Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

Discussions:

• No consensus, 9 June 2024, to Nuseirat raid and rescue, see discussion.
• Move to Nuseirat rescue and massacre, 12 October 2024, to Nuseirat rescue and killings, see discussion.

Change opening paragraph language to be more neutral. Change: "On 8 June 2024, during an operation to rescue hostages held in the Nuseirat refugee camp, the Israeli military killed at least 276 people and injured over 698, according to the Gaza Health Ministry and Palestinian health officials.[b][12] The operation's objective was to recover hostages taken during the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. The Israeli military acknowledged fewer than 100 Palestinian deaths.[13][14][15]"

To: "On 8 June 2024, the Israeli military successfully carried out a mission to rescue four Israeli hostages kidnapped by Gazan militants and held at the Nuseirat refugee camp. The Gaza Health Ministry and Palestinian health officials claim at least 276 Gazans were killed during the operation, though the IDF claims Palestinian deaths were fewer than 100." Gmotola (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Abo Yemen You may know that an editor cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by WP:ECR until they are extended-confirmed. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They cant? The page is unprotected tho 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Abo Yemen Enforcement of ECR is often manual. This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way. See here, under technical limitations. Also, here, under "Resolution Path for ECR Topics." Johnadams11 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh yeah mb. I don't think that the first sentences of the lede are going to change anytime soon tho because the new wording sounds like it's on the side of praising the IDF "the Israeli military successfully carried out a mission to rescue four Israeli hostages kidnapped by Gazan militants" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Feel free to revert and discuss per BRD. Closetside (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I wouldn't move the title without proposing it first and gaining consensus. Firestar464 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was bold per WP:BRD, you reverted without a substantive reason. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS assumes consensus until a substantive disagreement. Closetside (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raid – This would be similar to the Entebbe raid and is succinct. This accurately says it was a military operation without emphasizing either the Israeli perspective of a hostage rescue or the Palestinian perspective of a massacre. Closetside (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)?[reply ]

I think this is a fair NPOV name. While it is clear it was a hostage rescue operation (as evidenced by the rescued hostages), many pro-Palestinian sources call it a "massacre" due to the operation's death tool. The name is not corroborated in neutral or pro-Israel sources, which would be required for massacre to conform with WP:NPOV. However, I do understand their POV, they say so many civilians were by purposely and needlessly during the raid. On the other hand, pro-Israel sources emphasize the Israeli hostages rescued. Therefore, raid is a fair name. Closetside (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per WP:NCENPOV, massacre can only be used if a descriptor is "generally accepted" and is the main word to identify the event:

If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.

Support move. The prior discussion did not follow the applicable policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A link to support "This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco" would be useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) ::"Reading through the Nuseirat rescue/massacre debacle, I realized that our existing POV fork guidance is wholly insufficient. It isn't the Committee's place to tell the community how to fix it, but I think we have clearly identified a problem that the community needs to be thoughtful about." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision (削除ここまで)

I think this is a fair NPOV name. While it is clear it was a hostage rescue operation (as evidenced by the rescued hostages), many pro-Palestinian sources call it a "massacre" due to the operation's death tool. The name is not corroborated in neutral or pro-Israel sources, which would be required for massacre to conform with WP:NPOV. However, I do understand their POV, they say so many civilians were by purposely and needlessly during the raid. On the other hand, pro-Israel sources emphasize the Israeli hostages rescued. Therefore, raid is a fair name. Closetside (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco can you please link to the discussion that describes it as such? M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reverted your changes because the current version is the result of months of discussions (including this one). Please don't delete the sourced content again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Neutral media clearly portrays this as a military operation with a high death toll. It was obviously a hostage rescue - hostages were rescued. See www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/13/israel-hostage-rescue-palestinian-deaths-analysis/ That discussion was not an RfC and reverting a bold move requires substantive criticism so I will revert your revert. Furthermore, the quote is above in the Proposed Decision section - read it. Closetside (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Heck, the discussion wasn't formal or even extensive, just a short section in a talk page a few months ago. If you think my version is worse, argue why. Closetside (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We discussed this for months (formal requests and all). Please check out the archives. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Show me. That one discussion doesn't cut it. Closetside (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not until you show me Closetside (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Sean.hoyland: please have a look at what they have did to the article (i.e., imposed their POV against the merge consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The consensus was about the name, not about the lede. Implicit consensus can be boldly overwritten without an RfC. Closetside (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The good news is that you know the rules and what 1R stands for. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yep. I was bold, you reverted without reason, so I reverted you back. We both cannot revert for another 24 hours.

I will revert if you provide evidence there was explicit consensus for the previous lede. Closetside (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean self-revert, if I get the evidence. Closetside (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

you reverted without reason I think a trip to AE (I'm sure you know what is) is warranted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Tell me what you'll post to AE. If there is no more evidence beside for this it won't go the way you want. If there is more evidence, I may agree and self-revert. Closetside (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The evidence is rather simple: you are disregarding the consensus version of merge (that took months to achieve) and imposing your own views (based on some made-up comment that you are attributing to ArbCom). I will check again in 10 minutes time and if you still haven't self-reverted, then I will have no other choice but to escalate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The merge is about the name, not about the lede's content.

(削除) The quote is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision. It is very real and not made up. (削除ここまで)

If this is all your evidence, bring it on. Closetside (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

On second thought, I did see consensus on the massacre article so I will self-revert. This RM is trying to override it but oh well. I don't care about getting the "right" version in the interim. Closetside (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All the sources are either NGO/or government orgs which are not reliable for news (state with attribution, just like EuroMed) or news orgs with a pro-Palestinian POV. I hope the community sees this in this RM. Closetside (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This move will also bring the article in line with the 2024 Rafah hostage raid, another hostage rescue operation with a high Palestinian death toll. Closetside (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This page was mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco please link to the claim that you are attributing to ARBCOM. M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I answered your question already - scroll above. Closetside (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

mentioned by ArbCom as a fiasco is very specific. Can you substantiate it? M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) "Reading through the Nuseirat rescue/massacre debacle, I realized that our existing POV fork guidance is wholly insufficient. It isn't the Committee's place to tell the community how to fix it, but I think we have clearly identified a problem that the community needs to be thoughtful about." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision. (削除ここまで)

(削除) (削除ここまで)

(削除) Debacle and fiasco are synonyms. This repeated questioning is uncivil. Please stop. (削除ここまで)Closetside (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Now let's get on to the RM. If you oppose it; argue why here. Closetside (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You falsely attributed your POV to ARBCOM (they never said "This page was a fiasco"). I suggest you strike it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Correct; that was the POV fork thing. I will move this into a subsection and strike reference to it in main RM. Closetside (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Strike the false claim that you attributed to ARBCOM and don't touch my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Did it Closetside (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Upon further thought, there was no explicit consensus for the lede content, only the name, which is why I reinstated my bold edits @M.Bitton. If there is for the content, show me. Closetside (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Upon further thought, you will take a trip to AE later on today. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Go ahead. I dare you. Closetside (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You may have a point so I reverted. I will ask for a WP:3O Closetside (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]