Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:12, 10 June 2024 editFigureofnine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,295 edits Requested move 9 June 2024← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:57, 11 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,380,309 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre/Archives/ 1. (BOT) 
(620 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-extended|small=yes}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|collapsed=yes|1=
{{contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blpo=yes|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject Israel |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} {{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |Asian=yes |Middle-Eastern=yes |Post-Cold-War=yes |b1=yes |b2=yes |b3=yes |b4=yes |b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=low}}
}} }}
{{Press
{{Annual readership}}
|author = Sarah Shamim and Dwayne Oxford

|date = 14 June 2024
==Where they saved==
|url = https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/wikipedia-war-fierce-row-erupts-over-israels-deadly-nuseirat-assault?traffic_source=rss
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/758924/
|title = Misplaced Pages war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault

|org = ]
New details about the operation in which Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv were released from captivity this morning (Saturday) indicate that the abductees were held alongside families under heavy security in Nusirat, inside 3-4 story buildings with 200 meters separating one building from the other. The operation was planned in both centers at the same time with the understanding that if they operate in one place <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:58 8 June 2024 (UTC)</small>

== Should we be using an IDF photo? ==

Misplaced Pages is not censored. This photo is. Can we find a better one? ] (]) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:It’s pretty commonplace for the military to conceal the identities of service personnel, for PerSec (Personal Security) reasons. This isn’t censorship, it’s there for their protection.
:Look at photos of units like 22SAS, Seal Team 6 etc. released by their governments, they have what are known as the “issue black bars”. Soldiers in elite units worldwide are targets, this is for their security.
:Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Bravo_Two_Zero_(team_photo).jpg - and most of the people in that photo died on the operation, only two survived, one had major plastic surgery and one still hides his identity to this day. ] (]) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::The reason the photo is censored doesn't really concern me. It is censored nonetheless and is sourced from the PR arm of a belligerent in this article that RS are now calling responsible for the deaths of some 200 people. We should find a different one. ] (]) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::They’ve blurred the faces of soldiers, that’s accepted across wiki. Now because that argument holds no ground you’re objecting because it was taken by the IDF. do you have a reason to believe that, aside from not identifying soldiers involved in the raid that the image isn’t genuine and doesn’t show the moment the hostages landed safe and free? Would the uncensored picture suffice or do you not want a photo of the free hostages? ] (]) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict, and I'm confident we can source one. ] (]) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::You’ve not explained why any of it matters? If the exact same photo came from an AP photographer would it be okay?
:::::Why do you want to identify the SF personnel, do you want to put their lives at risk? ] (]) 20:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Let me type it again for you. I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict. And just FYI, no AP news photographer would ever send in a photo to their desk with the faces of their subjects digitally blurred. ] (]) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Okay great. Well I like that photo, so let keep it. Misplaced Pages isn’t here to serve you, is it?
:::::::You can’t explain why either of the reasons you’re giving mean that the photo is unsuitable for use on Misplaced Pages. Lots of photos on Misplaced Pages are blurred in places, that’s obviously not a reason for its removal, and lots of conflict pictures come from
:::::::the military involved. ] (]) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know why you needed me to repeat myself to understand, but I'm glad you do now. ] (]) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Of course not. They'd just ], then send it in. ] (]) 21:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I stand corrected, but the IDF has a far more extensive history of manipulation that we should be very wary of when using their images in an encyclopedic article. ] (]) 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, that was a Reuters freelancer, so my point stands. ] (]) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/ap-drops-freelance-photographer-who-photoshopped-his-shadow-out-of-image/ ] (]) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Apples to oranges, and please avoid personal attacks. ] (]) 23:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::How is it apples to oranges? It is an AP photojournalist, and he submitted a photoshopped image.
::::::::::::I've removed the comment that offended you ] (]) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:There probably is not an uncensored one for the soldiers’ safety. ] (]) 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your exact objection is? Is it to the blurred phots? Is it to the source being the IDF? ] (]) 22:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:My objection is to the use of a censored photo and one provided by the PR arm of a belligerent in the article. ] (]) ] (]) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::Why is the censored photo problematic? ] (]) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Because it was uploaded by a belligerent in the conflict accused of killing more than 200 people and it is partially censored. ] (]) 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Agian, what is the problem with the faced being blurred? ] (]) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Because it is a censored photograph ] (]) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Could you try to answer without a circular reference? when I ask you why a censored photo is a problem, "Because it is a censored photograph" is not a meaningful answer. ] (]) 00:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's literally the answer though? We should not be using censored photos on wikipedia if we can find better ones. ] (]) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::But we have no better ones at the moment, so in the absence of a better photo what's the issue with a photo where the faces are blurred? How is that different from the numerous photos we have in articles of people masked? ] (]) 00:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Because photos of people wearing masked are not censored ] (]) 01:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::But they are not as good as ones where faces are visible, and they equally obscure the people in the photo. So again - what 's the issue with blurred faces? Try to answer without resorting to circular reasoning. ] (]) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is that the photo currently used is digitally manipulated and censors the identity of those involved in the action. It was also sourced directly from a belligerent in the conflict. It's ok that you're ok with that, but the only thing circular here is your continual prodding of my position when I have clearly expressed for the fourth time my objection to its use. ] (]) 01:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I kept prodding because you simply did not provide any answer- I kept asking 'why is X bad?', and you replied 'because X is bad'. We are now, finally, getting a bit closer to an answer which is not circular - you say the images should not be used because they censor the identity of those involved- but why is that a problem? In what way is that identify relevant to the article or to the photo illustrating the event? ] (]) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I will not waste more energy with you. Good luck. ] (]) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No worries. If you can't make a coherent case for why the photo should be removed, it will stay in, by default. ] (]) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's not really how this all works but ok ] (]) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::How do you think it works? ] (]) 02:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I've removed the photo because it was added by the PR team of a belligerent in the conflict and because it was censored. ] (]) 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You've also broken 1RR with that edit,I suggest you self-revert. ] (]) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages itself should not censor (]), but it doesn't mean that that it should try hard to avoid using censored content.
:Also, Misplaced Pages's anti-censorship policies are about censorship for sensibilities and norms (offensiveness). Misplaced Pages DOES have an interest in protecting individuals from being targeted, and no interest in exposing them (there's no encyclopedic purpose here), so it should not post an uncensored version of the photo even if you can find it. There are good reasons for the censorship, and no good reasons for not censoring.
:IMO, you should just drop that point, or it will be distracting. Focus on the fact that this is propaganda, and the question of whether it represents the conflict neutrally. --] (]) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::I understand what you're saying. I remain disturbed that we are using a photo from the PR arm of a belligerent in a conflict and one that is accused of killing some 200+ non combatants by RS as the lead image for the entry. ] (]) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::No one has determined how many of the causalities were combatants, AFAIK. But that is beside the point., If only 5 people were killed, would it then be ok to use a photo by the IDF? How about 25? That is simply not a consideration ] (]) 21:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You still can’t explain why the photo is inappropriate.
:::continuously mentioning that they are accused of killing 200 people in the operation doesn’t change impact the photo in any way. Please stick to facts rather than trying to garner support using emotion.
:::The photo is there, it’s crystal clear for anyone to see what it shows. Unless you’re claiming that the photo is fake, its source is irrelevant as it’s an accurate depiction of an event that happened.
:::I think it’s best that you just remain in your disturbed state, as you can’t actually put together a logical (non-circular) reason for why this photo should be removed. ] (]) 07:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

== POV title ==

Framing this as a "rescue operation" like some James Bond movie is misleading as to its true nature: a large-scale massacre of hundreds of civilians. The title puts greater weight on the four rescued than the 210 killed.

I'd suggest a title like 2024 Nuseirat attack. ] (]) 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:I support such a change. ] (]) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::OK. Please feel free to do implement it (or anyone else reading this...) as I'm on my 1RR. ] (]) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:James bond operations remain in Hollywood.
:Military operations differ in sizes, some are large military operations and some are small.
:This was on the small-medium operation, and it's target was to release the 4 hostages. Hence rescue operation. ] (]) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:No because the objective was to rescue hostages. That remains true even if it was a "massacre." And we don't even know how many of those 210 killed were civilians. ] (]) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:It was a hostage rescue operation. That was the purpose of it. Misplaced Pages's position should not be to take sides on the human cost in terms of the loss of terrorist life or any collateral damage. People can make up their own minds about that. A simple presentation of the facts is sufficient. There is nothing wrong with the title. Neutrality is important, and that means resisting the use of loaded and emotive terms like "massacre". "Massacre" should be reserved only for when an actual massacre was the intent. ] (]) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::Using terms like "collateral damage" and "terrorist" is already non-neutral, and the intent of the operation is far less germane than its outcome, which is a mass murder. ] (]) 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Using non neutral terms in a talk page argument is perfectly acceptable;. I see an edit above, by an editor you may be familiar with, use the non neutral term "a large-scale massacre" . ] (]) 19:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::RS are emerging that suggest this was a massacre *and* a hostage rescue operation. Both can be true, and the articles should probably be merged. ] (]) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree the articles should be merged- there's a section below suggesting such a merge, you should voice your opinion there ] (]) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:Just wanted to point out there is now a separate Misplaced Pages article called ]. ] (]) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::So we're now just creating another article, about this same event, but with a diffenrt title, one that was objected to here? How is that permissible? ] (]) 19:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I think this is a sensible position. If you want to keep this as a hostage operation, fine. But then you have to separate that out from the broader attack on Nuseirat (including levelling of entire neighbourhoods) in the process. ] (]) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::It can't really be separated. It's one operation with extraordinary levels of collateral damage. ] (]) 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree. And furthermore, at least as of now, there's virtually nothing in the newer article that isn't already here, or couldn't easily be added here as a paragraph with more details on the casualties. ] (]) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agree, it’s plainly a ]. ] (]) 06:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I saw that it was created and wanted to inform this talk page as it seemed relevant to the ongoing discussion. Sometimes editors decide to merge articles. The separate articles probably would address the disagreements over article title name. ] (]) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::So you think it is proper, when we have a disagreement about what an article should be names, to create another one, covering the same event, but with a different name, one that was objected to? ] (]) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it’s a possible solution, yes. Another option would be to merge the articles, as I have written above. See ]. ] (]) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd say that's a pretty weird solution. Have you seen it used elsewhere? ] (]) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I can’t say I have, which is why I wrote that it is a possible solution, provided an alternative option, and posted in this thread for general discussion. ] (]) 20:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's abundantly clear that a number of users have zero interest in presenting a neutral view of the situation, and would prefer to use Misplaced Pages to push one-sided political narratives, hence the creation of a duplicate article that implies the rescue of civilian hostages as secondary to some kind of Israeli bloodlust.
:::::It was a hostage rescue, regardless of whether the number of Hamas militants killed was 1 or 1,000. End of discussion. Everything else known about the operation should go within the body of the article. ] (]) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:The name of the operation is Operation Arnon. ] (]) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::You're talking about "Israeli bloodlust" as if it's an obviously a ridiculous charge. In reality, the state of Israel has been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. A "neutral" view of the situation would give significant weight to the mass murder of 200+ people over the rescue of a handful of seemingly well-treated hostages. This is the objective here. ] (]) 20:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The goal of the operation, according to the reliable sources, was to rescue hostages (holding them, whether well treated or not, is a war crime).
:::::::The claim that 200 people were killed during the operation should be given its due weight in the body of the article ] (]) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, and the goal of WWII was negating the humiliating of the Versailles treaty. At some point goals are less important than the actual on-the-ground result. In this case the on-the-ground result was a large-scale massacre of women and children. ] (]) 20:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::the 'on the ground result' was the rescue of 4 hostages, whose very holding was a war crime.
:::::::::When you perform your war crimes in the midst of a dense civilian population, there's bound to be casualties among that population. IHL recognizes that those casualties are the responsibility of those hiding among the civilians. ] (]) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::That's ] and also factually incorrect as IHL takes into account discrimination and proportionality. You also haven't provided any evidence that Hamas was "hiding" among civilians in this incident. ] (]) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is an argument in a talk page, it does not need reliable sources. You don;t understand the concept of proportionality. Are you not aware that teh hostage were held i the midst of a residential neighborhood? even Al Jazeera says this is the case ] (]) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're just wrong, and demonstrating an embarrassing misunderstanding of IHL. I'd suggest reading over the war crimes page for Israel to get the basics of this. Bombing entire neighbourhoods to rescue four hostages is clearly disproportionate. ] (]) 21:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am not wrong. I've read that horrible excise for an article about Israeli war crimes, and edited it extensively in recent days, to remove other similar misconceptions about IHL, like the notion that use of DIME weapons is a war crime, or that shooting fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is a war crime.
:::::::::::::Proportionality in IHL refers ONLy to civilian casualties, and we have no idea how many of the claimed dead are civilians. All reports attest to a heavy firefight during the rescue operation, involving hundreds of armed people on the hostage-holding side. In such a case, it is conceivable that there would be many casualties, tens or even hundreds on the hostage-holding side. ] (]) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You are wrong. I can understand sometimes facts don't align with ones preconceptions, but this is why it's crucial to be open-minded, and to accept when you are corrected. Our articles are based on reliable sources and reliable, mainstream legal scholarship. You are correct that proportionality refers to civilians, but in this case we know that most killed were women and children (Al Jazeera reported this ). ] (]) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::You can keep saying I am wrong, and I will keep telling you I am not.
:::::::::::::::We actually do not know that the majority killed are women and children, it is a Hamas claim, parroted by a Qatari mouthpiece.
:::::::::::::::But even if the majority were civilians, that would not, in and of itself, violate the principal of proportionality, whcih is not about simply comparing the number killed on both sides, but about weighing the number of possible civilian deaths against the military advantage gained. In a firefight involving hundreds, a reasonable commander could authorize operation that might incidentally kill many tens of civilians, to protect rescued hostages, to protect the rescuing forces etc... ] (]) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You are wrong. Normal people consider killing of hundreds of civilians for a few hostages a massacre. Legal scholars who have analyzed countless similar Israelis incidents (e.g., in Jabalia in October 2023) consider it disproportionate. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, despite whatever misgivings you might have. Look, you can have whatever views you want, but it's important for you to understand that you are clearly and absolutely in the fringe here. That's fine, but it shouldn't be relevant to the editing of these articles which is based on reliable consensus. ] (]) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::The vast majority of sources describe this as a rescue operation, as has been shown to you. You are the fringe. ] (]) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::It was never "shown." I refuted your arguments and pointed out how these sources in fact used a variety of words. You ceased to reply which I took as a concession. You've also evidently conceded this argument since you don't want to discuss the law of proportionality like you previously indicated and now are referencing a separate discussion. ] (]) 22:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Let's wait until the current slew of "released hostage" reporting dies down, then we will see what's what in more detail. ] (]) 22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::sounds good. ] (]) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


|author2 = <!--Staff-->
:::::::Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. An encyclopedia should not be presenting accusations or allegations as fact until such a time as they have been proven to be so. And no neutral assessment would ever portray deaths in a military operation as murders, unless they actually were proven to be so. If you want to demonise the world's sole Jewish state, there are places where you can do that to your heart's content, and none of them are Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|date2 = 15 June 2024
::::::::]. ] (]) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|url2 = https://www.newarab.com/news/wikipedia-article-nuseirat-massacre-sparks-edit-war
:::::::::those who are to be blamed for the fact that civilians were harmed in Nuseirat is Hamas terrorists who knowingly decided to kidnap Israelis in the first place and then place them among civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, and shoot at the rescuers and who knows how many of the Palestinian casualties were killed by Palestinian fire aimed at Israeli soldiers. Not to mention the fact that most of the Palestinians killed - above 100 of them - were Hamas terrorists, including so-called "children" who are in fact 17-18-years-old trained terrorists who are armed with RPGs, machine guns and treated by Hamas as cannon fodder with total disregard for human lives, willing to sacrifice them in the name of the Jihad. ] (]) 08:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
|title2 = Misplaced Pages article on Israeli army's Nuseirat massacre in Gaza sparks edit war, restrictions
::::::::Agreed. There's too many people coming into this article with a clear political agenda. ] (]) 15:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
|org2 = ]
:Were people killed as a collateral effect on an operation conducted to rescue hostages or was it an operation to maximize civilian casualties which just happened to stumble upon hostages, which they rescued as a side task? And exactly how do we know 210 civilians were killed? ] (]) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|archiveurl2 = https://web.archive.org/web/20240615161513/https://www.newarab.com/news/wikipedia-article-nuseirat-massacre-sparks-edit-war
::That's not relevant. If I murder a family because I wanted to steal $20 from them, that doesn't mean the murder can be forgiven just because it's not the principal objective. ] (]) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|archivedate2 = 15 June 2024
:::So in your mind freeing hostages from their captors is the same as stealing 20 dollars. Are you serious? ] (]) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|urlstatus2 = live
::It was the former. Plenty of reliable media outlets have already released detailed analyses of the operation and the weeks of training and preparation which went into it. Of course, that doesn’t mean many civilians weren’t killed – but we don’t realistically know how many, nor who killed them, nor how they died.
|accessdate2 = 16 June 2024
::The only figures coming out of Gaza come via Hamas, which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. In cases like this, where the hostages were being held by unarmed Gazans but who were affiliated to and protected by Hamas militants, the distinction becomes murkier.
::It's also not possible to even guess at this figure less than a few hours after the operation itself. Israel didn't come to a final conclusion about the number of Israeli dead on October 7th until 2024. ] (]) 15:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about "Nuseirat operation" as a title? That seems relatively neutral? ] (]) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


|author3 =
*CNN: Israel rescues four hostages in operation
|date3 = 16 June 2024
*AP:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.
|url3 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afWHmdXRg3U
*WaPo: Four hostages rescued alive in Israeli operation
|title3 = How does Israel employ a 'secret army' to enforce Zionist narratives on Misplaced Pages?
*NYT: Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Military Operation;
|org3 = ]
*WSJ: Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza
|author4 = Aaron Bandler
Anyone making the POV change you suggest should be blocked immediately. ] (]) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|date4 = 3 January 2025
: This is clearly a massacre of unheard of proportions, killing 210 people, mostly civilians, in order to rescue 4 hostages which, if you'll allow me, could have been saved even earlier with a ceasefire. But aside for these considerations, I think the title '''2024 Nuseirat incursion''' is probably the most neutral title we could hope for. I'm obviously open to more suggestions for a better name, that's the best one I could think of. --] (]) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|url4 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/378194/wikipedia-editors-title-article-nuseirat-rescue-and-massacre/
::It is being described by ALL reliable as a rescue operation, which it was. ] (]) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|title4 = Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article “Nuseirat Rescue and Massacre”
:::That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an . "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. "assault". ] (]) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|org4 = ]
::::Reuters: "Israel rescues four hostages in Gaza;" </nowiki> ] (]) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The title of the article uses the word "assault." ] (]) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|author5 =
::::::It attributes that word to Hamas ] (]) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|date5 = 5 January 2025
:::::::That is not correct. The word assault is not in quotes in the title of the piece. Even in the lead sentence, the word "assault" towards the end of the sentence is not attributed to Hamas, only the casualty figures in the preceding half of the sentence. ] (]) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|url5 = https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/wikipedia-labels-rescue-of-hostages-held-by-hamas-a-massacre-r0kzgc5a
::::::::it s not in quotes , but is attributed to Hamas: "Hamas says 210 Palestinians killed in Israeli assault". First sentence of the article is " Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas" ] (]) 17:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|title5 = Misplaced Pages labels rescue of hostages held by Hamas a ‘massacre’
::Maybe wait a couple of days to see if Hamas is lying about casualties again. I think it's highly suspect that Israel has a 200:1 KD ratio. ] (]) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|org5 = ]
:::::::::From the context of the article, it is clear that the attribution is done to the number of casualties, not the word assault. In the lead sentence, {{xt|Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas since October in a raid in Gaza on Saturday while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area, according to Hamas officials, in one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults of the war}} suggests the attribution is solely to the preceding claim {{xt|"while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area"}} and not to the subsequent claim {{xt|"Israeli assault"}}. ] (]) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
|author6 = Josh Kaplan
|date6 = 7 January 2025
|url6 = https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/we-cant-let-anti-israel-activists-poison-the-well-of-wikipedia-wff5g241
|title6 = We can’t let anti-Israel activists poison the well of Misplaced Pages
|org6 = ]
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =336
| archiveprefix =Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =75000
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format = %%i
}}{{Old moves|date1=9 June 2024|destination1=Nuseirat raid and rescue|result1=no consensus|link1=Special:Permalink/1238282526#Requested move 9 June 2024|date2=12 October 2024|destination2=Nuseirat rescue and killings|result2=move to Nuseirat rescue and massacre|link2=Special:Permalink/1255779286#Requested move 12 October 2024}}
{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=14}}
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->
{{-}}


== Merge but label it correctly ==


While this allegedly was inteded to be a rescue operation (debatable considering israeli action over the past year). This was in fact a massacre, it is the only applicable term that accurately describes what occurred on the ground according to virtually all reputable reporting. Not labeling it as a massacre is simply disingenuous and dangerous. The level of civilian casualties exceeded 100 civilians. The dictionary desribes the term as "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" That is an accurate description of the events on the ground. It is important, not just from a morality perspective but also from a historical perspective. Let's make these decisions just based off of actual events instead of projecting biases. ] (]) 13:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Per Wiki:Criteria the operation is called a rescue operation by many major outlets including CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/08/middleeast/four-israeli-hostages-freed-gaza-intl/index.html, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o and others. Rescue operation also per Wiki:article title is a recognizable name. If name wants to be changed (per Wiki:Article title)we need to give weight to English language media, most use this kind of title or a different version of it.] (]) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an . "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. "assault". ] (]) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::BBc: Daylight '''operation''' deep into Gaza '''frees''' Israeli captives </nowiki> ] (]) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The word "raid" is used in the lead sentence. It's also the operative word on the title of the events. Words like "raid" and "assault" I'm generally fine with as they convey the violent nature of the attack. "Rescue operation" is far too sanitized and connotes something far more mild than what took place. When we have several common terms used by RS, ("attack", "assault", "raid", "operation"), other considerations matter in making name determinations, including NPOV. ] (]) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::You are shifting your arguments according to what suits you, When discussing Reuters, you chose a word in the title - here, the TITLE of the article is Daylight '''operation''' deep into Gaza '''frees''' Israeli captives.
::::The goal of the operation , or raids, was to rescue hostages, and taht what reliable sources frame it as. ] (]) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The point is that a wide variety of terms are used by RS for the events, both in titles and the body. So your ] argument for the current title has little merit. ] (]) 17:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The event is almost universally described as a rescue operation, even by the sources you provided which also use other terms. ] (]) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Except when it's not. I've already cited several sources using words like "assault", "attack" or "raid." ] (]) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And those source also use "rescue operation" ] (]) 17:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's the point. There are a variety of terms used. ] (]) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Rescue operation is by far the most common one, ] (]) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You have provided no evidence for this. The naming is contentious. ] (]) 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I;ve provided evidence, citing the NYT, WSJ. AP, WaP etc..and could add two dozen more. Stop beating this dead horse, ] (]) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, you haven't. Even the examples you cited don't use the literal, specific term "rescue operation" in the title. They just describe it as an operation in which a rescue took place e.g., "Israel rescues four hostages in operation." And if you have two dozen more, please cite them. We're waiting. ] (]) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*ABC: Who are the four hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? </nowiki>
::::::::::::::*CBS: Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? </nowiki>
::::::::::::::*NBC CT:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas' Oct. 7 attack </nowiki>
::::::::::::::*Telegraph Alert: Israel says 4 hostages have been rescued in the largest hostage rescue since war began </nowiki>
::::::::::::::*Times
::::::::::::::*TOI
::::::::::::::*Fox News Israel rescues 4 hostages kidnapped by Hamas https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-rescues-4-hostages-kidnapped-hamas-we-overjoyed
::::::::::::::I'm sure you can use Google yourself. Give it up already with your POV pushing ] (]) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think that we should wait to see if the name used in RS changes and then consider a name change at that point. ] (]) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::None of these titles describe it as a "rescue operation." ] (]) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Sky News: Two Israeli hostages flown home after '''rescue operation''' in Gaza. </nowiki>
::::::::::::::::White House: Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Israeli Hostage '''Rescue Operation'''
::::::::::::::::All the other sources describe it as a resuce operation in the body of the article;, including the sources you provided:
::::::::::::::::Reuters; 'The hostage '''rescue operation''' ' [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/
::::::::::::::::BBC: "news of the '''rescue operation''' on Saturday."https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o ] (]) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Okay but the bodies of the articles also describe it in other ways, which was my point. The White House is irrelevant as it's a partisan source here. Reuters describes it as an "assault", BBC a "raid". It's also rather interesting you need to find something from Sky News for a title which matches your claim. Surely if it was so obvious you'd have something better than a second-rate conservative Australian news channel. ] (]) 18:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Headlines are next to meaningless, they are written by someone other than the author of the article, whcih is why they are not reliable sources -see ]
::::::::::::::::::The only reason I even bothered to show you ones that used the exact phrase 'rescue operation' is your weird insistence that the exact phrase 'rescue operation' appear in the headline. That's not how wikipedia articles are titled. ] (]) 19:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::@] So you're okay with "Raid" right? Also how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? ''''']''''' ] 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@] I'm in favour of 'attack' or 'assault' as it's by far the best description of reality. If you claim it's a rescue op but raze an entire city down in the process....it's more than just a rescue up. ] (]) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Also, how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? ''''']''''' ] 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::we don't know, and probably will never know as it is Hamas's policy not to break the death toll by militants vs. others.
:::::::::::::::::::::The only proxy we might have is military-age males vs. children and women ] (]) 19:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Why is it Hamas' policy not to break the death toll of militants vs others? ''''']''''' ] 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::it serves their propaganda needs ] (]) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::]. ] (]) 19:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


:if merged, it is basically Misplaced Pages saying that it views Palestinians as subhumans who the mass killing of hundreds isn’t even worthy of being called a massacre or acknowledged, and that the lives of 4 Israelis have priority over 250 Palestinians. The merge should have been the other way around, but Misplaced Pages doesn’t consider bombing 100 Palestinians civilians as they pray at dawn to be a “massacre” so it’s really hopeless with this kind of admin and moderators ] (]) 14:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@] If headlines are next to meaningless, great! The bodies are supporting me too. BBC: "raid". Reuters: "assault". Al Jazeera: "attack". ] (]) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::that is as unfortunate as it is shameful. I guess the hasbara field in occupied palestine is operating at full capacity for this to occur. My impression had been that Misplaced Pages had been combating that however I guess I am mistaken. I guess if this isn't going to be a place of factual reference, then my continued support of this website is a waste of time and resources. Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it. ] (]) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Those BBC and Reuters articles describe it as a rescue operation in the body, in addition to the multitude of sources that ONLY describe it as a rescue operation ] (]) 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::@]@]. Please join the discussion below. Also, even if you don't perfectly agree with the proposed title, please do indicate if you think its better than the current title.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Yeah and several of your sources also use other terminology. For example AP "{{xt|amid the military’s heavy air and ground assault}}" ] (]) 19:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::How many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants though, so that we can ascertain the nature of deaths? ''''']''''' ] 19:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::: says they're mostly women and children. ] (]) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::What about the non-partisan sources? ''''']''''' ] 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Al-Jazeera is ]. ] (]) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::]. Anyways, what do other sources have to say? ''''']''''' ] 20:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't need other sources. A single reliable source is generally adequate for a claim on casualties. ] (]) 21:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Not even a single other RS has stated it? I tried to find in some but couldn't find any. Did you check? ''''']''''' ] 06:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's not contentious. ] (]) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move 12 October 2024 ==
'''Comment''': This talk page discussion has received . ] (]) 05:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
As of right now, we have CNN, WAPO, NYT and AJ all referring to this as a raid/assault/attack as well as a rescue, there seems to be unclarity about the timing of the events, specifically over the timing of the air attack, was it at the same time, prior or after the operation commenced. Reuters says "The hostage rescue operation and an intense accompanying air assault took place in central Gaza's al-Nuseirat" while CNN has "When the moment arrived, the IDF launched pre-planned strikes in Gaza on what it called militant infrastructure, as the operation began Saturday daytime, unusual timing which officials hoped would give them the “element of surprise.”.] (]) 11:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''move to Nuseirat rescue and massacre.''' But perhaps a bit of a "soft" close given all the sockpuppet interference. May be worth reconfirming once the other article has been merged into this one. ] (]) 20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:Could an argument to retain the name “massacre” be made with RS, or at least based on the events and intent (based on criteria requiring intent)? I have read that the massacre involved raiding homes and executing the occupants, a kind of responsibility that cannot be dismissed as “targeting khamas with airstrikes” (I hope this does not violate “notaforum”, I’ve read the policy but the line can be blurry) ] (]) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Nuseirat rescue and killings}} – There are two narratives about this event. For Israelis, this was a daring rescue operation to liberate 4 hostages. For the Palestinians it was the brutal killing of 250+ people in the span of a few hours. Per ], Misplaced Pages can't take sides. There is consensus to merge ] here, and while "massacre" has POV connotations, "killings" does not (see ]), and has ample precedent (], ], ] etc). The "2024" is unnecessary because there has only been one rescue operation in Nuseirat.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
== to the people keep deleting my edits ==
* '''Weak oppose''' - it seems like a reasonable attempt at a compromise, but it's a little odd to use "killings" in reference to a battle, even a one-sided battle with many civilian casualties. I think "rescue operation" is perfectly accurate, but if there are concerns that it sounds too positive, "Nuseirat raid" also seems concise and fitting. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*How about ? This will cover both events without whitewashing either of them.
:{{tq|while "massacre" has POV connotations|q=yes}} If it did, we wouldn't have ], ], ] and ] (whose total casualties amount to less than half than those killed in the ]). ] (]) 00:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::Those attacks had no military targets in sight, so the "massacre" label shouldn't be particularly controversial. In this case, anything with "massacre" would be a controversial ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 00:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That's your ]-based "opinion" that I simply do not agree with. Those who commit massacres can claim whatever they want to justify the unjustifiable (they always do and sometimes, they even believe their own fairy tales), but what they cannot do is change the facts. ] (]) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It would be difficult to argue that the operation had no legitimate purpose at all when we have pictures of the rescued hostages. ] applies to content and isn't relevant in discussions like this. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::There is nothing remotely legitimate about the killing of hundreds of souls for the the sake of rescuing 4. ] (]) 02:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] would you still consider "Nuseirat rescue and killings" to be a better title than the current one? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Vice regent}} the current one is obviously not an option and "killings" doesn't quite cut it (as per the reasons that have been mentioned in ]). The one that I fully support is '''Nuseirat rescue and massacre'''. ] (]) 17:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If you were to rank the three options, which would you assign #2 and which would you assign #3? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think that would be more accurate as long as the article reflects the events and details. I do disagree that the term massacre has p.o.v. connotations, it may be emotive but the term has a defined and specific meaning that clearly applies in this event. That is my proverbial two cents ] (]) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Somewhat support,''' though I would best say to use “massacre”, this proposal at least acknowledges Palestinians being killed as opposed to the original title focusing exclusively on the mission itself without any references to a massacre ] (]) 02:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:<s>'''Oppose''', we don't change titles to fit narratives, we use titles that reflect the reliable sources. Even if people were killed (as happens in many rescue operations), the event was a rescue operation, and this is how major sources portray it. ] (]) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
::so the “narrative” Misplaced Pages wants to follow is to dismiss 250 Palestinians being killed and prioritising 4 Israelis being rescued? Not the best look for a “neutral” website ] (]) 11:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It isn't an endorsement of any narrative. Calling a rescue operation a rescue operation doesn't imply any judgement about collateral damage. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::A massacre cannot be described as a rescue operation, and besides, the notability of ] has never been disputed. ] (]) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The retrieval of captives (or hostages) is a rescue. The killing of 250+ civilian bystanders is a massacre. ] (]) 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. I don't see the improvement. The suggested use of 'killings' would be misleading to readers, as if the killings were intended (is there a major RS using this term to refer to the event at all? besides Qatari-owned channels?) This was a rescue operation, which like many other operations, also had uninvolved casualities, that should not change the article titles like other operation pages. ] (]) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::There is a ''massive'' difference between a rescue operation with some casualties, and an operation that killed hundreds of Palestinians to get 4 Israeli hostages ] (]) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What's your source for 'hundreds'? ] (]) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The Gaza health ministry, which is historically reliable and has been consistently cited. Sorry, the “umm akshually it’s the khamas run health ministry” isn’t an argument at this point ] (]) 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::The killings happened. We cannot know what the intent was, but if we do find out then that should be reflected in the article. Please focus on the question at hand.
::250 civilians killed is a massacre, the word 'massacre' is already in the title of one of articles to be merged. The word 'massacre' should be in the title of the resulting merged article. ] (]) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you have a source for 250 civilians killed? As far as I can tell, the Gaza Health Ministry alleges 250 killed total; given that Hamas militants engaged Israeli forces during the rescue, it would be reasonable to assume that at least some of those are militants.
:::In addition, the Gaza Health Ministry isn't reliable on individual incidents. This is comparable to the ], where they overestimated casualties and falsely attributed blame. ] (]) 10:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose.''' Like @] said, "rescue operation" fits perfectly. I've seen major WP:RS also using 'hostage rescue', but killing is not often used, at least not in titles. The Palestinian casualties—sources say scores/dozens (not sure how many militants)—should definitely be mentioned, but I don't think they don't belong in the title. ] (]) 17:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::The ] is the article that is named after the massacre (a notable subject). The only reason the merge has been proposed is because some editors felt that the two (the rescue and the massacre) which took place at the same time can easily be covered in the same article, but that can only succeed if the massacre is not whitewashed, that's why I proposed the neutral title ''' Nuseirat rescue and massacre'''. ] (]) 17:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::'massacre' would be here a POV violation since there was no intent to kill people, even if unrelated people were unfortunately killed. I'll also ask you to prove that the 'massacre' is a notable subject, Western sources do not portray the event in this way. ] (]) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The proof is in the article whose notability has never been disputed. Also, the attempt to replace the word massacre has already failed miserably (see ] for more info). ] (]) 19:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] That's not a proof, a proof should come from neutral reliable sources that show the term 'massacre' is frequently used when referring to this event ] (]) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Those who took part in that RM disagree with you (for all kind of reasons that I suggest you read). ] (]) 20:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Seems like many did not even get involved in that RM, probably out of expection that the merge that finally happened would take place. Why vote on a rename when you support a delete/merge? I don't see how that makes the massacre title notable (or neutral in the first place). That should be proven using WP:RS and not Misplaced Pages discussions. ] (]) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The relevance of the number of the involved (] in this case) is true for all RMs, the rest is your irrelevant guesswork. The article is notable (the massacre did take place and is covered and commented on in multiple RS) and anyone who disagrees with the word massacre should read the RM. ] (]) 20:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The Hezbollah-affiliated al-Mayadeen? The extremist Mondoweiss? Qatar-run state media? If that's what you call respectable sources ... well, I don't think we have a serious base for discussion here. In Misplaced Pages we follow reliable sources. I prefer to rely on sources that consensus describe as reliable, we have enough of those on WP:RSN. There's no need to cherry-pick opinionated activist outlets. ] (]) 06:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh I’m sure you’d rather the “reliable sources” Misplaced Pages uses to dismiss blowing up civilians as massacres that say Israelis get killed while Palestinians somehow just die in the same sentence
::::::::::just because their governments do not worship Israel, and their client state the USA which cannot even ''condemn'' them for their crimes doesn’t make it a non-reliable source. Especially Al Jazeera which unlike your “reliable sources” that cannot even acknowledge that the 1 tonne bomb dropped on 100 people praying was by Israel, actually has reporters on the ground in Gaza ] (]) 08:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Intent does not really matter here. The fact is that 250+ civilians were killed by the military. This is a massacre in my mind. ] (]) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Somewhat support''' provided we go with "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" - this incorporates the names used commonly by RS. ] makes it clear that this is an appropriate use of these terms together, and will accurately describe what happened, ''regardless of the intent of the participants''. (Which we can discuss as ] all day long to no useful end.) ] (]) 08:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::I’d support this too. If we use the “Intent” argument then not a single October 7 massacre should be labelled as such because Hamas alluded to not targeting noncombatants in its opening speech ] (]) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'
:I agree with @] @] in naming the merged article 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'.
:@] @] and @] make a good argument for the use of the word "massacre'. It is already in the title of one of the articles to be merged and not including it in the merged article would violate NPOV. ] (]) 16:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Including "massacre" would be the NPOV violation, since it amounts to explicitly taking a side on the controversial matter of whether the operation should be considered a massacre. By using a plain factual title we can avoid taking either side (we're not stating that it's not a massacre), which is the only way to comply with ]. All the mainstream news organizations (, , , , , ) avoid "massacre" in their own voice for this reason; we should do the same. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::When those whose voices count ( who condemned the massacre) speak, the others take a walk. ] (]) 19:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The sources calling this a massacre are all partisan sources, like ] (the first expert they mention), whoever wrote that UNISPAL post (with language like "umpteenth massacre" and "Israeli Occupation Forces"), Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Mondoweiss, etc. Not sure why those partisan sources would be the only ones that count. Sources with a semblance of neutrality, like the ones I mentioned above, are unanimous in not using the word in their own voice and not taking a position on the matter. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::We're used to the boring song: anyone who states bothersome facts about Israel is ♪"partisan bla bla bla"♪... Anyway, there is a massive difference between the '''human rights experts''' and the usual cheerleaders of Israel (who lost all credibility). ] (]) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Are you really denying that Israel is an occupying force? ] (]) 03:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are you asking whether I consider Gaza occupied? My personal views on that aren't really relevant. Regardless, using extremely ] like "Israeli Occupation Forces" or "the Zionist entity" is a very clear indicator of bias. It's not really about whether or not the terms are accurate, it's about the refusal to refer to an entity by its actual name. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Good point. So now we should not say 'Gaza' but 'State of Palestine'. ] (]) 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Calling a force that has been militarily occupying a country, much less one for over 30 years an “occupation” is not bias, it’s common sense ] (]) 11:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The event, by definition, was a massacre. Now the word may also be emotive, but the fact remains that it was a massacre. It has already part of the title of one of the articles.
:::The Misplaced Pages definition: "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." ] (]) 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::That definition appears to be from Wikiquote? Definitions vary, but most definitions involve additional elements beyond that. Collins for example lists one definition with "cruel", another with "unnecessary, indiscriminate", and another with "wanton or savage". — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre"''' - this seems the best way to incorporate both topics. I'm flabbergasted at some of the comments, particularly the ones claiming that acknowledging the disproportionate amount of civilian deaths is a "narrative" or POV pushing. A massacre is a massacre, it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do). I also agree with M.Bitton, human rights organizations like and the UN have more weight than news outlets who cannot even use active voice when the perpetrator is Israel. Removing massacre from the title seems like the first step to remove content during the merge resulting in an article where the hundreds of deaths are merely an afterthought. The point of the merge is to consolidate overlapping data. But we're stil talking about two different events, and they should be properly covered, starting with the title. - ] (]) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do)}} History saw a plenty of massacres where the perpetrators did want to kill unarmed civilians. ] (]) 12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::]. ] (]) 12:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre"''': This has been explicitly termed a massacre by Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister , as well as by UN experts , Doctors Without Borders , the EU , and Oxfam . The use of this term by top diplomats and humanitarian organizations points to the severity of the events that took place, and to me, is sufficient to define what happened as a massacre. The title should reflect that reality to maintain accuracy and clarity. ] (]) 05:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] would you also support "Nuseirat rescue and killings" as a second choice? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Per ], for us to use massacre in the title it needs to be the ]. So far, no suitable sources have been provided demonstrating this - are such sources available? Use by Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister and similar is not helpful in determining this, as they don't meet ]. ] (]) 10:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/nuseirat-anatomy-of-israels-massacre-in-gaza
*:https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal
*:https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes
*:https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-10/14/0014-victims-of-israeli-massacre-in-al-nuseirat-rises-to-22-martyrs,-80-injured
*:https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/ ] (]) 13:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Some of those sources are questionable (either unreliable or discussing a different topic), but even if we consider them all to be suitable sources there are far more that appear to not use "massacre". For example:
*::# https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-08/israel-military-rescues-four-hostages-alive-from-gaza/103955628
*::# https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-12/israeli-raid-gaza-refugee-camp-detailed-by-witness/103969446
*::# https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-brutal-nuseirat-operation-nearly-ended-failure-report
*::# https://www.euronews.com/2024/06/08/israel-says-its-rescued-four-hostages-from-nuseirat-in-gaza
*::# https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw44ve90dppo
*::# https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/09/middleeast/israel-hostage-rescue-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html
*::# https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/06/08/israeli-military-says-it-is-targeting-militant-infrastructure-in-gaza-s-nuseirat-area
*::# https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-09/how-israels-hostage-rescue-and-deadly-air-assault-unfolded/103955716
*::# https://www.timesofisrael.com/did-the-nuseirat-hostage-rescue-operation-comply-with-international-law/
*::# https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-eu-outrage
*::# https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/06/09/us-denies-gaza-aid-pier-was-used-in-deadly-hostage-rescue-operation/
*::# https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckddzvl9x00o
*::# https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/06/09/more-than-270-people-killed-during-israeli-operation-in-nuseirat-camp/
*::# https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/08/middleeast/four-israeli-hostages-freed-gaza-intl/index.html
*::# https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-raid/
*::# https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/06/israel-army-says-rescued-4-hostages-complex-gaza-operation
*::# https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/
*::# https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240609-i-should-be-dead-gazans-recall-chaos-of-israeli-hostage-rescue-raid
*::# https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hostage-rescue-new-details-gaza-operation-nuseirat-rcna156273
*::# https://www.9news.com.au/world/israel-hamas-conflict-update-israel-rescues-four-hostages-kidnapped-in-hamas-october-7-attack/2cd0e713-2b1c-4a70-ae84-e0cb0aa8b1c2
*:: The standard of ] does not appear to be met, and that means that using "massacre" in the title would be an NPOV violation. ] (]) 13:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::We already use massacre in the title and the name was further solidified by ], so the only question now is which name is suitable for an article that covers both events ("the rescue" and "the massacre")? ] (]) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Also there is extensive RS for it being referred to as a massacre:
*::::# https://theintercept.com/2024/06/10/nuseirat-massacre-israel-hostage-rescue-gaza/
*::::# https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-eu-outrage
*::::# https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-experts-gaza-condemnation-14jun24/
*::::# https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal
*::::# https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-11/the-israeli-army-massacre-to-free-four-hostages-in-gaza-the-bombings-came-from-all-directions.html
*::::# https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/
*::::#
*::::# https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-war-west-celebrated-nuseirat-massacre-how
*::::# https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/nuseirat-massacre-dehumanising-palestinians-first-step-towards-their-extermination
*::::# https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes
*::::# https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/
*::::# https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240613-diamonds-and-coal-dust-slaughter-at-nuseirat/
*::::# https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240610-no-warning-just-bombs-heart-wrenching-testimonies-from-gazas-nuseirat-camp-massacre/
*::::# https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240611-palestine-this-week-the-nuseirat-camp-massacre/
*::::# https://www.newarab.com/features/massacre-midday-no-warning-israel-attack-nuseirat
*::::This is why there was a page devoted for it, and as @] noted there was consensus to merge as long as the massacre was not whitewashed as that would violate NPOV. Not including it in the title would do so. ] (]) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Ignoring duplicates, we have
*:::::* ''The Intercept'' - uses it only in the ] and quotes
*:::::* ''The Guardian'' - uses it only in quotes
*:::::* ''Washington Post'' - only in a quote
*:::::* UNISPAL - very transparent bias in this particular post (see above)
*:::::* ''Al Jazeera'', ''Middle East Eye'', ''New Arab'', ''972'', ''El Pais'', ''Democracy Now!'', ''Euro-Med Monitor'' - very partisan sources in my opinion.
*:::::I don't think these can really be compared to the sources describing the operation without "massacre" in their voice. That other side includes essentially all the prominent mainstream sources (, , , , , , etc) and probably hundreds more, more than we can reasonably list. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::''The Intercept'' does not use it in a quote, it says it is being a called the Nuseirat massacre, but in any case quotes do not mean that they are not being used in the RS. Moreover the quotes are not from fringe random figures, but as in the Guardian's case Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief.
*::::::UN experts calling it a massacre is RS, , El Pais is Spain's top daily independent media outlet, and none of the other outlets are deprecated as sources (though DM has an attribution requirement). ] (]) 20:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Looking at 20 sources BM provided, I find that they emphasize both the rescue nature and the heavy Palestinian casualties (all 20 articles emphasize the Palestinian casualties in title except 1,2,9,16 and all 20 emphasize hostage/rescue except 3,13). Thus, wouldn't a ] title imply the inclusion of the massive Palestinian deaths in the title? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The subject of the article is the rescue operation. Everything else happened because of that. -- ] (]) 14:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:The subject of the other article is the massacre. ] (]) 13:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This was a to recover hostages taken by Hamas, and people tragically died and were injured as a result. ] (]) 09:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I know it's likely unintended, but I think this comment reflects some of the broader concerns and sources of frustration undergirding this conversation. By using the active voice when describing the rescue operation (“to recover hostages”) but switching to the passive voice when mentioning casualties (“people tragically died and were injured”), the comment downplays the responsibility and severity of the violence. This shift to passive voice frames the event in a way that seems to naturalize the violence and erase any blame. It minimizes accountability, as it doesn’t state who caused the deaths and injuries. It’s important to recognize (in both the article and title) that people didn’t just die—they were ''killed''. And as M.Bitton mentioned above, a previous RM to switch the article title from was unsuccessful. ] (]) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


:'''Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre"''' per @] and others. There already was a page for the massacre, and per @] it was decided to merge them together as long the massacre is not whitewashed/downplayed. The title should now reflect the fact that content for both is and will be contained within it, if only one or the other is in the title that violates NPOV and the consensus reached for the merger, and doesn't reflect the content of the page. ] (]) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' any title with massacre. Massacre is inherently a POV title, and should only be used if it is the common name for an event. This does not reach that. No opinion on other changes. ] (]) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:<s>'''Oppose''', the best sources do not use these terms when describing the topic. ] (]) 13:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
::We're way past that (the issue of the titles of both articles has been settled). This RfC is about the title that covers both (the rescue and the massacre). ] (]) 13:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Both articles have stable titles without a consensus (so far) to rename, but the other is supposed to be merged into this one, which I think means ] is the default name until there's a consensus for something else. It's also just the original title, before the accidental POVFORK. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The consensus for the other article has been cemented with ]. In other words, the natural title for an article that covers both has to be ]. ] (]) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's not really our ] process - we don't normally change the target's name, unless the merge discussion had a consensus to do so. By default, we just do the merge and leave possible renames to future discussions (as the closer did here). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's not what closing statement of the previous RfC says. ] (]) 15:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::RfC? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::FYI, some editors, including myself, didn’t participate in that RM, because as a POV fork the title didn’t matter - the pertinent discussion was the merge discussion.
:::::That RM has no bearing on the title of this article. ] (]) 15:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::FYI, some editors who participated in that RM didn't participate in the RfC. It's not for us to judge what matters and what doesn't. The Rm was about what the community thinks of the title of the other article, something that is directly related to a possible merge of two article covering two distinct events (the rescue and the massacre) that took place at the same time. ] (]) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support with massacre as a bolded aka''' The UN experts, all 15 of them, signed a statement referring to this as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza" and the EU's Borrell, while congratulating the captives on their release, called the operation "another massacre of civilians" and a "bloodbath", that a bunch of US based sources refrained from the terminology is not really a surprise, although to quote experts who criticized the lack of proportionality and failure to take into account likely civilian casualties. Together with the other RS using the term, this is the least possible outcome until these potential war crimes are properly investigated.] (]) 14:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' - this was a military rescue operation. As is the nature of most military operations, death is an unfortunate byproduct. ] (]) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>(see revised !vote below) ] (]) 19:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:The massacre of hundreds of souls for the sake of saving 4 can hardly be described as an "unfortunate byproduct", especially when done during the ongoing ]. ] (]) 16:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Do you think it's a fortunate byproduct?<br>The military operation had an objective, to rescue 4 hostages held against their will, and they successfully did that, eliminating in the process all the threats to the hostages and to the rescuers. ] (]) 16:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::] ] (]) 16:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Still Oppose''', but rewriting my !vote using the proper Misplaced Pages jargon: The proposed name is a violation of ]. The article is about a military operation ({{check mark}} not in dispute). The goal of the military operation was the rescuing of the hostages ({{check mark}} not in dispute). The operation resulted in many deaths ({{check mark}} not in dispute, {{cross}} but the exact quantity is disputed). The new name implies that the deaths that resulted was another goal of the military operation ({{cross}} this is disputed). Therefore, the proposed name is a ] violation. ] (]) 19:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:*:Please '''don't !Vote twice'''. ] (]) 19:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:*::I don't know what you're talking about. I have crossed out the original !vote. ] (]) 19:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:*:::That's not an excuse to !vote twice. After crossing it out, you should have appended whatever change you want to it (per ]). ] (]) 20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:*::::That's not a second !vote, but thanks for the link. Since you responded here (rather than on my talk page), it would do more harm than good to reformat to comply with ]. ] (]) 20:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:*::There was no voting twice, the editor's original vote was struck. ] (]) 20:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre"''' per argument made by M.Bitton of preserving ]. We have consensus for massacre in the title and also coverage from ] as pointed out by Selfstudier. To add on to Ivana and Carmen's point about top diplomats and humanitarian organizations - these are all ] sources and should be given at least equal weightage to journalistic outlets, if not more, especially since the so called ] sources refuse to fully quote them and report on the matter. ] (]) 05:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*:@] would you also support "Nuseirat rescue and killings" as a second choice? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't support "Nuseirat rescue and killings". Although it may appear that the word "massacre" is a violation of ], there is an exception if the term is widely used in English-language media (see ]). "Killings" also downplays the severity of the situation. The UN has as the {{tq|umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces}}.
*::In terms of ranking, both "Nuseirat rescue operation" and "Nuseirat rescue and killings" are tied for the bottom position for me. ] (]) 15:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. We need to combine both the rescue page and the massacre page. We can worry about pedantics of exactly what its called in a later move. We need to focus on calling this page what this was and removing the POV of it only being a rescue. Similar ideas I like: '''Nuseirat rescue and massacre''', '''Nuseirat incident''', '''Nuseirat hostage raid'''
:with regards to BilledMammals arguments, most of the sources on the ] also don't always call it rescue. ] (]) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' the proposed title is a reasonable compromise to provide NPOV for both aspects of this incident. ] (]) 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:<s>I '''Oppose''' per Mountain of Eden and Necrothesp. The current name is the most precise and accurate for describing the event. Adding to that, sources using 'massacre' seem subpar, while more reliable sources avoid this language, and Misplaced Pages should too. The main event was a rescue operation, with the deaths as collateral damage of the operation. ] (]) 20:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
::The main event was the massacre of hundreds of souls. The so-called "rescue" of four people doesn't even come close. ] (]) 12:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you have a ] that refers to the deaths that resulted from the operation as the "main event"? or would that be your ]? ] (]) 20:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''strong support for "Nuserait rescue and massacre"'''
:Ultimately, there is no avoiding the fact that at least *276* people were killed and almost 700 were injured. While only four people were rescued from captivity. It is astonishing there is even a debate here. I'm not sure people here even comprehend just how massive that really is. Framing this massacre as "just a rescue operation" conceals in the page what should absolutely be in the title. How can we really think for a second that the rescue of 4 hostages trumps the foremost mention of the death of almost 300 people?
:Even if we want to take a purely clinical view, as was kindly laid out by @], reliable sources completely vindicate this view. Which to reiterate, include:
:1. The Norwegian foreign minister: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/6/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israeli-army-to-be-added-to-un-child-harm-list?update=2961797
:2. The '''UN''': https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/un-experts-condemn-outrageous-disregard-palestinian-civilians-during-israels
:3. Doctors without borders: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/our-response-israel-gaza-war
:4. EU Diplomats: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/08/israel-rescues-four-hostages-in-gaza-taken-from-nova-music-festival
:5. Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfams-reaction-nuseirat-operation-released-four-hostages-and-killed-least-274
:An even more comprehensive list of sources is given by Raskolnikov.Rev.
:There is basically no debate here. It should be called a massacre alongside a rescue. ] (]) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose move''' massacre and killings not the common name for the event. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Sources above show there is no one single commonname for the event, hence we must use a neutral ]. "Killings" is absolutely neutral and is ] with many other articles.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly support "Nuserait rescue and massacre"'''. I share the views expressed by @] and others. We have credible sources that refer to this event as a massacre, and the consensus reached during the merger explicitly stated that the characterization of the massacre should not be downplayed. This concern is precisely why I opposed the merger, as I anticipated that efforts would be made to minimize the significance of the massacre. It is particularly worrying that several now banned socks were involved in this attempt. ] (]) 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Nuseirat rescue and massacre. The original proposal of "killings" makes the title weird; but while I was initially hesitant to support massacre, a look at sources discussing the incident proves this should not be controversial, since the term is used by RS in their own voice such as Al Jazeera, Jacobin, The Intercept, and most importantly UN experts, as well as top EU officials. ] (]) 09:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
: Well, better to calm down for now, it'll be a while before we'll be able to have arbitration on this matter. I feel like more experienced editors (preferably without any bias for either party) have to weigh in on this issue. --] (]) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre"''' per Genabab. ] ] 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
== Death toll ==
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Category:June 2024 events in Israel ==
The death toll (reported by the Gazan health ministry) is 210, not 55, as was recently changed. See e.g, and . ] (]) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
: It makes sense for a current event like this to go with the most conservative estimate that has been stated by the authorities with caveats like "At least", in order not to give undue specificity to rapidly changing information. ] (]) 17:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::We go by what RS say. RS consistently say 210. ] (]) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::It's been adjusted. ] (]) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


Why is this category used in the article? The incident took place in the Gaza Strip, not Israel, but I am asking here first before removing to see if I have missed anything? ] (]) 09:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
== Reactions word salad ==

@] Do you really think we need to know what Poland said about this? Where do we draw the line? Soon we'll have 30 nations with zero relevance to this conflict clogging up the page. I propose we break down only the most relevant reactions into normal prose, not a flag wall. Just because we have this horrible bloat on other entries doesn't mean we need it here. ] (]) 19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with this. I see these "international reactions" sections everywhere, and they are meaningless. ] (]) 19:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:@]sorry, I meant to tag you properly but failed to. ] (]) 19:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:One of the hostages was a Polish citizen, so the opinion of the Polish government does matter in this case, however I agree with the general idea that 192 opinions wouldn’t be useful. Maybe restrict to G8/G20/Security Council members? Or remove all of them, but I feel that there is value in the global reaction. ] (]) 19:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::what is the value you see? Do we really need 15 world leaders saying 'it's great that hostages were released"? ] (]) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::There is evident value in understanding the wider political lines in the conflict. There are multiple opinions on this from different countries, not all the responses are the same so. This also varies from action to action, so is useful in understanding how different countries view the conflict. ] (]) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I disagree with the assertion that there is "evident value" in this, but whatever. ] (]) 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2024 Nuseirat rescue operation|answered=yes}}
The AP has found many inconsistencies with regard to the death toll breakdown on civillian casualties, This report comes as the WHO has previously decreased the number of overall civillian casualties by more than half. I urge you not to run to factual conclusions and at least note the concerns shared by many with regard to civilian cassualties published by the gaza run health ministry which is known currently to be controled by non other than Hamas, a sadistic terror organization that is widely known to delibareatly hide behind civilians not only to cynically shield themselves, but simutaniously to allow more inoccents to be tragically killed, therefore it is right to conclude, or at least be to be skeptical, that the number of civillians reportedly killed, including the breakdowm on women and childdren, to be inaccurate, so I ask to please share this concern or to say the least not rush to conclusions to call wartime battles and rescue operations as the one referenced above as a massacare etc. thanks. ] (]) 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 20:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

== Comment about name of operation - moved from header ==

The name of the operation was changed to “Operation Arnon”. Please change to reflect that fact. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)</small>

== Borrell ==

congratulated captives on their release while he called the operation "another massacre of civilians" and said that the EU "condemns this in the strongest terms." ] (]) 20:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

== Proposed merge of ] into ] ==

I don't think we need two pages on effectively the same event, but I'm open to changing my mind ] (]) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*I '''disagree''' because the casualty count brings debate toward the term “rescue operation”, and it’s undebatable that the the death of >200 and injury of >400 and the loss of 3 Israeli prisoners of war can be dubbed a massacre. We should use the less ambiguous and more agreed upon term.

*I '''agree''' because there was no massacre. The only source for that is Hamas. Satellite evidence shows that the 260 death toll claim is completely unrealistic. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 8 June 2024 (CET)

*I '''agree''' for reasons I provided on the other talk page here ]. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Agreed''' . The new article is about this same exact event, and was only created when those wanting to name this article something with 'massacre' in the title couldn't get their way. ] (]) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::Excuse me? I’ll remind you to ensure that you ]. Personal attacks are to be avoided in talk page discussions. The other article was created after a search for an article on the killings returned no results. I searched “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” and “Nuseirat refugee camp attack”, which both returned nothing. I went to the page ] and also saw no independent article linked. I thus concluded that no article had been made, and made one. Only later did I discover this article, which takes the POV of a rescue operation, which is a very different event than the killing of 210 people. ] (]) 21:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok, perhaps you missed the existence of this article. Now you know it exits, predates your article, and discusses the very same event. Why not merge them? ] (]) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::You have been repeatedly instructed to assume good faith. This is a cornerstone policy here. It is best to familiarize yourself with the rules before getting so heated in discussions. ] (]) 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree that heated discussion are best avoided. I apologize to Dylanvt for assuming he saw this article before creating his article, I confused him with someone else. ] (]) 22:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Having now read through this article I do feel it addresses a significantly different topic, with the focus being on the “mission” as a military operation, and I think it would be odd to say that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties. ] (]) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::who is saying that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties? ] (]) 23:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Disagree'''. I think it's worthwhile differentiating between the rescue operation proper and the temporally adjacent fighting in and around the area. Furthermore, given the large scale number of civilian casualties, it seems entirely appropriate to have a standalone article devoted to that. ] (]) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::Where are the alternative RS claiming women and children, @], please provide at the other thread. Thanks -- ''''']''''' ] 21:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Disagree'''. The killing of over 210 Palestinians and the military operation to rescue 4 hostages are separate events, unless you are arguing that it was necessary to kill over 210 and wound over 400 in order to rescue 4. Compare also the separate articles ] and ], which deal with different aspects of contemporaneous events. ] (]) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' in accordance with @]. ] (]) 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''oppose'''. For the same reason i stated rejection to its deletion , which also encompasses @] point.
:] (]) 21:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' Until things are clearer. On the face of it we have an operation that reportedly killed a lot of civilians and that has been described as a massacre and condemned by a senior EU official. See ] above. It may be that a merge is desirable or it may be that there should be two articles, the recovery of the captives and then of the "massacre". ] (]) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::There are unconfirmed reports of , more sources needed about that as well. ] (]) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::CENTCOM has officially denied this - https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3800955/centcom-statement-regarding-idf-rescue-operations-today/ ] (]) 23:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::CENTCOM denied that the humanitarian pier played a role; the NYT has newer reporting indicating that US intelligence was used. and ] (]) 00:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*This article is about the Palestinian casualties from the operation. The operation already has an article. Massacre or attack or airstrikes could describe this, but definitely not rescue operation. ] (]) 01:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Rescue operation is how reliable sources describe it. ] (]) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, and that’s a separate article. ] (]) 02:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::I strongly '''agree''' that there should not be two separate articles for this event. Separating the rescue of the hostages from the "Massacre" implies that the two would have happened without each other, this is obviously not true. Also, the language of "Massacre" with IDF as the "perpetrator" implies that the IDF is the sole perpetrator, when this is obviously contested. Human rights orgs like Human Rights Watch have condemned the taking of hostages and the use of human shields, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. Putting civilian deaths squarely on the shoulders of the IDF is incoherent. HWR. ] (]) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Disagree:''' As @] has pointed out, there is precedent for a separation. ] (]) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' merging the articles and renaming this simply as a ''raid'' or ''operation'' or something neutral like that. ] (]) 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Like this Washington Post article , this CBC article , and this France24 article . ] (]) 03:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' I'd be in favour of IOHANNVSVERVS's above proposal as an alternative. I believe that we ought to have either a single article dealing with the event in its totality and having an NPOV name (like "raid", "attack") which makes clear the violence, ''or'' just have two separate articles. ] (]) 05:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and agree with Dylanvt. The massacre is worthy enough of having its own article. And as more information comes out, a merge makes even less sense. - ] (]) 05:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Agree '''- most of the killings were terrorists, also the numbers here are made up, pro-terrorist have taken over English Misplaced Pages. There were so many terror attacks toward Israelis in the last 50 years - you can't find it in Misplaced Pages. it's embarrasing ] (]) 05:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Completely inappropriate comments, see your talk page. ] (]) 09:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It is the same operation, one is the casualties that resulted from the other. They should be the same article, with the same title. ] (]) 07:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Agree '''- This article is an embarrassment and a sad reflection of Misplaced Pages. There was a rescue operation of 4 hostages who've been held in captivity for 8 months - this is the story. Obviously Hamas wasn't going to let them walk away with the hostages so was a battle and terrorists got killed. Now because of the operation there has to be a me-too page. Everything about it is dubious - the numbers, the sources. You want a massacre? October 7 was a massacre. ] (]) 08:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:] ] (]) 09:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is an obvious ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', or '''support''' merging under 'Nuseirat refugee camp massacre'. This massacre is a rare instance of a massacre in the numerous Gaza wars being labeled such on Misplaced Pages, and the intentional killing of 200 people makes it one of the bloodiest single-events in this war, including raiding homes and executing their occupants. It is bloodier than every octoebr 7 massacre save for Re'im, yet not a single discussion has doubted wether these are massacres or not ] (]) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Several October 7-related articles were moved from "massacre" to the more neutral "attack" on the grounds that some Israeli military position was nearby where civilians were killed, e.g. ], ], ], ] and ].
*:We have no idea exactly how many militants and civilians were killed here. A merger of the two articles under the proposed title in the move request below would probably be best for now. ] (]) 18:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merger of the article on the "massacre" into this one. The latter is a blatant POV fork. The title says it all. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Not to “notforum”, but how exactly is calling a massacre a massacre a “POV fork?” ] (]) 15:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*::Look up ] when you get the chance ] (]) 16:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*::It's a POV fork because the two articles are about the same event, with the primary difference being the point of view as a massacre rather than as a rescue operation --] (]) 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merge. The latter is part of the former and it should be under the name that isn't ]. ] (]) 15:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merger of two articles '''under the name "2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre"'''. Israel has murdered more than 230 people for merely 4. If this is not a massacre, then what is? The major problem here is whether the operation should be called a rescue operation, and I think it can be placed in bold in the first lines of the introductory text, rather than in the title, since the people killed by Israel in the operation outnumbers by far those rescued. ] (]) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' merge. With over 274 deaths, this was one of the most deadly incidents of the war, and it definitely warrants its own separate article. It would be misleading to label the entire event as a "rescue operation" focused on four Israeli hostages, thereby downplaying the severity of the massacre. Furthermore, "massacre" is not ] given the substantial media coverage. If anything, a merged article should be titled "2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre". ] (]) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Please check again the articles you provided. In all of them, the word 'massacre' is presented within quotation marks and not as a neutral term. I believe this indicates that its use is partisan. ] (]) 17:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''', in my opinion this is a classical case of WP:POVFORK. It does seem that there were many casualites but the word "massacre" neccesarily implies intent. We still don't know if the numbers provided by Hamas are true, and if they are, how many were actually non-combatants. ] (]) 17:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::There was intent. There have been several documented cases of family annihilations in this massacre, refer Al-Jamal family whose room the IDF stormed, executing several members of then falsely presented a story of them “hiding hostages”. ] (]) 17:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You mean the Al Jamal family who was holding the hostages- a war crime? ] (]) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::You are referencing a case whose only founding evidence was a tweet by an osint defender account on Twitter putting words into the mouth of the euro med report. Not even the IDF later on was able to make up its mind on wether he held one or several hostages, it is nothing more than baseless accusations to slander the dead journalists, as well as more fuel for Israel to manufacture consent to target and massacre civilians as it can just claim they were “Hamas operatives” or “holding hostages” ] (]) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I am referring to a statement reported by reliable sources, that the iDF confirmed that Al Jamal wax a war criminal holding hostages. Take it up with the reliable sources. ] (]) 12:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::…the reliable source which acknowledges that the only evidence of the slandered journalist holding hostages being the word of mouth of the idf (which mind you, has previously presented false accusations of murdered journalists being operatives) ] (]) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We write according to what reliable source report - which is that the IDF confirmed this. ] (]) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::IDF accusations aren't really worth a whole lot, given their well known track record for telling porkies. ] (]) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And similar things could be said about Hamas and its "Health ministry", which are the sources for the counter claims.
:::::::That's not an argument- we go by what sources like ToI write. ] (]) 12:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::ToI are attributing what they write to the IDF, who are an unreliable source. Hamas is equally unreliable. GHM is considered reliable by most sources. ] (]) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::GHM has been shown to fabricate numbers and make false claims - ", the ministry’s daily reports claimed that 72% of the dead were women and children, even as underlying data clearly showed the percentage was well below that." ] (]) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::That issue has already been debated elsewhere and hasn't changed the reliability assessment for GHM. ] (]) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::An AP report says they fabricate numbers. That some people close their eyes to this is their problem. ] (]) 13:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You can misrepresent the AP article if you wish, that's your problem. ] (]) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I quoted the AP article verbatim - "the ministry’s daily reports claimed that 72% of the dead were women and children, even as underlying data clearly showed the percentage was well below that" ] (]) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Dylanvt, the massacre is large enough to merit its own article seperate from the rescue operation article. ] (]) 17:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per IOHANNVSVERVS and TimeEngineer. Sources are reporting both the hostage rescue and the reported 200+ Palestinian deaths in the same articles. Reading the two Misplaced Pages articles on this event, there appears to be great overlap and possible duplication per ] and ]. As the Misplaced Pages articles are currently written, the scope of the two articles appear to be the same. ] (]) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Dylanvt an others. While the killing of 274 Palestinians is linked to the military operation to rescue 4 hostages, the two events are separate. ] (]) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I think the event itself includes both the killing of 274 Palestinian and the rescue of the 4 hostages, which is why they should come under the same article but with the title stressing more on the massacre rather than the rescue operation. ] (]) 05:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|they should come under the same article but with the title stressing more on the massacre|q=yes}} in that case, let's make sure that the title is sorted out first, because the last we want to see is the killing of 274 Palestinians being misdescribed as a rescue operation or whitewashed with another title that doesn't give it its proper due weight. ] (]) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::That's what I suggested... see my previous comment ({{tq|'''Support''' merger of two articles '''under the name "2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre"'''}}). ] (]) 16:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Did the IDF kill them or did Hamas? ] (]) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merging. The events are inextricable. It makes no sense to have two articles that each frame the same events in different ways. That's a recipe for two separate POV articles when a single NPOV article is clearly the preferred, encyclopedic approach. I'm not aware of any other Misplaced Pages pages about similar events that are structured like this. There are not separate pages discussing the military vs civilian aspects of other remotely similar events, such as pages about battles, bombings, hijackings and associated rescue operations, etc. All of arguments for separate pages are better directed toward arguments about how to title, frame, or structure a single combined page. ] (]) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

* '''Support''' The main event here is the rescue opperation, part of this are the cassulties in Gaza. It is not a different topic. Furthermore, the use of the word massacre is POV, no military opperations is without cassulaties, the aim was to rescue hostages, not kill people in Gaza ] (]) 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::The main point is not about the intentions of the IDF, because we don't know about that at this moment. Bold of you to assume they weren't there to kill as many Palestinians as they could. ] (]) 08:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::It's a fact, they were there to rescue Israeli hostages. ] (]) 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Included a daytime strike on a market area. "for Gazans in Nuseirat, the raid was one of the deadliest days in what has become the bloodiest war in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." ] (]) 11:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::@]: {{tq|"no military opperations is without cassulaties"}} - wrong. The best military operations have absolutely no casualties. Take any bloodless coup. Even Columbia has pulled off a . Minimal death, destruction and damage is the hallmark of competent militaries; unlike the IDF, whose hallmarks are genocidal zeal and ever manner of international law and human rights abuse under the sun. ] (]) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You are comparing the war zone in Gaza, to a sterile event in Columbia, big difference, sadly you do not seem to see that. If Hamas would not have Kidnapped Israeli hostages, non of this would happen. ] (]) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::That does not excuse the inaccuracy, nor does it excuse the 'history began in October last year' nonsense now being spouting, though at least this illustrates that the stance here is one of purely POV persuasion, not accuracy. ] (]) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per ]. ] (]) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Both pages describe the same event. --] (]) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*{{question}} since the title of this article is obviously POV, what would be a proper title for an article that covers both events (the rescue of 4 Israelis and the massacre of 274 Palestinians)? ] (]) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:: There isn't broad consensus that the title is POV. I don't agree that is it, and there is a robust argument happening in the talk section above. The objective of the operation was clearly to rescue four hostages, and according to the IDF, the only people who were killed before the hostages were extracted were people in the buildings. WITH THAT SAID, something like "Nuseirat Camp Incursion" covers both nicely. ] (]) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::The requested move discussion is down below and linked in the article tag. Requested move to Nuseirat raid and rescue. ] (]) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I know, but I'm interested in the views of those who support the merge. ] (]) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. ] (]) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|KronosAlight}} It would be nice if you could explain why and perhaps answer the above question (just below it). ] (]) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

== Why was this renamed? ==

Operation Arnon is clearly not the COMMONNAME for this. ] (]) 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:In accordance with ]. ] (]) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::We don't normally use Israeli code names for article titles, probably that one should be changed in due course. Can be mentioned as an aka if sources support. ] (]) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier stop deleting my talk edits or I will file a dispute against you.

== why is the line under the picture of hostages labeled missing ==

that were not missing that were kidnapped ] (]) 03:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

== Unexplained edit that reverted large chunk of info ==

], can you explain the rationale for your edit here: ? There's a lot of info that was removed for no reason. (The merge tag that was at the top of the article, for one).

Thanks, ] (]) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

== Al-Jamal family ==

Israel Hayom says that Noa, one of the hostages, was "reportedly" held in the house of Abdallah Al-Jamal , who worked for Al-Jazeera and local media. They attribute it to "a report by the Arab media" but don't name or link to it, unfortunately. It's not the most reliable of sources so I don't want to add it to the article just yet.

Euro-med Monitor's Ramy Abdu that Al-Jamal family house was raided but neither confirms nor denies that one of the hostages was held there. If someone has more information about it, please add it. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:It appears this originated form Twitter accounts have taken the story of his home being raided and his extrajudicial execution and spun a story about how his home was raided because “he held hostages” (most notoriously by visegead 24), in order to propagate the narrative that “no civilians are innocent in Gaza”.
:it’s probably an outlier story, I’d say wait for sure ] (]) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:He that:
:{{Tq|In an attempt to justify the execution of the members of the Al-Jamal family in Al-Nusirat, Israeli sources, the Israeli media and some supporters of Israel are trying to justify and justify the massacre and execution carried out by Israel, on the grounds that it is possible that the captive Naa Argamani was held in the Al-Jamal family's house as a trial said And published by me, Rami Abdo, Chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Watch. We documented executions and massacres in at least seven homes and centers, including the home of the elderly Dr. Ahmed al-Jamal, who was executed along with his family members. Among the victims was his son, the journalist Abdullah al-Jamal, who works in the public service as a spokesman for the Palestinian Ministry of Labor in Gaza and not as an Al Jazeera journalist as reported by Israeli media.}} ] (]) 11:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting that he didn't deny that she was held in Al-Jamal family house. He does say that he is "amazed but not surprised" by the dissemination of fake news in the third paragraph but I'm wondering why he didn't explicitly say that this is a lie. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:If it’s only coming from EuroMed (with extra coverage from ), I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot-pole without secondary confirmation for this. Let’s wait a day or so, or if it gets picked up by a few other RS.
:Current other coverage (not excluding duplicates):
:</nowiki>],</nowiki>],</nowiki>], ] (]) 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Do note that it is not “confirmed”, the better word is accused. This is not the first time the idf has falsely accused journalists of Gaza of being Hamas or PIJ operatives ] (]) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::or not falsely.
::::From a little google search, he worked at El jezira, at least in the past.or someone with his name. According to the following article: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rj4lqe7sc#autoplay
::::'From the Facebook page of that "journalist" in whose house the hostages were held, it appears that he also worked as a spokesman for the Hamas Ministry of Labor. On October 7, he published a post in which he thanked Hamas: "Praise be to God, good and blessed. God, this is your promised victory."' ] (]) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ministry of labour, if he actually worked in it and not some IDF claim, is a municipal position. Not a militant in the qassam brigades. Refer to hamza al Dahdouh and the UNRWA workers, who were also falsely accused of being “militants” by Israel after they were killed ] (]) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The IDF did not claim he was the spokesman for the Ministry of Labor. As far as I understand, this is a detail added by the newspaper. This is based on his Facebook account. Looks like you got confused. Maybe not the first time.
:Most recent coverage from The Times of Israel (9 June 2024) calls it an unverified rumor that Al-Jamals was holding Argamani<ref>https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/al-jazeera-denies-rumor-that-hostage-was-held-at-employees-home/</ref>

{{reftalk}}

== "Following the operation, Hamas threatened the remaining hostages." ==

This claim in the lead is attested by Times of Israel: . ''The Times of Israel''. 8 June 2024.

The cited article states the following: {{tq|The terror group said earlier it still held a large number of hostages and could increase it, '''while its military wing threatened the remaining captives held in Gaza.'''}}

This claim was directly followed by the following quote from said military wing: {{tq|“The operation will pose a great danger to the enemy prisoners and will have a negative impact on their conditions and lives,” Abu Obeida, spokesman of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, said in a statement.}}

This quote does not back up the claim made in the Times of Israel article that Hamas' military wing "threatened" the remaining captives. The quote is clearly just a warning that attacks and bombings pose a great danger to the people being held in the attacked and bombed place. ] (]) 13:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:I disagree. Saying an operation that already ended will pose a great danger is clearly a threat. If a reliable source reported it, that's what the article should say. ] (]) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Then it might just be best to report the exact quote and let the reader decide.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I think best practice on Misplaced Pages is to report what reliable sources say. ] (]) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 9 June 2024 ==

{{requested move/dated|Nuseirat raid and rescue}}

] → {{no redirect|Nuseirat raid and rescue}} – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault", "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." ] (]) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:'''Question'''. Since you !voted ''Wait'' in the proposed merge vote above, I'm not sure I understand what you suggest. Do you propose to rename this article and keep ]? Or do you propose to merge them under this name? ]<sub>]</sub> 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::This is an RM for this article. The merge request is a separate discussion. ] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::If this RM succeeds, would you support the merger of the two articles? ] (]) 18:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Haven't decided yet. Doesn't depend on the outcome of this discussion anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. Calling it a rescue operation only presents the Israeli POV, ignoring the hundreds of Palestinians who were killed. Also support something simpler like '''Nuseirat raid''' or '''Nuseirat attack'''.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''', I have seen many more sources referring to it as an operation and rescue rather than a raid. ] (]) 17:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Let's see them, I have shown 3 to the contrary and can show 4 more. ] (]) 17:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:: "The complex raid deep into a built-up refugee camp in central Gaza to rescue four held hostage by Hamas on Saturday" ] (]) 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::First paragraph of this article reads "
:::"The complex raid deep into a built-up refugee camp in central Gaza to rescue four held hostage by Hamas on Saturday''' was the largest rescue operation'''". Snipped quotes are not a greta look ] (]) 17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Right, "the complex raid". Duh. ] (]) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The "complex raid " was a "rescue operation" - as the current title says. ] (]) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::That sentence refers to it as both a raid and as a rescue, which obviously fits the proposed title of "raid and rescue" --] (]) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As I wrote below, I don't oppose renaming it "Rescue raid" vs. the current "Rescue operation" ] (]) 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"Raid" should come first before "rescue" though, as the raid killed 274 Palestinians while the rescue operation freed just 4 hostages. The main objective of this operation was apparently to rescue those 4, but the means of carrying that out involved massacring hundreds of innocent civilians that clearly carry greater significance and thus should be prioritized in the title, in any form. ] (]) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh please stop. "massacring hundreds of innocent civilians", are you just swallowing everything Hamas' "Health Ministry" puts out? Yes, they killed a lot of Hamas people in the raid. Also one Israeli soldier was killed by said "innocent civilians". Civilians like the Al Jazeera "journalist"/free lancer, Abdallah Aljamal, and their family who held the hostages for months were also killed. It's a tragedy that some families sign up their children to be human shields for terrorists but there are stranger things. It's tragic that civilians were killed. It's not a massacre, that would implies intent to murder large numbers of civilians. ] (]) 10:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|hat would impl intent to murder large numbers of civilians.}} To be fair, the intention of the operation does not matter as much as the events that happened as the operation unfolded. The truth is that hundreds of Palestinian people died during the operation, mainly at the hands of the IDF, and, civilian or not, they were still casualties and the number is sufficient to warrant a "massacre" title. ] (]) 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::to add to that statement, according to the “stater intent” criteria, not a single October 7 massacre would be called as such because Mohammed deif told militants to not target civilians on his October 7 speech ] (]) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No, the purpose and nature should come first (rescue operation), then the means (raid). The high amount of casualties, whose nature (militant vs. civilians), cause of death (killed by IDF, caught in crossfire and killed buY Hamas) and even number are not known, is not a factor in determining an article's name. ] (]) 12:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So what you're trying to do here is undermine the mass killing perpetrated by the IDF in the process of freeing a measly 4 people? It seems illogical, at best, to disregard the deaths of many for the rescue of few. ] (]) 15:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::We don't know how many people were killed, we don't know their nature (combatants vs. uninvolved civilians) and we don't know how they died.
:::::::::::What we do know is that this was an operation to rescue hostages, and that what we should call the article, and have a detailed section for the casualties.
:::::::::::Those "measly" people were civilian hostages, whose kidnapping and holding was a war crime
:::::::::::IHL, and law in general, is not a numbers game where the side that suffers more casualties is presumed to be 'good' - killing 100 bad guys to save 10 good ones is perfectly legal and acceptable ] (]) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::1,000-ish casualties is not "crossfire" - that would be a descriptive disservice to the point of euphemism. ] (]) 15:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::we don't know that there were 1000 casualties, and there's no reason to believe that in a massive firefight involving hundreds of people there wouldn't be 1000 casualties ] (]) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well I'm glad we're now at massive firefight, not "crossfire". ] (]) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::These are not mutually exclusive terms, and refer to diffenrt things - you can be caught in the crossfire of a massive firefight. ] (]) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:: "Israel committed a massacre in the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza on Saturday, killing hundreds of civilians, according to Gaza authorities. Israel called the assault on Nuseirat a “complex daytime operation” aimed at releasing four Israeli captives held in the refugee camp." ] (]) 17:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:: "Israel’s raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp has caused outrage, with the EU calling it “a massacre”. The death toll has risen to 274 and more than 698 others injured, according to Gaza’s health ministry." ] (]) 17:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:: "The death toll from an Israeli raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp has risen to 274 Palestinians, Gaza’s Health Ministry said Sunday. Israel’s Saturday raid, one of the bloodiest in the war, on the central Gazan camp freed four hostages." ] (]) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::First sentence in the relevant section of this link : '''"Israeli forces rescued four hostages '''in central Gaza on Saturday" ] (]) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Cherry picked short quote. ] (]) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::As of now, the entire quote on that section is "Israeli forces rescued four hostages in central Gaza on Saturday — Noa Argamani, 26; Almog Meir Jan, 22; Andrey Kozlov, 27; and Shlomi Ziv, 41. All “are in good medical condition” and were transferred to a hospital for examinations, the Israel Defense Forces said. They were taken hostage from the Nova music festival during the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7." ] (]) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::My quote still says "raid", sigh. ] (]) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Slight problem is that it is not actually in the link you provided. At least not now. ] (]) 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: "An Israeli raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp that freed four hostages killed at least 274 Palestinians on June 8, Gazan health officials said." ] (]) 18:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a different link from the one above. You should delete the one above, as it doesn't actually have the text you claim to be quoting from it. ] (]) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It does if you scroll down far enough, its a live blog. ] (]) 18:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Or "Israel’s military launched one of the bloodiest raids of the war Saturday, killing more than 200 Palestinians in a brazen operation to rescue four hostages from the central Gaza Strip." ] (]) 19:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The new Arab , Al Jazeera and WAPO are about as far left and pro-Hamas as you can find in the English media world. Try getting some centrist sources. ] (]) 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I started with those, presumably you didn't read them. In any case, it seems to be across the board, left or right. ] (]) 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' This is a aspect event in the sources, so an "and" title makes sense. The existing title would only realistically work if this was an operation with a minimal footprint. It was quite the opposite. One could hardly imagine a more massive footprint. ] (]) 19:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose''', this was by the very definition of the word a massacre, with intentional killings. I have already pointed out the problem with “RS” and their inability to point out Israel as a perpetrator and use passive words to describe Palestinian killings (using “have died”), let alone call their crimes for what they are. Not only did it involve bombings but several reports of Israeli troops storming apartment floors and executing their occupants. There is an established intent, this was a massacre and must be labeled as such ] (]) 03:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::There's no evidence that the IDF were responsible for significant civilian casualties, nor that those killed were civilians. Citing Hamas figures isn't permissible on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::There are reports of Israeli soldiers shooting occupants in their own homes. Several videos and photos of the massacre have surfaced. The “Khamas health ministry” is sole source counting the victims of the massacres in Gaza but also a gigantic undercount. Hence, the only reason they are “inaccurate” is because the real death toll is much higher ] (]) 09:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::The "occupants" shot in their home were war criminals holding hostages in their homes ] (]) 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::According to a Twitter account who based this accusation on distorting the euro med report. Not even the isf has been able to make up its mind on whether to say he held one or many hostages (maybe because the occupants didn’t). Several instances of the idf falsely branding journalists as militants means it isn’t to be trusted, or everything said by them having to be followed by ''according to the IDF'' ] (]) 12:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::No , according to reliable sources - https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-abdallah-aljamal-was-holding-3-hostages-in-his-home-in-nuseirat-alongside-his-family/ ] (]) 12:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Quote:
:::::::”According to the IDF, the three hostages were held by Aljamal alongside his family. They were rescued yesterday by special forces.“
:::::::It cannot be denied that the times of Israel is reliable (and Misplaced Pages classes it as RS), and here they are specifically stating that this is only the IDF’s word of mouth. As I have also mentioned, the slander originated as a tweet by an account, which picked up massive traction before the IDF had even commented on it. This account points to a report that had no mentions of any hostages and spun its own conclusion ] (]) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Reelable sources (ToI and others) report that the IDF confirmed Al Jamal was a war criminal holding hostages. That's what the article says. What happened before the IDF statement is irrelevant. ] (]) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::: "Al Jazeera rejects Israeli claims that journalists killed were 'terror operatives'
::::::The Israeli army labeled the two journalists killed in Gaza as 'members of terrorist organizations,' a claim Al Jazeera strongly denied on Thursday as 'false' and 'misleading.'"
::::::Given Israel's banana republic banning of AJ, I know who to believe. Anyway, not really relevant to the move discussion. ] (]) 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As AJ employed one of these war criminals, I can see why they would want to deny the allegations. And they don;t deny he was holding the hostages - a war crime - just that the claims that he '''also''' directed Hamas drones.
:::::::Do you think the EU is comprised of Banana republics, for banning RT? ] (]) 12:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::WP classes AJ as GREL and has deprecated RT. ] (]) 12:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::tells us more about WP than about AJ. And as I wrote above, even AJ does not deny they held the hostages - a war crime. ] (]) 12:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::They have neither confirmed nor denied. Why would AJ deny it if the person involved is not an employee? And this is still not relevant to this move discussion. ] (]) 12:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::There is a page ] and that argument should be made there or else an argument made here for the merge of this article into that one. ] (]) 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Has the discussion not moved here? Or am I mistaken ] (]) 09:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a bit confusing, there is a merge discussion on this page to merge the "massacre" article with this one and then there is this RM to change the title of this article. So I guess what you want to do is to not merge the massacre article to here but instead the reverse.
::::But if you want to object to the move on general principles, that's OK too. ] (]) 10:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose:''' The current name describes exactly the mission and the purpose of the operation. It was a rescue mission to free hostages. ] (]) 08:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:* '''wait''' For the merge discussion result, if two articles got merged then the title should be renamed as proposed, otherwise if the two would remain separate, which I personally support, then this article shouldn’t be renamed
:] (]) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''- there were numerous sources (above) using "rescue operation" or some variant of it. To repeat
:* CNN:"Israel rescues four hostages in operation" [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/08/middleeast/four-israeli-hostages-freed-gaza-intl/index.html
:* CNN "An Israeli operation rescues four hostages"
:* Ynet "World media focuses on heroic hostage rescue operation"
:*WSJ: "Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza"
:* CBS: "Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza?"
:* NYT "Here’s How Israel’s Mission to Rescue Four Hostages Unfolded"
:* NYT "U.S. Intelligence Helped Israel Rescue Four Hostages in Gaza"
:* NYT "Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Military Operation;" https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/08/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas
There are many more, some listes in the section above ("POV Title") ] (]) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:Cherry picked quotes. First one, CNN, says "The Israeli military rescued four hostages in a special operation in the Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, that Gazan authorities said killed 236 people and injured more than 400 others. CBS already shown by myself contradicting. 3 NYTs? Not going to bother checking the rest. ] (]) 17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::You mean where you quoted "The complex raid deep into a built-up refugee camp in central Gaza to rescue four held hostage by Hamas on Saturday" and left out '''the next 5 words which read "was the largest rescue operation"'''? how did that happen? I am trying very, very hard to assume good faith here, but it is not easy. ] (]) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Still says "raid" ,either way. ] (]) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::what's the reason you left out the next 5 words? ] (]) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I said, either way, with or without, still says "raid". ] (]) 18:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::would you mind answering the question? what's the reason you left out the next 5 words? ] (]) 18:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Irrelevant question. ] (]) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think it is very relevant, but if you don;t want to answer, that's fine. Everyone can see what you did there and make up their own minds. ] (]) 18:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
: "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault" Contradicts all 3 NYTs. ] (]) 18:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
: "Militant-held Israeli hostages were among the more than 200 people killed in the raid that freed four captives" ] (]) 18:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::This link says "Hamas says 3 hostages, including an American, were killed in '''Israeli rescue raid'''" ] (]) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
: "The United States and Britain provided support to the Israeli raid that released four captives in central Gaza on Saturday and killed more than 240 Palestinians and wounded 400" ] (]) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
: "Four hostages kidnapped by Hamas have been reunited with their families, after being rescued in a raid that Palestinian officials say killed scores of people." Enough "raids" yet? ] (]) 18:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::I don't object to renaming it '2024 Nuseirat rescue raid " ] (]) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:'''Comment''': '''Merge''' this article and ] into one article titled '''Nuseirat refugee camp raid'''. ] (]) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Or consider: '''Nuseirat refugee camp killings and hostage rescue'''. I oppose calling it "raid and rescue" as that prioritizes the rescue of four people over the killing of approximately two hundred. Either just 'raid' or 'killings and hostage rescue '. ] (]) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' But only if it means we merge this article with ]. Obviously both the Isreali POV and the Palestinian one are relevant here, the new title captures both and should be present in the title. Saying just a raid or "Massacre", without also stating that it was a rescue operation ignores the context of the vast majority of articles on this subject---which is another reason ] either needs to be removed entirely or merged into this one. This is one event, having two articles for same subject just with different POVs fulfills the ] criteria.] (]) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:'''support''': It is both a "raid" but also an "rescue operation" afterall, maybe ] or ] could work too. Both the Israeli pov and Palestinean pov matter in this operation. The general execution of this operation included both raid and rescuing segments, and ignoring either would not be WP:NPOV.

:'''Support''' ] or ]. Many sources have been provided above that refer to this as a raid or attack. Calling it a raid alone also doesn’t imply that nobody was rescued, or that the purpose wasn't to rescue israeli prisoners. Whereas the current title very much does imply that there weren't nearly 1,000 casualties, mostly civilian, including women and children.
:Remember that titles ]; the current title is clearly not descriptive and clearly not neutral. A typical person, wanting to find an article about an event with 1,000 casualties, would certainly not think to include the words "rescue operation" in their search query. Non-neutral titles are only to be used if one specific name has become so common that it's essentially become a proper noun for the subject, which is clearly not the case for this raid, especially since it's only happened a few days ago. ] (]) 03:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Per Dylanvt. ] (]) 05:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I think this is a better NPOV title for a combined article covering both this and the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre article. The reasons for such a combined page under such a NPOV title are stated in my comment in that talk section. I'll quote it here for convenience: ''"The events are inextricable. It makes no sense to have two articles that each frame the same events in different ways. That's a recipe for two separate POV articles when a single NPOV article is clearly the preferred, encyclopedic approach. I'm not aware of any other Misplaced Pages pages about similar events that are structured like this. There are not separate pages discussing the military vs civilian aspects of other remotely similar events, such as pages about battles, bombings, hijackings and associated rescue operations, etc. All of arguments for separate pages are better directed toward arguments about how to title, frame, or structure a single combined page."'' ] (]) 07:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' for now because a ] is in progress. Once the scope of the article is clarified, we can discuss the name. By itself, the proposed name seems alright. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' "Nuseirat raid", or the proposed title although it is less ], if there is a consensus to merge. ] (]) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' : Anti-Israel editors want to spin the successful Israeli rescue operation as a victory for Hamas so they follow Hamas' PR campaign and calling it a "massacre" of Palestinian civilians. This fits nicely with Hamas' larger "genocide" narrative whose variants many of the editors here have helped promote on pages like ]. It's the same disgusting narrative they continue pushing. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
::{{tq|Anti-Israel editors|q=yes}} what does that make you? ] (]) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::Certainly not the exact opposite as you so patronizingly insinuate. Drop the hate. Get back to what Misplaced Pages is actually about, an encyclopedia of facts not activist framing of ongoing events. This war has been a disaster for the Misplaced Pages community. Russia, Turkey, Iran, China and ever other dictatorship that has banned Misplaced Pages is laughing themselves silly at how easy it has been to destroy the objectivity of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Cut the polemics, do everyone a favor. ] (]) 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' Why not rename it '''Nuseirat raid, rescue, extraction and airlift out of Gaza operation''' or something like that? It was a rescue operation in hostile territory and the current title is fine. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion===
{{ping|Selfstudier}}, as I said above, I don't think it's right to discuss renaming when there is an ongoing merge discussion. If the scope of the article isn't clear, how can we discuss whether the name is appropriate or not? ]<sub>]</sub> 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


== Merging ] into this one ==
:The scope of this one will become clear hopefully. Not sure why people are alleging POV fork at the other but not putting up an AfD. Either way nothing wrong with an RM and a merge discussion at the same time, some have concurred with condition, that's another idea. ] (]) 08:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::Mainly because there is already a merge discussion; it could be seen as forum shopping. ] (]) 10:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sort of, the merge discussion is for the "massacre" article to be merged here, not for this article to be merged there. I suspect we will arrive at the answer in due course, by a roundabout route, if not immediately. ] (]) 10:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


How are we going to merge the two articles? Shall we separate the two events by creating a section for each (this is by far the quickest and easiest way to merge them. We'll adjust the lead accordingly)? For the Infox: do we use just one (which one would that be) or shall we go for the easiest option and use two (one for each section)? ] (]) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
== Background ==


:We can work together if you'd like. Lets start by first merging the reactions of both articles together, since that's the easiest.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, this paragraph does not mention the fact that Hamas decided to hide the hostages in two apartments, in the heart of a populated area. It is only mentioned later. ] (]) 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|M.Bitton|Vice regent}} still working on this? ] (]) 13:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::: but stopped when it became apparent that no-one else was going to get involved, maybe should just redirect ftb so we don't have both articles sitting out there? ] (]) 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I was waiting for more input on how to proceed (see my previous comment). A simple redirect is not really an option. ] (]) 14:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have more time now, so I'll work on it over the next 2 weeks.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::New Year and another ] (]) 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] should there be some content in this article about how this article is perceived in the media? Or does that belong at ]? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here, I don't think so, the press coverage thingy up above is enough. Maybe at ] that already has a mention about this event. ] (]) 10:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I added something there: ] (]) 10:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Speaking of Bandler, he made a video: ] (]) 10:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We waited enough. I think it's time we started moving the content over. What do you think about what I said regarding the infoboxes and sections? ] (]) 12:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>I forgot to ping.</small> {{re|Vice regent|Selfstudier}} shall we go for the easier option (create a section for each) and then adjust the lead and infobox accordingly? ] (]) 12:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od|4}} I copied some of the content from the other article (what I missed can be found {{oldid|page|1267726790|here}}). I also removed the infobox from this article (it was about the rescue only, and therefore, misleading). ] (]) 11:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Even if its not 100%, I think its better to not have the two pages extant. ] (]) 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Other example: https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-0c2d7fef56f2c81027.htm ] (]) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:If it is {{tq|mentioned later}}, then it is mentioned? ] (]) 10:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) ::Of course. I also moved the other infobox to this article (better to have two, covering both events, than have a single misleading one). ] (]) 17:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We have infoboxes military operation and civilian attack neither of which cover the events correctly so maybe we should do without an infobox for this particular case? ] (]) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh have both? We do have two sections, we can have an infobox in either section.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Abu Obaida's claim of retaliation ==
== "The operation resulted in massive civilian casualties within the camp." ==


]:
This has been removed from the lead twice. Why? Are the removers disputing this fact? RS clearly state it's true. ] (]) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
#It's always preferable to use a reference that has a specific number over a reference that doesn't
#] is not a prohibition on the use of the word "claim". In my opinion, since the claim is unsubstantiated, the word "claim" is proper. However, I am open to a discussion on whether a different word would be more appropriate.
--] (]) 03:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:I assume the argument is that the IDF is disputing the casualties, however I think if we can shore up this claim with a couple more sources, then there is a basis for inclusion. ] (]) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) :As I've noted in my edit summary, both sides are entitled to their claims, per NPOV. Evidence doesn't really come into it, because both parties in this conflict are guilty of producing grossly unevidenced and spurious statements. ] (]) 05:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::How is ] not a duplication of the paragraph that is already in the article two paragraphs below? It talks about the exact same people doing the exact same thing (Abu Obaida making a claim and Peter Lerner dismissing the claim). --] (]) 07:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::IDF is claiming 100-ish casualties per sources. Is that not enough to be "massive"? Is that the argument they're making? ] (]) 16:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::My mistake. Got muddled. ] (]) 07:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The first time this was removed, I didn't agree with the reasoning (and the second time was silent) but if we are going to restore it then we must make it so it is inarguable, you see? There should be a couple other sources we can add in here. I'll have a look as well. ] (]) 16:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I don't disagree with you. I'll get some sources, too. ] (]) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's one https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/ ] (]) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I suggest not reacting to commentary from BM while the current proceedings are ongoing. ] (]) 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o as well. ] (]) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Washington Post says "killing more than 200 Palestinians" in its own voice, but makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
::::::BBC attributes all casualty claims, and makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
::::::I don't think either of those support the claim that is being made. ] (]) 17:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your assistance here isn't required, unless you are helping to source the necessary, which it seems you are not. ] (]) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The relevant part of https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hostage-rescue-new-details-gaza-operation-nuseirat-rcna156273
:::::We want to put in the body a sufficient number of reports that clarify the extent of the killing and destruction in the camp/market area so that a subsequent lead statement is due. OK? ] (]) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::And this one https://www.ft.com/content/95ecf8ea-1d56-4125-be9e-2f51f98216bc ] (]) 17:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Neither of those sources support the claim being made; they attribute all casualty claims, and makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
::::::The claim you are trying to find sources for is {{tq|The operation resulted in massive civilian casualties within the camp}}; for this you need sources that say, in their own voice, that there were massive numbers of civilian casualties, and so far you have been unable to find any. Searching myself I find one that comes close to supporting this, , but given Al Jazeera's bias and the number of sources that we've found that decline to support this claim (in addition to the ones you've provided, , , , and ) it's not sufficient. ] (]) 17:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's assumption your part, something is going to go in and it will be determined by sources. When it goes in, you will be free to revert, complain or whatever else floats your boat. ] (]) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:Massive is a ], and sources don't appear to use it. It's also not yet clear how many casualties there were, and how many of them were militants and how many were civilians. ] (]) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:57, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuseirat rescue and massacre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

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.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Merge but label it correctly

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

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

Requested move 12 October 2024

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

The result of the move request was: move to Nuseirat rescue and massacre. But perhaps a bit of a "soft" close given all the sockpuppet interference. May be worth reconfirming once the other article has been merged into this one. asilvering (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


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

  • Weak oppose - it seems like a reasonable attempt at a compromise, but it's a little odd to use "killings" in reference to a battle, even a one-sided battle with many civilian casualties. I think "rescue operation" is perfectly accurate, but if there are concerns that it sounds too positive, "Nuseirat raid" also seems concise and fitting. — xDanielx /C\ 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • How about Nuseirat rescue and massacre? This will cover both events without whitewashing either of them.
while "massacre" has POV connotations If it did, we wouldn't have Netiv HaAsara massacre, Alumim massacre, Kissufim massacre and Kfar Aza massacre (whose total casualties amount to less than half than those killed in the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre). M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Those attacks had no military targets in sight, so the "massacre" label shouldn't be particularly controversial. In this case, anything with "massacre" would be a controversial WP:POVNAME. — xDanielx /C\ 00:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
That's your WP:OR-based "opinion" that I simply do not agree with. Those who commit massacres can claim whatever they want to justify the unjustifiable (they always do and sometimes, they even believe their own fairy tales), but what they cannot do is change the facts. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
It would be difficult to argue that the operation had no legitimate purpose at all when we have pictures of the rescued hostages. WP:OR applies to content and isn't relevant in discussions like this. — xDanielx /C\ 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing remotely legitimate about the killing of hundreds of souls for the the sake of rescuing 4. M.Bitton (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton would you still consider "Nuseirat rescue and killings" to be a better title than the current one? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: the current one is obviously not an option and "killings" doesn't quite cut it (as per the reasons that have been mentioned in this RM). The one that I fully support is Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
If you were to rank the three options, which would you assign #2 and which would you assign #3? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that would be more accurate as long as the article reflects the events and details. I do disagree that the term massacre has p.o.v. connotations, it may be emotive but the term has a defined and specific meaning that clearly applies in this event. That is my proverbial two cents Andy chacha (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat support, though I would best say to use “massacre”, this proposal at least acknowledges Palestinians being killed as opposed to the original title focusing exclusively on the mission itself without any references to a massacre The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, we don't change titles to fit narratives, we use titles that reflect the reliable sources. Even if people were killed (as happens in many rescue operations), the event was a rescue operation, and this is how major sources portray it. Galamore (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
so the “narrative” Misplaced Pages wants to follow is to dismiss 250 Palestinians being killed and prioritising 4 Israelis being rescued? Not the best look for a “neutral” website The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
It isn't an endorsement of any narrative. Calling a rescue operation a rescue operation doesn't imply any judgement about collateral damage. — xDanielx /C\ 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
A massacre cannot be described as a rescue operation, and besides, the notability of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre has never been disputed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The retrieval of captives (or hostages) is a rescue. The killing of 250+ civilian bystanders is a massacre. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see the improvement. The suggested use of 'killings' would be misleading to readers, as if the killings were intended (is there a major RS using this term to refer to the event at all? besides Qatari-owned channels?) This was a rescue operation, which like many other operations, also had uninvolved casualities, that should not change the article titles like other operation pages. HaOfa (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a massive difference between a rescue operation with some casualties, and an operation that killed hundreds of Palestinians to get 4 Israeli hostages The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
What's your source for 'hundreds'? ABHammad (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Gaza health ministry, which is historically reliable and has been consistently cited. Sorry, the “umm akshually it’s the khamas run health ministry” isn’t an argument at this point The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The killings happened. We cannot know what the intent was, but if we do find out then that should be reflected in the article. Please focus on the question at hand.
250 civilians killed is a massacre, the word 'massacre' is already in the title of one of articles to be merged. The word 'massacre' should be in the title of the resulting merged article. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a source for 250 civilians killed? As far as I can tell, the Gaza Health Ministry alleges 250 killed total; given that Hamas militants engaged Israeli forces during the rescue, it would be reasonable to assume that at least some of those are militants.
In addition, the Gaza Health Ministry isn't reliable on individual incidents. This is comparable to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, where they overestimated casualties and falsely attributed blame. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Like @XDanielx said, "rescue operation" fits perfectly. I've seen major WP:RS also using 'hostage rescue', but killing is not often used, at least not in titles. The Palestinian casualties—sources say scores/dozens (not sure how many militants)—should definitely be mentioned, but I don't think they don't belong in the title. ABHammad (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Nuseirat refugee camp massacre is the article that is named after the massacre (a notable subject). The only reason the merge has been proposed is because some editors felt that the two (the rescue and the massacre) which took place at the same time can easily be covered in the same article, but that can only succeed if the massacre is not whitewashed, that's why I proposed the neutral title Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
'massacre' would be here a POV violation since there was no intent to kill people, even if unrelated people were unfortunately killed. I'll also ask you to prove that the 'massacre' is a notable subject, Western sources do not portray the event in this way. Galamore (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The proof is in the article whose notability has never been disputed. Also, the attempt to replace the word massacre has already failed miserably (see Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre#Requested_move_12_June_2024 for more info). M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton That's not a proof, a proof should come from neutral reliable sources that show the term 'massacre' is frequently used when referring to this event Galamore (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Those who took part in that RM disagree with you (for all kind of reasons that I suggest you read). M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like many did not even get involved in that RM, probably out of expection that the merge that finally happened would take place. Why vote on a rename when you support a delete/merge? I don't see how that makes the massacre title notable (or neutral in the first place). That should be proven using WP:RS and not Misplaced Pages discussions. HaOfa (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The relevance of the number of the involved (a respectable 25 in this case) is true for all RMs, the rest is your irrelevant guesswork. The article is notable (the massacre did take place and is covered and commented on in multiple RS) and anyone who disagrees with the word massacre should read the RM. M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Hezbollah-affiliated al-Mayadeen? The extremist Mondoweiss? Qatar-run state media? If that's what you call respectable sources ... well, I don't think we have a serious base for discussion here. In Misplaced Pages we follow reliable sources. I prefer to rely on sources that consensus describe as reliable, we have enough of those on WP:RSN. There's no need to cherry-pick opinionated activist outlets. ABHammad (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh I’m sure you’d rather the “reliable sources” Misplaced Pages uses to dismiss blowing up civilians as massacres that say Israelis get killed while Palestinians somehow just die in the same sentence Like the bbc
just because their governments do not worship Israel, and their client state the USA which cannot even condemn them for their crimes doesn’t make it a non-reliable source. Especially Al Jazeera which unlike your “reliable sources” that cannot even acknowledge that the 1 tonne bomb dropped on 100 people praying was by Israel, actually has reporters on the ground in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Intent does not really matter here. The fact is that 250+ civilians were killed by the military. This is a massacre in my mind. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat support provided we go with "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" - this incorporates the names used commonly by RS. WP:NDESC makes it clear that this is an appropriate use of these terms together, and will accurately describe what happened, regardless of the intent of the participants. (Which we can discuss as WP:CRYSTAL all day long to no useful end.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I’d support this too. If we use the “Intent” argument then not a single October 7 massacre should be labelled as such because Hamas alluded to not targeting noncombatants in its opening speech The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Support 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'
I agree with @Smallangryplanet @M.Bitton in naming the merged article 'Nuseirat rescue and massacre'.
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria @Andy chacha and @Vice regent make a good argument for the use of the word "massacre'. It is already in the title of one of the articles to be merged and not including it in the merged article would violate NPOV. Isoceles-sai (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Including "massacre" would be the NPOV violation, since it amounts to explicitly taking a side on the controversial matter of whether the operation should be considered a massacre. By using a plain factual title we can avoid taking either side (we're not stating that it's not a massacre), which is the only way to comply with WP:NPOVNAME. All the mainstream news organizations (PBS, NPR, CBS, NYT, AP, CNN) avoid "massacre" in their own voice for this reason; we should do the same. — xDanielx /C\ 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
When those whose voices count (the UN human rights experts who condemned the massacre) speak, the others take a walk. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The sources calling this a massacre are all partisan sources, like Francesca Albanese (the first expert they mention), whoever wrote that UNISPAL post (with language like "umpteenth massacre" and "Israeli Occupation Forces"), Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Mondoweiss, etc. Not sure why those partisan sources would be the only ones that count. Sources with a semblance of neutrality, like the ones I mentioned above, are unanimous in not using the word in their own voice and not taking a position on the matter. — xDanielx /C\ 21:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
We're used to the boring song: anyone who states bothersome facts about Israel is ♪"partisan bla bla bla"♪... Anyway, there is a massive difference between the human rights experts and the usual cheerleaders of Israel (who lost all credibility). M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you really denying that Israel is an occupying force? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you asking whether I consider Gaza occupied? My personal views on that aren't really relevant. Regardless, using extremely loaded language like "Israeli Occupation Forces" or "the Zionist entity" is a very clear indicator of bias. It's not really about whether or not the terms are accurate, it's about the refusal to refer to an entity by its actual name. — xDanielx /C\ 19:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Good point. So now we should not say 'Gaza' but 'State of Palestine'. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Calling a force that has been militarily occupying a country, much less one for over 30 years an “occupation” is not bias, it’s common sense The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The event, by definition, was a massacre. Now the word may also be emotive, but the fact remains that it was a massacre. It has already part of the title of one of the articles.
The Misplaced Pages definition: "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." Isoceles-sai (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
That definition appears to be from Wikiquote? Definitions vary, but most definitions involve additional elements beyond that. Collins for example lists one definition with "cruel", another with "unnecessary, indiscriminate", and another with "wanton or savage". — xDanielx /C\ 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre" - this seems the best way to incorporate both topics. I'm flabbergasted at some of the comments, particularly the ones claiming that acknowledging the disproportionate amount of civilian deaths is a "narrative" or POV pushing. A massacre is a massacre, it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do). I also agree with M.Bitton, human rights organizations like Euro-Med Monitor and the UN have more weight than news outlets who cannot even use active voice when the perpetrator is Israel. Removing massacre from the title seems like the first step to remove content during the merge resulting in an article where the hundreds of deaths are merely an afterthought. The point of the merge is to consolidate overlapping data. But we're stil talking about two different events, and they should be properly covered, starting with the title. - Ïvana (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if the perpetrators "didn't intend" to kill unarmed civilians (they never do) History saw a plenty of massacres where the perpetrators did want to kill unarmed civilians. Galamore (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Gaza_genocide#Genocidal_intent_and_genocidal_rhetoric. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre": This has been explicitly termed a massacre by Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister , as well as by UN experts , Doctors Without Borders , the EU , and Oxfam . The use of this term by top diplomats and humanitarian organizations points to the severity of the events that took place, and to me, is sufficient to define what happened as a massacre. The title should reflect that reality to maintain accuracy and clarity. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@CarmenEsparzaAmoux would you also support "Nuseirat rescue and killings" as a second choice? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Support "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" per @CarmenEsparzaAmoux and others. There already was a page for the massacre, and per @M.Bitton it was decided to merge them together as long the massacre is not whitewashed/downplayed. The title should now reflect the fact that content for both is and will be contained within it, if only one or the other is in the title that violates NPOV and the consensus reached for the merger, and doesn't reflect the content of the page. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any title with massacre. Massacre is inherently a POV title, and should only be used if it is the common name for an event. This does not reach that. No opinion on other changes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, the best sources do not use these terms when describing the topic. PeleYoetz (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
We're way past that (the issue of the titles of both articles has been settled). This RfC is about the title that covers both (the rescue and the massacre). M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Both articles have stable titles without a consensus (so far) to rename, but the other is supposed to be merged into this one, which I think means 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation is the default name until there's a consensus for something else. It's also just the original title, before the accidental POVFORK. — xDanielx /C\ 15:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The consensus for the other article has been cemented with this RM. In other words, the natural title for an article that covers both has to be Nuseirat rescue and massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not really our WP:MERGE process - we don't normally change the target's name, unless the merge discussion had a consensus to do so. By default, we just do the merge and leave possible renames to future discussions (as the closer did here). — xDanielx /C\ 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not what closing statement of the previous RfC says. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
RfC? — xDanielx /C\ 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
FYI, some editors, including myself, didn’t participate in that RM, because as a POV fork the title didn’t matter - the pertinent discussion was the merge discussion.
That RM has no bearing on the title of this article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
FYI, some editors who participated in that RM didn't participate in the RfC. It's not for us to judge what matters and what doesn't. The Rm was about what the community thinks of the title of the other article, something that is directly related to a possible merge of two article covering two distinct events (the rescue and the massacre) that took place at the same time. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Support with massacre as a bolded aka The UN experts, all 15 of them, signed a statement referring to this as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza" and the EU's Borrell, while congratulating the captives on their release, called the operation "another massacre of civilians" and a "bloodbath", that a bunch of US based sources refrained from the terminology is not really a surprise, although WAPO at least managed to quote experts who criticized the lack of proportionality and failure to take into account likely civilian casualties. Together with the other RS using the term, this is the least possible outcome until these potential war crimes are properly investigated.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre" per argument made by M.Bitton of preserving WP:NPOV. We have consensus for massacre in the title and also coverage from WP:RSP as pointed out by Selfstudier. To add on to Ivana and Carmen's point about top diplomats and humanitarian organizations - these are all WP:SECONDARY sources and should be given at least equal weightage to journalistic outlets, if not more, especially since the so called WP:RSP sources refuse to fully quote them and report on the matter. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    @CoolAndUniqueUsername would you also support "Nuseirat rescue and killings" as a second choice? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't support "Nuseirat rescue and killings". Although it may appear that the word "massacre" is a violation of WP:NPOV, there is an exception if the term is widely used in English-language media (see WP:POVNAMING). "Killings" also downplays the severity of the situation. The UN has referred to this as the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces.
    In terms of ranking, both "Nuseirat rescue operation" and "Nuseirat rescue and killings" are tied for the bottom position for me. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. We need to combine both the rescue page and the massacre page. We can worry about pedantics of exactly what its called in a later move. We need to focus on calling this page what this was and removing the POV of it only being a rescue. Similar ideas I like: Nuseirat rescue and massacre, Nuseirat incident, Nuseirat hostage raid
with regards to BilledMammals arguments, most of the sources on the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre also don't always call it rescue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Support the proposed title is a reasonable compromise to provide NPOV for both aspects of this incident. RachelTensions (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I Oppose per Mountain of Eden and Necrothesp. The current name is the most precise and accurate for describing the event. Adding to that, sources using 'massacre' seem subpar, while more reliable sources avoid this language, and Misplaced Pages should too. The main event was a rescue operation, with the deaths as collateral damage of the operation. OdNahlawi (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The main event was the massacre of hundreds of souls. The so-called "rescue" of four people doesn't even come close. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS that refers to the deaths that resulted from the operation as the "main event"? or would that be your WP:OR? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
strong support for "Nuserait rescue and massacre"
Ultimately, there is no avoiding the fact that at least *276* people were killed and almost 700 were injured. While only four people were rescued from captivity. It is astonishing there is even a debate here. I'm not sure people here even comprehend just how massive that really is. Framing this massacre as "just a rescue operation" conceals in the page what should absolutely be in the title. How can we really think for a second that the rescue of 4 hostages trumps the foremost mention of the death of almost 300 people?
Even if we want to take a purely clinical view, as was kindly laid out by @CarmenEsparzaAmoux, reliable sources completely vindicate this view. Which to reiterate, include:
1. The Norwegian foreign minister: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/6/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israeli-army-to-be-added-to-un-child-harm-list?update=2961797
2. The UN: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/un-experts-condemn-outrageous-disregard-palestinian-civilians-during-israels
3. Doctors without borders: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/our-response-israel-gaza-war
4. EU Diplomats: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/08/israel-rescues-four-hostages-in-gaza-taken-from-nova-music-festival
5. Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfams-reaction-nuseirat-operation-released-four-hostages-and-killed-least-274
An even more comprehensive list of sources is given by Raskolnikov.Rev.
There is basically no debate here. It should be called a massacre alongside a rescue. Genabab (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Strongly support "Nuserait rescue and massacre". I share the views expressed by @M.Bitton and others. We have credible sources that refer to this event as a massacre, and the consensus reached during the merger explicitly stated that the characterization of the massacre should not be downplayed. This concern is precisely why I opposed the merger, as I anticipated that efforts would be made to minimize the significance of the massacre. It is particularly worrying that several now banned socks were involved in this attempt. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Nuseirat rescue and massacre. The original proposal of "killings" makes the title weird; but while I was initially hesitant to support massacre, a look at sources discussing the incident proves this should not be controversial, since the term is used by RS in their own voice such as Al Jazeera, Jacobin, The Intercept, and most importantly UN experts, as well as top EU officials. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support "Nuserait rescue and massacre" per Genabab. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:June 2024 events in Israel

Why is this category used in the article? The incident took place in the Gaza Strip, not Israel, but I am asking here first before removing to see if I have missed anything? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into this one

How are we going to merge the two articles? Shall we separate the two events by creating a section for each (this is by far the quickest and easiest way to merge them. We'll adjust the lead accordingly)? For the Infox: do we use just one (which one would that be) or shall we go for the easiest option and use two (one for each section)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We can work together if you'd like. Lets start by first merging the reactions of both articles together, since that's the easiest.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton and Vice regent: still working on this? Klbrain (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I did start on it but stopped when it became apparent that no-one else was going to get involved, maybe should just redirect ftb so we don't have both articles sitting out there? Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I was waiting for more input on how to proceed (see my previous comment). A simple redirect is not really an option. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I have more time now, so I'll work on it over the next 2 weeks.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
New Year and another Bandler missive Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Selfstudier should there be some content in this article about how this article is perceived in the media? Or does that belong at Misplaced Pages and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Here, I don't think so, the press coverage thingy up above is enough. Maybe at Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Israel–Hamas war that already has a mention about this event. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I added something there: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of Bandler, he made a video: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
We waited enough. I think it's time we started moving the content over. What do you think about what I said regarding the infoboxes and sections? M.Bitton (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to ping. @Vice regent and Selfstudier: shall we go for the easier option (create a section for each) and then adjust the lead and infobox accordingly? M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I copied some of the content from the other article (what I missed can be found here). I also removed the infobox from this article (it was about the rescue only, and therefore, misleading). M.Bitton (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if its not 100%, I think its better to not have the two pages extant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course. I also moved the other infobox to this article (better to have two, covering both events, than have a single misleading one). M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
We have infoboxes military operation and civilian attack neither of which cover the events correctly so maybe we should do without an infobox for this particular case? Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh have both? We do have two sections, we can have an infobox in either section.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Abu Obaida's claim of retaliation

In response to a question left on my talk page:

  1. It's always preferable to use a reference that has a specific number over a reference that doesn't
  2. MOS:CLAIM is not a prohibition on the use of the word "claim". In my opinion, since the claim is unsubstantiated, the word "claim" is proper. However, I am open to a discussion on whether a different word would be more appropriate.

--The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

As I've noted in my edit summary, both sides are entitled to their claims, per NPOV. Evidence doesn't really come into it, because both parties in this conflict are guilty of producing grossly unevidenced and spurious statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
How is this addition not a duplication of the paragraph that is already in the article two paragraphs below? It talks about the exact same people doing the exact same thing (Abu Obaida making a claim and Peter Lerner dismissing the claim). --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
My mistake. Got muddled. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: