Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

Where they saved

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/758924/

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:EB4:EE00:2578:92ED:47ED:860B (talk) 14:58 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we be using an IDF photo?

Wikipedia is not censored. This photo is. Can we find a better one? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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/w/index.php?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. Jec93 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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? Jec93 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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? Jec93 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay great. Well I like that photo, so let keep it. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Lots of photos on Wikipedia are blurred in places, that’s obviously not a reason for its removal, and lots of conflict pictures come from

the military involved. Jec93 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. They'd just photoshop whatever image they want, then send it in. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was a Reuters freelancer, so my point stands. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/ap-drops-freelance-photographer-who-photoshopped-his-shadow-out-of-image/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Apples to oranges, and please avoid personal attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There probably is not an uncensored one for the soldiers’ safety. 71.183.120.106 (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is the censored photo problematic? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agian, what is the problem with the faced being blurred? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a censored photograph Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Because photos of people wearing masked are not censored Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not waste more energy with you. Good luck. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not really how this all works but ok Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

How do you think it works? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You've also broken 1RR with that edit,I suggest you self-revert. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself should not censor (WP:NOTCENSORED), but it doesn't mean that that it should try hard to avoid using censored content.

Also, Wikipedia's anti-censorship policies are about censorship for sensibilities and norms (offensiveness). Wikipedia 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. --Raijinili (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Jec93 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I support such a change. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. 2A02:14F:1EF:BA13:B8E8:DA7D:57F0:3101 (talk) 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. RM (Be my friend) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a hostage rescue operation. That was the purpose of it. Wikipedia'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. StrodoDoggins (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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" . Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out there is now a separate Wikipedia article called Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. Wafflefrites (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It can't really be separated. It's one operation with extraordinary levels of collateral damage. Iskandar323 (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it’s plainly a WP:POVFORK. Zanahary (talk) 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. Wafflefrites (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 WP:MERGE. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty weird solution. Have you seen it used elsewhere? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Wafflefrites (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the operation is Operation Arnon. Dag21902190 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR 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. JDiala (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 here). JDiala (talk) 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... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

sounds good. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. JDiala (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There's too many people coming into this article with a clear political agenda. KronosAlight (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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? EpistemicKarma (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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. JDiala (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

So in your mind freeing hostages from their captors is the same as stealing 20 dollars. Are you serious? EpistemicKarma (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. KronosAlight (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Nuseirat operation" as a title? That seems relatively neutral? Pmokeefe (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• CNN: Israel rescues four hostages in operation
• AP:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.
• WaPo: Four hostages rescued alive in Israeli operation
• NYT: Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Military Operation;
• WSJ: Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza

Anyone making the POV change you suggest should be blocked immediately. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is being described by ALL reliable as a rescue operation, which it was. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reuters: "Israel rescues four hostages in Gaza;" [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The title of the article uses the word "assault." JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It attributes that word to Hamas Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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. JDiala (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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. 2600:100F:B1B2:B481:0:34:2BD4:C01 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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, 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 "while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area" and not to the subsequent claim "Israeli assault". JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 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.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

BBc: Daylight operation deep into Gaza frees Israeli captives [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The word "raid" is used in the lead sentence. It's also the operative word on the BBC livefeed 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 WP:COMMONNAME argument for the current title has little merit. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Except when it's not. I've already cited several sources using words like "assault", "attack" or "raid." JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And those source also use "rescue operation" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the point. There are a variety of terms used. JDiala (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Rescue operation is by far the most common one, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for this. The naming is contentious. JDiala (talk) 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, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• ABC: Who are the four hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hostages-rescued-israeli-forces-captivity-gaza-110954402]
• CBS: Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-hostages-rescued-gaza-who-are-they/]
• NBC CT:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas' Oct. 7 attack [https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/israel-rescues-4-hostages-kidnapped-in-october-hamas-attack/3308948/]
• Telegraph Alert: Israel says 4 hostages have been rescued in the largest hostage rescue since war began [https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/world/article/alert-israel-says-4-hostages-have-been-rescued-19504525.php]
• Times Israel rescues four hostages from Gazan refugee camp
• TOI IDF rescues 4 hostages from 8 months’ captivity in daytime operation in central Gaza
• 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Mason (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these titles describe it as a "rescue operation." JDiala (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sky News: Two Israeli hostages flown home after rescue operation in Gaza. [https://news.sky.com/video/two-israeli-hostages-flown-home-after-rescue-operation-in-gaza-13149852]

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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines

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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala So you're okay with "Raid" right? Also how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pg_6475 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. JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 ^TM 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it Hamas' policy not to break the death toll of militants vs others? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

it serves their propaganda needs Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. JDiala (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24 If headlines are next to meaningless, great! The bodies are supporting me too. BBC: "raid". Reuters: "assault". Al Jazeera: "attack". JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah and several of your sources also use other terminology. For example AP "amid the military’s heavy air and ground assault" JDiala (talk) 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? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera says they're mostly women and children. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the non-partisan sources? Pg 6475 ^TM 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ALJAZEERA. Anyways, what do other sources have to say? Pg 6475 ^TM 20:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't need other sources. A single reliable source is generally adequate for a claim on casualties. JDiala (talk) 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? Pg 6475 ^TM 06:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not contentious. KronosAlight (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This talk page discussion has received public attention. JDiala (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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.”.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 9 June 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) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

to the people keep deleting my edits

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. --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

The death toll (reported by the Gazan health ministry) is 210, not 55, as was recently changed. See e.g, this and this. JDiala (talk) 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. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. RS consistently say 210. JDiala (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been adjusted. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reactions word salad

@abhammad 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. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I see these "international reactions" sections everywhere, and they are meaningless. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammadsorry, I meant to tag you properly but failed to. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 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. Jec93 (talk) 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"? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Jec93 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that there is "evident value" in this, but whatever. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2024

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. 62.128.56.46 (talk) 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 "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dag21902190 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Borrell

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." Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

I don't think we need two pages on effectively the same event, but I'm open to changing my mind Mason (talk) 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. SuperSardus ^Talk 21:36, 8 June 2024 (CET)

• I agree for reasons I provided on the other talk page here Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre#Delete/merge_with_rescue_article,_resolve_naming_concerns_there. NativeForeigner ^Talk 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? I’ll remind you to ensure that you assume good faith. 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 Nuseirat refugee camp 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. Dylanvt (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Dylanvt (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

who is saying that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Where are the alternative RS claiming women and children, @JDiala, please provide at the other thread. Thanks -- Pg 6475 ^TM 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 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes and Operation Golden Hand, which deal with different aspects of contemporaneous events. Dylanvt (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Disagree in accordance with @Dylanvt. MountainDew20 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• oppose. For the same reason i stated rejection to its deletion here, which also encompasses @JDiala point.

Stephan rostie (talk) 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 #Borrell 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". Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There are unconfirmed reports of US involvement in this affair, more sources needed about that as well. U.S. Provided Intelligence to Israel for Hostage Rescue, but Degree of Involvement Is Unclear Selfstudier (talk) 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/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. [1] and [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 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. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Rescue operation is how reliable sources describe it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that’s a separate article. Personisinsterest (talk) 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. [3]HWR. Tobyw87 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree: As @Dylanvt has pointed out, there is precedent for a separation. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support merging the articles and renaming this simply as a raid or operation or something neutral like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Like this Washington Post article [4], this CBC article [5], and this France24 article [6]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 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. JDiala (talk) 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. - Ïvana (talk) 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 Wikipedia. There were so many terror attacks toward Israelis in the last 50 years - you can't find it in Wikipedia. it's embarrasing Hila Livne (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Completely inappropriate comments, see your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 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. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agree - This article is an embarrassment and a sad reflection of Wikipedia. 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. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Alaexis_¿question? 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 Wikipedia, 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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. Nahal Oz attack, Zikim attack, Nir Yitzhak attack, Holit attack and Nirim attack.

  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. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In this case they were moved because of the significant military casualties. Several other massacres, notably be’eri had both military and civilians casualties (as well as accusations of friendly fire) as well as kissyfim massacre , but that does not change its naming. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:55, 11 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. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not to “notforum”, but how exactly is calling a massacre a massacre a “POV fork?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Look up Begging the Question when you get the chance Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 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 WP:FRINGE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 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 WP:FRINGE given the substantial media coverage.[7][8][9] If anything, a merged article should be titled "2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre". Skitash (talk) 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. Galamore (talk) 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. Galamore (talk) 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”. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You mean the Al Jamal family who was holding the hostages- a war crime? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We write according to what reliable source report - which is that the IDF confirmed this. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

IDF accusations aren't really worth a whole lot, given their well known track record for telling porkies. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

GHM has been shown to fabricate numbers and make false claims - [10] ", 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." Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That issue has already been debated elsewhere and hasn't changed the reliability assessment for GHM. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

An AP report says they fabricate numbers. That some people close their eyes to this is their problem. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You can misrepresent the AP article if you wish, that's your problem. Selfstudier (talk) 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" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. RealKnockout (talk) 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 Wikipedia articles on this event, there appears to be great overlap and possible duplication per WP:MERGE and WP:REDUNDANT. As the Wikipedia articles are currently written, the scope of the two articles appear to be the same. Wafflefrites (talk) 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. M.Bitton (talk) 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  they should come under the same article but with the title stressing more on the massacre 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. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I suggested... see my previous comment (Support merger of two articles under the name "2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre"). Chong Yi Lam (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Did the IDF kill them or did Hamas? KronosAlight (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Niremetal (talk) 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 Owenglyndur (talk) 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact, they were there to rescue Israeli hostages. Owenglyndur (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Included a daytime strike on a market area. FT "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." Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Owenglyndur: "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 hostage rescue without a shot being fired. 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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. Owenglyndur (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:POVFORK. BilledMammal (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Both pages describe the same event. --Shufel (talk) 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)? M.Bitton (talk) 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. TimeEngineer (talk) 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. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I'm interested in the views of those who support the merge. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. KronosAlight (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@KronosAlight: It would be nice if you could explain why and perhaps answer the above question (just below it). M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The statistics and claims about a “massacre” are, at best, dubious, given that they come exclusively from Hamas sources, i.e. a belligerent in the exact conflict discussed.

It’s entirely possible, and I do not by any means dismiss the possibility, that civilians were killed during this operation. It’s obvious to me that this was not intentional, because this was a rescue operation which multiple sources have confirmed were tested, trained and prepared for for many weeks in advance.

That doesn’t mean that many civilians didn’t, for one reason or another, die in the course of it, but to label it with the title “massacre” seems to me to be more politically motivated than anything else. One of the major interlocutors on this Talk page, for example, wrote such a dodgy article about a separate military incident in Gaza that when I took the time to try and balance out the claims of each side, what it’s possible to know for sure etc., very little was left of his initial article.

It is crucially important that Wikipedia does not itself become a biased battleground of one side seeking to assert its moral superiority over the other.

This was clearly a rescue operation in terms of the intention of the IDF. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the possibility that in the course of executing it, there may well have been many civilian casualties. Now, again, we don’t know who might have been responsible for that – everyone assumes IDF, but there’s no evidence for this that can be cited in support on this article. Given that Hamas have adopted the strategy of maximising the number of Palestinian civilian deaths in this war, it’s not obvious to me that we should assume it was the Israeli armed forces simply “massacring” civilians.

Therefore I think we should maintain this article as it is under this title, gradually merge in some of the unique citations, claims and perspective made in what is, in my view, the less neutral article, and have it all out here. There’s a number of anomalies which to my mind strongly suggest that the attempt to label this article with the word ‘massacre’ has more to do with the subjective political sympathies and inclinations of certain contributors than anything else.

For example, it took Israel about 3-4 months to finalise the total dead from the October 7th massacre. But apparently within about an hour of this attempt to extract Israeli hostages, the Hamas-run health authority in Gaza knew to within really quite specific numbers how many people had been killed. They couldn’t possible know the death toll in that time-frame, no state-power anywhere in the world could have. The US would have needed another 12 hours to finalise and identify the dead. And on top of that, methodologically the Hamas health authorities in Gaza don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants, which is why every public news report only says ‘x Palestinians dead’, even when we don’t know how many died, how they died, who might have killed them, etc.

For me, all of this strongly suggests we stick with the current article and its title, merge over and relevant information and citation etc. from the “massacre” and keep it neutral. Look, it’s clear from all reliable sources that this was an operation designed to rescue these Israeli hostages. It might also be the case that a morally unacceptable number of civilians were killed in the carrying out of that rescue mission. Both can be true at the same time. But when you refer to the entire event as a “massacre”, it avoids the central point: that this was a sophisticated military operation to retrieve hostages from semi-and-frankly-not-really civilian Palestinian residences in Gaza, that complications emerged, and we’re going to have to wait to know how many civilians were killed in the crossfire, how many the Israeli forces considered acceptable, what role armed Hamas combatants played, etc. KronosAlight (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

this was not intentional even if true (given the IDF's record, it's not something that I would assume), it still wouldn't make it any less of a massacre.

trained and prepared trained and prepared for killing.

“massacre” seems to me to be more politically motivated the same could be said about whitewashing the massacre of Palestinians.

This was clearly a rescue operation which resulted in a massacre of 274 Palestinians.

it took Israel about 3-4 months to finalise the total dead from the October 7th massacre did it take that long to call it a massacre? No.

when you refer to the entire event as a “massacre” did you read the question that I asked just above your !vote? M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in engaging with you any further. Wikipedia must be a neutral and impartial source of information. If you want to argue the ethical questions involved in the operation take it to another website. Wikipedia is not the place for it. My vote remains the same. KronosAlight (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dylanvt. See "Definition of a Massacre". Cambridge Dictionary. — "to kill many people in a short period of time", "the killing of a large number of people, esp. people who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves" -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Dictionary definitions like this are not very helpful. The first one, for example, ( "to kill many people in a short period of time") would apply to virtually any battle. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wait until more information is revealed. This event took place less than a week ago in an extremely contentious conflict, so it can reasonably be expected that large amounts of information have yet to be reported on, clarified, or revealed. Whether or not a merge is warranted cannot reasonably be decided at this time. The extensive, heated disputing of even basic facts/claims in the discussion(s) above only highlight my point.

ArkHyena (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose/wait: The information is still coming out + adequate sourcing may yet support this separate focus on the massacre. See, for example, this piece from the Intercept. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agree per WP:POVFORK. As of now, the alleged massacre does not satisfy WP:SPINOFF. The argument that the rescue should be classified as "massacre" because X numbers of people are killed didn't hold any water. We must base it on existing WP:RS. Based on some Google search, most reliable sources are not using the word massacre. The Guardian put it on the title but it is classified as "strikes" in the article as the "massacre" is referring to a statement by an EU diplomat. Other sources include thesun.my, Middle East Monitor, and The Cradle. In comparison, the word "operation", "raid, "rescue" or "strike" is used by Washington Post, AP News, CNN, BBC, NBC News, France24, DW, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Reuters, Fox News, and CBS. Based on the weighing of the sources, it is clear that the term "massacre" does not apply as nearly all WP:RS showed that it is a rescue operation. If "massacre" wanted to be a separate article, it has to show a clear distinction between the "massacre" and the "rescue" which seems to be not the case on this one. All sources that specify "massacre" correlate it to the "rescue" which made the two articles inextricable - thus disallowing the "massacre" standalone article per WP:POVFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  All sources that specify "massacre" correlate it to the "rescue" all the more reason not to favour one over the other while proposing a merge. Either we have a suitable title for an article that covers both events, such as Nuseirat rescue and massacre, or we leave them as they are. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Glad if you could provide a reason for that, thanks. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Per SunDawn, Alaexis, etc. etc. Any civilian casualties incurred during this operation were incidental to it, not the aim of those who put it together (and I doubt any proof will emerge to suggest otherwise). Words have meanings, and using massacre here is a gross distortion of what the word actually (and not rhetorically) denotes. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    I think the "We kill a lot of civilians but we don't mean to do it" line is wearing a bit thin by now. See (TNA) 'Like Judgment Day': Palestinians recall horrors of massacre at Nuseirat by Israel The attack has also been classed as a potential war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    Words have meaning as you said: describing the bombardment of civilians as a rescue operation is frankly an insult to people's intelligence. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support We're talking events that took place at the same time in the same place involving the same people.©Geni (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting the number of editors that want to merge but seem to have no view on changing the title or perhaps they just haven't noticed the RM. Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would support merging and renaming but don’t want to comment on the rename before the merge is finalized. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's another idea except that typically RMs only last for a week (this one might run for a bit, tho). Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: the massacre that happened deserves its own page. I would argue the reverse, this page should be merged into the other. Aua (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your second sentence just supported a merge. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. We have an article for the Kissufim massacre, which killed 22 people and was part of the broader October 7th attack. The October 7th attack was a much bigger, more consequential event by comparison to the Kissufim massacre. If that massacre isn't redundant, then the Nuseirat massacre, which killed over 200 people, cannot reasonably called redundant. If anything, the Nuseirat massacre dwarfs the rescue operation in scope and significance, but I oppose the suggestion that either article should be merged. Albert Mond (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The massacre was an aspect of the rescue, just as the rescue was part of the massacre. The rescue operation page and the massacre page should be merged into a page named either "Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre" or simply the massacre. Jebiguess (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: They both cover the same event but with different perspectives. It would be much better to merge them both into the same article, and then rename that article to make it more neutral. Both articles are also relatively short, so merger will also improve the length of the article as well. Instead of having two shorter articles that have opposing viewpoints, it would be better to have one more detailed and neutral article that talks about both the massacre and the rescue operation. After all, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people and provide people with all of the facts. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support of a merger under a new title of 2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre or something very similar otherwise Oppose. The deliberate killings of 200 people, while many more injured in a highly civilian area, is nothing but a bloody massacre. Disregarding this for 4 freed hostages is clear WP:POV. نعم البدل (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Why was this renamed?

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

In accordance with Operation Golden Hand. MountainDew20 (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 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 181.197.54.169 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained edit that reverted large chunk of info

Owenglyndur, can you explain the rationale for your edit here: [11]? 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, David O. Johnson (talk) 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 [12], 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 writes 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. Alaexis_¿question? 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

He recently stated that:

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. Stephan rostie (talk) 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. Alaexis_¿question? 15:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If it’s only coming from EuroMed (with extra coverage from Quds), 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):

[1],[2],[3], FortunateSons (talk) 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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."' 2.55.167.89 (talk) 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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

References

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

This claim in the lead is attested by Times of Israel: "Hamas chief Haniyeh warns 'resistance will continue' after four hostages rescued". The Times of Israel. 8 June 2024.

The cited article states the following: 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: “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. Dylanvt (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Then it might just be best to report the exact quote and let the reader decide.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think best practice on Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2024

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "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." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "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." Selfstudier (talk) 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 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre? Or do you propose to merge them under this name? Alaexis_¿question? 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an RM for this article. The merge request is a separate discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If this RM succeeds, would you support the merger of the two articles? PrimaPrime (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Haven't decided yet. Doesn't depend on the outcome of this discussion anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 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.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 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. Galamore (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see them, I have shown 3 to the contrary and can show 4 more. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

CBS "The complex raid deep into a built-up refugee camp in central Gaza to rescue four held hostage by Hamas on Saturday" Selfstudier (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, "the complex raid". Duh. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The "complex raid " was a "rescue operation" - as the current title says. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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" --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I don't oppose renaming it "Rescue raid" vs. the current "Rescue operation" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 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. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

[T]hat would impl[y] 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1,000-ish casualties is not "crossfire" - that would be a descriptive disservice to the point of euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 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 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we're now at massive firefight, not "crossfire". Iskandar323 (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The new Arab "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." Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

AJ "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." Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WAPO "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." Selfstudier (talk) 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" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picked short quote. Selfstudier (talk) 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." Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

My quote still says "raid", sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Slight problem is that it is not actually in the link you provided. At least not now. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WAPO again "An Israeli raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp that freed four hostages killed at least 274 Palestinians on June 8, Gazan health officials said." Selfstudier (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It does if you scroll down far enough, its a live blog. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Or An updated WAPO permalink "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." Selfstudier (talk) 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. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, I see some stronger options emerging below. I'm increasingly in favour of having something more directly fingering the killing in the title. "Raid" has been noted to be mildly euphemistic in other discussions, and indeed "raid and rescue" is arguably still only reflecting one side, i.e. the Israeli action side of events, and not the perspective of the massacre victims. Coverage such as that from the Intercept strongly supports asserting yet further balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:41, 11 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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 Wikipedia. KronosAlight (talk) 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The "occupants" shot in their home were war criminals holding hostages in their homes Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Le Monde) "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. Selfstudier (talk) 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? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WP classes AJ as GREL and has deprecated RT. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How would they know whether or not the journalist was holding the hostages? Whereas they obviously would know whether or not he worked for them, which they deny --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a page Nuseirat refugee camp massacre and that argument should be made there or else an argument made here for the merge of this article into that one. Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Has the discussion not moved here? Or am I mistaken The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Owenglyndur (talk) 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

Stephan rostie (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Half-support: The event has been labeled as a massacre by outlets such as Al Jazeera and while people were rescued, I think the massacre should be prominently mentioned as well; with the title being shorted to raid, because including raid and rescue is not only long but attempts to portray the event as something extremely heroic eve though about 200 people were killed. That would mean a merging of the separate massacre article onto this one. Clammodest (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - As many have mentioned, this event has been described by many outlets rightly as a massacre, yet another by the IDF who can't help but commit war crimes. It should be merged into the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, not have its name changed. The current article is just an expression of narcissism and POV bias. EmilePersaud (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Partial support. RS are reporting two events which are both notable in their own right and not mutually exclusive: there was an Israeli raid that rescued four hostages and in the process, 270+ people were killed. Individually, both massacre and rescue are POV as they're both reported widely in RS, and rescue operation is arguably more POV than massacre as it is a euphemism. I support a merge to Nuseirat rescue and massacre. Jebiguess (talk) 03:15, 12 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" [13]
• Ynet "World media focuses on heroic hostage rescue operation" [14]
• WSJ: "Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza" [15]
• CBS: "Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza?" [16]
• NYT "Here’s How Israel’s Mission to Rescue Four Hostages Unfolded" [17]
• NYT "U.S. Intelligence Helped Israel Rescue Four Hostages in Gaza" [18]
• 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") Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Still says "raid" ,either way. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

what's the reason you left out the next 5 words? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I said, either way, with or without, still says "raid". Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

would you mind answering the question? what's the reason you left out the next 5 words? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault" Contradicts all 3 NYTs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

USA Today "Militant-held Israeli hostages were among the more than 200 people killed in the raid that freed four captives" Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This link says "Hamas says 3 hostages, including an American, were killed in Israeli rescue raid" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahram online "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" Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

BBC "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? Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to renaming it '2024 Nuseirat rescue raid " Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Merge this article and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into one article titled Nuseirat refugee camp raid. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 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 [operation]'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution here. Clammodest (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 also support this as preferential to the proposed title. Having killings in the title is more reflective of the nature of the coverage than just "raid", which, ironically has been labelled as mildly euphemistic in other contexts. This is supported by fresh RS sourcing such as this piece from the Intercept. It takes a pretty spectacularly violent event to stick up from the general landscape of carnage sufficiently for even the EU foreign minister to label it a 'bloodbath' – a strongly indicative voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

+1.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I can go along with this (or something similar) as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: But only if it means we merge this article with Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. 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 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 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 WP: Deletion Policy criteria.Tobyw87 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

support: It is both a "raid" but also an "rescue operation" afterall, maybe Nuseirat raid and rescue operation or Nuseirat raid and rescuing operation 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. Josethewikier (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Nuseirat raid and rescue operation or Nuseirat raid. 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 must be descriptive; 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. Dylanvt (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I continue to support a move, but it's become clear that "raid" is still too euphemistic for an event that killed nearly 300 and injured nearly 700, including many children, many by airstrikes in crowded streets. Nuseirat refugee camp attack seems like a better solution, but certainly not the only solution. Dylanvt (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Per Dylanvt. JDiala (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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." Niremetal (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now because a merge discussion is in progress. Once the scope of the article is clarified, we can discuss the name. By itself, the proposed name seems alright. Alaexis_¿question? 07:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Nuseirat raid", or the proposed title although it is less WP:CONCISE, if there is a consensus to merge. BilledMammal (talk) 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 Gaza Famine. It's the same disgusting narrative they continue pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly31121993(2) (talk • contribs)

Anti-Israel editors what does that make you? M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not the exact opposite as you so patronizingly insinuate. Drop the hate. Get back to what Wikipedia is actually about, an encyclopedia of facts not activist framing of ongoing events. This war has been a disaster for the Wikipedia community. Russia, Turkey, Iran, China and ever other dictatorship that has banned Wikipedia is laughing themselves silly at how easy it has been to destroy the objectivity of Wikipedia. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Cut the polemics, do everyone a favor. Selfstudier (talk) 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. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It was clearly a rescue operation, and removing this fact from the title is actually inserting a POV. The fact there were casualties is incidental; the operation was mounted to rescue hostages, and I don't think anyone is seriously denying that. -Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  What the operation's goals were doesn't matter as much as how it happened. Israeli airstrikes killed over 270 people, most of whom were civilians, during the rescue operation for four people. Targeted attacks like these are by definition a massacre, and is arguably as notable as the rescue if not more so due to the high death toll on par with the Re'im and Be'eri massacres on 10/7. Obscuring the massacre or describing it as "incidental" is POV-pushing. Jebiguess (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  But the proposal specifically includes "rescue" in the title.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The operation was not planned as a raid. The mission was not to tactically attack Hamas assets in Nuseirat, but to free the hostages. Many reliable journals clearly reflect this in their titles and text. (NYT, CNN, NBC, BBC, WSJ and many more). Here is just one: "How Israel's Mission to Rescue Four Hostages Unfolded". GidiD (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The operation was not planned as a raid. Yes it was, see (CNN) An Israeli operation rescues four hostages and kills scores of Palestinians. Here’s what we know

"The first phase of Saturday’s operation saw the IDF target militant infrastructure with pre-planned strikes, Hagari said." Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@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? Alaexis_¿question? 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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. Selfstudier (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Mainly because there is already a merge discussion; it could be seen as forum shopping. BilledMammal (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Background

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. 2.55.177.251 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Other example: https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-0c2d7fef56f2c81027.htm 2.55.177.251 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is mentioned later, then it is mentioned? Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"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. Dylanvt (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (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. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

IDF is claiming 100-ish casualties per sources. Is that not enough to be "massive"? Is that the argument they're making? Dylanvt (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2024 (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. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with you. I'll get some sources, too. Dylanvt (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's one https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/ Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the word "massive" isn't necessary. It could be any descriptive word based in sources. Sources have used horrific, seismic trauma, bloodbath, 'brutally' & 'annihilated', carnage, a day of horror that sent hundreds of dead and wounded flooding into already beleaguered hospitals, trail of death and destruction, one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults of the war, etc.

It's not WP:SYNTH to use a descriptive word like 'massive' (but not necessarily specifically 'massive') to describe this. At the very least, there's absolutely no justification to eliminate the sentence wholesale. If people are scared of adjectives, it could even just say "The operation resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties within the camp.", as is being reported by literally every source. Dylanvt (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the IDF were responsible for civilian casualties? This was in Hamas-controlled territory, so obviously you’d want to be able to provide a source which doesn’t rely on Hamas which verifies the POV point you’re hoping to make in this article. KronosAlight (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

First, invoking WP:AGF. Please don't accuse editors of trying to POV-push when, from what I see, they are simply attempting to find better sourcing to justify the wording of a claim.

Second, I'm unsure what your issue is with the provided sources; multiple of the provided sources above are considered reliable sources including Reuters and the UN, who seem to take their numbers from the GHM. Using casualty numbers provided by a governmental organization of a belligerent party, in the case of said organization being deemed reliable, seems to be common practice in Wikipedia. For example, the Battle of Kyiv article derives its civilian casualty figures from the Kyiv City Admin. In this case, the GHM has been historically deemed reliable by the UN.[19] The WSJ and Mekomit reported that US and Israeli intelligence both viewed figures provided by the GHM as generally reliable as well.[20][21] At least one study from last year also did not indicate that the GHM inflates figures.[22] Cumulatively, this is more than enough to deem the GHM itself as an RS. ArkHyena (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest not reacting to commentary from BM while the current proceedings are ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o as well. Selfstudier (talk) 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. BilledMammal (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the same thing routinely found in all article on Wikipedia about battle sites in Gaza.

The numbers come from Hamas, they’re repeated uncritically, someone tries to fix that and then the anonymous IP ‘editors’ storm in.

It’s not how Wikipedia should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory. KronosAlight (talk) 21:26, 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? Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And this one https://www.ft.com/content/95ecf8ea-1d56-4125-be9e-2f51f98216bc Selfstudier (talk) 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 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, Al Jazeera, 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, CNN, Axios, New Arab, and Reuters) it's not sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 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. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, first up, the strikes. According to AP After a rescue vehicle got into difficulties "Israel called in heavy strikes from land and air to cover their evacuation to the coast. It was this bombardment that appears to have killed and wounded so many Palestinians." Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The AP account is confirmed by the BBC "It’s reported that at least one of the vehicles that they were leaving in broke down. The Israeli military decided to send in more support, attacking from the air, from the sea and on the ground with massive force. Mobile phone video from the scene shows people diving for cover as missiles whistled in and gunfire rang out. Later footage showed bodies strewn in the street. It was in these moments that so many Palestinians are likely to have died." Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

CNN seems the most uptodate on some of the details "The intense aerial bombardment destroyed apartment buildings and vehicles throughout Nuseirat camp, according to witnesses and video footage."

NYT says in its own voice "Scores of local people, including children, were killed during the rescue operation." (there are multiple reports and video from hospitals evidencing this).

Taken together, these and other reports allow for a statement along the lines that intensive strikes were called in to support the evacuation of one of the rescue vehicles and that these were responsible for the death and destruction caused in the camp. Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No KronosAlight (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Massive is a WP:WEASEL, 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. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Because there’s no reliable evidence of it. The only source for any of these fictional numbers is Hamas, who are the belligerent party. Tomorrow they’ll fabricate new numbers doubling the death toll and the role of Wikipedia is to fully filter out such claims. KronosAlight (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is to go by what the reliable sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamas are not a reliable source. KronosAlight (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are not reliable because the actual death toll is much higher than what is being reported by the “khamas health ministry”

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-05-28/ty-article/.premium/rising-fatality-numbers-in-gaza-are-in-all-probability-higher-than-reported/0000018f-bab5-de04-a58f-bab5ea1d0000 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)