Talk:January 2023 Jenin incursion

"Massacre" terminology

The description of this event as a "massacre" seems needlessly politically charged. The IDF alleges it was trying "to thwart planned terror attacks as well as to capture at least three known Islamic Jihad terrorists" (JPost). There was a "gun battle between the Israeli troops and armed Palestinians" ([https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/world/middle east/israel-raid-west-bank-palestinians.html NYTimes]).

This certainly does not bear the hallmarks of a classic massacre, described by Wikipedia as "the killing of a large number of people, especially those who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves."

The event was not described as a "massacre" by any mainstream news sources reporting the event, except when quoting Abbas or Hamas (e.g. NYTimes Washington Post BBC). אקעגן (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree although there is at least one source, The New Arab, directly referring to it as a massacre. If there no more sources beyond that, then a page move would seem to be in order.@Sakiv:, your opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's too early, let's wait and see what the media will write during the day.--Sakiv (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling it a massacre is not NPOV at all and I recommend changing it to "2023 Jenin killings" or something similar. אקסינו (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, @XavierGreen:, let's wait a day, this is obviously not "just" a raid. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this should be changed to a neutral term now. Per the sources cited in the article, 8 of those killed were Palestinian militants killed in active combat with the Isreali military and security forces. The term "massacre" is clearly non-neutral and non-reflective as to what the majority of neutral sources are saying occured.XavierGreen (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say 8 militants? Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

AP says "At least one of the dead was identified by Palestinians as a militant, but it was not clear how many others were affiliated with armed groups" Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Reuters reports "7 Palestinian gunmen, 2 civilians" אקעגן (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everything that the factions (like Hamas, PIC, AMB) declare means that the dead was affiliated with it and that he was a militant. There is a kind of competition between these factions to attribute such achievements to them. Sakiv (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That says "Palestinian officials said", I don't believe that for a minute. I am in the process of checking the other sources and so far, Reuters is an outlier with that statement. WAPO is the latest report (10 killed, another Palestinian killed later in separate incident), they say the same as others one confirmed militant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW that is an AP article.

Here's the WAPO:

"One civilian man and one woman were also killed in the violence in the urban refugee camp, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry in the West Bank. [...]

"The Israeli military later said its forces conducted a raid against members of Islamic Jihad who were “heavily involved” in planning and carrying out attacks against Israelis, but it accused the militants of opening fire first. It said six “terrorists” were killed, while another surrendered, adding that reports of other casualties were being “looked into.”

"Islamic Jihad said two of its fighters were killed; the militant group Hamas claimed four of the dead. An eighth slain fighter was a member of the al-Aqsa Brigades, which is tied to the Fatah party, according to a local resident, Mohammed Shabi. Fatah controls the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority administration." אקעגן (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Everybody just copying each other, it seems, anyway that's why we have the breaking news notice on the page, early reports may not be reliable. I have seen at least 4 different descriptions of what the Israeli military said. Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on a few titles:

• "2023 Jenin killings" could be an appropriate title for this incident because it accurately describes the event as a loss of life and allows readers to form their own opinion about the event
• "2023 Jenin operation" could be a suitable title as it highlights the military aspect of the event, however it might not clearly convey the loss of lives, which allegedly includes militants but also civilians
• "2023 Jenin raid" is a less suitable title as it highlights the sudden and unexpected nature of the event, but it does not convey the gravity of the situation and the eventual loss of life
• "2023 Jenin massacre" is too strong and biased, as it implies an intentional and indiscriminate killing of the Palestinians
• "2023 Jenin battle" might not be an appropriate title as it implies a mutual engagement by two opposing sides, while this incident is more likely to be seen as one-sided. "Battle" also tends to imply a larger-scale confrontation
• "2023 Jenin incident" is not an appropriate title as it is too general and not specific enough to convey the gravity of the event.
• "2023 Jenin clashes" is quite accurate and specific as it somewhat conveys the gravity of the event and implies a violent confrontation between the two sides, which reflects the reality of the situation.

As @Sakiv stated, better to wait a bit longer and see how the media refers to it. I reckon "raid" will be the most widely used term in most non-Arab media. Note: I received an email regarding this article's title. Not sure if I have to declare it, or if my participation in this discussion is now considered COI/canvassing. I had been planning on creating an article on the incident anyway, and would have almost certainly participated in this discussion without having received the email. Mooonswimmer 16:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem imo. Good for you, declaring it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Worst escalation

@JohnmgKing: I do not understand what you are objecting to. It is clear that nine deaths is the highest death toll since the end of the second intifada. Please stop removing sources and discuss before doing so. Sakiv (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

He is objecting, i assume in part because your statement is simply not true. For example see [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not true at all. The source says, not me, that this is the highest loss of life in the "West Bank" in 18 years. Sakiv (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Hi. The edit said "The clash was described as the worst escalation between the two sides in the West Bank since the second intifada." But the source you used did not say this, so you misrepresented the source. It's not a big deal, just needs re-wording or a different source to be used that actually describes this incident in that way. That's all. Thanks. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. We shouldn't copy directly from the source. What I added gives the reader a clear picture so that there is no confusion. Sakiv (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not encouraging you to copy directly from sources. But your wording needs to be justified by the sources you use. In this case, it was not. The source did not describe this clash as "the worst escalation between the two sides since the Second Intifada". It merely said "The operation has contributed to the highest death toll in the occupied West Bank since the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, concluded in 2005, with about 250 Palestinians and 30 Israelis killed last year, according to rights groups." JohnmgKing (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you stop objecting to the writing and start adding something? These two sources state that the operation (alone) is the largest operation since 2002 and that it has the highest number of deaths in many years. ([2], [3]). You removed the entire sentence and did not even wait for a response.--Sakiv (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted an edit which misrepresented a source. I'm sorry if it seemed rude or unhelpful to you. The other things you're saying are not what I reverted, so I won't comment on that. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede (currently)

Currently, the lede's last sentence "Not including the current attack, one-third of the Palestinians killed by Israeli troops or civilians had ties to armed groups." seems misplaced to me. Right now, I'd find the current percentage (including this killing) more relevant; in the future it probably won't be relevant at all (and besides, it's only about killings so far, in this calendar year). I understand the information is meant to deliver context, but the context isn't made clear here, nor is it actually divided by the change of calendar years. I suggest removing that last sentence. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not opposed to removing it, and the context here is very different than the context in the source, here it seems to be suggesting it is impressive, there it is in the context of the remaining 2/3s, the youths protesting the incursions and others not involved in the confrontations also have been killed. Anyway, rephrased it for now. nableezy - 01:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I added that because of this Diff which has now gone so I also have no problem in removing it if that's what's wanted. - Correction, a version of it has just been readded so it needs to be kept for proper context.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I will later add Background from this and other sources putting the deaths in context for 2022 as well viz "While armed militants accounted for a significant proportion of the more than 150 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank last year, many of those shot dead were not carrying guns; sometimes they were in groups throwing stones or petrol bombs towards jeeps, sometimes they were passers by or other civilians." Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I set the initial background up and moved the 2023 part to it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A video by Israeli police and yamam

You can add this video:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YAMAM-Breakwater-Operation-2023-01-26.webm אקסינו (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It was already removed here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I can understand why it was removed, It isn't really NPOV after all.

It can be added to external links though. אקסינו (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Dont think that propaganda produced by a combatant falls under WP:ELYES nableezy - 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

YAMAM

I tagged this for a cite earlier, can anyone produce a cite? If not, it will have to go out. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good these are, but there's several hebrew-language sources, including [4] This article by Maariv, and [5] This one by Hevrat HaHadashot. Both also mention the involvement of Shin Bet. If you need an english-language source, there's [6] This one from the Times of Israel Totalstgamer (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Grazi, ToI is fine. Added. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of Palestinians killed by Israel so far this year

We currently say

"The deaths brought the number of Palestinian militant and civilian deaths in 2023 to thirty".

This is a reasonable paraphrase of the AP article. That article does go on to say

"Israel says most of the dead were militants. But youths protesting the incursions and others not involved in the confrontations also have been killed. So far this year, not including Thursday, one-third of the Palestinians killed by Israeli troops or civilians had ties to armed groups".

So, it is likely that AP is restricting its count to Palestinians killed by Israel. Given that there are over 4 million Palestinians (militants and civilians) living in the occupied territories, it is almost certain that many more than 30 have died this year from all causes. Anyway, there is a better source which is already being used on the page. The NPR source says

"At least 29 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli troops in the West Bank this year, including the latest casualties Thursday".

Can I suggest we make it clear that the 30 deaths refer to Palestinians killed by Israel and don't include, for example, Palestinians who have died as a result of a motor vehicle accident? Can I also suggest that we remove the phrase "militant and civilian" when talking about those killed? It is a roundabout way of saying "all Palestinians". Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly involved in things, but you could use the NPR source, change the number from 30 to 29 and attribute the deaths directly to Israel. As for the term militant and civilian, i think its more descriptive while being similarly short and identically accurate. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the complications of how many militants/civilians should just be addressed in the article body. AP says

"Israel says most of the dead were militants. But youths protesting the incursions and others not involved in the confrontations also have been killed. So far this year, not including Thursday, one-third of the Palestinians killed by Israeli troops or civilians had ties to armed groups."

They don't specify the 2/3, it could include people with guns who are not tied with armed groups but who knows? It is I think clear that innocent and not really that guilty third parties are being killed in addition to militants. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable solution. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Afaict, the terms "militant" and "civilian" are complementary. One is either a "militant" or a "civilian", just as a natural number is either "prime" or "composite". We don't generally say:

Let x be a prime or composite natural number.

It is easier to say

Let x be a natural number.

Similarly, instead of saying "militant and civilian Palestinians" we should say "Palestinians".

There is also the issue of the problematic and asymmetrical application of the term "militant" to refer only to Palestinians. There is a discussion about this in our article on the term "militant", which at one point says "Militant is sometimes used as a euphemism for terrorist or armed insurgent". It is not a discussion that will be productive here given that are constrained to follow the usage provided by the media, which "may deem militant a neutral term, whereas terrorist or guerrilla conventionally indicates disapproval of the behaviour of the individual or organization so labelled". Some sources have used the description "resistance fighter" because it is their land that is being invaded. Burrobert (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably best not to use labels, terrorist/freedom fighter (WP:TERRORIST), unless widely used in sources, militant/gunman (perhaps fighter) is I think OK possibly with attribution depending. I think the way AP put it above is OK, it would be nice to get accurate stats but the sides rarely agree on that so all you can do is attribute the opposing claims. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Almog Cohen Tweet

After IDF raid, far-right MK suspended from Twitter for call to ‘keep killing them’

Should we include this in the reactions section? Reported on by Times of Israel, Haaretz, Ice, MiddleEastEye Mooonswimmer 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is notable and should be included. It also adds information on the new Israeli far-right coalition which might be important contextual information. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

3 Palestinian civillians killed not backed up

9 Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers in the Jenin killings, 7 militants and 2 civilians. Yet, the summary claims that 3 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israel soldiers. This claim isn't backed up by any source and is contradicted later in the article, where the number of Palestinian civilians killed is two. FortUser (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The number has risen to 10, see this edit here. I did not specify that it was a civilian and the source did not specify that either.

The raising of the civilian count to 3 appears to be a result of this edit but I can't see that it specifies civilian either.

Mondoweiss (needs attribution) says the Palestinian was a co-founder of the Jenin Brigade so on that basis, a militant rather than a civilian.

@Gianluigi02: What do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there other sources reporting that he was a Jenin Brigade member? Gianluigi02 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 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 to 2023 Jenin incursion. The headcount is in favour of "raid", but Nishidani brings up a good point about it "being a choice between two pointy titles". In so much as "killings" is perceived to present a pro-Palestinian POV, there's some serious consternation that "raid" may present a pro-Israel POV. It does nobody any favours to replace one potentially problematic title with another.

In this context, the third option of "incursion", which was presented as a compromise and has also garnered significant support (and no noticeable opposition), seems to be a happy enough medium that I believe most editors would be happy with it. It's a bit clinical, but it's less problematic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Jenin killings → 2023 Jenin raid – It wasn't some random "killings" but a military raid, and that's how the sources are calling it. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Raid is POV and euphemistic in the context, which is that Area A is under full Palestinian National Authority under the Oslo Accords, and the entry of Israeli forces into the area is a unilateral breach of that treaty. The entry of a hostile force into an area administered by another authority is not a raid: it could potentially be described as an attack, assault, incursion or even invasion, but that is not the proposal. The use of the term 'raid', as proposed, would simply lend credence to the POV masquerading of these military incursions as legitimate acts conducted in the manner of, say, a domestic police raid, which they not: they are extra-jurisdictional armed assaults. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The term "raid" does not necessarily mean legitimate, and words like "attack" or "invasion" seem to exaggerate what actually happened, and "assault" might be seen as POV in favour of Palestine. Of course, this "event, or whatever it is supposed to be called" was illegitimate, being on land that isn't Israel's, but again, raids are not always legitimate. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm extremely unclear how 'attack' is an exaggeration. That's the UN's language. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Struck that part. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Conducting it outside the recognized borders doesn't prohibit it to be called a raid (See also: Gaza flotilla raid, Tyre raid, 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid, 2006 Gaza cross-border raid, PFLP-GC Headquarters Raid (1988), Zrarieh raid, 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon, Raid on Khataba, 2008 Abu Kamal raid, Raid on Amdjereme). The word "killing" is associated with serial killers, domestic violence, or something like that, not a military operation. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That there are other titles with POV names does not mean that this title should align itself with that pattern. NPOV is core pillar, whereas consistency is just a naming nicety. Perhaps the question you should actually be asking is whether all of those other titles should also be using 'raid'. E.g. with the Gaza flotilla, that was an attack on a vessel in international waters, which is definitively extra-jurisdictional in the strictest sense, violated all the basic rules of international waters and was basically piracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim, also made (in substance) below by @Sakiv, that The entry of a hostile force into an area administered by another authority is not a raid is demonstrably incorrect.

Notable examples from List of raids include: Jameson Raid, Operation Storm-333, Capture of the Crimean Parliament, 2014 Simferopol incident, and 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There are several other terms used by sources, including 'assault': Le Monde, Al Jazeera; attack: Middle East Eye, Jordan Times, UN; or, in the case of electronic intifada, 'bloodbath'. Assault or attack are options. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also noting "incident" as an option. It may be too vague a term and fail to abide by WP:COMMONNAME, but it used in other pages (for instance, see pages linked on Category:United States military scandals). Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Raids are not notable in general. There have been near daily/nightly raids in the West Bank for about a year now but there are not articles for them. This raid is notable because there were 10 deaths including an elderly woman and at least one other civilian. The simplest way to express that is to call these deaths killings and in the discussion above, there was already some agreement with that as a description. As far as I can see the majority of sources lead with 9/10 Palestinians killed in Israeli raid or similar. So yes of course it's a raid but the story is that 10 people were killed in it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most headlines have both components, the killings and the operation, and the title of this page could go down either avenue, but in this instance, the notability leant to events is the numbers of individuals killed. Although, actually, when I first saw this headline, it did make me think it was about multiple attacks in Jenin, not necessarily just the acutely deadly recent incident. It makes me wonder whether the headline should be more precise still to distinguish it from the sadly routine baseline of killings in Jenin. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

An article on the spate of killings in Jenin could be useful, this souurce notes "Since the beginning of 2023, Israeli forces have killed 36 Palestinians, of whom 20 were killed in Jenin, including 6 minors under the age of 18 and a 61-year-old elderly woman." I don't have a figure for 2022 to hand but there were quite a few later edit, 67 of 2022 Palestinian fatalities were from Jenin.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Raids are not notable in general. But this one was. So it has an article. Which should be named for what its subject is - a raid. This is why we have an article called Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Death, even when deaths are usually not notable. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It makes no sense to title something a killing just because it has a relatively high death toll. By this logic, the word "killing" would be used in all sorts of armed conflicts and raids, such as La Vega raid, 2017 Ozamiz police raid, Brak al-Shati Airbase raid, Mohmand Valley raid, Raid on Yakla, Shesh Aba raid, 2011 raid on Camp Ashraf, Night raid on Narang, Cité Soleil raid of 2007, 2007 Xinjiang raid, Lake Tharthar raid, 2004 Nazran raid. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The killings occured as part of the raid. The article speaks about the raid, which reliable sources have called a raid (see BBC The Gurardian and Al Jazeera), so we should call it a raid. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  As I've already shown, it is called a number of things, including by the likes of Al Jazeera. I've explained why 'raid' is inappropriate, and I don't see anything countering that, except the point you made about attack being an exaggeration. That's a bit silly, since if you put 'raid' into a thesaurus, 'attack' and 'assault' are obviously what will come up. Of these three, 'attack' is the most neutral term, and that may well be why the UN uses it prominently. 'Raid' has connotations that are as much civil, i.e.: conducted by police, as much as military. 'Assault' has a different problem - namely that it used more frequently for violence between individuals. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've struck the part about attack being an exaggeration - I now support moving to either "raid" or "attack". The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - better describes what the incident was - a raid by the IDF on Jenin. "Killings" and "Attack" are more associated with terrorist incidents, and "Assault" doesn't describe it as well as "Raid" does. Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  On this theory, Battle of Jenin (2002) should be renamed 2002 Jenin raid because it was a "raid". Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not a raid, but a battle. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the Forward with an article discussing both 2002 and this one. It begins "Two decades ago, during the Second Intifada, Israeli forces raided the Jenin refugee camp."

Then, para 2, "Last Thursday, the Israeli military entered the Palestinian city of Jenin, in the West Bank, killing nine Palestinians in the shootout, including at least two civilians." and

Para 3, Within hours after the Israeli military attacked, videos emerged on Twitter of tanks rolling through the streets of Jenin."

"raid" is just an easy written way to explain what one party was doing but what is more important is what actually occurred. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Tanks, huh? That's some 'raid' ... bit of a coy word for a major mobilization. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the army explaining "that the soldiers were forced to use anti-tank missiles after the suspects barricaded themselves in a home." due to "the "threat level against troops". Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's sounding more and more like sth more akin to a pitched battle. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: 'killings' and 'attack', you said it, not me, but yes, state terror is very much a thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose The term "raid" can be appropriate in the context of this incident because it accurately describes the nature of the operation as a sudden, short-term military action. However, it may be perceived as biased towards the Israeli side because it somewhat suggests a successful and orderly military operation. The reality of the situation is more complex, with violence on both sides and casualties that include civilians.

Note: I don't think "2023 Jenin killings" is the most ideal title either. I believe "2023 Jenin military operation"/"2023 military operation in Jenin" would be one of the best ways to refer to the incident. It accurately characterizes it as a military action taken by Israeli forces and locates it in time and place. This term does not imply a particular viewpoint or judgment about the operation and allows for a more objective understanding of the situation. Sources refer to the incident as everything from "clash" and "raid" to "massacre" and "bloodbath", as noted above. Mooonswimmer 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally. I am not averse to changing the title per se as long as it is not to raid. Attack is OK, I guess, perhaps 2023 Israeli incursion in Jenin might do, I remain of the view that there are sufficient distinguishing features in this particular case BBC first line of their article"This is the most deadly Israeli raid into Jenin refugee camp in nearly two decades." Yes, it says raid but highlights unusual features (most deadly/two decades) which other sources do as well. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite opposed to "raid" as much as I am to "killings" and "attack".

I'm not completely opposed to "2023 Israeli incursion in Jenin", but still believe 2023 military operation in Jenin would be a better title. What do you think of the latter title? Mooonswimmer 14:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really keen on that, it sounds like a euphemism for raid (plus it reminds me of Putin's "special military operation") Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the 'incursion' version (2023 Jenin incursion is shorter). I agree that military operation is a little diffuse: an operation can be anything from combat to intelligence gathering and resupply. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Thirty six sources refer to the topic as the "Jenin raid" compared to one using "Jenin killings". None use "Israeli incursion in Jenin", ten use "military operation in Jenin", and eight use "Jenin attack". BilledMammal (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NDESC applies, not COMMONNAME, all sources highlight the killings. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support "Killings" seems to imply majority civilian casualties. However, I agree with others that "raid" may sanitize the events slightly since it implies very few or no civilian casualties (which is not the case here). I think "2023 Jenin incident" might be a more neutral alternative that leaves it ambiguous but also implies that this event had political consequences. I still weakly support "raid" since I find it is more neutral than "killings". Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)(non extended-confirmed !voter struck) nableezy - 16:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Many events described as "raids" have resulted in civilian casualties. The term "killings" could also be considered Palestinian POV.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POV, and WP:NDESC. As @RadioactiveBoulevardier stated, "killings" could be interpreted as Palestinian POV. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV doesn't say replace one POV with another, so that doesn't justify switching. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  UN (OCHA) refers to all Palestinian deaths from Israeli forces as "killings" (and vice versa), Amnesty refers to the deaths here as unlawful killings and 3 UN rapporteurs referred to this "raid" as "the latest violent attack". To argue that this is a "Palestinian POV" is misguided. Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The use of the word "raid" in the title conveys the impression that the attack was lawful and undoubtedly agrees with the Israeli version. The entire West Bank is internationally recognized as occupied territory, and even in the Oslo Accords, the area is part of Area A, which is under Palestinian control. Sakiv (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral (moved from above support) - It is true that "killings" is a weird way to title the article given that most sources call it something else, but Ive been growing increasingly uncomfortable with "raid" as well. Maybe 2023 Israeli attack on Jenin? Reliable sources have called it an attack, so it isn't pro-Palestinian POV, and it doesn't imply that it was legitimate Israeli action on Israeli territory, which was a concern for a number of oppose !voters. (I'm a bit uneasy with "attack" too, though...) The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, pr Iskandar323, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

*Support as per nom. RemotelyInterested (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Editors with <500 edits not permitted to participate in RM

• Support as per nom. Doctorkaufman (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nom and npov. In addition, it seems the original objective of the operation was not to assassinate one or more individuals, but to capture them. In the end it turned out to be a gunfight with casualties, though. Still, "killings" is inappropriate. Dovidroth (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Raid is a more appropriate term. It's the standard term for such incidents, and it provides a more accurate description. "Killings" implies something like a murder or massacre, not a military operation involving exchanges of fire between troops and armed gunmen. Even if the outcome of a battle is lopsided we should still give it a name befitting a military operation. RM (Be my friend) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe 'special military operation', as suggested above, since euphemism is cool now. Since we now know that there were tanks in Jenin, it wasn't just the outcome that was lopsided, it was everything. It was a pitched battle in a residential area. If the Palestinian authority rolled into an Israeli settlement with armoured vehicles, I don't think 'raid' would be being allowed. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't it be allowed in such an instance? The fact that you admit it was a pitched battle just proves my point. Raid is a signifier of a military action. Killings is a signifier of a massacre. This was not a massacre regardless of the lack of Israeli casualties.--RM (Be my friend) 00:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Killings does not signify massacre, massacre does. WP uses this word all the time when it is not murder and not an accident. Selfstudier (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NDESC. The current title is very problematic as "killings" is not only a poor description to help someone find the article but is also confusing and misleading. "Killings"is more suitable for an article about a serial killer, as opposed to a gunfight and military action. It is an awkward, unnatural title and it is divergent from the vast majority of sources that report on what happened. The average person looking for this article is most likely to search Israeli raid/assault/operation and very few will look under killings.
  

I believe "raid" is a good alternative as I think both sides would agree that a raid took place and it is the way it has been referred to in the majority of the article's sources and other media content. (WP:COMMONNAME) This will make the article easier to find and more in line with WP:NDESC. Some of the oppose voters have raised concerns that "raid" may POV for the Israeli side. I disagree because I do not think that raid really implies anything other than some sort of planned, quick, military action. It does not make any comments as to the character of such actions, but merely states that they happened.

If one did consider this POV, however, I would suggest a move to something in the vain of "Jenin gunfight" or "Jenin incident", since the current title is clearly improper for the reasons given above. --Lenny Marks (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While I wouldn't argue for it being the best name, nor a perfect name, it is significantly better than "killings". I would like to dismiss Iskandar323 point. The nature of events is determined more by whatever happens, and not by the overall context, which can be viewed differently from opposing views. A raid is a military/police action with a specific goal to be achieved swiftly, followed by a retreat. It does not matter whether it is legitimate or not. ISIS can raid, as well as the US military or Belgian police. Almost every military act the IDF does in Area A constitutes a raid, because they enter, complete some task and leave. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it is legitimate or not. It is what it is.

Selfstudier's point is also very weak. "Raids" is not a subject whose notability is to be collectively challenged and the same goes for "incident/clash/battle/massacre/operation" etc. A "storm" on itself is not notable, but we have an article named Great Lakes Storm of 1913. 250 people were killed, but we don't call it "Killings of 1913". It is not that "raids" or notable, but that this specific raid is notable, because of its consequences.

So raid is the appropriate choice here. It describes the nature of the event in an NPOV manner. Describing it as killings/massacre is POV towards the Palestinian side because it takes their view. "operation" takes the Israeli POV, as if it is described from the eyes of the planners and executers of this operation. "clash/battle/incident" also takes the side of the IDF, as it removes its part as the iniciator of this specific event. Of course, god knows what would've happened had the IDF not entered, but that's not important. The fact is that the IDF entered Jenin, claiming the target was PIJ militants. A clash with armed men ensued and several died, as well as some bystanders, as the clashes took place in populated areas. This is best described as a raid. A just one? successful one? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't matter.

BBC, AlJazeera, Washington Post, The Guardian, Reuters all used "raid" to describe the event. I don't have much trust to news sources, as they are often opinionated, but here it is not a matter of opinion.

Either way, it is the best alternative. And I don't see a reason to add "Israeli" to the title. It is not as if it is absent from the article, that IDF forces were involved. For example, in 2022 Tel Aviv shooting or 2022 bombing of Zaporizhzhia, we don't add "Palestinian" or "Russian". 2023 Jenin raid is satisfactory, and it stands atop an article, with a description of the event, which allows readers to judge by themselves--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is clear, obvious even, that every armed incursion into occupied territory is at minimum, a raid, but a raid at some point can become something else as in Battle of Jenin (2002) or it can be a massacre as in Zeitoun incident (at least one English language RS refers to the current incident as a massacre). It seems that the desire here is to refer to all raids, no matter what happened as a result, as raids even when the UN, some RS and others use attack or some other description. It seems to me that a raid becomes something else when the resulting death toll is unusually high and/or includes civilians and this is one such. It may not constitute a battle or a massacre but it is not just a raid either. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me Selfstudier but you are talking nonesense. The Battle of Jenin was by all means not a raid. IDF troops were tasked with conquering Jenin and it lasted 10 days. As for Zeitoun, I am less familiar with the incident, and the article includes dozens of contradicting testimonies, so I don't know what to make of that. It is irrelevent. Those events happened in different contexts.

Secondly, there is no "desire to refer to all raids, no matter what happend as a result, as raids...". If you think "...that a raid becomes something else when the resulthing death toll is unusually high and/or includes civilians..." you have no understanding whatsoever of how warfare works. Let me break it to you: people die in violent encounters. You say that the "...death toll is unusually high...", let me ask you: If every day, for the next year, 10 Palestinians will die in IDF incursion, would the Jenin incident would return back to being a "raid" because it is not unusual anymore? What kind of an argument is that?

This raid included a battle, and killings. Civilians were caught in the fire. But that was a raid, as troops entered with a stated task - to apprehend militants, who fired back, a firefight ensued, and most of whom died, including civilians as battles took to the streets of a crowded neighborhood, and civilians were there, as bystanders or as rioters. If any source calls the killing of armed members of the Islamic Jihad and Hamas a "massacre", that is not a reliable source.

As I've shown, most sources call it a raid. Other's don't, but that's the point of COMMONNAME. Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Shireen Abu Akleh, another "raid", same place, Jenin. Outcomes matter. That essay merely serves to confirm the need for an article on all the Jenin raids/killings. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I find you insincere. You did not respond to anything I wrote and brought up another unrelated article. Your comments express a clear POV. This discussion is useless anyway. There's already a broad consensus towards raid. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a broad consensus against killings, in which I joined myself, perhaps you didn't notice. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking back the POV allegation in this specific case, I've confused your comments with Iskandar's. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think we need someone uninvolved to close this already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bestagon (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. At this point most of the views have already been expressed and editors are essentially repeating themselves. This is as close to consensus as the discussion will move and though editors are still trading views on "raid," I think it is fair to say there has been clear consensus to move the title from "killings." Editors have already address the counter-arguments to their positions and a third-party should probably evaluate at this point. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support'. These weren't "killings". Those killed were armed militants who opened up with indiscriminate fire against forces trying to arrest them, leading to an urban battle. This was a battle or raid, and raid fits. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Perish the thought of people resisting detention by military forces with no jurisdiction. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  They were killings, every single source says so, the issue is not whether they were killings, it is only whether it is appropriate for the article title. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Firing at soldiers in occupied territory is the opposite of "indiscriminate". nableezy - 04:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - would support attack. But raid is downplaying an armed incursion by an occupying army. nableezy - 04:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose but I don't think 'Jenin killings' respects NPOV either. The proposal is giving editors a choice between two pointy titles. The Israeli military planned an incursion, perhaps with PA intelligence assistance, to root out/eliminate militants/a resistance group, and came armed with explosive firepower sufficiently npowerful to demolish a targeted house. Of course, this is spun as a raid to capture or detain terrorists, but everyone briefed would have known that to ensure (an equally fundamental priority in operational planning) zero casualties, enormous indiscriminate fire power must be directed at anything that moves. Any male who shows himself is shot; anyone in a window can be murdered as a suspected 'sighter' relaying troops movements to the said militants, hence a shot through the throat of the old woman; and, as happened with the world-famous journalist last year, one has an option to shoot at observers to 'send a message' (encourager les autres). These are military operations on foreign soil, designed to destroy an armed opposition to an occupation which the same IDF defends, assists and helps consolidate every working day and sleepless night. The way they will play out is already known: most fighters killed, and collateral civilian deaths, as often in the past. 'Raid'? We raided the till, or the school canteen, or the larder as children. Heroic stealth on adult property to satisfy our appetites. The only word adequate to this is (military) incursion, an obvious resolution of conflicted POVs and not controversial, as both the given options are.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though I completely disagree with the opinionated article, there's no problem with 2023 Jenin incursion. The words are almost identical in meaning, especially in use, but incursion is often much more aggressive in the modern military sense. I don't see what's all the love for raids, they are not pleasant at all. But if incursion is found to be an alternative accepted by the rest, it would be fine by me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I reread it (editors don't do much to actually add significant content here in I/P land - they squabblòe over titles and headings). I didn't get the impression it was 'opinionated'. As it stands, it gives the two POVs with attribution, and spends most of the space going into the ascertainable details of the incursion. If you have sources that can provide more facts by all means direct us to them.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at Britannica. There I suspect the second noun definition is what you guys refer to: an occurrence in which police suddenly enter a place in a forceful way to find criminals, illegal drugs, etc.. The first definition is also tricky: a surprise attack on an enemy by soldiers or other military forces. I guess you would argue against "soldiers against soldiers". In the verb definition, "To raid" means either to attack (a place or group) in a sudden and unexpected way or to enter (a place) suddenly in a forceful way in order to look for someone or something. This is what I have known raid to be.

The article Raid (military) also gives a definition which I am personally more used to:

Raiding, also known as depredation, is a military tactic or operational warfare mission which has a specific purpose. Raiders do not capture and hold a location, but quickly retreat to a previous defended position before enemy forces can respond in a coordinated manner or formulate a counter-attack. A raiding group may consist of combatants specially trained in this tactic, such as commandos, or as a special mission assigned to any regular troops. Raids are often a standard tactic in irregular warfare, employed by warriors, guerrilla fighters or other irregular military forces. Some raids are large, for example the Sullivan Expedition.

Now in Cambrige there's this definition of incursion: a sudden attack on or act of going into a place, especially across a border In the Merriam-Webster dictionary it gives the definition a hostile entrance into a territory : RAID (i.e. synonymous with Raid). I'll add this website called comparewords which gives several examples of the two. Again, it repeats using "raid" as a definition for "incursion".

As I mentioned before, BBC, AlJazeera, Washington Post, The Guardian, Reuters all used "raid", and I don't think it is because of any support for the Israeli side.

In my Israeli POV, this was an "operation", but if I had to find a neutral way to put it, I would use raid. Incursion is virtually the same as raid, though less common. Incursion sounds very professional to me, while the word "raid" brings up the conotation of barbarians sacking a village. It was first I heard "raid" is used otherwise, when reading Israeli news in English. I also remember a famous scene from Django Unchained in which the KKK leader shuts "this is a raid". See: Ku Klux Klan raid of La Paloma nightclub. See also Viking raids in the Rhineland.

So yeah, I still don't get what's the problem with raid, why do you think it legitimizes the IDF or downplays the operation and why incursion is so much better. Sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT already. But either way, incursion is fine. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue with raid I think has been several times explained by now. No-one disputes that sources use the word "raid", it's a factual description. It is also a factual description used by all sources that Israeli forces killed 10 Palestinians including at least one civilian and an elderly woman. So we look for a way to explain the relative gravity of what occurred and yet not dismiss it as a routine army exercise. Having thought some more about this, I think we should follow the UN practice of describing this as an attack (that is also what they would call it the other way around). Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I don't get the need. All "Battle of" articles don't include information on what happened in them. For that, there's THE ARTICLE ITSELF. Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For that, there's THE ARTICLE ITSELF. The fact of it being a raid can be explained in the article as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We can explain the relative gravity of what occurred in the article itself. The title is a completely inappropriate place to be playing word games over this.--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The game is in calling an armed incursion by an occupying army into a refugee camp a "raid". nableezy - 21:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Because that's exactly what it is. A raid which many believe was justified. Yes armed incursion into a refugee camp sounds bad when you phrase it like that. Doesn't change the fact that we need to be neutral.--RM (Be my friend) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Everybody agrees it was a raid, can't flog that horse any more, it's already dead. A raid which many believe was justified Says who? I am sure Israel thinks that each and every thing that they do is justified. And that's exactly the issue, holding that POV is not neutral. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV of some kind. I personally think this action was justified. I'm guessing you do not. The point is to have a title that reflects a totally neutral viewpoint. Nobody is neutral in their personal opinions but we can't have a singular POV influencing the title.--RM (Be my friend) 21:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Look, if I had a Palestinian POV, I'd be calling it a massacre, it is only called killings at the moment because I agreed that it shouldn't be massacre and instead implemented a suggestion for killings (see the section "Massacre" terminology at the top of the page) from אקסינו Calling it a massacre is not NPOV at all and I recommend changing it to "2023 Jenin killings" or something similar. So please don't personalize this, all I have said since the beginning and which I still maintain, this is not "just" a raid. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I have serious issues with how most articles on such events in the IP conflict are presented, to the point I am emotionally unable to engage with most. A raid is not what I would call this act, and I won't bore you with my opinion

I believe you guys are not committed enough to NPOV.

A raid is what it is. That's the neutral title and the common title.

We should close this discussion. There's a broad consensus both against "killings" and in support of "raid."

Nableezy's distinguishes between two virtually synonymous terms - "raid" and "armed incursion," which doesn't make much sense. Nishidani repeated the same assertion. Iskander has repeated the wrong claim that "raid" somehow implies "legitimate." Selfstudier, on the other hand, agree it is a raid, but you all seem to not like it for a reason I repeatedly fail to understand.

A raid is not nice. It is often associated with barbarians and savages and can include terrible, inhumane actions. It is not "just a raid" like the assassination of Kennedy is not "just an assasination of Kennedy". Everything had a broad meaning. Incursion, which has been brought up, is more of a military term which is often synonymous with raid. The title "raid" meets NPOV, COMMONNAME, and the article itself is the place to expand on the details. There's a consensus, and a week has passed already. We are essentially digging in water. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Repetition. Nothing new. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Very kindly stop making personal attacks. I have not made any of my feelings on your supposed commitment to NPOV known, and I would ask that you return the favor. If you do not think my view makes sense then you can ask for clarification, but you not understanding my view does not make it so that I am not committed to NPOV or that you, for some strange reason, are the paragon of neutrality and all your positions are unquestionably correct. Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you cannot do that then find another hobby. You repeat the same claim, A raid is what it is. That's the neutral title and the common title. A. no there is no common name, common names are about names and this only has descriptions of it. B. what it is in fact is an armed attack by an army on a refugee camp. Why not 2023 Israeli attack on Jenin Refugee Camp? We call every Palestinian attack an "attack", why do you feel it is NPOV to downplay a group of heavily armed soldiers invading a refugee camp? Why is that neutral to you? But, again, stop commenting on other editors and engage in their arguments instead of making personal attacks. nableezy - 16:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy I didn't expressed myself in the best way, and that I think you didn't as well doesn't allow me to lose temper. Regardless of who is right on the personal remarks, I have no interest in going to personal attacks because it is not constructiv. Taken to heart.

I have counted 14 Support and 7 Oppose. It seems that changing "killings" to "raid" is an improvement nonetheless.

I would like to ask you Nableezy to respond to these points:

A. As understood from dictionaries that "raid" and "incursion" are synonymous. That raid can refer to barbarians and include inhumane activity, and therefore doesn't downplay anything.

B. Calling it "Jenin attack" implys an attack on the refugee camp itself. It is clear from the description of the events, that the target was specific armed people, and not the camp itself. To explain my point. "Attack" and "Massacre" should be avoided, words such as "stabbing", "shooting", "raid", "incursion" are better.

C. No need to add "Israeli" just like no need to add "Palestinian". The reason: makes the title longer. People will mostly access this article from wiki links concerning the IP conflict. I don't think for example that the shooting in Neve Yaakov be called "Palestinian attack on Neve Yaakov" or "Neve Yaakov massacre" (even though 7 civilians were indiscriminately shot dead with no ability to defend whatsoever. It doesn't matter). Please clarify why it is important, when most other articles, as well as outside the IP conflict, do not add the nationality of the perpetrators. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I support attack as a new title, not incursion. As far as targets, that is a stated aim of the occupying army for public consumption. The UN however says UN experts* today condemned renewed Israeli attacks against the Jenin Refugee Camp in the occupied West Bank. Al Jazeera yes used raid, but also repeatedly calls it an attack (eg In a joint operation with Israeli intelligence and police, the army surrounded a home in the camp’s Joret al-Dahab neighbourhood – where three resistance fighters were taking shelter – and launched a surprise attack on it with anti-tank missiles and explosives., The impact of last week’s attack was felt not only in the camp but across the 1967-occupied territories.) Washington Post also calls it an attack (Camp resident Mohammed Shabi, 56, said the house that was the main target of the attack was surrounded and blown up. and includes this eyewitness account: “They were shooting at anything that moved. They destroyed roads and cars, even water tanks,” he said, describing it as the worst fighting in 20 years. “The size of the destruction reminds me of 2002 when the occupation forces destroyed the Jenin camp.”) So no, I do not agree that attack should be avoided. As far as including Israeli, I have no idea why that matters to you, but sure drop Israeli. 2023 Jenin refugee camp attack is fine with me. To my American ears, raid is something used for police arresting some drug suspects or something of that nature, as in a police raid. It is usually non-violent, does not involved armed soldiers, does not result in deaths. This was a professional army invading a refugee camp and engaging in a gun fight. That is not simply a "raid". nableezy - 17:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy You asked for points to clarify... Why do we even bother... Anything I say at this point is meaningless and already said. You will not engage in any discussion and somehow even though there's a broad consensus towards raid, you'll find a way to rephrase it to your likings. Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I answered your points, not sure what else you want from me. How is me responding point by point to you not engaging in any discussion? Are you just expecting me to say oh dear me Bolter21 was right all along and I was wrong? Sorry, I dont agree with you. nableezy - 20:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So you just repeat yourself again? Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier There is so many flaws in this discussion. I drop out. Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Suggestion It seems potential closers are staying away, perhaps because we seem to be stuck in between making sure killings goes away and making sure it is not replaced by raid. There seems a modicum of support for attack, would people be willing to go along with this as a compromise? Or something else besides the two troublesome ones? Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Both attack and incursion are viable. There appears to be broad agreement that these are largely synonymous as words, and as a quick check of any thesaurus will testify, but at the same time they lack the onerous 'raid' nuances. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323, @Selfstudier. While I do not really see what is 'onerous' about raid, I might be open to incursion as an alternative. I think attack is problematic because of the connotation that it was targeting civilians or Jenin as a whole. I think raid and, to a lesser extent, incursion, are more exemplary of a quick, goal-oriented military operation. Although to me if you are accepting incursion, I do not see what your objection to raid is. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support "incursion" as an alternative. Mooonswimmer 23:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, UN calls it "killings":[7] Killings are more used for this event than raid, "2023 Jenin killings" 1,170,000 hits: [8], "raid" only 663,000 hits: [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  The UN does not call "it" killings. Your link merely says that UN officials "condemn renewed violence and Israeli killings of Palestinians in occupied West Bank". In fact, that same release literally says "On the morning of 26 January, Israeli forces conducted a raid in the Jenin Refugee Camp in the north of the occupied West Bank," and "While circumstances of the raid and the number of persons killed and injured are still being verified," and also "Jenin Refugee Camp, often portrayed by Israel as the hotbed of Palestinian resistance, has been subject to frequent incursions and raids." They are condemning the fact that people were killed, they are not titling the event that way. Also, WP:Commonname is based on English language RSs which clearly use raid most predominantly. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:GOOGLETEST - Google search returns unreliable results, not putting the search terms in quotes returns unrelated results, and result counts over a few hundred are estimates that are wildly inaccurate. A better search would be to search on google news for results for "Jenin killings" and "Jenin raid" in the past month; that produces 45 results for Jenin raid and 3 results for Jenin killings. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Try "killed 9 Palestinians" (80 results) or "killed 10 Palestinians" (another 34,000). Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Or "killed nine Palestinians" + "elderly woman" (23,900) Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I tried those two terms, but they produced far less than 80 or 34,000 results. They also aren't the proposed titles. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you want a screenshot? They support the existing title, it's NDESC not commonname (why do I have to keep repeating that?) Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well of course, because all of the articles, including those that call it a "raid" or something else, are going to include that phrase. That is not indicative of how the event is comonly referred to, it just means that the articles mention that people were killed. That is like saying Sinking of the Titanic should be moved to "Drowning of more than 1500 people." -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment above, not commonname, descriptive.

  "Raid on Jenin" gets 68300 (lot of raids on Jenin). Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  In any case, I suggested a compromise and all I am seeing is "but raid is right, Google says so" so I will step back and leave it to the closer. Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would be open to the compromise of incursion, as I explained above, because I believe it to be somewhat synonymous to raid, and perhaps others supporters would be as well, but otherwise I think we do need a closer at this point since you are correct that people have become quite repetitive. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 22:46, 15 February 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

To give more info Davidreznov (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2023 (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) 08:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Expand page's scope and rename article

In light of recent events, would it not make more sense for this page to be renamed to 2023 Jenin incursions, in order to represent the various incursions that have taken place in this sector this year? Because it's certainly been more than one. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, at July 2023 Jenin incursion it is being dealt with via hatnote/see also's for the "incursions" (larger, more deadly raids). There have been multiple lesser attacks on Jenin all through 2022 as well, usually just referred to as raids and there was a "raid" on 7 March where six Palestinians were killed which has no separate article.

It could well be worth creating some separate page that includes all these events together, some sources are beginning to link them altogether, eg, How Israel’s raids on Jenin led to a major West Bank military operation Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Per AP "In the spring of 2022, a spate of Palestinian attacks against Israelis prompted Israel to launch near-nightly raids into Palestinian areas of the West Bank."

This is OK, no direct link to Breakwave/water, the nightly raids came later, most Palestinian attacks were after Breakwave/water not before. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources currently used to support the statement say otherwise, e.g: "The joint operation by Israeli security forces to stem the rising tide of terrorist attacks" Red Slapper (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

the sources currently used Of the three sources used, it is only the Jerusalem Post that says this, dated April 1, 2022. Apart from Bnei Brak on 29 March, what "string" of attacks is being referred to? Per Jewish Currents the string includes

"The current surge in Israeli raids is tied to an increase in Palestinian attacks, and can be traced in particular to an especially deadly week last spring. On March 22nd, 2022, a Bedouin citizen of Israel killed four Israelis in the southern city of Be’er Sheva, stabbing three and running another over with his car. On March 27th, two Palestinian gunmen from Umm el-Fahm, the third-largest Palestinian city within Israel, shot two Israeli police officers dead in Hadera. The Islamic State claimed both of those attacks. Then, two days later, a Palestinian from the northern West Bank town of Ya’bad who was a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade shot and killed five Israelis in B’nei Brak. The attacks made for the single deadliest week in Israel since 2006. In response, on March 31st, the Israeli army launched “Operation Breakwater.”

So the string includes two attacks carried out by Palestinian citizens of Israel that were claimed by Islamic State. The only major attack by Palestinians proper is Bnei Brak with Breakwater launched immediately after it.

In addition, in the first 3 months of 2022, see https://ochaopt.org/poc/22-march-4-april-2022, a total of 25 Palestinians were killed as opposed to 4 Israelis as part of the IP conflict (Israelis killing Israelis are not IP conflict) and this is not mentioned. So the (re)added material is just POV misrepresenting the situation, probably the reason it was added to begin with, so as to present the Israeli raids as being the "fault" of the Palestinians themselves, which is obviously incorrect.

I will be rewording the Background to present a more balanced view of the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't engage in original research to validate or disprove what reliable sources like the Jerusalem Post say, and neither will you. Please get consensus for your desired changes here before making them in the article, as required by WP:BRD.

Just a few thoughts: The comparative numbers of casualties says nothing about who started it, nor about the number of events. It possible, indeed likely, that a string of relatively ineffectual Palestinian terror attacks killed just a handful of israelis (while injutrign many others and generally causing disruption to normal life, as is the goal of terrorism), while the Israeli response was more lethal. Red Slapper (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not OR to demonstrate that a source is incorrect or misleading. I have provided two sources and I have more, I don't need permission or discussion to edit the article for a NPOV. I do not intend to remove the JP source merely refute the inherent POV. JP is known to be a highly partisan source, they are still referring to Israeli arrests as part of Breakwater, for instance, even though the Israeli military has confirmed that Breakwater is concluded "Amid criticism, the IDF stops referring to its West Bank security activities under the name 'Operation Breakwater'" see here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Going to a primary source like OCHA and applying your personal and dubious methodology to analyze it (e.g - excluding Palestinians who murder Jewish Israelis from a nationalistic motive if they happen to hold Israeli citizenship) is absolutely original research which is not allowed. If you have problems with JP, I suggest you air them at an appropriate notice board. Red Slapper (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

By that logic I can include the murder of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Best wait for an edit on my part then have your say instead of merely imagining what I am going to say. Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, best is that you follow WP:BRD - your change was reverted, now you discuss it here and wait for an agreement to emerge. Red Slapper (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted and you reverted my revert is what happened. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No. A bold edit was made by ISkandar, and a part of that was reverted. You then restored that part, in violation of WP:BRD. Now we discuss. Red Slapper (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the article to clarify the situation misrepresented by the Jerusalem Post source. No discussion needed since this is addition of new material and sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not new material, it has been in the article for months prior to Iskandar's edit -including multiple versions of the article edited by yourself in February. Red Slapper (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

ToI "The Israel Defense Forces launched the operation, dubbed Breakwater, after a series of deadly attacks that killed 19 people between mid-March and the beginning of May." not only contradicts JP but contradicts itself since Breakwater was launched immediately after Bnei Brak. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It does not contradict the JP. Something can be launched after event X while also being after a series of events Y. Red Slapper (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Jp says the string was pre March and ToI says post March. Contradiction. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Who told you there was just one string, or that they are referencing the same events? this is why we avoid original research of the type you are doing. Red Slapper (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the article, you can restrict your commentaries to those edits and sources, if you please. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD Red Slapper (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

?. You keep repeating this, it is not applicable here. Even if it was, BRD is a good idea, not a policy. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It perfectly applies here. A bold edit was made by Iskandar, and was reverted, and you, instead of discussing it, simply edit warred it back into the article. Red Slapper (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You do know this here is a discussion, right? Initiated by myself. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:BRD doesn't say "start a discussion while you continue your edit war", it says "you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." Red Slapper (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Look, if I edit warred it back in, then you edit warred it back out. I have not restored my bold edit. We have had this discussion and I have edited the article. Try getting your facts straight instead of making wild accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD: "you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, Red Slapper (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not "you" in that sentence, presumably you mean Iskandar, DovidRoth, idk. Prior to my most recent additions, I made precisely one edit, a revert. Which you then reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You most certainly are 'you' in that sentence as your most recent edits to the same part or the article show, and WP:BRD applies to your first revert as well, which restored something that was already reverted. Red Slapper (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I am done discussing this. Bfn, Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)