Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 3 March 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 29 February 2024

If you came here because of this twitter discussion and similar discussions, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

It has been proposed in this section that Flour massacre be renamed and moved to Al-Rashid massacre. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident → Al-Rashid massacre – If it really did happen then its not an "incident", its a massacre of civillians that relied on humanitarian aid. Not calling an attack on civillians that killed 112 people a massacre is supporting Israeli propaganda. Lukt64 (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The current title completely obscures the true nature of the event. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree "incident" is too vague, but a more neutral title would be something along the lines of "Al-Rashid Aid Riot" imho.Tdmurlock (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Riot" puts the responsibility for the killings on the Palestinians themselves, as opposed to the IDF, who appear to be the perpetrators. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:8562:4DB5:974A:C462 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I contend that "riot" doesn't really attribute responsibility one way or the other. Plenty of events that we refer to as "riots" (for example, the Rodney King Riots) are characterized by violent crackdowns against the rioters. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Let's try not to get political and keeping it under an already more than appropriate name. Hjemt (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support With IDF statements acknowledging shooting at least 10 people on the scene, and multiple reports of dozens of gunshot wounds (with no other shooters alleged), I think we're in massacre territory even if the others killed turned out to have died in panic, from fearful truck drivers etc. Carwil (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given how many editors have !voted "per Carwil", I will rebut here and point out that "massacre" is a non-neutral term for which there is no agreed upon definition, one that per NPOV we should generally avoid. We should only be using it if there is a consensus in reliable sources that an event was a massacre, or if the common name of the event includes massacre (for example, Saturday Night Massacre).

  Working through WP:RSP, it is clear that there is not a consensus in reliable sources:

  1. ABC News - Does not use "massacre"
  2. The Age - Does not use "massacre"
  3. Al Jazeera - Uses "massacre"
  4. Associated Press - Does not use "massacre"
  5. The Australian - Does not use "massacre"
  6. Axios - Does not use "massacre"
  7. BBC - Does not use "massacre"
  8. Bloomberg - Does not use "massacre"
  9. CNN - Does not use "massacre"
  10. The Daily Telegraph - Does not use "massacre"
  11. Deutsche Welle - Does not use "massacre"
  12. Financial Times - Does not use "massacre"
  13. Forbes - Does not use "massacre"
  14. The Globe and Mail - Does not use "massacre"
  15. The Guardian - Does not use "massacre"
  16. Haaretz - Does not use "massacre"
  17. The Hill (newspaper) - Does not use "massacre"
  18. The Hindu - Does not use "massacre"

  I could continue working down the list at WP:RSP, but the point is made - our most reliable sources, almost without exception, are not classifying this as a massacre - and as such, we are not able to either. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A lot of other articles of this war have been correctly named massacres despite having a lot less deaths, so I see now reason why an event with such a high casualty number shouldn't rightfully be renamed to a massacre too, especially since a lot of the international media have reported that Israeli soldiers deliberately committed this action. Nori2001 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Carwil. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as per Carwil, Nori2001, and Salmoonlight. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: changed en-dash to hyphen. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per Carwil + WP:SNOW, come on, let's close it and move the page. — Mainly 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Al-Rashid humanitarian aid massacre, as I believe that it is important to mention where it happened in the title. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As sources refer to it as a massacre, or they quote that people are calling it a massacre. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Proposed title is more accurate than the almost painfully euphemistic "humanitarian aid incident". CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - and I am hoping that the current title was only used as there was not enough information in reputable media at the time. The IDF opened fire on the crowd, resulting in “less than ten casualties” according to the IDF, who are known liars, with the rest attributed to the resulting stampede and people killed by fleeing vehicles. If you fire a weapon into a crowd, killing civilians, and then more civilians are killed as a direct result of this action, then you are responsible for their deaths. This was a massacre. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, and frankly WP:SNOW. There's no justifiable reason to call it an "incident", it's cloaking the reality of it in euphemism --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Additional Comment: the page with the current title was started by a user (@OliveTree39:) that does not meet the extended confirmed user protection level the page was later given due to the Israel-Palestine conflict contentious topic designation, whereas the first move was made by a user that does --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose and I never use adjectives in my !votes but absolutely no one has cited anything that shows this is commonly called a massacre. I searched up the incident and found these results: , , , , . 2 of those sources don't even say "massacre" once, the other three only attribute it to Hamas, Fatah, and Qatar. Meanwhile, the term incident is used in all sources multiple times, unattributed. No one bothered to look at and use the sources on this. Absolutely no arguments on policy whatsoever. Misplaced Pages is supposed to function on policy, not on opinions devoid of policy. JM (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you serious? So you need a source calling it "a massacre" to prove that it is?

  You don't need a source, 120+ people killed and 750+ more injured IT'S A MASSACRE.

  I Support to change the title in to massacre. IDF are known liars when they are the perpetrator of mass murders of a civilians. As another user said above, even if a truck rammed some of the victims it was still the consequence of the IDF opening fire on the crowd. Gianluigi02 (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages going by the reliable sources is part the second of five pillars. Unless you can show anything with sources, I can dismiss it out of hand (Hitchen's razor); this also means I won't bother engage with the rest of your comment. JM (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I completely agree with JM's claims. The language used regarding this event in most sources, doesn't justify renaming/moving this article to anything with "massacre" in its title. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable sources state that it is unsure what led to the casualties. The Economist, for example, says that "As with many events in the war between Israel and Hamas, the facts are destined to remain fiercely contested." By using the word massacre, Misplaced Pages adopts Hamas' version. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I've already shown above, the IDF have admitted that their firing into the crowd caused deaths. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the sources I read, The IDF clearly said that the shooting that was carried out was a "warning shot" and was not aimed at the civilians who threatened the forces. Even if we assume that there were casualties from the shooting, it is a small minority of the civilians killed, and certainly it was not a massacre.Eladkarmel (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  "It is a small minority of the civilians killed" Even if only a number of deaths were caused by the IDF and the rest died in the stampede (statement that has no sources confirming it, but let's put ourselves in that case), it wouldn't make it less of a massacre. Two of the most well-known massacres in the United States are the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre (7 deaths) and the Boston Massacre (9 deaths). Massacre is defined by the killing of multiple civilians regardless of number. BirdCities (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we assume that there were casualties from the shooting, it is a small minority of the civilians killed

  Who/what killed the rest of the civilians? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  According to the IDFs initial investigation, a stampede.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm all for going with what the RSes say rather than jumping to our own conclusions, but I can't in good faith say that the IDF is a remotely reliable source here. The Kip 07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in favor of waiting a few more days and getting more data. In order for it not to outcome like the accusations against the IDF for the attack on Al Ahali hospital, It turned out that according to all the evidence, it was not an IDF attack, Despite the accusations from Hamas.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed and current titles: On one hand, "massacre" isn't being extensively utilized by RSes, as detailed above. We don't want to engage in OR here; if conclusive/widely-endorsed evidence emerges that the IDF indiscriminately fired into the crowd emerges and is taken up by RSes, I'll support the title, but RSes seem to be taking a cautious tone regarding circumstances at the moment (perhaps to avoid the issues surrounding the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion's initial reporting). On the other, I sympathize with commenters that feel "incident" is far too euphemistic for an event in which over 100 people died violently, which definitively happened regardless of whether it was Israeli soldiers, a stampede, or panicked truck drivers. The question is what do we switch to? "Disaster," perhaps? The Kip 07:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps "Disaster" or "Mass casualty event"? The term "incident" is too vague, while "massacre" is too early as this is an ongoing event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd urge editors to think deeply about the ways language has been used during this particular conflict. Analyses by openDemocracy and The Intercept have suggested that the word "massacre" is almost never used to describe mass casualty events of Palestinians by organizations like NYT, WaPo, BBC, and LA Times . WP:5P5 says sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making exceptions, and it just seems to me that the shooting and death of starving people seeking food does warrant stronger language than "incident", even if that's what the above-mentioned organizations are calling it. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose jumping to conclusions about the exact nature of this incident, hours after it happened, before any inquiry was done, and giving it the title "massacre" is clearly not done out of search for truth. Oyoyoy (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Misplaced Pages is "not news" and this claim about a massacre is pure speculation at this point. I would say calling it "stampede" makes more sense. Hazooyi (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  At best, that's swinging to the other side, because there is reporting by credible sources that there was a mass shooting by the IDF, not just a stampede --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per JM. The incident has not yet been investigated and the assertion regarding a massacre is currently a mere speculation. Indeed, no title of some RS sources I looked at, uses the word massacre to describe the incident:
  • Guardian - 112 dead in chaotic scenes as Israeli troops open fire near aid trucks
  • CNN - Many victims at Gaza aid site were rammed by trucks in chaos after Israeli fire, local journalist says
  • NYT - What We Know About the Deaths Near the Gaza Aid Convoy
  • BBC - Israel-Gaza war: More than 100 reported killed in crowd near Gaza aid convoy

  So, a very sad incident, but not a massacre. GidiD (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  As reported here, sources like the NYT and Washington Post simply pretty much never use words like "massacre", "slaughter", and "horrific" with regard to Palestinians, while they use them frequently with regard to Israelis. So citing them as evidence that this wasn't a massacre probably isn't best in terms of WP:NPOV. Dylanvt (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - There are sources that call this a massacre, and "incident" is too vague. Some users have pointed out that it isn't confirmed who the perpetrators of this were, but literally even the IDF themselves now confirmed they did this because the aid seekers were, according to them, approaching them in a way that "threatened" them. There are also many reliable sources that claim this was done by IDF. Also, since we use titles like Be'eri massacre, this is in a very similar nature and should be described the same. User3749 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reading that article (reader discretion advised), I do not see in the slightest that such hell on earth as that could possibly be considered "very similar in nature" to this event at all. I do not see in the slightest that any of the horrific attacks of October 7 like that could be at all considered "very similar in nature" to this event. JM (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  How is that not very similar in nature? They were both targeting civilians, and I can't see how October 7 is not related to this event. Can you please elaborate? User3749 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is worse because one can expect bad behavior from Hamas but not from the outfit claiming that they are the epitome of morality and who are consistently now demonstrating that they are in fact on a par with Hamas in the final analysis. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I very strongly disagree with the two claims above that this is worse than any of the absolutely horrific October 7 attacks and I find it hard to believe that people are even making them at all. Either there is a huge lack of knowledge about October 7 or there is a huge lack of knowledge about this event, because I don't think those claims could be made with knowledge of both. JM (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yet they are made regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  How is shooting starving civilians trying to get food any better? Salmoonlight (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is equal if not even worse compared to 10/7. I fail to understand how deliberately shooting civilians trying to just get humanitarian aid is any better than what happened on 10/7. And also, again, can you please explain why you disagree? User3749 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that the three of you above believe that invading civilian villages, torture-murdering children, killing everyone encountered, going into shelters and killing entire families, filming it, livestreaming it, doing it with joy, bragging about it, desecrating the corpses, burning down houses, using rape as a weapon of war, and taking civilians including many children hostage, as what happened in places like Be'eri, is better than the Hamas account of IDF soldiers firing into a gathered crowd, is something that is very, very astonishing to me, since I can see so clearly that it is so much worse. JM (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue that this is "worse than 10/7", but I feel like your acknowledgement of this incident being a "Hamas account of IDF soldiers firing into a gathered crowed" in spite of the article itself citing various articles with anecdotes from those unrelated to "Hamas" comes across as bad faith; and especially so with partial admittance from the IDF themselves and media criticisms leveraged towards the edited videos they gave. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  IDF is doing the same, killing innocent civilians indiscriminately, using starvation as a weapon and trying to prevent access to humanitarian aid. This is a prime example of the last. Plus, it isn't "Hamas account" only, there is clear evidence the IDF perpetrated this massacre and as we all know, the IDF often covers up their war crimes. I won't go any further than this because it's not the subject of this discussion and it's starting to get off topic. Please look into both sides, not just one. User3749 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, this sounds like the debunked IOF propaganda that was proven to be lies (e.g., beheaded babies, mass rape based on one testimony and ZAKA fake accounts, burned houses and cars caused by Israeli tank shells, ravine goers killed by Israeli copters, etc.). C'on! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  None of that justifies killing civilians, especially children, in return. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

*Move. Support the move, but can't agree with the "Massacre" title. Neither calling just an "incident" nor showcasing these as a "massacre" is appropriate imho. But the "incident" should indeed be changed. Imperial 09:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support:- Can't unsee this as a massacre for more. Strongly support the move to either Flour Massacre or per nom. Calling this as just an "incident" is unacceptable.Imperial 14:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• The media is starting to call this the Flour Massacre. . Only 7200 results on Google Search so far, but this title may see increasing usage in the next day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Flour Massacre is up to 23,000 hits on Google. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Flour Massacre is now at 112,000 hits on Google. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. There's no reason to call it an "incident". 112 unarmed civilians were killed, it is a full-blown massacre.Sinucep (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Calling this an incident would be the same as causing one of the Hamas-led massacres as an incident because Hamas may deny or belittle the impact of the event. Even the Israelis themselves admitted to shooting dead at least 10 people.ThePaganUK (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This article was created by a non EC editor which might explain the milquetoast title. Here's the New Arab headlining it as a massacre and citing "Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor confirm that Israeli army gunfire was responsible for most deaths in a massacre of Palestinian civilians waiting for humanitarian aid in western Gaza on Thursday". Biased perhaps, but still.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Carwil. Skitash (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Carwil + we're not arbiters here, we follow what the sources say. Most of them either use the word "massacre" or describe what is one. "Incident" is an euphemism. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Calling this an "incident" is too much of a WP:EUPHEMISM, especially considering it's not currently the most common way of describing this (as far as I can tell). XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Even the New York Times, generally totally indifferent to Palestinian suffering, and willing to carry water for Israel no matter the cost to the publication's reputation, has begun to refer to the events as a "disaster". Using "incident" places Misplaced Pages behind reality and at least 12 hours out of sync with the credible sources. It's urgent we close this discussion and make a change, the current title is unacceptable. — Mainly 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Move, as "incident" is a disprespectful euphemism, but "Massacre" might not be entirely correct. How about a compromise: Al-Rashid massacre and crowd crush? It seems clear that some people died from IDF gunfire (massacre), whereas others might have died from crowd crush in the chaos. If there is no consensus to include "massacre" in the title, then I would at least support to replace "incident" by "crowd crush" or "disaster" (although I don't think it would be enough). --Gerrit 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Aren't the majority or all reported deaths and injuries from Israeli gunfire and from people being crushed by Israeli tanks? Crowd crush seems inaccurate. — Mainly 15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are they? If we have evidence for that, then I would support "Massacre". But from what I've seen, this is currently not publicly clear. --Gerrit 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Doctors have said the dead overwhelmingly had gunshot wounds. UN observers have confirmed the same in regards to the survivors. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and wait. As comments have shown, "massacre" is not extensively used, and Misplaced Pages should avoid evaluatively naming contentious topics. Information about this tragedy will clear up imminently, and so too will the media coverage be better unified to support a good name for this article. Zanahary (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment—With three sourced reports from three hospitals, we now have 100 people injured with gunshot wounds (Kamal Adwan Hospital), the majority of "dozens of dead bodies" hit with gunshots or shrapnel (al-Shifa), and 142 with gunshot wounds (Al-Awda). We're now talking about significant violent loss of life, whether or not it was preceded (as the IDF claims) by a crowd stampede, or whether the shooting provoked the stampede (as unnamed witnesses cited here allege). Aside from the involved IDF, I have only seen one unnamed witness cited by the BBC state that "most" were killed by a stampede, something that might have been locally or temporarily true, early on in the day.--Carwil (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, though a move to something else is warranted, as "incident" is woefully inadequate. Even so, WP:CONTENTIOUS is very clear on the use of words like "massacre":

  Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

  The NPOV section on naming conventions for events provides guidance, stating under point three that if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Sources right now have not coalesced on the term "massacre" to describe this:

  BBC News headline: Israel-Gaza war: UN chief urges probe into aid convoy tragedy

  CNN headline: Germany urges Israel to "fully investigate" food aid site tragedy, as international condemnation grows

  The New York Times headline: Deaths of Gazans Desperate for Food Prompt Fresh Calls for Cease-Fire

  The Guardian headline: Israel faces mounting pressure to investigate Gaza food aid deaths

  Al Arabiya headline: Calls for probe, ceasefire follow Israeli gunfire near aid convoy in Gaza

  The only major source I've found that uses the term "massacre" is Al Jazeera English, with this headline: Flour massacre: How Gaza food killings unfolded, and Israel’s story changed.

  For what it's worth, I personally think that massacre is an appropriate term, and that the Israeli military bears responsibility even if not a single person killed in the event was killed by an Israeli bullet, since the shooting was without question what prompted the chaos that caused the deaths in question. I also think that many of the headlines from Western outlets (calling this a tragedy or referring to the deaths of Gazans) are worse than the current article title, as they obscure any culpability or involvement of Israel in what occurred. For the purposes of this discussion, though, it doesn't matter what I or any individual editor thinks it should be called, but rather what a preponderance of reliable sources call this event. I fully expect that sources will gravitate towards that nomenclature, but moving the article for that reason would be premature and thus go against WP:CRYSTAL. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Editing to add: it looks like the page has been unilaterally moved to Nabulsi roundabout aid truck killings at 2024 March 1, 18:05 UTC. I actually think this is a very good interim title; however, this move should have waited until the discussion was closed. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has already been moved back, apparently. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks; I saw the WP:RMUM reversion not two minutes after posting the comment. Appreciate you letting me know. Despite the (warranted) revert, I do believe Nabulsi roundabout aid truck killings can work as an interim title. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per all above, and especially given the analysis provided by CarmenEsparzaAmoux. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 18:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support moving away from "incident" per all above, which completely minimizes the events, although "killings" (current title as of me writing this comment) is much better without being emotionally loaded. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza aid convoy killings or similar, since although it is in fact a massacre for which Israel is clearly responsible, it seems that absent a full investigation, the precise facts are not going to be established any time soon. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza aid convoy killings as well as an interim title. Jebiguess (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Else Flour Massacre. The claim that reliable sources don't refer to it as a massacre is unfounded. Al Jazeera, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The New Arab, WION, France 24, Daily Sabah, The National News, ReliefWeb, Democracy Now!, The New Humanitarian, Anadolu Agency, Morocco World News, Jacobin, Palestine Chronicle, Fox 11 Los Angeles, The Peninsula Qatar, Muslim Council of Britain, etc. etc. etc. Dylanvt (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I wanted to add to this list as the Intercept has also referred to it as a massacre. I will caution that SOME of the sources listed by the user above are not reliable but the fact of the matter is many reliable sources do call it a massacre. The Washington Post also references the term "flour massacre" in their article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I support moving to "massacre", please note that all Indian media outlets are considered unreliable for pervasive paid editing practice. (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support moving the article to Al-Rashid Massacre. According to the WP:COMMONNAME, the title that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources should be preferred. While some sources use the term “incident”, the severity and scale of the event, as well as the usage of the term “massacre” by some sources (as shown by multiple users here like ), suggest that “massacre” may be a more appropriate and commonly understood term for such an event. Furthermore, WP:PRECISE states that article titles should be precise enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". “Incident” is a vague term that could refer to any event, while “massacre” more accurately describes the nature of the event in question. Lastly, the WP:CONSISTENCY policy argues for consistency in the naming of articles. There are numerous examples of articles about similar events that use the term “massacre” in their titles. Consistency in this case would argue for the use of “massacre”. The argument that the term “massacre” is not used in all sources is not very valid, as per WP:COMMONNAME. The policy does not require that the term be used in all, or even a majority of sources, only that it is commonly used to refer to the subject. Also, that the term “massacre” is only attributed to certain groups is not relevant to the naming of the article. The title of the article should reflect the nature of the event, not the views of certain groups. Some users say that the term “massacre” carries POV implications, and it is not necessarily true. The term “massacre” is a descriptive term that accurately describes the nature of the event. It does not imply a judgement or opinion, but rather a factual description of the event. --Mhhossein 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: So when is someone moving the article? This is one of the most ridiculous, needlessly-burocratic discussions I have ever seen here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• 'Support. This is one of the most bizarre outcomes I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. It was a massacre and incidents with far less deaths have been named as such. There is no ambiguity here and the page is already trying to stay bizarrely charitable towards Israel. TheXuitts (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. per Cawal Thereppy (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Over a hundred unarmed people were murdered by armed soldiers (not to mention the several hundred wounded) opening fire into crowd, that's a massacre in every sense of the word. Calling it an 'incident' as if they just happened to fall over dead is utterly pathetic euphemistic whitewashing that I'd hope Misplaced Pages is better than, regardless of the exact nature of every death or what the victims may or may not have done to "deserve" it. BSMRD (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC) BSMRD (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I definitely believe its a massacre, but clearly passions are running high and we should wait a month at least. Its not worth an edit war, especially as investigation is ongoing. besides, there are more than enough atrocities committed by israel that this wouldn't be the tipping point. At the very least, the background of this article should point out that the famine is entirely man-made by restriction of goods and trade by israel. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Yeah. If we do anything, we should rename it. Evidence is obvious at this point. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until information comes out directly linking either a crowd crush or the IDF, massacre accuses one side preëmptively and 'massacre' violates NPOV. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. current title is too vague and the word massacre fits more Durranistan (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The language used in "humanitarian aid incident" describes an accident, which is not the entirety of what happened. 112 people died in an event instigated by the IDF, and many sources sources and witnesses describe it as a massacre. I do think this is subject to change as neutral investigations are underway by other agencies, but for now all information points to a massacre instigated or caused by the IDF. Jebiguess (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support What's next? Calling the Tiananmen Square Massacre the "June 4th incident"? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Listed at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests#Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources are calling this a massacre. Even if they weren't, it is, and calling this an incident is absurd. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  An addendum: The second sentence of my !vote should be construed as a !vote to IAR iff the closer determines that there is no consensus around a COMMONNAME. I am persuaded by the several editors who have pointed out that most Western, English-language media is biased towards giving Israel/the IDF the benefit of the doubt (despite a long history of lying to the media about killing civilians) and biased against calling any of Israel's actions "massacres", while being quick to use the label when Israel is attacked. In these circumstances, it makes sense to ignore COMMONNAME, NCENPOV, and NPOVTITLE because the sources we have are so non-neutral that we might never get a majority of Western, English-language RSes calling what is quite obviously a massacre by that name. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wait I think we're unecessarily jumping to conclusions without first having the proper RS's. Ideally, we would be able to establish a title using WP:COMMONNAME. Good sets of RS's supporting both sides (see for example the sources provided by JM, Delta1989, and Dylanvt) have been provided, making me very skeptical that the sources provided in this discussion establish any common name in either direction. But let's not forget that the event only happened a bit more than a day ago. I would recommend that before making a decision on including "massacre" in the title, we wait a bit for more RS's to come out, so that a common name may become more clear. WP:NCENPOV explicitly lists the term "massacare" as a contentious name, meaning this should not be used until a clear set of RS's support it's use. In the meantime, "incident" is not sufficient, as it is very vague as to what the event actually is. I might support an interim title that includes something along the lines of "killings", as this is far more descriptive than "incident". Gödel2200 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support There are enough arguments about why the current title is awfully euphemistic. --BirdCities (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both mainly because it seems some of the reliable sources, including the ones listed in the current Wiki article (i.e., Bloomberg and France 24), use Scare quotes when using the word massacre. According to Webster’s dictionary, scare quotes are “quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase”. I would support Al-Rashid aid shooting. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Disaster management has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Firearms has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Massacre" is a contentious label, and per WP:POVNAMING we should only use such labels if they are widely used in reliable sources. "Massacre" isn't widely used here; even in many of the sources presented above such as by Dylanvt we see that they don't use the term "massacre", they merely mention it - this includes The Hindu source, the France24 sources, the Hindustan Times sources, and many others. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Is there not a suitable word in between "incident" and "massacre" with respect to severeity? I think both options are NPOV. JDiala (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Al-Rashid aid drop killings"/"Al-Rashid aid drop deaths"? I would lean towards the second for now, given that "killings" typically mean that they were deliberate and I don't think the evidence supports that yet. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence would you need beyond what's already been reported? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen many users here point out that not a lot of mainstream media sources (mainly Western) call this a massacre. I disagree with that as a reason to oppose. There is clear media bias leaning towards Israel. Just read this article from The Intercept as an example. On that article it clearly shows that language used by media related to the killing of Israelis are clearly stronger than those related to the killing of Palestinians. In other terms, those media aren't NPOV, so I believe those arguments based on this claim are not valid. User3749 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:RGW; it is not our place to decide that reliable sources are collectively biased. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just as it is not our place to decide whether pro-Palestinian sources are collectively biased. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  That essay you linked basically says we don't include things here unless if reliable sources mention it. I'm just saying I disagree with those arguments based on that not many sources call this a massacre because those sources are biased in my view. There are, however, sources that call this a massacre, so I would still support a move. User3749 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  RGW is about OR; it's not OR to point out that journalists have reported that most mainstream media is biased in this topic area and we should be cautious about using them as sources under COMMONNAME. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously a massacre. No Palestinian military action to even suggest ambiguity. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza aid convoy killings or something similar, although the proposed is still better than the original title, since "massacre" is at least used in some sources, while "incident" is descriptively dysfunctional euphemism. The original title is generally a nightmare and the page should definitely move somewhere. The place name is not a place, but just the name; it needs "street" to be a place, and even then it is ambiguous - there are other streets of the same name. The word truck or convoy is absent. And again, incident is euphemism. Move post-haste. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Then try clarify that in the article with reliable sources instead of going all hay-wild and attempt to change the article name. Hjemt (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Massacre" is now definitely warranted following UN confirmation and secondary reporting of the shootings. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per JM and Zanahary. In general, it would be better for Misplaced Pages to avoid topics that are so current that the details are not clear, and leave such topics to Wikinews. Nothing bad will happen if we wait a few days before writing about a current event. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The current title completely obscures the true nature of the event.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sources mostly do not call it a massacre in their own voice (per JM, GidiD). Also, usually when we call something a massacre, we imply intent, whereas here we have no evidence of it. Would support an alternative like Killings.... Alaexis_¿question? 13:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is euphemistic, though I agree with those saying to wait and see if sources use 'massacre' before making the move. I would also agree with replacing 'incident' with 'killing' or 'shooting' as to not obscure the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: The article has been translated in six different Wikipedias and all of them call it a massacre. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support this move, or alternatively name the article "Al-Rashid street massacre" which is more clear about the location of the slaughter. Mottezen (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think street should be capitalized here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Srong support. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: it is not controversial, it is simply the truth. If the killing of over 100 defenceless civilians waiting in a food line by one of the world's most sophisticated armies does not qualify as a massacre, I guess we need to change the names of the articles about most massacres. There is absolutely no reason why we have to apply different standards to Israel compared to others. It is a massacre and we should simply call it what it is rather than using euphemistic nonsense. --Te og kaker (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  "it is not controversial, it is simply the truth." There have been many valid sources supporting the move given in the discussion, which you have neither given or even referenced. It is irrelevant whether you think this is the "thruth", but rather what the RS's say. Also, saying "it is not controversial" is simply false if no sources have been provided (sources have been provided earlier in the discussion in support of the move), as this directly contradicts WP:NCENPOV. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Israel doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to killing civilians. there are more than a 160 articles about massacres committed by israel documented in the arabic wikipedia.

  A google translate version of these articles Abo Yemen✉ 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  That certainly may be true, but my point is that if you are saying something is true (really, I think you should be arguing it is verifiable), then you either need to provide sources in support of your argument, or mention one of the various comments above which does provide sources in support of its argument; neither of those were done here. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  waiting in a food line. Unless there is evidence to the contrary (and feel free to link a video or something), I think it is more likely that the starving civilians intentionally stopped, blocked, and swarmed the aid trucks. Which is fine. I think it's ethical for starving people to do that. But let's be careful of assuming that they were just standing on the side of the road in an orderly line. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Vote count. As of right now, 45 editors have supported the decision to move the article to Al-Rashid massacre, while 15 editors have opposed the move. So the decision to move the article has been supported by a 2/3 majority. It's worth mentioning that of the eight articles of events that have happened during this war that contain the word massacre in their titles, only two of them have had higher number of casualties, with the others having 60 casualties or less. On top of that multiple investigations from credible sources like Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, BBC, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have confirmed that the evidence shows that the IDF had indeed shot and killed a lot of the people waiting for the food aid. The evidence for the use of the word massacre is already there, the high death toll is there and the majority support the change of the article name to the Al-Rashid massacre, so I don't understand what more is needed for the change to be made? The longer the wait for the article name change goes on despite all the evidence that it is a massacre, the more it seems like a biased approach and POV-pushing, which shouldn't be allowed to happen. Nori2001 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a 3/4 majority :) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  This should be taken into account by whoever closes this requested move. The United Nations confirmation seems more than enough to me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support per nom. A move is warranted. An "Incident" to me is something caused by a road accident or a lightening strike, this is a MASSACRE. Even if some people were killed in a stampede, the whole thing started by Israeli occupation forces shooting people in the head and higher parts of the body. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The page's title is being discussed more widely: https://twitter.com/karaokecomputer/status/1763707278199570605. Vote stands at 45-15, discussion is going on 48 hours. Close the discussion, move the page. — Mainly 19:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oy vey. See Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 20:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not saying "the ayes have it" merely observing in a shorthand way (vote count, as happens in basically every on-Wiki discussion) that the discussion leans toward a certain conclusion. --Mainly 20:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair, I seem to have misinterpreted what you said :D

  🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 21:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  While this is limited to Twitter right now, I feel it's important to consider that if we keep waiting to take a decision on the name, it's likely that this will eventually put Misplaced Pages under scrutinity in wider media. Using the term "incident" is not a "neutral" or a "less political" stance. The UN and the BBC confirmed evidence that the killings were intentional, how long must we wait for this whole bureaucratic name change process to end? --BirdCities (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't close discussions because Misplaced Pages might be scrutinized in the media. This is already at WP:CR, and an experienced closer (likely an admin, given that this is a contentious topic), will close the discussion when they feel ready to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I will note that quite a significant number of votes in support either do not list or mention any sources in support of their vote, or rely on a previous support which did not mention any sources (some support votes don't have any text after "support"). However, there have also been many good arguments presented in support of the move (see for example the comments by Dylanvt and Mhhossein). What this means is that the discussion should not be closed simply on the number of votes, but on the validity of the arguments. As WP:TALKDONTREVERT says: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the people relying on !votes that don't list sources are arguing on other policy grounds or effectively arguing to IAR without using the phrase IAR. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per nom, UN, others. Calling it an "incident" is the opposite of neutral in this case, since the killings were deliberately targeting civilians.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but wait. "Incident" downplays the severity of the event, so that cannot stay. I'm also seeing a lot of circulation of the word "massacre" around on articles at this point, although it might be a little too early to make a call until more information comes out. HaapsaluYT (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed that "incident" downplays the severity of the event, and the IDF even acknowledges that they fired into the crowd - even if they were "provoked" or "in danger" one could say the same about those involved in the Boston Massacre which only killed five. A massacre is, as defined in massacre, "an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." which occurred here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The Aerial footage was edited; and the Israelis refuse to show the full footage, the only possible reason is to omit evidence which is damning. Mahmoud Awadeyah, a journalist who was at the scene, told the BBC that Israeli vehicles began firing at people upon the arrival of the aid trucks. "Israelis purposefully fired at the men... they were trying to get near the trucks that had the flour," he said. "They were fired at directly and prevented people to come near those killed." Mohammed Salha, the acting director of Al-Awda Hospital, told The Associated Press that of the 176 wounded brought to the facility, 142 had gunshot wounds and the other 34 showed injuries from a stampede. Even the minority of deaths from a stampede caused by panic from gunshots is still a massacre. The Israeli's have also changed their story several times to manage the outrage. Andromedean (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Right now, there aren’t enough sources using the term “massacre” for it to be the common name, so using it in the title would be a violation of NPOV at the moment. There may be a term that’s better than “incident”, but “massacre” isn’t a better term right now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support.A massacre is, technically, any number of dead resulting from the violence of any party, above 5. Firing at or into a crowd of famished people waiting for food for their families in an area where, by all accounts, civil order has broken down because the Israeli army has no remit to set in place an administration to replace that of the vanquished Hamas (whose policemen are not in law militants, but are treated as 'terror targets' by Israel, led to multiple deaths, for which Israel is directly accountable, for starving people, if shot at, will predictably trample each other to avoid one more onslaught. 'Humanitarian aid incident' is extreme in its euphemistic sidestepping of what happened, i.e., a massacre.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Carwil. Leesandeul (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per Salmoonlight, Carwil, Nori2001 and CarmenEsparzaAmoux. Wiki6995 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - per nom, this is not an "Incident", 112 civilians killed and at least 760 getting injured is not an incident. You can not kill a 112 unarmed civilians and injure almost a thousand more accidentally. Just imagine the amount of bullets fired Abo Yemen✉ 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose not broadly supported by RS, and potentially manipulated voting through twitter. We shouldn’t call it a massacre unless we know the specific causes of death (and neither do most western RS), so let’s wait or go for a more precise euphemism, such as mass casualty event. FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  As of 2 March, the UN has confirmed the shootings, so the cause of the killings is in fact now known. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  The cause of ‘many’ of the deaths are claimed to be GSWs (partially relying on EMHRM, which is a different issue).

  Unless we actually get an investigation that separates out justified killings, unjustified killings, accidental killings and death from other causes, calling it a massacre (which implies intent to kill without justification, the majority of them being killed by the IDF, etc.) and is not an accurate name (for now, subject to change). FortunateSons (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  People were throwing snowballs at the British during the Boston Massacre - justification is irrelevant if you are firing upon civilians. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  +2 Abo Yemen✉ 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  You should probably read our article on Boston Massacre before saying that;

  The Boston Massacre (known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street) was a confrontation in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which nine British soldiers shot several of a crowd of three or four hundred who were harassing them verbally and throwing various projectiles. The event was heavily publicized as "a massacre" by leading Patriots such as Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.

  We use "Massacre" because it is the common name for the event, but the name was American propaganda; we describe it as a confrontation. Also, snowballs weren't all they threw - the projectiles includes clubs, stones, and snowballs. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  i'm pretty sure that throwing clubs, stones, and snowballs isn't a justification for the killing of 300–400 people Abo Yemen✉ 14:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Five people were killed in the Boston Massacre? BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes many less in this instance, where there was no reported throwing of clubs stones and snowballs. Even if most were killed by crowd crush (reporting still out on this one), the IDF firing is the but-for cause of any stampeded that resulted, therefore who else could be culpable for the deaths? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, physical attacks on soldiers even by people otherwise considered civilians may rise to the level where rules of engagement and international law cover permit the use of lethal force. That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily justified here, which puts us back to the point regarding “we just don’t have the information yet” FortunateSons (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  There are no "justified killings" here, only an occupying army killing unnarmed civilians - which would be a war crime even if they were protesting and advancing on the soldiers. It's called non-lethal force. And no, an investigation isn't required: UN confirmation is plenty. No idea what GSW is - don't use obscure acronyms. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  GSW is probably gunshot wounds. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  UN ‘confirmation’ means less than you think here, it was just a small group of people, not the General Assembly, Security Council or ICJ.

  Regarding GSW, Novem is right. EMHRM is Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor FortunateSons (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  The UN has already confirmed that Israeli forces did indeed fire on innocent civilians and that was the cause for most of the deaths. Plus, I don't get what you mean by "justified" and "unjustified" killings, nothing in this case is justified. Let's take Israel's account that they fired on civilians because they were "threatening" them (ironically Israel at first denied that it opened fire on civilians so I don't know what this is about). It didn't elaborate on how civilians "threatened" them, and since those were all unarmed civilians, it could be nothing more than some civilians advancing or protesting against the occupying forces. Therefore, there could be nothing that really threatened the soldiers so this isn't justified. Also, please elaborate on what you mean by "GSW" and "EMHRM". User3749 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I responded to another user below, but the truth is that we cannot know at this time if the IDF was fully justified, partially justified or completely unjustified. Therefore, incident, mass casualty event, or deaths are better titles than massacre in my opinion FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  In what circumstances could shooting into a crowd of starving people trying to get food possibly be justified? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not quite a perfect summary, but gradual escalations may be permitted under certain circumstances (slightly biased source, generally reliable.) FortunateSons (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Shooting live ammo is not a gradual escalation and not even the IDF is claiming that such a gradual escalation was attempted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Warning shots may be interpreted as such, as militaries generally don’t carry less-than-lethal for legal and practical reasons. FortunateSons (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per BilledMammal's summary of the sources. Would support "deaths" over "incident" 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would find that as a weak ground based on NPOV, given many Western sources are highly pro-Israel when it comes to language used and they tend to use words such as "massacre", "terrorism", and "murder" only to describe killing of Israelis. User3749 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Massacre" is essentially synonymous with "mass killing", and almost all the sources do agree that there was mass killing. I don't believe most sources portray this in the passive – as "deaths" simple magically occurring. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment regarding the canvassing allegations:

1. Almost all of the !votes occurred before the offending Twitter post.
2. This is an ECP only discussion, so for the canvassing to be effective, somebody would've needed to make an account at least 30 days ago and then get up to 500 edits in anticipation of this RM. Believing that several ECP editors are doing that, with no evidence, assumes bad faith.

voorts (talk/contributions) 14:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

1. 23 of the votes were made after that Twitter post
2. When a post has that broad of an impact (over half a million views), editors who are already ECP will be some of those who see it.

BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it really productive to try to conduct a hypothetical analysis of what proportion of the discussion to exclude based off of this theory? Their input has already been given, has been made in good faith, and I suspect the actual proportion of replies here that are the result of the twitter post are much smaller then you would think (if any were the result of that). Also, should seeing a Twitter post prohibit a user from participating in a discussion? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS#Campaigning and WP:CANVASS#Votestacking. The issues with such a post, and editors coming from such a post, is it inappropraitely influences the result of the !vote in the same manner as intentional canvassing. Ideally, we would procedurally close this and hold a new RM once things have died down and editors aren't being drawn here by off-wiki activity. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You have made a series of completely unsupported assumptions, and regardless canvassing, that is doing it, is prohibited, being canvassed is not. If you have evidence of any user canvassing or an editor proxying for a banned user you should report that to the normal places, but kindly stop disrupting this discussion with vague aspersions against editors without supporting evidence. nableezy - 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Support the proposal here or Flour massacre - largely per Carwill, and per the fact that we use massacre in the title of a number of articles in which far fewer people were killed when those killed are Israelis and not Palestinians. There is a systemic bias in language Misplaced Pages uses in this conflict, Israelis are "murdered" or "massacred", but are "killed" or "die in an incident". We have articles for most acts of violence against Israelis, but most acts of violence against Palestinians are treated as WP:NOTNEWS, routine and thus lacking importance to be covered. Here we have some eight times the number dead as Kissufim massacre or five times the dead as Psyduck music festival massacre or six times those killed in the Alumim massacre or five times those killed in the Netiv HaAsara massacre. But this is an "incident". NPOV doesnt mean that one set of lives are treated as less than another set of lives. nableezy - 14:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion of an article page move can easily be contested. Discussions typically last a week and this one didn't even last 2 hours! And the nominator closed the discussion with their preferred article title which is a clear conflict of interest, that act should have been left to an uninvolved editor or admin. I don't think this discussion and closure can be argued to be authoritative and will likely be challenged. Please do things properly in the future, Lukt64, and don't try to rush these processes. Liz 02:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Obvious misapplication of WP:SNOW, here. Tdmurlock (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Also, would like clarification on WP:SNOW for the future. From my understanding, it's to prevent starting discussions or processes that wouldn't have worked anyways, not to quickly force through process, like it did just now, right? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I have reverted Lukt64's early closure which is made improperly as the nominator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Fails even the first snowball test. Someone opposed, that's the opposite of unanimous. And WP:SNOW also warns of early pile-ons. Yet the nominator himself closed it less than 2 hours after he opened it. Good revert. JM (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Discussions typically last a week" shouldn't be a hard rule, especially when most people agree the original title is woefully inadequate. While the close was obviously incorrect, I don't think we need to artificially uphold bureaucratic procedures to change the title, and a consensus emerging after one or two days could be good if it is clear enough. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, that's why I said "typically", not "always" or "must". But I've seen discussions like this last weeks sometimes. RM discussions are closed whenever an uninvolved closer sees a consensus but it clearly needs to last at least a few days, not less than two hours. The temperature is high right now and that is not an atmostphere when policy-guided decisions are made. A bad, early closure without sufficient discussion will just lead to a move war, I predict. Liz 04:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I fully agree with you on this. In any case, it shouldn't have been closed after a few hours (especially by someone that involved), I'd say it's best to wait if a (very) strong consensus emerges after a few days and otherwise let the discussion run its time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the IDF footage be in the article? And if so, what should it be captioned?

·I'm in favor of "IDF footage of incident" personally. Tdmurlock (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead and add it. Appears to be freely licensed. Caption can be tweaked by normal editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. With the caption "Aerial footage released by the IDF". –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The IDF is an unreliable source imo. They are known to edit video to suit, when not telling porkies, clear attribution needed for anything from there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support addition, it illustrates relevant events. JM (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the lede that the Gaza Health Ministry is administered by Hamas?

The GHM is generally accepted as having been administered by Hamas since 2007 when Fatah-affiliated directors and staff were replaced by Hamas loyalists. Should the mention of the GHM in the lede be preceded by the phrase "Hamas-administered"? Tdmurlock (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Dylanvt Tdmurlock (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly not common practice across Misplaced Pages to precede "Gaza Health Ministry" with "Hamas-run", as some sort of disclaimer. Look across other articles on the current war, and you won't see that epithet really at all. I'm sure there's been some discussion about this somewhere, too. Dylanvt (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza Health Ministry may be run by Hamas, but many organizations have stated that that doesn't affect its coverage and reliability. This report shows that compared to independent estimates of the death toll during the current war, GHM is reliable and doesn't exaggerate it's reports. Even then, Israeli intelligence has deemed the numbers by GHM accurate, especially considering Israel doesn't collect civilian casualties in Gaza. I think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the lede as it may be perceived as NPOV. Jebiguess (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Including that it is hamas-run has been used obviously in the past to diminish the death count. If the death count is reliable, then folks can just click on the link to the Gaza Health Ministry to see it is administered by Hamas and has had these claims. We should not mention it as a qualifier for every reporting that it does. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We should follow reliable sources; looking at sources it appears many attribute their figures not just to the health ministry but to the "Hamas-run" health ministry or similar:

1. ABC
2. The Hill
3. Sky News
4. Shine (Reliability unknown)
5. MSN
6. BBC
7. China Daily
8. WION
9. GMA
10. 1News

Etc. Based on this, I've clarified the first mention as "Hamas-run"; after the first use I don't think we need to continue saying it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with clarifying the first mention per sources. JM (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why Hamas-run is relevant whenever it has been established that the GHM is the reliable source on the ground, and is the best source for a toll on this particular attack. As Sawerchessread said, by linking to the GHM's page users can derive that the ministry is run by Hamas, but in the instance of this incident, using Hamas-run is POV-pushing. Jebiguess (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What’s relevant is determined by reliable sources; reliable sources have decided this is relevant. Further, GHM hasn’t been established as reliable on this topic, and I would suggest they aren’t based on their actions in relation to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have listed sources above, this and this, establishing that GHM is a reliable source in the conflict. It is also, currently, the only reliable source on this current attack, so unless Israel or an independent agency are willing to provide their own numbers, the GHM should not be dismissed. Jebiguess (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Those relate to the overall death toll; it has been less reliable in relation to specific incidents. In addition, we’re not dismissing it; we’re just attributing it in the same way our sources do. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems redundant. Shouldn't we then also say "Likud administered IDF" etc? KetchupSalt (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources say "Likud administered IDF"? BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussed to death at the main article for the war, no need to do it all again, using Hamas run is not needed or necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it is unnecessary to mention that it is Hamas-run and it is generally not mentioned on other articles relating to the war. MountainDew20 (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Opposition to Citing Al Jazeera, which is state-owned by Qatar, in the lead

Al Jazeera is not a reliable, independent source on this topic--it is state-owned by the government of Qatar, which has a conflict of interest in the conflict; Qatar is helping arbitrate diplomatic negotiations and is the current residence of the top leadership of Hamas.

"The attack was portrayed by Al-Jazeera as part of a broader pattern of Israeli attacks on people seeking humanitarian aid."

The same would apply to citing Voice of America, as the United States is also helping arbitrate diplomatic negotiations and provides military aid to Israel. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable despite being state-owned. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Salmoonlight. WP:RSPSOURCES has them as a generally reliable source. Their coverage of the conflict seems professional and accurate so far. Occasionally their bias slips through, for example in live news reports they always refer to the "occupied" West Bank. But overall I am very impressed with their professionalism. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, referring to the West Bank as occupied isn't "letting bias slip through" given that it objectively is being occupied by israel, and is recognized as such by the entire international community. Dylanvt (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That page says “Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.” Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Partisan doesn't mean unreliable. A partisan source may pick and choose what they cover and use charged language, but they can still be reliable in that what facts they do publish are real --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The BBC is also state-owned media, which also has a conflict of interest in the conflict, both due to the UK being in a military alliance with the US, and due to its historical involvement in Palestine. Despite this, it is used as a source in the article and generally considered RS. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be acknowledged that the UK and US are democracies with a large measure of freedom of speech whereas Qatar is a monarchy with far less freedom of speech. Regardless, as Al-Jazeera is currently listed as generally reliable, there's nothing to be done here. JM (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli forces opened fire on civilians"

Currently, the lede says that "Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City", sourced to Al Jazeera.

However, I'm not seeing a consensus among reliable sources that this is what happened. For example, The New York Times says there are conflicting accounts and that Israeli forces opened fire on Thursday as a crowd gathered near a convoy of aid trucks in Gaza City in a chaotic scene in which scores were killed and injured, according to Gazan officials and the Israeli military, which attributed most of the deaths to a stampede.

The BBC is similarly non-committal, even after reviewing Al Jazeera's footage; they describe the footage as showing Volleys of gunfire can be heard and people are seen scrambling over lorries and ducking behind the vehicles. Red tracer rounds can be seen in the sky. - they don't describe it as showing Israeli forces firing on civilians.

The Guardian also summarizes it as "accounts differ".

As far as I can tell, we don't know what happened yet - in time, the facts will emerge, but until then we need to be cautious with the language we use. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Volleys of gunfire can be heard" according to the BBC sounds a lot like opening fire... Lukt64 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

But what at? Reliable sources aren't in agreement with this - which makes it an issue when we state, in Wikivoice, that they "opened fire on civilians". BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be removed from the lead based on BilledMammal's evidence. JM (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this being removed from the lead, I would prefer adding other accounts to the lead because this is the most likely. User3749 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we based this discussion on WP:HQRS; can you provide additional ones to support your position? Note that we would need a substantial number to outweigh the ones that decline to take a position on what has happened. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Some more sources: 1 (Khaleej Times) 2 (Al Jazeera), already mentioned by multiple users above 3 (Jacobin, RSPS says it is generally reliable but is biased)

This is just some, I will find more and put them here User3749 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if Khaleej is a reliable source, but it supports "conflicted accounts" rather than "opened fired on civilians".

Jacobin doesn’t have much weight here; There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the Khaleej Times article, the main body content states there are conflicted accounts but in the headline it states Israeli forces open fire at a crowd flocked to the aid distribution point... and I already acknowledged there is consensus that Jacobin is biased. Some more sources: This but I don't know if it's reliable or not (I still have more but I'm trying to exclude the unreliable or obviously biased ones). User3749 (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINE; we don’t consider them to be reliable sources.

The France24 article appears reliable, but it doesn’t support the claim "opened fire on civilians". BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the Khaleej Times, I'm not only taking from the headline, the entire article primarily mentions the Israeli shooting, and the France24 article also includes mentions of the Israeli shooting but it does also states that accounts by Israeli officials differ. Also, some sources that I just found: this, and this but I also don't know if it's reliable or not. User3749 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the articles, can you quote the content (excluding headlines and sub-headlines) that say "opened fire on civilians" or similar? BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

France24: Shortly after he left the convoy, he said, witnesses reported that Israeli troops opened fire on the civilians trying desperately to get hold of food.

Khaleej Times: The crowd flocked to the aid distribution point early on Thursday, desperate for food amid Gaza's looming famine, only to be met with lethal chaos including live fire by Israeli troops.

Al Arabyia: Some Palestinians injured in a Gaza aid disaster said on Friday that Israeli forces shot them as they rushed to get food for their families, describing a scene of terror and chaos.

New Arab: More than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed and over 700 injured as they queued for aid on Thursday morning in Gaza, in the latest massacre committed by Israeli forces in the besieged enclave. User3749 (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The only one that supports the claim is New Arab; the rest attribute the claims or are ambiguous. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean those that directly support the claim, not those that merely say it has been reported or those that attribute the claim to witnesses etc.? I will try to find sources that support the claim directly but you could also just have clarified. User3749 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear; a source only supports us making a claim in Wikivoice if it makes the same claim in its own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the FT "Dozens of Palestinians were killed on Thursday during a chaotic attempt to get humanitarian aid into northern Gaza, during which Israeli forces opened fire on civilians." Think that's clear enough. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that we would need a substantial number to outweigh the ones that decline to take a position on what has happened. BilledMammal (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you need sources that say they did not fire on civilians, have any? Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve presented a number of sources that say we don’t know what happened. Until sources consistently say we do know what happened - and consistently say the same thing - we cannot say we know what happened. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying anything, the sources are. Add the fact that some sources say that they don't know if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If we put it in Wikivoice, we are saying that. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the sources are, the ones given in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

But the majority are saying "we don't know". I'm repeating myself now, so this discussion has become unproductive - if you want to include, in Wikivoice, that Israel opened fire on civilians, then please open an RfC proposing that and get formal consensus per WP:ONUS. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it's in the article so it has consensus. I didn't put it in, I just added a couple reference supporting it. Like I said if you want to write that this and that source "don't know" (pretty sure they didn't actually say that), go right ahead. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I see you re-added this line; there is no consensus for its inclusion, and the sources don't support it being presented in this way.

What we should do is present the two sides - that one side is saying that Israeli forces opened fire on civilians in an ambush and massacre, and that the other is saying that a large number were killed in a stampede, and that while Israeli forces opened fire at one point when they were threatened by a mob they were primarily warning shots and only killed a small fraction of those who died.

If you believe your presentation is more appropriate, then I would ask that, per WP:ONUS, you open an RfC on its inclusion at restore the article to the status quo while it proceeds. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You say there is no consensus, who else besides you is objecting? There are at least four and probably more editors supporting it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

JM2023, and probably more editors. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me the two sides are covered in the second para of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel: The army ... acknowledged that troops opened fire on several Gazans who moved toward soldiers and a tank at an IDF checkpoint, endangering soldiers, after they had rushed the last truck in the convoy further south. An officer stationed in the area ordered soldiers to fire warning shots in the air as the Palestinians were within a few dozen meters, as well as gunfire at the legs of those who continued to move toward the troops, the probe said.

Per the above, the IDF admitted firing at some of the Palestinians. starship.paint (RUN) 03:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have no objection if the article said something along those lines, but it omits most of the context and says that they fired on civilians who were attempting to retrieve food, not who were advancing towards soldiers: The incident ... took place when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on Al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout.

While some sources do claim that what happened is as we currently depict it, most reliable sources decline to take a position. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that's true, here's NBC, generally Israel supportive, "Rescuers continue to recover bodies from Nabulsi roundabout in Gaza City, where more than 100 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians hoping to get food. The IDF has confirmed and denied shooting into the crowd, and blamed most of the deaths on a stampede." Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that is a similar situation to WP:HEADLINES; when you follow the link provided in that summary it says "Israeli forces are accused of opening fire Thursday on a crowd of Palestinians who were hoping to get food from aid trucks in Gaza City." BilledMammal (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting statements by Israel

Should it be noted in the article that “…according to Israel, they mostly died in a stampede after IDF soldiers fired warning shots in the air when a mob endangered them in two related incidents.” which would mean that they did not shoot anyone, while simultaneously Israel has said that “…fewer than ten of the deaths directly resulted from Israeli fire.” which means that, though they are not claiming responsibility, they did in fact admit to shooting some of the victims? MountainDew20 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for this, then yes it should. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The quoted statements are from the article itself, the first being from the heading and the second being from the “Investigations” section, and both of the statements have sources to back them up. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

while conflictingly also stating I don’t think the claim that this is conflicting is supported either explicitly or implicitly by the sources; "mostly died in a stampede" means some did not die in the stampede. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Please consider checking out BilledMammal's edits. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7Not sure why this was reverted? Many sources do describe it as a massacre. Genabab (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, while some of the edits individually could be debated, the combination definitely feels like POV-pushing, especially with the removal of RS. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Three "incident"s, why am I not surprised? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, also called the Flour Massacre, was a humanitarian aid incident". Apart from the redundancy, what is a "humanitarian aid incident"? This would be funny if the circumstances weren't so tragic. The lead doesn't mention that the people killed and injured were trying to get food from aid trucks. Compare the current lead with the lead that existed until a few hours ago: "On 29 February 2024, in what has been characterized as a massacre, 112 Palestinian civilians were killed and at least 760 were injured when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City". Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a mess now too because of these edits. Salmoonlight (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Those mostly look fine if you ask me; what is the specific issue? FortunateSons (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Convoy background

@Selfstudier: I would suggest that the background to the convoy is WP:DUE for the lede, but regardless, would you be willing to move that content to the body rather than deleting it entirely? Surely we can agree that it is due there? BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I already put a sentence in about that yesterday, sourced to Reuters, "The aid delivery was operated by private contractors as part of an Israeli operation which OCHA said was made without coordination with the U.N." No objection if you want to pad that out a bit more. Most of what you wanted to write is also there. Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV template

I'm concerned about the neutrality of this article; it presents the Palestinian perspective as being the truth, while downplaying the Israeli perspective. However, that doesn't align with reliable sources, who currently say "we don't know" and that there are "competing perspectives".

For example, the article says in what has been characterized as a massacre. "Characterized" typically means that what is said is the truth, but this doesn't align with our sources - while some sources have called this a massacre, the majority have currently declined to do so in their own voice. What we should be saying is that specific sources have called this a massacre.

Further, it downplays aspects such as that Israel organized this aid convoy.

I think the article needs substantial rework to be compliant with WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely needs the template at this point. JM (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead, tag the article, we are used to that by now. Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel organizing the convoy just confirms Israeli responsibility for the deaths, whether they killed them or not. Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: So, that’s it? You suggest something, the very same editor agrees with you, and then you proceed with the edit? No one is noticing this behavior? Really strange things are happening on this page. I’m getting out of here. Fortunately time will tell everything. Even though not by editors, this page is being under the scrutinity of thousands of readers. Happy editing, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, looking at that thread I'm starting to think maybe we should add a WP:CANVASSING warning in addition to a NPOV template. Tdmurlock (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the chances of Twitter users being extended confirmed, which is required to post on this talk page and enforced by software, is pretty low. So I do not anticipate that canvassing from that particular Twitter thread will be a problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

SOP. And we are already discussing the sources up above but because that argument is being lost, start anew down here instead. Selfstudier (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, sorry if I’m being dumb, but what’s SOP? Apparently not WP:SOP, isn’t it? RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Standard Operating Procedure. Don't get your way, tag. Selfstudier (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support the NPOV template, but I do support characterizing the event as a massacre given the number of sources that characterize it as such. This is an event that recently occurred--I added the current event template--and is still under investigation, and clearly will require subsequent editing and consensus to be NPOV-compliant. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. What does the convoy being Israeli have to do with absolutely anything? Salmoonlight (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article already, idk what that's about tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Overall this is a weak justification for adding a template. What exactly is biased? Point to specific sections instead of just saying that the entire article takes pro-Palestinian media at their word, which it clearly doesn't judging by its current title. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have read through the lead of the article, and there are very clearly quantification issues. One such example is when the lead reads This incident, which has been referred to as the Flour Massacre in media. Only one source is provided for this claim, raising the question how much of the "media" is making this reference. The lead sentence also has such an issue, saying in what has been characterized as a massacre, followed by only two sources. At the very least, that should be changed to in what has been characterized as a massacre by some sources, or (far more preferably, IMO) we should wait to add that in until the move discussion above has concluded. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there are visible NPOV and canvassing issues (the latter not necessarily, but probably enough for a tag).FortunateSons (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the arbitration enforcement procedure to make other editors submit to your preferred version or eliminate editors who do not agree with you. I am not the only one calling you out of gaming the system. I think this kind of behavior deserves broader attention from other editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Should this talk page have a WP:Canvassing warning?

in the discussion directly above this one, @RodRabelo7 posted a link to this twitter thread which consists of twitter users bellyaching about the current state of the article with, lemme see here... 20k+ likes and 8k+ retweets. Should we add a warning to the talk page stating that this page has become a target for WP:CANVASSING and potential WP:MEATPUPPET-ry? I've never personally seen such an obvious offwiki response to an article, so I'm not sure exactly what the best actions to take here are. Cheers! Tdmurlock (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, no need of it. Both the article and the talk page are correctly protected. By the way, I was not the first to post that link. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If someone wanted to edit this article they would need to have extended-protected permissions first. Out of all the people who interacted with that post, how many of them would realistically meet that requirement? Salmoonlight (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a broad "canvass" warning is not required, but I've added Template:Not a ballot to the requested move. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of that, barring a better alternative measure. FortunateSons (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentences

Can't we do better? As a descriptive title, doesn't need bold intro and then there is just needless obfuscation. It's not a "crowd rush", it's the tragic death of a 100 + hungry people. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably both, so while a change is generally a good idea, I do not believe it to be viable in this situation. We don’t know the cause of death, and something being ‘tragic’ is not an adequate justification for having potentially inaccurate opening sentences. Let’s wait a few days for more news. FortunateSons (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• C-Class Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• Requested moves