Talk:31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike

Mads Gilbert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Comment copied over from original Jabalia attack article) I think Wikipedia will lose credibility if it think Mads Gilbert's opinion of the the 31 October bombing is an impartial or important piece of information. There's a one in a trillion chance he would ever NOT label an Israeli attack as a massacre or "mass murder". Do you deny that Israel is clearly guilty of indiscriminate slaughter, which many would consider to be war crimes? 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:F4F3:6CB7:667C:412E (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Whether he is 100% right or not, he is known for his extremist views, such as saying the September 11 attacks were justifiable (later "retracted"). He has been a prominent anti-Israel activist and Hamas ally for well over a decade. 1.129.108.0 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Oh, shut up. Pro-Israel people seem to think that anyone who remotely criticizes Israel's war crimes is an "extremist", and it's getting very boring. As we can see with your nonsense in calling Dr. Gilbert a "Hamas ally" because he refutes IDF propaganda regarding the Gaza Strip. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:F4F3:6CB7:667C:412E (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/User_talk:1.129.108.0 Hatechecker203 (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to: Jabalia massacre?

Unlike other airstrikes, there seems to be more sources referring to this specific bombing as a “massacre” because of the extent of damage and loss of life

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/10/31/dozens-killed-in-israeli-air-attack-on-gaza-refugee-camp-medical-official

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/israel-bombs-jabalia-refugee-camp-in-gaza-in-one-of-the-biggest-massacre-yet/amp-11698766517023.html

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/31/middleeast/jabalya-blast-gaza-intl/index.html

https://www.dawn.com/news/1785306/massive-massacre-al-jazeera-correspondent-at-jabalia-camp-describes-scenes-after-israeli-strike The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, all of the sources you give are quoting Palestinian officials. They've been describing "massacres" by the IDF for the past few weeks, so the word isn't being used with any more gravity than previous airstrikes and/or explosions. The Israelis, as before, describe the casualties as "collateral damage" in the elimination of "mastermind" commander Ibrahim Biari, Hamas assets and accomplices hiding within and under civilian infrastructure. They argue that civilians have been asked to evacuate northern Gaza for several weeks, implying that a military objective had already long been established. This alone would not excuse intentional civilian deaths. Proving that excess civilian deaths were intentional or military objectives did not exist (for example, simply wanting to destroy Gaza morale) requires evidence that is unfortunately very difficult to acquire, especially when it comes to airstrikes in densely populated areas. It's very rare for war crimes to be filmed and narrated via GoPro.

Just to clarify, "extent of damage and loss of life" doesn't automatically make something a "massacre". It's the intent that matters. If a man is shooting you at a gas station and you kill him in self defense but blow up the gas station, killing 200 people, it's not a "massacre". It might be selfishly self-preserving or an act of stupidity, but it's not a massacre as in the intended use of the word. 120.18.53.3 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Israel has openly said that they see all Gazans as "terrorists" and have specifically said that they intend to engage in collective punishment in Gaza. So all you're doing is making excuses for the war crimes of the IDF. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:F4F3:6CB7:667C:412E (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel gave a name, doesn’t really mean anything, any Palestinian is Hamas to them. Large killing of civilians in an attack Israel has admitted to being deliberate, as well as sources describing this specific airstrike as a massacre as well as the damage and death toll makes it more different than the other airstrikes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the reply to your post?

If English isn't your first language, try Google Translate. It works surprisingly well these days for European languages but only so-so for Asian languages (from my experience).

For Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 120.17.32.227 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like he understood the previous guy's nonsense just fine. Shame you have to be condescending though.2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:F4F3:6CB7:667C:412E (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1182935686 Hatechecker203 (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly a massacre, but it may take some time for this to be supported (if ever) in reliable sources. The choice of language in such instances often comes down as much to systemic media bias as anything else. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A massacre has to be intentional. Military operations, especially in densely populated areas may produce collateral damage, whereby civilians are unintentionally killed. For example, NATO bombing of a refugee column in Albania (1999) killing 73 civilians; US planes hitting a shelter in Baghdad (1991) killing 408 civilians...

There is no evidence that Israel targets civilians. On the contrary - to reduce casualties Israel asked residents to leave the area of combat to safe zones in the southern portion of Gaza Strip. GidiD (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Two weeks ago

"Israel razes Gaza’s Jabalia camp to the ground" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARfSpqGwvfY (Today i see the pictures of this old damages.) --Virtualiter (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Three weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpyeqlAqrks --Virtualiter (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes should be mentioned in the beginning. --Virtualiter (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to move to 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike as seen below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

---

31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia → 31 October 2023 Jabalia airstrike – Consistent with our other articles about airstrikes in this conflict and previous ones; Hajji Tower airstrike, October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike, Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike, Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike, 2023 Erez airstrike.

It is also a better descriptive title, as the target of the attack is complicated; it is better to simplify it to "airstrike" and allow the article to explain how the airstrike took place in the camp, but the IDF say that they were targeting a Hamas commander and an underground tunnel complex. This also matches how reliable sources tend to describe the strike; for example, the BBC says An Israeli air strike is reported to have killed dozens of people at Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza, while CBS says Israel carried out airstrikes and ground operations Tuesday in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, targeting what it called a Hamas "terrorist stronghold." BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support as specifying that it is an airstrike can help to decrease misunderstandings and just make it simpler as the word "attack" is somewhat vague. Scarlet Strange (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support "airstrike" is specific and descriptive and is also less likely to lead to the unverified conclusion that the airstrike was intended to target noncombattants there. SPECIFICO talk
• Support, per the reasoning explained here. It's more specific and consistent with other articles about individual airstrikes. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suppot per above Parham wiki (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above- more specific etc. Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC) oppose as nom'd, and support alternative below ('2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes') Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support '31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike' Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support replacing "attack" with "airstrike", the sources support it, but the rest of the title is no good, so oppose as nom'd, and propose alternative: 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes Support 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike
  • The attack was on Jabalia refugee camp, which is outside the city of Jabalia. "Jabalia refugee camp" is much more common than "Jabalia" in sources (in many sources "refugee camp" is more prominent than "Jabalia", see [1][2][3][4]), and including the term "refugee camp" would also help the recognizability and naturalness (ease of searching); readers are more likely to be looking for "refugee camp airstrike" than to remember a foreign city name and spell it right, especially if it is spelt inconsistently by sources (NYT says "Jabaliya", BBC and the Guardian say "Jabalia", CNN says "Jabalya")
  • There were two strikes, one yesterday, one today (see [5][6], so the date is now incorrect. The month and day need to go, and "airstrikes" should be plural.

DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) edited 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There is already a page for the different airstrikes in Jabalia - they have occurred since the beginning of Israeli retaliation in the war. The October 31 one is notable due to just how many people it killed and garnering more international attention than previous attacks in Jabaliya. On the inconsistency in spelling, it comes from the Arabic letter ي, which produces a ya or iya sound. Jebiguess (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and my apologies, I hadn't seen that page. Date should be kept. I've struck parts of my vote. Fully aware of the issues of transliteration, that's part of my rationale. DFlhb (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. It was an airstrike, and falls in line with other articles. Jebiguess (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) oppose in favor of 31 October 2023 Jabaliya refugee camp airstrike per VR's comment.

• Support per above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Propose 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike. That would be consistent with Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes, and it is true that Jabaliya refugee camp is outside of Jabaliya. Most sources use "Jabaliya refugee camp"/"refugee camp" (as opposed to just Jabaliya) in their titles: CNN, CBS News, PBS, BBC News, Bloomberg, Al-Arabiya etc.VR _talk 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Supporting this proposal as a possible alternative due to the given evidence. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support per reasoning above. Jebiguess (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support this, more accurate. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support: the "refugee camp" variant as more accurate/precise, per VR. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support adding "refugee camp" for consistency with Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes. Yeoutie (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stated → Claimed

@Nythar: Why did you switch this over? Per MOS:CLAIM, we shouldn't be using words like "claimed" to attribute, but instead should use words like "stated", as the former calls the statement's credibility into question, while the latter is usually neutral and accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: During this war, as is the case in all wars, neither side has been entirely truthful, so as far as anyone's credibility during this war goes, his statement was only a claim. I wasn't aware of MOS:CLAIM though, so thanks for notifying me. I've seen "claimed" used quite often, and I'm wondering if this is acceptable to use when a source describes a statement as such. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If RS express scepticism in addition to use of the word then sure but ordinarily prefer said, stated, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The article states that at least 47 Palestinians were killed, but the "Casualties" field in the box on the right on the beginning of the article says "100+ killed"

This discrepancy should be revised to "47+" in the "Casualties" field in the box on the right, as stated in the various references. Also, one shouldn't give Al Jazeera as a reliable reference, for it is not an independent media outlet, but a medium for spreading the Qatari government's propaganda. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

OT discussion

:al jazeera is a trusted source, no matter how much you may disagree with them. Imagemafia (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) There's an entire article about the controversies and criticism of Al Jazeera - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism Thisissparta12345 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC) sure, every single other news outlet does have controversies and critism as well maybe not in its own article but still. it's listed in wikipedia's reliable sources and therefore unless you somehow manage to convince most of this platform othewise it can be used as a source unless absolutely proven false Imagemafia (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) In the project page of Wikipedia's reliable sources/Perennial_sources, it states that "Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy." Therefore, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source when it comes to articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (especially the ones in Arabic). Link to said project page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Regardless, we need to update the "Casualties" field in the box in the beginning of the article to "47+ killed", as stated in the opening paragraph of the article. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC) AJ is green or generally reliable at RSP, whether "some editors" agree with that or not. As for the casualty count, pretty sure Qatar has no interest in that, and WAPO cites "More than 100 people were killed and hundreds more injured, according to the director of a local hospital." AJ currently has "at least 50" Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC) "according to the director of a local hospital" - the director of a local hospital is not a reliable source. All the news outlets which are considered as reliable references by Wikipedia state that "at least 47 were killed", not "at least 100". Thisissparta12345 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC) how the fuck do you think anyone gets their information during this war? you think they constantly monitor every single part of gaza, israel and the west bank? no, sometimes they do just ask people who live there, also you've been disproved by a message just above you, WaPo is a reliable source and as mentioned by selfstudier it did cite the 100+ mark. Imagemafia (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) The fact is that CNN, BBC and even Al Jazeera stated that at least 50 were killed, not at least 100. Stop taking it personally, and stick to what almost all reliable news outlets report. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) you on some facts don't care about your feelings type of shit, and WAPO is also a fully reliable source and it said 100+, now what do you do? Imagemafia (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC) And saying "pretty sure Qatar has no interest in that" is a personal opinion (which I perceive as wrong) and therefore cannot be taken as a fact. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) what's your point, it's the same thing as saying that Qatar has an interest in it which is also just your opinion, everyone has opinions here I'm glad you figured it out, but that's not what the purpose of this page is. Imagemafia (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news television network - that's not an opinion, it's a fact. And as such, the Qatari government has influence over its reporting. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC) ok great I'mma just believe you, how does that influence their reporting on that casualty count, was that specific reporter a qatari agent? Imagemafia (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC) No, but it is well established that Qatar is by far the largest state-funder of Hamas. Therefore, one can easily infer that Qatar has an interest in spreading Hamas' agenda via its state-owned news network of Al Jazeera - which includes exaggerating the number of casualties of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza, in order to make Israel look bad and thereby strengthening Hamas' public image. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Imagine and infer all you want. Source your opinion and I will start listening. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC) As I quoted before from the project page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - "Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy." Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Repetition. I can do that, AJ is green, therefore reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Read the Summary column - AJ is reliable EXCEPT when it comes to Israeli-Arab related news. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) that's not what it says though? it says that if somebody is using their articles about israel-palestine as a reference then they should be flagged as made by AJ. Imagemafia (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) yeah they have a pro-palestine view of the conflict, just like I don't know the CNN has a pro-israeli view, biases exist and there's no absolute objectivity Imagemafia (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC) bias and reliability are different metrics. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) well established? i believe you mistook for Iran. and please give me one proof of AJ straight up lying with no basis for their claims, and also (yes this is in fact just my opinion before you come at me) it's not that hard to make israel look bad is it, looks just as bad on nyt like on AJ Imagemafia (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Here's an example of AJ lying - they tried to refute the claim that it was a misfired rocket by the Palestinian Islamist group PIJ that hit the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza, even though it was confirmed to be a misfired rocket by the governments of the US, the UK and France. Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/19/what-hit-ahli-hospital-in-gaza Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) "generally reliable" doesn't mean "always reliable", and the hospital strike is currently "disputed" per the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Now you're just trying to find excuses. I gave you an example and you're trying to evade it. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This is completely off topic now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) no neither of us are? we just said the evidence you provided doesn't prove shit, i am sorry but you're so obnoxious and so wrong, i quit this argument because there's no reason to reason with somebody who doesn't think Imagemafia (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) that was what a day after the strike? information was scarce and some source even fully reliable ones said that it was an airstrike, most of them including AJ have since published articles that admit that yes it wasn't an israeli airstike, and well nothing was really confirmed yet buddy, you preach about AJ being biased and then you list intelligence services of countries which have things to win or lose in this conflict Imagemafia (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC) The US Intelligence services are professional. As opposed to those of dictatorships (such as the Arab countries), they are obliged under American law to report their findings without bias - as they serve a democracy. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) That AJ is green at RSP is also a fact, owned by Qatar or not. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If there differing figures, just leave the infobox field empty for now, and explain the situation in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please add the following to the International Reactions section (if appropriate)

• Germany's foreign minister Annalena Baerbock emphasized Israels right of self-defense and stated that Hamas was consciously using people in the camp as human shields. AmbitiousAmphibian (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done.VR _talk 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Misquote

SPECIFICO, could you self-revert this edit? (edit summary: conform to statement in cited source)

You changed our text targeted a "military stronghold" to targeted a "Hamas stronghold"

This is how the source uses the term "stronghold": which it says is a Hamas "stronghold," (paraphrased quote) and The object was a "military stronghold" [...] the military said (verbatim quote) Our text conformed to the source, now it does not. DFlhb (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, my initial thought about that text was that these were scarequotes and that the quotation marks should be removed. Then when I looked at the source I saw the quotation marks in the source. I now see what you're saying, but I still think that the quotation marks in our text, much briefer and with less context than the source article, strike the reader as scarequotes. What's your opinion about removing the quotation marks? From what I see, the weight of RS, e.g. this one do not use quotation marks when reporting the Israeli justification of the bombardment. SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems NPR was just wrong. The NYT piece you link doesn't mention a stronghold at all. The BBC presents the stronghold stuff as part of a separate operation that involved groups troops, not air strikes, and happened in the city itself, not the refugee camp. WaPo doesn't talk about a stronghold. I'll self-revert to what the section said before my "stronghold" addition. DFlhb (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, NPR was ambiguous; the first paragraph heavily implies the strikes targeted a stronghold, though they do later mention the (alleged) stronghold was in western Jabalia (which isn't where the refugee camp is). My fault for not being more careful. DFlhb (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at more sources, I think that sentence and section needs more content reflecting additional sources and discussion of the various claims about the target. The immediate solution would be to remove the scarequotes, but this would technically run afoul of 1RR, so I suggest we workshop better and more detailed text here on talk. Among other things, saying that the journalist could not verify the existence of tunnels or Israel's claim of a Hamas command center doesn't add any specific information. As often happens in controversies and concerns about wartime events, such verification is not accessible to the press and has the facts and circumstances take years for investigators to assess. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the text looks much better and NPOV to me. I have no further concerns about this bit. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Same DFlhb (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

first three citations are incomplete

The first three references/citations on this Wikipedia article are incomplete, and need additional information added. Thank you. 133.106.140.85 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed DFlhb (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Currently, Category:Mass murder in Gaza in included. Per WP:CATPOV, I don't think that is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Andreas JN466 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the cat. CATPOV doesn't support it. Andreas JN466 23:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote box

What are editors' views of this bit of content? It has gone in and out of the article a couple of times now and was most recently deleted here:

---

An eyewitness described the scene:

"Children were carrying other injured children and running, with grey dust filling the air. Bodies were hanging on the rubble, many of them unrecognized. Some were bleeding and others were burnt. ... I saw women screaming and confused. They didn’t know whether to cry for losing their children or run and look for them, especially since many children were playing in the neighborhood."

References

---

Personally I think we should restore it. There is an immediacy to it that any paraphrase will merely water down. It is very well sourced (CNN), and CNN actually used part of this quote as the title of its article. Views? Andreas JN466 17:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The horrors in Gaza are abundantly described and referenced on Wikipedia. Beyond the horrors of war, which are infinite, the significance of this particular strike is the uncertainty and conflicting narratives about its cause and consequences. Emphasizing the already evident horrors without giving WEIGHT to the significant factors in this incident fails NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

An IDF official confirming that they launched an airstrike at a refugee camp is an example of uncertainty and conflicting narratives about its cause and consequences? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what uncertainty? Two, 2000-pound bombs were dropped with predictable ramifications in a densely crowded refugee camp. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

So we shouldnt cover the atrocities by Hamas and other groups on October 7th in the detail that we do for the same reason I gather? nableezy - 02:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring the quote. An airstrike getting launched at a refugee camp that kills 50+ and injures hundreds will inevitably causes a huge amount of suffering. I see nothing wrong with including the eyewitness account to illustrate that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we're better off summarizing and describing the attack; adding the quote raises issues with WEIGHT as mentioned by SPECIFICO. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of restoring the quote. The quote in itself is pretty NPOV as far as describing the attack, and portrays really good imagery that I don't think we can replicate without minimizing or exaggerating the scene. Jebiguess (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the weight concern here? CNN gave this a ton of weight, and currently we have no description of the aftermath besides the IDF spokesman claiming this is all so terrible because Hamas uses human shields. nableezy - 02:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We have no quote box about the Israeli rationale, nor should we. We should focus on article text that meets the dictums of NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine, take it out of a quote box. And make it a normal quote in the text, if thats the issue. nableezy - 02:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Per all the above, the issue is WP:WEIGHT, not only the formatting. SPECIFICO talk○

Ok, again, what is the WEIGHT issue then? Is there some other viewpoint on the aftermath that is not expressed? nableezy - 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is how the body of the article currently starts:

---

The director for civil defense in Gaza told Al Jazeera that Israel dropped six US-made bombs in the area. Pictures of the aftermath showed several large craters amid destroyed buildings. The New York Times quoted an analyst who said the damage appeared consistent with Joint Direct Attack Munitions that Israel uses. Satellite imagery showed that an area of at least 2,500 square metres (27,000 sq ft) was "completely flattened" in the strikes, according to the NYT. The New York Times and experts it consulted concluded that at least two 2,000-pound bombs were used.

According to IDF officials, Israel targeted the space between buildings to destroy an underground tunnel complex and said that the collapse of the tunnel network caused the foundations of nearby buildings to collapse in turn causing the collapse of those buildings.

References

---

There is not a single mention here that anyone died in the attack. Moreover, we are told that the IDF aimed its bombs at the streets between the buildings, as though the collapse of the buildings – or rather the complete pulverisation of an entire city block – was completely unexpected by the IDF (which even the cited interview makes clear it was not). This is not what the sources describing the attack and the resulting scene focused on, what they gave the most weight. The sources focused on the carnage and the civilian deaths, so any description of the attack must describe these prominently. --Andreas JN466 09:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, people are claiming we must not include mention the people who were directly impacted by the attack, only the official story for why it was a necessary and precise strike that was wholly justified. The sources have focused on the impact to the civilian population in in the refugee camp. We even dont include refugee camp in the title. nableezy - 22:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the quote, though without the box format. Andreas JN466 23:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466: As you may not have seen, I just objected to this proposal above in this thread. Please self-revert and continue to pursue consensus here on talk SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

But you have not said why. You have simply asserted a WEIGHT issue. What is the weight issue? We had nothing on the casualties or the impact on the civilians in the refugee camp. Why is it a weight violation to include that? nableezy - 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It was my judgment that present consensus here in this discussion is against you. The weight is established by sources that are explicit about the distress of local civilians. This is not just CNN. BBC: "Video footage and photos showed hundreds of people searching the wreckage afterwards. "We're filling bags with children," cried one man, holding up a small white cloth bag covered in blood." Reuters reported having obtained a video of a boy in Jabalia crying in despair: "I was standing here when three bombings happened, I carried a body and another decapitated body with my own hands. God will take my vengeance." (This was during the Nov. 4 strike on Jabalia.) That video is shown here on the Irish Times website. Etc. Andreas JN

Yes, clearly it's your judgment that your view is correct. But we look to either uninvolved assessment of consensus or clear uncontested consensus, taking account of all views. The WEIGHT issue is clear. One view is that this was a wanton, needless attack on civilians for collective punishment, a war crime. The other view is that this was a strike on underground tunnels and Hamas leadership situated beneath the surface. Yes there was terrible civilian suffering. That is what happens in all wars. The emphasis on the civilian suffering without commensurate article text as to the Israeli statements that they were targeting legitimate Hamas targets frames this section with UNDUE non-NPOV emphasis. I thought that was clear from the previous comments, but now it is elaborated somewhat. At any rate, it is not our practice for editors to declare consensus for their own views and cut short talk page workshopping of consensus recognized by those participating on talk. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

"Given the high number of civilian casualties [and] the scale of destruction following Israeli airstrikes on Jabalia refugee camp, we have serious concerns that these are disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes"

XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned that view, above. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The main problem here is that Israel is not a neutral third party; they are an admitted participant. If reliable, third-party sources say that what Israel did "could amount to war crimes", those claims should probably hold more weight than the Israeli military's justification for it. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's understood. But we still report denials or alternative assertions of involved parties when reported by Reliable Sources. Emphasis could amount to war crimes. Let's just try to describe the events -- determination of war crimes is complex and will only happen long afterward. At this time, it is just a label, rather than a description. There is no doubt that the suffering is horrific. "war crime" does not add to that description. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If we agree that the suffering is horrific, then there should be no issue with including the eyewitness accounts of the airstrike. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree for reasons stated above. We can describe it without the long quote and with due weight to the Israeli statement about the target, also not in a direct quote. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

466 00:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with using a quote, at least until we can find a couple of suitable images or videos for this article. The same reason we use images to educate the reader, we can also use quotes of eye witness accounts. The quote used is entirely neutral and I don't see any weight concerns. I don't think there is a single source out there that is disputing that children didn't die in this event (regardless of who is to be blamed).VR _talk 06:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't see an issue with using a quote given huge, titular weight by CNN. They obviously thought it conveyed something meaningful. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an Israeli airstrike on the Jabalia refugee camp killed dozens of people? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67276822
  • Alt1: ... that in response to an Israeli airstrike on the Jabalia refugee camp that killed dozens, Iran said oil exports to Israel should be ceased? Source:[7]
  • Alt2: ... that the UN warned that an Israeli airstrike on the Jabalia refugee camp – that killed dozens – could constitute a war crime?Source:[8]
  • Reviewed: Ashraf Deghani

Created by Vice regent (talk). Self-nominated at 06:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Just a comment: Isn't killing people the point of an airstrike? We can get better hookiness by mentioning that civilians were killed. Bremps... 19:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Bremps: some airstrikes are intended to damage structure without necessarily killing people. I agree with your suggestion, I didn't mention civilians in the hook as I felt that mentioning civilians might cause some to oppose the nom.VR _talk 04:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: War often kills people. My personal opinion is that ALT0 fails the interestingness criterion. It shouldn’t be that difficult to come up with more hooks. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: Long enough, new enough. No maintenance templates found, no neutrality issues found, no valid copyright concerns found. QPQ done. I agree that ALT0 is not interesting; might be worth proposing a hook regarding Bolivia cutting diplomatic ties.--Launchballer 00:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: Can you propose another hook please?--Launchballer 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I did. For some reason I don't get your pings from here. Next time I don't respond here, I'd be grateful if you left a message on my talk. I'm confused why I didn't get your pings.VR _talk 06:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to say, I regularly don't receive pings on these nominations, and only know people have responded to me through checking T:TDYK and T:TDYKA. I'm pretty sure I once only found out one of my nominations had been approved after the bot told me it was on the main page. ALT2 is fine; a more merciless prepbuilder may crop "that killed dozens" but I'll leave that to them. Let's roll.--Launchballer 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled this hook with the following rationale: The prose is made up of 36% direct quotes and with that, it's a WP:COPYVIO poor writing. Note that it's nowhere defined what proportion of an article can be made up of quotes, but I suggest that 36% is far too much to be acceptable. Schwede66 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done some rudimentary copyediting myself.--Launchballer 08:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The nominator appears to have lost interest. I shall close this; it’s getting too old anyway. Schwede66 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)