Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

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.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration articles

Military history: Middle East

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

There have been no comments since March, and the comments that are here show a clear consensus against a merge. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Seems to cover the same content, likely makes more sense to merge into a single article unless these strikes have special notability. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These bombings are going to go on for longer until the offensive starts, and even if the media hasn't been giving it much attention, strikes have happened in Rafah virtually every day of the war. This could only possibly be notable for its death count. But there's not much to say about it, and it fits better with the offensive page. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more significant due to the death toll and the fact that Israel claims to have freed two hostages. MountainDew20 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I made a separate page that contextualized the hostage operation, the media blitz, and its connection to the Super Bowl, but that page was deleted and none of that context was kept. The page as it stands is nonsensical, just seems like singling out a single day. I don't mind a merge, but this deletion doesn't make sense. LaborRising (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that say anything about a "Superbowl Massacre" not to mention the article was rapidly created citing tweets and the only proper source is the DailyDot which is not considered reliable for contentious topics per WP:RS/P and an opinion article from the Nation which aren't enough to make an article. -UtoD 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "The Nation" article does mention it. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply a Dave Zirin's opinion article and I don't think its reliable to name an incident over. Probably say "Sports commentator Dave Zirin called it the Superbowl Massacre"? Because the article uses wikivoice to give Dave's opinion. -UtoD 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A series of aistrikes that alone have killed over 100 civilians in just a couple days definitely warrant a separate article. And many sources are talking about these strikes, including many calling it a massacre. Dylanvt (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to say about it. No major countries or organizations are talking about this. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the topic likely passes GNG, but I don't see merging as removing it, on the contrary, merging it into Rafah Offensive increases the likelihood that readers will find out about 12 February, and that the quality of the prose writing will increase. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: At first I was inclined to support the merge, but I think the 12 February strikes actually do pass GNG and I think as a standalone this article serves as a solid companion piece to Operation Golden Hand. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I think that now that it got cleaned up a bit more and is referenced enough, it is notable enough. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The topic is notable enough. Skitash (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge to Rafah offensive. Independent coverage exists and the "offensive" is likely to characterize an escalated combination of strikes and invasion. And this kind of detailed reporting suggests GNG has been cleared:

Libération, «Massacre du Super Bowl» à Rafah : les frappes de Tsahal lors de la ...https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/massacre-du-super-bowl-a-rafah-les-frappes-de-tsahal-lors-de-la-liberation-des-otages-ont-tue-des-dizaines-de-civils-dont-une-trentaine-denfants-20240222_5IPZZBWOQVGFDM6Y3IXIFZGUAI/

On the other hand, most of the coverage includes both these strikes and Operation Golden Hand. A merge there would be justified, but would likely increase edit warring in the short term. Carwil (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Due to the death toll being significantly greater than other days and that it seems like a good companion article to operation golden hand which is why the strikes were so much larger in the first place. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Notable in its own right, the incident was planned in concurrence with the Super Bowl to fly under the radar in the news cycle. It cannot be so quickly dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rim of the Sky (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 March 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.

WP:NPOV

This looks like a POV fork. Are there reasons not to merge it with Operation Golden Hand? Alaexis_¿question? 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Golden Hand isn't about a massacre. Plus articles with their operation names related to the israel hamas war are actually considered POV per discussions (examples are: Operation Al-Aqsa Deluge, Operation Swords of Iron) Abo Yemen ✉ 13:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include this in the categories "massacres against Palestinians/massacres in the 2023-2024 war"?

Considering that the airstrikes were obviously indiscriminate and resulted in a substantial number of civilians being killed, I think this is fair. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:8562:4DB5:974A:C462 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]