Jump to content

Talk:13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack

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

Redirect

[edit]

I'm gonna redirect this to 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif. Please join the move request at that article's talk page.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: do you have any objections? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I would rather redirect the other way about, tbh. This is clearly the proper (not to mention better) article and the targeted assassination material, what there is of it, can just be included here. No? Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier The rule is we keep the article that was created earlier. And we go through the RM process to rename the original article. Its frustrating, I know.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: If they are about the same thing, these are not. It's a bit like Nuseirat, one is the rescue and the other is the attendant massacre. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the airstrikes and the assassination (attempt)? Its the same explosion. Its merely a difference of how IDF frames the events, vs how Palestinians and others frame the event.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, so two articles are possible a la Nuseirat but since the (alleged) targeting article is not much material, I would just as soon redirect that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is literally the exact same airstrikes, no? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of looking at it but not the only way, there is literally zero reason (atm) to take what Israel claims as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal just redirected here to there but I reverted it until there is consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the only notable topic. The excuse that it was the 16th, 17th (...?) attempted assassination of a man that no-one has seen in years is barely even confirmed as anything more than a flimsy POV premise, let alone a notable topic. There are POV titles, and then there are those that are simply wholly mis-scoped and dysfunctional. The only notable topic is the atrocious attack on the most definitive of safe zones. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 I agree. So what do we do? First we recognize we have a content fork. Done. Then we merge the later into earlier. Then we follow the process in moving that POV title to an NPOV one.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the other piece is terrible enough, which it is, because it doesn't even describe the event, this is not practical. Why would we merge a reasonably well-written event page into a shoddy page that only contains reactions? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also pretty much nothing actually to the other piece. It's a hollow shell with basically just a bunch of pretty worthless news cycle reactions. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2024

[edit]
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.

13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes → 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack – For some reason this article was opened separately from this article: 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif. But since it has already been written, I recommend specifying the date of the attack to a specific day. Galamore (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of saving community time, I have gone ahead and put "13" in the article. I think that should be uncontroversial. I suppose the discussion of "airstrikes" vs "attack" can continue below.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support attack or massacre based on the wanton killing of civilians. Jebiguess (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for attack, and previously there has been consensus to use "attack" vs "airstrike", and we should be WP:CONSISTENT:
    • In a recently closed move discussion[1], the page was moved to Tel al-Sultan attack, with the closer stating: ""attack" was used in the originally proposed title, and received a fair amount of additional explicit support, so I believe this is the descriptor with the greatest weight of consensus behind it. Other possible descriptors such as "airstrike" received scattered support, but were not widely discussed enough to justify a move." I count >30 users took part in that discussion.
    • At Al-Sardi school attack there was consensus[2] that "airstrike" was WP:OVERPRECISE, and "attack" was the best title.
    • At World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack, there was unanimous consensus[3] to move from "drones strikes" to "attack".

VR (Please ping on reply) 15:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should also be WP:CONSISTENT with May 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack, June 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are basically two problems with the term "airstrikes":
    • The first is that its possibly inaccurate. The NYt claims 2,000 lb bombs were used, but there is no widespread confirmation on what platform was used to carry out the attack. Was it a drone? Was it a missile? In that case, "airstrike" is misleading.
    • Focusing on the exact munitions in the title is WP:UNDUE because the real story here is the tragic death of 70 Palestinians. That is what most RS are focused on. Only a few RS give more weight to what exact weapon Israel used vs the impact of the attack.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: There are two problems with these two problems:
To your first point, even if the bombs were not launched by aircraft (in which case it would not be an airstrike), it would still be a strike, which would be the title we should use in that case.
To your second point: "the real story here is the tragic death of 70 Palestinians," this may be the main focus of the content, but certainly not the title. The title is simply meant to explain what happened. "Only a few RS give more wieght to what exact weapon Israel used vs the impact of the attack." Could you clarify what this means? How would an RS be giving undue weight to what weapon Israel used? And how does this have anything to do with the title of this article? What matters is how RS's refer to the event, and they call this a "strike", or an "airstrike", so that is the WP:COMMONAME. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an article title could be inaccurate based on your original research has no basis in official policies and guidelines and thus irrelevant. StellarHalo (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One your second point, the close of the RM for Al-Sardi school attack was a bad one. Not only did the closer not address the RS using "strike" more than "attack", they also misinterpret WP:PRECISE which says that titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. That title could have been for a school shooting.
On your third point, that discussion did not have enough participants or feature any RS-based evidence.
--StellarHalo (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That title could have been for a school shooting." In that case "Al-Mawasi strikes" could be a name for a labor dispute (eg 1980 Lublin strikes, Kohler strikes) and should be ruled out.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT does not apply here. Yes, some articles for similar events use "attack", but others do not. See the Category:2024 airstrikes page. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11 articles in Category:2024 airstrikes have the word "attack" in them, while 9 have the word "airstrike(s)". If we want to take the Palestinian POV, that this was a massacre, we see "attack" is also used at Category:Massacres. If we want to take the Israeli POV that the target was purely military, we again see "attack" commonly used at Category:Attacks on military installations in 2024.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: There are multiple problems with this.
First, I do not understand how NPOV has anything to do with this RM. If there were any NPOV concerns (I do not see any) with the title "airstrike", moving it to "attack" wouldn't fix those concerns, as an airstrike literally is an attack. Even if there were two more articles with "attack" than "strike" or "airstrike" in Category:2024 airstrikes, that would not mean we should blindly title articles about airstrikes "attacks"; instead that means we should judge each article on a case by case basis (which is what is being done here). Now, you said that 11 of those articles have the word "attack" in them, while 9 have the word "airstrikes". I am counting 10 using "attack", and 27 either using "airstrike" or "strike".
Second, in order to compare this to other pages in Category:Massacres, we would need to first establish that RS's are labeling this event as a massacre. We can compare this strike to pages in Category:Attacks on military installations in 2024, but only if those pages are also about strikes. Almost all of them are about things that weren't strikes, so they are not comparable. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
responded at #Consistency with other attacks, airstrikes, massacres.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Aside from just being better supported and more consistent terminology based on the source analysis, there are issues of euphemism involving describing deadly bombings that result in mass killings as mere "airstrikes" – it's a long running issue of systemic bias in the topic area (though not here specifically, because the sourcing actually supports the move). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are issues of euphemism involving describing deadly bombings that result in mass killings as mere "airstrikes." People keep saying that there are NPOV concerns with "airstrikes" yet I simply do not see how those are at play. An airstrike is an attack, so anything that titling this as an attack would imply would also be implied by titling this as an airstrike. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's a long-running issue. "Airstrike" is a word that implies precision, and military professionalism; but an alternative description in the context would just be bombing or possibly even carpet bombing (probably most accurately for 8x1-tonne bombs dropped on a civilian area). Now carpet bombing implies indiscriminate attacking and unprofessionalism, which is evidently closer to the truth, but Western sources will routinely prefer "airstrikes", because it's part of the white-washing. In the context, attack is at least blandly neutral. As a comparable example, the page Majdal Shams attack, now with a "massacre" alt name, is not called a "shelling" or "rocket attack" despite that being the presumptive cause (at least per Western media), because that would militarize and spin the terminology of an event best characterized as an assault and human tragedy. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Airstrike" is a word that implies precision, and military professionalism. This is false. The definition of an airstrike is: "an attack in which military airplanes drop bombs". This in no way implies that the attack was precise or showed "military professionalism." Thus this is not an NPOV concern. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are speaking to a dictionary definition, not the context in which it is used by the media industry. You clearly haven't read any reports about bias in the conflict. Palestinians die in "airstrikes"; Israelis die in "massacres". Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "airstrike" not NPOV but "attack" is? I have explained why your previous assessment was factually incorrect, so unless there is anything more to add, no NPOV problem has actually been identified. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided anything factual, but ok. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that an airstrike implies precision and "military professionalism." It is a fact that the definition of an "airstrike" is "an attack in which military airplanes drop bombs", which does not imply precision. Thus your claim about the meaning of "airstrike" is factually incorrect. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still going eh? Wikipedia 101: when you start throwing around statements like "that's a fact, Jack" while quoting dictionaries, editors are liable to wander off and ignore you. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how else we would establish the meaning of a word other than using a dictionary, but ok. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

[edit]

From my reading both "airstrikes" and "attack" are widely used by sources, although "attack" is more commonly used. If we consider exact WP:COMMONNAME:

Number of Google News results
Term Results for July 13-Aug 3
"al-mawasi attack" 266
"al-mawasi attacks" 154
"al-mawasi airstrike" 4
"al-mawasi airstrikes" 7 (top result is this article)

If we consider descriptive words, WP:NDESC:

Number of Google News results
Term Results for July 13-Aug 3
"al-mawasi" "attack" 5,330
"al-mawasi" "attacks" 4,150
"al-mawasi" "airstrike" 1,520
"al-mawasi" "airstrikes" 471

VR (Please ping on reply) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONAME states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)," (emphasis mine). When running a google search, there is no guarantee that the results are independent reliable sources (by just looking at the number of hits). Thus this does not actually establish a common name within RS's. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a selection of some sources, comparing whether they use "strike", "strikes", "airstrike", "attack", or something else. Note that most of the sources actually describe this in the body as both an attack and an airstrike. So I am going off of how this is referred to in the title.

Sources using "strike" or "strikes" or "airstrike": cnn Le Monde Deutsche Presse-Agentur VOA Huff Post Gulf News DhakaTribune malaymail AP News Deutsche Welle CBC France 24 UN.org BBC nytimes

Sources using "attack": Tehran Times The New Arab Bloomberg The Sisat Daily

Sources using both: Al Jazeera (1 2) The Hindu

Neither (sources neither referring to this a "strike" or an "attack" in the title): Barron's U.S. News USA Today The Economist Reuters The New Arab Gödel2200 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINES says headlines are not a reliable source and we should rely on the body. So now I'm going to go through the sources you provided and show they use "attack" more often than "airstrike" in the body. I hope since I'm using the sources you provided there won't be any accusations of WP:CHERRYPICKING.
Usage of attack vs airstrike vs massacre
Source Uses "attack"? Uses "air strike" or "air strikes" or "airstrike" or "airstrikes"? Cites usage of "massacre" or "massacres"
CNN No Yes Yes
Le Monde Yes Yes No
VOA Yes No Yes
Huff Post Yes Yes Yes
Gulf News Yes No Yes
DhakaTribune Yes No Yes
malaymail Yes Yes No
AP News Yes No Yes
Deutsche Welle Yes Yes Yes
CBC Yes Yes No
France 24 Yes Yes Yes
BBC Yes Yes Yes
UN.org Yes Yes Yes
nytimes Yes Yes Yes
Tehran Times Yes No No
The New Arab Yes No Yes
Bloomberg Yes Yes No
The Sisat Daily Yes No Yes
Al Jazeera 1 Yes Yes Yes
Al Jazeera 2 Yes No Yes
The Hindu Yes No Yes
Barron's Yes No Yes
U.S. News Yes Yes Yes
USA Today Yes Yes No
The Economist Yes Yes Yes
Reuters Yes Yes Yes
The New Arab Yes Yes Yes
Total 96% (26/27) 63% (17/27) 78% (21/27)

The above shows "attack" is more widely used than "airstrikes". We can do another analysis of "attack" vs "strike", but the word "strike" or "strikes" is WP:AMBIGUOUS as it is most often used in labor disputes (eg 1995 strikes in France, 1988 Polish strikes).VR (Please ping on reply) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be comparing the use of "attack" to "strikes". The only source listed above not using "strikes" in the body is The Siasat Daily, which still uses "airstrike" in the body. I agree with you that simply using "strikes" as the title would be too ambiguous, but that doesn't mean we should make the title "attack": In fact, it means we should specify what type of strike the sources are referring to, and of course all of them are referring to an airstrike. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles above use "airstrike" "or "strike" more than "attack" to refer to the subject event in their own voice in the body (not including headlines, subheadings, and image captions):
  1. CNN: 0 use of strike vs 18 uses of airstrike or strike
  2. Le Monde: 1 use of attack vs 6 uses of strike
  3. VOA: 3 uses of attack vs 9 uses of strike
  4. Huff Post: 2 uses of attack vs 6 uses of strike or airstrike
  5. Gulf News: 1 use of attack vs 2 uses of strike
  6. Dhaka Tribune: 2 uses of attack vs 7 uses of strike
  7. MalayMail: 2 uses of attack vs 1 use of airstrike
  8. AP: 2 uses of attack vs 9 uses of strikes
  9. DW: 2 uses of attack vs 3 uses of airstrike or strike
  10. CBC: 5 uses of attack vs 7 uses of airstrike or strike
  11. France 24: 2 uses of attack vs 9 uses of strike
  12. BBC News: 4 uses of attack vs 5 uses of airstrike or strike
  13. UN: 4 uses of attack vs 4 uses of airstrike of strike
  14. NYT: 6 uses of attack vs 22 uses of airstrike or strike
  15. Tehran Times: 0 use of attack vs 1 use of strike
  16. The New Arab: 1 use of attack vs 3 uses of strike
  17. Bloomberg: 0 use of attack vs 6 uses of airstrike or strike
  18. Siasat Daily: 21 uses of attack vs 2 uses of airstrike or strike
  19. Al Jazeera: 14 uses of attack vs 6 uses of strike
  20. The Hindu: 4 uses of attack vs 3 uses of strike
  21. Barron's: 1 use of attack vs 4 uses of strike
  22. US News: 5 uses of attack vs 6 uses of airstrike or strike
  23. USA Today: 2 uses of attack vs 4 uses of airstrike or strike
  24. Reuters: 4 uses of attack vs 7 uses of airstrike or strike
Of the above, only 4 sources use "attack(s)" more than "strike(s)" or "airstrike(s)" while 19 sources use "airstrike(s)" or "strike(s)" more than "attack(s)". This means that the proposed title article with "attack" is WP:UNDUE.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia...generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. Since "airstrike" or "strike" are much more prevalent in English-language RS than the proposed title, the article should not be moved. StellarHalo (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:
25. Washington Post: 4 uses of attack vs 14 uses of strikes
26. Sky News: 3 uses of attack vs 5 uses of strike
- StellarHalo (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem with your analysis is that you are counting a term that you don't want in the article title. Do you want the article to be called "airstrike", so why are you counting "strike"? If you want to debate "strike" we can do that.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as calling it an airstrike would be misleading since following the airstrike Israeli quadcopters also fired on civil defense services. Attack would be more accurate to describe the situation. But why do we have the date in the title, it should be removed since there is no other WP article on an Al-Mawasi attack? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with other attacks, airstrikes, massacres

[edit]

I'm responding to the consistency with various categories here, so as to not let the main RM become a WP:WALLOFTEXT.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gödel2200, you need to decide whether you want to name this article "strike", "airstrikes", "missile strikes" etc, because an article can't simultaneously be named all three. I count only 10 articles using "airstrike" in Category:2024 airstrikes. "only if those pages are also about strikes". The definition of "strike" is "to hit or attack someone or something forcefully or violently". Can you indicate which event in Category:Attacks on military installations in 2024 did not involve force or violence? Finally, plenty of RS do use the term "massacre"[8][9][10][11][12]. We don't have to call this article "massacre", but it would be desirable to be consistent with Category:Massacres in 2024, especially Category:2024 massacres of the Israel–Hamas war.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that, while this is an airstrike, most of the attacks in the Category:Attacks on military installations in 2024 are ground attacks, which are not comparable to airstrikes. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to decide if you want to call this article "strike" or "airstrike". As seen on military strike, a "strike" can take place from ground, air or sea, it is not limited to air only.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in opposition to the proposed title in the RM. I made this "decision" clear from the very start of my first reply. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

[edit]

is the top-right infobox of the page change the part where it says Part of the Israel–Hamas war and Rafah offensive to Part of the Israel–Hamas war and Rafah offensive and Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as it is also part of that 173.72.3.91 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There doesn't appear to be any mention of this event at the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article to justify this change, so the only alternative would be if sources say so. Left guide (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 - Casualties

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed :

Change "141 Palestinians were killed" to "90+ Palestinians were killed". Change "400 were injured" to "289 were injured". These changes affect the lead, the info-box and the "Aftermath and death toll" section

  • Why it should be changed:

The BBC source (3) used for those numbers isn't referencing the "13 July Al-Mawasi airstrikes" but rather Israeli airstrikes since Saturday, I.E. not only this strike but other strikes like the airstrike on al-Shati. When searching for the claimed casualties only for this airstrike, the numbers are 90+ killed and 289 injured.

  • References supporting the possible change:

This BBC article reflects the number I'm using.

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like someone fixed it? Rainsage (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

al-Mawasi or Al-Mawasi?

[edit]

The title uses the lowercase form whilst the rest of the article uses the uppercase form. Note al (lowercase, usually in the context of al-[subject]) is the definite article in Arabic, much like the in English. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again Wikipedia downplaying Israeli massacres

[edit]

The “attack” was a massacre. Wether Israel saying a Hamas commander was possibly maybe probably there or not does not matter considering they dropped a 1-tonne bomb on an area they explicitly told civilians to evacuate to as a “humanitarian area”. I have explained why western coverage is not sufficient to the extent that I feel like a broken record repeating it. Several sources that can actually pin blame to Israel on their headlines and acknowledge Palestinians as an identity call it a massacre. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WSP, it was eight bombs of that yield. It certainly violated all international norms of precision and proportionality – namely because Israel routinely ignores both of these things when it feels like it and feels like it can get away with it – so ultimately just another archetypal Israeli war crime. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria why don't you raise this concern in the RM above? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know there was a RM for this article. Thanks for letting me know The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria AJ says that Israel "targeted tents housing displaced Palestinians". Are there other sources that also state that the target of the attack were civilians? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF claims this attack was to target [[Mohammed Deif]], however this is basically bollocks as they had not been able to prove he was there, let alone targeted. Note that another massacre took place on the same day in Al Shati (north Gaza)
https://www.aljazeera.net/amp/news/2024/7/14/غارات-على-مدينة-غزة-وارتفاع-عدد-شهداء The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed edit request - Balanced lead wording

[edit]

Just a quick edit - in the lead, Israel's view of facts is "claimed" while Hamas's is "said". Especially given the most similar recent conflicts of claim (i.e. issa and to a lesser extent shukur, although neither of these received as strong denials. I say this to emphasize the need for parity, not to suggest this history should be included), Israel's claim should at least have parity of wording with Hamas's - i.e. Either "Israel stated"/"Hamas said" or "Israel claimed" "while Hamas claimed" (or Z from Hamas). The IDF language of "confirmed" is not relevant to how wikivoice should portray it. Also, in line with similar articles, salama and and Deif should be listed in casualties in the info box, with Deif having a parenthetical that it's claimed by Israel and denied by Hamas. At the very least Salama should be listed as a casualty as this is not denied by Hamas (except MAYBE indirectly but this isn't as it has been reported in RS) and supported by both IDF and Saudi media (references in article - guardian to al-hadath). Finally, this claim of Salama's death should be in the lead (per same sources as article) since he is among the highest ranked officials in Hamas military wing. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Deif and Salama

[edit]

In the lead, Israel's confirmation of Deif's death on August 1 has been added, however that has not been changed yet in the "Fate of Deif and Salama" section, where it still reads "The IDF said that it was in the process of verifying whether Mohammed Deif was killed in the airstrikes." The IDF's stance on this has clearly since changed, so this should be updated to the most current information. SchnazMan (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that was just updated, thanks. SchnazMan (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Assassinated"?

[edit]

Is it appropriate to refer to the killing of the military commander of an enemy that you are at war with as an assassination? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended to text to "...the strike was an attempt to kill the military commander..." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those grey areas where neither terms is necessarily wrong. It is my understanding that "assassination" is more precise when a prominent person has been the target of a planned secret attack. M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed edit request - MoH doesn’t differentiate civilian deaths

[edit]

I'm confused why info box deaths are listed as 90+ civilians when MoH doesn't differentiate civilians and no cited RS is claiming the 90+ number is all civilian (maybe I'm missing something? But to my knowledge the Al Jazeera article cited isn't claiming editorially that it was all civilians). One way to fix is change to "people" EDIT DUE TO POST BELOW: One (of several) Al Jazeera comments on the attack refers to "90 civilians", a phrase not repeated elsewhere and potentially a mistake given that I could find no other outlet using the phrasing "90 civilians", for example CNN re-iterates that the MoH doesn't differentiate civilians from militants which we know to be true historically - https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/13/middleeast/mawasi-deif-israel-hamas-gaza-intl/index.html. Because all these sources seem to be referring to the same MoH statement, and MoH never has differentiated civilians in deaths, I can't see a justification to maintain the wording from a single quote of at least ten from Al Jazeera (which all the other times phrases things as 90 Gazans or similar) when no other (RELIABLE per https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) source is using that wording and often actively contradicts it using the exact same MoH source. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the 90 civilians are mentioned elsewhere (see here for instance). M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

[edit]

@Skitash: Can you explain why you switched the info box back, why you claimed all the casualties were civilians despite that being known to not be true, and why you said in Wikivoice it was a massacre and a war crime despite that being the position of one of the belligerents and not the consensus of reliable sources? BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian attack infobox is undoubtedly the most fitting choice here, as this event involved dropping eight 2,000-pound bombs on a civilian area designated as a humanitarian safe zone. The information you questioned is cited within the article. Regarding the civilian casualties, this Al Jazeera article states "The attack killed at least 90 civilians in a densely populated area sheltering about 80,000 people, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health". Furthermore, an article reporting about this incident notes "humanitarian groups have said that using even one of these 2,000-pound (or smaller) bombs in civilian areas is a war crime". On top of this, several state actors and non-state actors have condemned this incident as a massacre. Skitash (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s your assessment, it isn’t the assessment of reliable sources. The civilian attack info box should be used when there is an agreement among reliable sources that civilians were targeted - an even then exceptions apply, such as Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)
Regarding the civilians, that’s the claim of Hamas’ health ministry, and we know it is false - at the very least, Salama died, and probably Dief. You can’t put the claim of one of the belligerents in Wikivoice, particularly when we know the claim is false.
Some groups have called it a war crime, and others have called it a massacre, but those positions are held by the minority, and cannot be put into Wikivoice.
FYI, since you have now reverted it, I raised it on your talk page because this seems to be a common issue with you, and I would appreciate discussing the conduct issue separately from the content. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The civilian attack info box should be used when there is an agreement among reliable sources that civilians were targeted" Reliable sources make it clear that the IDF targeted a civilian area. The civilian casualties were clearly not accidental.
"Regarding the civilians, that’s the claim of Hamas’ health ministry, and we know it is false" The Gaza Health Ministry is considered a credible source by international bodies such as the UN, WHO, and HRW, and this is even acknowledged by Wikipedia itself (in the Gaza Health Ministry’s Wiki article). As for your assertion that the 90 civilian death toll must be false because Salama and Deif are dead, their fates are still unconfirmed, so we cannot be certain.
"…those positions are held by the minority" How exactly is it a minority viewpoint? From what I can see, nearly every comment in 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack#Reactions condemns the attack and refers to it as a massacre. Skitash (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also make it clear that they targeted Hamas military commanders. The neutral option - the one that doesn’t take a position on this - is to use info box military attack.
And yet the source for this attributed the claim. We have to do the same - and we have independent confirmation of Salama’s death. In addition, the lack of confirmation of Deif living is a problem for using Hamas’ claims in Wikivoice.
The comments in that section are not from reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe it's biased and not neutral to downplay a deadly attack on a civilian area as merely a military attack targeting two Hamas military commanders, whose deaths remain unconfirmed. In fact, the article that solely focused on the targeted assassinations of the military targets, namely 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif, was merged into this one (which covers both civilian casualties and the alleged deaths of Deif and Salama) after consensus was reached. Therefore, it's on you to seek consensus for such a change. Skitash (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We’re not going to agree, so per WP:ONUS I have removed the disputed content. For the info box itself, this means switching to Infobox military attack, as that can be used for both attacks against military targets and attacks against civilian targets.
If you want to include claims such as that this was a massacre in Wikivoice, then you need to obtain consensus for that change. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash: You have reverted again. Can you show where there is a consensus for your changes? The content was added too recently to be the status quo, and thus per WP:ONUS you, as the editor seeking to include disputed content, is required to get consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been using infobox civilian attack since the very day it was created. Therefore, your proposal deviates from the WP:STATUSQUO. Based on the input from other editors on this talk page, it appears that not many are willing to support your change. Skitash (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what difference does it make to the readers? M.Bitton (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the info box, rather than terming all the casualties civilians, or saying it was a massacre and a war crime in Wikivoice?
The biggest difference is it uses “perpetrator” rather than “executed by”; the former typically means it’s a criminal act, while the latter is neutral on that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping eight 2,000-pound bombs on a designated "safe zone" is a crime. M.Bitton (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what military target is present in that zone - and it’s not our place to decide. Instead, we must follow the sources, and in this case there is not a consensus among reliable sources that it was a crime. This is why we should use an infobox that is neutral on the question, as to do otherwise - to say it was or wasn’t a crime - would violate NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a designated safe zone. As for NPOV, we have many sources condemning the bombing of civilians. How many sources support it? M.Bitton (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the commander of Hamas’ military was hiding in. But as I said, not our place to decide.
The question isn’t how many reliable sources support or condemn the bombing - although particularly if it killed Deif, many will support it - the question is how many consider it a crime. As far as I can tell, that is a minority position. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question and what the entity committing the crime claims is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Hamas has disputed he was there - just that he was killed.
I’m saying that for us to call it a crime, we need a consensus of reliable sources that it was a crime. That doesn’t exist, and the number of sources that supported or opposed the strike isn’t relevant to it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources condemning the attack on civilians on a designated safe zone is very relevant. M.Bitton (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s make sure we’re on the same page about what these sources are saying; perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Can you link some? BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that dropping 1 tonne bombs on a "safe zone" is justified by any kind of military target is specifically an Israeli talking point that it uses to justify taking 100 lives for a single target, not to mention the 300 other casualties. These are absurd numbers even without the "safe zone" outrage in the context, which makes a mockery of Israel's figleaf of "evacuation" orders. If it's not moving people to ironclad safe zones, it is simply displacing them through deception. It can't have it both ways. Either they are safe zones or it's all a lie. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to respond to this, because it’s crossing into WP:NOTFORUM - can we focus on what the sources say? BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS - indisputably - agree that civilians were killed. Not a single RS denies that (and if it does, they are likely making a mistake given the video evidence). On the other hand, whether Deif was killed or not is disputed. I'd prefer infobox civilian attack.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 in the title

[edit]

Should we include the day (13) in the title? Are there any attacks in the area happening in the same month? --Mhhossein talk 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein, there is a RM just above. You are requested to participate.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for those killed

[edit]

It seems that according to GHM 90+ civilians were killed[13]. This toll could change over time, of course. And it could be incomplete (at least according to Israel). But it deserves to be mentioned in the lead and infobox. We can attribute it. Also the idea that Deif is dead should be attributed to IDF.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Rafa Salama is dead, demonstrating that GHM’s claims are false, and raising further questions about their reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did GHM say Salama didn't die? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GHM said that the attack killed 90+ people, with them being civilians.
Regardless, we can’t say that the casualties of the attack were all civilians, as we know that to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And never did I add in the article that "all" casualties were civilians. VR (Please ping on reply) 11:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machine gun fire

[edit]

This should also be in the article: "Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor also corroborated that machine gun fire from Israeli drones targeted ambulances and rescue crews who tried to evacuate the wounded.[1]". Its published in a secondary source. And EMHRM has been widely quoted in this conflict. Keeping in mind that Israel has banned foreign journalists from Gaza and has banned Al-Jazeera, sources like EMHRM provide valuable information.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A hyper-partisan secondary source that uses terms like "IOF", and EMHRM is also of questionable reliability.
Including this claim with the prominence you did is simply undue. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Times of Israel refers to various unconvicted Palestinian suspects as "terrorists" in its own voice. Biased sources can still be reliable, see WP:BIASED. Also, this is published by Institute for Palestine Studies, which looks like a reliable, secondary source to me.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling ("Israeli Occupation Forces" rather than "Israeli Defence Forces") is different to classifying militants as terrorists.
The former suggests a level of partisanship that would affect reliability, while the equivalent to the latter would be describing the IDF as an occupying force. BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism is a crime, and for a newspaper to presume someone is guilty of a crime when they haven't been convicted is problematic. By contrast, the fact that Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories is not seriously in question.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources that corroborate this:

  • Al Jazeera English says "They said this was followed by squadrons of quadcopter aircraft that waited for the ambulance and civil defence teams and opened fire with their machine guns on the cars as soon as they arrived."
  • Mondoweiss says "When the ambulance and Civil Defense crews arrived near a well-known crowded market for residents of the area, their vehicles were targeted as well, according to the director of the Civil Defense in Khan Younis, Yamen Abu Suleiman. Two Civil Defense workers were killed in the strike."
  • Middle East Eye says "Witnesses report Israeli forces fired on rescue teams as they arrived in Mawasi" (though I can't find the full article).
    • A different article reported a witness saying "From 11am till now, the quadcopters are surrounding the area.""
  • The New Arab says "Israeli strikes also targeted rescue teams as they attempted to help victims, with some of the rescuers killed, the correspondent added."

VR (Please ping on reply) 05:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems to be backed by enough sources for inclusion. --Mhhossein talk 05:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple rounds of attacks

[edit]

There were multiple rounds of attacks, this has been confirmed by several RS. Can BilledMammal, or anyone else that objects, explain why the article should not be structured that way? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 12 August 2024

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Get rid of the POV-pushing attribution within the infobox and restore the 03:50, 11 August 2024‎ revision + NPOV attribution

Diff:

−
90+ (All civilians per Hamas)
+
90+ civilians (per GHM)

— 🧀Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There is no attribution in the infobox, either in the current revision of the page or in the revision you referenced. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reports

[edit]
  • It was reported in the "Jewish Chronicle" newspaper that IDF undercover agents, disguised as beggars and vegetable sellers, obtained the information on the whereabouts of the head of the military wing of Hamas, Muhammad Daf. According to the report, the airstrike that killed Daf came after a secret operation by an undercover team IDF covert inside Gaza .
  • The Saudi Al-Arabiya channel reported that a "mail courier" of the military wing of Hamas passed on information to the IDF that helped in the assassination of Muhammad Daf. He revealed the location where Daf and Rafe Salama met before their assassination, and also gave Israel complete maps of tunnels and tunnels in Rafah. The report stated that he also revealed the location of Brigadier General Rafih Muhammad Shabana.

Base of https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q3/Article-48700653a1d4191027.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802&main_article=3

Furthermore, "The Saudi channel Al-Hadath reported that Salama, the commander of Hamas’s Khan Younis Brigade, was killed in the strike and that Deif was seriously wounded." It was reported at the day of the airstrike. So it is not just a israelis who claimed that. The opening is wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/13/hamas-mastermind-of-7-october-attack-target-of-deadly-gaza-strike-claims-israel 2.55.11.172 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

I feel this should be moved to July 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack, to be consistent with the similar May 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack, June 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack, and now September 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack. Dylanvt (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Mawasi airstrike articles?

[edit]

Perhaps we should merge all the al-Mawasi attacks, similar to how we have al-Shati refugee camp airstrikes and Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes (2023–present).

At the moment we have separate articles for attacks on May 28 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/May_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack, June 21 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/June_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack, and Jul 13 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack. And there was just another attack reported today https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/10/heinous-at-least-40-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-tent-camp-officials-say

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Israel Attacks Palestinians in Khan Yunis Days After al-Mawasi Massacre". Institute for Palestine Studies. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack&oldid=1245034061"