Talk:Tel al-Sultan massacre

Requested move 26 May 2024

Rafah displacement camp airstrikes → Rafah displacement camp massacre – Many reliable sources use this name, and it obviously appears to be a massacre at this point. Hamas, PIJ, the PA, and the Gaza Civil Defense call it this, as well as politicians from around the world. Reliable sources call it this (to play devil's advocate, most of them are tilted towards the Palestinian side generally), and sources that don't explicitly say it at least mention "massacre" by attributing it to people who say it is. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is by every definition of the word a “massacre” and any attempt to downplay it is simply Wikipedia showing a systematic bias. In fact, it was intially named “tel al sultan massacre” until a editor decided to move it.

again, it is a massacre The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Since my move before has been reverted, I would also like to say that the name of this should at least be "Rafah displacement camp _". Most sources say displacement/refugee/tent camp, and just saying Tel al-Sultan is broad. Israel has struck this neighborhood a million times before. Most sources barely mention the neighborhood, just to say where it happened. I think we should be more in line with the Mariupol hospital airstrike article. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Most sources actually say tent camp now that I'm seeing it, so maybe we could do that Personisinsterest (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I just moved it back to the original title per WP:TITLECHANGES. The original title is controversial, as is the title it got moved to (without discussion) by ABHammad. Since neither title was stable and both are controversial, we are required to default to the original title, and discussion can proceed from there. Dylanvt (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Rafah displacement camp massacre. There's enough backing in RS to justify it, and that's what the average person who knows about this event might call it in a google search. Unbandito (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800: is repeatedly moving the article back to the changed name in direct contravention to the policy laid out clearly at WP:TITLECHANGES. It clearly states that the title should default to what was used when the article ceased to be a stub, which is "Tel al-Sultan massacre". Dylanvt (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dylanvt: is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Contentious topics, on a current event and contentious topic. Until the facts of the event have been fully established by reliable sources, which is under investigation, the article should be referred to as "airstrikes" that resulted in civilian casualties.

Please sign your posts. And, that is literally the entire point of a move discussion. You are not the sole arbiter of NPOV on Wikipedia. If you believe the title is NPOV, open a move discussion with your proposed alternative. Dylanvt (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I added the NPOV banner. I'll add a move discussion if you want. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Given this discussion is not active, I've started a new discussion below. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per above Damian Lew (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2024

Tel al-Sultan massacre → Rafah tent camp attack – News sources have called it "attack", "massacre", "strike" and "airstrike". It is not yet clear which is the most WP:COMMONNAME. "Massacre" carries value judgement, and "airstrike" obscures the fact that many of the casualties weren't killed directly by the airstrike, but were burned alive in the resulting fire. "Strike" is very similar to "attack", but "attack" is consistent with other similar events like World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. I also think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan" and most sources seem to use "Rafah tent camp" or "Rafah displacement camp".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Support including Rafah tent camp, but oppose not adding massacre. Sources seem to tilt toward using 'tent camp' as a descriptor for the location, and this is by far the most notable attack on a tent camp in Rafah, with the most deaths and media attention. As for massacre, it is the correct terminology and has either been used by reliable sources or has been mentioned in articles due to its common usage.Personisinsterest (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that massacre is the correct terminology, you may want to reassess if you support what is being proposed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, read that wrong. Thanks. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

One can argue that "massacre" is accurate in this case, but why not use "attack" anyway, which seems unquestionably accurate? The argument seems incomplete without mentioning concerns about "attack". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "Rafah tent camp" is not a good name for disambiguation purposes. A majority of the entire Gazan population has been forced to flee to Rafah. It'd be a severe understatement to say that this isn't the only tent camp in Rafah. The nom acknowledges that there is no COMMONNAME and therefore "attack" is also not the common name. While they are correct to mention that similar articles have been named "attack" before, similar articles have also been named "massacre" (See: Flour massacre). Absent any COMMONNAME and the proposed name being more ambiguous, I feel this proposed title is worse than the current one all around.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is the most notable tent camp massacre in Rafah. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. As VanillaWizard pointed out, there are many tent camps in Rafah, and just using "Rafah tent camp attack" is way too vague as many tent camps in Rafah have been attacked since the start of the offensive. Tel al-Sultan, on the other hand, is a more defined area within Rafah and lets readers know exactly which (or a more concise area) tent camp was attacked. Secondly, I'd argue both attack and airstrike undermine the severity of events whereas massacre highlights that civilians were by far the majority of the casualties and that there was intent to strike a camp filled with civilians despite the alleged presence of Hamas commanders. Jebiguess (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's an example of precedent: Mariupol hospital airstrike. Multiple hospitals in Mariupol were struck during the war, but this is the most notable one and additionally the common name of the event. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's only so many hospitals in Mariupol (the one that was struck in that airstrike was known as "Maternity Ward #3"). But there are many, many tent camps in Rafah as a majority of all Gazans are now forced to take refuge there. Rafah today consists mostly of makeshift civilian tent camps that numerous civilians flocked to within the last year. Any notable attack in Israel's invasion of Rafah can very easily become another massacre of a tent camp. The same cannot be said about Mariupol hospital airstrikes.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we could keep it as Tel al-Sultan and wait until the war de-escalates, and then see what the common name is then. If no other major tent airstrikes happen, and this is recognized as the most notable one, we should change the name. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Support using "Tel al-Sultan attack," and oppose adding massacre. Massacre requires establishing intent, which has not been verified yet. This uses similar wording to the World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Using that logic, or lack thereof, not a single massacre on October 7 should be called a “massacre” because Mohammed deif said don’t target civilians in his speech. I really don’t get Wikipedia editor’s delusional twists and turns to downplay Israel’s crimes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The October 7th wikipedia page is titled: "7 October attacks". Massacre is a very loaded term and should only be used when intent is certain or almost certain, and no, this doesn't mean a possible perpetrator needs to honestly state their motive. For example, the Russian army couldn't possibly have "Accidentally" tied up, lined up and thenn summarily executed a bunch of civilians. PreussinBlues (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That IDF praised itself over the attack on social media establishes intent in my view. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The first part isn’t that important, what matters is the second. It is a massacre, I do not get why all of the Israeli massacres in this war have been ridiculously downplayed to the point in this entire war Wikipedia has only brought itself to label two massacres as such The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose not using the word "massacre" when it is, by every definition of the word. Most reliable outlets are also using it, alongside countries and international institutions. Damian Lew (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Support move, strongly oppose using massacre, soft preference for tent there is insufficient coverage for an POV title such as massacre, for which the value judgement must be overwhelming, which is not the case. Attack is probably optimal in regards to the cause of death, but a variety of alternatives may be considered.

Tent may be closer to the common name, but less destinct, so valid arguments on both sides FortunateSons (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose not using the word "massacre", per others 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Support title should not use the word "Massacre", since it is under investigation how many of the casualties were caused by the initial bombing vs. subsequent fire, which seems to be related to an ammo facility or vehicle on site (therefore being a mishap vs. a massacre)AP source.--Tobyw87 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind regarding the term "massacre", there have been analyses showing a pretty stark media bias in the way it's used in coverage of the war. This one by The Intercept looked at coverage from the NYT, LAT and WaPost and found it was used nearly exclusively (at a ratio of 30:1) for Israeli deaths. In Canada, this one by The Breach found that the Globe, National Post and Toronto Star had only ever used "massacre" in quotations when referring to Palestinian deaths, as opposed to its usage for Israeli deaths, and even then there was a clear disproportion in the case of each newspaper. This isn't me calling for the use of "massacre" in this specific case — I think "airstrikes" is good and even more specific here — but rather saying we should be careful when using arguments of weight in relation to loaded terms like this. News media have biases and we should avoid transposing them here as much as possible. WikiFouf (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an extremely important point to make regarding this war, and while Wikipedia editors should not unilaterally decide what is a massacre and what is not, it is clear that traditional media and subsequently a possible WP:COMMONNAME would not accurately portray the severity of the event due to these biases. Jebiguess (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's some examples of reliable sources using "massacre":

• Aljazeera
• Le Monde
• TRT World
• Vox
• Jacobin

As said above, Western/pro-Western sources generally do not say events in Gaza are massacres. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Pro-western sources do not even label Israel as a perpetrator in most cases, let alone call their actions a “massacre” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not all sources you provided are 100% reliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Aljazeera is listed as "a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." TRT World is "no consensus" and listed as "reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest." Vox is listed as generally reliable but "does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics." Jacobin is a "generally reliable but biased source" and is noted to be a self-described socialist newspaper. If you get The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other larger, more neutral sources calling it a massacre then the article should be renamed, but several minor sources with known bias and self-proclaimed socialist and left-wing politics should not be taken as the deciding factor whether the consensus is to call it a massacre or an attack. BootsED (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED Please see my comment above as to why the sources you believe to be "more neutral" have demonstrable biases regarding what constitutes a massacre WikiFouf (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I would also like to say that "Tel al-Sultan massacre" is extremely unrecognizable. On a google search, it yields five results, and one is this article. "Rafah tent camp massacre" yields 418, "Rafah tent camp attack" yields 462 and its plural none, "Rafah tent camp airstrike" yields three and its plural one, "Rafah displacement camp massacre" yields one, "Rafah displacement camp airstrike" two and its plural the same, "Tel al-Sultan airstrike" yields two (ours) and it's plural none, "Tel al-Sultan attack" yields six, plural none. It seems "Rafah tent camp" is the most common location descriptor, with attack beating out massacre generally. Other arguments need to be taken into account, but this shows the most common names. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, "massacre" has a value judgement assigned to it that is unbecoming of the rules and values of Wikipedia. Especially now that we have information that this wasn't a strike against civilians specifically, but a nearby strike that led to an unintended fire. I disagree with the characterization and clear bias of the title. How can something be a massacre and be unintended? ""Tel al-Sultan attack" or "Tel al-Sultan airstrike" offers the same information in a neutral way. Bluefist ^talk 01:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, even America hasn't confirmed the Israeli account. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

However, now that this information has come out, it muddies the waters and we can't definitively say with reliable sources that this was intentional. It might be best to just do "Rafah tent camp attack", as that's the most common name right now. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The idf investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing isn’t evidence. Especially if they can’t make up their minds wether this was a “tragic accident” an explosion near a truck, or a weapons ammunition depot with their classic doctored phone call as “evidence” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support there was no intention of "massacre", this title is very misleading. --Deansfa (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak support. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUSTAVOTE?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: ABC referred to it as a massacre on today's morning news. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, if you could find a source for this I would love to put it in the article Personisinsterest (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. 30 times as many Palestinians than Israelis have been killed since Oct 7 yet most 'massacre' pages pertaining to this war refer to Israeli victims. The tendency to describe Israeli war crimes with euphemism needs correction. As for arguments made above on intent, we have the IDF social media accounts defending the attack and posting (possibly fake) audio from "Hamas members" to justify it. Genocidal incitement coming from Israeli officials and soldier chants about there being no innocents in Gaza have been the object of acknowledgement by international courts and should also be taken into account before we hurry to embrace damage control narratives coming from Netanyahu (himself guilty of incitement). Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Most reliable sources have called it a massacre, changing it to 'Rafah tent camp attack' downplays the severity of the situation, whether it was intentional or not, the fact remains it was a massacre, described as such even by government officials of multiple countries, even described as "one of the worst events of this war so far". So the current title is the most accurate one, downplaying it to just another "attack" would be a clear NPOV violation. Nori2001 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Using "massacre" is like stating in Wikivoice that the attack was an intentional slaughter of civilians, which is far from an established fact, particularly considering the secondary fires in this case. We should default to more neutral and dispassionate language unless there's a clear WP:COMMONNAME. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: "Rafah tent camp" is too vague since there are many other tent camps in Rafah. Also the event is by definition a massacre, some sources and government officials calls it a massacre aswell Durranistan (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not "by definition" a massacre.

The bombs were targeted at Hamas officials and were used putside the safe zone.

It's the definition of "mistakes happen" and "war is hell."

NOTHING supports this being a (subjective) massacre. Or-Shalem (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we say that the Re’im music festival massacre was just a mistake and a “consequence of war”, and a “mistake” because Israel held a music festival next to a military base? Or the other kibbutzim, in many cases having a base smack in the middle of them? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

One could make the argument that many of the massacres on October 7 were just the "definition of mistakes happen and war is hell" because of the proximity of the kibbutzes to the Gaza Strip along with that IDF personnel and equipment were present at Be'eri, Zikim, and Re'im, and many other areas. This argument fails just like it does with Tel al-Sultan and many other massacres in Gaza by the IDF: just because military equipment is allegedly stationed in a populated area doesn't give one the right to murder dozens of civilians, many of whom are children. Jebiguess (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Support changing the title from massacre, although not sure what the best name would be. I'm not seeing many RS naming this a massacre, and none(?) naming it as "Tel al-Sultan massacre". Also, compare Kramatorsk railway station attack. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Tent(s) Massacre seems to have become quite a popular name for this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. Le Monde for one has no problem with calling a spade a spade. To make an ethnic distinction between multiple deaths affecting Israeli (massacre) and those affecting Arabs (strikes/attack etc) is an abiding vice in wiki POV games.Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support using "Tel al-Sultan attack" or "Rafah tent camp attack" and oppose adding massacre. Attack is more neutral. Hamas intentionally targeted civilians in its October 7 attacks, yet the page is called 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and not 2023 Hamas-led massacre against Israel. Israel did not intentionally target civilians in this attack, but many civilians got killed, but this page is called a massacre. Claims of it being a massacre can be added elsewhere in the article, as is on the October 7 article, but it should not be the title. BootsED (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Killing civilians is literally Israel’s policy. Yes they intentionally target civilians. Yes they kill civilians on purpose. How are we in May and people still think Israel is this benevolent force that only kills civilians because it has to? Hamas was more considerate of civilians on October 7 than Israel was in its three wars on Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There are several pages addressing Oct 7 Hamas offensives which use "massacre" in the title. In fact, most pages about mass killings that took place in this war and that use massacre in the title are about Hamas' attacks rather than Israel's, despite the fact the number of Palestinian civilians killed is dozens of times higher. Plus, using "massacre" in the title to the article about the Oct 7 attacks as a a whole hides the fact that 30% of Hamas's victims were soldiers and killings of soldiers can not be named massacres. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support

Once again, the media companies have jumped the gun without waiting for the correct information to come out, just like after the Al Ahli hospital explosion, and nobody seems to have learned a thing. You're making the same mistake here on Wikipedia.

Most reliable sources (of which Al Jazeera is NOT one because it's Qatari-state sponsered and is essentially anti-Israel propaganda) are, once again just like in October, backtracking and correcting theor false reports from earlier that the deaths were likely from Hamas weapons as the Israel used 37 pound "tiny munitions" DESIGNED TO REDUCE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. Updated information shows no support whatsoever for this "attack" intentionally causing civilian deaths, and Benjamin Netanyahu has gone as far as to call this a "mishap," which I think is the best descriptor for this incident (but I'll accept "attack" if it means removing "massacre," which is objectively untrue [and typically used subjectively]).

Other important information here is that the strikes were at least 40 meters away from the tents and outside the safe zone. The two explosives used had 14 kg warheads, which could not alone have caused that much damage. The strikes targetrd two senior Hamas figures; the civilian deaths were unintended.

It is speculated that the strikes may have set off Palestinian ammunition and explosives (likely intended to be used against Israeli civilians I may add). This leaves an interesting question for everyone here. Why is there such a rush to believe unverified accounts of events that villify the State of Israel, yet refuse to acknowledge additional information that disputes instinctive reactions?

Anyway, here's a source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/reports-israels-rafah-strike-used-us-bombs-designed-to-reduce-civilian-casualties/ Or-Shalem (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You have to be an extended confirmed editor to !vote in Israel-Palestine discussions.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, per my analysis of the wording used by RS below. No evidence in the article or in this discussion that the current title is the one used the most by RS; the word massacre presumes intent which is disputed in this case. Alaexis_¿question? 10:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose not using the word "massacre", as per others. --Masssly (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Just a reminder that 'massacre' does not necessarily imply intent. It is an objective result as much as anything else. And its use is broader than the narrow sense ascribed by naysayers here. I.e.

Levene and Roberts have rightly pointed out that massacres are one sided and that they thus demonstrate an ‘unequal relationship of power’. A massacre occurs then when ‘a group of animals or people lacking in self-defence, at least at a given moment, are killed- usually by another group who have the physical means, the power, with which to undertake the killing without physical danger to themselves. ‘ p.xiv Philip G.Dwyer and Lyndall Ryan, ‘The Massacre and History’, in Philip G.Dwyer and Lyndall Ryan (eds.) Theatres of Violence: Massacre, Mass Killing, and Atrocity Throughout History Berghahn Books 2012 ISBN 978-0-857-45299-3 p.xiv.

In this sense, our use of the word for a number of events on and after 7 October is objective, i.e., with Netiv HaAsara massacre,Re'im music festival massacre, Be'eri massacre, Nir Oz massacre, Kfar Aza massacre, Kissufim massacre and Psyduck music festival massacre is correct. Editors appear only to equivocate when parallel multiple innocent deaths happen to Palestinians on the other side.

The mass killing of defenseless people in bombing strikes that consistently ignore preceding evidence that the proportion of civilians killed far exceeds the one or two Hamas militants targeted is far too well attested to quibble over the wording of what occurred at Tel al-Sultan, one of several dozen strikes causing large numbers of civilian deaths. It is wholly irrelevant that the person at the computer and his/her director drops the missile with the sole intent of killing one or a few more putatively Hamas militants, since the sites targeted are known to have masses of civilians who will be affected. The intent is not there because the known results of the bombing will predictably include defenseless civilians, who are just 'collateral damage'. One never intends collateral damage, one simply knows it will occur, and is not relevant to the purpose of the strike. When the numbers involved in such 'collateral damage' are large,the objective result is a 'massacre' in any (wo)man's language.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural note: User:Vice regent, a change in the requested target needs to be made in two places. It's unfortunate that so many comments have been added to the discussion while it was unclear which title was requested. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058 the talk page has shown "Rafah tent camp attack" from almost the beginning. I do apologize for my mistake.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support any move away from massacre, per WP:NCENPOV, which tells us that "massacre" is a POV term that should only be used if part of the WP:COMMONNAME or a commonly accepted descriptor - and as even the opposers acknowledge only a minority of sources (typically biased on unreliable) use either. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm curious to know what bias do you ascribe to Le Monde and Vox. Your tacit criticism of Al Jazeera and Jacobin are likewise against the consensus we have. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  That only a minority a sources have described this as a massacre moreover rings hollow as it is known that many so-called reliable sources follow an official policy of suppressing the word massacre to justify to mass killing of Palestinians. We know that not just from statistical analysis, traced to other reliable sources and exposed by other editors above, but because even their style guide has been leaked, and we can see with our own eyes, for example, that writers for the New York Times are under direction to never use "massacre" or "slaughter" for Israeli-perpetrated mass killings, even though they use such descriptors with abandon when discussing attacks by Hamas. So basically what we have is silence and biased language from pro-Israel papers being used by pro-Israel editors as evidence that Israel doesn't massacre massacres. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

As written the title is incredibly incorrect, so support moving it to anything else. "Massacre" is highly NPOV. Ergzay (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support a move to "attack". As has been pointed out above, a massacre is by definition a deliberate slaughter, something which in this case is not supported by evidence. Wikipedia should not take a stand here. Oppose changing "Tel al-Sultan" to "Rafah tent camp", however, as there is another camp near Rafah in Al-Mawasi and this could cause confusion (and in general I feel the actual name of the place is better suited here than a vague description). —mountainhead / ? 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence do you mean? Who would even believe the social media denials of the IDF Spokesperson after so many attempts to dodge responsibility for its crimes have been refuted? The facts are the following; 1) Israel lured the victims to the area by describing it as a safe zone. 2) Its insistence it didn't know civilians would be hit is therefore not credible. 3) All manner of people involved in this war on the Israeli side -- from soldiers on the ground to high level government officials -- have made genocidal statements, as acknowledged by both the ICJ and the ICC. Incredible that one would think to deny the IDF would be capable of such after everything that's transpired, both the killing of tens of thousands and the obvious pride that Israeli soldiers and politicians take from it. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Believe what you want. I might even believe what you do too. But that is not how most sources see it. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Mawasi is basically another town. And usage of "al-Mawasi" is usually to denote the zone named after it during this war. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing "massacre". It should be obvious that's neither an accurate nor a remotely WP:N way to describe the event. The fact that TRT World, Jacobin, and Al Jazeera are being cited as 3 of 5 "reliable sources" using the term makes this doubly clear—it's hard to think of more biased outlets when it comes to describing the current war against Hamas. A "massacre" requires intent, and it's abundantly clear that Israel has taken great pains to spare the lives of Palestinian civilians. Ekpyros (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote this forgot to sign so we don't know if they're extended confirmed + consensus is that Jacobin and Al Jazeera are reliable sources so that argument holds no weight. The crux of your argument is not Wiki policy or what sources say, but rather your unfounded belief that Israel would never do such a thing like knowingly firing at civilian infrastructure. Have you heard of the Dahiya doctrine?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your characterization of my "unfounded belief" is as bizarre as it is utterly false—I never said any such thing. Most Israeli targets are, at least in some sense, "civilian infrastructure". I simply said that there is overwhelming evidence that, while prosecuting its defense of national security, Israel does its best to avoid civilian casualties. Certainly the IDF knew there were civilians in the area who would be put at risk by the strike. But they've been clear about who their targets were and why they were targeted, despite being in a camp for DPs. They used the smallest possible ATG platform available to them, and there is no evidence—nor any reasonable cause to believe—that their intent was to "massacre" civilians.

  Secondly, Jacobin and Al Jazeera may somehow continue to pass muster as RS—but it should be obvious that, especially considering the subject matter, they're far less likely to use neutral verbiage than, say, the NYT, WaPo, the AP, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and so on. Ekpyros (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This unsigned comment was by @Ekpyros:, who does appear to be extended confirmed.

Note that (factually) reliable sources can still be WP:BIASED, and this has been a common argument for keeping sources like Al Jazeera on WP:RS/P, which notes concerns about bias for both.

I would argue that labels like "massacre" are not factual statements, but based on speculation (about Israel's motives) and interpretation, so we should be careful about using reliable but biased sources here.

More neutral sources like AP use more objective and dispassionate language, like "strikes" rather than "massacre". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Using the word massacre is not an NPOV violation; there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are titled as massacres. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policies leave room for interpretation, so it's not obvious whether there's an NPOV violation. But "massacre" does seem to go against WP:POVNAMING, which says "neutral terms are generally preferable", and WP:POVNAME, which says non-neutral names should generally be used if there's "usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". It doesn't seem like a majority of reliable sources use "massacre", let alone a "significant majority"?

True, there are quite a few "massacre" titles particularly relating to both sides of Israel-Palestine conflicts. If some of them aren't based on a "significant majority" of RSs, I'd support revisiting those titles also. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You try hard to sound like you're worried about nothing but the application of Wikipolicy, but it's easy to see the way you're quibbling is always designed to soften the blow of coverage of Israeli brutality. You have nowhere militated against usage of the word massacre in the many articles on Wikipedia dealing with Oct 7 Hamas attacks. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Skitash (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. Oppose massacre. The dust has settled and it appears most sources don’t call this a massacre. Even by western bias standards, there is only a very small amount of sources (even non-Western) that call it a massacre. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I know that the Hamas attacks were titled massacres and these ones aren’t as much, but I would like to point out that the lines are blurrier here. Did Israel strike the camp itself? Did it strike a target in the camp, or near it? Did shrapnel start the fire? Regardless of my opinion, nothing remains completely confirmed and sources haven’t really drawn a conclusion. But the Hamas attacks were easily massacres, there was video evidence of militants killing people, and sources picked up this. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Then Hamas can just say they were targeting military bases and not homes themselves with some weird graphic with the alleged “attack” site and according to Wikipedia’s garbage policy of bending over backwards for a crime Israel commits, to go ahead and name every October 7 massacre an “attack” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules don't care about what Israel says. The problem is sources. Sources widely call Hamas attacks massacres, so we do to. Sources don't widely call this a massacre, even non-Western ones. Most everyone just cites the PA and Hamas. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Most sources call Hamas attacks as "attack" not massacre.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the sources calling it a "massacre". I tried to find some more. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose removing "massacre": I gave it a try and realized [1] there are plenty of English sources (at least 13) using the term 'massacre' either in the body or the title. Keeping 'massacre' aligns with WP:CRITERIA. In comparison with 'attack', 'massacre' is even more precise since the incident was not simply an attack; the camp was directly targeted by bombs (or missiles as some others say). Additionally, having massacre in the title does not harm the recognizability or naturalness. This is while I think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan". --Mhhossein ^talk 05:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh great: Middle East Eye, Workers Revolutionary Party, The New Arab, The National (fine), Mondoweiss, Gulf News, and Committee on American-Islamic Relations. This is partially why I realized my own argument was flawed. These sources are mostly fine to show that some outlets call it a massacre, but these are all bias.Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Personisinsterest: Please notice WP:BIASED. I don't think this can be an issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah this wasn't a great argument actually. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps Rafah displacement camp bombing would be a good title. Also possibly Rafah displacement camp bombings and include the recent similar attack [2] - this would be comparable to the articles about multiple attacks like al-Shati refugee camp airstrikes, Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes (2023–2024), Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Side discussion regarding mid-discussion page moves

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: The title was unilaterally changed to "Tel al-Sultan airstikes"; this seems the best name for now as most RS are not presently naming it a massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) The title is misspelled and when I tried to move it there was a hiccup because the page name with "airstrikes" is possibly already occupied. Hopefully someone can find a way around this. Loqiical (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, you're right, there is a typo and the page without the typo already exists as a redirect. Someone who is able will have to fix this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Whoever unilaterally moved the page to a title that not a single editor supported while there was an ongoing move discussion should be sanctioned. Even the nom in this discussion opposed the "airstrikes" title as it implies the strike itself was the immediate cause of death. The strike is still responsible for the deaths, but the direct cause was the fire it resulted in. The majority of editors in this discussion support keeping "massacre", and a majority of editors also !voted oppose and wanted the previous title (Tel al-Sultan massacre) to be kept. It would be greatly appreciated if any uninvolved administrator could move the page back and undo the mess that user created.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I agree with most of what you said, but the PRCS did claim Israel struck the camp directly and the U.S. said it couldn't verify Israel's account. It's still a massacre nonetheless. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Looking through the revision history, it appears the editor who moved the title from "massacre" to "airstrikes" in the middle of the discussion was also the editor who initially changed the title to "massacre" in the first place. I understand they felt they were obligated to change it back because they were criticized for their previous title warring, but they were not being forced to do so, and doing so while editors were discussing the title only makes things even messier. @Dylanvt:, in the future, please skip the title warring altogether and just head to the talk page. General rule, if your edit might be controversial, discuss it with others first. It was a mistake for you to move it to massacre without discussing it first, and it was a mistake for you to move it back while we were discussing it (now it's not obvious that the oppose votes are saying they support using the term "massacre" because the status quo option when the discussion started is different from the status quo right now.) Talking these things out avoids a lot of confusion and headache.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I was specifically told by an admin to move it back, despite my explanation that there was an ongoing move discussion. Take it up with him. I urge someone to move it back to the status quo; anybody else is free to do so as they are not constrained by the 1RR rule. Dylanvt (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) As I explained clearly in my edit summary, the initial move to “massacre” was obligated by WP:TITLECHANGES. JohnAdams1800 then repeatedly reverted that move despite warnings that he was doing so in contravention of that policy. Admin then told me to self-revert despite the fact that a move discussion was ongoing. Dylanvt (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Knowing the full context, I don't place the blame on you. I checked the timestamps of all the comments in that section of your user talk page against the timestamps showing when this discussion started and the timestamps showing when you performed the latest move to "massacre" and I was able to confirm that everybody who told you to self-revert only told you to do so after this move discussion was started. This mess is on them. I at least expected better from the administrator.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you for understanding. Going back to the "title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" (i.e. Tel al-Sultan massacre) should have been uncontroversial, and any potential move discussion could have carried forth from there. Dylanvt (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) It looks like this has been  fixed. Many thanks to Amakuru for taking care of it so this discussion can be salvaged. And immense disappointment at the borderline WP:ICHY response I got from ScottishFinnishRadish when I asked why they would instruct an editor to change the title of a page while the title is being discussed. In any case, what's done is done. I'll be sectioning off this side-discussion to make it easier to see the !votes.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Firearms, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Terrorism, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Disaster management, and WikiProject Death have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Review of sources (not) using "massacre"

The article's title should reflect RS, and this is what it says now.

The attack was described as a massacre by multiple media outlets.

One can pick on these sources and find issues with most of them (WP:TRT is "not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest", Le Monde and Vox use it in headlines, which we should disregard, etc.), but even if we assume that all these sources are 100% legit, they do not prove that this is the most widely used term for this event. It's just as easy to find several articles that do not use this word.

1. BBC deadly strike
2. NYT deadly strike
3. AP deadly strike
4. Reuters airstrike, "massacre" is only attributed to the Palestinian Authority
5. RBC Ukraine air strike (they also call it "shelling" which seems to be a mistake)
6. India Today deadly strike
7. Kommersant Rafah strike

(I've included non-Western sources on purpose to show that it's not a matter of Western bias)

It's not nitpicking, the word massacre presumes intent. Only an investigation can show whether the IDF's version that the casualties were caused by secondary explosions of Hamas munitions [3] is true or not. Alaexis_¿question? 10:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis the source above that says "Rafah shelling" is just false. No one claims this was an artillery or mortar shelling. Unless it is referring to a different event.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, so just disregard it. I'll strike it through and replace it with another article, there is no shortage of them, e.g., [4] uses both words. My point still stands. Alaexis_¿question? 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The thing is that for each of the articles like Nir Oz massacre, Kfar Aza massacre etc, there are far more RS calling these events "attack" than "massacre". We need to apply standards consistently regardless of whether the victims are Jews or Arabs. I would support using neutral terms like "attack" for all these articles unless there was a "significant majority" (say 66% and above) of English RS that used the word "massacre" in relation to the event.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This approach makes a lot of sense in theory, but the devil would be in the details: which sources should we take into account, are all sources equally valid, do we count passing mentions or only articles about the event, do we only consider statements made in the source's own voice, etc. Even if we agreed on all that it's still not a trivial task to tally all the published articles (google news gives me 13 pages of news for "Rafah" "May 26", fwiw there are ~60 results with the word "massacre" and ~80 results with the word "attack").

So while I have some sympathy for the consistency argument, it can only be applied if the events are very similar, and this is not the case here (attack on a kibbutz is not the same thing as aerial bombardment, both intent and the number of victims matter). In the end we'd have to consider the sources for every article separately, and this is exactly what we're doing now. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Intent is hard to determine. Hamas said on October 7 it didn't intend to target civilians, even though we have evidence to the contrary. Likewise, in this particular attack/massacre we do have evidence (satellite and video) that IDF knowing dropped 17-34 kg of explosives in the middle of a civilian tent camp full of gas cylinders, fuel tanks, and open bonfires. Even American experts are shocked Israel dropped these weapons in the middle of civilians.

But does wikipedia policy really urge us to debate over the morality of an attack? Or should we simply call the event what reliable sources call it, erring on the side of a neutral whenever there isn't a clearly common name? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT, of all sources, has found that no significant second explosion occurred, and by arguing that it's impossible the IDF didn't know about the tents, it is strongly hinting that the strike was intentional. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

References

wording for this statement

In this quote:

>Israel claimed it struck a Hamas compound in Tel al-Sultan and killed two senior commanders, but the Palestine Red Crescent Society disputed this.

the source is https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kkqkngnedo with the whole quote about PRCS being the following:

"The Palestinian Red Crescent said Sunday’s air strike targeted tents for displaced people near a UN facility in Tal al-Sultan, about 2km (1.2 miles) north-west of the centre of Rafah."

Perhaps it should be made more clear what is being disputed. One might read this sentence to say that PRCS diputed that two Hamas members were killed, which is not the case (at least from the source). Also, PRCS does not directly say it disputes that claim (at least from that source), although I think that is basically their intent.

Perhaps a better formulation is:

"Israel claimed it struck a Hamas compound in Tel al-Sultan and killed two senior commanders. The Palestine Red Crescent Society said the air strike targeted tents for displaced people."

Or something like that 2gvyxeXRquT5w (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

miller

“As we have said before, Israel has a right to go after the Hamas terrorists responsible for the cold-blooded murder of civilians — as appears to have been Israel’s aim here — and Hamas should stop hiding behind civilians in Gaza. But Israel also has the obligation to do everything possible to minimize civilian harm as it carries out its operations,” Miller says, largely reiterating the same statement issued by a White House National Security Council spokesperson yesterday.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-28-2024/#liveblog-entry-3300177

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0d:6fc0:8d0:5d00:a9d9:8336:4169:1931 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Designation by Israel as a safe zone

@Personisinsterest: I disagree with your edits. It is reliably documented that Israel designated the area as a safe zone prior to the attack.[5] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And this. [6]. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Multiple sources said that it was, and that leaflets were dropped telling people that. And for the second edit, I was just trying to trim it down because the title was long. If it’s important for context, it could be added back Personisinsterest (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: Sorry, I had a typo in my comment before. My issue is that you https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1226238646 keep removing] "The target of the attack is disputed. One week before the bombing, Israel had designated the area as a "safe zone" and dropped leaflets urging Palestinians to move to this area. After the bombing, Israel stated there was a Hamas compound in the area that it targeted." It is reliably documented that before the bombing Israel said this was a safe area in which civilians should go to, to get humanitarian aid. Multiple reliable sources have independently documented this. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted this for multiple reasons: The humanitarian zone was mentioned in the second lead paragraph. I also am trying to summarize the article in the lead by its sections: lead is just lead, second paragraph is the background, third is the attack and fourth are reactions. Explicit reactions, I think, should be in the fourth paragraph and the third shouldn’t start off with the target. Again, I try to summarize it in these paragraphs and the wording does not fit in with what im trying to do. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But you're not just summarizing, you're actually removing critical information. You are removing the fact that it was Israel itself that designated this area as a safe zone - this is not just some hearsay coming from survivors. CBC News etc have published evidence of IDF leaflets. Secondly, you yourself have moved this info in background section[7], even though its extremely relevant to the attack itself.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was trying to be more neutral with the “from survivors” part and trying to summarize, but that was a mistake considering the media coverage and proof that it was designated that. As for moving it into the background, is it not background information? And does it warrant its own section? It’s really just more background information Personisinsterest (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest I strongly disagree that this is merely background information. This is part of the attack itself and should be a separate section. Likewise Israeli allegations that there was a Hamas compound isn't merely background information it is very relevant to the attack itself. If Israel argues there was an ammunition depot there, that should also not be merely background info.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s part of the attack section, because the compound strike was allegedly part of the attack. And anyway, this is not important enough to be it’s own section. It’s mentioned as an afterthought in articles. And not everything needs it’s own section. We don’t have to make a section for every detail of the attack, we can have a section for the background, the attack itself, and it’s reactions. This is not important enough Personisinsterest (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ, because the safe zone aspect has garnered a lot of attention (Al Jazeera, CBC News, NBC News, Daily Jang, CNN, BBC News, Al-Ahram among many, many others). It directly deals with the safe evacuation aspect of the Rafah offensive, which Israel's own allies have been insisting for a while.

And if not its own section, then it certainly belongs in the attack section.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Palestinians

Why was Palestinians killed changed into people killed? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you mistakenly reverted during the merge @Personisinsterest: [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, I didn’t do it with any real motive though. We can add it back Personisinsterest (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: I am currently constrained by 1RR, would appreciate if you change it. Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: You have ignored my request, and violated 1RR at least once. Please self-revert all of your consecutive latest reversions to bring yourself into compliance with WP:1RR. [9], [10] Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have changed it. I remembered my original motive, and it was to stop being repetitive after it was said to be a Palestinian displacement camp. But I fixed that by just removing Palestinian from displacement camp, it already says it anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: Thanks. Note that I think 1RR wasn't complied with, as consecutive reverts constitute a single reversion, and you only self-reverted a few. Why was mention of the bomb being US-made and Israeli celebration removed from the lede? MOS:LEDE states that the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the bomb could stay but why would we include the Israeli celebration? That's just a small reaction from some dudes on twitter that made no real impact. if we're going to highlight any reaction, it should be the White House's terrible one because its the most important. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: The article clearly says that Israeli social media as a whole was circulating jokes and memes regarding the attack. Either way the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies, which surely this is one. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a prominent controversy, that’s a small social media thing. If it was prominent, more media outlets would mention it. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with what is going on in social media, don't make personal judgments ('small'). Prominent people hailed the strike, not least of which Yinon Magal,a TV journalist and newspaper columnist, whose chortling caption added to the video of the burning refugees on his X account, one presumably showing a dad running about with his headless child, runs, with an allusion to the celebrative Jewish festival of Lag BaOmer: “The central bonfire this year in Rafah”. (Rachel Fink, 'Happy Holidays': Right-wing Israeli Journalists Celebrate Rafah Attack, Likening It to Lag Ba'Omer Bonfire 27 May 2024. Haaretz Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relatively, this is small. It is one reaction from some prominent Israelis on social media. Might as well just put every prominent person on social media's reaction into the lead. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is already well-estyablished that public opinion, and especially that of the younger generation, is more influenced by social media than it is by the every-struggling traditional mainstream press. All you have here is your impression.All one need do is observe how many 'likes' are clicked on outrageous statements to see the difference in impact.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The target was the Kuwait Peace Camp

Given the sources I just added[11] there appears to be no doubt that the target was the Kuwait Peace Camp. Here is a satellite image that shows that. But The Guardian, CNN, India Today have all independently arrived at the same conclusion using either satellite imagery or video geolocation. I think we should be able to state this in wikivoice, while still noting that Israel insists the target was a "Hamas compound".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Describing the camp as the target seems a bit ambiguous, but I read it as implying that there wasn't a more specific asset within or near the camp targeted. Would you agree, or how would you interpret it?

Only India Today seems to frame the attack as targeting the camp. They don't elaborate on what they mean exactly, or provide any kind of substantiation. The other sources simply state that the camp was struck, not targeted.

Targeting is about intent. Unless there's some kind of leak, we can't possibly know the IDF's intent, any (outsider) claims about it are mere speculation. The vast majority of reliable sources refrain from engaging in any such speculation; we should do the same. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx The word target can have several meanings. One meaning implies intent and we can't infer intent. But in the infobox we state clearly where the bomb fell. In this case, though, the missile was precion guided, and Israel says that where it fell is also where they intended it to fall.

This is why, even when the perpetrator is unclear (meaning intent is impossible to establish) we still mention the precise location of the airstrike. So maybe the infobox should mention the locyand not the target.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems clear enough that Israel targeted something in the camp. I just want to be sure we minimize ambiguity, and avoid implying the absence of a more specific target (unless there's a substantiated allegation of that we can cite).

Did I understand your idea right that we mention the camp in location rather than target? I think that's a good idea, the template docs seem to encourage "perhaps a specific airplane or building" for location. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx agreed let's do that. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab: please don't change it back without engaging in the relevant discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per agreement here we should leave the "Target" field empty and instead both the IDF version and independent version in the Location field.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx would you be ok with the lead stating "Satellite imagery and other videos pointed to the location of the airstrike being the tent camp known as the Kuwait Peace Camp."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I might suggest adding "in" (the tent camp) but overall that sounds good to me; my concern was mainly implying things about Israel's intent which this avoids. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Deaths" in infobox

There are currently 2 deaths of Hamas militants noted in the infobox with "(per Israel)" added after it, attributed to an Al-Jazeera article from the 27th. A Reuters article from the 29th is used in the article at other points (currently number 15) and it notes that Hamas confirmed the death of two militants in a statement.

So the "(per Israel)" per Israel should be removed. I guess we could say "(per Israel and Hamas)" but that seems unnecessary.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the change. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The change has been undone [[12]] along with removing the Reuters source. I'm not sure why. I've notified the user on their talk page.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Civilian injuries and deaths

45–50 civilian deaths and 200+ civilian injuries don't seem to match the sources, which just say "people". Probably most were civilians, but we should stick to what the sources state. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx the sources do say most were women and children.[13]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but isn't that a bit different? If we're citing specific facts, we should be careful not to alter said facts in any way. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hamas deaths

Are there any sources that give a Hamas statement that confirmed it's deaths? All I see are allegations by Israel and the US.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This probably isn't a reliable source, but mentions "Palestinian media outlets". I would assume they're Arabic-only outlets which used the deceaseds Arabic names, so we might need help from an Arabic speaker to locate them.

For now I think the US statement is probably good enough to corroborate the IDF's confirmation, combined with the fact that no sources are raising any doubts about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx the martyrdom posters aren't enough unless they explicitly mention "Kuwait" camp or "tel al-sultan". Israel has simultaneousnly many attacks going all over Rafah. Btw, my Arabic is terrible, but I didn't find any mention of Rafah, Kuwait or Tel Al-sultan in those posters.

The Israeli and US claims need to be attributed per NPOV, as US is obviously a military supplier to Israel and it's ally. (Likewise a claim by Hamas about Israel, that was only corroborated by Iran and no one else should not be stated in wikivoice even if no one else contradicts it).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx the tweet says that IDF killed Yassin Rabia and Khuwaylid Ramadan and even shows "martyrdom posters" and says Khalid Najjar was merely injured.

But TimesOfIsrael says IDF said it killed Yassin Rabia and Khalid Najjar, making no mention of Khuwaylid Ramadan.[14] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

[[15]] is currently citation 36 and says Hamas confirmed that the two named members died in the airstrike.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it says that. Can you quote the exact text? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Hamas issued a statement celebrating the martyrdom of two fighters in the strike on Sunday, Kirby said"

It was verified above that Hamas proclaimed their deaths shortly after the strike. Was Kirby wrong to say "in the strike"?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Its obviously attributed to Kirby. Reuters is not making that claim in its voice. So we can write "according to White House".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Important details trimmed

@Makeandtoss: some of the content you trimmed seemed important to me. For example, you moved down the mention of Israel's claimed target, then deleted it.

Overall, the lede now paints a picture that there was no military target. There's one remaining sentence in the third paragraph ("Israel claimed that it struck a Hamas compound"), which seems like rather critical framing of arguably confirmed (at least noone has denied it) information, though you also removed the John Kirby comment which helped corroborate it. A reader who doesn't get to the third paragraph is left with the impression that this was a simple genocide of civilians, with no plausible military purpose.

Other trimmed bits like this also seem like important details to me. It now sounds like the order was simple and clear and Israel blatently ignored it, which would be an oversimplification since the judges themselves don't agree on the precise meaning of the order. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx what are you talking about? Multiple sources above show the location of the airstrike was not a "Hamas compound" but the Kuwait Peace Camp (a tent camp). These sources show their work, which can be verified from open source satellite imagery. CNN posts photos of bomb remnants from the Kuwait Peace Camp.

Has any RS independently verified the existence of this "Hamas compound"? If not these claims must not be given much weight.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your point. Are you arguing that IDF's claim is not credible, since they said "Hamas compound", and we don't have evidence of a "compound" in or near the camp?

It seems that two Hamas officials were killed, at least noone seems to be denying that claim. Maybe whoever said "compound" was being misleading, I don't know. Other sources like NBC just say "two Hamas leaders" rather than "compound".

I don't think it matters too much whether we report the claimed target as a "compound" or just two men. But surely we should prominently report (either variant of) the IDF claim, since it's both a significant aspect of the topic and important for NPOV. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx Israel's claims, both regarding the compound and the Hamas men, should be mentioned in the third paragraph and with attribution. They should be juxtaposed with other RS that say satellite and video analysis shows the location was actually the Kuwait Peace Camp. We then let the user make their own conclusion. But we don't put this controversy in the first paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "controversy". There are many ways to interpret the various facts and claims, but the most obvious interpretation seems to be that one or both of the Hamas men were on the outskirts of the camp. Noone seems to be denying that two Hamas men were targeted and killed, so downplaying it doesn't seem NPOV. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx no RS seem to be verifying it either. We should first state the known facts - that have been attested to by multiple RS - before we get into the he said, she said. Neither IDF's not Hamas' claims that have not been attested in RS should be in the first paragraph. Their claims should still be in the lead but not the first paragraph.

We shouldn't include Hamas' claims in the first paragraph of the October 7 attacks either.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really a he said, she said, though, only he said. Granted Israel's claims can't be proven, so some MOS:DOUBT may be appropriate, but there don't appear to be any substantiated doubts raised in RS.

I'm actually not quite sure what a plausible alternative theory would look like. Would it be that Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar are still alive, or Israel made up the names? But then why wouldn't Hamas have denied the claims? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You (xDanielx) literally posted a source that says Khaled Nijjar is still alive, and was merely injured in the strike. For the rest see my comments below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Killed vs injured isn't the important thing here; if everyone agrees that two (or three? not important) Hamas members were harmed by the strike, how does one explain that without the strike having Hamas targets? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx if IDF says a Hamas commander was killed in the strike and that man is later shown to be alive, that casts doubt on the Israeli narrative.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really about whether Israeli statements got all the details correct though, I thought the question was whether there was a serious dispute about the existence of Hamas targets, which there doesn't appear to be. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED: courtesy tag since you added that lede context. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. Interestingly, the edit that Makeandtoss made still uses the same CNN source that the former edit used for the Palestinian casualty list and Israeli target explanation, but now only information about the Israeli explanation from the provided source has been removed. Removing the Israeli explanation for the attack from the lead in its entirety, while still using the same source that provided that information to only discuss Palestinian casualties is clear-cut editorial bias and POV pushing. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. You are violating WP:NPOV by pushing for a WP:FALSEBALANCE between claims that Palestinians were killed and burned alive (which the RS believe is true and even Israel has acknowledged) vs the claim that Israel targeted Hamas (which RS attribute to Israel). That 45 people were killed, including women and children, isn't only coming from Gaza Health Ministry. The Guardian quotes medics as having attested to the same figure. That same article says Guardian saw images of dead children. AP News also quotes Palestinian health workers for the figure. Like CNN says they saw footage of burned corpses, including those of children, in the aftermath.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning the facts you mention. They just don't really contradict the IDF's claim about targets. Both can be true - the IDF targeted two Hamas men, and the strike resulted in a bunch of other deaths. I'm not aware of any RSs that frame the two things as contradictory or really question the IDF's target claims at all.

Even if there were doubts (substantiated in RSs) about the IDF's stated targets, I don't think it would change much. It's still a crucial piece of information which should be highlighted, along with the information about the destruction, and the reader should be left to draw their own conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Two main Israeli claims are widely contradicted by sources:

1) The location of the strike was a "Hamas compound"

• This is contradicted by numerous RS (see #The_target_was_the_Kuwait_Peace_Camp) based on satellite analysis and the fact that bomb debris was found at the Kuwait Peace Camp.

2) The target of the strike was Hamas, not civilians

• The Palestinian Authority, explicitly "accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians"[16] Hamas said the same.
• Egypt, which borders Rafah and likely has its own intelligence on the ground, says the refugee camp was "deliberately targeted".[17] Lebanon also said the attack deliberately targeted refugees[18], but I'd give less weight to them as compared to Egypt.
• Al-Jazeera's fact checking says the camp was "deliberately targeted".[19]
• Media sources report that witnesses on the ground said the camp was "deliberately targeted".[20][21][22]
• Doctors without Borders, who are on the ground treating victims of this attack, called it a "massacre"[23] and said "While Israeli forces described this attack as precise with some civilians injured, the number of casualties resulting from these airstrikes shows otherwise."[24] They added "This strike illustrates once again the total disregard for Palestinian lives by Israeli forces."[25]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"Compound" may have been imprecise, though I don't see a RS discussing it, probably because the particular word choice in certain quotes isn't too important.

None of those are contesting that there were Hamas targets. A few sources seem to be speculating (none mention any intelligence or evidence) that killing civilians was part of the plan as well. It seems like a rather fringe view, only appearing in a few of the most biased sources, with no substantiation. Even if it were true, it doesn't contradict Hamas men being targeted and killed; at best it's speculation that there could have been other targets. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with VR that this does not belong to the opening paragraph which is to be kept factual and neutral without POV narratives per MOS:OPEN; the main story here is the killing of civilians, as seen in this CNN article's lede:

"At least 45 people were killed and more than 200 others injured after a fire broke out following the Israeli military’s strike on the outskirts of Gaza’s southernmost city, most of them women and children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry and Palestinian medics." [26].

There is substantial consensus that the order meant the suspension of Israel's military operation without any caveats according to NYT. [27]. As for John Kirby, I don't think any non-American knows who this guy is; his mention in the lede is out of place.

Also why has mention that refugees had been sheltering in Rafah removed [28]? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For now I've put all the claims, including the Israeli, in the first paragraph as WP:NPOV is more important than WP:LAYOUT. But I agree that all the claims should be moved to the third paragraph. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that all claims should me moved to third paragraph, with first a general factual overview and second a more detailed overview.

Also, "the attack killed between 45 and 50 Palestinians and injured over 200 after a fire" this should be changed as it implies they only were killed by a supposedly accidental fire. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't stated targets be part of the basic information we include in a factual overview? If the goal is to make it concise, we can delete some evidentiary details about the strike location, which doesn't seem to be a matter of controversy.

How would you suggest wording it? Most sources do suggest that a portion of the deaths were from a fire, though of course some details aren't known. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: "stated targets be part of the basic information we include in a factual overview?" because RS have not done so.

As was previously worded, "the attack along with an ensuing fire killed between 45 and 50 Palestinians and injured over 200". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That wording about the fire sounds reasonable to me.

Do you mean RSs don't accept IDF statements unquestioningly as matters of fact? I don't think we've been doing any of that either.

As a comparison, ABC is probably one of the more neutral RSs on the subject. They do give a lot of attention to IDF statements. They don't accept them as matters of fact, but don't frame them as especially dubious either, and don't mention any disputes about targeting (which I don't think really exist).

By comparison the current article seems much less neutral, starting with "massacre" in the title, then giving relatively little attention to IDF statements, while giving lots of attention to all the various statements condemning it, including what seems like unsubstantiated speculation about deliberate killing of civilians. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Not unsubstantiated - its based on satellite imagery, video geolocation techniques, accounts of witnesses, and accounts of healthworkers.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The camp being struck doesn't imply a goal of killing civilians though. To argue that would require something else, like arguing that the reportedly killed Hamas members were actually fictitious, or that they had little to no military relevance, etc. I don't think any sources are making such arguments? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources are making that claim. For example this. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The CNN feed of updates? I don't see it disputing stated Hamas targets, can you point it out? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

According to a witness CNN interviewed: "All those that were killed were civilians. No one was a fighter." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This aligns with what I have apocryphally read elsewhere, though I'm struggling to pin down a source for it, that the men deemed "Hamas" were last active as militants 20 years ago. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel has, at least in formal statements, always maintained it does not aim to kill civilians, even when the ratios of civilian to Hamas dead are of the order of 10 to 1 and higher for half a year now. The texts of the debriefings indeed are notorious for being more or less the same boilerplate excuse, with almost no variation in the prose. So your repetition of the argument of intent is meaningless. No one doubts an Israeli strike incinerated,' 'set ablaze,' 'triggered', 'started,' etc.etc. (NBC, ABC, Guardian, NPR, NYTs, PBS, Washington Post, France 24, Bloomberg, etc. ad nauseam) the fire in the tent camp, causing 45 deaths. On any one charge of some hundreds of such cases of mass killing strikes, one can, case by case as Israel officially does, go public with the meme that in every instance the result was unintended, one of 'involuntary manslaughter'. But even if the juries were to be made up of 12 blind Freddies and their dogs, Alan Dershowitz wouldn't get an A.J. Simpson off the rap if the accused were charged with voluntary murder over a serial set of scores of massacres repeated over several months by that one person. Repetition establishes a pattern, where intent is pointless or immaterial, because intent has nothing to do with in practice asserted right to bomb densely populated areas where large numbers of 'collateral' deaths are known to be inevitable. Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for your 10 to 1 claim?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

“even when the ratios of civilian to Hamas dead are of the order of 10 to 1 and higher for half a year now.”

The existing estimates for the ratio currently put it closer to 2:1 or 3:1. KronosAlight (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

According to ... (Insert POV) Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Target vs Location and removal of Israeli claim

@xDanielx, you keep putting the location of the attack as the camp. But the location parameter is for the city, country, or broad location for where something happened. The target of the attack is what that belongs in.

Also, the sources and article and IDF itself explicitly say that the fire was an accident from their supposed strike on the Hamas compound. Why has this been removed from the lead? It's important information, and is neutral after being balanced out with the satellite image analysis. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I also don't know why you feel the need to indicate that the camp is a tent camp in the infobox. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That choice of words wasn't mine, pinging @Vice regent: — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Most sources describe it as a "tent camp". Its quite different from established Palestinian refugee camps.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx Personisinsterest (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox civilian attack does encourage more specific locations, like "perhaps a specific airplane or building". There was some related discussion in #The target was the Kuwait Peace Camp.

I think target generally refers to military objectives. If we simply put the tent camp in target, it could be read as implying that there was no more specific military objective (like the two Hamas men who were killed), but just the camp itself. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, then we should put that and then the Hamas compound Israel alleges Personisinsterest (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern with putting the tent camp in target is it seems ambiguous. It could be taken to imply that (some sources believe) there was no more specific target, or just that the target was somewhere in the camp, or maybe something else.

A few sources such as PRCS described the strike as targeting the camp, but without clarifying exactly what they meant or the reasoning behind it.

Since no sources seem to be elaborating with any reasons for doubting Israel's stated targets (two Hamas men), my assumption is that no one is really disputing it. I could be wrong, but I think we should wait for a source to clarify/elaborate about a real dispute before framing it as different sources making conflicting claims (like Israel vs PRCS). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, they do. The Guardian and Times of India said that satellite images showed the camp was targeted, the WP said there were tents surrounding the supposed structure, CNN said they found parts of four bombs in the camp, Aljazeera said it was targeted, and many other humanitarian groups and countries have said so as well. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian said "The target was at the edge of rows of tents", implying (in their own voice) that the target wasn't the camp itself, but something (presumably the two Hamas men) inside it.

True, India Today (and a few others) said "targeted tent camp", but do you agree this is ambiguous? They don't clarify if they're expressing doubt about a more specific target, or if they just meant "targeted something in the tent camp", or what. I think we should avoid repeating ambiguous language. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If they wanted to suggest that the Hamas commanders were in the camp, they would’ve. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, can we just add the Israeli claim back to the lead? I know you have a technicality that none of the sources denied the idf, but we have to show what they said and what others said in response. I could even change the language to “however, satellite images show the camp was struck itself.” Personisinsterest (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel the strike location and Israel's stated targets should be presented as two separate facts, without language like "however" that would imply a contradiction, unless there's an explicit argument in a reliable source for why the location would call into question Israel's stated targets.

This isn't to say that Israel's stated targets should be accepted as established fact. Just since RSs don't appear to have made any concrete arguments for why it might not be true, the most we can do without WP:OR is add some MOS:DOUBT language. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point, but I just want to know that we can include Israel’s claim in there somewhere. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the lead or infobox? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, the lead Personisinsterest (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Casualties" and "Designation by Israel as a 'safe zone'" as sections

Should these two sections go back to being subsections? I think both of these are not notable enough in the context of this attack to be their own sections. Of course it matters that Israel designated the area as a safe zone, but this is background information by definition. Casualties are important, but they are not important enough to be their own section. It is two paragraphs. For example, there is a section in Flour massacre about the victims because there is substantial information. It covers how the death count went up over time, and how many people died, which in the case of the bullets is relevant information to contrast israeli claims of a stampede. There is nothing in these two sections that warrants this. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The "designation as a safe zone" is a large enough section to merit its own section. As I mentioned before the safe zone aspect has garnered a lot of attention (Al Jazeera, CBC News, NBC News, Daily Jang, CNN, BBC News, Al-Ahram among many, many others). Its not a part of the background, but this is event that immediately preceded the attack. We can call it "Prelude" if you want, but I think we should be specific with titles. Additionally, mobile users have greater ease navigating level 1 headings than level 2 headings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

All those sources also prominently mentioned the ICJ ruling. Should we make that it’s own section as well? Where does it stop? Personisinsterest (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The ICJ ruling is not directly connected to this attack. Multiple sources have said that the IDF repeatedly told civilians to go into Tel al-Sultan just one week before the attack.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is background information. That isn’t a prelude. See: Srebrenica massacre. Srebrenica was a safe zone, many sources pointed that out, but it’s just a subsection of the background. This stuff is a small factor in the attack no matter how much attention it gets. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it could be its own section. It has connections to the background and attack, and doesn’t fully fit in either. But can we get a new title though? It’s a bit long, and if we took away “by Israel” would it make a difference? It couldn’t have been designated by anyone else. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that compromise.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Organizing the analysis by subtopic or by source?

We seem to have two ways of organizing the analysis section. First method is by source:

Israeli analysis

CNN analysis

Al-Jazeera analysis

The Guardian analysis

The second is to organize by topic:

Location of airstrike

Munitions used

Cause of fire

I much prefer the second organization strategy, we should not section this article by POVs but rather present all the POVs together on each of the aspects of this attack.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any doubt anout 2. This is an encyclopedia and as in those one arranges the exposition by theme. Just making it a summary of newspaper RS (and in time, if there will be time decades ahead, all these ephemeral sources will be replaced by scholarly reconstructions) makes for repetitive tedious reading, if anyone will indeed read that kind of narrative at all.Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The second approach seems more logical to me, as well. Is this edit related to the analysis subsection? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t have to go through all investigations, first of all. Also, we should split it between Israeli and Independent ones. Israel concluded the attack was an accident and has different views on everything but the munitions used. Multiple independent investigations have shown the attack was intentional, or the target was at least the camp. We have to distinguish here because there are two different points of view, and mixing the investigations would dilute everything the other side has to say. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have one sentence at the top saying "Israel stated the casualties were 'accidental'. Multiple sources have contested this." Then later below we consider each aspect: location of airstrike, munition used and cause of fire. It seems there is WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for the second approach.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The location of the airstrike and cause of fire go hand in hand, because according to Israel, the fire was started because of the compound strike, but satellite images say the camp was bombed and the fire started because of that. The munitions used section was almost entirely analysis from military experts who say the bomb shouldn't be used near civilians, so already in the independent category. No outlets besides Israeli ones are willing to fully buy the narrative of a Hamas compound near the camp, and many, as shown, are actually saying otherwise. There is nothing that Israel and the media agree on here except the type of bomb. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You also seem to think that Israel's claim is not relevant enough to be fully stated. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think Israeli claims should be stated, but in the relevant section.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also now I see someone has added Ha'aretz's analysis to the "Israeli" section, even though Ha'aretz is not a state owned newspaper. There is no point in separating analyses by nationality and I'll go ahead and implement the consensus here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

People vs Palestinians

Is there a reason why Palestinians had been changed again to people in the opening paragraph or did that come as a mistake? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

if we're saying palestinian displacement camp its repetitive to say Palestinians again. it does not matter Personisinsterest (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: I think it would be more descriptive to describe the people as Palestinians rather than the camp, so as to indeed avoid repetition. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright Personisinsterest (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I will change it then. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

it says "Analysis an Investigation" not "Analysis and investigation" Chart Barkley (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this really lede-worthy?

@Peleio Aquiles: you added Contrary to Israeli claims, footage of the strike shows no significant secondary explosion was ignited in the lede, I take it based on this from the NYT,

One possibility, he said, was that weapons “which we did not know of” might have been stored nearby and detonated. The Israeli military, he said, was assessing social media videos “which appear to show secondary explosions.” It is not clear what videos he meant. The Times has reviewed dozens of videos and has been unable to find any that suggest a significant secondary explosion.

The added text still goes beyond what the source says - they said that they couldn't find video evidence of a significant secondary explosion, not that one didn't occur. We could water it down to something that closely matches the source, but it might be rather uninteresting.

At best the NYT statement casts some doubt on the IDF statement, but even that is somewhat questionable since the NYT doesn't appear to have confirmed what videos the IDF was referring to. Overall it just seems like an offhand remark which raises some questions, but wasn't thoroughly investigated enough to draw any interesting conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT's refutation of the IDF's story is far more emphatic than you make it out to be, which was a surprise to me as their coverage of this war has previously accommodated Israeli disinformation. The NYT doesn't merely say it hasn't found videos of the alleged secondary explosions. That's a distortion of what's written. It actually says it has reviewed many videos of the event -- "dozens", in fact -- and sees no sign of any such explosion. It's easy to come out from reading that paragraph with the impression that the IDF has once again been caught with its pants down, not that it has some secret evidence that, inexplicably and self-defeatingly, it has refused to divulge.

Israel's probable lie about the secondary explosion should never have made to the lede. Firstly, it's obvious Israel would try to deny responsibility for the massacre. Its denial is therefore not notable. Secondly, Israel shifted explanations before finally settling on the one about the other (apparently nonexistent) explosions. That alone undermines every single explanation they have given or will give, again denting the notability of each of the explanations. And thirdly, as you well know, Israel has a long track record of spreading disinformation in this conflict as well as previous ones, so Wikipedia should be mindful of promoting any story given by the IDF to explain away its probable war crimes.

Maybe the lede should acknowledge that Israel has denied responsibility for the massacre, or that it has shifted explanations for the mass casualties. The moment, however, that Wikipedia decides to promote a specific Israeli explanation in the lede, then it's only fair that material from reliable sources (something the IDF isn't) refuting Israel's story receive the same attention in the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

They watched dozens of videos, but we (and they) don't know if they were the "right" videos. It doesn't seem like the reporters were focused on investigating this detail, or they would have asked the IDF to identify the videos in question.

More to the point, the NYT isn't claiming that no significant secondary explosion was ignited, only that they didn't find evidence of one. So it seems like we're misrepresenting the source here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea if the "right videos" even exist. For that we only have the very unreliable, usually mendacious word of the Israeli military, which by the way has no good reason to keep these supposed videos secret if they truly exist. Following a particularly heinous crime the IDF usually boasts of possessing evidence to suggest its outrages were justified -- evidence however that's most certainly nonexistent. For example, when the IDF destroyed the

Gaza media tower

, the Israelis said they had proof Hamas was unduly exploiting it militarily and vowed they would release the evidence soon. Three years later we have nothing.

If DOZENS of different videos of ONE SINGLE incident in a relatively small area, an incident as quick and obvious as a bombing and explosion, were reviewed and NONE show any evidence of a secondary explosion (and explosions tend to make themselves noticed rather obviously and loudly), then it is as good a guess as any that the secondary explosion didn't take place. That's in fact, the most natural conclusion and we shouldn't hedge our language on the word of an actor as often dishonest as the Israeli army. This is even more emphatically so as Israel gave more than one explanation for the massacre, which is usually a very good sign that its stories were false and merely an attempt to navigate an unflattering news cycle. You also forget that even before the NYT published its rather belated report, experts (including a former official of the pro-Israel USGOV) spoke publicly that there were no signs of a secondary explosion, as was related in the entry.

That Israel's story couldn't even muster the support of such usually sympathetic voices as the NYT and USGOV officials, shows this story is, as is often the case, an easily refutable fib designed to shape the public debate. If it is so important that Israel's probably false story appear in the lede, the rebuttal should be there as well. As I said before, I'm fine with either option -- letting both Israel's story and the rebuttal in place in the lede, or removing both. It's you who want to privilege the shaky Israeli narrative, which amounts to have Wikipedia side with a dishonest actor pushing yet another stinky story to manipulate global outrage over a new act of mass killing of innocents.

Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We already have Israel's claim and rebuttal in the article. We don't need this last sentence, it takes too long to explain and would be better served in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you even mean anymore. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine, I already added in the Israeli claim so this is settled. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just going too in-depth for the lede. If we mention the "no secondary explosions" thing, we would have to explain why that's relevant with the IDF claim that the Hamas compound had weapons storage. Seems like a thing that should be explained in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to cover this properly without a few sentences. The earlier version alluded to Israeli claims with "Contrary to Israeli claims", but didn't mention what specifically was claimed. It doesn't seem good to express doubt about a claim without really stating the claim.

The current version pits this against the "accidentally starting the fire" claim, which I don't think quite works, since certain fuels can quickly cause large fires with no detonation. Maybe there can be arguments that connect the two, but seems like something we'd need a source for. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the IDF claims it struck a Hamas compound outside the camp. Reliable sources say it struck targets inside the camp. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the current lede was interleaving two separate points, one about the strike location, another about fire/explosions. My point here was only about the latter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The mention made to the secondary exposion thing was already there before I inserted the NYT rebuttal. Either keep both out, or let both remain, I'm OK with either option. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please specify what you mean? There's nothing in the lede that talks about the secondary explosion thing besides this. I suppose we could add it in though. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I added it in for now. This might be settled. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but I don't think Israel claimed ... igniting ammunition and causing the fire seems precise, since the Israeli spokesperson framed that as "one possibility" being investigated.

I can propose a modified paragraph, maybe in a separate section since there are a few other concerns separate from the ones raised here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

cc @Personisinsterest: who made some adjustments to the lede, which now reads there were no secondary explosions. I'm not sure if it was intended but this seems even a bit stronger, diverging quite a bit from the source's statement. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded it to say "there was no evidence of secondary explosions" for now Personisinsterest (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed lede paragraph proposal

How about just this as a slimmed down version of the third paragraph?

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the outskirts of the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the camp, trapping and burning the residents inside. Israel claimed that the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, and that the fire was "unexpected and unintended".

The suggested changes are mainly

• Plainly state the strike location as a matter of fact, since it seems uncontroversial.
• Remove the mention of "igniting ammunition". Israel mentions it as "one possibility" being investigated, while NYT casts doubt on it by saying they were unable to find evidence. It just isn't a significant or interesting controversy, with noone making strong assertions in either direction.
• Don't imply a contradiction between the claimed targets and the strike location. There's no obvious contradiction, since Hamas targets can reside in tents. Perhaps "compound" was misleading for a couple men in tents, but I don't see this point being made in the sources, presumably because the wording one spokesperson used just doesn't warrant much scrutiny.
• Remove "deliberately targeted civilians", because this is based on some very brief statements which don't elaborate on what they mean or how they arrived at the conclusion. Are they suggesting there were no actual Hamas targets, or just that Israel knew some civilians would be at risk? Maybe something else? Is there evidence or just speculation? We should avoid repeating such ambiguous statements.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1 and 3. Israel said it was a Hamas compound away from the camp. Watch the official IDF video: [29]. The video said the strike was 180 meters away from the camp. And Israel also claimed at one point that the strike was 100 meters away from the camp. We have to imply a contradiction, and that is what the sources are specifically meant to do.

2. Seems reasonable.

4. Mostly reasonable. However, Times of India claims that Israel targeted the camp, and Aljazeera claimed Israel targeted the camp and emphasized the civilians there. I think we can safely say that some sources claimed Israel targeted it.

We can include the outskirts part, but later. As said, we must include that Israel claimed it was targeting a Hamas compound outside but near the camp that accidentally started the fire. We don't need to mention the ammunition part as it isn't a solid claim.

Here's what a possible paragraph could look like:

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the neighborhood with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, trapping and burning the civilians residing in it. Israel claimed the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, accidentally causing the fire. However, analysis of satellite images showed that Israel bombed the outskirts of the camp. Some sources claimed Israel targeted the camp itself.

Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

After watching the IDF video, there seems to be agreement about the geographic location, with the IDF showing the same location as that satellite image.

There seem to be some different characterizations or interpretations of that location, with the IDF pointing out some "shelters" that are 180 meters southeast, but not mentioning the structures (tents?) closer to the strike.

This seems to leave a few open questions -

• Was the strike literally inside the Kuwaiti camp? This image indicates yes, but AFAIK it's just from Twitter. Many reliable sources say the Kuwaiti camp was set fire, so that suggests the strike was at least very close to it, but I'm not sure if any reliable sources have confirmed where the Kuwaiti camp is exactly.
• Did the IDF say anything false? It seems like there may have been a misleading omission, with them not commenting on Kuwaiti Peace Camp or whatever the closest structures were, AFAIK.

I think the main question here is whether reliable sources have established that there is some kind of contradiction or controversy? If not, I think we should avoid framing it that way, to make sure we don't run afoul of SYNTH. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel claimed it was away from the camp regardless. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, that’s their narrative. And we must be truthful. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In the “What Israel said” section of the NYT article: “Though he said there were “no tents in the immediate vicinity” of the targets, satellite imagery from the same day shows more than 60 tents and other makeshift structures within 500 feet, inside the range given by U.S. military reference guides for risk of death or serious injury. … The Times’s analysis shows that the site targeted was within the borders of the camp, and suggested Israel had failed to take adequate care to safeguard civilians. The camp was well-known, the metal sheds were spaced just over a meter apart, and there were tents in the area.” This implies a contradiction. And this is the most in depth analysis of the event. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, hadn't seen that bit. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Np Personisinsterest (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Re 4, the current text simply says deliberately targeted civilians, a stronger claim that Al Jazeera doesn't make directly, but attributes to the Palestinian presidency. If we keep it, should we attribute it to the Palestinian presidency?

Though I would argue that we just shouldn't include it, per above, since it's unclear what was meant and what evidence or reasoning was behind the claim. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but its fact checking agency does also say Israel targeted the camp. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the claim that Israel deliberately targeted the camp sheltering civilians similarly ambiguous? The article doesn't mention the Hamas targets at all, so if we read between the lines it seems like they may be insinuating that there were no legitimate targets, just the civilians in the camp. But the statement is ambiguous enough that it could be backed up to "the target was in the camp".

I also think the lack of elaboration or substantiation makes this not a good statement to reference. I.e. there's no mention of what kind of knowledge or insights the Palestinian witnesses, or Sanad, had which led them to a certain conclusion (whatever that might be) about Israeli command. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS:: the lede changes you reverted had been discussed pretty thoroughly, here and in previous threads. If you don't agree with them, please join the discussion here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and I wasn't aware of this discussion. The NYT source is very clear however, as can be seen from the quotations I added to the reference, that the strike was done in/on the camp and not "on the outskirts" of the camp. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would interpret the outskirts as still being in the camp, though perhaps "outskirts" is questionable since sources aren't saying that explicitly. In the spirit of sticking very closely with the source, should we repeat the NYT's wording within the borders of the camp? I'm nitpicking a bit here, but the camp was struck itself might suggest a more central strike location, as if the location was picked to maximize tents in the blast area, while the NYT's wording might suggest something more toward the outskirts.

That aside, please also see the concerns about no evidence of secondary explosions (or igniting ammunition) mentioned above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT source, whose reference now includes multiple direct quotations, is very clear that the strike was "in the camp" and on structures that were "part of the camp". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)