Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

Where they saved

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

New details about the operation in which Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv were released from captivity this morning (Saturday) indicate that the abductees were held alongside families under heavy security in Nusirat, inside 3-4 story buildings with 200 meters separating one building from the other. The operation was planned in both centers at the same time with the understanding that if they operate in one place

Should we be using an IDF photo?

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

It’s pretty commonplace for the military to conceal the identities of service personnel, for PerSec (Personal Security) reasons. This isn’t censorship, it’s there for their protection.

Look at photos of units like 22SAS, Seal Team 6 etc. released by their governments, they have what are known as the “issue black bars”. Soldiers in elite units worldwide are targets, this is for their security.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bravo_Two_Zero_(team_photo).jpg - and most of the people in that photo died on the operation, only two survived, one had major plastic surgery and one still hides his identity to this day. Jec93 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason the photo is censored doesn't really concern me. It is censored nonetheless and is sourced from the PR arm of a belligerent in this article that RS are now calling responsible for the deaths of some 200 people. We should find a different one. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

They’ve blurred the faces of soldiers, that’s accepted across wiki. Now because that argument holds no ground you’re objecting because it was taken by the IDF. do you have a reason to believe that, aside from not identifying soldiers involved in the raid that the image isn’t genuine and doesn’t show the moment the hostages landed safe and free? Would the uncensored picture suffice or do you not want a photo of the free hostages? Jec93 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict, and I'm confident we can source one. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You’ve not explained why any of it matters? If the exact same photo came from an AP photographer would it be okay?

Why do you want to identify the SF personnel, do you want to put their lives at risk? Jec93 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me type it again for you. I want an uncensored photo not provided by a belligerent in the conflict. And just FYI, no AP news photographer would ever send in a photo to their desk with the faces of their subjects digitally blurred. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay great. Well I like that photo, so let keep it. Wikipedia isn’t here to serve you, is it?

You can’t explain why either of the reasons you’re giving mean that the photo is unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Lots of photos on Wikipedia are blurred in places, that’s obviously not a reason for its removal, and lots of conflict pictures come from

the military involved. Jec93 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you needed me to repeat myself to understand, but I'm glad you do now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. They'd just photoshop whatever image they want, then send it in. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but the IDF has a far more extensive history of manipulation that we should be very wary of when using their images in an encyclopedic article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was a Reuters freelancer, so my point stands. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/ap-drops-freelance-photographer-who-photoshopped-his-shadow-out-of-image/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Apples to oranges, and please avoid personal attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How is it apples to oranges? It is an AP photojournalist, and he submitted a photoshopped image.

I've removed the comment that offended you Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

My objection is to the use of a censored photo and one provided by the PR arm of a belligerent in the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is the censored photo problematic? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it was uploaded by a belligerent in the conflict accused of killing more than 200 people and it is partially censored. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agian, what is the problem with the faced being blurred? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a censored photograph Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you try to answer without a circular reference? when I ask you why a censored photo is a problem, "Because it is a censored photograph" is not a meaningful answer. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's literally the answer though? We should not be using censored photos on wikipedia if we can find better ones. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

But we have no better ones at the moment, so in the absence of a better photo what's the issue with a photo where the faces are blurred? How is that different from the numerous photos we have in articles of people masked? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Because photos of people wearing masked are not censored Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

But they are not as good as ones where faces are visible, and they equally obscure the people in the photo. So again - what 's the issue with blurred faces? Try to answer without resorting to circular reasoning. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the photo currently used is digitally manipulated and censors the identity of those involved in the action. It was also sourced directly from a belligerent in the conflict. It's ok that you're ok with that, but the only thing circular here is your continual prodding of my position when I have clearly expressed for the fourth time my objection to its use. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I kept prodding because you simply did not provide any answer- I kept asking 'why is X bad?', and you replied 'because X is bad'. We are now, finally, getting a bit closer to an answer which is not circular - you say the images should not be used because they censor the identity of those involved- but why is that a problem? In what way is that identify relevant to the article or to the photo illustrating the event? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not waste more energy with you. Good luck. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. If you can't make a coherent case for why the photo should be removed, it will stay in, by default. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not really how this all works but ok Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

How do you think it works? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the photo because it was added by the PR team of a belligerent in the conflict and because it was censored. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You've also broken 1RR with that edit,I suggest you self-revert. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

POV title

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

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

I support such a change. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. Please feel free to do implement it (or anyone else reading this...) as I'm on my 1RR. JDiala (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

James bond operations remain in Hollywood.

Military operations differ in sizes, some are large military operations and some are small.

This was on the small-medium operation, and it's target was to release the 4 hostages. Hence rescue operation. 2A02:14F:1EF:BA13:B8E8:DA7D:57F0:3101 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No because the objective was to rescue hostages. That remains true even if it was a "massacre." And we don't even know how many of those 210 killed were civilians. RM (Be my friend) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a hostage rescue operation. That was the purpose of it. Wikipedia's position should not be to take sides on the human cost in terms of the loss of terrorist life or any collateral damage. People can make up their own minds about that. A simple presentation of the facts is sufficient. There is nothing wrong with the title. Neutrality is important, and that means resisting the use of loaded and emotive terms like "massacre". "Massacre" should be reserved only for when an actual massacre was the intent. StrodoDoggins (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Using terms like "collateral damage" and "terrorist" is already non-neutral, and the intent of the operation is far less germane than its outcome, which is a mass murder. JDiala (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Using non neutral terms in a talk page argument is perfectly acceptable;. I see an edit above, by an editor you may be familiar with, use the non neutral term "a large-scale massacre" . Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RS are emerging that suggest this was a massacre *and* a hostage rescue operation. Both can be true, and the articles should probably be merged. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree the articles should be merged- there's a section below suggesting such a merge, you should voice your opinion there Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out there is now a separate Wikipedia article called Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

So we're now just creating another article, about this same event, but with a diffenrt title, one that was objected to here? How is that permissible? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible position. If you want to keep this as a hostage operation, fine. But then you have to separate that out from the broader attack on Nuseirat (including levelling of entire neighbourhoods) in the process. JDiala (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that it was created and wanted to inform this talk page as it seemed relevant to the ongoing discussion. Sometimes editors decide to merge articles. The separate articles probably would address the disagreements over article title name. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

So you think it is proper, when we have a disagreement about what an article should be names, to create another one, covering the same event, but with a different name, one that was objected to? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s a possible solution, yes. Another option would be to merge the articles, as I have written above. See WP:MERGE. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty weird solution. Have you seen it used elsewhere? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I can’t say I have, which is why I wrote that it is a possible solution, provided an alternative option, and posted in this thread for general discussion. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that a number of users have zero interest in presenting a neutral view of the situation, and would prefer to use Wikipedia to push one-sided political narratives, hence the creation of a duplicate article that implies the rescue of civilian hostages as secondary to some kind of Israeli bloodlust.

It was a hostage rescue, regardless of whether the number of Hamas militants killed was 1 or 1,000. End of discussion. Everything else known about the operation should go within the body of the article. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the operation is Operation Arnon. Dag21902190 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about "Israeli bloodlust" as if it's an obviously a ridiculous charge. In reality, the state of Israel has been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. A "neutral" view of the situation would give significant weight to the mass murder of 200+ people over the rescue of a handful of seemingly well-treated hostages. This is the objective here. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The goal of the operation, according to the reliable sources, was to rescue hostages (holding them, whether well treated or not, is a war crime).

The claim that 200 people were killed during the operation should be given its due weight in the body of the article Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and the goal of WWII was negating the humiliating of the Versailles treaty. At some point goals are less important than the actual on-the-ground result. In this case the on-the-ground result was a large-scale massacre of women and children. JDiala (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

the 'on the ground result' was the rescue of 4 hostages, whose very holding was a war crime.

When you perform your war crimes in the midst of a dense civilian population, there's bound to be casualties among that population. IHL recognizes that those casualties are the responsibility of those hiding among the civilians. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and also factually incorrect as IHL takes into account discrimination and proportionality. You also haven't provided any evidence that Hamas was "hiding" among civilians in this incident. JDiala (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument in a talk page, it does not need reliable sources. You don;t understand the concept of proportionality. Are you not aware that teh hostage were held i the midst of a residential neighborhood? even Al Jazeera says this is the case Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're just wrong, and demonstrating an embarrassing misunderstanding of IHL. I'd suggest reading over the war crimes page for Israel to get the basics of this. Bombing entire neighbourhoods to rescue four hostages is clearly disproportionate. JDiala (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not wrong. I've read that horrible excise for an article about Israeli war crimes, and edited it extensively in recent days, to remove other similar misconceptions about IHL, like the notion that use of DIME weapons is a war crime, or that shooting fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is a war crime.

Proportionality in IHL refers ONLy to civilian casualties, and we have no idea how many of the claimed dead are civilians. All reports attest to a heavy firefight during the rescue operation, involving hundreds of armed people on the hostage-holding side. In such a case, it is conceivable that there would be many casualties, tens or even hundreds on the hostage-holding side. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. I can understand sometimes facts don't align with ones preconceptions, but this is why it's crucial to be open-minded, and to accept when you are corrected. Our articles are based on reliable sources and reliable, mainstream legal scholarship. You are correct that proportionality refers to civilians, but in this case we know that most killed were women and children (Al Jazeera reported this here). JDiala (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You can keep saying I am wrong, and I will keep telling you I am not.

We actually do not know that the majority killed are women and children, it is a Hamas claim, parroted by a Qatari mouthpiece.

But even if the majority were civilians, that would not, in and of itself, violate the principal of proportionality, whcih is not about simply comparing the number killed on both sides, but about weighing the number of possible civilian deaths against the military advantage gained. In a firefight involving hundreds, a reasonable commander could authorize operation that might incidentally kill many tens of civilians, to protect rescued hostages, to protect the rescuing forces etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. Normal people consider killing of hundreds of civilians for a few hostages a massacre. Legal scholars who have analyzed countless similar Israelis incidents (e.g., in Jabalia in October 2023) consider it disproportionate. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, despite whatever misgivings you might have. Look, you can have whatever views you want, but it's important for you to understand that you are clearly and absolutely in the fringe here. That's fine, but it shouldn't be relevant to the editing of these articles which is based on reliable consensus. JDiala (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources describe this as a rescue operation, as has been shown to you. You are the fringe. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It was never "shown." I refuted your arguments and pointed out how these sources in fact used a variety of words. You ceased to reply which I took as a concession. You've also evidently conceded this argument since you don't want to discuss the law of proportionality like you previously indicated and now are referencing a separate discussion. JDiala (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the current slew of "released hostage" reporting dies down, then we will see what's what in more detail. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

sounds good. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. An encyclopedia should not be presenting accusations or allegations as fact until such a time as they have been proven to be so. And no neutral assessment would ever portray deaths in a military operation as murders, unless they actually were proven to be so. If you want to demonise the world's sole Jewish state, there are places where you can do that to your heart's content, and none of them are Wikipedia. StrodoDoggins (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. JDiala (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

those who are to be blamed for the fact that civilians were harmed in Nuseirat is Hamas terrorists who knowingly decided to kidnap Israelis in the first place and then place them among civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, and shoot at the rescuers and who knows how many of the Palestinian casualties were killed by Palestinian fire aimed at Israeli soldiers. Not to mention the fact that most of the Palestinians killed - above 100 of them - were Hamas terrorists, including so-called "children" who are in fact 17-18-years-old trained terrorists who are armed with RPGs, machine guns and treated by Hamas as cannon fodder with total disregard for human lives, willing to sacrifice them in the name of the Jihad. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Were people killed as a collateral effect on an operation conducted to rescue hostages or was it an operation to maximize civilian casualties which just happened to stumble upon hostages, which they rescued as a side task? And exactly how do we know 210 civilians were killed? EpistemicKarma (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not relevant. If I murder a family because I wanted to steal $20 from them, that doesn't mean the murder can be forgiven just because it's not the principal objective. JDiala (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

So in your mind freeing hostages from their captors is the same as stealing 20 dollars. Are you serious? EpistemicKarma (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• CNN: Israel rescues four hostages in operation
• AP:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.
• WaPo: Four hostages rescued alive in Israeli operation
• NYT: Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Military Operation;
• WSJ: Israel Rescues Four Hostages Held in Gaza

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

This is clearly a massacre of unheard of proportions, killing 210 people, mostly civilians, in order to rescue 4 hostages which, if you'll allow me, could have been saved even earlier with a ceasefire. But aside for these considerations, I think the title 2024 Nuseirat incursion is probably the most neutral title we could hope for. I'm obviously open to more suggestions for a better name, that's the best one I could think of. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is being described by ALL reliable as a rescue operation, which it was. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reuters: "Israel rescues four hostages in Gaza;" [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The title of the article uses the word "assault." JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It attributes that word to Hamas Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not correct. The word assault is not in quotes in the title of the piece. Even in the lead sentence, the word "assault" towards the end of the sentence is not attributed to Hamas, only the casualty figures in the preceding half of the sentence. JDiala (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

it s not in quotes , but is attributed to Hamas: "Hamas says 210 Palestinians killed in Israeli assault". First sentence of the article is " Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe wait a couple of days to see if Hamas is lying about casualties again. I think it's highly suspect that Israel has a 200:1 KD ratio. 2600:100F:B1B2:B481:0:34:2BD4:C01 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

From the context of the article, it is clear that the attribution is done to the number of casualties, not the word assault. In the lead sentence, Israeli forces rescued four hostages held by Hamas since October in a raid in Gaza on Saturday while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area, according to Hamas officials, in one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults of the war suggests the attribution is solely to the preceding claim "while over 200 Palestinians were killed in airstrikes in the same area" and not to the subsequent claim "Israeli assault". JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

That's false. Al Jazeera described it as an attack. BBC uses "raid", which is imperfect but still better than the current title. Reuters uses "assault". JDiala (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

BBc: Daylight operation deep into Gaza frees Israeli captives [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The word "raid" is used in the lead sentence. It's also the operative word on the BBC livefeed title of the events. Words like "raid" and "assault" I'm generally fine with as they convey the violent nature of the attack. "Rescue operation" is far too sanitized and connotes something far more mild than what took place. When we have several common terms used by RS, ("attack", "assault", "raid", "operation"), other considerations matter in making name determinations, including NPOV. JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are shifting your arguments according to what suits you, When discussing Reuters, you chose a word in the title - here, the TITLE of the article is Daylight operation deep into Gaza frees Israeli captives.

The goal of the operation , or raids, was to rescue hostages, and taht what reliable sources frame it as. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is that a wide variety of terms are used by RS for the events, both in titles and the body. So your WP:COMMONNAME argument for the current title has little merit. JDiala (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The event is almost universally described as a rescue operation, even by the sources you provided which also use other terms. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Except when it's not. I've already cited several sources using words like "assault", "attack" or "raid." JDiala (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And those source also use "rescue operation" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the point. There are a variety of terms used. JDiala (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Rescue operation is by far the most common one, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for this. The naming is contentious. JDiala (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I;ve provided evidence, citing the NYT, WSJ. AP, WaP etc..and could add two dozen more. Stop beating this dead horse, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Even the examples you cited don't use the literal, specific term "rescue operation" in the title. They just describe it as an operation in which a rescue took place e.g., "Israel rescues four hostages in operation." And if you have two dozen more, please cite them. We're waiting. JDiala (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• ABC: Who are the four hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hostages-rescued-israeli-forces-captivity-gaza-110954402]
• CBS: Who are the 4 hostages rescued by Israeli forces from captivity in Gaza? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-hostages-rescued-gaza-who-are-they/]
• NBC CT:Israel rescues 4 hostages taken in Hamas' Oct. 7 attack [https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/israel-rescues-4-hostages-kidnapped-in-october-hamas-attack/3308948/]
• Telegraph Alert: Israel says 4 hostages have been rescued in the largest hostage rescue since war began [https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/world/article/alert-israel-says-4-hostages-have-been-rescued-19504525.php]
• Times Israel rescues four hostages from Gazan refugee camp
• TOI IDF rescues 4 hostages from 8 months’ captivity in daytime operation in central Gaza
• Fox News Israel rescues 4 hostages kidnapped by Hamas https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-rescues-4-hostages-kidnapped-hamas-we-overjoyed

I'm sure you can use Google yourself. Give it up already with your POV pushing Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should wait to see if the name used in RS changes and then consider a name change at that point. Mason (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these titles describe it as a "rescue operation." JDiala (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sky News: Two Israeli hostages flown home after rescue operation in Gaza. [https://news.sky.com/video/two-israeli-hostages-flown-home-after-rescue-operation-in-gaza-13149852]

White House: Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Israeli Hostage Rescue Operation

All the other sources describe it as a resuce operation in the body of the article;, including the sources you provided:

Reuters; 'The hostage rescue operation ' [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-rescues-four-hostages-gaza-palestinians-say-50-dead-israeli-assault-2024-06-08/

BBC: "news of the rescue operation on Saturday."https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11z2j34k4o Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay but the bodies of the articles also describe it in other ways, which was my point. The White House is irrelevant as it's a partisan source here. Reuters describes it as an "assault", BBC a "raid". It's also rather interesting you need to find something from Sky News for a title which matches your claim. Surely if it was so obvious you'd have something better than a second-rate conservative Australian news channel. JDiala (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Headlines are next to meaningless, they are written by someone other than the author of the article, whcih is why they are not reliable sources -see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines

The only reason I even bothered to show you ones that used the exact phrase 'rescue operation' is your weird insistence that the exact phrase 'rescue operation' appear in the headline. That's not how wikipedia articles are titled. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala So you're okay with "Raid" right? Also how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pg_6475 I'm in favour of 'attack' or 'assault' as it's by far the best description of reality. If you claim it's a rescue op but raze an entire city down in the process....it's more than just a rescue up. JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, how many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants, just to ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

we don't know, and probably will never know as it is Hamas's policy not to break the death toll by militants vs. others.

The only proxy we might have is military-age males vs. children and women Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it Hamas' policy not to break the death toll of militants vs others? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

it serves their propaganda needs Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. JDiala (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24 If headlines are next to meaningless, great! The bodies are supporting me too. BBC: "raid". Reuters: "assault". Al Jazeera: "attack". JDiala (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Those BBC and Reuters articles describe it as a rescue operation in the body, in addition to the multitude of sources that ONLY describe it as a rescue operation Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah and several of your sources also use other terminology. For example AP "amid the military’s heavy air and ground assault" JDiala (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How many of the 210 claimed deaths are militants though, so that we can ascertain the nature of deaths? Pg 6475 ^TM 19:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera says they're mostly women and children. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the non-partisan sources? Pg 6475 ^TM 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ALJAZEERA. Anyways, what do other sources have to say? Pg 6475 ^TM 20:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't need other sources. A single reliable source is generally adequate for a claim on casualties. JDiala (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Not even a single other RS has stated it? I tried to find in some but couldn't find any. Did you check? Pg 6475 ^TM 06:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

to the people keep deleting my edits

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

Death toll

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

It makes sense for a current event like this to go with the most conservative estimate that has been stated by the authorities with caveats like "At least", in order not to give undue specificity to rapidly changing information. Tobyw87 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. RS consistently say 210. JDiala (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been adjusted. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reactions word salad

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

I agree with this. I see these "international reactions" sections everywhere, and they are meaningless. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammadsorry, I meant to tag you properly but failed to. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the hostages was a Polish citizen, so the opinion of the Polish government does matter in this case, however I agree with the general idea that 192 opinions wouldn’t be useful. Maybe restrict to G8/G20/Security Council members? Or remove all of them, but I feel that there is value in the global reaction. Jec93 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

what is the value you see? Do we really need 15 world leaders saying 'it's great that hostages were released"? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is evident value in understanding the wider political lines in the conflict. There are multiple opinions on this from different countries, not all the responses are the same so. This also varies from action to action, so is useful in understanding how different countries view the conflict. Jec93 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that there is "evident value" in this, but whatever. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2024

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

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

Comment about name of operation - moved from header

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

Borrell

Borrell congratulated captives on their release while he called the operation "another massacre of civilians" and said that the EU "condemns this in the strongest terms." Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

I don't think we need two pages on effectively the same event, but I'm open to changing my mind Mason (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• I agree for reasons I provided on the other talk page here Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre#Delete/merge_with_rescue_article,_resolve_naming_concerns_there. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed . The new article is about this same exact event, and was only created when those wanting to name this article something with 'massacre' in the title couldn't get their way. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? I’ll remind you to ensure that you assume good faith. Personal attacks are to be avoided in talk page discussions. The other article was created after a search for an article on the killings returned no results. I searched “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” and “Nuseirat refugee camp attack”, which both returned nothing. I went to the page Nuseirat refugee camp and also saw no independent article linked. I thus concluded that no article had been made, and made one. Only later did I discover this article, which takes the POV of a rescue operation, which is a very different event than the killing of 210 people. Dylanvt (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you missed the existence of this article. Now you know it exits, predates your article, and discusses the very same event. Why not merge them? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly instructed to assume good faith. This is a cornerstone policy here. It is best to familiarize yourself with the rules before getting so heated in discussions. JDiala (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that heated discussion are best avoided. I apologize to Dylanvt for assuming he saw this article before creating his article, I confused him with someone else. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Having now read through this article I do feel it addresses a significantly different topic, with the focus being on the “mission” as a military operation, and I think it would be odd to say that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties. Dylanvt (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

who is saying that the military operation was meant to involve causing over 600 mostly civilian casualties? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your search returned nothing because Wikipedia entries should describe real historic events and not fictional one. There was no massacre at the town of Nuseirat. Antreprize (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree. I think it's worthwhile differentiating between the rescue operation proper and the temporally adjacent fighting in and around the area. Furthermore, given the large scale number of civilian casualties, it seems entirely appropriate to have a standalone article devoted to that. JDiala (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Where are the alternative RS claiming women and children, @JDiala, please provide at the other thread. Thanks -- Pg 6475 ^TM 21:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree. The killing of over 210 Palestinians and the military operation to rescue 4 hostages are separate events, unless you are arguing that it was necessary to kill over 210 and wound over 400 in order to rescue 4. Compare also the separate articles 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes and Operation Golden Hand, which deal with different aspects of contemporaneous events. Dylanvt (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This argument is odd. No one think it was necessary to kill 210 people, nut the battle started because IDF and Hamas terrorists engages each other as a direct result and part of the rescue operation. At least some of the Palestinians who died that day were guarding the hostages. Antreprize (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree in accordance with @Dylanvt. MountainDew20 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• oppose. For the same reason i stated rejection to its deletion here, which also encompasses @JDiala point.

Stephan rostie (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wait Until things are clearer. On the face of it we have an operation that reportedly killed a lot of civilians and that has been described as a massacre and condemned by a senior EU official. See #Borrell above. It may be that a merge is desirable or it may be that there should be two articles, the recovery of the captives and then of the "massacre". Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There are unconfirmed reports of US involvement in this affair, more sources needed about that as well. U.S. Provided Intelligence to Israel for Hostage Rescue, but Degree of Involvement Is Unclear Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

CENTCOM has officially denied this - https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3800955/centcom-statement-regarding-idf-rescue-operations-today/ Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

CENTCOM denied that the humanitarian pier played a role; the NYT has newer reporting indicating that US intelligence was used. [1] and [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• This article is about the Palestinian casualties from the operation. The operation already has an article. Massacre or attack or airstrikes could describe this, but definitely not rescue operation. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Rescue operation is how reliable sources describe it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that’s a separate article. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree that there should not be two separate articles for this event. Separating the rescue of the hostages from the "Massacre" implies that the two would have happened without each other, this is obviously not true. Also, the language of "Massacre" with IDF as the "perpetrator" implies that the IDF is the sole perpetrator, when this is obviously contested. Human rights orgs like Human Rights Watch have condemned the taking of hostages and the use of human shields, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. Putting civilian deaths squarely on the shoulders of the IDF is incoherent. [3]HWR. Tobyw87 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree: As @Dylanvt has pointed out, there is precedent for a separation. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support merging the articles and renaming this simply as a raid or operation or something neutral like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Like this Washington Post article [4], this CBC article [5], and this France24 article [6]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'd be in favour of IOHANNVSVERVS's above proposal as an alternative. I believe that we ought to have either a single article dealing with the event in its totality and having an NPOV name (like "raid", "attack") which makes clear the violence, or just have two separate articles. JDiala (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and agree with Dylanvt. The massacre is worthy enough of having its own article. And as more information comes out, a merge makes even less sense. - Ïvana (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  "the massacre" by definition its not a massacre. it was a rescue operation in which hamas used civilian as human shields CViB (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree - most of the killings were terrorists, also the numbers here are made up, pro-terrorist have taken over English Wikipedia. There were so many terror attacks toward Israelis in the last 50 years - you can't find it in Wikipedia. it's embarrasing Hila Livne (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• I agree. It is wrong to describe as a massacre the operation or the battle that followed it: (1) The IDF intended to release the hostages, naming the event a "massacre" implies an intent to kill innocent people. This is not supported by the available data (2) It isn't known how many of the victims were civilians, and how many were killed by IDF. (3) It is wrong to detach the battle from the hostage rescue operation. Splitting te event into two entries creates a false impression that a massacre took place simultaneously with the battle in an unrelated way.Antreprize (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Was the "intent" to rescue POWs *without* harming the population already under eight months of nonstop bombardment? The same POWs whose release in a hostage deal was rejected. Tell me, how does one describe the brutal murder of over 200 human beings? Does one say fifty Palestinian lives equals one Israeli life? Do you call it a rescue operation? Does the possibility of an unknown number of the murdered being Hamas fighters negate the fact that a bloody massacre was visited upon an occupied population suffering from Israel-induced apartheid, genocide, and starvation? If Hamas death must be acceptable because of the massacre of Oct.7 by them, does it not follow that we hold Israel responsible for the 40,000 Palestinians murdered by Israel? And the thousands murdered prior to Oct. 7. A massacre was committed in Nuseirat camp. A massacre that caused over 200 deaths. The massacre was committed by Israel. Fatimah91 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: It is the same operation, one is the casualties that resulted from the other. They should be the same article, with the same title. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agree - This article is an embarrassment and a sad reflection of Wikipedia. There was a rescue operation of 4 hostages who've been held in captivity for 8 months - this is the story. Obviously Hamas wasn't going to let them walk away with the hostages so was a battle and terrorists got killed. Now because of the operation there has to be a me-too page. Everything about it is dubious - the numbers, the sources. You want a massacre? October 7 was a massacre. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Why was this renamed?

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

In accordance with Operation Golden Hand. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox death toll

"At least 210 Palestinians killed and dozens injured (per Gaza Health Ministry)[2]" should be changed to "(per Hamas Media Office)[2]"

Source number 2 cites the Hamas Media Office, as do numerous other sources on the article. The Gaza Health Ministry's latest figure is "up to 100 dead" as per Reuters source number 30.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

why is the line under the picture of hostages labeled missing

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

Unexplained edit that reverted large chunk of info

Owenglyndur, can you explain the rationale for your edit here: [7]? There's a lot of info that was removed for no reason. (The merge tag that was at the top of the article, for one).

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