The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
If you came here because of this twitter discussion and similar discussions, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Abot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
I contend that "riot" doesn't really attribute responsibility one way or the other. Plenty of events that we refer to as "riots" (for example, the Rodney King Riots) are characterized by violent crackdowns against the rioters. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is pretty universally recognized by every nation outside of the U.S. that this was a massacre. It should be labeled as such. Calling it an "incident" downplays the severity significantly. Comrade Toaster (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly said that because we still dont know exactly who did it. I'm not trying to start drama or be political. The main point of my reply was supporting the article name change Guadeterre (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely know who did it-- it was the IDF, who have a long track record of this sort of behaviour in this particular "war" alone. Let's not take the CNN route, act all coy, and pretend that it's still up for debate as to who started shooting these people. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:8562:4DB5:974A:C462 (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the situation more, just trying not to form an opinion yet. In the meantime I really dont want to make any drama or get into a fight Guadeterre (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
especially when we consider that every time a paramilitary "settler" gets killed in the occupied West Bank, they get their own article unambigiously titled as "murder of" said "settler". It's really not up for debate that this was a massacre, not an "incident". 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:8562:4DB5:974A:C462 (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support With IDF statements acknowledging shooting at least 10 people on the scene, and multiple reports of dozens of gunshot wounds (with no other shooters alleged), I think we're in massacre territory even if the others killed turned out to have died in panic, from fearful truck drivers etc. Carwil (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how many editors have !voted "per Carwil", I will rebut here and point out that "massacre" is a non-neutral term for which there is no agreed upon definition, one that per NPOV we should generally avoid. We should only be using it if there is a consensus in reliable sources that an event was a massacre, or if the common name of the event includes massacre (for example, Saturday Night Massacre).
Working through WP:RSP, it is clear that there is not a consensus in reliable sources:
I could continue working down the list at WP:RSP, but the point is made - our most reliable sources, almost without exception, are not classifying this as a massacre - and as such, we are not able to either. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it's also important to note that even if a substantial number of the people who were killed were killed because the drivers panicked or in a crowd crush, the catalyst is still the IDF opening fire into the crowd. We also have to assume that the IDF is downplaying how many people they shot as well. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:8562:4DB5:974A:C462 (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't users with <500 edits disallowed to comment on talk pages in this fashion? The user you're replying to has like, ten edits in total. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lot of other articles of this war have been correctly named massacres despite having a lot less deaths, so I see now reason why an event with such a high casualty number shouldn't rightfully be renamed to a massacre too, especially since a lot of the international media have reported that Israeli soldiers deliberately committed this action. Nori2001 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and I am hoping that the current title was only used as there was not enough information in reputable media at the time. The IDF opened fire on the crowd, resulting in “less than ten casualties” according to the IDF, who are known liars, with the rest attributed to the resulting stampede and people killed by fleeing vehicles. If you fire a weapon into a crowd, killing civilians, and then more civilians are killed as a direct result of this action, then you are responsible for their deaths. This was a massacre. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose and I never use adjectives in my !votes but absolutely no one has cited anything that shows this is commonly called a massacre. I searched up the incident and found these results: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. 2 of those sources don't even say "massacre" once, the other three only attribute it to Hamas, Fatah, and Qatar. Meanwhile, the term incident is used in all sources multiple times, unattributed. No one bothered to look at and use the sources on this. Absolutely no arguments on policy whatsoever. Wikipedia is supposed to function on policy, not on opinions devoid of policy. JM (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? So you need a source calling it "a massacre" to prove that it is?
You don't need a source, 120+ people killed and 750+ more injured IT'S A MASSACRE.
ISupport to change the title in to massacre. IDF are known liars when they are the perpetrator of mass murders of a civilians. As another user said above, even if a truck rammed some of the victims it was still the consequence of the IDF opening fire on the crowd. Gianluigi02 (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia going by the reliable sources is part the second of five pillars. Unless you can show anything with sources, I can dismiss it out of hand (Hitchen's razor); this also means I won't bother engage with the rest of your comment. JM (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I completely agree with JM's claims. The language used regarding this event in most sources, doesn't justify renaming/moving this article to anything with "massacre" in its title. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reliable sources state that it is unsure what led to the casualties. The Economist, for example, says that "As with many events in the war between Israel and Hamas, the facts are destined to remain fiercely contested." By using the word massacre, Wikipedia adopts Hamas' version. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources I read, The IDF clearly said that the shooting that was carried out was a "warning shot" and was not aimed at the civilians who threatened the forces. Even if we assume that there were casualties from the shooting, it is a small minority of the civilians killed, and certainly it was not a massacre.Eladkarmel (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a small minority of the civilians killed" Even if only a number of deaths were caused by the IDF and the rest died in the stampede (statement that has no sources confirming it, but let's put ourselves in that case), it wouldn't make it less of a massacre. Two of the most well-known massacres in the United States are the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre (7 deaths) and the Boston Massacre (9 deaths). Massacre is defined by the killing of multiple civilians regardless of number. BirdCities (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that there were casualties from the shooting, it is a small minority of the civilians killed
I'm all for going with what the RSes say rather than jumping to our own conclusions, but I can't in good faith say that the IDF is a remotely reliable source here. TheKip07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of waiting a few more days and getting more data. In order for it not to outcome like the accusations against the IDF for the attack on Al Ahali hospital, It turned out that according to all the evidence, it was not an IDF attack, Despite the accusations from Hamas.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support. By all reasonable definitions, this was a massacre. If we can classify it as a massacre in the info box, we should be doing so in the title. Using a neutral tone when one shouldn’t be used makes the site more misleading. Describing this event as an “incident” would be like using the term “incident” instead of “attack” for the January 6 page. EvanSheppard (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Non-ECP !vote JM (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:Strongly Support - From what we have seen, they were shot at for trying to get food. The accused have not provided proof of the civillans being a "threat" to them 94.204.139.36 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Vote struck per CTOP/ECP restrictions listed above. TheKip07:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both proposed and current titles:
On one hand, "massacre" isn't being extensively utilized by RSes, as detailed above. We don't want to engage in OR here; if conclusive/widely-endorsed evidence emerges that the IDF indiscriminately fired into the crowd emerges and is taken up by RSes, I'll support the title, but RSes seem to be taking a cautious tone regarding circumstances at the moment (perhaps to avoid the issues surrounding the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion's initial reporting).
On the other, I sympathize with commenters that feel "incident" is far too euphemistic for an event in which over 100 people died violently, which definitively happened regardless of whether it was Israeli soldiers, a stampede, or panicked truck drivers.
Perhaps "Disaster" or "Mass casualty event"? The term "incident" is too vague, while "massacre" is too early as this is an ongoing event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd urge editors to think deeply about the ways language has been used during this particular conflict. Analyses by openDemocracy and The Intercept have suggested that the word "massacre" is almost never used to describe mass casualty events of Palestinians by organizations like NYT, WaPo, BBC, and LA Times[6][7]. WP:5P5 says sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions, and it just seems to me that the shooting and death of starving people seeking food does warrant stronger language than "incident", even if that's what the above-mentioned organizations are calling it. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose jumping to conclusions about the exact nature of this incident, hours after it happened, before any inquiry was done, and giving it the title "massacre" is clearly not done out of search for truth. Oyoyoy (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is "not news" and this claim about a massacre is pure speculation at this point. I would say calling it "stampede" makes more sense. Hazooyi (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At best, that's swinging to the other side, because there is reporting by credible sources that there was a mass shooting by the IDF, not just a stampede --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JM. The incident has not yet been investigated and the assertion regarding a massacre is currently a mere speculation. Indeed, no title of some RS sources I looked at, uses the word massacre to describe the incident:
Guardian - 112 dead in chaotic scenes as Israeli troops open fire near aid trucks
CNN - Many victims at Gaza aid site were rammed by trucks in chaos after Israeli fire, local journalist says
NYT - What We Know About the Deaths Near the Gaza Aid Convoy
BBC - Israel-Gaza war: More than 100 reported killed in crowd near Gaza aid convoy
As reported here, sources like the NYT and Washington Post simply pretty much never use words like "massacre", "slaughter", and "horrific" with regard to Palestinians, while they use them frequently with regard to Israelis. So citing them as evidence that this wasn't a massacre probably isn't best in terms of WP:NPOV. Dylanvt (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are sources that call this a massacre, and "incident" is too vague. Some users have pointed out that it isn't confirmed who the perpetrators of this were, but literally even the IDF themselves now confirmed they did this because the aid seekers were, according to them, approaching them in a way that "threatened" them. There are also many reliable sources that claim this was done by IDF. Also, since we use titles like Be'eri massacre, this is in a very similar nature and should be described the same. User3749 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that article (reader discretion advised), I do not see in the slightest that such hell on earth as that could possibly be considered "very similar in nature" to this event at all. I do not see in the slightest that any of the horrific attacks of October 7 like that could be at all considered "very similar in nature" to this event. JM (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not very similar in nature? They were both targeting civilians, and I can't see how October 7 is not related to this event. Can you please elaborate? User3749 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is worse because one can expect bad behavior from Hamas but not from the outfit claiming that they are the epitome of morality and who are consistently now demonstrating that they are in fact on a par with Hamas in the final analysis. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly disagree with the two claims above that this is worse than any of the absolutely horrific October 7 attacks and I find it hard to believe that people are even making them at all. Either there is a huge lack of knowledge about October 7 or there is a huge lack of knowledge about this event, because I don't think those claims could be made with knowledge of both. JM (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is equal if not even worse compared to 10/7. I fail to understand how deliberately shooting civilians trying to just get humanitarian aid is any better than what happened on 10/7. And also, again, can you please explain why you disagree? User3749 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the three of you above believe that invading civilian villages, torture-murdering children, killing everyone encountered, going into shelters and killing entire families, filming it, livestreaming it, doing it with joy, bragging about it, desecrating the corpses, burning down houses, using rape as a weapon of war, and taking civilians including many children hostage, as what happened in places like Be'eri, is better than the Hamas account of IDF soldiers firing into a gathered crowd, is something that is very, very astonishing to me, since I can see so clearly that it is so much worse. JM (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue that this is "worse than 10/7", but I feel like your acknowledgement of this incident being a "Hamas account of IDF soldiers firing into a gathered crowed" in spite of the article itself citing various articles with anecdotes from those unrelated to "Hamas" comes across as bad faith; and especially so with partial admittance from the IDF themselves and media criticisms leveraged towards the edited videos they gave. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDF is doing the same, killing innocent civilians indiscriminately, using starvation as a weapon and trying to prevent access to humanitarian aid. This is a prime example of the last. Plus, it isn't "Hamas account" only, there is clear evidence the IDF perpetrated this massacre and as we all know, the IDF often covers up their war crimes. I won't go any further than this because it's not the subject of this discussion and it's starting to get off topic. Please look into both sides, not just one. User3749 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this sounds like the debunked IOF propaganda that was proven to be lies (e.g., beheaded babies, mass rape based on one testimony and ZAKA fake accounts, burned houses and cars caused by Israeli tank shells, ravine goers killed by Israeli copters, etc.). C'on! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Move. Support the move, but can't agree with the "Massacre" title. Neither calling just an "incident" nor showcasing these as a "massacre" is appropriate imho. But the "incident" should indeed be changed.Imperial[AFCND]09:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:- Can't unsee this as a massacre for more. Strongly support the move to either Flour Massacre or per nom. Calling this as just an "incident" is unacceptable.Imperial[AFCND]14:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems like I was doing the search improperly because I didn't do it in quotation marks (putting it in quotation marks makes it a must include). But for me doing it in quotation marks shows 139000 hits. User3749 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Calling this an incident would be the same as causing one of the Hamas-led massacres as an incident because Hamas may deny or belittle the impact of the event. Even the Israelis themselves admitted to shooting dead at least 10 people.ThePaganUK (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by a non EC editor which might explain the milquetoast title. Here's the New Arab headlining it as a massacre and citing "Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor confirm that Israeli army gunfire was responsible for most deaths in a massacre of Palestinian civilians waiting for humanitarian aid in western Gaza on Thursday". Biased perhaps, but still.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Carwil + we're not arbiters here, we follow what the sources say. Most of them either use the word "massacre" or describe what is one. "Incident" is an euphemism. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the New York Times, generally totally indifferent to Palestinian suffering, and willing to carry water for Israel no matter the cost to the publication's reputation, has begun to refer to the events as a "disaster". Using "incident" places Wikipedia behind reality and at least 12 hours out of sync with the credible sources. It's urgent we close this discussion and make a change, the current title is unacceptable. — Mainly14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move, as "incident" is a disprespectful euphemism, but "Massacre" might not be entirely correct. How about a compromise: Al-Rashid massacre and crowd crush? It seems clear that some people died from IDF gunfire (massacre), whereas others might have died from crowd crush in the chaos. If there is no consensus to include "massacre" in the title, then I would at least support to replace "incident" by "crowd crush" or "disaster" (although I don't think it would be enough). --GerritCUTEDH15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the majority or all reported deaths and injuries from Israeli gunfire and from people being crushed by Israeli tanks? Crowd crush seems inaccurate. — Mainly15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they? If we have evidence for that, then I would support "Massacre". But from what I've seen, this is currently not publicly clear. --GerritCUTEDH15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and wait. As comments have shown, "massacre" is not extensively used, and Wikipedia should avoid evaluatively naming contentious topics. Information about this tragedy will clear up imminently, and so too will the media coverage be better unified to support a good name for this article. Zanahary (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—With three sourced reports from three hospitals, we now have 100 people injured with gunshot wounds (Kamal Adwan Hospital), the majority of "dozens of dead bodies" hit with gunshots or shrapnel (al-Shifa), and 142 with gunshot wounds (Al-Awda). We're now talking about significant violent loss of life, whether or not it was preceded (as the IDF claims) by a crowd stampede, or whether the shooting provoked the stampede (as unnamed witnesses cited here allege). Aside from the involved IDF, I have only seen one unnamed witness cited by the BBC state that "most" were killed by a stampede, something that might have been locally or temporarily true, early on in the day.--Carwil (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, though a move to something else is warranted, as "incident" is woefully inadequate. Even so, WP:CONTENTIOUS is very clear on the use of words like "massacre":
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
The NPOV section on naming conventions for events provides guidance, stating under point three that if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Sources right now have not coalesced on the term "massacre" to describe this:
For what it's worth, I personally think that massacre is an appropriate term, and that the Israeli military bears responsibility even if not a single person killed in the event was killed by an Israeli bullet, since the shooting was without question what prompted the chaos that caused the deaths in question. I also think that many of the headlines from Western outlets (calling this a tragedy or referring to the deaths of Gazans) are worse than the current article title, as they obscure any culpability or involvement of Israel in what occurred. For the purposes of this discussion, though, it doesn't matter what I or any individual editor thinks it should be called, but rather what a preponderance of reliable sources call this event. I fully expect that sources will gravitate towards that nomenclature, but moving the article for that reason would be premature and thus go against WP:CRYSTAL. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add: it looks like the page has been unilaterally moved to Nabulsi roundabout aid truck killings at 2024 March 1, 18:05 UTC. I actually think this is a very good interim title; however, this move should have waited until the discussion was closed. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I saw the WP:RMUM reversion not two minutes after posting the comment. Appreciate you letting me know. Despite the (warranted) revert, I do believe Nabulsi roundabout aid truck killings can work as an interim title. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving away from "incident" per all above, which completely minimizes the events, although "killings" (current title as of me writing this comment) is much better without being emotionally loaded. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGaza aid convoy killings or similar, since although it is in fact a massacre for which Israel is clearly responsible, it seems that absent a full investigation, the precise facts are not going to be established any time soon. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues. First, many of these sources don't refer to it as a massacre. Second, many are unreliable:
Al Jazeera - Refers to it as a massacre
The Hindu - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do
Hindustan Times - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do
The New Arab - Refers to it as a massacre
WION - Does not refer to as a massacre, uses the word only in quotation marks
France24 - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do
Daily Sabah - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do (Turkish government paper, same issues as Anadolu Agency)
The National News - Refers to it as a massacre (Abu Dhabi government paper, issues with it toeing the government line)
Relief Web, publishing an article by The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Al Mezan, and Al-Haq - Refers to it as a massacre (no indication they are reliable)
Democracy Now - Dead link, but not a reliable source
The New Humanitarian - Does not refer to it as a massacre
Anadolu Agency - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do (Considered generally unreliable for this topic at WP:RSP)
Morocco World News - Refers to it as a masssacre
Jacobin - Refers to it as a massacre (We are cautioned about how to use this source at WP:RSP)
Palestine Chronicle - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do
Fox 11 Los Angeles - Refers to it as a masssacre (Considered generally unreliable for this topic at WP:RSP)
The Peninsula Qatar - Refers to it as a masssacre
Muslim Council of Britain - Does not refer to it as a massacre, merely quotes others who do (no indication they are reliable)
Note that per WP:HEADLINES, I only considered what these articles said in the body, not in the headlines.
A lot of support !votes have been based on this evidence, but when the evidence is reviewed it turns out that not only does it not support the proposed title, it actually opposes it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME doesn't require a source to refer to a topic by its name in its own voice; rather, the common name is determined by its prevalence—rather than "usage by the source in its own voice"—in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't think any of the sources use "Al-Rashid massacre", so this wasn't an argument for WP:COMMONNAME.
Second, that wasn't the argument that Dylanvt or the people who supported them made; they said these sources referred to the event as a massacre.
Third, bizarre interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, but regardless, common name requires reliable usage - quotes are only reliable for the fact that people said them, and not for the content. Further, the relevant policy is WP:POVNAMING, which says If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a misapplication of WP:HEADLINES. It cautions against using factual information in the headline, but "massacre" is not a factual statement, but rather how it is framed. If they're framing it with "massacre", and aren't attributing the scare quotes in the headline, that's still their own voice framing it as such. Compare these fictional headlines I thought up: 112 killed, over 750 wounded in "massacre" while trying to access food and 112 killed, over 750 wounded trying to access food, "massacre" says Gaza Health Ministry. Without attribution, the former is using scare quotes to waffle and technically not write it in their voice, but it still clearly wants it being called a massacre, whereas the latter presents the information in their own voice and then says that some group is calling it a massacre, plainly distancing themselves from the label but still using it to draw clicks --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are required to base our articles, and their titles on reliable sources - and there is a consensus that headlines aren't reliable sources.
What are you talking about? The New Humanitarian, for instance, literally headlines the piece as "Gaza convoy massacre, Sudan aid challenges, and Shell’s oil legacy: The Cheat Sheet", and later says again "Gaza toll passes 30,000 as 100 killed in aid convoy massacre".
Palestine Chronicle also has in its headline "Massacre at Food Line – Israel Kills, Wounds Nearly 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza", and regularly calls it a massacre (often the Flour Massacre) in other articles published since.
Daily Sabah's linked headline also says "World condemns Israel as forces massacre Gazans seeking food aid". Anadolu says "Palestinians dispute Israeli narrative of latest Gaza City massacre". etc. None of those sources put the word in scare quotes or actual quotes. Did you just fail to notice that, or are you intentionally lying to try to make your point, hoping people won't click the links and see that what you're claiming isn't true? Dylanvt (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fox 11 Los Angeles, being a local affiliate, is considered distinct from Fox News at WP:RSP. So it's not considered generally unreliable. Dylanvt (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I didn't consider what any of the articles said in their headlines, because we are required to base our articles, and their titles, or reliable sources, and per WP:HEADLINES headlines are not reliable. In addition, many of your sources don't use "massacre" in either the headline or the body.
Please also strike the claim that I'm bludgeoning; I don't know where you got the 30 "contributions" figure from, but its a gross exaggeration. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all of the sources I included use massacre in either the headline or the body. A couple, to be fair, only in the headline. But the vast majority use it in the body, and only a few use it in quotes or scare quotes. The following use it in the body, and not in quotes:
Al Jazeera
The New Arab
France 24
Daily Sabah
National News
Relief Web
The New Humanitarian
Anadolu Agency
Morocco World News
Jacobin
Palestine Chronicle
Fox 11 Los Angeles
The Peninsula Qatar
Muslim Council of Britain
That's 14 of the 17 surviving links I initially provided. So your claim that "many of these sources don't refer to it as a massacre" is demonstrably false. I've also provided more further down this discussion, and many more can be found online for anyone who chooses to search. Dylanvt (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote where France 24, The Daily Sabah, The New Humanitarian, Anadolu Agency, the Palestine Chronicle, and the Muslim Council of Britain refer to it as a massacre outside of headlines (note that this includes sub-headlines) and quotes? I have re-reviewed the articles you linked and cannot see where they do so.
Further, as I previously said, we are required to base our articles on reliable sources. Many of the sources you provided are not reliable.
Finally, as I asked previously, please strike your accusation of bludgeoning this discussion. I have contributed in other discussions on this page, but that doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source Dylanvt provided for France 24 [9] uses massacre without scare quotes. Another France 24 link [10]does use scare quotes, but the original source seems to be AFP. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, you are right. It was used in the sub-headline, but in the body they quote somebody else: “They described it as the flour massacre,” he said. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, if the editors of a news platform deem it fit to call an event a "massacre" in the headline, the platform clearly deems that word appropriate. This is not the kind of language that news platforms would use accidentally. It is also not core information, as covered by WP:HEADLINES, but one descriptive term for a mass killing. Our title here is also descriptive, because there is not yet a common name, so all extant descriptive terms are available to us. Sources use massacre, as this mass slaughter of innocents obviously was, so there is no issue, NPOV or otherwise, with using this same descriptive language. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HEADLINES: Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article, emphasis mine. Headlines aren't reliable, and this seems like the exact situation that the policy is referring to - where the headline contains a sensational claim that is not supported by the body. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is no obvious exaggeration or sensationalism that can be pointed to here. A massacre is simply a mass killing of innocents, which is what occurred here, so the choice of descriptive language in these headlines is entirely consist with the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wanted to add to this list as the Intercept has also referred to it as a massacre. I will caution that SOME of the sources listed by the user above are not reliable but the fact of the matter is many reliable sources do call it a massacre. The Washington Post also references the term "flour massacre" in their article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Intercept article does explicitly refer to the event as a massacre, but the Washington Post article runs into the same problem as many of the above sources: it quotes people referring to the event as a massacre, but does not explicitly label it as such. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving the article to Al-Rashid Massacre. According to the WP:COMMONNAME, the title that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources should be preferred. While some sources use the term “incident”, the severity and scale of the event, as well as the usage of the term “massacre” by some sources (as shown by multiple users here like [11]), suggest that “massacre” may be a more appropriate and commonly understood term for such an event. Furthermore, WP:PRECISE states that article titles should be precise enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". “Incident” is a vague term that could refer to any event, while “massacre” more accurately describes the nature of the event in question. Lastly, the WP:CONSISTENCY policy argues for consistency in the naming of articles. There are numerous examples of articles about similar events that use the term “massacre” in their titles. Consistency in this case would argue for the use of “massacre”. The argument that the term “massacre” is not used in all sources is not very valid, as per WP:COMMONNAME. The policy does not require that the term be used in all, or even a majority of sources, only that it is commonly used to refer to the subject. Also, that the term “massacre” is only attributed to certain groups is not relevant to the naming of the article. The title of the article should reflect the nature of the event, not the views of certain groups. Some users say that the term “massacre” carries POV implications, and it is not necessarily true. The term “massacre” is a descriptive term that accurately describes the nature of the event. It does not imply a judgement or opinion, but rather a factual description of the event. --Mhhosseintalk21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So when is someone moving the article? This is one of the most ridiculous, needlessly-burocratic discussions I have ever seen here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Support. This is one of the most bizarre outcomes I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It was a massacre and incidents with far less deaths have been named as such. There is no ambiguity here and the page is already trying to stay bizarrely charitable towards Israel. TheXuitts (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support Over a hundred unarmed people were murdered by armed soldiers (not to mention the several hundred wounded) opening fire into crowd, that's a massacre in every sense of the word. Calling it an 'incident' as if they just happened to fall over dead is utterly pathetic euphemistic whitewashing that I'd hope Wikipedia is better than, regardless of the exact nature of every death or what the victims may or may not have done to "deserve" it. BSMRD (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC) BSMRD (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I definitely believe its a massacre, but clearly passions are running high and we should wait a month at least. Its not worth an edit war, especially as investigation is ongoing. besides, there are more than enough atrocities committed by israel that this wouldn't be the tipping point. At the very least, the background of this article should point out that the famine is entirely man-made by restriction of goods and trade by israel. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawerchessread: No we shouldn't wait. The page was created at its present title by a non-EC registered user, with technically no right to edit let alone make naming decisions in the topic area. To keep the title as is in the interim would be to reward abuse of process. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Until information comes out directly linking either a crowd crush or the IDF, massacre accuses one side preëmptively and 'massacre' violates NPOV. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. The language used in "humanitarian aid incident" describes an accident, which is not the entirety of what happened. 112 people died in an event instigated by the IDF, and many sources sources and witnesses describe it as a massacre. I do think this is subject to change as neutral investigations are underway by other agencies, but for now all information points to a massacre instigated or caused by the IDF. Jebiguess (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum: The second sentence of my !vote should be construed as a !vote to IAR iff the closer determines that there is no consensus around a COMMONNAME. I am persuaded by the several editors who have pointed out that most Western, English-language media is biased towards giving Israel/the IDF the benefit of the doubt (despite a long history of lying to the media about killing civilians) and biased against calling any of Israel's actions "massacres", while being quick to use the label when Israel is attacked. In these circumstances, it makes sense to ignore COMMONNAME, NCENPOV, and NPOVTITLE because the sources we have are so non-neutral that we might never get a majority of Western, English-language RSes calling what is quite obviouslyamassacre by that name. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think we're unecessarily jumping to conclusions without first having the proper RS's. Ideally, we would be able to establish a title using WP:COMMONNAME. Good sets of RS's supporting both sides (see for example the sources provided by JM, Delta1989, and Dylanvt) have been provided, making me very skeptical that the sources provided in this discussion establish any common name in either direction. But let's not forget that the event only happened a bit more than a day ago. I would recommend that before making a decision on including "massacre" in the title, we wait a bit for more RS's to come out, so that a common name may become more clear. WP:NCENPOV explicitly lists the term "massacare" as a contentious name, meaning this should not be used until a clear set of RS's support it's use. In the meantime, "incident" is not sufficient, as it is very vague as to what the event actually is. I might support an interim title that includes something along the lines of "killings", as this is far more descriptive than "incident". Gödel2200 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both mainly because it seems some of the reliable sources, including the ones listed in the current Wiki article (i.e., Bloomberg and France 24), use Scare quotes when using the word massacre. According to Webster’s dictionary, scare quotes are “quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase”. I would support Al-Rashid aid shooting. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there not a suitable word in between "incident" and "massacre" with respect to severeity? I think both options are NPOV. JDiala (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Al-Rashid aid drop killings"/"Al-Rashid aid drop deaths"? I would lean towards the second for now, given that "killings" typically mean that they were deliberate and I don't think the evidence supports that yet. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the evidence we have now, "killings" is appropriate for some of the deaths - but its still unclear how many were the responsibility of Israeli forces. Absent a consensus that at least a majority where, I would support Al-Rashid aid drop killings and deaths - to merely say "killings" would, in my opinion, be inaccurate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen many users here point out that not a lot of mainstream media sources (mainly Western) call this a massacre. I disagree with that as a reason to oppose. There is clear media bias leaning towards Israel. Just read this article from The Intercept as an example. On that article it clearly shows that language used by media related to the killing of Israelis are clearly stronger than those related to the killing of Palestinians. In other terms, those media aren't NPOV, so I believe those arguments based on this claim are not valid. User3749 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That essay you linked basically says we don't include things here unless if reliable sources mention it. I'm just saying I disagree with those arguments based on that not many sources call this a massacre because those sources are biased in my view. There are, however, sources that call this a massacre, so I would still support a move. User3749 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RGW is about OR; it's not OR to point out that journalists have reported that most mainstream media is biased in this topic area and we should be cautious about using them as sources under COMMONNAME. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGaza aid convoy killings or something similar, although the proposed is still better than the original title, since "massacre" is at least used in some sources, while "incident" is descriptively dysfunctional euphemism. The original title is generally a nightmare and the page should definitely move somewhere. The place name is not a place, but just the name; it needs "street" to be a place, and even then it is ambiguous - there are other streets of the same name. The word truck or convoy is absent. And again, incident is euphemism. Move post-haste. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then try clarify that in the article with reliable sources instead of going all hay-wild and attempt to change the article name. Hjemt (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JM and Zanahary. In general, it would be better for Wikipedia to avoid topics that are so current that the details are not clear, and leave such topics to Wikinews. Nothing bad will happen if we wait a few days before writing about a current event. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk12:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sources mostly do not call it a massacre in their own voice (per JM, GidiD). Also, usually when we call something a massacre, we imply intent, whereas here we have no evidence of it. Would support an alternative like Killings.... Alaexis¿question?13:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title is euphemistic, though I agree with those saying to wait and see if sources use 'massacre' before making the move. I would also agree with replacing 'incident' with 'killing' or 'shooting' as to not obscure the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this move, or alternatively name the article "Al-Rashid street massacre" which is more clear about the location of the slaughter. Mottezen (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it is not controversial, it is simply the truth. If the killing of over 100 defenceless civilians waiting in a food line by one of the world's most sophisticated armies does not qualify as a massacre, I guess we need to change the names of the articles about most massacres. There is absolutely no reason why we have to apply different standards to Israel compared to others. It is a massacre and we should simply call it what it is rather than using euphemistic nonsense. --Te og kaker (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not controversial, it is simply the truth." There have been many valid sources supporting the move given in the discussion, which you have neither given or even referenced. It is irrelevant whether you think this is the "thruth", but rather what the RS's say. Also, saying "it is not controversial" is simply false if no sources have been provided (sources have been provided earlier in the discussion in support of the move), as this directly contradicts WP:NCENPOV. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to killing civilians. there are more than a 160 articles about massacres committed by israel documented in the arabic wikipedia.
That certainly may be true, but my point is that if you are saying something is true (really, I think you should be arguing it is verifiable), then you either need to provide sources in support of your argument, or mention one of the various comments above which does provide sources in support of its argument; neither of those were done here. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
waiting in a food line. Unless there is evidence to the contrary (and feel free to link a video or something), I think it is more likely that the starving civilians intentionally stopped, blocked, and swarmed the aid trucks. Which is fine. I think it's ethical for starving people to do that. But let's be careful of assuming that they were just standing on the side of the road in an orderly line. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote count. As of right now, 45 editors have supported the decision to move the article to Al-Rashid massacre, while 15 editors have opposed the move. So the decision to move the article has been supported by a 2/3 majority. It's worth mentioning that of the eight articles of events that have happened during this war that contain the word massacre in their titles, only two of them have had higher number of casualties, with the others having 60 casualties or less. On top of that multiple investigations from credible sources like Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, BBC, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have confirmed that the evidence shows that the IDF had indeed shot and killed a lot of the people waiting for the food aid. The evidence for the use of the word massacre is already there, the high death toll is there and the majority support the change of the article name to the Al-Rashid massacre, so I don't understand what more is needed for the change to be made? The longer the wait for the article name change goes on despite all the evidence that it is a massacre, the more it seems like a biased approach and POV-pushing, which shouldn't be allowed to happen. Nori2001 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken into account by whoever closes this requested move. The United Nations confirmation seems more than enough to me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. A move is warranted. An "Incident" to me is something caused by a road accident or a lightening strike, this is a MASSACRE. Even if some people were killed in a stampede, the whole thing started by Israeli occupation forces shooting people in the head and higher parts of the body. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying "the ayes have it" merely observing in a shorthand way (vote count, as happens in basically every on-Wiki discussion) that the discussion leans toward a certain conclusion. --Mainly20:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, I seem to have misinterpreted what you said :D
While this is limited to Twitter right now, I feel it's important to consider that if we keep waiting to take a decision on the name, it's likely that this will eventually put Wikipedia under scrutinity in wider media. Using the term "incident" is not a "neutral" or a "less political" stance. The UN and the BBC confirmed evidence that the killings were intentional, how long must we wait for this whole bureaucratic name change process to end? --BirdCities (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't close discussions because Wikipedia might be scrutinized in the media. This is already at WP:CR, and an experienced closer (likely an admin, given that this is a contentious topic), will close the discussion when they feel ready to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that quite a significant number of votes in support either do not list or mention any sources in support of their vote, or rely on a previous support which did not mention any sources (some support votes don't have any text after "support"). However, there have also been many good arguments presented in support of the move (see for example the comments by Dylanvt and Mhhossein). What this means is that the discussion should not be closed simply on the number of votes, but on the validity of the arguments. As WP:TALKDONTREVERT says: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.Gödel2200 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people relying on !votes that don't list sources are arguing on other policy grounds or effectively arguing to IAR without using the phrase IAR. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problematic support votes are the (quite significant number of) ones that say something like the move is "obvious" or "not controversial", providing next to no reasoning, or reasoning that is OR. But again, these votes shouldn't discount the many valid comments in support of the move, and these better arguments in support of the move should be the ones counted as evidence in support; a vote tally shouldn't be how we decide when to close the discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors who are saying its obvious are essentially saying that 1. many sources already refer to it as such 2. the event fits the description of a massacre and 3. civilians involved describe it as such - all of which I think are valid points to be considered, as part of a purpose of a RM is to gain "request community-wide input on the retitling of the article" - while their comments might not be given strong weight they should still be considered. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many comments that fit that description, and those are mostly not the ones I have a problem with. That being said, ones arguing that "the event fits the description of a massacre" which do not give sources, or do not reference other comments citing sources, raise concerns for me that they are OR. But the ones I really have a problem with are ones giving no reasoning at all. There are at least one vote two votes with nothing after "support", and a few others with no reasoning whatsoever after "support". Gödel2200 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom, UN, others. Calling it an "incident" is the opposite of neutral in this case, since the killings were deliberately targeting civilians. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait. "Incident" downplays the severity of the event, so that cannot stay. I'm also seeing a lot of circulation of the word "massacre" around on articles at this point, although it might be a little too early to make a call until more information comes out. HaapsaluYT (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agreed that "incident" downplays the severity of the event, and the IDF even acknowledges that they fired into the crowd - even if they were "provoked" or "in danger" one could say the same about those involved in the Boston Massacre which only killed five. A massacre is, as defined in massacre, "an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." which occurred here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Aerial footage was edited; and the Israelis refuse to show the full footage, the only possible reason is to omit evidence which is damning. Mahmoud Awadeyah, a journalist who was at the scene, told the BBC that Israeli vehicles began firing at people upon the arrival of the aid trucks. "Israelis purposefully fired at the men... they were trying to get near the trucks that had the flour," he said. "They were fired at directly and prevented people to come near those killed." Mohammed Salha, the acting director of Al-Awda Hospital, told The Associated Press that of the 176 wounded brought to the facility, 142 had gunshot wounds and the other 34 showed injuries from a stampede. Even the minority of deaths from a stampede caused by panic from gunshots is still a massacre. The Israeli's have also changed their story several times to manage the outrage. Andromedean (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Right now, there aren’t enough sources using the term “massacre” for it to be the common name, so using it in the title would be a violation of NPOV at the moment. There may be a term that’s better than “incident”, but “massacre” isn’t a better term right now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support.A massacre is, technically, any number of dead resulting from the violence of any party, above 5. Firing at or into a crowd of famished people waiting for food for their families in an area where, by all accounts, civil order has broken down because the Israeli army has no remit to set in place an administration to replace that of the vanquished Hamas (whose policemen are not in law militants, but are treated as 'terror targets' by Israel, led to multiple deaths, for which Israel is directly accountable, for starving people, if shot at, will predictably trample each other to avoid one more onslaught. 'Humanitarian aid incident' is extreme in its euphemistic sidestepping of what happened, i.e., a massacre.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - per nom, this is not an "Incident", 112 civilians killed and at least 760 getting injured is not an incident. You can not kill a 112 unarmed civilians and injure almost a thousand more accidentally. Just imagine the amount of bullets fired Abo Yemen✉15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose not broadly supported by RS, and potentially manipulated voting through twitter. We shouldn’t call it a massacre unless we know the specific causes of death (and neither do most western RS), so let’s wait or go for a more precise euphemism, such as mass casualty event. FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of ‘many’ of the deaths are claimed to be GSWs (partially relying on EMHRM, which is a different issue).
Unless we actually get an investigation that separates out justified killings, unjustified killings, accidental killings and death from other causes, calling it a massacre (which implies intent to kill without justification, the majority of them being killed by the IDF, etc.) and is not an accurate name (for now, subject to change). FortunateSons (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read our article on Boston Massacre before saying that;
The Boston Massacre (known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street) was a confrontation in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which nine British soldiers shot several of a crowd of three or four hundred who were harassing them verbally and throwing various projectiles. The event was heavily publicized as "a massacre" by leading Patriots such as Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.
We use "Massacre" because it is the common name for the event, but the name was American propaganda; we describe it as a confrontation. Also, snowballs weren't all they threw - the projectiles includes clubs, stones, and snowballs. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many less in this instance, where there was no reported throwing of clubs stones and snowballs. Even if most were killed by crowd crush (reporting still out on this one), the IDF firing is the but-for cause of any stampeded that resulted, therefore who else could be culpable for the deaths? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, physical attacks on soldiers even by people otherwise considered civilians may rise to the level where rules of engagement and international law cover permit the use of lethal force. That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily justified here, which puts us back to the point regarding “we just don’t have the information yet” FortunateSons (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "justified killings" here, only an occupying army killing unnarmed civilians - which would be a war crime even if they were protesting and advancing on the soldiers. It's called non-lethal force. And no, an investigation isn't required: UN confirmation is plenty. No idea what GSW is - don't use obscure acronyms. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN has already confirmed that Israeli forces did indeed fire on innocent civilians and that was the cause for most of the deaths. Plus, I don't get what you mean by "justified" and "unjustified" killings, nothing in this case is justified. Let's take Israel's account that they fired on civilians because they were "threatening" them (ironically Israel at first denied that it opened fire on civilians so I don't know what this is about). It didn't elaborate on how civilians "threatened" them, and since those were all unarmed civilians, it could be nothing more than some civilians advancing or protesting against the occupying forces. Therefore, there could be nothing that really threatened the soldiers so this isn't justified. Also, please elaborate on what you mean by "GSW" and "EMHRM". User3749 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to another user below, but the truth is that we cannot know at this time if the IDF was fully justified, partially justified or completely unjustified. Therefore, incident, mass casualty event, or deaths are better titles than massacre in my opinion FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "fully justified, partially justified or completely unjustified" in shooting unnarmed civilians. There are just varying degrees of military incompetence/criminality. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That legal assessment is not broadly supported by the majority of scholars (though I obviously have bias based on place and language); but it really doesn’t matter, because the issue is information, not interpretation. FortunateSons (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the main question, but definitely to the question by voorts. If you can find an applicable legal analysis that is specific to this, feel free to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are right about that. Would it be OR to look for what IDF units usually carry? I only actually know about militaries where my friends served, and the IDF isn’t one of them. FortunateSons (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Massacre" is essentially synonymous with "mass killing", and almost all the sources do agree that there was mass killing. I don't believe most sources portray this in the passive – as "deaths" simple magically occurring. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a difference in UK English vs. US English with regards to the definition of massacre, which may be contributing to confusion and disagreements among editors, and perhaps may even explain why some publications don’t use it.
Cambridge (UK English) defines massacre as “an act of killing a lot people”[12]
However, Webster’s (US English) primary definition of massacre is “ the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”[13]
This may be why the Kissufim massacre, Psyduck music festival massacre, Alumim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre that nableezy linked were described as massacres even though fewer people died. The numbers might be fewer, but they were killed with intent and I think more viscerally (I haven’t read through all the articles, this is just my assumption about what happened).
Definitely, people gathering food should not be shot at even if the intended target was their feet (which is what some sources are saying). Based on the UK definition I would agree with you, but based on the US definition, I am a little more hesitant because I am not sure the IDF showed atrocious and cruel intent to kill. The IDF purpose for this mission was to safeguard supplies to reach locations in the north. Sure, the IDF has made greenlighting aid extremely bureaucratic to the frustration of many aid organizations, but in regards to the original intent of this specific mission to bring aid to northern locations, I can’t help but to think of the phrase
Almost all of the !votes occurred before the offending Twitter post.
This is an ECP only discussion, so for the canvassing to be effective, somebody would've needed to make an account at least 30 days ago and then get up to 500 edits in anticipation of this RM. Believing that several ECP editors are doing that, with no evidence, assumes bad faith.
Is it really productive to try to conduct a hypothetical analysis of what proportion of the discussion to exclude based off of this theory? Their input has already been given, has been made in good faith, and I suspect the actual proportion of replies here that are the result of the twitter post are much smaller then you would think (if any were the result of that). Also, should seeing a Twitter post prohibit a user from participating in a discussion? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CANVASS#Campaigning and WP:CANVASS#Votestacking. The issues with such a post, and editors coming from such a post, is it inappropraitely influences the result of the !vote in the same manner as intentional canvassing. Ideally, we would procedurally close this and hold a new RM once things have died down and editors aren't being drawn here by off-wiki activity. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a series of completely unsupported assertions, and regardless canvassing, that is doing it, is prohibited, being canvassed is not. If you have evidence of any user canvassing or an editor proxying for a banned user you should report that to the normal places, but kindly stop disrupting this discussion with vague aspersions against editors without supporting evidence. nableezy - 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, being canvassed is a reason for the closer to give less weight - or no weight - to their !votes. As for evidence, look at the contribution history of some of the editors; some have been inactive for years, others have never participated in an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, and just saying so doesnt make it true. !votes are judged on their policy basis, not on some insinuation from an involved editor trying to discredit the overwhelming majority of votes that they are opposed to. Again, if you have evidence then raise it in the appropriate place, otherwise please stop disrupting this discussion that from all appearances is not going your preferred way. Theres a template at the top of this section already alerting both participants and a closer about the twitter thread. And youll note that it says However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. You should do the same. nableezy - 15:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whose votes specifically? So far on my brief glance through contributions I only see one user who hasn't been active in over a year and I do not think not participating in a requested move in the past is really evidence of anything. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the canvassing notice that you posted at the top of this discussion, the proper thing to do is tag individual accounts that you believe have been canvassed. It's not up to the closer to investigate every single !vote and it's not proper for a closer to discount an entire discussion because of vague allegations of canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume I'm one of the "editors" being discussed here as I haven't participated in many RMs in the part. Even so, it's unfair and elitist to assume editors that haven't contributed to these kinds of discussions before are automatically being canvassed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter their previous experience on this website. HaapsaluYT (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also isnt even a canvassing post, its a post mocking Wikipedia's bias in language. It isnt a hey go vote to change this message. nableezy - 15:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes someone does need to take a leap of faith to say that the post was implying anything other that Wikipedia, for better or worse, oftentimes mirrors the language of what the largest western media outlets refer to events as. (a point that should probably be considered here!) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bias incidentally introduced by a non-EC user, which itself was a procedural lapse. That bias is now unfortunately being prolonged by this RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal here or Flour massacre - largely per Carwill, and per the fact that we use massacre in the title of a number of articles in which far fewer people were killed when those killed are Israelis and not Palestinians. There is a systemic bias in language Wikipedia uses in this conflict, Israelis are "murdered" or "massacred", but Palestinians are "killed" or "die in an incident". We have articles for most acts of violence against Israelis, but most acts of violence against Palestinians are treated as WP:NOTNEWS, routine and thus lacking importance to be covered. Here we have some eight times the number dead as Kissufim massacre or five times the dead as Psyduck music festival massacre or six times those killed in the Alumim massacre or five times those killed in the Netiv HaAsara massacre. But this is an "incident". NPOV doesnt mean that one set of lives are treated as less than another set of lives. nableezy - 14:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption that only sources like NYT, BBC, and Washington Post are reliable and neutral, especially in this conflict, is risible. They have been independently demonstrated to have a severe anti-Palestine bias in their reporting, as has been pointed out several times in this discussion. Dylanvt (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. I don't object to the description of mass killings of Israeli civilians as "massacres-" it is what it is, but not calling blatant mass murders by the IDF by the names that accurately describe them is an incredible violation of NPOV. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely important point to make, as the phrasing of incident would definitely fall under WP:IMBALANCE and NPOV. Western media are the only ones using passive voice and calling it incidents, tragedies, etc. If we wouldn't use that phrasing for the brutality of the Re'im massacre and other smaller massacres even while we didn't know the details, why is this massacre any different? Jebiguess (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Supporters of the proposed title have not demonstrated that most English-language RS use the word "massacre" to refer to the article subject in their own voice rather than as a quote and instead have advanced arguments based on original research which should be discarded since they very much violate core content policies. Also whether or not the relevant RS are biased is not relevant. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia will include viewpoints proportionately to their prominence in RS, meaning the most prominent POV will be given the most weight. As other opposers have shown, most English-language RS do not refer to this as a massacre and so, Wikipedia will not use it as a title for this per WP:COMMONNAME. --StellarHalo (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the shootings that happened in the event and then bringing up the dictionary definition of "massacre" as evidence a massacre actually took place are very much original research. Show that most English-language RS call it a massacre or we cannot use the proposed title. StellarHalo (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCENPOV states under point three that if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. "Massacre" definitely carries POV implication since it is what one side of the conflict insists on labeling this event as. We have other descriptive names that could be used: "killings", "deaths", "tragedy", "stampede", and "crush". However, "massacre" is against the relevant policy guideline and so this specific RM should be closed for another one where other options could be considered and discussed. StellarHalo (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all potential phrasings have POV implications. For example, seemingly "neutral" terms like 'incident' can be euphemistic and downplay the severity of the killings.
I'm not sure it's true that 'massacre' "definitely carries POV implication", since a massacre did in fact occur, with soldiers firing on innocent people and killing many of them - which is the definition of a massacre. Wikipedia defines a massacre as "an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person."
It's not true that 'massacre' is only "what one side of the conflict insists on labeling this event", as neutral sources which are not a party to the conflict have also described the event as a massacre.
My response to those on your list: "killings" is the best of them by far, "deaths" and "tragedy" are an unwarranted passive voice, and "stampede" and "crush" are only appropriate if combined with "shootings" (with "shootings" being the first, as in "shootings and stampede") since evidence clearly indicates that there were far more casualties from bullets than a stampede/crush --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike WP:N, which allows notability to be established by non-English language sources, WP:COMMONNAME requires that the common name be determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I support the move, it is quite unfortunate that the majority of anglophone news outlets would never address this incident a "massacre". When the Bucha massacre article was created on 3rd April 2022, its title has already employed "massacre", despite many anglophone media outlets didn't really call it a massacre except for quoting Ukrainian officials in their reports by that point. I do want non-anglophone western editors to help provide examples of how reliable non-anglophone western media outlets label this incident. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Dylanvt has given several sources that use the word "massacre" to describe the event. I forgot to mention that. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm open to learning from my mistakes. — Davest3r08>:)(talk)16:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:BilledMammal, about half of the sources cited by Dylanvt do not actually themselves describe the events as a massacre, but rather quote others who do. Whether that is sufficient to justify a move is unclear to me. BilledMammal has also gone through reliable sources that overwhelmingly do not use the term "massacre" themselves, although again, quoting others could be sufficient to enable the move. (FWIW, as stated above, I do personally believe that the IDF's conduct merits this terminology, but that is not for us to decide based on what feels right—Wikipedia has guidelines on contentious labels and terminology for exactly this reason.) --23:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal was just flat out wrong about that though. Most of the sources that they claimed don't refer to it as a massacre – but rather quote others who do – in fact do refer to the event as a massacre. I have no clue how BilledMammal came to the conclusion that those sources don't refer to it as a massacre themselves, when one can click on the links and clearly see that they do. I'm hoping it's not intentional dishonesty, but I genuinely can't understand how else that would happen. See my response to them above where I demonstrate that they're wrong. Dylanvt (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've clicked through the links—some of them do, in fact, just quote others rather than directly labeling the event themselves. That said, you're correct that he did misidentify some of those sources in terms of how they refer to the event. What's more, even if reliable sources only state that large numbers of people refer to the event as a massacre, that could be sufficient to establish the terminology under WP:COMMONNAME, so the distinction may be moot.--Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 04:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above. Physicians, as well as UN observers and independent aid groups, have determined the vast majority of the victims, including both the dead as well as the injured, had gunshot wounds. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dylanvt, with particular note of "Flour massacre" as an alternative. Al-Rashid is the street where this took place as I understand it but I'm seeing it referred to in most sources as "in Gaza" which is too vague for our purposes or "flour massacre." I'm only really seeing "Al-Rashid massacre" in MENA sources and seeing "flour massacre" more often in American/European sources. U-dble (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. That, or Flour massacre. As for many Western Media not calling it a "massacre", that is sadly in line with how they have been reporting these last 4 months: 1200+ Israelis were "massacred" (300-400 of them acting military), while 10000+ Palestinian children "have died" (no indication of anyone killing them!) We don't need this double standard. Huldra (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd ask the people who Oppose this to consider what their stance would be had this article been named a "massacre" when it was first created (say, by the first user who moved it to that title, User:MainlyTwelve, who is Extended Confirmed), and this was now a RM to move it to "incident". For me personally, who Supported the move above, I would Strongly Oppose moving it to "incident" due to WP:EUPHEMISM but might be persuaded to move it to something other than "massacre" if the proposed title at least acknowledged that many people were killed, like "mass shooting" or "mass shooting and stampede" --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there seems to be consensus (including the opposes, many of them suggesting an alternative name) in opposition of using "incident" as the name, so I highly doubt a move request to include "incident" in the title would have been started in the first place. The opposing votes are mostly basing their argument off of stating that there has been insufficient RS's labeling this as a massacre to establish a WP:COMMONNAME, and that argument would surely have been brought up if the article originally included "massacre". Gödel2200 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We should view this as humanitarian view, and "incident" cannot cover up the whole thing which happened in this tragedy. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support • Some editors keep pointing out that many reliable sources do not call the event a massacre, but neither do most reliable sources call it an incident. It seems that many (most?) sources avoid labelling the event, but we unfortunately don't have that option and must make a choice for the article's title.
Labelling the event as a massacre or as an unspecified "incident", are neither ideal. Personally I don't think the euphemism concerns of using 'incident' should be underestimated, and the only significant issue with using 'massacre' is that many RSs don't use that word. I don't think there should be much concern about the potentially contentious nature of the label 'massacre', since a massacre did occur and was the core event of this "incident". Though not causing all of the deaths, soldiers fired on a crowd of civilians, causing many of the deaths and causing the ensuing chaos/panic which resulted in additional deaths.
Also, it is likely that as time passes more and more reliable sources will refer to this event as a massacre, as many of the English language sources which avoid calling this a massacre today are either politically biased or self-censoring due to political considerations. (See Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict)
The UN has confirmed that lots of people with gunshot wounds were treated at Shifa Hospital so this being a stampede is very unlikely. Plus, there has been confirmation again from the UN that IDF did fire on civilians. User3749 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was likely both. Even the IDF admits they fired into the crowd. So the question is, what proportion of the 100ish killed and 800ish wounded were shot versus other causes of death. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That question isn't really important, since all competent sources plainly agree that there was shooting followed by chaos as people sought to escape. Whether individuals were shot or crushed does not alter the culpability for the massacre, which lies squarely at the feet of the occupying military power. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of an article page move can easily be contested. Discussions typically last a week and this one didn't even last 2 hours! And the nominator closed the discussion with their preferred article title which is a clear conflict of interest, that act should have been left to an uninvolved editor or admin. I don't think this discussion and closure can be argued to be authoritative and will likely be challenged. Please do things properly in the future, Lukt64, and don't try to rush these processes. LizRead!Talk!02:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also, would like clarification on WP:SNOW for the future. From my understanding, it's to prevent starting discussions or processes that wouldn't have worked anyways, not to quickly force through process, like it did just now, right? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fails even the first snowball test. Someone opposed, that's the opposite of unanimous. And WP:SNOW also warns of early pile-ons. Yet the nominator himself closed it less than 2 hours after he opened it. Good revert. JM (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussions typically last a week" shouldn't be a hard rule, especially when most people agree the original title is woefully inadequate. While the close was obviously incorrect, I don't think we need to artificially uphold bureaucratic procedures to change the title, and a consensus emerging after one or two days could be good if it is clear enough. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, that's why I said "typically", not "always" or "must". But I've seen discussions like this last weeks sometimes. RM discussions are closed whenever an uninvolved closer sees a consensus but it clearly needs to last at least a few days, not less than two hours. The temperature is high right now and that is not an atmostphere when policy-guided decisions are made. A bad, early closure without sufficient discussion will just lead to a move war, I predict. LizRead!Talk!04:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I fully agree with you on this. In any case, it shouldn't have been closed after a few hours (especially by someone that involved), I'd say it's best to wait if a (very) strong consensus emerges after a few days and otherwise let the discussion run its time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the IDF footage be in the article? And if so, what should it be captioned?
The IDF is an unreliable source imo. They are known to edit video to suit, when not telling porkies, clear attribution needed for anything from there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be mentioned in the lede that the Gaza Health Ministry is administered by Hamas?
The GHM is generally accepted as having been administered by Hamas since 2007 when Fatah-affiliated directors and staff were replaced by Hamas loyalists. Should the mention of the GHM in the lede be preceded by the phrase "Hamas-administered"? Tdmurlock (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not common practice across Wikipedia to precede "Gaza Health Ministry" with "Hamas-run", as some sort of disclaimer. Look across other articles on the current war, and you won't see that epithet really at all. I'm sure there's been some discussion about this somewhere, too. Dylanvt (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Health Ministry may be run by Hamas, but many organizations have stated that that doesn't affect its coverage and reliability. This report shows that compared to independent estimates of the death toll during the current war, GHM is reliable and doesn't exaggerate it's reports. Even then, Israeli intelligence has deemed the numbers by GHM accurate, especially considering Israel doesn't collect civilian casualties in Gaza. I think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the lede as it may be perceived as NPOV. Jebiguess (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including that it is hamas-run has been used obviously in the past to diminish the death count. If the death count is reliable, then folks can just click on the link to the Gaza Health Ministry to see it is administered by Hamas and has had these claims. We should not mention it as a qualifier for every reporting that it does. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow reliable sources; looking at sources it appears many attribute their figures not just to the health ministry but to the "Hamas-run" health ministry or similar:
Etc. Based on this, I've clarified the first mention as "Hamas-run"; after the first use I don't think we need to continue saying it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Hamas-run is relevant whenever it has been established that the GHM is the reliable source on the ground, and is the best source for a toll on this particular attack. As Sawerchessread said, by linking to the GHM's page users can derive that the ministry is run by Hamas, but in the instance of this incident, using Hamas-run is POV-pushing. Jebiguess (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What’s relevant is determined by reliable sources; reliable sources have decided this is relevant. Further, GHM hasn’t been established as reliable on this topic, and I would suggest they aren’t based on their actions in relation to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed sources above, this and this, establishing that GHM is a reliable source in the conflict. It is also, currently, the only reliable source on this current attack, so unless Israel or an independent agency are willing to provide their own numbers, the GHM should not be dismissed. Jebiguess (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those relate to the overall death toll; it has been less reliable in relation to specific incidents. In addition, we’re not dismissing it; we’re just attributing it in the same way our sources do. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This has been endlessly discussed. It is an official Israeli talking point that everything regarding Gaza has to be subsumed under the Hamas-ergo terrorism equation (a narrative bias automatically picked up by many mainstream (ie. Western) sources while, historically no evidence has emerged that in the several wars, the Gaza medical authorities have manipulated their data. To the contrary they are regulary cited by reliable observers who specialize in these matters without the hammering message that, 'caveat lector, these are terrorist sources', which is essentially the point of splashing it everywhere in wikipedia articles on the Gazan health system.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to Citing Al Jazeera, which is state-owned by Qatar, in the lead
Al Jazeera is not a reliable, independent source on this topic--it is state-owned by the government of Qatar, which has a conflict of interest in the conflict; Qatar is helping arbitrate diplomatic negotiations and is the current residence of the top leadership of Hamas.
"The attack was portrayed by Al-Jazeera as part of a broader pattern of Israeli attacks on people seeking humanitarian aid."
I agree with Salmoonlight. WP:RSPSOURCES has them as a generally reliable source. Their coverage of the conflict seems professional and accurate so far. Occasionally their bias slips through, for example in live news reports they always refer to the "occupied" West Bank. But overall I am very impressed with their professionalism. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, referring to the West Bank as occupied isn't "letting bias slip through" given that it objectively is being occupied by israel, and is recognized as such by the entire international community. Dylanvt (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page says “Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.” Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan doesn't mean unreliable. A partisan source may pick and choose what they cover and use charged language, but they can still be reliable in that what facts they do publish are real --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also state-owned media, which also has a conflict of interest in the conflict, both due to the UK being in a military alliance with the US, and due to its historical involvement in Palestine. Despite this, it is used as a source in the article and generally considered RS. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be acknowledged that the UK and US are democracies with a large measure of freedom of speech whereas Qatar is a monarchy with far less freedom of speech. Regardless, as Al-Jazeera is currently listed as generally reliable, there's nothing to be done here. JM (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli forces opened fire on civilians"
Currently, the lede says that "Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City", sourced to Al Jazeera.
However, I'm not seeing a consensus among reliable sources that this is what happened. For example, The New York Times says there are conflicting accounts and that Israeli forces opened fire on Thursday as a crowd gathered near a convoy of aid trucks in Gaza City in a chaotic scene in which scores were killed and injured, according to Gazan officials and the Israeli military, which attributed most of the deaths to a stampede.
The BBC is similarly non-committal, even after reviewing Al Jazeera's footage; they describe the footage as showing Volleys of gunfire can be heard and people are seen scrambling over lorries and ducking behind the vehicles. Red tracer rounds can be seen in the sky. - they don't describe it as showing Israeli forces firing on civilians.
The Guardian also summarizes it as "accounts differ".
As far as I can tell, we don't know what happened yet - in time, the facts will emerge, but until then we need to be cautious with the language we use. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what at? Reliable sources aren't in agreement with this - which makes it an issue when we state, in Wikivoice, that they "opened fire on civilians". BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this being removed from the lead, I would prefer adding other accounts to the lead because this is the most likely. User3749 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if we based this discussion on WP:HQRS; can you provide additional ones to support your position? Note that we would need a substantial number to outweigh the ones that decline to take a position on what has happened. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if Khaleej is a reliable source, but it supports "conflicted accounts" rather than "opened fired on civilians".
Jacobin doesn’t have much weight here; There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Khaleej Times article, the main body content states there are conflicted accounts but in the headline it states Israeli forces open fire at a crowd flocked to the aid distribution point... and I already acknowledged there is consensus that Jacobin is biased. Some more sources: This but I don't know if it's reliable or not (I still have more but I'm trying to exclude the unreliable or obviously biased ones). User3749 (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HEADLINE; we don’t consider them to be reliable sources.
For the Khaleej Times, I'm not only taking from the headline, the entire article primarily mentions the Israeli shooting, and the France24 article also includes mentions of the Israeli shooting but it does also states that accounts by Israeli officials differ. Also, some sources that I just found: this, and this but I also don't know if it's reliable or not. User3749 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the articles, can you quote the content (excluding headlines and sub-headlines) that say "opened fire on civilians" or similar? BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
France24: Shortly after he left the convoy, he said, witnesses reported that Israeli troops opened fire on the civilians trying desperately to get hold of food.
Khaleej Times: The crowd flocked to the aid distribution point early on Thursday, desperate for food amid Gaza's looming famine, only to be met with lethal chaos including live fire by Israeli troops.
Al Arabyia: Some Palestinians injured in a Gaza aid disaster said on Friday that Israeli forces shot them as they rushed to get food for their families, describing a scene of terror and chaos.
New Arab: More than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed and over 700 injured as they queued for aid on Thursday morning in Gaza, in the latest massacre committed by Israeli forces in the besieged enclave.User3749 (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean those that directly support the claim, not those that merely say it has been reported or those that attribute the claim to witnesses etc.? I will try to find sources that support the claim directly but you could also just have clarified. User3749 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the FT "Dozens of Palestinians were killed on Thursday during a chaotic attempt to get humanitarian aid into northern Gaza, during which Israeli forces opened fire on civilians." Think that's clear enough. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve presented a number of sources that say we don’t know what happened. Until sources consistently say we do know what happened - and consistently say the same thing - we cannot say we know what happened. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the majority are saying "we don't know". I'm repeating myself now, so this discussion has become unproductive - if you want to include, in Wikivoice, that Israel opened fire on civilians, then please open an RfC proposing that and get formal consensus per WP:ONUS. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's in the article so it has consensus. I didn't put it in, I just added a couple reference supporting it. Like I said if you want to write that this and that source "don't know" (pretty sure they didn't actually say that), go right ahead. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Burrobert: I see you re-added this line; there is no consensus for its inclusion, and the sources don't support it being presented in this way.
What we should do is present the two sides - that one side is saying that Israeli forces opened fire on civilians in an ambush and massacre, and that the other is saying that a large number were killed in a stampede, and that while Israeli forces opened fire at one point when they were threatened by a mob they were primarily warning shots and only killed a small fraction of those who died.
If you believe your presentation is more appropriate, then I would ask that, per WP:ONUS, you open an RfC on its inclusion at restore the article to the status quo while it proceeds. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say there is no consensus, who else besides you is objecting? There are at least four and probably more editors supporting it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Times of Israel: The army ... acknowledged that troops opened fire on several Gazans who moved toward soldiers and a tank at an IDF checkpoint, endangering soldiers, after they had rushed the last truck in the convoy further south. [...] An officer stationed in the area ordered soldiers to fire warning shots in the air as the Palestinians were within a few dozen meters, as well as gunfire at the legs of those who continued to move toward the troops, the probe said.
I would have no objection if the article said something along those lines, but it omits most of the context and says that they fired on civilians who were attempting to retrieve food, not who were advancing towards soldiers: The incident ... took place when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on Al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout.
Not sure that's true, here's NBC, generally Israel supportive, "Rescuers continue to recover bodies from Nabulsi roundabout in Gaza City, where more than 100 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians hoping to get food. The IDF has confirmed and denied shooting into the crowd, and blamed most of the deaths on a stampede." Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that is a similar situation to WP:HEADLINES; when you follow the link provided in that summary it says "Israeli forces are accused of opening fire Thursday on a crowd of Palestinians who were hoping to get food from aid trucks in Gaza City." BilledMammal (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting statements by Israel
Should it be noted in the article that “…according to Israel, they mostly died in a stampede after IDF soldiers fired warning shots in the air when a mob endangered them in two related incidents.” which would mean that they did not shoot anyone, while simultaneously Israel has said that “…fewer than ten of the deaths directly resulted from Israeli fire.” which means that, though they are not claiming responsibility, they did in fact admit to shooting some of the victims? MountainDew20 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted statements are from the article itself, the first being from the heading and the second being from the “Investigations” section, and both of the statements have sources to back them up. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while conflictingly also stating I don’t think the claim that this is conflicting is supported either explicitly or implicitly by the sources; "mostly died in a stampede" means some did not die in the stampede. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, also called the Flour Massacre, was a humanitarian aid incident". Apart from the redundancy, what is a "humanitarian aid incident"? This would be funny if the circumstances weren't so tragic. The lead doesn't mention that the people killed and injured were trying to get food from aid trucks. Compare the current lead with the lead that existed until a few hours ago: "On 29 February 2024, in what has been characterized as a massacre, 112 Palestinian civilians were killed and at least 760 were injured when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City". Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I would suggest that the background to the convoy is WP:DUE for the lede, but regardless, would you be willing to move that content to the body rather than deleting it entirely? Surely we can agree that it is due there? BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already put a sentence in about that yesterday, sourced to Reuters, "The aid delivery was operated by private contractors as part of an Israeli operation which OCHA said was made without coordination with the U.N." No objection if you want to pad that out a bit more. Most of what you wanted to write is also there. Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV template
I'm concerned about the neutrality of this article; it presents the Palestinian perspective as being the truth, while downplaying the Israeli perspective. However, that doesn't align with reliable sources, who currently say "we don't know" and that there are "competing perspectives".
For example, the article says in what has been characterized as a massacre. "Characterized" typically means that what is said is the truth, but this doesn't align with our sources - while some sources have called this a massacre, the majority have currently declined to do so in their own voice. What we should be saying is that specific sources have called this a massacre.
Further, it downplays aspects such as that Israel organized this aid convoy.
Comment: So, that’s it? You suggest something, the very same editor agrees with you, and then you proceed with the edit? No one is noticing this behavior? Really strange things are happening on this page. I’m getting out of here. Fortunately time will tell everything. Even though not by editors, this page is being under the scrutinity of thousands of readers. Happy editing, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chances of Twitter users being extended confirmed, which is required to post on this talk page and enforced by software, is pretty low. So I do not anticipate that canvassing from that particular Twitter thread will be a problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the NPOV template, but I do support characterizing the event as a massacre given the number of sources that characterize it as such. This is an event that recently occurred--I added the current event template--and is still under investigation, and clearly will require subsequent editing and consensus to be NPOV-compliant. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Overall this is a weak justification for adding a template. What exactly is biased? Point to specific sections instead of just saying that the entire article takes pro-Palestinian media at their word, which it clearly doesn't judging by its current title. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the lead of the article, and there are very clearly quantification issues. One such example is when the lead reads This incident, which has been referred to as the Flour Massacre in media. Only one source is provided for this claim, raising the question how much of the "media" is making this reference. The lead sentence also has such an issue, saying in what has been characterized as a massacre, followed by only two sources. At the very least, that should be changed to in what has been characterized as a massacre by some sources, or (far more preferably, IMO) we should wait to add that in until the move discussion above has concluded. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, edit summary "Removing POV tag, the article simply does not have a significant POV problem, and the talk page justification for the tag is not specific enough or actionable. There is also already a 'current event' tag and the article has been and will continue to change drastically. Specific POV issues can be dealt with by improving them directly or by discussing them." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And BilledMammal restored the tag. Simply saying "Multiple editors have expressed agreement with this tag; please get consensus for its removal per the tag instructions."
What specifically needs to be done for the tag to be removed in your opinion, @BilledMammal?
The most significant issue is with the lede - we need to give equal prominence and validity to the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, in accordance with our sources who have not yet taken a position is which is more accurate. We don't do this at the moment, saying when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City. BilledMammal (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We need to give equal prominence and validity to the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives."
This isn't true at all. What you're describing is WP:FALSEBALANCE.
What is wrong with the sentence "when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City"?
Frankly this is ridiculous and the tag should be removed per Template:POV which reads "You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: [...] #2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FALSEBALANCE would be if we gave balance not present in media sources; given that most media sources haven't taken a position on this yet, us not taking a position would be true balance.
The issue with that sentence is that there isn't a consensus in media sources that Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks. Israeli forces opened fire at one point, but it is unclear what the circumstances of that point were, and most reliable sources have not taken a position.
The neutrality issue that myself and others see is clear; you may disagree with it, but that isn't sufficient justification to remove the tag. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks." Is it not established that this is what happened? It does not say why the soldiers opened fire, only that they did, which you yourself admit that they did, saying yourself "Israeli forces opened fire at one point".
The purpose of adding a tag is to identify an issue so that other editors can fix it. I am here trying to fix the purported issue but I'm still not seeing what the issue is.
The issue is with who were attempting to get food from aid trucks; reliable sources aren’t in consensus on this.
In addition, it implies that they all, or at least most, died due to Israeli gunfire, this doesn’t align with the consensus of reliable sources, which haven’t come to a conclusion on this question. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue is with "who were attempting to get food from aid trucks"; reliable sources aren’t in consensus on this." - Are they not? Was getting food from the aid trucks not the reason for the amassing of the crowd of people?
"It implies that they all, or at least most, died due to Israeli gunfire." - It does not imply that, although that the shooting caused a panic in the crowd resulting in additional casualities should probably be added to the opening paragraph.
All sources I have seen agree on those basic facts, and there are no comments about why they fired or how many deaths were caused, meaning that NPOV is kept intact. Also, the very next paragraph outlines the disagreement between sides as to what happened. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, really, but I won't stand for the abuse of tags to discredit an important article and it's unfortunate that more isn't done about POV pushing in this contentious topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were very obvious NPOV issues in the lead around a day ago. In my comment above, I listed some statements that were vaguely quantifying claims. In addition, the infobox previously stated that this was a massacre, but discussion is still ongoing as to whether we should label it as such. However, both of these issues have been fixed. The claim that we should not say "when Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were attempting to get food from aid trucks on al-Rashid street at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout to the west of Gaza City" in the lead because "we need to give equal prominence and validity to the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives", is simply false. I'm not sure what other "perspectives" are being mentioned, but all of the sources listed in the lead, and in the "Event" section of the article make it clear the civilians were there to get food. The statement in question does not imply that all the civilian casualties were injured by the gunfire, but rather that they were injured after the gunfire started. This accounts for the civilians who may have been injured by a crowd crush, or in other ways. Right now, I am simply not seeing any NPOV issues with the lead, and will remove the tag if no other issues are identified. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the discussion directly above this one, @RodRabelo7 posted a link to this twitter thread which consists of twitter users bellyaching about the current state of the article with, lemme see here... 20k+ likes and 8k+ retweets. Should we add a warning to the talk page stating that this page has become a target for WP:CANVASSING and potential WP:MEATPUPPET-ry? I've never personally seen such an obvious offwiki response to an article, so I'm not sure exactly what the best actions to take here are. Cheers! Tdmurlock (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, no need of it. Both the article and the talk page are correctly protected. By the way, I was not the first to post that link. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wanted to edit this article they would need to have extended-protected permissions first. Out of all the people who interacted with that post, how many of them would realistically meet that requirement? Salmoonlight (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a full canvass warning because this page is ECP and there isn't any clear votestacking effect visible at the moment, but I support BilledMammal's addition of {{Not a ballot}} to this discussion. We can always tag !votes if we think they have been canvassed to this discussion. User3749 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opening sentences
Can't we do better? As a descriptive title, doesn't need bold intro and then there is just needless obfuscation. It's not a "crowd rush", it's the tragic death of a 100 + hungry people. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably both, so while a change is generally a good idea, I do not believe it to be viable in this situation. We don’t know the cause of death, and something being ‘tragic’ is not an adequate justification for having potentially inaccurate opening sentences. Let’s wait a few days for more news. FortunateSons (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The al-Rashid massacre was in Gaza City, and has a significantly high death toll. We could add the Deir el-Balah bombing in an "Aftermath" section of this article and if more information comes out, create a second article for the Deir el-Balah bombing. These two incidents aren't really connected by location, but rather part of a larger campaign by Israel against aid convoys. Jebiguess (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start a new section about all other attacks on humanitarian aid/aidseekers using the paragraph of text in the background section detailing these other attacks? Eventually an article about "Attacks on humanitarian aid during the Israel-Hamas war" might be needed, but for now, I think this article should focus primarily on the Al-Rashid massacre. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new incident you mentioned should probably be placed in a parent article somewhere until it meets GNG. I do not think this article is the correct place for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
This with edit summary "It is customary to apply an article with his name in bold" which is not the case for descriptive titles, also "The Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident refers to an incident..." is kind of stupid. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: changed en-dash to hyphen. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted Lukt64's early closure which is made improperly as the nominator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. With the caption "Aerial footage released by the IDF". –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
