Jump to content

Talk:Nir Oz attack

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


According to one report...

[edit]

Text starting "According to one report..." almost always contains misinformation. It must be replaced when a proper count is made, which should be soon. Zerotalk 04:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the attack "terrorism"

[edit]

The international designation of the extinctionist attack as an act of "terrorism" as already occurred. The designation should at least be mentioned by the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes terrorism of the most horrible type 2601:282:4000:7740:C8F7:5D6F:A6B8:49D2 (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

[edit]

None of this information is proven fact or evidenced. even naming it a massacre is fallacious. pleased delete. 79.169.36.223 (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Looks well-sourced to me (including the term massacre). Please keep in mind that Wikipedia simply reports what other sources have already said; nothing needs to be "proven fact". Tollens (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp

[edit]

With the approval of the kibbutz members, a transcript containing the messages sent by the kibbutz members in the joint WhatsApp group of the kibbutz members was published. These masseges were written on the day of the massacre.

https://yediot.webflow.io/7days/nir-oz-parliament?externalurl=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add section on massacre denial

[edit]

Many people are denying that this massacre actually took place, spreading stories about friendly Hamas soldiers knocking on doors and kindly asking for bananas. This should be addressed in the article. 73.249.27.176 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2024

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: moved. I gave greater weight to !votes that engaged with the sources and relevant policies and guidelines than those that offered only personal opinions about the appropriate descriptor. The argument that "massacre" is not "the common name" used "in a significant majority of English-language sources" was not seriously rebutted by opposers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Oz massacre → Nir Oz attack – While some sources use the word "massacre" to describe the event, most other sources use the word "attack". "Massacre" carries a judgment. WP:POVNAME allows for such names only when "a significant majority of English-language source" use such a name. That is not the case here and it can be shown that "attack" is at least as common as "massacre", if not more. WP:NDESC also says "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". Sources that use "attack" include:

Oppose, due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly and 'interpersonally') and the coverage, where there is sufficient RS coverage. It's important to note that two of the listed sources (AP, TOI,) use massacre in direct quotes.
Other uses (from sources in the article) include:
FortunateSons (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources not in article:
FortunateSons (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above sources that I clicked through also use the word attack.
  • NYT: "‘A Day of Horror:’ Kibbutz Massacre Survivors Recount Hamas Attack"
  • Forward: "This is her first visit since the attack."
  • Jerusalem Post: "Irit Lahav, who survived the attack"
etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forbes and Christian Science Monitor are not linked FortunateSons (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There will be sources using a wide range of descriptions, and ultimately this a matter of editor judgement. 46 civilian being deliberately targeted and killed in their homes is clearly in the massacre category IMO. Frankly, renaming the article just looks like an attempt to downplay the severity of this. Number 57 19:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:ASPERSION. As an admin, you should know better. VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: We should not be basing our article title on whether we think it was a massacre or not. We should be avoiding POV names (MOS:TERRORIST) unless they are unavoidable due to there being a clear WP:COMMONNAME, which seems absent in this case. Usage in quotes is an indication of opinions, not of what name is appropriate to call the event – journalists cover various opinions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:In the context of what this article describes, namely a massive number of civilians brutally MASSACRED, it is obvious that would be an appropriate name for this article. An attack can be anything, it doesn't even imply anyone was hurt. "The man was attacked by the angry mob, but got away without being harmed." Versus: "The man and his family were massacred in the safe room of their house." Attack is NOT a synonym for massacre. DaringDonna (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of articles with the word "attack" used to describe brutal killings of civilians: September 11 attacks, Mumbai attacks, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (including Holit attack) etc. VR (Please ping on reply) 03:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is no need for a Euphemism. A Massacre is "an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." This definition describes the event exactly. The word attack is much more vague and general. SigTif (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Massacre" is precise, while "attack" is general. I wonder why people keep trying to change the October 7 articles from "massacre" to "attack" repeatedly... ABHammad (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per NPOV and the OP's self-explanatory source analysis, which shows RS clearly using the proposed language. More generally, the topic is poorly outlined and weak on detail, but pertinent details include the presence of a security team that mounted a defense and forms part of the casualties. That there was two-way combat makes the current language descriptively less viable. Finally, the initial military attack is also poorly distinguished from the subsequent events, including reports of marauding civilians, as well as the clearing operation by the IDF. There is no visibility on the spread of the casualties across this series of developments, making it more problematic and less concrete to overtly characterise the events as anything other than the obvious: an attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's at least use facts and not WP:OR. Civilians defending their community from an offensive attack that resulted in 1 in 4 residents killed or kidnapped is not "two-way combat," the way a military-on-military conflict would appropriately be described. If armed citizen responders make this an "attack," we should rename Deir Yassin massacre as an attack to account for the armed response from villagers to the invading Irgun.
It's also factually incorrect to attribute any of this to the completely non-existent IDF clearing operation. The militants had left the kibbutz by 1pm; when the IDF arrived 30 minutes later, there was no one for them to fight. [10] (by Ronen Bergman, an award-winning journalist widely cited in this topic area, including in articles heavily critical of the IDF). Longhornsg (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Call it what it is, a massacre. Calling it anything else is inaccurate. The purpose was to kill people not capture the town. Attack gives a false impression of what happened. Massacre is more accurate as the killing of people was the purpose here. Let's not be calling this something less accurate. Additionally, before anyone goes with POV and alike the relevant dictionary definitions of 'Massacre' are as follows:

    Noun: An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.
    Verb: Deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people).

    PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Talk:Engineer's_Building_airstrike#Requested_move_7_April_2024 which I opposed. But if Wikipedia is going to pretend to have any semblance of NPOV, then it cannot accept the arguments here that the definition of a massacre is met when more than twice the number of civilians as killed here were killed there and the name "massacre" was rejected. If the criteria is that a large majority calls something a massacre for it to be named a massacre on Wikipedia then that is not met here. You can only support this title and oppose using similar language for the murder of Palestinian civilians if you are completely unconcerned with NPOV. This system in which arguments that are at odds with each other are accepted depending solely on the ethnicity of the victims is horseshit. Id be fine keeping this title if the criteria that was used was applied uniformly. But it is not, and in some cases users are making simultaneously opposing arguments. Eg this vs this. nableezy - 18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • One bad move does not mean other bad moves should be made. And that close should be taken to WP:MR; there was clearly no consensus to move. Number 57 01:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was, and there was unanimous support for the close. Treating these things as thought they exist in a vacuum is exactly the problem here. We end up with this absurd scenario in which violence against one ethnicity is treated as trivial while violence against the other as horrendous. That is not to say what this article describes is not horrendous, but it certainly is not more so than the indiscriminate killing of twice as many Palestinian civilians. Either we have a consistent standard with consistent results or we do not have anything close to a NPOV encyclopedia. nableezy - 02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:NCENPOV tells us to only use a word like "massacre" if it part of the WP:COMMONNAME, or is a generally accepted descriptive word. Reviewing search results around this event I find it comes close to being generally accepted due to the scale of use, but there are too many articles that don't use the term for it to meet the standard. I note, in response to comments like those by Nableezy, that there are other articles like Flour massacre which are even further from that standard, and I hope they will support a move away from that title on the same grounds that they support a move away from this title. BilledMammal (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was a massacre. To refer to it as an "attack" would be misleading and diminish the gravity of the event. This was not meant to be a tactic military maneuver, meant to subdue the Israeli military or security forces. The intent was not to seize the kibbutz, but to violently and indiscriminately take lives of men, women, children and elderly citizens. Describing it as an "attack" misrepresents the cruelty, the inhumane and brutal nature of the event, obscuring the deliberate and systematic nature of the violence. GidiD (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about gravity, which is intangible, but NPOV and sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it were down to me I would do away with "massacre" terminology altogether, it's rather like terrorist versus freedom fighter, eye of the beholder. The exception should be only when the weight of sourcing actually names it as massacre and that is not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 8 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nir_Oz_attack&oldid=1252606102"