Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre

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: no consensus.

In terms of the raw numbers, I see a two-thirds supermajority of editors opposing the proposal. That being said, a large proportion of the opposition was procedural in nature: the procedural argument held that an identical proposal had failed at RM just a few months ago, and that this new proposal did not introduce any arguments not previously considered. While this argument did not directly pertain to the merits of the proposed move, it still held significant sway in the discussion. One editor did make an explicit attempt to rebut this argument, noting that the previous RM was a no-consensus result rather than an affirmative consensus against the move, but that viewpoint does not appear to have achieved significant traction even among other supporters of the proposal.

As for the lines of thinking that did directly debate the proposal's merits, I saw two significant lines of discussion: the NPOV question and the COMMONNAME question. Due to the guidance at WP:NCENPOV, these questions actually inform each other in this case, as NCENPOV instructs us to only use potentially controversial words like "massacre" when it is a particular common name or if there is no common name but it is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event. In the discussion, editors leveled sources in support of both "massacre" and "raid". Of the sources that supported "massacre", some were identified as flawed; there was also debate over how strongly partisan sources could be used to support a COMMONNAME claim. The sources for "raid", by contrast, received minimal discussion.

Partway through the discussion, the title of "Nuseirat rescue and killings" was proposed with the intention of serving as a compromise. However, I don't believe this proposal succeeded in achieving that compromise; opponents of the original proposal consistently opposed this alternative as well, and supporters of the proposal mostly identified it as a second choice behind the originally proposed "raid" language. A suggestion of "Nuseirat rescue and mass killings" received still less traction. Accordingly, I will be discarding the alternate proposals and merely evaluating the arguments for or against the originally proposed move.

Reviewing the discussion as a whole: if I were to look only at the sourcing debate within this conversation, I feel the strength of argument would likely support the proposed move. However, to take that approach would be to overlook the fact that about half of the total participants found this RM to be prima facie procedurally unsound or even disruptive. I think here of WP:FAIT, which—while not policy itself—does point us to historical ArbCom principles that hold that "repetition or volume" should not be used to "exhaust [other editors'] ability to contest [a] change". In my view, the fact that such a high proportion of editors felt that repetitive RMs were being used in this way was informative. When balancing the sourcing and procedural arguments—two lines of discussion that predominated throughout the overall RM, did not substantially overlap with each other, and ultimately favored different results—I feel it can only be the case that no consensus emerged from the discussion.

Finally, many editors expressed a desire for a moratorium on RMs for this article; only one editor explicitly opposed a moratorium, though there were also many who simply did not comment on the question. While I can certainly sympathize with the exhaustion of repeated RMs, I'm going to hold off on declaring a formal moratorium, for a few reasons. First, this is now the second no-consensus RM in a row on this topic, which suggests that there's not a clear affirmative consensus that needs to be defended. Second, both of the most recent full RMs were launched by a single user, who is now topic-banned from this area; accordingly, I think it's worth testing whether their absence will allow the titling debate to subside on its own. Finally, I feel that preemptively closing off discussion is an extreme step that requires a high degree of consensus, and given the number of users who did not opine on the moratorium question, I'm not convinced that there's a strong enough level of agreement to justify that step. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raidNuseirat raid – The term massacre is absent from neutral and pro-Israel sources and thus violates NCENPOV. Two reasons, the RfC on EuroMed as yellow and always attribute and WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which called out opinion pieces and failing to recognize authorial voice (newspaper quotes X who says massacre, therefore newspaper says massacre which is false). This is similar to Entebbe raid, and the AP (premier neutral source) has also clarified less than a month ago that the Paletinian deaths ocurred during a gun battle during the raid (see [10]) Closetside (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two quick questions: First, I'm having difficulty parsing that second sentence. What does "EuroMed as yellow" mean; can you link the RfC? Second, I'm not seeing the clarification you mention in the linked AP article. Did you mean the reference to cross-fire? i.e. Israeli Defense Forces burst into the house in the Nuseirat refugee camp where Kozlov was held — a dramatic operation that rescued him and three other hostages, and killed at least 274 Palestinians caught in the cross-fire and an Israeli commando. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) EuroMed is WP:MREL and per the RfC, is an advocacy org which must be attributed.

2) Correct. AP describes the Palestinian deaths as the result of a battle due to the raid. Closetside (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors, I believe User:Closetside is referring to this RfC. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! Closetside (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 2) is an accurate interpretation of the AP article, which is centred around an interview with one of the freed hostages and does not contain any real new reporting about the massacre. In one line it says that the deaths occurred as a result of crossfire without implying that they were active participants in the gun battle. It does link back to the AP's first report, where they say that the massacre included 64 children and 57 women. See here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - "rescue" and "massacre" seem contradictory terms that should not go together as rescue is positive and massacre is negative. I think "raid" is a neutral term. Green Montanan (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and suggest a speedy close: apart from the fact that the current title is the result of multiple discussions and RMs (including the merge of the fully supported Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre into this one), this is the exact copy of the last RM (that was initiated by the same editor). M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose and agree with @M.Bitton re a speedy close. M.Bitton is correct to point out that this is effectively a re-post of an existing request (closed a little over a month ago) without substantial changes. As the closer wrote: As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their rationales, discover new ones, and try again after several months to change this article's title if deemed essential; WP:THREEOUTCOMES also makes this point, saying: While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.) This is obviously not happening here. I'll also add that WP:TITLEWARRIOR (an essay by another editor, not an official policy or MOS guideline) does apply here but to this proposed change, not the existing title of the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and speedy close per M.Bitton and Smallangryplanet 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Amigao, @ARandomName123, @Cdjp1, @Chess, @Chicdat, @Closetside, @Extraordinary Writ, @FortunateSons, @Genabab, @Lf8u2, @Paine Ellsworth, @Paith, @Rainsage, @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Reenem, @Samuelshraga, @Sean.hoyland, @Skitash and @WatkynBassett from prior RM discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Vice regent who I missed in my previous ping. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: Firstly, here due to being pinged by TarnishedPath. While I like the proposed title on CONCISE grounds, given the history of the creation of this article, it's previous RMs, and the points highlighted by M.Bitton and Smallangryplant, I do not see the need to change the article title without multiple strong new sources indicating the necessity of a change. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is like the billionth Move request for this page. Per @Smallangryplanet's argument on how this many MRs are a bit dodgy. I think a moratorium on this topic might also be in order... Genabab (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support a 6 month moratorium on RMs to this page 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose and speedy close per the previous RMs and discussions. Skitash (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I already supported this move, so no surprise. The most significant arguments in the last RfC were based on systematic misreading (e.g. saying that the sources that quoted someone describing it as a "massacre" meant that those sources "call it a massacre") or mischaracterisation (saying a source is reliable when it isn't) of the sources (again, see my !vote there for examples). The changes noted by Closetside are relevant:
  • Several editors in the previous RfC described Euro-Med as a reliable source. It is, based on the latest close, WP:MREL, and is noted as an advocacy organisation. Its descriptions should be attributed in general, and it should carry little if any weight for assessing the common neutral name for this event.
  • Closetside has found a new RS that adds weight to the move side.

On the points raised above about speedy closing and a moratorium, SAP above notes what is stated by WP:THREEOUTCOMES: it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. There is nothing procedurally problematic about re-raising a request on which there was no previous consensus. Closetside evidently thinks that the close of the RfC at RSN on Euro-med shifted the balance.

Finally, on the substance: WP:NCENPOV is IMO the controlling PaG here. It says in the first instance to use the common name - a term described BY WP:COMMONNAME as the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). Failing a common name, NCENPOV says to use a generally accepted word used when identifying the event. RS very rarely used "massacre" in their own voice, and frequently used "raid", "attacks", "operation" etc. "Raid" does not center any POV, is widely used in sources, is neutral and descriptive, and covers all the content. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moratorium because as the previous discussion didn't find consensus, there's no basis to prevent further discussion. Though I would support closing this RM and reopening one on the lines of @Chess' abortive one above, with multiple options. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuelshraga: Just to be clear, when you say Closetside has found a new RS that adds weight to the move side, are you referring to the AP article? It does not describe the Palestinian deaths as described, at all. Here's the actual phrasing: And, on the 247th day, it came. Israeli Defense Forces burst into the house in the Nuseirat refugee camp where Kozlov was held — a dramatic operation that rescued him and three other hostages, and killed at least 274 Palestinians caught in the cross-fire and an Israeli commando. This isn't novel reporting or additional facts, it's a detail in an otherwise unrelated article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say adds weight, I mean it is a reliable source referring to the events as an "operation". I'm not pinning the whole argument on this source, I don't know about Closetside but AFAIK this is just another example of massacre not being the commonly used term for the event. The fact that there's no novel reporting is not relevant, since we're not suggesting citing this piece for a fact. On the other hand, the fact that time has passed gives this piece more weight - this is a source approaching this event with more perspective than those that came out in the immediate aftermath. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-exhaustive list of non-partisan WP:GREL outlets that have used "raid":

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• France24 ("raid" in article-voice, "massacre" attributed)
• WSJ
• Politico
• Channel4
• CBS
• Financial Times
• LA Times
• AP
• BBC
• Washington Post
• CNN
• PBS
• CBC
• NYT

Samuelshraga (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While some media do use the term "raid", I want to add that the term raid, in this context, is quite a POV term (per my explanation below). It is probably more POV than the term "massacre". I propose using "mass killing", WP:CONSISTENT with Kuwait Roundabout mass killings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent, I don't think we'll agree on "raid" being more POV than "massacre" or "mass killing". Either way, the controlling guideline here is WP:NCENPOV, and on that basis your proposal doesn't work. Under none of the three criteria at that guideline could "mass killing" be accepted. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support using terminology like "massacre" in Wikivoice about a military operation with civilian casualties in which we can't even be sure how many of the dead were civilians as opposed to combatants isn't neutral. Give it a neutral title like "raid" and create an "allegations of massacre" section if you must.--RM (Be my friend) 13:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Closetside, the rm's proposer, is now indefinitely topic banned from PIA topics 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Completely independent of the merits of the Move Request, I think this discussion is unlikely to be productive. I would recommend additional "cooling off" time before a request is made again, and the Move Request language be workshopped to be more neutral. I do think it's relevant that the nom is now topic-banned, as Abo Yemen points out: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#M.Bitton. Suriname0 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and speedy close - In my opinion, the term "raid" is just seem off for me. Qhairun (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. So far the opposing !votes have not engaged with the arguments in the nomination. Alaexis_¿question? 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because they did it ad nauseam in the countless previous RMs. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "countless previous RMs" have a ton of blocked socks supporting the term "massacre". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give it a break. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nuseirat rescue and killings. Per my previous !votes, this is an acceptable compromise wording. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. See the following, which Raskolnikov.Rev detailed in a previous RM:

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/10/nuseirat-massacre-israel-hostage-rescue-gaza/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-eu-outrage

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-experts-gaza-condemnation-14jun24/

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-11/the-israeli-army-massacre-to-free-four-hostages-in-gaza-the-bombings-came-from-all-directions.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/08/israel-hostages-nuseirat-camp-gaza/

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/10/headlines/israel_kills_274_gazans_including_64_children_in_attack_on_nuseirat_that_freed_4_hostages

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-war-west-celebrated-nuseirat-massacre-how

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/nuseirat-massacre-dehumanising-palestinians-first-step-towards-their-extermination

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes

https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240613-diamonds-and-coal-dust-slaughter-at-nuseirat/

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240610-no-warning-just-bombs-heart-wrenching-testimonies-from-gazas-nuseirat-camp-massacre/

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240611-palestine-this-week-the-nuseirat-camp-massacre/

https://www.newarab.com/features/massacre-midday-no-warning-israel-attack-nuseirat

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/surviving-nuseirat-massacre-gaza/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/nuseirat-anatomy-of-israels-massacre-in-gaza

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/6/21/israels-nuseirat-massacre-and-gazas-wounds-that-wont-heal

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6363/Condemning-Israeli-Nuseirat-massacre,-Euro-Med-Monitor-calls-for-an-investigation-into-use-of-US-pier-for-military-purposes

https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-10/14/0014-victims-of-israeli-massacre-in-al-nuseirat-rises-to-22-martyrs,-80-injured

https://www.972mag.com/nuseirat-camp-israeli-hostages-massacre-gaza/

TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at that RM explaining how Raskolnikov misrepresented the content of many of these sources, and also addressing their quality.

I suggest that you strike the misrepresented sources, the opinion pieces, those that aren't RS at all. What you'll have left is a collection whose median reliability will be MREL at best, mostly noted as partisan at RSN.

Then compare with the sources that call it a "raid":

• AP
• BBC
• Washington Post
• CNN
• PBS
• CBC
• NYT

I can keep going. There are literally hundreds of examples from all around the world. If you look at consensus, gold-standard GREL publications with no noted partisanship, there is literally no question that massacre even approaches WP:COMMONNAME. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is community consensus that The Intercept, WPO, The Guardian, The Nation and Al Jazeera are all WP:GREL.

The United Nations is certainly reliable. The only source which is considered MREL (as far as I know) is the Middle East Monitor. I see no indication that the remainder of the sources are unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my earlier comment, you'll see that the problem is that The Guardian/WaPo never say "massacre" in their own voice. The QNA piece is talking about a completely different event. The two Middle East Eye pieces are clearly marked as opinion. The UN piece is WP:RSOPINION for the officials who signed the statement at that source. You should strike all of these, particularly the first three.

As for other non-GREL sources: Euro-Med Monitor (two articles in Raskolnikov's list) is an MREL advocacy organisation. Democracy Now is at no consensus on reliability.

Al-Jazeera or the Intercept are WP:GREL but both are marked at RSP as partisan. Raskolnikov's list, removing the misrepresented sources, is a cherry-picked list of mainly mediocre, partisan sources. Compare that with the sources I brought above. Are there not enough? I can easily find more GREL sources not noted for bias to corroborate the far more widespread use of "raid". Samuelshraga (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is partisan. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less of a GREL. Additionally WP:COMMONNAME doesn't rule out bias or opinion.

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. TarnishedPath^talk 14:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dispute with you about partisanship, as there are more important issues:

Do you accept that the Guardian/WaPo/QNA sources don't support your !vote? Please either strike or explain their inclusion. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can source-dump an equally large number of newspaper articles that call it a "raid", "killings", or "hostage rescue". Per Wikipedia:Title warrior#Cherry picking, you need to show a term is used by the majority of all English-language sources, and cherry-picking a few newspaper articles out of the thousands that exist doesn't meet that burden. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the ones that are specifically about the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces (in the middle of an ongoing genocide). M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the snappy comeback. You're saying that 100% of sources that are "about the massacre" use the term "massacre"? Big, if true.

WP:NOTFORUM applies to snippy comments about Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I'm saying. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose And support a 6/12 month moratorium. This is simply an abuse of the process now. We have had two "no-consensus" and one procedural close for this now (June 2024 and March/April 2025), along with a proposal to merge and rename both of which on the other hand were accepted (June and October 2024). This is an unsubstantiated and unreasonable re-opening of an RM by a now topic-banned editor whose last move request failed after an unilateral move to the raid title (both March 2025). Nothing material for sourcing and rationales has changed since the last RMs, attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the community and the process will not be successful. Let us end this at what the last closer said, "it can be suggested that editors impose on themselves the time needed to let the dust settle before another page-move attempt. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their rationales, discover new ones, and try again after several months to change this article's title if deemed essential."

And off-wiki canvassing issues such as those at Musk's X.com highlighted last time are still as relevant. It is one thing to consider sourcing but another to derail the community process. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The off-wiki canvassing is coming from people in favour of "massacre", which is against our WP:NCENPOV policies. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that anyone in this discussion has been canvassed here, please email WP:ArbCom at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. TarnishedPath^talk 01:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. As I showed in the previous RM and as you know because you replied to me, off-site canvassing efforts were organised on the side to remove "massacre" from the title of the page. You and others even went so far as to link to those efforts as part of your argument to change the title, including from the Sheldon Adelson funded Aaron Bandler of Daily Wire/Daily Caller/Jewish Journal "Campus Watch" fame that you bizarrely tried to portray as being RS. As I also told you then, multiple of the most active editors pushing for removal of "massacre" were banned including for being socks. The editor who made this RM was topic-banned a day after they made it, something they knew was about to happen. While I'm bringing up old stuff, need I remind you that you also used the last RM as the basis for a false allegation against myself and another editor to get us t-banned. If anyone is not abiding by wiki rules and also WP:TITLEWARRIOR-ing, it is the editors that have been obsessively pushing for the removal of "massacre", not the ones opposed to the change. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support and also support moratorium after the move: as others have mentioned, the word "massacre" is loaded and not neutral. Reiterating sources brought for either side (over and over) will not, IMO, bring us to consensus. However, if we zoom out for a minute from this particle event, many scholars regard labeling an event as a "massacre" as a political act. In other words, like genocide, terrorism, etc. - the purpose in using the word is to shape public perception. There are many sources, but here is a very short list from works that relate to conflicts that are in other areas and for the most part emphasize the use of the word terrorists (but also mention words like "massacre").

(disclaimer: the list was created with the help of ChatGPT (gpt-4o model, June 26, 2025).

1. Barrinha, André (2011). "The political importance of labelling: terrorism and Turkey's discourse on the PKK". Terrorism and Political Violence, 23(5), 788–809.
2. Montiel, Cristina J., Rasmussen, Julie, Salgado, Maria (2022). "Narrative Expansion and 'Terrorist' Labeling: Discursive Conflict Escalation by State Media". Journal of Conflict and Media Studies, 18(3), 330–356.
3. Weimann, Gabriel (1985). "Terrorists or freedom fighters? Labeling terrorism in the Israeli press." The Journal of Communication, 35(3), 89-106.
4. Rothenberger, Liane and Hase, Valerie (2020). "Labeling of groups and events (Terrorism Coverage)." Media, War & Conflict, 13(1), 91-108.
5. Nagar, Nisha (2010). "Who is Afraid of the T‑word? Labeling Terror in Media Coverage of Conflict." International Journal of Communication, 4(2), 224–243.

Trdta4 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT is notorious hallucinating this sort of stuff. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

quite true, which is why I made sure all the sources are available and on topic. Trdta4 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have quotes then? TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the term "massacre" is a loaded term that endorses a POV isn't seriously disputed according to WP:NCENPOV. Even if I accept your sources at face-value, they don't address the support argument that "massacre" is the generally-accepted word used to refer to this specific event in reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from my understanding, WP:NCENPOV strengthens my support the move argument:

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.

Our discussion is on the existence of this "common name" for this specific event. There are reliable sources listed here that use this word and describe events that would support the word "massacre", there are also reliable sources listed here that describe a military raid with an unknown number of non-combatant casualties. So far the arguments have supported the fact that this is indeed a contentious topic, however the endless lists of sources in support for this label and that label show that there is no common name for this event. Trdta4 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close and oppose. While I'm not one to usually call for a close based on conduct of the nominee, or the nomination itself, is this case as Abo Yemen referenced the editor has been topic banned, thus by all means and purposes, this RM should cease to exist on that basis alone. This RM shouldn't have been opened for reasons already explained, and thus a procedural close is the best solution to move forward from this. Also support moratorium of 6-12 months as nothing has fundamentally changed regarding the topic, the commonname, or otherwise, since previous consensus was established. I'm not going to entertain the alternative watered down attempt to rename this topic either, just no. CNC (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, close and moratorium of 12 months As I observed in my response to the earlier move request, there exists a significant and persistent misapprehension regarding the nature of the relevant RS that must be clarified. Specifically, there is an erroneous conflation between sources that are about the massacre component of the event and those that are about the hostage rescue. To reiterate:

My case for maintaining the current title: The event in question comprises two distinct aspects that should not be conflated or have one supersede the other, in accordance with WP:NPOV. Multiple RfCs have reaffirmed this position—specifically in July 2024, October 2024, June 2024, and November 2024. For this reason, the existing title includes both "rescue operation" and "massacre."

Those who argue that reliable sources also use the terms "rescue operation" or "raid" are correct; however, this is because such sources focus on the mission to rescue the hostages. Other reliable sources, which emphasize the other critical aspect of the event — the massacre of Palestinians — do employ the term "massacre", and do so in their own voice.

The key question we must therefore consider is: Which RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event rather than the rescue or raid aspect do not use this term but instead employ an alternative description, and what is the consensus usage? Instead RS that reference the rescue operation are being conflated with the entirety of the event, leading to arguments in favor of omitting "massacre." This disregards the fact that RS focused specifically on the massacre aspect do indeed use the term, explicitly and in their own voice, and that "massacre" rather than any alternatives is the consensus term used.

These include but are not limited to:

• El Pais
• The Nation
• UN
• Oxfam
• Al Jazeera 1
• Al Jazeera 2
• The Intercept
• +972 Magazine
• Middle East Eye 1
• Middle East Eye 2
• Middle East Eye 3
• Middle East Monitor 1 (which is not deprecated)
• Middle East Monitor 2
• Middle East Monitor 3
• Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor
• The New Arab
• Democracy Now
• Al Haq

Furthermore, we have prominent figures who have described that aspect of the event as a massacre, and are cited as uch in RS. These include but are not limited to:

Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat in The Guardian

Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, Norwary's Deputy Foreign Minister in Al Jazeera

One editor referred to some of these RS, none of which are deprecated, as "leftist" and "Arab-oriented". I do not believe we would accept such arguments as valid to remove the use of "massacre" in the title of a page referring to a massacre of Israelis: "These sources like The Times of Israel, Ynet and Jerusalem Post are right-wing and Jewish-oriented". No, we go by what the consensus of RS say, and the fact is that these are the RS that have covered the massacre aspect of the event, and the consensus use among them to describe it is "massacre". We follow the consensus.

In my previous response I also raised the issue of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, which remains relevant. Numerous RS analyses have documented the persistent disparity in language used by media to describe violence against Palestinians versus Israelis. For instance this study documents how terms like "massacre" are overwhelmingly reserved for Israeli victims, with the term "massacre" used 125 times to describe Israeli deaths and only twice for Palestinian deaths. This analysis found similar disparities in the BBC's use of terms such as "massacre", "murder", "atrocity", and "slaughter", overwhelmingly applying such terms to Israeli victims, and not Palestinians. This study confirms the same, with "massacre", "atrocity", and "murder" used dozens of times to describe Israeli deaths in BBC reporting but never applied to Palestinian casualties, despite far higher death tolls. This is a very serious problem established by RS analyses which I along with many other editors have drawn attention to, recently here. I am hopeful about efforts to incorporate considerations of such bias into the MOS for article titles so that we can avoid having to go through the same arguments over and over again.

Regarding the systematic bias in reporting I said in my previous response, which I stand by:

A final point I want to add for everyone's consideration: Analyses of media coverage of the Israel-Gaza War have shown that there is a structural bias against Palestinians, with mass killings of them typically not referred to with language such as "massacre" despite it meeting the standard for their usage of it in other contexts: Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis) The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.

Another study with a similar finding: We found that “murder”, “murderous”, “mass murder”, “brutal murder” and “merciless murder” were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. The same pattern could been seen in relation to “massacre”, “brutal massacre” and “horrific massacre” (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths); “atrocity”, “horrific atrocity” and “appalling atrocity” (22 times for Israeli deaths, once for Palestinian deaths); and “slaughter” (five times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths).

And there are many more. Yet despite this structural bias, the RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event use that term to describe it.

This to me is dispositive about it's inclusion in the title.

Moreover, it must be stressed that Closetside’s RM seeks to entirely excise the "massacre" aspect from the title—despite prior consensus that, upon merging the separate pages for the rescue operation and the massacre, both elements would be represented equally. This proposal violates that understanding and constitutes a clear breach of WP:NPOV. This overt POV-pushing was among the contributing factors to Closetside’s subsequent topic ban.

I am also now further convinced a moratorium of at least 12 months is needed to give everyone a break from having to constantly repeat the same points. There are three RMs on this page alone. The most recent RM lasted over two months, was relisted, and concluded a little over a month ago with no consensus to change the current title. Initiating a new RM so soon afterward, without introducing materially new arguments, is unproductive and disruptive. There is no reasonable prospect there will be any significant change in this in the coming 12 months, so it is time to give it a rest. Lf8u2 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe we would accept such arguments as valid to remove the use of "massacre" in the title of a page referring to a massacre of Israelis: "These sources like The Times of Israel, Ynet and Jerusalem Post are right-wing and Jewish-oriented".

I actually tried a similar argument at Talk:Kissufim massacre#Requested move 24 April 2025. Since only Israeli sources used the term "massacre" for that attack, I believe that it doesn't meet the generally accepted criteria. Maybe I just didn't make the argument very skillfully (since it felt obvious to me), but this line of reasoning was rejected and the page wasn't moved. I'm not changing my vote here and hold by my reasoning, but consistent treatment would imply not moving this page as well. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would be fine if we banned the word massacre entirely from Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those who argue that reliable sources also use the terms "rescue operation" or "raid" are correct; however, this is because such sources focus on the mission to rescue the hostages. Other reliable sources, which emphasize the other critical aspect of the event — the massacre of Palestinians — do employ the term "massacre", and do so in their own voice.

Or perhaps because those are credible and reliable sources that dont give undue weight to casualties during a rescue operation?

The key question we must therefore consider is: Which RS that focus on the massacre aspect of the event rather than the rescue or raid aspect do not use this term but instead employ an alternative description, and what is the consensus usage? Instead RS that reference the rescue operation are being conflated with the entirety of the event, leading to arguments in favor of omitting "massacre." This disregards the fact that RS focused specifically on the massacre aspect do indeed use the term, explicitly and in their own voice, and that "massacre" rather than any alternatives is the consensus term used.

This is circular logic and cherry picking. It is asserting that it is a massacre and then saying that only the articles that call it a massacre call it a massacre. The sources that dont call it a massacre are just as valid, because they dont see it as a massacre.

Numerous RS analyses have documented the persistent disparity in language used by media to describe violence against Palestinians versus Israelis.

This is entirely absurd. Sources are heavily weighted against Israel and everything Israel does is considered a massacre, unlike any other country in history. Russia is butchering Ukrainians left and right and we dont have an article for every little killing of Ukrainian families. The first two sources you cite are from early in the conflict. The third one is a year in. Of course sources are going to refer to all of the massacres on October 7 as massacres...because they were massacres. And the Israeli response to it received a lot of legitimacy for weeks because of the unprecedent nature of Palestinian aggression and violence in that attack. Thats why media sources might seem favoring Israel early on.

A final point I want to add for everyone's consideration: Analyses of media coverage of the Israel-Gaza War have shown that there is a structural bias against Palestinians

Again, a total absurdity. The media is heavily biased against Israel. This is plainly evident with every claim by Hamas taken seriously as the "Gaza Ministry of Health" and Israeli claims are questioned. Israel is forced to allow outside independent sources, while Hamas exerts dictatorial control over media releases in Gaza (this is documented).

I am against closing this right away, but a moratorium after three attempts in three months is not beyond reason.

And as I replied to Evans, I think there is a case to be made that "massacre" shouldnt be used at all on Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an attempt by an ideological warrior to endlessly relitigate a dead issue. The topic ban was quite justified. Neutral on the proposal below. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per my comment here. Effectively, "raid" is a euphemism that hides the sheer number of civilians that were killed (nearly 300!) and hence a WP:POVNAME. And re-opening an RM just a month after the previous one closed it bad form.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose main proposal, and support some kind of moratorium per reasoning of vice regent, etc. Doing another RM so soon after a few months is especially galling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs) 04:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of moving to Nuseirat raid, let's do Nuseirat rescue and killings.

• Support as proposer. The fact that there was a hostage rescue is not disputed. Likewise, nobody disputes that killings occurred. What is disputed is the nature of those killings, i.e. whether they were justified as collateral damage caused by the targeting of Hamas militants or unjustified as a concurrent massacre of civilians. The term "killings" accurately describes the two facets of the event without euphemizing it or taking a stand. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my support as WP:AE has determined proposing "compromises" during an ongoing RM is disruptive. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fact that there was a hostage rescue is not disputed nor is the fact that there was a massacre. We agreed to merge Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre into this on the condition that the massacre doesn't get whitewashed with a false compromise. I also don't see anyone engaging in endless philosophical debates about Alumim massacre and others like it that pale in comparison to the Nuseirat massacre. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I literally started an RM for Kissufim massacre. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 12:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can start an RM at Alumim massacre, etc. if you think those are misnamed. I would likely support. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from the fact that the two events cannot be compared (274 dead and 698 injured vs 20 dead), that's beside the point that I made. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it's 10 dead or 10,000 doesn't actually matter when it comes to article names and WP:NPOV. If it's not the common name, then it doesn't beIong in the title. I know it wasn't your point but just because those rules weren't followed at other articles doesn't mean we can ignore them here to balance it out. I went down this road already at Rafah aid distribution killings with no luck. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Back to square one. M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose because many reputable news outlets and sources like the The Intercept, Al Jazeera English, Middle East Eye, El País reported it as a massacre.

• INSIDE THE NUSEIRAT MASSACRE: THIS IS THE CARNAGE I SAW DURING ISRAEL’S HOSTAGE RESCUE - The Intercept

• Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza - Al Jazeera

• The Israeli rescue operation and Nuseirat massacre: What we know so far - Middle East Eye

• The Israeli army massacre after freeing four hostages in Gaza: ‘The bombings came from all directions’ - El Pais Qhairun (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"reliable", which none of these are Metallurgist (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my comment in the section above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support subject to "raid" > "rescue and killings". Better than what we have currently per 3rd method for choosing a name in WP:NCENPOV, but worse than "raid" which easily fulfils at least the second method there. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, speedy close, 12 month moratorium: We had a recent RM on this that closed less than a month ago. Chess and others made the exact same alternative proposal then, it did not gain consensus. It did not gain consensus in any of the prior RMs and RfCs we've had either. As I said at the time and in my response to this most recent RM nothing has changed, so this is WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. As other editors have said, the term massacre is used in RS, it accurately describes what happened – not a matter of dispute – reducing the massacre of women and children to 'killings' violates WP:NPOV, we have other articles that are termed 'massacres' that feature far less civilian death. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Title_warrior#Personal_definitions. Coming up with your own definitions of whether enough women/children were killed to call an event a "massacre" goes against NPOV. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Idk why, but seeing you cite an essay that you've written is a bit funny to me 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to cite it at every requested move now because it's easier than rewriting the same comment over and over again. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

  I have read your essay yes thank you @Chess and I remind you that essays are not wikipedia policy. That said I agree that your point in that section is relevant here, because a number of people (primarily in the support !vote camp) are seeking to unilaterally rewrite international law to change a word in an article title. You argue that the killing of 200+ civilians could be justified as collateral damage without any evidence, when international law is unambiguous, prohibiting: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians. If you have RS showing that the IDF could not have known that spraying machine gun fire across a civilian encampment would have led to this result, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I said what I said. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying you're wrong on the outcome here, but let's look at the whole sentence: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; (emphasis added). FortunateSons (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, exactly my point. It would be, frankly, breathtakingly NPOV for wikipedia to make the determination (in the absence of any available evidence in RS) that 200 civilians being killed is not excessive in terms of the military advantage anticipated. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not familiar with any in this case either, but considering that many of the details are and will likely remain unclear, much of that is unknowable to anyone but IDF jurists, who are unwilling or unable to publicly comment. In general, even exceedingly high civilian casualties could be justifiable (for example: the alternative would be 100 dead civilians but 1000 dead IDF soldiers with a comperable chance of hostage rescue), but to the best if my knowledge, this isn't the case here. FortunateSons (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be breathtaking for wikipedia editors to decide how to name articles based on their own interpretations of international law. I'm not an international lawyer, and make no arguments about what the event was or wasn't in terms of international law. You allege that a number of people (primarily in the support !vote camp) are seeking to unilaterally rewrite international law to change a word in an article title, but article titles are not governed by international law, they're governed by the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. You could be 100% correct or 100% incorrect in your international legal arguments and it would be entirely irrelevant either way. The relevant fact is that far more reliable sources refer to this event as any of "raid", "operation" or even "attack" than as "massacre". Samuelshraga (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually agree with you (@Samuelshraga) in that we're getting off track here - I'm using the international law definition to respond to Chess specifically, who is insisting that the oppose !votes are unilaterally coming up with a definition of "massacre" when there wasn't one, because to me it seems like the opposite is true: the support !votes are making a case that presupposes that the civilian deaths were legally justified. The conversation about whether or not RS refer to this as a massacre is the relevant bit here, and as @M.Bitton and others have showed, the RS that are about the massacre do use that term. I'm happy to move on from this and get back to the central discussion, where I stand by my previous comments. :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reliable sources about the massacre do indeed describe it as what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chess has already responded to M.Bitton's line on this - of course sources that conceive of the event as a massacre cover it as a massacre, this is tautological. Sources that conceive of it as a raid cover it as a raid, and so with rescue operation etc. If we widen the scope (as we should) to: "reliable sources covering this event" rather than "reliable sources covering this event as a massacre", "massacre" is used far less by GREL sources than other terms. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been no developments in RS since the last two times we've run this RM that suggest the consensus as already established ought to be overturned. WP:COMMONNAME says When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I stand by my !votes in this and previous RMs that: there is no single obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used, for exactly the reasons you suggest, and the current title meets the criteria more directly than "killings" or other options, as there have been no substantive developments in RS to indicate otherwise. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's without counting this RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smallangryplanet, WP:NCENPOV says that if there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should use a generally accepted word. "Raid" is used widely across WP:GREL sources, including ones that also or even mainly used "massacre" like Al-Jazeera. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Emphasis mine: also or even mainly used "massacre" and thus I rest my case. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never denied that some sources used "massacre". What's obvious on a search of any depth is that most sources didn't. But even those sources (like Al-Jazeera) which did, also used terms like "raid". It's pretty clear that "raid" is therefore a generally accepted word. Not so "massacre", which is not used in the vast majority of WP:GREL coverage. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can throw around numbers forever but the fact of the matter is that there is a current consensus based on three consecutive and more or less identical conversations and nobody is presenting any new information that overturns this consensus. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The March discussion ended in no consensus, and many !votes were based on a catastrophically misrepresented set of sources.

  Either you don't think WP:NCENPOV is the controlling guideline, in which case I'd like to know what is, or you do and you think "massacre" somehow emerges from it. I don't think either option is plausible, whether or not your procedural arguments have merit. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to overstep the word count limit any more than I probably already have, so I stand by my previous responses in this thread. (And others.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for Nuseirat rescue and killings. No evidence that "Nuseirat rescue and massacre" or any other variant containing massacre is the common name. Even though some sources have called it a massacre or quoted others calling it a massacre, that is not sufficient to establish a common name or generally accepted description. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Support as per my comments above regarding common name, and as a compromise.Trdta4 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Qhairun — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 11:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either is fine. I lean towards Nuseirat raid or rescue, but I am fine with anything that removes massacre. Entebbe raid comes to mind, which if it were done today would probably be called a massacre. There seems to be a religious obsession on the part of anti-Israel commentators to label everything Israel does a massacre. In virtually all cases, the agglomerated deaths do not constitute a massacre, and often even "killings" is too strong a word. Dropping a bomb on the wrong target isnt a massacre. Killing people trying to stop a rescue operation isnt a massacre. I am not against documenting the casualties, but overweighting their relevance to the event is undue.Metallurgist (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please keep the discussion to policy and avoid WP:ASPERSIONS. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, retracted. Metallurgist (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, close and moratorium of 12 months - I elaborated my reasoning which also applies to this alternative here. Lf8u2 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, you're almost over the word limit with the first comment alone. Please consider shortening them to comply with the restriction. FortunateSons (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thought I was right under it but I am indeed a little over the limit. Have removed the summary of my reasoning in the alternative. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose the name as an inadequate description of the event. I prefer Nuseirat rescue and mass killings, similar to Kuwait Roundabout mass killings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alternate compromise wording, and support some kind of moratorium per reasoning of Lf8u2, TarnishedPath, etc. Doing another RM so soon after a few months is especially galling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]