:POVNAME and "operation" is even more of a POV name than "raid" – both terms present only the Israeli POV and completely negate the Palestinian POV. WP:NPOV requires wikipedia must not take sides in this conflict.VR (Please ping on reply) 06:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point about "Operation", I have stricken it from my comment. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, close and moratorium for canvassing - First I want to acknowledge the off-site canvassing targeting this article and specifically the topic of the title and its use of "massacre" as highlighted by @Smallangryplanet. This is troubling and I support a closure and a moratorium of at least 6 months to uphold the integrity of our processes.
My case for maintaining the current title: The event in question comprises two distinct aspects that should not be conflated or have one supersede the other, in accordance with WP:NPOV. Multiple RfCs have reaffirmed this position—specifically in July 2024, October 2024, June 2024, and November 2024. For this reason, the existing title includes both "rescue operation" and "massacre."
Those who argue that reliable sources also use the terms "rescue operation" or "raid" are correct; however, this is because such sources focus on the mission to rescue the hostages. Other reliable sources, which emphasize the other critical aspect of the event — the massacre of Palestinians — do employ the term "massacre", and do so in their own voice.
The key question we must therefore consider is: Which RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event rather than the rescue or raid aspect do not use this term but instead employ an alternative description, and what is the consensus usage? Instead RS that reference the rescue operation are being conflated with the entirety of the event, leading to arguments in favor of omitting "massacre." This disregards the fact that RS focused specifically on the massacre aspect do indeed use the term, explicitly and in their own voice, and that "massacre" rather than any alternatives is the consensus term used.
These include but are not limited to:
Furthermore, we have prominent figures who have described that aspect of the event as a massacre, and are cited as such in RS. These include but are not limited to:
Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat in The Guardian
Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, Norwary's Deputy Foreign Minister in Al Jazeera
One editor referred to some of these RS, none of which are deprecated, as "leftist" and "Arab-oriented". I do not believe we would accept such arguments as valid to remove the use of "massacre" in the title of a page referring to a massacre of Israelis: "These sources like The Times of Israel, Ynet and Jerusalem Post are right-wing and Jewish-oriented". No, we go by what the consensus of RS say, and the fact is that these are the RS that have covered the massacre aspect of the event, and the consensus use among them to describe it is "massacre". We follow the consensus.
A final point I want to add for everyone's consideration: Analyses of media coverage of the Israel-Gaza War have shown that there is a structural bias against Palestinians, with mass killings of them typically not referred to with language such as "massacre" despite it meeting the standard for their usage of it in other contexts: Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis) The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.
Another study with a similar finding: We found that “murder”, “murderous”, “mass murder”, “brutal murder” and “merciless murder” were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. The same pattern could been seen in relation to “massacre”, “brutal massacre” and “horrific massacre” (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths); “atrocity”, “horrific atrocity” and “appalling atrocity” (22 times for Israeli deaths, once for Palestinian deaths); and “slaughter” (five times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths).
And there are many more. Yet despite this structural bias, the RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event use that term to describe it.
This to me is dispositive about it's inclusion in the title. Lf8u2 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Nation is biased and needs to be attributed, UN also uses operation (article focuses on massacre aspect), the Middle East Eye pieces are opinion articles (last URL needs a "rds"), and their news coverage doesn't use massacre (see above), Middle East Monitor, while not deprecated, is not an RS either and we should probably be using better sources in this topic area, Democracy Now! is no consensus at RSP, and needs to be attributed, and Al Haq is an advocacy source, and should be attributed. Even before discounting those, more use raid or operation than massacre, including some articles above that focus less on the rescue side and more on the deaths side.
You say Yet despite this structural bias, the RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event use that term to describe it. The studies specifically refer to NYTimes, WaPo, LA Times, and the BBC. Do you have links to those sources specifically calling this a massacre in their own voice? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Reading this thread, I could initially see some arguments for moving the article title, but @Lf8u2 swayed me towards opposition. As "rescue operation" already focuses on the Israeli perspective, "massacre" should certainly be included to show the effect on Palestinians. This is included by many reliable sources, even despite the biases that are shown by the aforementioned studies cited by Lf8u2. It is clear that the term massacre should remain in the title. Geo (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support – As per WP:POVNAMING MaskedSinger (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Smallangryplanet and others. We discussed this ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Nuseirat debacle clarification

[edit]
A link to support "This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco" would be useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::"Reading through the Nuseirat rescue/massacre debacle, I realized that our existing POV fork guidance is wholly insufficient. It isn't the Committee's place to tell the community how to fix it, but I think we have clearly identified a problem that the community needs to be thoughtful about." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision

I think this is a fair NPOV name. While it is clear it was a hostage rescue operation (as evidenced by the rescued hostages), many pro-Palestinian sources call it a "massacre" due to the operation's death tool. The name is not corroborated in neutral or pro-Israel sources, which would be required for massacre to conform with WP:NPOV. However, I do understand their POV, they say so many civilians were by purposely and needlessly during the raid. On the other hand, pro-Israel sources emphasize the Israeli hostages rescued. Therefore, raid is a fair name. Closetside (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco can you please link to the discussion that describes it as such? M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes because the current version is the result of months of discussions (including this one). Please don't delete the sourced content again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral media clearly portrays this as a military operation with a high death toll. It was obviously a hostage rescue - hostages were rescued. See www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/13/israel-hostage-rescue-palestinian-deaths-analysis/ That discussion was not an RfC and reverting a bold move requires substantive criticism so I will revert your revert. Furthermore, the quote is above in the Proposed Decision section - read it. Closetside (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, the discussion wasn't formal or even extensive, just a short section in a talk page a few months ago. If you think my version is worse, argue why. Closetside (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed this for months (formal requests and all). Please check out the archives. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Show me. That one discussion doesn't cut it. Closetside (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not until you show me Closetside (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: please have a look at what they have did to the article (i.e., imposed their POV against the merge consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was about the name, not about the lede. Implicit consensus can be boldly overwritten without an RfC. Closetside (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that you know the rules and what 1R stands for. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I was bold, you reverted without reason, so I reverted you back. We both cannot revert for another 24 hours.
I will revert if you provide evidence there was explicit consensus for the previous lede. Closetside (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean self-revert, if I get the evidence. Closetside (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you reverted without reason I think a trip to AE (I'm sure you know what is) is warranted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what you'll post to AE. If there is no more evidence beside for this it won't go the way you want. If there is more evidence, I may agree and self-revert. Closetside (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is rather simple: you are disregarding the consensus version of merge (that took months to achieve) and imposing your own views (based on some made-up comment that you are attributing to ArbCom). I will check again in 10 minutes time and if you still haven't self-reverted, then I will have no other choice but to escalate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The merge is about the name, not about the lede's content.
The quote is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision. It is very real and not made up.
If this is all your evidence, bring it on. Closetside (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I did see consensus on the massacre article so I will self-revert. This RM is trying to override it but oh well. I don't care about getting the "right" version in the interim. Closetside (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are either NGO/or government orgs which are not reliable for news (state with attribution, just like EuroMed) or news orgs with a pro-Palestinian POV. I hope the community sees this in this RM. Closetside (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This move will also bring the article in line with the 2024 Rafah hostage raid, another hostage rescue operation with a high Palestinian death toll. Closetside (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco please link to the claim that you are attributing to ARBCOM. M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question already - scroll above. Closetside (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco is very specific. Can you substantiate it? M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Reading through the Nuseirat rescue/massacre debacle, I realized that our existing POV fork guidance is wholly insufficient. It isn't the Committee's place to tell the community how to fix it, but I think we have clearly identified a problem that the community needs to be thoughtful about." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision.
Debacle and fiasco are synonyms. This repeated questioning is uncivil. Please stop. Closetside (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's get on to the RM. If you oppose it; argue why here. Closetside (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You falsely attributed your POV to ARBCOM (they never said "This page was a fiasco"). I suggest you strike it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; that was the POV fork thing. I will move this into a subsection and strike reference to it in main RM. Closetside (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike the false claim that you attributed to ARBCOM and don't touch my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did it Closetside (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing canvassing campaign targeting this topic and RfC

[edit]

This RfC and the overall topic of this particular name change is and has been at the nexus of an extensive WP:CANVASSING campaign on social media and various other sources:

I think it's concerning and can affect the integrity and impartiality of the process, and alongside the WP:SNOW close, I'd like to propose a WP:MORATORIUM to be put in place for 6 or 12 months. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that snowclosing a discussion with many more supports than opposes and instituting a unilateral moratorium is shutting down the consensus building process. Many RMs in the past year on this topic have been canvassed by both sides, including the Gaza war RM which I enthusiastically supported, so that's not really a valid reason to close it when seven days haven't even passed yet. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede content

[edit]

Upon further thought, there was no explicit consensus for the lede content, only the name, which is why I reinstated my bold edits @M.Bitton. If there is for the content, show me. Closetside (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought, you will take a trip to AE later on today. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I dare you. Closetside (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point so I reverted. I will ask for a WP:3O Closetside (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2025

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

Nuseirat rescue and massacre → ? – Should this article be titled:

  1. Nuseirat rescue and massacre
  2. Nuseirat rescue and mass killings
  3. Nuseirat rescue and killings
  4. Nuseirat raid

I am starting this RM before the previous one is finished because it's silly to wait 3 months for what is probably going to be an ugly WP:NOCONSENSUS close when we have two compromise options that are acceptable to editors on both sides. Let's see if we can WP:ignore all rules by compromising. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order of preference, 3 > 2 > 4, 1. The main dispute here is over whether this was a legitimate military raid that resulted in civilian casualties , or a rescue accompanied by a massacre of Palestinians. The two aspects of this event that aren't disputed are that it's a) a hostage rescue and b) resulted in the killing of many Palestinians. The term "Nuseirat rescue and killings" neatly sidesteps the underlying dispute, because it acknowledges the event was a hostage rescue without saying it was legitimate, and it acknowledges the death of Palestinians without saying it was unjustified. I dislike mass killing and massacre because it implies the killings were unjustified, which is disputed in the article and per WP:NCENPOV, we should avoid endorsing a POV in a descriptive title. Likewise, the term "raid" implies the killings were justified and doesn't acknowledge them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:57, 3 April 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre&oldid=1287135636"