Jump to content

Talk:Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Waterlover3 (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 10 June 2024 (→Add United States Military to perpetrators: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. “[It was] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Talk 20:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a discussion at the other talk page here: [1]. No need for a parallel discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move comments across - I checked there wasn't already one but was late by a full 2 minutes! NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly objecting to moving this. Rationales discussed on other thread. JDiala (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Like this Washington Post article [2], this CBC article [3], and this France24 article [4]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support merging. Oathed (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support merging. The events are inextricable. It makes no sense to have two articles that each frame the same events in different ways. That's a recipe for two separate POV articles when a single NPOV article is clearly the preferred, encyclopedic approach. Niremetal (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re just a biased zionist trying to censor information. 75.97.167.82 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

this is extremely biased and are just claims by the IDF Waterlover3 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera is recognized as an acceptable source on Wikipedia, so is Times of Israel.Tobyw87 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It isn't just NATO, it is also the the UN Secretary General, the EU, and US. Macron. All have 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 disagree 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)[reply]
The EU, Macron, and Biden are hardly unbiased entities and have provided full throated support for the IDF. The consensus amongst human rights orgs is that while Hamas does not take enough care to distinguish itself from civilians it does not intentionally co-locate in civilian areas for the purpose of shielding. Your arguments are facetious and as other commenters have pointed out, by your own logic the IDF would be responsible for the deaths on october 7th as well. The claim that Hamas uses shields is just that; a claim, and that should be contextualized.
Unless you provide proof that the majority of the deaths were caused by vague allegations of human shielding, it is only logical for the article to reflect the established facts. 206.225.72.14 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for you to adjudicate bias from these sources---that's actually WP:SYNTH, if you have sources that say that bias means that the EU, UN, US, etc. cannot make clear statements regarding the use of human shields, cite it---otherwise that's just your own opinion and should not be reflective in this article. UNWRA has condemned the co-locating of rockets in its schools, only one of many examples such things occurring. There's already claims and evidence that one of the houses used to keep 3 of the 4 hostages was the house of a Palestinian journalist. He is among the dead and apparently so is his family. [1]Tobyw87 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-hamas-terrorist-and-journalist-was-holding-3-hostages-in-home-alongside-family/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

POV fork

This article is exactly and only a Point of view (POV) fork, as described on the relevant Wikipedia policy page. You might not want to put in a lot of effort into editing this article, since its chances of long-term survival as a separate article may be slim... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that describing the mass murder of 210 people as a "rescue operation" is the chief POV thing here. Anyways, my own stance is that if it's to be merged, we need a more neutral title for the other article. Otherwise we can have separate articles discussing the rescue specifically as opposed to the harm to civilians (including levelling of entire neighbourhoods). JDiala (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Framing this event as ('a rescue'+'incidental massacre') vs. ('a massacre'+'during which, one hostage was retrieved') is a huge issue of striking balance. The former risks validating a tone of genocide apologism. I am also shocked, although unsurprised, by the sheer number of rapidfire edits that attempt to minimize or justify the mass killing of Palestinians by the Israeli occupation. I think the issue of how to manage/curate these articles needs to be taken up at a much higher level, hopefully by people who are editing in good faith. Boredintheevening (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article actually gas less focus on the casualties - a single short paragraph- than the original article. It is clear POV fork created to have "massacre: in the title Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is arguable that the rescue operation here is the fork. The only way if this is a fork that has to be merged under a “rescue” is that the lives of 4 Israelis are worth more than 200 lives of Palestinians. It is already a struggle to acknowledge any massacres by Israel as a massacre on Wikipedia and this fits the definition. The best option is to keep them either seperate, or merge under an article that explicitly uses the word “massacre” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rescue operation article came first, so it can't be a fork Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that some blatant POV of the worst kind should remain just because it "came first" has no basis in either policy or commons sense. M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the other article has POV issues, you should fix them there. But creating another article to cover the same event , just from a different POV is not the way to solve it, and in fact runs seems to run opposite to the policy mentioned above about POV forks Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you that the other article is not POV is rather worrying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, go fix it there, then, but don't create a POV fork Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is forcing you to contribute here. But if you comment on my comments, I will probably respond. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in debating the operation's morality or lack of it here, but you guys are reinforcing my point -- having one article describing X as good and another article describing X as evil is the exact precise definition of a POV Fork. If the "people at a much higher level" do take an interest in this article, don't be excessively surprised if they abruptly delete or merge it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's discussion about this here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to move forward, we should discuss what the title that covers both should be. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the discussion I linked to above is all about Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Please refrain from wasting my time. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is, take the time to read it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

separating my comment from the mumbo jumbo In order to move forward, we should first discuss what the title that covers both events both should be. M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, it is discussed at the other article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation#Requested_move_9_June_2024 0
Take the time to read. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

separating my comment from the mumbo jumbo In order to move forward, we should first discuss what the title that covers both events should be. For those who have trouble understanding English, I'm talking about "discussion" (I'm not interested in a proposed move). M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed moves involve discussion and are the way to arrive at an agreed title Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever! If someone other than KR feels like discussing it, then please ping me. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stop adding "Hamas-run" and "Hamas controlled"

There is consensus not to write this. It's unnecessary, not the common name, and an attempt to push a certain POV. Look at any other article in this topic space, it's never used and always reverted when added. Dylanvt (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see quite a few articles using this. Could you link to the discussion where this consensus was reached? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed many times, for example here. And notice that not once at Israel–Hamas war, or Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, or Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), or Bombing of the Gaza Strip, or etc. etc. etc. is it used. It's not called the "Hamas-run Health Ministry". It's called the "Gaza Health Ministry". Dylanvt (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: maybe you can provide even more guidance on this. Dylanvt (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there has only been one formal discussion on this - but that came to a consensus that we should clarify that it is controlled by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally sources have stopped using "Hamas-run" for the Ministry of Health and most often attribute it either to the Gazan Ministry of Health or Palestinian health officials. The Palestinian Media Office still gets occasional "Hamas-run" in some sources. But the MoH rarely does. See for example Washington Post simply saying "health officials", NYTimes saying "local Gaza health officials" and "Palestinian health officials", Reuters saying "Palestinian health ministry officials" and "Hamas-run government media office" referring to the MoH and the PMO respectively. There is no reason to include "Hamas-run" for the MoH, there may be reason to include it when first introducing the PMO though. nableezy - 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC
I'm not sure that's accurate. Just in the past week all of the following have clarified that it controlled by Hamas:
  1. AP
  2. BBC
  3. France24
  4. The Guardian
  5. Reuters
  6. Times of India
  7. Times of Israel
  8. Voice of America
I didn't look beyond the first page. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the 31 sources used here, in the ones that reference the ministry (some only attribute the figures to health officials from nearby hospitals), only one article from ToI uses "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry". None of the other ones use "Hamas-controlled", "Hamas-run" or anything similar.
I would like to understand the editorial decision behind adding that statement. It seems that the only purpose is to cast doubt on information coming from the ministry. Their numbers have consistently been deemed reliable by organizations such as the UN, HRW, and WHO (in fact, they are often lower than other estimates). - Ïvana (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources currently in the article, both the BBC and France24 also use "Hamas-run" or similar. Others provide context by saying that Hamas runs Gaza, and others still simply attribute to Hamas officials and don't mention the health ministry.
It is to align our article with reliable sources; if reliable sources think it is important to make it clear that this isn't an independent source then we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should we always mention what country runs which health ministry? "netanyahu run israeli defence forces"? or does that only apply to hamas? Waterlover3 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToI shouldnt be a reliable source in my opinion its heavily biased towards the IDF and the israeli side Waterlover3 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add United States Military to perpetrators

The United States military took part in the infiltration and massacre of the refugee camp. FlippantBrown (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support but is there any reliable sources that have mentioned it? i have only seen telegram channels and personal interviews mentioning it no news article Waterlover3 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre&oldid=1228328390"