Jump to content

Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jec93 (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 8 June 2024 (→‎Reactions word salad: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I support such a change. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support 2024 Nuseirat massacre, because it is obviously a massacre. But 2024 Nuseirat attack is fine too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It is being described by ALL reliable as a rescue operation, which it was. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The title of the article uses the word "assault." JDiala (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It attributes that word to Hamas Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And those source also use "rescue operation" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. There are a variety of terms used. JDiala (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue operation is by far the most common one, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence for this. The naming is contentious. JDiala (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
None of these titles describe it as a "rescue operation." JDiala (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why is it Hamas' policy not to break the death toll of militants vs others? Pg 6475 TM 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it serves their propaganda needs Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. JDiala (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We go by what RS say. RS consistently say 210. JDiala (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been adjusted. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with this. I see these "international reactions" sections everywhere, and they are meaningless. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ABHammadsorry, I meant to tag you properly but failed to. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation&oldid=1227971071"