Talk:Re'im music festival massacre

RFC on Terminology

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Please answer the first question and the second question with brief statements in the two Surveys. Please do not reply to other editors in the Surveys. That is what the Discussions are for. In the Discussion sections, remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.

Survey 1: Militants or Terrorists?

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

• Both In general as militants but mention that they have been designated as terrorists by multiple countries. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists (invited by the bot) Targeting of civilians in this context is slam-dunk terrorism. "Militant" is a totally different thing and not even established and also not a good choice on term even if it was. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Either or both.(Summoned by bot) No offense intended to North8000 immediately above, but the question under policy is very much not what we think is an appropriate descriptor in the circumstances, but the WP:WEIGHT given to the descriptions in the overall body of sources discussing the attack. (Although as a side note, I think N8 is correct that this is paradigmatic terrorism). While the volume of such sources covering these events makes it quite difficult to develop a hyper accurate sense of what the ratios are in this instance, I think it's pretty clear that both have been used liberally, across a broad swath of sources.
  Really, it's a matter of context and the specific statement in question, because most of the individuals that such statements will refer to will be both things (that is, militants as a general matter, and terrorists with regard to the festival). So, for example "a terrorist attack by Hamas militants" would be apt, and no element of such a statement would be out of step with the average source here. I think there are probably plenty even among those who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian view than the Israeli as a general matter who would still be able to recognize why these were terroristic events and why sources describe them as such. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants in general (ie. Wikivoice), terrorists only where attributed to sources using that term, per @Senorangel and MOS:TERRORIST. Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants: There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page . I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner, and the notion also flies in the face of the principle of consistency. A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages. Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.? I see no clarity on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page. I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner"

It's complicated: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override the application of a WP:PAG (WP:IAR and all that), but such an action will typically only be endorsed by a consensus of experienced editors in cases where it is necessary to facilitate accurate, reliable information and/or comply with other PAGs (because WP:CONLEVEL is an important factor). However, note that in this instance MOS:LABEL is not a WP:guideline, but rather a style page. As a much more minor expression of core community consensus, it certainly has to bend to give way to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT where the style guidance is in strong and direct tension with that pillar policy, as it very arguably is here.

"A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages"

I agree, but looking at the disputed wording here, this doesn't seem to be a question of trying to redefine any primary labels for Hamas as a group. Rather, the question is how to describe the particular assailants in this case, and as to that, it's pretty clear that there is a healthy volume of sources supporting "terrorists" as WP:DUE in that regard--probably even due enough for Wikivoice. Now, others in this discussion have proposed leaning into heavily attributed language in order to split the difference, and that may very well be a good option here, depending on what exactly that wording looks like. But personally, if consensus agrees to just describe the participants of the attack as terrorists generally, I think in this case it would be consistent with policy and permissible, given the weight of the sourcing.

"Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.?"

That's a good point, although I think it's going to take some time in order to reliably source the involvement of any organizational parties beyond Hamas. In any event, I do think we need to avoid any overly simplified descriptions about "Hamas terrorists". That said, "Hamas" and "terrorists", as separate descriptors, are probably unavoidable in the context of various different statements here--including in the lead, and quite possibly in Wikivoice. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • As the perpetrators of an unambiguous terrorist attack (politically motivated mass murder of civilians without any direct military objectives), they have become terrorists.
  • I disagree with my esteemed colleague Iskandar323. This doesn't automatically label Hamas as a terrorist organization or contradict prior discussions, as we are talking about the perpetrators of this attack specifically - the designation of Hamas as a group is another question.
  • There are plenty of existing articles that use 'terrorists' in wikivoice; this term is not banned.
  • To comply with WP:NPOV, for balance, we should probably include the viewpoint of Hamas - "Hamas disputed this characterization; Since most of the partygoers were Israeli citizens, this makes them legitimate targets according to Hamas". Marokwitz (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists - The terrorists which committed these acts of terrorism are terrorists, whether or not you acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Dovidroth (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  With respect, Wikipedia isn’t (and shouldn’t be) edited in accordance with what editors “acknowledge”, we are not the arbiters of what fits a particular definition or not, per WP:NPOV. Yr Enw (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorists - Action condemned as terror globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned, we should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

“Per definition” is likely WP:OR Yr Enw (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • Per @Marokwitz
  • Just because the BBC doesn't call them terrorists doesn't mean we don't call them terrorists. The BBC and Reuters don't even call 9/11 terrorists, and that doesn't affect us. MOS:TERRORIST says "widely" and not all sources around the world and "so what about Israel?".
  • There has been a history of Wikipedia considering war crimes as terrorist acts, such as the Camp Speicher massacre. Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is it’s not consistent across wiki at all. There is also Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others, which have all been described as terror attacks by certain sources, and yet are not called such in their articles (except when referencing the sources directly). Neither should they be, imo. Yr Enw (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, are you saying we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" at all? Not even in reference to 9/11? That is not what the MOS:TERRORIST policy suggests. Marokwitz (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, I’m saying we should attribute the word when and where we do, which is what WP:TERRORIST says. Yr Enw (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand if you're suggesting we should be consistent and change, for example, the September 11 attacks and Oklahoma City bombing articles to use the "t" word only with attribution - these articles don't currently do so. Marokwitz (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, personally, that’s what I would advocate. Yr Enw (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists seems entirely apt here given what happened. --Andreas JN466 22:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure why we need this survey. The event is the "largest terror attack in Israel's history,[1][15][13] and the worst Israeli civilian massacre ever.[16]". Who executed it? Peace fighters? Or what is the right word for someone who conducted a terrorist attack? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Both, "One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter"...--Ortizesp (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey 2: Terror Attack?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

• Weak yes (invited by the bot). It's applicable. "Weak" (compared to my strong opinion on the first question) because the alternate is not such a bad choice as the alternate in question #1 as written. The implicit alternative on this question is just "attack" which would also be fine. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes This is related to how it has or has not been described as an act of terrorism. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes.(Summoned by bot) Per my comments above: it's not the only way to approach the description, but there's no denying that it's a defensible description, based on the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing. So long as the article as a whole strives to explain at least some of the historical background and broader context of the attack, describing these particular acts of violence in a fashion consistent with how the significant majority of RS do is not only acceptable and appropriate, but really the only option we have under our policies, which show deference to the descriptions in said sources, not our own idiosyncratic views on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• No except when referencing use of the term by sources (ie. "described as"), per Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others. Yr Enw (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this is widely agreed upon by mainstream sources. It is no different from the September 11 attacks in this regard, which are described in wikivoice as a terror attack. There is no way that a mass murder of civilians without a military objective can be described as an 'attack'. Marokwitz (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The events at the festival were quite different in at least one key way, and that is sense in which they were unplanned, as Israeli intelligence has noted. Most terror attacks are premeditated. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling it unplanned is absurd; it was a coordinated attack planned months, or years in advance. There are many terror attacks, probably most, where the attacker decides to carry out an attack and only chooses the actual victims randomly. Marokwitz (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Israeli intelligence services very well may speak in absurdities, but as clearly stated in the attached piece, the consensus is there was no advance awareness of the festival. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Having no advance awareness of the festival is quite different from calling the attack unplanned. They didn't cross the border for fun and games. Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Preparation and planning are separate constructs. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per mainstream media. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - Action condemned as a terror attack globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Wide notability in reference as largest terror attack on Israel. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned. International media and organizations refer to it as a terror attack. We should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should say it with citations from those “International media and organisations” or just in general regardless of attribution? Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely, yes, Hamas and their allies are recognized by countries around the world and most mainstream sources as terrorists. This should be reflected here. Attribution is inappropriate since this is the standard position held by most credible sources (a list of those calling them terrorists would be absurdly long).

Discussion 2: Terror Attack?

@Robert McClenon: In the last paragraph, massacre is written as a terrorist act, what other changes do you want to make? Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Parham wiki - I do not "want" to make any specific changes to the article, or to leave the article unchanged rather than make any specific changes. I am asking the questions neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist act is the most descriptive. Partly because "massacre" is a bit vague and open to interpretation in serval directions, the word "massacre" can cover both terrorism and genocide. Terrorism is a more precise description of the power dynamic and more likely motives. There is not really any neutral way to describe killing (e.g. I find the IDF tendency to say they "neutralize" their opponents very off-putting). But the word terrorist is probably best avoided, because militant or combatant are better options in those cases. Irtapil (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

General Discussion

This will become very hard to follow if editors have discussions in the voting sections. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Denial by Hamas that they have performed the massacre and accusing Israel in it

Hello friends. I would like to check if this passage starting from "On 19 November" is ok according to WP:QUESTIONABLE? Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean this diff. And why wouldn't it be? Ynetnews and Jpost are RS. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Correct. I have no doubt of Ynetnews and Jpost. I just mean that they have reposted a message of a organization which is designated as terrorist by several countries and trying to see how it fits the line "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" from QUESTIONABLE? Do we post opinions of any extremist group if they are recited by RS and does reciting make their views valid from the QUESTIONABLE point of view? Thats what I am trying to understand. Thanks. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• They have decided to quietly remove their message. So do we again want to keep the incorrect info and then add info about the quite removal? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mentioning a retracted story could be important to include. I think the story overall needs to be included, but possibly as a disputed narrative. I haven't looked into it properly myself, but I don't think we should just ignore it.

  The IDF helicopter version of the story is getting wide coverage in English language media from West Asia (Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan), some of the sources I would trust must from the region (but would still expect to have a pro Palestine bias). It's usually credited to Haaretz but Times of Israel seems to be putting "Haaretz" in scare quotes. I think it appeared in Electronic Intifada long before Haaretz, a very strongly pro-Palestine source.

  The more reputable success aren't saying Israel did the entire massacre, just that some of the civilians killed were caught in somewhat indiscriminate gun fire directed at militants.

  There is another story that some people were shot by soldiers on foot, but this seems to have been Palestinians in stolen uniforms, that one is very murky.

  Irtapil (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli helicopter now reported to kill some of the festival goers

Israel reported that Hamas was the sole culprit of ant festival deaths on oct 7th- we were told it was premeditated. Now we're learning that it became a target but might not have been one intentionally and the IDF killed an unreported number of festival goers.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-18/ty-article/.premium/israeli-security-establishment-hamas-likely-didnt-have-prior-knowledge-of-nova-festival/0000018b-e2ee-d168-a3ef-f7fe8ca20000 66.44.122.214 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the official statement by the Israeli policy about this claim: " Contrary to the publication, the police investigation does not refer to the activity of the IDF forces, and therefore no indication was given of any harm to civilians caused by any aerial activity at the site.

The preliminary findings of the ongoing national inquiry, spearheaded by law enforcement and communicated to the international media, cast a spotlight on the profound and reprehensible acts committed by Hamas terrorists during the Nova music festival. Any effort to downplay the severity of these atrocities, as depicted in the misleading Haaretz newspaper publication, deserves unequivocal rejection." Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

PNA "denial"

The reported "denial" by the PNA of Hamas' responsibility is mistranslated. If you read the actual statement in Arabic, there are two material misrepresentations: the statement does not claim that Israel killed everyone, but rather that Israeli sources reported that Israel initiated "Hannibal" directive permitting them to kill everyone; and it does not deny Hamas killings but rather that these reports cast doubt on Israel's official account.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)