The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 1 June 2024. The result of the move review was Move review request withdrawn following unanimous agreement to endorse.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move per provided sources, unless major use is found. Massacre is a POV title to be used with caution, and this doesn’t seem to apply here. FortunateSons (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The number of victims is too high to be simply referred to as just an airstrike, it would downplay the severity of what a lot of sources have described as a war crime. Killing 106 people, 54 of whom were children who were in their residential building is definitely a massacre, so the article title should remain as it is. Nori2001 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. "Massacre" is far too POV. Not generally described as a massacre and I don't think most people would think of it as a massacre unless they were doing so for political reasons. We wouldn't describe the Blitz as a massacre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 30 times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in this conflict, yet on Wikipedia 2/3 of mass killing events refered to as massacre since October 7 are about mass killings of Israelis. Western media has an extreme bias in the usage of the word massacre — mass killing of Israeli Jews is a massacre, mass killing of Palestinians is not — and this is contaminating Wikipedia with systemic bias. A strike that killed hundreds of civilians in their homes is of course a massacre. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not usual English to describe an airstrike during a bombing campaign as a massacre no matter what the outcome. The Blitz, which targeted and killed far more innocent civilians, is never, for instance, referred to as a massacre. The term "massacre" is very emotive and often used for political reasons, but it needs very good English-language sourcing to be used on Wikipedia and the sourcing here simply does not meet the threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if something doesn’t meet the typical requirements for being categorised as a massacre, it usually isn’t a massacre. There are past actions by Israeli forces (construed broadly) that clearly meet that definition, this is (as of time of writing) not one of them. FortunateSons (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terribly naive, implying that Western media employees have some special access to the virtue of objectivity and always choose language that best fits the situation with no regard for political considerations. Considering the history of American and British "legacy media" in promoting falsehoods leading to war crimes in the Middle East, I'd say precisely the opposite is true, that their conscious choice to omit terms like "massacre" to talk of Israel's killing fields in Gaza is very good hint that massacres are indeed occurring.
The NYT, as recently exposed by The Intercept, is also banning the term "occupied territories" to describe the Palestinian territories being currently occupied by Israel. If you take this refusal as proof that Israel is engaging in no occupation "as of time of writing", then you should probably not contribute to this subject on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also against WP:NCENPOV, which tells us If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. One of the examples it provides of a name that carries POV implications is "massacre"; since there is no common name for this event, and "massacre" is not a generally accepted descriptive word by reliable sources, our naming convention on events tells us very clearly not to use that word. BilledMammal (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also say we can use "war crime" if that's mentioned enough, so should we use that instead? Or would you be happy to go just round it out at "mass killing"? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an overwhelming pro-Israel bias evident in the word choice of Western "reliable sources", which sees that no incidence of mass killing by Israel is ever called a massacre while all cases of Palestinian mass killings of Israelis, no matter how rare, are always called that. This is supported by this recent article from The Intercept discussing the NYT's content guide on the Gaza war, which has been leaked. NYT editors are expressly discouraging their writers from describing mass killings of Palestinians as massacres or slaughters, though they had no compunction of doing so dozens of times in reference to the October 7 killings by Hamas, which just goes to show the abscence of such terms in the prefered sources betray the lack of objectivity of the papers that are omitting them, not its presence, and stresses the need to consult sources that do not abide by the universal pro-Israel bias in English-language MSM, including papers based in non-Western countries, human rights watch groups, UN experts, and academic journals. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different situation. Attackers butchering people person-to-person on the ground rather than an airstrike. The former are frequently referred to as massacres in English; the latter are not. WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So because Israel butchered people with a bomb it isn’t a massacre? And that move request had nothing to do with common name. These are all descriptive titles. nableezy - 19:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before, was the Blitz ever referred to as a massacre? Far more innocent civilians died in bombing raids then. It's just not a term that's generally used for air raids and it isn't for this one (hence WP:COMMONNAME). We shouldn't manufacture titles for political reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Blitz, afaik, also included targets such as industrial targets, this was an attack on a purely civilian structure. The comparison with the Blitz is with the entire bombing campaign in Gaza, not this specific attack. As far as manufacturing a title, that is likewise true for many of the articles in Category:Massacres during the Israel–Hamas war, your position just makes it so that manufacturing is acceptable for the deaths of Israelis and not for Palestinians. Huh. nableezy - 11:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, the Blitz targeted many residential areas. It's just not commonly called a massacre. Neither are most bombing campaigns. And neither is this. Any calls for this to be named a massacre are purely POV and political. The other massacres listed have been so named because that is their common name. We do not make up names for political reasons. We use reliable English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an evidentiary basis for your belief that the following three statements are true in this topic area or are you being optimistic?
"The other massacres listed have been so named because that is their common name."
Again, this is a descriptive title not a common name, so it is not only English sources that are usable for determining a name. Second, yes the Blitz targeted civilian areas as well, much like the overall Israeli bombing campaign, and if there were some specific attack that caused the deaths of over 100 civilians, including scores of children, that specific attack may well be called a massacre. You’re attempting to equate an extended bombing campaign with a single attack, but that isn’t an appropriate comparison. Compare for example the Qana massacre vs Operation Grapes of Wrath. The specific attack was a massacre. Or the Hama massacre. Or any number of other massacres committed by armies with bombs against civilians. Your position here makes it so any attack by Israel against civilians in Gaza should be called an anodyne airstrike. That, to me, is very obviously non-neutral. nableezy - 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that is a non neutral word, and if it is then we should be retitling the rest of the articles in the category. nableezy - 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - with very few exceptions (for example, Boston Massacre) I would support moving articles away from "massacre", because those titles are typically used based on the judgements of editors, rather than the judgements of reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then propose a multi move. But as it stands, moves away from massacre for Israeli casualties are denied, while those of Palestinian casualties are proposed, often by the same editors voting against any change for articles focused on Palestinian violence. nableezy - 18:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you open it, I'll probably support it after reviewing the evidence you present. I've opened enough RM's proposing moving articles away from massacre - I don't want to start doing that again right now. In the meantime, however, WP:OR, WP:NDESC, and WP:NPOV issues with other articles don't justify us continuing to have those issues with this article. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mischaracterize the arguments in that RM; the primary argument was that massacre should be used because reliable sources use it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of that request it is noted the only English source called it an attack. Odd to mischaracterize while saying I do so. nableezy - 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RM's aren't based on what sources are in the article at the start of the RM. Sources were presented in the discussion using "massacre". BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source used the word massacred once in its body. One other used massacre in a headline. That isn’t sources using massacre as a name or even a description of the event. Either way, the arguments used were emphatically not focused on that, and any person who reads the RM can see which of us is actually misrepresenting it. Hint, it’s you. nableezy - 00:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four English language sources presented in that discussion use massacre - the point is you are claiming that it was an equivalent discussion, where editors without any sourcing decided "massacre" was the correct title, but it wasn’t. Sourcing was presented, and while an argument can be made that the sourcing wasn’t strong enough, it’s far stronger than the sourcing we have here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the last vote, to pretend like the discussion was focused on that is what is a misrepresentation. And I like how left "reliable" off of your four sources bit. nableezy - 06:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise; that discussion has sources using massacre, this one doesn’t. I’m glad we established that the comparison isn’t appropriate, and I’m going to back out now before you move the goal posts further (and as far as I know, none of the sources in that discussion are considered unreliable) BilledMammal (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, to summarize the consensus of users at that discussion claimed that because of the number of civilians killed it was obviously a massacre. And they did that without sources. You can pretend otherwise, but anybody can click the link and see you are not being honest in your portrayal of that discussion. Glad we worked that out. nableezy - 07:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The principle reason why this page exists is that the HRW has gone back and reviewed the event precisely because of the extraordinary scale of the civilians killed in the massacre – making it a flagrant war crime. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. But here it is very clear that more than 100 civilians were massacred with narry a shred of evidence of military motive in sight, making "massacre" pretty aptly descriptive. "Airstrike", by comparison, as is often the case, is such an understatement of events that it is hardly accurately descriptive. You can "airstrike" an empty patch of sand: alone as a word it does little to convey that 100 people were murdered. Neutrality doesn't mean defaulting to bland and borderline white-washed euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any discrepancy that you can identify between this plausible war crime as identified by HRW and the dictionary definition of a massacre that somehow makes this characterisation descriptively non-viable? And if not, on what grounds can the word not be used? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to engage in OR, and answering your question would require that; if sources agree that this is a massacre then we can and should do so. Otherwise, to do so would violate both WP:OR and WP:NDESC. BilledMammal (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply describing things isn't OR unless the words used are somehow out of the bounds of plausible usage, which is not the case here. It would be more OR to deny that what we have here is civilians being killed on mass. The HRW does use the terminology of "massive civilian casualties", and that is quoted repeatedly, so we could call it "massive civilian casualties event", but I think you may agree that this has concision issues. A lot of sources also reiterate the HRW phrasing of it as an "apparent war crime", but again ... concision. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR tells us that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. This includes classification; even if we think that classification (such as "massacre", "murder", "war crime", "genocide", etc) is within bounds of plausible usage, we still need reliable sources to support this. To do otherwise is a policy violation - and the specific method you propose, of comparing the description provided by HRW and a dictionary definition, is WP:SYNTH, not least because the definition of "massacre" varies considerably from dictionary to dictionary and from scholarly source to scholarly source. BilledMammal (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Which definition of massacre have you found that doesn't mean killing lots of civilians? It's not OR to use basic English words. Massacre isn't a technical term. It doesn't require a court ruling. It's just a term for killing lots of people, or "massive civilian casualties". And I haven't actually opened a dictionary, so there's no synth there. I'm just a native English speaker that knows, you know, like, basic English words ... And this being a fairly textbook case of the word in question. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
