Jump to content

Talk:Al Bureij killings

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

Bias

[edit]

This stub seems biased in favor of the Palestinian side (absence of NPV). My opinion only, of course. MKWat (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

"Massacre" is a loaded term and is POV. "Incident" is NPOV. My edit was made in good faith and should not have been reversed. 5JVL9 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dunutubble (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources determine what is POV, not users. And how would you describe the killing of ten civilians including three children? nableezy - 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources call this a massacre? Izzy Borden (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]

Reuters vs HRW

[edit]

Why would a Reuters article about the investigation be a better source than an HRW report on the incident? Izzy Borden (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]

According to who? Reuters themselves, in their reporting on the incident, said 2 others were killed: "Two youths passing by died in the same explosion that killed Shana, witnesses said" [1], and this is consistent with other sources. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters report you quote is from April 16 the night it happened whereas the Reuters report in the article is from August 13 when the full facts would have been known, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the UN report, from a week later. [2]. It says 4. The HRW report also says 4. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A week later is not long enough and probably relies on the primary reports Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Dead bodies on the scene can be counted within hours. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources Atlantic306 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both HRW and the UN are secondary sources. Primary sources would be the doctors reporting on his death, or the Israeli authorities giving their version of the events. For that matter, since this is Reuters reporting on the death of one of their employees, working on an assignment for them, I'd say thy are more of a primary source than either HRW or the UN. per WP:PRIMARY - "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. That's Reuters, in this case. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]

Requested move 19 June 2022

[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: Move to "2008 Bureij killings": A consensus has developed that the word "incident" is not suitable for this article. During the discussion, editors both supporting and opposing the move were generally receptive to moving the article to "2008 Bureij killings" or similar. I therefore find that there is a rough consensus to moving this article to "2008 Bureij killings". (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bureij massacre → Al Bureij incident – None of the sources used in the article call it a massacre Izzy Borden (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]

  • Oppose - euphemistic in the extreme, an "incident" in which an army kills 6 children and a cameraman, and all casualties are civilians? No source calls it an incident either. As far as sources calling it a massacre, well this was in the article until it was removed. nableezy - 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imemc is not a reliable source, which is why it was removed. As you wrote above, you may think it is 'euphemistic', but we go by sources, not what you think. I am open to names other than incident. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Who said it is an unreliable source? nableezy - 01:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The imemc article is unreliable because it mentions the event in passing (i.e., it is neither report nor analysis) and gives wrong number of killed. Finally, it is redundant: there are three good detailed sources already for this single sentence. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable for its name. nableezy - 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said in my !vote. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not opposed to some move here, but incident is absurd. Israel was accused of a war crime here, every casualty was an unarmed civilian, and they were purposely targeted. Calling this an incident is even more POV than calling it a massacre. nableezy - 22:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, and as I wrote, I am ok with names other than incident. Can we agree on "Bureij Tank shelling", or "Bureij TV Crew killing", along the lines of Dizengoff Street bus bombing? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Or, as an alternative - since this article is essentially the same, content wise, as Fadel Shana'a, who is non-notable except for this event, we could merge the two into a single article called "Killing of Fadel Shana'a". Izzy Borden (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
I think Shana could just be redirected to an article on the shelling. I dont think TV Crew killing works because most of those killed had no association with the crew being random innocent bystanders. 2008 Bureij killings might work. nableezy - 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me (rename to "2008 Bureij killings", redirect Shana'a's article there) . Izzy Borden (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
  • Support, mistaken fire. Sources: HRW, Guardian, and Reuters do not call it a massacre. --Seggallion (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Banned Sock[reply]
  • Support. Reliable neutral sources do not call this event "massacre". However the text must mention that pro-Palestinian sources and locals use the term "Al Bureij massacre", per [3]. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fascinating that the history shows one editor trying to edit war "incident" in (who ya tryin to kid?) a couple years back and then another trying to delete the article altogether en passant and yet the article has survived since 2008 as is, notwithstanding. Maybe because it looks like a massacre, civilians, kids, a journo, you know, "On April 16, an IDF tank fired an antipersonnel shell dispensing metal darts into the central Gaza strip, killing Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana’a and three others, including a 14-year-old and 17-year-old. HRW claimed there was evidence the tank crew knowingly targeted the journalist. According to Palestinian NGOs, Shana’a was covering the aftermath of a missile attack near Juhor al-Dik earlier that day, in which two missiles fired from an Israeli aircraft killed three adults and six minors and wounded six adults and 12 minors. In August the IDF announced its investigation cleared the tank crew, but several human rights organizations criticized the IDF’s investigations as lacking seriousness." Sounds about right for IDF behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not necessarily to proposed name. None of the sources cited in the article call it a massacre so it's clearly not a common name and needs to go. The HRW report call it an incident so it might work as a neutral term. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why do we use "Al Bureij" when the location's article is titled Bureij? Super Ψ Dro 21:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question, doesn't it mean "The"? So like you would use in The London (something) as opposed to just in London. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Incident is a euphemistic whitewash for what occurred. Would support 2008 killings in Bureij or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2008 killings in Bureij or similar would be ok. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
  • Oppose; if it sounds like a massacre, and looks like a massacre -> it's name should be Al Bureij massacre. Incidentally, would the killing of 13 other unarmed Israeli civilians, including eight children, ever be considered an "incident"? Of course not, and I suspect anyone suggesting it, would be branded "anti-semitic", Huldra (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at Dizengoff Street bus bombing Izzy Borden (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
"bombing" = "incident"?? I don't think so. More relevant examples would be the articles of, say the Bat Mitzvah massacre (6 dead), Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre (11 dead), Mercaz HaRav massacre (8 dead), Ma'ale Akrabim massacre (11 dead). I will expect you to nominate all those for remaining, too, in case this pass, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I am open to names other than "incident" (e.g. "Killing" as suggested by Selfstudier). My point was that your claim that if 13 Israeli citizens were killed it would be called a "massacre" is false, and laughably so. Virtually every massacre of Israeli civilians in a Hamas suicide bombing is called a "bombing', not a "massacre" (or even a "killing") - e.g Patt Junction Bus bombing, Afula bus suicide bombing - there's a whole category of these - [4]. And no, I won't be calling for those other articles called "massacre" to be renamed, because what you fail to understand, here, and in the case of those articles, is that we don't name articles according to what they "sound like" or "look like" to us, as editors. Nor do we go by the nationality of the victims. We go by what these events are called in reliable source. The Bat Mitzvah massacre is called a massacre by reliable sources (e.g [5]), so that is what we call it. And similarly, articles about massacres of Arabs are called "massacre" if that's what they are called by reliable sources- e.g. Kafr Qasim massacre. Here, there are no reliable sources that call this event a 'massacre', so it can't be called that. It's that simple. Izzy Borden (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
  • Firstly: Stop falcifying my words. I never said/claimed that "if 13 Israeli citizens were killed it would be called a "massacre"; I said that the killing of 13 unarmed Israeli civilians would never be called "an incident". That's quite a difference. There are a lot of words between "a massacre" and "an incident"; say, "killing", bombing", "attack", etc.
  • Secondly: you are wrong. There are RS calling this "a massacre"[6], imemc.org, [7], alaraby.co.uk/
  • Thirdly, what you fail to understand, is that many (most) of our readers will find wikipedia plain racist, when we call 6 killed Israeli for "a massacre", while 9 killed Palestinian gets reduced to "an incident", Huldra (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither imemc nor alaraby are reliable sources, and the alaraby article refers to a different incident, involving an airstrike, nor this one - a tank shelling. We go by what reliable source call an event. Izzy Borden (talk) sock
Just asserting things arent reliable isnt an argument. nableezy - 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources aren't reliable by default. If you want to assert that the mouthpiece of the activist group If Americans Knew is a reliable source - i.e - known for fact checking and error corrections etc..- I suggest you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and see what uninvolved editors think. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
What mouthpiece? nableezy - 21:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? you're not really familiar with the sources you suggest we use for controversial, POV article-naming? "In 2021, the IMEMC became a project of the American nonprofit organization If Americans Knew." [8]. Perhaps you know something about the author of the piece in question, one "Celine Hagbard"? Any reputable credentials as a journalist? is she an expert on the mid-East? As far as I can tell from a Google search, she does not exist beyond the confines of the imemc website. [And incidentally, the imemc article's passing mention seems to be about a different event, also involving an airstrike "the ‘Al Bureij massacre’, in which Israeli airstrikes killed ten Palestinians"] Izzy Borden (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
And your objection to Al Araby is what? nableezy - 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming a project doesn't mean what you think it means, IAK set up another website that reruns news from IMEMC. Alaraby isn't a reliable source, since when? The New Arab is used all the time, take it to RSN if you disagree. For that matter on what basis are you asserting IMEMC isn't a reliable source? It's not a different killing, the Reuters cameraman mention should tell you that. I am getting the impression you are just making this stuff up as you go along. Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take imemc to the reliable noticeboard, and see what they think. It should be entertaining to see people argue for the reliability of the mouthpiece of an organization that has the somewhat unique distinction of being called antisemitic by both pro- and anti-Israel groups, and which its own Wikipedia article acknowledges it has made false claims regarding Israel. BTW, have you come up with any info regarding "Celine Hagbard"? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Again, what is your objection to al-Araby? nableezy - 22:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced it is reliable, but in any case it is about a different incident. I think that what is being missed here, due to the very sloppy reporting, even by Reuters, is that there were several different incidents that day - an early one, involving airstrikes in or near Johr el-Diek, where a battle between the IDF and Hamas resulted in 3 IDF soldiers killed 14 Palestinians killed , including multiple children. (see the Guardian reference in the article). Then, a later one in the afternoon in nearby Bureij, where a tank fired a flechette shell that killed the Reuters cameraman and 3 others. It is the former incident that the Alarby article is referencing - note the mention of airstrikes - but munging it up with the later incident which is the subject of the article. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
The al-Araby article says: "Bureij was the site of the 2008 "Bureij Massacre", when 10 civilians, including three children and a Reuters cameraman, were killed by an Israeli airstrike", Huldra (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is an article about an incident in which a Reuters cameraman was killed by a tank shell, not an airstrike. Are we supposed to cherry-pick statements we think are right (that this incident is called massacre, vs. the earlier one), when we have clear evidence that some other statements in the very same sentence are clearly wrong (airstrike vs. tank shell)? That would seem to be evidence that the source in question in not reliable, as it is not able to get basic facts about the incident right. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
I have explained that, it is easy to explain, your attempt at obfuscation notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters cameraman again settles it. (there was an earlier missile attack that killed civilians, and the Reuters cameraman was coming from that location when he was killed. In the early reporting, the two attacks tended to reported together and no-one was entirely sure whether it was airstrike or not) Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence please (not your opinion) that IMEMC is a mouthpiece for IAK (assuming that's what you meant, its not very clear). Celine Hagbard is a journalist, is your argument that the IMEMC article is an opinion piece by her? Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Reuters cameraman killed in an airstrike? Izzy Borden (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
I just explained that above, multiple RS report it initially as airstrike, but regardless of the killing mechanism, it was still a massacre of civilians. Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, multiple source reported on a different incident (in the morning, in a different nearby place, involving an airstrike), and one source of questionable reliability said that incident was called a massacre. No reliable source calls this incident, where a cameraman and 3 others were killed by a tank shell, a "massacre".Izzy Borden (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Nope again, multiple RS reported initially on both incidents together and later became subject of separate reporting. That The New Arab calls it an airstrike doesn't matter, so did lots of other RS. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I read about "Celine Hagbard"'s credentials as a journalist? I honestly think it's a made up name. Like I said, take imemc to the noticeboard if you think it is reliable. Should be good for a laugh or two. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
That doesn't answer the question I asked. Are you querying IMEMC reliability for the statement "Al-Bureij was the site of a 2008 attack which has come to be known, locally, as the ‘Al Bureij massacre’, in which Israeli airstrikes killed ten Palestinians, including three young children and a Reuters cameraman." or Celine Hagbard reliability (ie the article is an opinion piece not a news article as we do not usually investigate journalists who write for news sources). Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think IMEMC is not reliable and should not be used, period. You can take it to the noticeboard. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
When you have a consensus that it isn't reliable, I might do that, right now we just have your evidence free assertion, which is worth zero. Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the way things work. Sources are not reliable by default. You need to show why it is reliable. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." That's what we are doing now and no-one else is agreeing with you so far.Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And if not, we're here to help.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this will not be needed, as above. But it may do you good to read Wikipedia:Article titles, the second paragrph says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Izzy Borden (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Re Talk:Bat Mitzvah massacre#Requested move 22 June 2022, please familiarize yourself with WP:HEADLINES and don't bother teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"[9], "U.S. networks showed amateur video of the bat mitzvah massacre, and also a video made earlier by the Palestinian killer," Different cultures, different coverage. (Perspective On War) , Neil Hickey Columbia Journalism Review(Vol. 40, Issue 6), Date: March-April 2002, Columbia University, Graduate School of Journalism, Date: March-April 2002. You're welcome, Granny, feel free to ask for more lessons. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
I don't see anything about Bureij in there, can you provide a quote? Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those 2 sources are related to the naming of Talk:Bat Mitzvah massacre#Requested move 22 June 2022. You know, what we were discussing in the comment I was responding to. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
I wasn't discussing that, I was discussing your attempt to lecture me about WP policies. I'm not your granny either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you were, you wrote "Re Talk:Bat Mitzvah massacre#Requested move 22 June 2022, please familiarize yourself with WP:HEADLINES ..." in the comment I was responding to. Indeed, you are not my granny, she's a much nicer and more collaborative person. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
You wrote "But it may do you good to read Wikipedia:Article titles, the second paragraph says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"." and I responded to that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in doing so, you brought up Bat Mitzvah massacre. That backfired spectacularly, but you can only blame yourself for that. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC) sock[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.

Interesting. So this move discussion was both raised by one sock and supported by another. That considerably undermines the legitimacy of the consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be annulled and moved back - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note only two valid support voices. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored original name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre

[edit]

For future reference; both the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas,[10] and the Iranian Foreign Ministry[11] calls this a massacre.

(I do not in general consider tehrantimes.com to be a RS; but I do consider it to be reliable about the opinions/statements from the Iranian leaders. Just like I consider Arutz Sheva to be a RS when it comes to opinions/statements from Israeli settlers), Huldra (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Bureij_killings&oldid=1204643080"