Jump to content

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Where they saved

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

New details about the operation in which Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv were released from captivity this morning (Saturday) indicate that the abductees were held alongside families under heavy security in Nusirat, inside 3-4 story buildings with 200 meters separating one building from the other. The operation was planned in both centers at the same time with the understanding that if they operate in one place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:EB4:EE00:2578:92ED:47ED:860B (talk) 14:58 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we be using an IDF photo?

Wikipedia is not censored. This photo is. Can we find a better one? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s pretty commonplace for the military to conceal the identities of service personnel, for PerSec (Personal Security) reasons. This isn’t censorship, it’s there for their protection.
Look at photos of units like 22SAS, Seal Team 6 etc. released by their governments, they have what are known as the “issue black bars”. Soldiers in elite units worldwide are targets, this is for their security.
Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bravo_Two_Zero_(team_photo).jpg - and most of the people in that photo died on the operation, only two survived, one had major plastic surgery and one still hides his identity to this day. Jec93 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The reason the photo is censored doesn't really concern me. It is censored nonetheless and is sourced from the PR arm of a belligerent in this article that RS are now calling responsible for the deaths of some 200 people. We should find a different one. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
They’ve blurred the faces of soldiers, that’s accepted across wiki. Now because that argument holds no ground you’re objecting because it was taken by the IDF. do you have a reason to believe that, aside from not identifying soldiers involved in the raid that the image isn’t genuine and doesn’t show the moment the hostages landed safe and free? Would the uncensored picture suffice or do you not want a photo of the free hostages? Jec93 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict, and I'm confident we can source one. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You’ve not explained why any of it matters? If the exact same photo came from an AP photographer would it be okay?
Why do you want to identify the SF personnel, do you want to put their lives at risk? Jec93 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Let me type it again for you. I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict. And just FYI, no AP news photographer would ever send in a photo to their desk with the faces of their subjects digitally blurred. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay great. Well I like that photo, so let keep it. Wikipedia isn’t here to serve you, is it?
You can’t explain why either of the reasons you’re giving mean that the photo is unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Lots of photos on Wikipedia are blurred in places, that’s obviously not a reason for its removal, and lots of conflict pictures come from
the military involved. Jec93 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why you needed me to repeat myself to understand, but I'm glad you do now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Of course not. They'd just photoshop whatever image they want, then send it in. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but the IDF has a far more extensive history of manipulation that we should be very wary of when using their images in an encyclopedic article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually, that was a Reuters freelancer, so my point stands. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/ap-drops-freelance-photographer-who-photoshopped-his-shadow-out-of-image/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Apples to oranges, and please avoid personal attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
How is it apples to oranges? It is an AP photojournalist, and he submitted a photoshopped image.
I've removed the comment that offended you Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Dude, "Let me type it again for you. I want…" is absolutely not how editorial problems are solved on Wikipedia. Make a policy-based argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Gaza's military are always masked, or have faces blurred, or heavy camouflage paint. I somewhat like the symmetry of it. It seems fair enough if the other side does it. MWQs (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
There probably is not an uncensored one for the soldiers’ safety. 71.183.120.106 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your exact objection is? Is it to the blurred phots? Is it to the source being the IDF? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

My objection is to the use of a censored photo and one provided by the PR arm of a belligerent in the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is the censored photo problematic? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Because it was uploaded by a belligerent in the conflict accused of killing more than 200 people and it is partially censored. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Agian, what is the problem with the faced being blurred? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Because it is a censored photograph Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you try to answer without a circular reference? when I ask you why a censored photo is a problem, "Because it is a censored photograph" is not a meaningful answer. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
That's literally the answer though? We should not be using censored photos on wikipedia if we can find better ones. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
But we have no better ones at the moment, so in the absence of a better photo what's the issue with a photo where the faces are blurred? How is that different from the numerous photos we have in articles of people masked? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Because photos of people wearing masked are not censored Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
But they are not as good as ones where faces are visible, and they equally obscure the people in the photo. So again - what 's the issue with blurred faces? Try to answer without resorting to circular reasoning. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that the photo currently used is digitally manipulated and censors the identity of those involved in the action. It was also sourced directly from a belligerent in the conflict. It's ok that you're ok with that, but the only thing circular here is your continual prodding of my position when I have clearly expressed for the fourth time my objection to its use. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I kept prodding because you simply did not provide any answer- I kept asking 'why is X bad?', and you replied 'because X is bad'. We are now, finally, getting a bit closer to an answer which is not circular - you say the images should not be used because they censor the identity of those involved- but why is that a problem? In what way is that identify relevant to the article or to the photo illustrating the event? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I will not waste more energy with you. Good luck. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries. If you can't make a coherent case for why the photo should be removed, it will stay in, by default. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not really how this all works but ok Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
How do you think it works? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the photo because it was added by the PR team of a belligerent in the conflict and because it was censored. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You've also broken 1RR with that edit,I suggest you self-revert. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself should not censor (WP:NOTCENSORED), but it doesn't mean that that it should try hard to avoid using censored content.
Also, Wikipedia's anti-censorship policies are about censorship for sensibilities and norms (offensiveness). Wikipedia DOES have an interest in protecting individuals from being targeted, and no interest in exposing them (there's no encyclopedic purpose here), so it should not post an uncensored version of the photo even if you can find it. There are good reasons for the censorship, and no good reasons for not censoring.
IMO, you should just drop that point, or it will be distracting. Focus on the fact that this is propaganda, and the question of whether it represents the conflict neutrally. --Raijinili (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. I remain disturbed that we are using a photo from the PR arm of a belligerent in a conflict and one that is accused of killing some 200+ non combatants by RS as the lead image for the entry. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No one has determined how many of the causalities were combatants, AFAIK. But that is beside the point., If only 5 people were killed, would it then be ok to use a photo by the IDF? How about 25? That is simply not a consideration Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You still can’t explain why the photo is inappropriate.
continuously mentioning that they are accused of killing 200 people in the operation doesn’t change impact the photo in any way. Please stick to facts rather than trying to garner support using emotion.
The photo is there, it’s crystal clear for anyone to see what it shows. Unless you’re claiming that the photo is fake, its source is irrelevant as it’s an accurate depiction of an event that happened.
I think it’s best that you just remain in your disturbed state, as you can’t actually put together a logical (non-circular) reason for why this photo should be removed. Jec93 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

POV title

Framing this as a "rescue operation" like some James Bond movie is misleading as to its true nature: a large-scale massacre of hundreds of civilians. The title puts greater weight on the four rescued than the 210 killed.

I'd suggest a title like 2024 Nuseirat attack. JDiala (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I support such a change. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
OK. Please feel free to do implement it (or anyone else reading this...) as I'm on my 1RR. JDiala (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
James bond operations remain in Hollywood.
Military operations differ in sizes, some are large military operations and some are small.
This was on the small-medium operation, and it's target was to release the 4 hostages. Hence rescue operation. 2A02:14F:1EF:BA13:B8E8:DA7D:57F0:3101 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
No because the objective was to rescue hostages. That remains true even if it was a "massacre." And we don't even know how many of those 210 killed were civilians. RM (Be my friend) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It was a hostage rescue operation. That was the purpose of it. Wikipedia's position should not be to take sides on the human cost in terms of the loss of terrorist life or any collateral damage. People can make up their own minds about that. A simple presentation of the facts is sufficient. There is nothing wrong with the title. Neutrality is important, and that means resisting the use of loaded and emotive terms like "massacre". "Massacre" should be reserved only for when an actual massacre was the intent. StrodoDoggins (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Using terms like "collateral damage" and "terrorist" is already non-neutral, and the intent of the operation is far less germane than its outcome, which is a mass murder. JDiala (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Using non neutral terms in a talk page argument is perfectly acceptable;. I see an edit above, by an editor you may be familiar with, use the non neutral term "a large-scale massacre" . Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
RS are emerging that suggest this was a massacre *and* a hostage rescue operation. Both can be true, and the articles should probably be merged. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree the articles should be merged- there's a section below suggesting such a merge, you should voice your opinion there Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out there is now a separate Wikipedia article called Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
So we're now just creating another article, about this same event, but with a diffenrt title, one that was objected to here? How is that permissible? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a sensible position. If you want to keep this as a hostage operation, fine. But then you have to separate that out from the broader attack on Nuseirat (including levelling of entire neighbourhoods) in the process. JDiala (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It can't really be separated. It's one operation with extraordinary levels of collateral damage. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. And furthermore, at least as of now, there's virtually nothing in the newer article that isn't already here, or couldn't easily be added here as a paragraph with more details on the casualties. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree, it’s plainly a WP:POVFORK. Zanahary (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I saw that it was created and wanted to inform this talk page as it seemed relevant to the ongoing discussion. Sometimes editors decide to merge articles. The separate articles probably would address the disagreements over article title name. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
So you think it is proper, when we have a disagreement about what an article should be names, to create another one, covering the same event, but with a different name, one that was objected to? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s a possible solution, yes. Another option would be to merge the articles, as I have written above. See WP:MERGE. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd say that's a pretty weird solution. Have you seen it used elsewhere? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I can’t say I have, which is why I wrote that it is a possible solution, provided an alternative option, and posted in this thread for general discussion. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It's abundantly clear that a number of users have zero interest in presenting a neutral view of the situation, and would prefer to use Wikipedia to push one-sided political narratives, hence the creation of a duplicate article that implies the rescue of civilian hostages as secondary to some kind of Israeli bloodlust.
It was a hostage rescue, regardless of whether the number of Hamas militants killed was 1 or 1,000. End of discussion. Everything else known about the operation should go within the body of the article. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The name of the operation is Operation Arnon. Dag21902190 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You're talking about "Israeli bloodlust" as if it's an obviously a ridiculous charge. In reality, the state of Israel has been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. A "neutral" view of the situation would give significant weight to the mass murder of 200+ people over the rescue of a handful of seemingly well-treated hostages. This is the objective here. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The goal of the operation, according to the reliable sources, was to rescue hostages (holding them, whether well treated or not, is a war crime).
The claim that 200 people were killed during the operation should be given its due weight in the body of the article Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, and the goal of WWII was negating the humiliating of the Versailles treaty. At some point goals are less important than the actual on-the-ground result. In this case the on-the-ground result was a large-scale massacre of women and children. JDiala (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
the 'on the ground result' was the rescue of 4 hostages, whose very holding was a war crime.
When you perform your war crimes in the midst of a dense civilian population, there's bound to be casualties among that population. IHL recognizes that those casualties are the responsibility of those hiding among the civilians. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That's WP:OR and also factually incorrect as IHL takes into account discrimination and proportionality. You also haven't provided any evidence that Hamas was "hiding" among civilians in this incident. JDiala (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an argument in a talk page, it does not need reliable sources. You don;t understand the concept of proportionality. Are you not aware that teh hostage were held i the midst of a residential neighborhood? even Al Jazeera says this is the case Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You're just wrong, and demonstrating an embarrassing misunderstanding of IHL. I'd suggest reading over the war crimes page for Israel to get the basics of this. Bombing entire neighbourhoods to rescue four hostages is clearly disproportionate. JDiala (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not wrong. I've read that horrible excise for an article about Israeli war crimes, and edited it extensively in recent days, to remove other similar misconceptions about IHL, like the notion that use of DIME weapons is a war crime, or that shooting fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is a war crime.
Proportionality in IHL refers ONLy to civilian casualties, and we have no idea how many of the claimed dead are civilians. All reports attest to a heavy firefight during the rescue operation, involving hundreds of armed people on the hostage-holding side. In such a case, it is conceivable that there would be many casualties, tens or even hundreds on the hostage-holding side. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong. I can understand sometimes facts don't align with ones preconceptions, but this is why it's crucial to be open-minded, and to accept when you are corrected. Our articles are based on reliable sources and reliable, mainstream legal scholarship. You are correct that proportionality refers to civilians, but in this case we know that most killed were women and children (Al Jazeera reported this here). JDiala (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You can keep saying I am wrong, and I will keep telling you I am not.
We actually do not know that the majority killed are women and children, it is a Hamas claim, parroted by a Qatari mouthpiece.
But even if the majority were civilians, that would not, in and of itself, violate the principal of proportionality, whcih is not about simply comparing the number killed on both sides, but about weighing the number of possible civilian deaths against the military advantage gained. In a firefight involving hundreds, a reasonable commander could authorize operation that might incidentally kill many tens of civilians, to protect rescued hostages, to protect the rescuing forces etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong. Normal people consider killing of hundreds of civilians for a few hostages a massacre. Legal scholars who have analyzed countless similar Israelis incidents (e.g., in Jabalia in October 2023) consider it disproportionate. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, despite whatever misgivings you might have. Look, you can have whatever views you want, but it's important for you to understand that you are clearly and absolutely in the fringe here. That's fine, but it shouldn't be relevant to the editing of these articles which is based on reliable consensus. JDiala (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The vast majority of sources describe this as a rescue operation, as has been shown to you. You are the fringe. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It was never "shown." I refuted your arguments and pointed out how these sources in fact used a variety of words. You ceased to reply which I took as a concession. You've also evidently conceded this argument since you don't want to discuss the law of proportionality like you previously indicated and now are referencing a separate discussion. JDiala (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's wait until the current slew of "released hostage" reporting dies down, then we will see what's what in more detail. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
sounds good. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. An encyclopedia should not be presenting accusations or allegations as fact until such a time as they have been proven to be so. And no neutral assessment would ever portray deaths in a military operation as murders, unless they actually were proven to be so. If you want to demonise the world's sole Jewish state, there are places where you can do that to your heart's content, and none of them are Wikipedia. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:SPADE. JDiala (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
those who are to be blamed for the fact that civilians were harmed in Nuseirat is Hamas terrorists who knowingly decided to kidnap Israelis in the first place and then place them among civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, and shoot at the rescuers and who knows how many of the Palestinian casualties were killed by Palestinian fire aimed at Israeli soldiers. Not to mention the fact that most of the Palestinians killed - above 100 of them - were Hamas terrorists, including so-called "children" who are in fact 17-18-years-old trained terrorists who are armed with RPGs, machine guns and treated by Hamas as cannon fodder with total disregard for human lives, willing to sacrifice them in the name of the Jihad. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There's too many people coming into this article with a clear political agenda. KronosAlight (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Were people killed as a collateral effect on an operation conducted to rescue hostages or was it an operation to maximize civilian casualties which just happened to stumble upon hostages, which they rescued as a side task? And exactly how do we know 210 civilians were killed? EpistemicKarma (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not relevant. If I murder a family because I wanted to steal $20 from them, that doesn't mean the murder can be forgiven just because it's not the principal objective. JDiala (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
So in your mind freeing hostages from their captors is the same as stealing 20 dollars. Are you serious? EpistemicKarma (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It was the former. Plenty of reliable media outlets have already released detailed analyses of the operation and the weeks of training and preparation which went into it. Of course, that doesn’t mean many civilians weren’t killed – but we don’t realistically know how many, nor who killed them, nor how they died.
The only figures coming out of Gaza come via Hamas, which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. In cases like this, where the hostages were being held by unarmed Gazans but who were affiliated to and protected by Hamas militants, the distinction becomes murkier.
It's also not possible to even guess at this figure less than a few hours after the operation itself. Israel didn't come to a final conclusion about the number of Israeli dead on October 7th until 2024. KronosAlight (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
How about "Nuseirat operation" as a title? That seems relatively neutral? Pmokeefe (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • CNN: Israel rescues four hostages in operation
  • AP:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.
  • WaPo: Four hostages rescued alive in Israeli operation
  • NYT: Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Military Operation;
  • WSJ: Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza

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

This is clearly a massacre of unheard of proportions, killing 210 people, mostly civilians, in order to rescue 4 hostages which, if you'll allow me, could have been saved even earlier with a ceasefire. But aside for these considerations, I think the title 2024 Nuseirat incursion is probably the most neutral title we could hope for. I'm obviously open to more suggestions for a better name, that's the best one I could think of. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It is being described by ALL reliable as a rescue operation, which it was. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Reuters: "Israel rescues four hostages in Gaza;" [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The title of the article uses the word "assault." JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It attributes that word to Hamas Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That is not correct. The word assault is not in quotes in the title of the piece. Even in the lead sentence, the word "assault" towards the end of the sentence is not attributed to Hamas, only the casualty figures in the preceding half of the sentence. JDiala (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
it s not in quotes , but is attributed to Hamas: "Hamas says 210 Palestinians killed in Israeli assault". First sentence of the article is " Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe wait a couple of days to see if Hamas is lying about casualties again. I think it's highly suspect that Israel has a 200:1 KD ratio. 2600:100F:B1B2:B481:0:34:2BD4:C01 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
From the context of the article, it is clear that the attribution is done to the number of casualties, not the word assault. In the lead sentence, Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas since October in a raid in Gaza on Saturday while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area, according to Hamas officials, in one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults of the war suggests the attribution is solely to the preceding claim "while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area" and not to the subsequent claim "Israeli assault". JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


Per Wiki:Criteria the operation is called a rescue operation by many major outlets including CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/08/middleeast/four-israeli-hostages-freed-gaza-intl/index.html, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o and others. Rescue operation also per Wiki:article title is a recognizable name. If name wants to be changed (per Wiki:Article title)we need to give weight to English language media, most use this kind of title or a different version of it.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
BBc: Daylight operation deep into Gaza frees Israeli captives [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The word "raid" is used in the lead sentence. It's also the operative word on the BBC livefeed title of the events. Words like "raid" and "assault" I'm generally fine with as they convey the violent nature of the attack. "Rescue operation" is far too sanitized and connotes something far more mild than what took place. When we have several common terms used by RS, ("attack", "assault", "raid", "operation"), other considerations matter in making name determinations, including NPOV. JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You are shifting your arguments according to what suits you, When discussing Reuters, you chose a word in the title - here, the TITLE of the article is Daylight operation deep into Gaza frees Israeli captives.
The goal of the operation , or raids, was to rescue hostages, and taht what reliable sources frame it as. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is that a wide variety of terms are used by RS for the events, both in titles and the body. So your WP:COMMONNAME argument for the current title has little merit. JDiala (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The event is almost universally described as a rescue operation, even by the sources you provided which also use other terms. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Except when it's not. I've already cited several sources using words like "assault", "attack" or "raid." JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
And those source also use "rescue operation" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That's the point. There are a variety of terms used. JDiala (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Rescue operation is by far the most common one, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence for this. The naming is contentious. JDiala (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I;ve provided evidence, citing the NYT, WSJ. AP, WaP etc..and could add two dozen more. Stop beating this dead horse, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
No, you haven't. Even the examples you cited don't use the literal, specific term "rescue operation" in the title. They just describe it as an operation in which a rescue took place e.g., "Israel rescues four hostages in operation." And if you have two dozen more, please cite them. We're waiting. JDiala (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you can use Google yourself. Give it up already with your POV pushing Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that we should wait to see if the name used in RS changes and then consider a name change at that point. Mason (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
None of these titles describe it as a "rescue operation." JDiala (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sky News: Two Israeli hostages flown home after rescue operation in Gaza. [https://news.sky.com/video/two-israeli-hostages-flown-home-after-rescue-operation-in-gaza-13149852]
White House: Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Israeli Hostage Rescue Operation
All the other sources describe it as a resuce operation in the body of the article;, including the sources you provided:
Reuters; 'The hostage rescue operation ' [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/
BBC: "news of the rescue operation on Saturday."https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay but the bodies of the articles also describe it in other ways, which was my point. The White House is irrelevant as it's a partisan source here. Reuters describes it as an "assault", BBC a "raid". It's also rather interesting you need to find something from Sky News for a title which matches your claim. Surely if it was so obvious you'd have something better than a second-rate conservative Australian news channel. JDiala (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Headlines are next to meaningless, they are written by someone other than the author of the article, whcih is why they are not reliable sources -see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines
The only reason I even bothered to show you ones that used the exact phrase 'rescue operation' is your weird insistence that the exact phrase 'rescue operation' appear in the headline. That's not how wikipedia articles are titled. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@JDiala So you're okay with "Raid" right? Also how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 TM 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pg_6475 I'm in favour of 'attack' or 'assault' as it's by far the best description of reality. If you claim it's a rescue op but raze an entire city down in the process....it's more than just a rescue up. JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 TM 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
we don't know, and probably will never know as it is Hamas's policy not to break the death toll by militants vs. others.
The only proxy we might have is military-age males vs. children and women Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is it Hamas' policy not to break the death toll of militants vs others? Pg 6475 TM 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
it serves their propaganda needs Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. JDiala (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kentucky Rain24 If headlines are next to meaningless, great! The bodies are supporting me too. BBC: "raid". Reuters: "assault". Al Jazeera: "attack". JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Those BBC and Reuters articles describe it as a rescue operation in the body, in addition to the multitude of sources that ONLY describe it as a rescue operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah and several of your sources also use other terminology. For example AP "amid the military’s heavy air and ground assault" JDiala (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
How many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants though, so that we can ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 TM 19:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Al Jazeera says they're mostly women and children. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
What about the non-partisan sources? Pg 6475 TM 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera is WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:ALJAZEERA. Anyways, what do other sources have to say? Pg 6475 TM 20:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't need other sources. A single reliable source is generally adequate for a claim on casualties. JDiala (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Not even a single other RS has stated it? I tried to find in some but couldn't find any. Did you check? Pg 6475 TM 06:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not contentious. KronosAlight (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

As of right now, we have CNN, WAPO, NYT and AJ all referring to this as a raid/assault/attack as well as a rescue, there seems to be unclarity about the timing of the events, specifically over the timing of the air attack, was it at the same time, prior or after the operation commenced. Reuters says "The hostage rescue operation and an intense accompanying air assault took place in central Gaza's al-Nuseirat" while CNN has "When the moment arrived, the IDF launched pre-planned strikes in Gaza on what it called militant infrastructure, as the operation began Saturday daytime, unusual timing which officials hoped would give them the “element of surprise.”.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Could an argument to retain the name “massacre” be made with RS, or at least based on the events and intent (based on criteria requiring intent)? I have read that the massacre involved raiding homes and executing the occupants, a kind of responsibility that cannot be dismissed as “targeting khamas with airstrikes” (I hope this does not violate “notaforum”, I’ve read the policy but the line can be blurry) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

to the people keep deleting my edits

Well, better to calm down for now, it'll be a while before we'll be able to have arbitration on this matter. I feel like more experienced editors (preferably without any bias for either party) have to weigh in on this issue. --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

The death toll (reported by the Gazan health ministry) is 210, not 55, as was recently changed. See e.g, this and this. JDiala (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense for a current event like this to go with the most conservative estimate that has been stated by the authorities with caveats like "At least", in order not to give undue specificity to rapidly changing information. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
We go by what RS say. RS consistently say 210. JDiala (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It's been adjusted. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reactions word salad

@abhammad Do you really think we need to know what Poland said about this? Where do we draw the line? Soon we'll have 30 nations with zero relevance to this conflict clogging up the page. I propose we break down only the most relevant reactions into normal prose, not a flag wall. Just because we have this horrible bloat on other entries doesn't mean we need it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I see these "international reactions" sections everywhere, and they are meaningless. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@ABHammadsorry, I meant to tag you properly but failed to. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the hostages was a Polish citizen, so the opinion of the Polish government does matter in this case, however I agree with the general idea that 192 opinions wouldn’t be useful. Maybe restrict to G8/G20/Security Council members? Or remove all of them, but I feel that there is value in the global reaction. Jec93 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
what is the value you see? Do we really need 15 world leaders saying 'it's great that hostages were released"? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
There is evident value in understanding the wider political lines in the conflict. There are multiple opinions on this from different countries, not all the responses are the same so. This also varies from action to action, so is useful in understanding how different countries view the conflict. Jec93 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that there is "evident value" in this, but whatever. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2024

The AP has found many inconsistencies with regard to the death toll breakdown on civillian casualties, This report comes as the WHO has previously decreased the number of overall civillian casualties by more than half. I urge you not to run to factual conclusions and at least note the concerns shared by many with regard to civilian cassualties published by the gaza run health ministry which is known currently to be controled by non other than Hamas, a sadistic terror organization that is widely known to delibareatly hide behind civilians not only to cynically shield themselves, but simutaniously to allow more inoccents to be tragically killed, therefore it is right to conclude, or at least be to be skeptical, that the number of civillians reportedly killed, including the breakdowm on women and childdren, to be inaccurate, so I ask to please share this concern or to say the least not rush to conclusions to call wartime battles and rescue operations as the one referenced above as a massacare etc. thanks. 62.128.56.46 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment about name of operation - moved from header

The name of the operation was changed to “Operation Arnon”. Please change to reflect that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dag21902190 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why was this renamed?

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

In accordance with Operation Golden Hand. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
We don't normally use Israeli code names for article titles, probably that one should be changed in due course. Can be mentioned as an aka if sources support. Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

why is the line under the picture of hostages labeled missing

that were not missing that were kidnapped 181.197.54.169 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained edit that reverted large chunk of info

Owenglyndur, can you explain the rationale for your edit here: [1]? There's a lot of info that was removed for no reason. (The merge tag that was at the top of the article, for one).

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Al-Jamal family

Israel Hayom says that Noa, one of the hostages, was "reportedly" held in the house of Abdallah Al-Jamal [2], who worked for Al-Jazeera and local media. They attribute it to "a report by the Arab media" but don't name or link to it, unfortunately. It's not the most reliable of sources so I don't want to add it to the article just yet.

Euro-med Monitor's Ramy Abdu writes that Al-Jamal family house was raided but neither confirms nor denies that one of the hostages was held there. If someone has more information about it, please add it. Alaexis¿question? 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears this originated form Twitter accounts have taken the story of his home being raided and his extrajudicial execution and spun a story about how his home was raided because “he held hostages” (most notoriously by visegead 24), in order to propagate the narrative that “no civilians are innocent in Gaza”.
it’s probably an outlier story, I’d say wait for sure The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
He recently stated that:
In an attempt to justify the execution of the members of the Al-Jamal family in Al-Nusirat, Israeli sources, the Israeli media and some supporters of Israel are trying to justify and justify the massacre and execution carried out by Israel, on the grounds that it is possible that the captive Naa Argamani was held in the Al-Jamal family's house as a trial said And published by me, Rami Abdo, Chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Watch. We documented executions and massacres in at least seven homes and centers, including the home of the elderly Dr. Ahmed al-Jamal, who was executed along with his family members. Among the victims was his son, the journalist Abdullah al-Jamal, who works in the public service as a spokesman for the Palestinian Ministry of Labor in Gaza and not as an Al Jazeera journalist as reported by Israeli media. Stephan rostie (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It's interesting that he didn't deny that she was held in Al-Jamal family house. He does say that he is "amazed but not surprised" by the dissemination of fake news in the third paragraph but I'm wondering why he didn't explicitly say that this is a lie. Alaexis¿question? 15:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If it’s only coming from EuroMed (with extra coverage from Quds), I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot-pole without secondary confirmation for this. Let’s wait a day or so, or if it gets picked up by a few other RS.
Current other coverage (not excluding duplicates):
[1],[2],[3], FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Do note that it is not “confirmed”, the better word is accused. This is not the first time the idf has falsely accused journalists of Gaza of being Hamas or PIJ operatives The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
or not falsely.
From a little google search, he worked at El jezira, at least in the past.or someone with his name. According to the following article: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rj4lqe7sc#autoplay
'From the Facebook page of that "journalist" in whose house the hostages were held, it appears that he also worked as a spokesman for the Hamas Ministry of Labor. On October 7, he published a post in which he thanked Hamas: "Praise be to God, good and blessed. God, this is your promised victory."' 2.55.167.89 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Ministry of labour, if he actually worked in it and not some IDF claim, is a municipal position. Not a militant in the qassam brigades. Refer to hamza al Dahdouh and the UNRWA workers, who were also falsely accused of being “militants” by Israel after they were killed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The IDF did not claim he was the spokesman for the Ministry of Labor. As far as I understand, this is a detail added by the newspaper. This is based on his Facebook account. Looks like you got confused. Maybe not the first time.
Most recent coverage from The Times of Israel (9 June 2024) calls it an unverified rumor that Al-Jamals was holding Argamani[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/al-jazeera-denies-rumor-that-hostage-was-held-at-employees-home/

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

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

The cited article states the following: The terror group said earlier it still held a large number of hostages and could increase it, while its military wing threatened the remaining captives held in Gaza.

This claim was directly followed by the following quote from said military wing: “The operation will pose a great danger to the enemy prisoners and will have a negative impact on their conditions and lives,” Abu Obeida, spokesman of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, said in a statement.

This quote does not back up the claim made in the Times of Israel article that Hamas' military wing "threatened" the remaining captives. The quote is clearly just a warning that attacks and bombings pose a great danger to the people being held in the attacked and bombed place. Dylanvt (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying an operation that already ended will pose a great danger is clearly a threat. If a reliable source reported it, that's what the article should say. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Then it might just be best to report the exact quote and let the reader decide.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think best practice on Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Background

Hello, this paragraph does not mention the fact that Hamas decided to hide the hostages in two apartments, in the heart of a populated area. It is only mentioned later. 2.55.177.251 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Other example: https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-0c2d7fef56f2c81027.htm 2.55.177.251 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If it is mentioned later, then it is mentioned? Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"The operation resulted in massive civilian casualties within the camp."

This has been removed from the lead twice. Why? Are the removers disputing this fact? RS clearly state it's true. Dylanvt (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume the argument is that the IDF is disputing the casualties, however I think if we can shore up this claim with a couple more sources, then there is a basis for inclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
IDF is claiming 100-ish casualties per sources. Is that not enough to be "massive"? Is that the argument they're making? Dylanvt (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The first time this was removed, I didn't agree with the reasoning (and the second time was silent) but if we are going to restore it then we must make it so it is inarguable, you see? There should be a couple other sources we can add in here. I'll have a look as well. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't disagree with you. I'll get some sources, too. Dylanvt (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's one https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/ Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the word "massive" isn't necessary. It could be any descriptive word based in sources. Sources have used horrific, seismic trauma, bloodbath, 'brutally' & 'annihilated', carnage, a day of horror that sent hundreds of dead and wounded flooding into already beleaguered hospitals, trail of death and destruction, one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults of the war, etc.
It's not WP:SYNTH to use a descriptive word like 'massive' (but not necessarily specifically 'massive') to describe this. At the very least, there's absolutely no justification to eliminate the sentence wholesale. If people are scared of adjectives, it could even just say "The operation resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties within the camp.", as is being reported by literally every source. Dylanvt (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the IDF were responsible for civilian casualties? This was in Hamas-controlled territory, so obviously you’d want to be able to provide a source which doesn’t rely on Hamas which verifies the POV point you’re hoping to make in this article. KronosAlight (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
First, invoking WP:AGF. Please don't accuse editors of trying to POV-push when, from what I see, they are simply attempting to find better sourcing to justify the wording of a claim.
Second, I'm unsure what your issue is with the provided sources; multiple of the provided sources above are considered reliable sources including Reuters and the UN, who seem to take their numbers from the GHM. Using casualty numbers provided by a governmental organization of a belligerent party, in the case of said organization being deemed reliable, seems to be common practice in Wikipedia. For example, the Battle of Kyiv article derives its civilian casualty figures from the Kyiv City Admin. In this case, the GHM has been historically deemed reliable by the UN.[3] The WSJ and Mekomit reported that US and Israeli intelligence both viewed figures provided by the GHM as generally reliable as well.[4][5] At least one study from last year also did not indicate that the GHM inflates figures.[6] Cumulatively, this is more than enough to deem the GHM itself as an RS. ArkHyena (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I suggest not reacting to commentary from BM while the current proceedings are ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Washington Post says "killing more than 200 Palestinians" in its own voice, but makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
BBC attributes all casualty claims, and makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
I don't think either of those support the claim that is being made. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Your assistance here isn't required, unless you are helping to source the necessary, which it seems you are not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the same thing routinely found in all article on Wikipedia about battle sites in Gaza.
The numbers come from Hamas, they’re repeated uncritically, someone tries to fix that and then the anonymous IP ‘editors’ storm in.
It’s not how Wikipedia should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory. KronosAlight (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The relevant part of https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hostage-rescue-new-details-gaza-operation-nuseirat-rcna156273
We want to put in the body a sufficient number of reports that clarify the extent of the killing and destruction in the camp/market area so that a subsequent lead statement is due. OK? Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And this one https://www.ft.com/content/95ecf8ea-1d56-4125-be9e-2f51f98216bc Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Neither of those sources support the claim being made; they attribute all casualty claims, and makes no claim regarding the number of civilians.
The claim you are trying to find sources for is The operation resulted in massive civilian casualties within the camp; for this you need sources that say, in their own voice, that there were massive numbers of civilian casualties, and so far you have been unable to find any. Searching myself I find one that comes close to supporting this, Al Jazeera, but given Al Jazeera's bias and the number of sources that we've found that decline to support this claim (in addition to the ones you've provided, CNN, Axios, New Arab, and Reuters) it's not sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That's assumption your part, something is going to go in and it will be determined by sources. When it goes in, you will be free to revert, complain or whatever else floats your boat. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, first up, the strikes. According to AP After a rescue vehicle got into difficulties "Israel called in heavy strikes from land and air to cover their evacuation to the coast. It was this bombardment that appears to have killed and wounded so many Palestinians." Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The AP account is confirmed by the BBC "It’s reported that at least one of the vehicles that they were leaving in broke down. The Israeli military decided to send in more support, attacking from the air, from the sea and on the ground with massive force. Mobile phone video from the scene shows people diving for cover as missiles whistled in and gunfire rang out. Later footage showed bodies strewn in the street. It was in these moments that so many Palestinians are likely to have died." Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
CNN seems the most uptodate on some of the details "The intense aerial bombardment destroyed apartment buildings and vehicles throughout Nuseirat camp, according to witnesses and video footage."
NYT says in its own voice "Scores of local people, including children, were killed during the rescue operation." (there are multiple reports and video from hospitals evidencing this).
Taken together, these and other reports allow for a statement along the lines that intensive strikes were called in to support the evacuation of one of the rescue vehicles and that these were responsible for the death and destruction caused in the camp. Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
No KronosAlight (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Massive is a WP:WEASEL, and sources don't appear to use it. It's also not yet clear how many casualties there were, and how many of them were militants and how many were civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Because there’s no reliable evidence of it. The only source for any of these fictional numbers is Hamas, who are the belligerent party. Tomorrow they’ll fabricate new numbers doubling the death toll and the role of Wikipedia is to fully filter out such claims. KronosAlight (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The role of Wikipedia is to go by what the reliable sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hamas are not a reliable source. KronosAlight (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, they are not reliable because the actual death toll is much higher than what is being reported by the “khamas health ministry”
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-05-28/ty-article/.premium/rising-fatality-numbers-in-gaza-are-in-all-probability-higher-than-reported/0000018f-bab5-de04-a58f-bab5ea1d0000 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre/Archive_1&oldid=1256212842"