Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack

Is this really lede-worthy?

@Peleio Aquiles: you added Contrary to Israeli claims, footage of the strike shows no significant secondary explosion was ignited in the lede, I take it based on this from the NYT,

One possibility, he said, was that weapons “which we did not know of” might have been stored nearby and detonated. The Israeli military, he said, was assessing social media videos “which appear to show secondary explosions.” It is not clear what videos he meant. The Times has reviewed dozens of videos and has been unable to find any that suggest a significant secondary explosion.

The added text still goes beyond what the source says - they said that they couldn't find video evidence of a significant secondary explosion, not that one didn't occur. We could water it down to something that closely matches the source, but it might be rather uninteresting.

At best the NYT statement casts some doubt on the IDF statement, but even that is somewhat questionable since the NYT doesn't appear to have confirmed what videos the IDF was referring to. Overall it just seems like an offhand remark which raises some questions, but wasn't thoroughly investigated enough to draw any interesting conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT's refutation of the IDF's story is far more emphatic than you make it out to be, which was a surprise to me as their coverage of this war has previously accommodated Israeli disinformation. The NYT doesn't merely say it hasn't found videos of the alleged secondary explosions. That's a distortion of what's written. It actually says it has reviewed many videos of the event -- "dozens", in fact -- and sees no sign of any such explosion. It's easy to come out from reading that paragraph with the impression that the IDF has once again been caught with its pants down, not that it has some secret evidence that, inexplicably and self-defeatingly, it has refused to divulge.

Israel's probable lie about the secondary explosion should never have made to the lede. Firstly, it's obvious Israel would try to deny responsibility for the massacre. Its denial is therefore not notable. Secondly, Israel shifted explanations before finally settling on the one about the other (apparently nonexistent) explosions. That alone undermines every single explanation they have given or will give, again denting the notability of each of the explanations. And thirdly, as you well know, Israel has a long track record of spreading disinformation in this conflict as well as previous ones, so Wikipedia should be mindful of promoting any story given by the IDF to explain away its probable war crimes.

Maybe the lede should acknowledge that Israel has denied responsibility for the massacre, or that it has shifted explanations for the mass casualties. The moment, however, that Wikipedia decides to promote a specific Israeli explanation in the lede, then it's only fair that material from reliable sources (something the IDF isn't) refuting Israel's story receive the same attention in the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

They watched dozens of videos, but we (and they) don't know if they were the "right" videos. It doesn't seem like the reporters were focused on investigating this detail, or they would have asked the IDF to identify the videos in question.

More to the point, the NYT isn't claiming that no significant secondary explosion was ignited, only that they didn't find evidence of one. So it seems like we're misrepresenting the source here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea if the "right videos" even exist. For that we only have the very unreliable, usually mendacious word of the Israeli military, which by the way has no good reason to keep these supposed videos secret if they truly exist. Following a particularly heinous crime the IDF usually boasts of possessing evidence to suggest its outrages were justified -- evidence however that's most certainly nonexistent. For example, when the IDF destroyed the

Gaza media tower

, the Israelis said they had proof Hamas was unduly exploiting it militarily and vowed they would release the evidence soon. Three years later we have nothing.

If DOZENS of different videos of ONE SINGLE incident in a relatively small area, an incident as quick and obvious as a bombing and explosion, were reviewed and NONE show any evidence of a secondary explosion (and explosions tend to make themselves noticed rather obviously and loudly), then it is as good a guess as any that the secondary explosion didn't take place. That's in fact, the most natural conclusion and we shouldn't hedge our language on the word of an actor as often dishonest as the Israeli army. This is even more emphatically so as Israel gave more than one explanation for the massacre, which is usually a very good sign that its stories were false and merely an attempt to navigate an unflattering news cycle. You also forget that even before the NYT published its rather belated report, experts (including a former official of the pro-Israel USGOV) spoke publicly that there were no signs of a secondary explosion, as was related in the entry.

That Israel's story couldn't even muster the support of such usually sympathetic voices as the NYT and USGOV officials, shows this story is, as is often the case, an easily refutable fib designed to shape the public debate. If it is so important that Israel's probably false story appear in the lede, the rebuttal should be there as well. As I said before, I'm fine with either option -- letting both Israel's story and the rebuttal in place in the lede, or removing both. It's you who want to privilege the shaky Israeli narrative, which amounts to have Wikipedia side with a dishonest actor pushing yet another stinky story to manipulate global outrage over a new act of mass killing of innocents.

Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We already have Israel's claim and rebuttal in the article. We don't need this last sentence, it takes too long to explain and would be better served in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you even mean anymore. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine, I already added in the Israeli claim so this is settled. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just going too in-depth for the lede. If we mention the "no secondary explosions" thing, we would have to explain why that's relevant with the IDF claim that the Hamas compound had weapons storage. Seems like a thing that should be explained in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to cover this properly without a few sentences. The earlier version alluded to Israeli claims with "Contrary to Israeli claims", but didn't mention what specifically was claimed. It doesn't seem good to express doubt about a claim without really stating the claim.

The current version pits this against the "accidentally starting the fire" claim, which I don't think quite works, since certain fuels can quickly cause large fires with no detonation. Maybe there can be arguments that connect the two, but seems like something we'd need a source for. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the IDF claims it struck a Hamas compound outside the camp. Reliable sources say it struck targets inside the camp. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the current lede was interleaving two separate points, one about the strike location, another about fire/explosions. My point here was only about the latter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The mention made to the secondary exposion thing was already there before I inserted the NYT rebuttal. Either keep both out, or let both remain, I'm OK with either option. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please specify what you mean? There's nothing in the lede that talks about the secondary explosion thing besides this. I suppose we could add it in though. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I added it in for now. This might be settled. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but I don't think Israel claimed ... igniting ammunition and causing the fire seems precise, since the Israeli spokesperson framed that as "one possibility" being investigated.

I can propose a modified paragraph, maybe in a separate section since there are a few other concerns separate from the ones raised here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

cc @Personisinsterest: who made some adjustments to the lede, which now reads there were no secondary explosions. I'm not sure if it was intended but this seems even a bit stronger, diverging quite a bit from the source's statement. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded it to say "there was no evidence of secondary explosions" for now Personisinsterest (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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
Undetermined	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:

1. 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/

2. 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

3. 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)

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)