Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 9 June 2024

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

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.

Contested deletion

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

Those details about the killing of civilians in the refugee camp during this operation belong in the article about the operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the article shouldn’t be speedy deleted because there is a lot of details specific to the massacre that is already being published, for example, euromed human rights monitor reported that “the Israeli army used a ladder to enter the home of Dr. Ahmed Al-Jamal. The army immediately executed 36-year-old Fatima Al-Jamal upon encountering her on the staircase. The forces then stormed the house and executed her husband, journalist Abdullah Al-Jamal, 36, and his father, Dr. Ahmed, 74, in front of his grandchildren. The army also shot their daughter, Zainab, 27, who sustained serious injuries.”

Eyewitnesses stories like nidal abdu witness: “crazy bombardment” hitting. “ something we never witnessed before, maybe 150 rockets fell in less than 10 minutes, while we were running away more fell on the market,” he said. “There are children torn apart and scattered in the streets, they wiped out Nuseirat, it is hell on earth,” he said.

A lot of testimonies existing and details are still coming up need to be written about the massacre itself that would be a lot to fit in a small section in the IDF operation article.

Not to mention that massacres usually have independent articles alone, similar to other massacres in this conflict such as Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, Holit attack, etc whose casualties are less than 20 yet have entire independent articles. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that eye witness reports are the point of wikipedia? As mentioned above, the other article accounts for the high number of casualties including explaining possible backgrounds. 2A02:2455:1865:E700:D515:2D6C:2F4:E385 (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if a massacre which killed 22 people and was part of the broader October 7th attack isn't redundant, then it makes zero sense that a massacre which killed 200 people wouldn't be notable enough to warrant its own article. Albert Mond (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete/merge with rescue article, resolve naming concerns there

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

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

I second the above Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's already a discussion at the other talk page here: . No need for a parallel discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll move comments across - I checked there wasn't already one but was late by a full 2 minutes! NativeForeigner 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly objecting to moving this. Rationales discussed on other thread. JDiala (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Support merging the articles and renaming this simply as a raid or operation or something neutral like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Like this Washington Post article , this CBC article , and this France24 article . IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'd be in favour of the above proposal as an alternative. I believe that we ought to have either a single article dealing with the event in its totality and having an NPOV name (like "raid", "attack") which makes clear the violence, or just have two separate articles. JDiala (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Both articles refer to the same event, so there should be one article that accurately reflects both the intent of the operation (rescue) and the resulting death toll, which some have labeled a massacre. Having two separate articles fails the NPOV test. Digitalcre8 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Support merging. Oathed (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree to merge. Both articles refer to the same event, so there should be one article that accurately reflects both the intent of the operation (rescue) and the resulting death toll, which some have labeled a massacre. Having two separate articles fails the NPOV test. Digitalcre8 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Protection requested

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

Hamas involvement

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

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

Add Hamas as a listed perpetrator

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

this is extremely biased and are just claims by the IDF Waterlover3 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is recognized as an acceptable source on Misplaced Pages, so is Times of Israel.Tobyw87 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

if al jazeera posts a claim from the IDF does that make the IDF claim correct?

al jazeera also reported that the 3 israeli hostages died in the attack does that make it a hardend fact? Waterlover3 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we apply the same logic to October 7 and list the IDF as a perpetrator since they also contributed to the casualties by indiscriminately firing at civilian areas?1234 Also, you shouldn't treat IDF allegations as facts until a proper independent investigation takes place, just as you do with those from Hamas. - Ïvana (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I agree---which is why it is entirely inappropriate to call this a "Massacre", since there has been no independent investigation. What we know is hostages were rescued and civilians died in the process. The moral question of who is responsible is very much contentious, right now it looks like the IDF and Hamas are both responsible. As for October 7th, it isn't the same since Israel did not put its own civilians at risk through the use of human shields, which is internationally recognized as a war crime.Tobyw87 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep linking that NATO report like it's supposed to change anything ignoring the massive conflict of interest as with anything coming from Israel allies. A lot of the NATO members are currently funding/selling weapons to Israel. Both Amnesty international and HRW had proper investigations and found no evidence of Hamas using human shields. Israel has multiple military facilities near or even within civilian areas (like Tel Aviv) but of course that it's not interpreted as using human shields. But that discussion is irrelevant to this one. Right now it definitely doesn't look like both parties are responsible, your claim is not supported by any of the sources used here unless you ignore WP:SYNTH and try to jump through loops by arguing that anyone contributing to casualties should also be considered a perpetrator. Both the IDF and Hamas (plus people on the ground like hospital officials) have confirmed that at least dozens of civilians were killed as a result of this operation. That fits the definition of massacre. If you believe that we cannot name it as such until a proper independent investigation takes place then we should apply the same logic to hundreds of other articles, starting with this list. Massacre is not a legal term and it has been used by multiple RS to describe this event. - Ïvana (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just NATO, it is also the the UN Secretary General, the EU, and US. Macron has made several statements accusing Hamas of using human shielding. You can hide behind Amnesty and HWR all you want, but major international bodies all seem to be saying the same thing. I reject this is WP:SYNTH, since all of these articles agree with the statement I am saying---you just reject the claim that Hamas uses humans shields, which is belied by many articles suggesting they co-locate their own operations in schools, mosques, and hospitals and pay civilians to keep hostages, which puts them at risk.

As for the definition of "Massacre". Yes, I can agree with the use of that term on any article without an independent investigation that attempts to adjudicate blame. It is obviously not morally neutral as you seem to be implying here, especially when the IDF is listed as the primary perpetrator (But many articles cited here contest this entirely). You just want to push a narrative instead of saying the obvious, which is Hamas and the IDF share blame here. Tobyw87 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

added 3 israeli hostages to the death count

as hamas stated that 3 israeli hostages were killed in the massacre and they died by IDF fire it logical we add them Waterlover3 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is the IDF "Extremely biased", but Hamas is not? None of these claims have been verified by 3rd parties yet and you want to accept them whole cloth. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No conflict party is more reliable that the other, thats why we say “per <party>”. We can’t omit one in favor of the other, that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV Stephan rostie (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I believe Hamas should be put as a listed perpetrator, since through their direct actions and human shielding they led to the deaths of many civilians as per many sources cited here.Tobyw87 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles