Jump to content

Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluefist (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 29 May 2024 (→‎Requested move 26 May 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I added the NPOV banner. I'll add a move discussion if you want. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this discussion is not active, I've started a new discussion below. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Damian Lew (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "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. Bluefist talk 01:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whoops, read that wrong. Thanks. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    This is the most notable tent camp massacre in Rafah. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose not using the word "massacre", per others 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here's some examples of reliable sources using "massacre":
As said above, Western/pro-Western sources generally do not say events in Gaza are massacres. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Side discussion regarding mid-discussion page moves

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Designation by Israel as a safe zone

@Personisinsterest: I disagree with your edits that it is reliably documented that Israel designated the area as a safe zone prior to the attack.[1] VR (Please ping on reply) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this. [2]. VR (Please ping on reply) 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_attack&oldid=1226180690"