Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

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)

Borrell said the deaths were "appalling" and, in the same tweet or immediately afterward, told the hostages they "are free and safe today". He also said, "We share the relief of their families and call for the release of all the remaining hostages." I don't know how to incorporate this without including both parts, what you quoted and what I found. I'm sort of a Russia supporter, so I'm biased against EU Borrell, so I'll let other editors decide if and how to incorporate in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 09:58, 23 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)

• Agree The articles should be merged. All of these word salad and preponderance of RS word usage arguments about whether or not to call it a massacre are irrelevant. Large numbers of people died in the rescue operation disproportionate to the number of people rescued, and information about that should be included in this article beyond just simply mentioning that a lot of Palestinians died (distinguishing between civilian, enemy combatant, or human shield is irrelevant when determining grounds for inclusion). A separate article is really only warranted if there is a lot to say about it beyond the context of the rescue operation or this article is running too long to meaningfully include the information here. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nuseirat Refugee Camp Tragedy is a good choice for the combined article title. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is widespread reference to the mass killings in the media and now we have this today from UN experts UN experts condemn outrageous disregard for Palestinian civilians during Israel’s military operation in Nuseirat (UN experts, 14 June)

"UN human rights experts today strongly condemned the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces in Gaza during a hostage rescue operation in Nuseirat Refugee Camp, which killed at least 274 Palestinians, including 64 children and 57 women, and injured nearly 700." With this and the business with the pier, I now think a separate artiocle is warranted in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 14 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)

• Not according to reliable sources. They tend to believe the GHM death toll. Also, you can easily find terrorist attacks against Israelis on Wikipedia. Inappropriate Personisinsterest (talk) 01:31, 16 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 inflicted 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)

This conflict has seen the complete upending of words that have specific legal meanings and definitions. We need not follow the lead of the extremists. The word "massacre" was bandied hours after the operation was launched. Where's the investigation and facts to back-up those up? How many Hamas fighters were killed? How many civilians? The official numbers coming out of Gaza from the Palestinian side don't differentiate between the two, and that is reason enough why the use of the word massacre is purely used for emotive reasons, not an actual reflection of what transpired that day. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

And the IDF "it was less than a 100" is of course, the unvarnished truth. Bad enough even at a 100 but it is perfectly clear that it was much higher. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The kind of reasoning that only seems to apply to those whose humanity is questioned by some media outlets (for reasons that reason cannot explain). The meaning of Kissufim massacre is obviously unquestionable. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a forum. Galamore and KronosAlight have done much better than me in voicing their concerns about why we should be careful with our wording. You may have an ideological score to settle with Israel, or the IDF, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Best regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just calling it as I see it. so am I, but unlike you, I'm not casting aspersions on another editor. As far as I'm concerned, you just made yourself irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, "gross distortion" of the "used in many RS" variety: how policy compliant. Because you can't have too much OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 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)

• Strongly oppose: The sheer number of victims that were killed during the operation definitely deserves its own article, not to mention that a lot of the international organizations and even sources described the killings as a massacre, so the merge wouldn't work if the title of the current article remains as it is, since it doesn't mention the massacre. However, I would support the merge only if the title of this article is changed to better reflect both the hostage rescue and the killings of innocents, some suggestions are: Nuseirat refugee camp killings and hostage rescue; Nuseirat refugee camp massacre and hostage rescue; Nuseirat refugee camp hostage rescue and mass killing, or some other variations which describe both, since the current title obviously violates NPOV. Nori2001 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This appears to be an argument in favor of a merge making a separate related argument about a potential name change. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

    It's not: they are clearly opposing the merge and they explained why, unlike those who support it while evading the crucial question of what the title of an article that covers both "the rescue and the massacre" should be. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge into this article: Rescue is the primary topic and the collateral casualties should be covered within that article. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just like Beslan, rescue operations where the excessive number of civilian casualties give it notoriety have been aptly named in favor of the massacre that occurred as a result of the rescue operation. There is little reason not to do the same here, especially when numerous media reports have dubbed it a massacre. Jebiguess (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The hostage rescue has gotten its own articles about how it went down and Israel's tactics. The civilian deaths are different, and are notable enough given the sheer amount and Israels tactics. World leaders are also reacting differently to the two events, with the UN supporting the hostage rescue in one statement and condemning the massacre in another. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:POVFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. I’d note that a merged article will probably need a new name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: one event happened because of the other. The rescue of the hostages is the main event. If the hostages weren’t located in the vicinity, none of the civilians would have been caught in the crossfire. Vincenty846 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Main event is subjective. There are many sources that dub the event as a massacre due to Israel's wanton bombardment of the area, killing so many people for just four hostages. Jebiguess (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Didn't they (the IDF) also kill 3 civilians including an American? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: seems like a sort of accidental WP:POVFORK. Keeping both doesn't seem useful - it's all part of the same operation, and it's not a large topic. Keeping this older page's title is the right move procedurally, as well as based on WP:NPOVTITLE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  it's all part of the same operation All massacres are part of something else. That has never stopped us from dedicating articles to them. Besides, in this instance, the main event is the killing and maiming of hundreds of Palestinians. M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  We normally have one or the other - either an article about a massacre, or about the surrounding operation/event. We generally don't have both, except in uncommon cases where a WP:SPINOFF is necessary, because there are many important details about a massacre that can't fit in the parent article.

  Clearly that's not the case here - Nuseirat refugee camp massacre isn't giving a lot of important details about deaths, it's just rehashing the same broader event under a different title. Thus it seems very much like a WP:POVFORK, albeit an accidental one. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be careful before asserting that a massacre was all part of the same operation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  We certainly don't and the Kissufim massacre is testimony to that. M.Bitton (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  That seems like a classic WP:SPINOFF, no? I.e. there's no room to get into details about Kissufim, Nirim, etc. in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, so spinoffs like Kissufim massacre, Nirim attack, etc. are used to provide details without the main article getting WP:TOOBIG.

  In contrast with this article, even if we included verifiable information very liberally with minimal curation (like the current long list of reactions), there's just not that much relevant and verifiable information (at this time at least), and no real WP:LENGTH concern to support a spinoff. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very poor excuse that I most certainly won't buy. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support merging under a neutral title, but oppose merging under the current title. Calling it exclusively a rescue operation and acting like the massacre of hundreds of people is a "spinoff" is just as POV, and a neutral title like 2024 Nuseirat attack (covering both the rescue operation and the massacre) would be reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think both articles pass WP:GNG. I'd be more open to something along the lines of M.Bitton's suggested Nuseirat rescue and massacre, but I'm opposed to merging under the current title.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support to a neutral title, such as a 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre as these articles are clearly WP:POVFORKS of each other, as the issue templates on this article confirms. These events are not separate, but interlinked, ie it's the same event, so I see no justification for two separate articles. Unconvinced by the argument that the massacre undermines the rescue operation; history is littered with numerous examples of massacres during rescue operations, so this is nothing new, and RS supports the claim that this rescue operation was a massacre. At present this article is 2,500 words and the other is 1,200, so at 3,600, based on WP:SIZERULE: "Length alone does not justify division". If a merged version of this article grows beyond 8,000 to 9,000 words, then it can be split in the future, but at present arguments to wait/keep appear based in WP:CRYSTALBALL theories specifically about "expected future events", ie article growth. Failed to see other valid arguments for opposition to merging content, other than opposition to merging based on current title, which I also agree with. CNC (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support since this is a clear case of WP:POVFORK as has been mentioned above, and a lot of content is already overlapping, but it needs to be under a new title to resolve the POV issue. The proposed title 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre looks good to me. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The trouble with that title is it fails WP:CONCISE and WP:NCENPOV. Perhaps 2024 Nuseirat raid? BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE merge - keeping it as two separate pages is a good way to make sure both stories get told. Otherwise one of them is likely to get obliterated in a long edit war. We just need to make sure the pages are clearly linked, so readers can find both sides of the story. MWQs (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support since this is a clear case of WP:POVFORK These are relating two versions of the same events, the only major difference is the perspective and sympathies of the tellers. Whatever flaws or difficulties there might be in compiling a reasonably NPOV account of the event, they aren't resolved by presenting two distinct and separate accounts. Perhaps more information might arise in the future (if there are investigative commissions for example), that could change, but not yet.Pincrete (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose/ disagree I concur with most of the statements from those opposing or disagreeing with the proposed merge. This was a massacre of intense proportions no matter the nature of the rescue operation. This was of a scale greater than any other historical mass killings in the Palestinian territories.

A case in point would be the Munich massacre, why not merge this with the Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre? You could argue that Nuseirat events occured at the same time but that is about it.

In supporting this move it would be akin to making the My Lai massacre all about the search (in this case the rescue) for a few Viet Cong operatives apparently hiding in the village and not giving the massacre itself any significance. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre is its own article partly because it covers distinct events, some years after the massacre, and partly since there's lots of content. By contrast here both articles are essentially about the same event, just framed differently, and the combined content (which mostly overlaps) could comfortably fit in one article without a WP:LENGTH concern. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the so-called Kissufim massacre even deserve a dedicated article? M.Bitton (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kissufim massacre, Nirim attack, etc. seem like classic WP:SPINOFFs, with too much combined info to fit in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel without it being WP:TOOBIG. That said there could be other options like merging Kibbutz attacks together or what not; feel free to suggest something there. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The so-called Kissufim massacre deserves at most a passing mention in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, yet it has it and other BS articles (all with the word massacre in them) have been created without anyone making a fuss about them. For the rest, I don't need to suggest anything more than what I already stated: a massacre on a grand scale such as the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre cannot be whitewashed.

This self-reverted comment explains perfectly what you're after (something I will never agree to). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think Kissufim massacre isn't notable, AfD is the place to discuss that, we don't need to get into it here. Accusations of whitewashing don't seem like policy based arguments. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing anybody. I said what I think, so you can keep your so-called advice to yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support – The idea that it might be possible to cover one subject without equally covering the other is disproven by the fact that after two weeks of constant activity, the "massacre" article still has almost no content that isn't already in the "rescue" article.

Many of the "oppose" comments are not really making any argument for there to be two articles, they only want there to be an article with the word "massacre" in the title. But what the title of the merged article should be is a separate question, which can be discussed immediately after the merge. Smyth (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Or we could keep discussing it while waiting for the merge, here and at the "massacre" article, still waitin on an AfD for that one, y'know from any of those that are callin it a fork and all that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

the title of the merged article should be is a separate question I disagree and I expect those who support the merge to come up with a article title that covers both events (so that the merge and the renaming are done at the same time), instead of just wanting a merge under this POV title so that they can sit on it for months on end.

they only want there to be an article with the word "massacre" in the title they can also say that you just don't want the word "massacre" in the title. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not expressing any opinion about what the title should be, and I probably won't ever participate in any discussions about that. I only want everyone's attention to be focused on making one article as good as possible, whatever it's called.

It's difficult to discuss titles before we've decided whether or not to merge, because it isn't clear what scope the title has to cover. So a reasonable course of action would be:

• First, commit to doing a merge.
• Then, close down all existing move requests on both pages and start a new title discussion for the merged page.
• Once the title has been decided, actually perform the merge.

Smyth (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a case for two articles tho, which your procedure rules out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed:The "massacre" article should be merged into this one, and the title "Nuseirat rescue operation" should be maintained. A massacre is the intentional killing of civilians. If the IDF would not have come under fire, very few peole would have been killed to extract the hostages. As a sovereign state Israel has an obligation to free hostages from captivity. It is completely misleading to call this operation a massacre in a Wikipedia article. DaringDonna (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  A massacre is the intentional killing of civilians https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/massacring "to kill many people in a short period of time: Hundreds of civilians were massacred in the raid." Sound familiar? Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Many definitions include an element of intent, e.g. Google's (not sure what dictionary it's from) is deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). If the content fits some definitions of massacre but not others, that seems like a good reason to avoid the word in favor of something more objective. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need to engage in WP:OR since we have countless RS, including the UN experts, describing it as what it is, a massacre (which is objective, accurate and factual). M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The UNISPAL article has a very transparent bias ("umpteenth massacre", "Israeli Occupation Forces", etc), so it's not a good signal for what language an NPOV encyclopedia should use.

  Moreover, a handful of sources using a word isn't really a good reason for us to use it, when the same information can be conveyed with more objective language. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  A UN press release is not a reliable source, and that specific one is about as far away from objective as you can imagine. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your irrelevant opinions about the UN experts are just that (completely and utterly irrelevant). In any case, that's not the only source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are encouraged to check out if a UN press release is a reliable source at WP:RSN Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to do that, in the meantime, your opinion about the RS is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not going to do your homework for you, sorry. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Very funny. Anyway, you can now consider yourself ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is completely misleading to call this operation a massacre all the more reason to keep the two articles separate. After all, we don't want anyone to confuse the rescue of four Israelis with the killing of hundreds of Palestinians. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak support but keep the massacre wording after the merge for now - After the rename discussion is done on the sub-article, we can re-evaluate the wording. Regardless, the content on the massacre page isn't different enough to warrant its own article without a major rework. Jdcomix (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Conditionally oppose. I'm not sure whether we need two articles, although sometimes we do need two, see Battle of Bucha and Bucha massacre. But we certainly need the article on the massacre, it is what is the main topic, not the rescue operation. So if you would instead propose to merge it vice verse, I would support it. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The examples you've given are of two totally separate events which occurred on different dates. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:41, 30 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)

support - I would call it just a "raid" or "rescue and massacre", but out of current vs proposed I prefer the proposal to the current title. MWQs (talk) 06:59, 13 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" [11]
• Ynet "World media focuses on heroic hostage rescue operation" [12]
• WSJ: "Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza" [13]
• CBS: "Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza?" [14]
• NYT "Here’s How Israel’s Mission to Rescue Four Hostages Unfolded" [15]
• NYT "U.S. Intelligence Helped Israel Rescue Four Hostages in Gaza" [16]
• 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)

To me that list demonstrates that the current title has a massive point of view problem, even if they weren't misrepresented, they're all from the USA except the one from Israel iself. And the Israeli one is one of the less reliable sources from Israel. MWQs (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is Israel's largest circulation mainstream newspapers, it is one of the most reliable print news sources in the country.

If you want to add the UK, Canada and Australia to the list above (covering all major English speaking countries' sources, here you go:

• Reuters (UK) "Israel keeps pounding central Gaza as Palestinian death toll in hostage rescue raid rises to 274" [17]
• Reuters (UK) "Benny Gantz delays statement after hostage rescue" [18]
• ABC (Australia) "Abdullah Joudeh was in Gaza's Nuseirat Refugee Camp 5 when Israeli special forces rescued four Hamas hostages" [19]
• ABC (Australia) "Joy and anger over hostage rescue" [20]
• Sky News (australia) "‘Magnificent’ Israeli hostage rescue a ‘great shot in the arm’ for the government" [21]
• CBC (Canada) "'It's a miracle we survived,' says father of 5 whose home was destroyed in Israeli hostage rescue raid" [22]

...and for good measure, India:

• Times of India "Israeli Ground Troops Exit Central Gaza Strip After Hostage Rescue & Fighting" [23]

Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The first one says "rescue raid" that's the title proposed.

I'm glad you remembered India, The Wire (India) and Newslaundry are rated more reliable than TOI. and Sky News Australia is trash (it's not the same as Sky News UK), try SBS World News Australia.

but the list is still a bit skewed because two of the biggest English speaking countries you're missing are South Africa and Ireland, plus Malaysia and Pakistan use English locally. "Dawn News" is probably the most reputable English source from Pakistan.

you don't need to restrict to English speaking countries, plenty of others have English news, France 24, and obviously Al Jazeera.

MWQs (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No , the tile proposal is "raid and rescue". I already wrote I'd be ok with "rescue raid" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:57, 14 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)

What's the reason you left out the entire Eastern Hemisphere except Israel? You've got a long list, but just 5 news outlets, and 4 of them are all from the same country. A country whose general stance on this war is at odds with most of the planet, as demonstrated by nearly every UN vote. MWQs (talk) 07:13, 13 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)

Key line: "Unusually, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) opted for a daytime raid on the Nuseirat camp" Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support if there’s a merger Rescue & raid seem to be the most common descriptions in reliable sources, so it seems like the best description if the articles are merged. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Based on supporting the merge proposal above and the follow up RM below, and the arguments I presented there, meaning moving to the suggested new title would be a waste of time if content is going to be merged etc. CNC (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Nuseirat raid", or this proposed title although it is less WP:CONCISE per BilledMammal. This proposal is also fairly clumsy logically. The rescue (and killings) took place during the raid, neither is an adjacent topic to the raid. The very first line of the article is "The Nuseirat rescue operation … was a raid carried out by". If it was a raid, why not call it a raid as a fairly NPOV term for a military operation, until/unless some clear COMMONNAME evolves for that operation and its consequences.Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per points already made, and we should adhere to WP:NOTOPINION - merging the operation and concurrent massacre into one clearly represents a particular stance, and means that we are no longer taking an NPOV position. To borrow from what @Websurfer2 says in support - because there is substantial information coming out indicating a lot more to say about it in the context of the deaths, of which the rescue was just one portion. Having two articles means we have a dedicated place for that information. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:39, 21 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)

Requested move 14 June 2024

I have moved the duplicate move discussion under the existing one and made it a subsection. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and massacre – Together with a merger with Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. See discussion above at #Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, which shows clear consensus for a merge if the combined name is appropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: UN sources which I need not relist here all refer to this incident as a massacre, so at least this article's title should have the word massacre in it if not at all removing the supposed intent of a rescue operation in it. --Masssly (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article is related to the rescue mission. Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, as of this message, still exists as an article. Renaming means creating a WP:CONTENTFORK. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Merge the articles into the massacre, dub it as "rescue operation and massacre" or just massacre. 2024 isn't necessary, though. Jebiguess (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Responding to original move: Agree with Weather Event Writer. Repeating:

This article is related to the rescue mission. Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, as of this message, still exists as an article. Renaming means creating a WP:CONTENTFORK.
— User:WeatherWriter

Either don't rename this article, or merge the articles and rename the resulting article. If you think a merge is more appropriate, use the merge template and reassess consensus. Relspas (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support This is precisely what I thought the name should be after supporting the merge proposal based on POVFORK and lack of ARTICLESIZE issues. There are numerous issues with this article, from neutrality to balance, so this merge and re-naming would help resolve some of these; balance at least, as well as involve more editors who can address POV concerns ideally. CNC (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support — Many sources note the event as a rescue and a mass civilian death. Such as CNN, The Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times. Roasted (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose I agree that there are neutrality issues in both of the related articles, and to a degree their titles, but this proposal is simply attempting to resolve that not by finding a NPOV name, but simply listing both of the two PoV ones. Above, I have supported either this article, or ideally the merged articles simply being called the Nuseirat raid which is a neutral term for a military operation (during which hostages were rescued and many, many Palestinians killed). Massacre would anyway generally only be used in an article title if it had evolved as a COMMONNAME, I may be wrong, but it appears that as yet, this raid has not acquired any COMMONNAME.

Oppose. What was the purpose of this operation? Israeli forces entered there to rescue kidnapped Israeli citizens. According to media reports, the "other side" hid behind its citizens and caused civilians to also be killed in the rescue operation. It's terrible, it's very, very sad and it's even shocking, but the rescue operation is not a massacre.Galamore (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

the "other side" hid behind its citizens and caused civilians to also be killed in the rescue operation This is complete crap. Israeli forces bombed a civilian area in order to cover their withdrawal, when their rescue operation went wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Since each side presents it differently in the media, I don't know what the "truth" is. But the question is, why did the IDF forces go in there at all? Their whole purpose was to kill? Galamore (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH in lead

Can someone please explain to me like I'm 5 why the following, which has remained in the lead for several days, is not WP:SYNTH:

The Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its statistics, nor how they were killed or by whom.

But the following, which has been removed for being SYNTH, for some reason is:

A United Nations investigation has found that the IDF frequently attacks civilian targets without "distinction, proportionality and precautions".

The former cites two random, irrelevant articles not about this event, one from seven months ago and one from eight months ago. The latter cites a UN report that was released a few days ago. Seems to me like one of the most flagrant violations of NPOV I've seen on here. Dylanvt (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest putting the second one back in without the lengthy quote and cite that this was in reference to this particular attack not just any attack, just use the same RS that was used in the article body (the removal said it was not in the body but that's not actually true, it is). No idea what the synth assertion is about. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I added a sentence at the end of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think “nor how they were killed or by whom” should be removed unless better sources can be found to replace the ones that do not mention the topic of this article. I have already found a source for “The Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its statistics” and placed it in this article. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. The combat statistics methodology statement is totally indue and irrelevant in the lead. It doesn't help explain the actual subject at all. It is a meta discussion and belongs only in the body, if it's even there. Also single-sourced to CNN. The BBC source was from Nov. WP:ONUS applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just checked. It's one sentence in the body that would hardly warrant verbatim replication in the lead even if there wasn't a serious meta discussion problem in a lead context. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@GidiD I saw the info that you added and moved it to the Casualties section due to this discussion on the talk page. I also trimmed info from the Casualties section that could be taken as synth and added another relevant source. Am glad that the sources you provided are relevant to this article. :) Wafflefrites (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong condemnation from the UN calling the Nuseirat operation a Massacre

On June 14, 2024, UN human rights experts condemned a massacre by Israeli forces in the Nuseirat Refugee Camp in Gaza. During a hostage rescue mission on June 8, Israeli forces, allegedly aided by foreign soldiers and disguised as displaced persons and aid workers, executed an attack that killed at least 274 Palestinians, including 64 children and 57 women, and injured nearly 700. The operation involved brutal ground and air assaults, inflicting widespread terror, death, and despair among the residents

OHCHR](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/un-experts-condemn-outrageous-disregard-palestinian-civilians-during-israels). Loguerto (talk) 21:56, 15 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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What should we change about this article? It's biased towards Zionists in cases

Those who want to, Let's try to begin the process of Removing Pro-Zionist content or editing it to a fair perspective. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Macarius Ibne Mito: Erm, that's not very helpful and if you wouldn't mind self reverting the page move, that would be good as well, since there is an ongoing RM discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

The Nuseirat massacre (initially codenamed Operation Seeds of Summer and renamed Operation Arnon[6]) was a raid carried out by Yamam, the Shin Bet and Israel Defense Forces with intelligence support from the United States[7] in the Nuseirat refugee camp on 8 June 2024 to recover hostages taken from the Re'im music festival massacre during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.[8 78.149.135.232 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)