Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack

Trimmed lede paragraph proposal

How about just this as a slimmed down version of the third paragraph?

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the outskirts of the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the camp, trapping and burning the residents inside. Israel claimed that the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, and that the fire was "unexpected and unintended".

The suggested changes are mainly

• Plainly state the strike location as a matter of fact, since it seems uncontroversial.
• Remove the mention of "igniting ammunition". Israel mentions it as "one possibility" being investigated, while NYT casts doubt on it by saying they were unable to find evidence. It just isn't a significant or interesting controversy, with noone making strong assertions in either direction.
• Don't imply a contradiction between the claimed targets and the strike location. There's no obvious contradiction, since Hamas targets can reside in tents. Perhaps "compound" was misleading for a couple men in tents, but I don't see this point being made in the sources, presumably because the wording one spokesperson used just doesn't warrant much scrutiny.
• Remove "deliberately targeted civilians", because this is based on some very brief statements which don't elaborate on what they mean or how they arrived at the conclusion. Are they suggesting there were no actual Hamas targets, or just that Israel knew some civilians would be at risk? Maybe something else? Is there evidence or just speculation? We should avoid repeating such ambiguous statements.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1 and 3. Israel said it was a Hamas compound away from the camp. Watch the official IDF video: [1]. The video said the strike was 180 meters away from the camp. And Israel also claimed at one point that the strike was 100 meters away from the camp. We have to imply a contradiction, and that is what the sources are specifically meant to do.

2. Seems reasonable.

4. Mostly reasonable. However, Times of India claims that Israel targeted the camp, and Aljazeera claimed Israel targeted the camp and emphasized the civilians there. I think we can safely say that some sources claimed Israel targeted it.

We can include the outskirts part, but later. As said, we must include that Israel claimed it was targeting a Hamas compound outside but near the camp that accidentally started the fire. We don't need to mention the ammunition part as it isn't a solid claim.

Here's what a possible paragraph could look like:

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the neighborhood with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, trapping and burning the civilians residing in it. Israel claimed the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, accidentally causing the fire. However, analysis of satellite images showed that Israel bombed the outskirts of the camp. Some sources claimed Israel targeted the camp itself.

Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

After watching the IDF video, there seems to be agreement about the geographic location, with the IDF showing the same location as that satellite image.

There seem to be some different characterizations or interpretations of that location, with the IDF pointing out some "shelters" that are 180 meters southeast, but not mentioning the structures (tents?) closer to the strike.

This seems to leave a few open questions -

• Was the strike literally inside the Kuwaiti camp? This image indicates yes, but AFAIK it's just from Twitter. Many reliable sources say the Kuwaiti camp was set fire, so that suggests the strike was at least very close to it, but I'm not sure if any reliable sources have confirmed where the Kuwaiti camp is exactly.
• Did the IDF say anything false? It seems like there may have been a misleading omission, with them not commenting on Kuwaiti Peace Camp or whatever the closest structures were, AFAIK.

I think the main question here is whether reliable sources have established that there is some kind of contradiction or controversy? If not, I think we should avoid framing it that way, to make sure we don't run afoul of SYNTH. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel claimed it was away from the camp regardless. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, that’s their narrative. And we must be truthful. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In the “What Israel said” section of the NYT article: “Though he said there were “no tents in the immediate vicinity” of the targets, satellite imagery from the same day shows more than 60 tents and other makeshift structures within 500 feet, inside the range given by U.S. military reference guides for risk of death or serious injury. … The Times’s analysis shows that the site targeted was within the borders of the camp, and suggested Israel had failed to take adequate care to safeguard civilians. The camp was well-known, the metal sheds were spaced just over a meter apart, and there were tents in the area.” This implies a contradiction. And this is the most in depth analysis of the event. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, hadn't seen that bit. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Np Personisinsterest (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Re 4, the current text simply says deliberately targeted civilians, a stronger claim that Al Jazeera doesn't make directly, but attributes to the Palestinian presidency. If we keep it, should we attribute it to the Palestinian presidency?

Though I would argue that we just shouldn't include it, per above, since it's unclear what was meant and what evidence or reasoning was behind the claim. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but its fact checking agency does also say Israel targeted the camp. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the claim that Israel deliberately targeted the camp sheltering civilians similarly ambiguous? The article doesn't mention the Hamas targets at all, so if we read between the lines it seems like they may be insinuating that there were no legitimate targets, just the civilians in the camp. But the statement is ambiguous enough that it could be backed up to "the target was in the camp".

I also think the lack of elaboration or substantiation makes this not a good statement to reference. I.e. there's no mention of what kind of knowledge or insights the Palestinian witnesses, or Sanad, had which led them to a certain conclusion (whatever that might be) about Israeli command. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS:: the lede changes you reverted had been discussed pretty thoroughly, here and in previous threads. If you don't agree with them, please join the discussion here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and I wasn't aware of this discussion. The NYT source is very clear however, as can be seen from the quotations I added to the reference, that the strike was done in/on the camp and not "on the outskirts" of the camp. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would interpret the outskirts as still being in the camp, though perhaps "outskirts" is questionable since sources aren't saying that explicitly. In the spirit of sticking very closely with the source, should we repeat the NYT's wording within the borders of the camp? I'm nitpicking a bit here, but the camp was struck itself might suggest a more central strike location, as if the location was picked to maximize tents in the blast area, while the NYT's wording might suggest something more toward the outskirts.

That aside, please also see the concerns about no evidence of secondary explosions (or igniting ammunition) mentioned above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT source, whose reference now includes multiple direct quotations, is very clear that the strike was "in the camp" and on structures that were "part of the camp". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Outskirts" may be unnecessary, but I think the paragraph is fine either way. The main problem I have is the secondary explosions thing. We already decided on not including it for multiple reasons. First, Israel hasn't directly accused Hamas of this. They said it might be ammunition and that their weapons couldn't have caused it alone, but that isn't direct confirmation. And the IDF released a (supposed) recording of Hamas guys saying it was a weapons dump that caused it, but they didn't directly come out and say that was true. And it can fit in the revised paragraph too. Striking the Hamas compound near the camp and accidentally starting the fire can imply ammunition was there if you read further down. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should get back to this. Based on my reasoning above, can we please just take out the secondary explosions part? Personisinsterest (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it from the lede for now. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS Please respond. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

[2] @טבעת-זרם: your edit has introduced Israel's contested claims, instead of facts on Palestinian casualties, to the opening sentence, which should be neutral and general. It also rephrased the opening paragraph as well in such a way to claim that only the fire killed the Palestinians there; a factually incorrect claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We could reword "compound", but noone really disputes that two Hamas commanders were eliminated. It's not neutral to emphasize civilian casualties while burying military casualties.

"The attack set the compound on fire and killed" seems okay to me; the subject of "killed" is the attack, not the fire. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Personisinsterest (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 06:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this Abo Yemen✉ 06:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (MoS)	see Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Lead citations	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	see Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#International reactions section	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

Lead citations

@Personisinsterest The lead section violates MOS:LEADCITE Abo Yemen✉ 08:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the citations from the lead and also cleaned it up a little. I do unfortunately have to also let you know I’m going to be unavailable until about 4pm EST today, so I probably won’t be able to respond much more until then. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no it's okay there is no deadline Abo Yemen✉ 12:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet why did you restore the lead citations tho? Abo Yemen✉ 09:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Updating that as well, though if I'm being super pedantic it does have an inline citation as required by MOS:LEADCITE. I'll grab a more explicit source since the one currently being used cites an image caption, though. 🥴 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Fixed, I hope - I went with the phrasing and sourcing from Arabic Wikipedia, I hope that's okay? Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet:I actually prefer the older name as the new name that you've added translates to the "Holocaust of the tents" and not the "Burning of the tents". And regarding the all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. part of LEADCITE is actually a quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability and I don't think that any part of the lead is going to be challenged anytime soon. The lead must summarize the entire article and not introduce anything new to it, hence there is no need for the citations. Abo Yemen✉ 10:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Oops. Reverted myself + modified it so that the older name is cited within the body text as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tel_al-Sultan_attack&oldid=1253509454 Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet The citations are still there by the way when there isn't any reason to include them Abo Yemen✉ 15:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I think! I added {{subst:Leadcite comment}} because otherwise somewhere down the line we'll go through another round of the info being removed and re-added and at least we can point to that. Should I remove all other citations from the lede as well, or just those ones? @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to not remove them completely. Everything in the lede is already mentioned and cited below in the main article Abo Yemen✉ 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet Abo Yemen✉ 15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this yesterday. Removed refs from the article lede. @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You're good no worries I pinged you just in case you missed it Abo Yemen✉ 15:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet would it be fine to not capitalize tents, or is that just how the phrase is spelled? Personisinsterest (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I can’t seem to find the original citation for “tents massacre”. And I saw that some of the new sources for Rafah tent massacre don’t support it, like Aljazeera just saying the incident was a massacre Personisinsterest (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a translation of how aljazeera arabic calls it. here is the link for it [3] found it in my history Abo Yemen✉ 12:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen do you have any particular opinion about "tents massacre" vs "Tents massacre" ? Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

since it's a name i'd probabaly go with "Tents Massacre". Id also recommend letting people know that this is how this attack is called in arabic and not in english Abo Yemen✉ 10:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've also added a transliteration for the Arabic text.

Also, I'll be reading the entire article and finish the review when I'm free (hopefully tomorrow). Abo Yemen✉ 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have found English sources for this, so I removed "in Arabic" from the text. I kept the Arabic translation and transliteration. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Most sources, including the Aljazeera one, say "tent massacre" instead of "tents". Should we change this or just find sources for tents massacre? Personisinsterest (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

We should use the name that most RSs use, though i dont think an extra s would matter Abo Yemen✉ 06:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

International reactions section

@Personisinsterest citations 98, 101, 106, 108, 116, 119, and 136 as of Special:Diff/1252855811 are citations from Twitter and other generally unreliable sources. Could you find other reliable sources and replace them with the existing ones? Abo Yemen✉ 08:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed 98, 101, 106, and 136 and their content sourced by it. Lewis Hamilton was already mentioned in the source for celebrities posting "All eyes on Rafah", so I think he's covered anyway. I found reliable replacements and direct sources for 108, 116, and 119. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

looks good to me Abo Yemen✉ 06:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the twitter sources for the foreign ministries and a few others - AFAIK, WP:TWITTER says that organisations reporting on themselves can be acceptable. While I admit there's some danger when it comes to "It does not involve claims about third parties;", I think that in this case we can treat these sources as acceptable because they are accurately reporting their own statements about a third party, if that makes sense. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Personisinsterest, please remember to use an edit summary especially when making broad and far-reaching changes, otherwise it looks like unexplained section blanking - even just a "Removing pending better sourcing, see GA review on talk page" would have sufficed. I'm going to try to improve this stuff with non-twitter sources, but with no context it seemed like semi-arbitrary removal. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay Personisinsterest (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about that, I did remember something about exceptions for twitter, thanks Personisinsterest (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Other comments

Why all those citations in notes b and c as of special:diff/1253860771? Just use the most reliable 2 or 3 Abo Yemen✉ 08:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We tried to exemplify that many sources called it a massacre, will do Personisinsterest (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest if you are going to ask for more RS for a term and then when those are provided, go in and remove them all as you did here, you need to at least include an edit summary explaining why you did so or it is going to appear as though you are using this GA review to carry out an edit war on the terms being used to describe the massacre. @Abo Yemen I added these extra sources because Personisinterest was concerned that we didn't have anyone actually calling it the "Rafah tent massacre"; I would like to restore them to avoid this issue in the future, is that okay with you? Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Just keep the best 3 rs and remove the rest because having all these sources to verify one claim seems overkill Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I've restored 2-3 refs for both pieces of phrasing. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to deny that I am doing this for carrying out an edit war to call this a massacre. I initially added some sources in the body to show that it was called a massacre, and other people came in and added a lot more. I removed a bunch because the Abo Yemen said to use the most reliable 2 or 3. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I have to say this for the record. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the IDF's review mentioned in the Analysis and investigation section? Did they not update us on anything? Abo Yemen✉ 08:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The last I could find about the investigation was that MSNBC article. I don’t think they ever released the results publicly. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

why not move it to the israeli reactions section? or just remove it completely till they release the results publicly Abo Yemen✉ 11:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, seems pretty useless if the results aren't out yet Personisinsterest (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Reactions section

The #Governments section is missing a citation Abo Yemen✉ 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet @Personisinsterest Abo Yemen✉ 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Most other sources were republishing the AA story. @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Smallangryplanet fixed Personisinsterest (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

When I told you to remove it, I meant that you should use a better source bro Abo Yemen✉ 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I took out anadolu (not reliable) and kept AP Personisinsterest (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the AP source now, it doesn’t actually say they recognized Palestine as a country in response to the attack. I think the whole thing should probably be removed. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen @Personisinsterest I added the AP as well, but I figured WP:ANADOLU meant it could be used in this instance. (given that it's a statement of fact, summarising what happened) It's not unreliable in all circumstances, just need to exercise caution. I figured we'd prefer that to the primary sources, i.e. Ireland's. But I'm fine with just the AP source. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Or not. Sure, we could remove it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I should check if the section passes MOS:LISTS (this is just a reminder for myself you can ignore it unless i bring up something) Abo Yemen✉ 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done seems good to me. Congrats! Abo Yemen✉ 06:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that American missiles were used to bomb a displacement camp in Rafah?

• Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/middleeast/israel-us-rafah-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/world/europe/carnage-and-contradiction-examining-a-deadly-strike-in-rafah.html

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Personisinsterest (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Personisinsterest (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

• I'd like to propose some alternative hooks, if that's okay:

  • ALT1: ... that the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, struck by Israeli fighter jets, was located only 200 meters from the largest UNRWA humanitarian aid storage warehouse in the Gaza Strip? Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-rockets-central-israel-gaza-strip-sirens/
  • ALT2:... that a viral image showing tents in Rafah arranged to spell "All Eyes on Rafah" called for global attention to the humanitarian crisis following the Tel al-Sultan attack? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/middleeast/all-eyes-on-rafah.html
  • ALT3: ... that the Tel al-Sultan attack was the deadliest incident of the Rafah offensive? Source: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/27/rafah-tent-camp-strike-biden-israel-red-line

Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is the link to rafah city and not the governorate? tel al-sultan is a city different from rafah Abo Yemen✉ 12:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was a neighborhood of Rafah? A lot of sources say it and most sources said it was an attack on Rafah Personisinsterest (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah there is the rafah city and the rafah governorate which tel al-sultan is in Abo Yemen✉ 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I know but like a lot of sources say its a neighborhood of rafah Personisinsterest (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

neighborhood ≠ city. Ima guess that they meant the camp as a neighborhood Abo Yemen✉ 11:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think alt3 is probably the best. Pretty interesting Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed Abo Yemen✉ 05:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

Tel al-Sultan attack → ? – I am bringing this discussion back up with a stronger argument and after the Good Article review has concluded.

I have identified many sources calling this incident a massacre. There are likely more, so feel free to add any. They include The Guardian (opinion piece), Morrocco World News, The Peninsula Qatar, Truthout, Al-Ahram, Daily Sabah, Jacobin, Vox (Not explicitly, though cites someone calling it one, says it’s a slaughter in headline, and says Israel is massacring Palestinians), TRT World (Partially reliable) Le Monde, Middle East Eye, El Pais, The New Arab, Mondoweiss, Gulf News, Huffington Post (Disputed reliability), The Intercept, The Nation (opinion piece), Aljazeera and Aljazeera Arabic. Many mainstream media articles also cite people who describe the attack as a massacre, though do not explicitly claim it to be so. Humanitarian groups Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor and Doctors Without Borders have described the incident as a massacre. Officials of Colombia,[4] Saudi Arabia,[5] the State of Palestine,[6] and the Organization of Islamic States[7] have called the attack a massacre. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese has called it a massacre.[8] Additionally, Hamas and the Palestinian Civil Defense in Rafah have called the incident a massacre.[9]

Last time, there was also the issue of whether the attacks were intentional, as “massacre” is a loaded word that may imply intentionally killing civilians. Firstly, NYT quotes an expert who suggests Israel may have tried to mitigate harm but accepted civilian casualties,[10] and an MSNBC analysis indicates Israel should have known there were civilians in the area.[11] Al-Jazeera’s fact checking agency[12] and India Today[13] think so, and suggestions by Israel that a weapons dump exploded have been refuted by the New York Times, who found no evidence of the claim.[14] Egypt[15] and the PA[16] also allege that it was intentional.

There is still the issue of what exactly to call the article in any case. We have some options:
A: Keep it the same, Tel al-Sultan _.
B: Rafah tent camp _.
C: Just "Rafah _" Personisinsterest (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep as is. Massacre titles are inherently vague - a massacre can be many things, it is possibly the least informative title available for the topic of "amount of people dying". It is also POV in any situation. Massacre titles should only be used if it is the overwhelming common name, which your sources do not evidence. Individual sources calling it that in the prose is not enough to demonstrate this, especially for a POV title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be open to other suggestions such as Rafah tent camp strike, but strongly against massacre per PARAKANYAA. Definitions of "massacre" are all over the place, but often involve conditions like "deliberate", "cruel", "unnecessary", "indiscriminate", "savage", etc. In some extreme cases, it's clear that an event is a massacre by any reasonable definition, but in most cases "massacre" is a WP:POVNAME. This is reflected in the partisanship of the sources using the "massacre"; all of the more mainstream sources are using more objective terms like "strike". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Support move from attack to massacre as both Al Jazeera and the Intercept are reliable sources. Also, the UN rapporteur is a notable source. I see no reason why WP shouldn't reflect this name. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Tel al-Sultan Massacre - It's a massacre as described by many RS. There is no reason to keep this inaccurate name Abo Yemen✉ 13:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Against massacre, no hard preference regarding the rest largely per the arguments above. I‘m seeing a lack of use in their own words outside mostly partisan sources, and disputed legality within the fog of war with the usual problems. Therefore, there is no clear indication of it being either the common or a descriptive name. Attack is used within the cited articles, and is better for this. FortunateSons (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Tel al Sultan Massacre, Rafah Massacre, or Tent Massacre, per WP:COMMONNAME. A military force targeted and killed civilians in a refugee camp. It was a massacre. RSs call it a massacre. Calling a massacre a massacre is within Wiki policy and practice. Wikipedia has a category of massacres. Wikipedia not only has lists of massacres, it has lists of lists of massacres. Calling a massacre an "attack" is not neutral and breaks WP:POVNAME. Combefere ★ Talk 00:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You mention WP:COMMONNAME, but if there is a common name, surely it would be "Rafah tent camp strike" or similar. Pretty much all mainstream mainstream sources call it a "strike" in their own voice (while possibly including a quote with "massacre"). BBC, CNN, NPR, NBC, PBS, NYT, Reuters, etc. Those are all far more mainstream and less biased than the sources using "massacre".

Separately, while there were of course too many civilian casualties, there were military targets (whose elimination was confirmed). I don't see what basis there is for your claim that civilians were targeted. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Surely not. Al Jazeera, Vox, Le Monde, and The Intercept call it a massacre. All are listed as reliable sources under WP:RSP. CNN and NYT cannot in any seriousness be called unbiased on this issue -- numerous internal memos (1, 2) from these outlets reveal an extreme level of censorship, precluding them from using terms like "refugee camp," "occupied territory," or even "Palestine" except in rare cases. Demanding that we use only sources from the United States, and preclude all other reliable sources such as Al Jazeera or Le Monde in this instance is certainly not in line with WP:SBEXT, or the spirit of WP:BIAS in general. The claim that the attack did not target civilians is completely untrue. Only two sources claim that the attack targeted or killed any militants: the IDF and the US State Department. Virtually all sources agree that civilians were targeted. I suggest reviewing the roughly one dozen sources linked in the relevant section of the article. Combefere ★ Talk 18:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can add The New Arab "the Israeli military’s massacre in Rafah on May 26", Jacobin "On May 26, Israel carried out a massacre at a tent camp in Tel al-Sultan in Rafah, Gaza." and Doctors Without Borders "These massacres take place as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel on May 24 to "immediately" halt its military offensive in Rafah". Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not just CNN and NYT, basically every mainstream source calls it a strike. I forgot to add AP. It's pretty much every source with some semblance of journalistic objectivity. There's no such thing as perfect objectivity, but surely AP and Reuters are far closer than say Al Jazeera. Many of these are not US-based. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that Reuters or AP have any semblance of journalistic objectivity on this issue. They consistently use the words "massacre," "slaughter," "rampage" and the like to describe violence against Israelis, and rarely if ever use the same language to describe violence against Palestinians, regardless of the scale, degree, intent, or target of the violence.

I agree that there is no such thing as perfect. We are required to represent all significant view points in proportion to their significance. Overwhelmingly RSs call this event a massacre. Replacing that language for massacres against Palestinians and only against Palestinians is not neutral. Combefere ★ Talk 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You're clearly in the minority if you believe that Reuters and AP have no semblance of journalistic objectivity. They haven't used "massacre" for Israeli strikes like this one because there were in fact military targets. Under some definitions there could still be an argument that it was a massacre, but Reuters and AP aren't going to use highly loaded language when its validity is questionable.

Why do you say Overwhelmingly RSs call this event a massacre? If I were to compile a much longer list of sources using "strike", making it very clear that the majority of sources were using that term, would you change your !vote accordingly? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I said they have no journalistic objectivity on this issue. AP fired a journalist for pro-Palestine tweets she made years before her time at the company.

I say an overwhelming majority of RSs call this a massacre because an overwhelming majority of RSs call it a massacre. The OP laid out a significant list of 20 diverse sources, some western, some not, some English, some in other languages. Citing the 5-6 major western news sources that all parrot the press releases of their respective western governments is not convincing. Asking that we disregard all reliable sources that aren't in that box is not reasonable or neutral.

There is no evidence from any RSs that there were any military targets in the massacre. Sources all attribute claims of a military target to empty statements from the IDF. Witnesses on the ground could not substantiate these claims and many contradicted them. Even if there were some military targets as a part of the attack it would not preclude it from being a massacre. Consider Be’eri massacre which was an attack that targeted a military base. Nobody denies that Paga outpost existed nor do they deny it was a military base. 31 IDF soldiers were killed, confirmed by dozens of RSs. If the presence of any military targets at all preclude us from using "massacre" in a title then we'll have a lot of articles to change. Until we do, whitewashing the name of all massacres against Palestinians is a clear double standard and a violation of NPOV. Combefere ★ Talk 17:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is based on independent, reliable, English-language sources; our policies aren't concerned with whether sources are Western.

There were indeed military targets - Israel announced the deaths of two specific Hamas commanders and Hamas confirmed them.

Be'eri is a kibbutz, not an military base. Yes there were a handful of IDF soldiers (23, not 31), but one can't really claim that the civilians were unintended collateral damage when the killings were door-to-door. If it was a rocket attack, there would be more plausible deniability and mainstream sources might not have called it a massacre.

Since you maintain that an overwhelming majority of RSs call this a massacre, I'm still wondering whether you would change your !vote if presented with a much longer list of suitable sources calling it a strike? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

did any of the RS say that the IDF knew about the "two specific Hamas commanders" before the attack or did they gamble the lives of all those civilians? Also I like your hypocrisy on the killing of civilians, don't keep it up. Abo Yemen✉ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any military has ever shared target names with the public before a strike. And please cut out the personal attacks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So you think that we should change the name from Be'eri massacre to "Attack on Paga Outpost?" Just checking for consistency here.

WP:NPOV requires that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and clarifies that "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias."

The sheer number of RSs calling this a "massacre" or similar is a large part of my reasoning. The lack of diversity amongst those not calling the attack a "massacre" is just as large a factor. You seem very insistent that we only use sources within a very small set of extremely homogenous and Pro-Israel, western, English language sources. The ideological Venn Diagram of the sources you've listed is a circle. This is not in line with WP:NPOV. I encourage you to read WP:BIAS in full, as it does a much more thorough job of adequately explaining the problems with limiting our sources in this manner.

I object to your use of the term "mainstream," which is not a qualifier in our assessment of reliable sources. You seem to be using the word as a euphemism for Pro-Israel, Pro-NATO, or Pro-US bias. Al-Jazeera, with a readership of 430 million, is in no sense less "mainstream" than NBC. Could you please explain what you mean by this word, specifically, and elaborate on how your use of it is not precisely the type of systemic bias that is discouraged in WP:BIAS?

Further I don't think you've done any work in demonstrating that the sources listed in the OP are not reliable. There are 20 sources listed in the OP - maybe you can point me to 20 discussions on Wikipedia coming to a consensus that these sources are not reliable. That would change my !vote, although this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Combefere ★ Talk 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If an attack has no WP:COMMONNAME, I support using "massacre" when a significant number of civilians are killed with no plausible deniability about whether they were targets or collateral damage. Normally door-to-door killings don't have such plausible deniability.

The sources using "massacre" includes a mix of partisan sources which are reliable for factual reporting, sources which are simply unreliable (opinion pieces, WP:TRT, etc), and non-independent sources (MSF, politicians).

If we set aside biases and focus on the somewhat more objective standards of reliability and independence, will you change your !vote if it is shown that substantially more such sources use "strike" over "massacre"? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would consider changing my vote if:

• there were a preponderance of reliable, independent sources which use the word "attack" or "strike" instead of massacre (say double that of the number which do), and
• these sources represented the significant views of a much larger and more diverse demographic than those which use the word "massacre," and
• these sources represented a greater diversity of types of organizations than those which use the word massacre

Even if those conditions were met, I would maintain that the bar for naming this intentional bombing of a refugee camp a "strike" or "attack" should be very high, considering the preexisting double standards regarding language around violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia. The disparity between the highly loaded language used on the encyclopedia to describe violence against Israelis and the inappropriately passive language used to describe violence against Palestinians should be at the center of this discussion.

"If an attack has no WP:COMMONNAME, I support using "massacre" when a significant number of civilians are killed with no plausible deniability about whether they were targets or collateral damage."

That sounds very reasonable. I encourage you to open up a Move Request on 2018–2019 Gaza border protests, which has no common name, and wherein IDF snipers targeted and killed unarmed children, amputees, journalists, and hundreds of other civilians with no plausible deniability about whether they were targets (each bullet had to go through multiple rounds of review and approval before firing). A UN Human Rights Council investigation examined 189 fatalities and 300 injuries from the attack, and found the plausibility of "an imminent threat to life or security" in only two. The 487 other attacks were, it found, completely illegal. Fadi Abu Salmi was a double amputee sitting in a wheelchair when an IDF sniper shot him in the chest from a football field away. Nasser Mosabeh was an 11 year old Palestinian shot in the back of the head from the same distance. Ahmad Abu Tyoor, 16 years old, was unarmed and dancing when the IDF fatally shot him. A 13 year old schoolgirl was targeted and killed with sniper fire, as was a man who rushed to give her medical attention as she laid on the ground bleeding out. The word "massacre" is not used in Wikivoice anywhere in the article.

Can we agree at the very least that the IDF -- by your definition -- massacred civilians during the Great March of Return? And that the disparity between the language in that article (if not the language in this one) and the language used in articles about attacks against Israeli civilians represents a larger issue with WP:NPOV surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia? If we cannot agree on that much, or on the basic principle that a litmus test should be applied universally and not selectively, then I don't think there's much left to discuss. Combefere ★ Talk 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on topic and keep the word count from getting out of control here everyone. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Tent Massacre as that is what RS are calling it. We can argue the semantics of what is or is not a civilian casualty forever, but as cited within the article it is described as a massacre, so we are effectively suggesting a POV ourselves, where we decide what is and is not a massacre, going against wiki-wide precedent and our own policies. It is time we fix this. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Anything but "massacre": A massacre is the purposeful killing of civilians. No evidence this strike was intended to kill civilians. Also massacre is not the common name, so different from Flour Massacre. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bombing a civilian refuge camp and not expecting civilian casualities is crazy. Also since when did states start revealing their intentions of killing civilians? Abo Yemen✉ 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

To your second question, the Holocaust comes to mind, but I'll agree that was rather beyond a massacre. Anyway it isn't impossible that, in a crowded city, the building next to the one intended to be struck ended up being the accidental target of the strike, but that's neither here nor there. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont think that you've read the article have you? Abo Yemen✉ 13:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have, and it clearly says that Israel claimed that the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, accidentally causing the fire. I won't pass judgement on whether or not that's true, but it is possible that that narrative is true. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This quote is from the lede section and Israel isn't the reliable source here as you've said. Read the attack section that uses reliable sources, please Abo Yemen✉ 14:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet not one of those reliable sources uses the word massacre. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

see @Combefere's arguement above Abo Yemen✉ 14:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What, that mainstream Western media sources marked as generally reliable for all sources in WP:RSPS have a pro-Israel bias? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

or maybe read what did he exactly say? Abo Yemen✉ 14:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Take Al Jazeera, a source cited by Combefere. The news agency is owned by the Qatari government, which has expressed support for Hamas. Therefore it is about as reliable for this conflict as official statements by Hamas. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. No corresponding statement on NYT, CNN, NBC, PBS, BBC, or NPR. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

AJ is a reliable source. All sources are biased. We already have aka the Rafah tent massacre or as the Tent Massacre, this is just a question of whether we go the last leg. Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chicdat and Hamas claimed they only targeted Israeli soldiers on October 7, and "mistakenly" confused civilians as non-uniformed soldiers. But we have evidence that suggests otherwise. In this case the overwhelming evidence is that Israel deliberately dropped a bomb into a camp full of civilians and flammable material.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And a massacre usually refers to a ground attack; the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia killed hundreds of civilians but is never referred to as a massacre. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, we need not follow their lead, but Spanish Wikipedia already calls it a massacre https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masacre_de_Tel_al-Sultan Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you really comparing an entire war operation to a single incident? FYI the word massacre is used in one of the names for the October 7 attack even tho Hamas has clearly said that they didn't mean to kill civilians Abo Yemen✉ 13:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that opening fire on hundreds of people at a music festival (or, for that matter, on hundreds of people seeking humanitarian aid) pretty clearly carries the intent of killing civilians. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

good, so both of those incidents are massacres as per the reasoning you've used Abo Yemen✉ 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Both attacks had too many civilian casualties, but the Rafah strike had specific military targets while Nova music festival massacre had none. Shooting or stabbing partygoers also leaves no doubt about whether civilian harm was accidental. That's the reason why mainstream sources use "massacre" for one but not the other. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Recovering hostages is not a "specific military target", else you can say that anything is, oh wait, that's what Israel says all the time. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong thread? I was referring to the two Hamas commanders. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This attack killed 45–50 civilians and killed 2 Hamas commanders as collateral damage. The IDF bombed a humanitarian camp, that's massacre 101. Also, comparing a massacre with a high civilian death count with another one with a higher death count will not change the fact that both of them are massacres Abo Yemen✉ 19:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx, Hamas claims that the music festival indeed had military targets: non-uniformed IDF soldiers. We know that at least some of the victims of the music festival had indeed served in the IDF (eg Hersh Polin), although were no longer active duty soldiers.

(For the record, IHL prohibits targeting former soldiers meaning it is a war crime to target former Israeli soldiers and to target former Hamas commanders). We have a similar situation here where questions have been raised whether the two Hamas commanders targeted were still on active duty or not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The metric of evaluating whether something is a "massacre" based on the number of civilians killed is a really bad standard because it turns every RM into a debate about whether an attack was justified. And realistically, whether or not this attack was justified is going to depend on if you support Israel or Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: I agree 100%. Virtually every discussion in this area will inevitably devolve into bickering between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors. We need some kind of way to handle these kinds of discussions that transcends ideology in favor of hard policy. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Feel free to comment at Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Virtually all of the sources provided in the OP are pro-Palestinian partisan sources. Meanwhile, XDanielx points out that BBC, CNN, NPR, NBC, PBS, NYT, Reuters all use something other than "massacre". I will add Al-Jazeera does not consistently use the term "massacre" in its own voice. Here are several examples of it using another term: [17][18][19] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:POVSOURCE, pro-Palestinian sources can be reliable and many are.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: If a name is only used by one side of the conflict, it's not a common name in my view. Massacre is a WP:POVNAME. And many of the sources in the OP are of unclear reliability. For example, Mondoweiss is WP:MREL and the WP:DAILYSABAH is unreliable.

  I can probably dump a dozen Israeli sources that haven't been discussed at RSN and that don't refer to this as a massacre. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  That being said, I would count both El Pais and Le Monde as good sources to establish a common name. I would like to see more geographical diversity in the sources linked by the OP; adding additional Arab sources does little to convince me that "massacre" is a common name. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chess. Andre🚐 23:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Rafah Tent Massacre per arguments by @Abo Yemen @Combefere and @Smallangryplanet. There is RS that uses massacre explicitly to refer to it, and I see no reason not to follow that accurate description of what it was in the title. "Attack" seems to whitewash what actually happened here.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment is everyone just forgetting the sources I mentioned?

Personisinsterest (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that most of the sources that don't say massacre don't deny that it's a massacre. They just use other terms. Most don't outright reject it. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-read WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). Your burden is to prove that the term "massacre" is used not just by some sources, but by the significant majority of English-language sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Chess I'm not sure it has to be above 50%. Let's consider an indisputable case: Sabra and Shatila massacre. There are about 6,210 hits in google scholar for the "Sabra and Shatila", and 1,160 for "Sabra and Shatila massacre". That's less than <20% usage. For 1929 Hebron massacre, we get 22 results for "hebron massacre" "1929" "august 24" and 345 results for "hebron" "1929" "august 24", giving only 7% usage. I suspect other well-known events called massacre will give similar ratios.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Neither of those have had a discussion over their name, so it's difficult to cite them as precedents. However, a more accurate comparison would be to look at sources that used the term massacre anywhere instead of just as a proper name, because Personisinsterest counts sources that don't use the specific term Tel al-Sultan massacre. "Sabra and Shatila" massacre has 5780 results and "hebron" "1929" "august 24" massacre has 191 results. Both of these cross the 50% threshold. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hebron massacre doesn't cross the 50% threshold: 345 in total, and 103 with "massacre" – so 30%. Further, does it make more sense to consider just the proper name to determine WP:COMMONNAME? I don't know.

As a fun exercise when I did the google scholar search for Tel al-Sultan massacre (limited to only 2024) I got 12 results in total and 4 results with massacre (listed anywhere, not as proper name) – which is 33%. If I do a google news search, I get 202 in total, and 55 with massacre – about 27%. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Take my results with a grain of salt (read WP:GOOGLE for caveats). For Nova music festival massacre: 1,590 hits for "nova music festival" "hamas" vs 300 hits for "nova music festival" "hamas" "massacre" – 18%. But this was more than a year ago, so if we do a simple google search, we get 195,000 hits for the former and 60,200 hits for the latter – 31%.

So asking for >50% might be a bit unreasonable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support massacre with no preference for the rest (I've seen the place being referred to as Rafah more often, but haven't done a proper analysis so maybe that's just my impression). Per nom and other comments, there's not a lack of RS using the term. This discussion always comes up when the victims are palestinians. So, recycling some of my previous comments in similar discussions: an event with a disproportionate amount of civilians casualties is a massacre, and calling it such is not POV pushing or a narrative. The perpetrators will always claim they didn't mean it, but should we care? Does that change the outcome? Bombing a refugee camp and pretending that civilian casualties weren't an expected consequence is insane. - Ïvana (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

an event with a disproportionate amount of civilians casualties - this doesn't sound like a typical definition, most definitions require other elements like intentionality, treachery, etc. Since those elements are more unclear or nebulous, mainstream sources largely avoid "massacre" except in cases where the intention is very clear (i.e. with no military targets in sight). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Did israel know about the military targets beforehand or did they discover them after the attack? Abo Yemen✉ 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"tragic mishap"

This cited article that quotes Netanyahu ("Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there had been a "tragic mishap" and that Israel was investigating.") went through several early revisions. The phrase "tragic mistake" was first archived from this revision (pub 2024-05-27 4:06 PM EST; archived 2024-05-27T23:36:33), but was switched to "tragic mishap" by this revision (pub 2024-05-28 7:53 AM EDT; archived 2024-05-28T13:55:40). This change suggests that Netanyahu's statement was in Hebrew, and "mishap" was deemed a better translation of what he said. Dotyoyo (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

are there any other sources that use that word? Abo Yemen✉ 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged Monday that a “tragic mistake” had been made ...". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)