Talk:Flour massacre

On leaving out the bits we don't like
The incident occurred when the crowd blocked and started plundering an aid convoy that was on its way to another part of Gaza City. This fact, which I have never seen disputed, is totally suppressed, presumably because editors fear it might mitigate the brutality of the Israelis (it doesn't).

I've corrected the most blatant attempt in the introduction to make it sound like a planned aid distribution, but this fiction is sustained throughout the article, by both commission and omission. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like quite a good example of how not to write things in the topic area. Congrats. Unfortunately, information about mental states can't be reliably extracted from edits. If the article had been written by an AI but you didn't know, you thought it was written by a bunch of devious rascals, you probably would have made exactly the same revisions for the same policy-based reasons. So, it's about the content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "So, it's about the content." — which you do not address. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a planned aid distribution
There is no mention that the crowd blocked and plundered an aid convoy that was on its way to another part of Gaza City. There is euphemistic and ambiguous language that gives the impression it was a planned aid distribution. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with the massacre. The aid distribution was indeed planned between Palestinian businessmen and Israeli authorities. The only ambiguity here is this comment here. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This lasted just under two weeks on the page (see edit history for sources):

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Per request from an admin, will withdraw for now to be revisited in three to six months (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Flour massacre → Al-Rashid killings – Per WP:NCENPOV, we should only call an event a massacre if "massacre" is part of the WP:COMMONNAME, or if it is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event. There is no common name for this event, and sources generally do not use "massacre" when referring to it. For example, working down the list of generally reliable sources at WP:RSP: As such, our use of it is against policy, and now that we can look at this event as one in the past, rather than one in the present, I think it is time to revisit what we should title the article. BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) ABC News - Does not use "massacre"
 * 2) The Age - Does not use "massacre"
 * 3) Al Jazeera - Uses "massacre"
 * 4) Associated Press - Does not use "massacre"
 * 5) The Australian - Does not use "massacre"
 * 6) Axios - Does not use "massacre"
 * 7) BBC - Does not use "massacre"
 * 8) Bloomberg - Does not use "massacre"
 * 9) CNN - Does not use "massacre"
 * 10) The Daily Telegraph - Does not use "massacre"
 * 11) Deutsche Welle - Does not use "massacre"
 * 12) Financial Times - Does not use "massacre"
 * 13) Forbes - Does not use "massacre"
 * 14) The Globe and Mail - Does not use "massacre"
 * 15) The Guardian - Does not use "massacre"
 * 16) Haaretz - Does not use "massacre"
 * 17) The Hill (newspaper) - Does not use "massacre"
 * 18) The Hindu - Does not use "massacre"
 * 19) The Independent - Does not use "massacre"
 * 20) The Jewish Chronicle - Does not use "massacre"
 * 21) Jacobin - Uses "massacre"
 * 22) Los Angeles Times - Does not use "massacre"


 * Oppose - The proposed title is too euphemistic and generic. Even before the current change the article was called something like Al Rashid humanitarian aid killings. The title Flour massacre also differentiates this incident from subsequent humanitarian aid killings and conveys the notability of the incident, its significant death toll, and the reactions to it, all significant parts of the article. Many of the sources which do not use "massacre" were written shortly after the event, so I do not find the argument that sources are moving away from calling it a massacre to be a credible or persuasive one. Unbandito (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Previously, the article was at Al Rashid humanitarian aid incident. Further, the argument isn’t that sources are moving away; it’s that they’ve never used massacre, and they continue to not use massacre - per our PAG’s, this means we can not use massacre. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose several sources flat out say this is known as the Flour Massacre, it is the common name and the attempt at repeating a failed proposal because you did not like the result or the result of the move review is in bad faith. Should be closed and absent sources actually disputing that this is known as the Flour massacre there should be a moratorium put in place to prevent further bad faith efforts to overturn a well established consensus.  nableezy  - 07:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: Flour Massacre is a common name as evidenced by its mention in CNN, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Washington Post, Haaretz, Jacobin, and France24 and by several UN officials.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Needs to be closed immediately as an abuse of process. This was taken to move review last month where the previous RM was endorsed. The nom participated in that move review. This is simply a blatant refusal to accept a community consensus and a desire to bludgeon the community into accepting their desired course of action through sheer exhaustion. There is absolutely no justification for another RM so soon. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose + procedural close: No new information has been been presented since the previous endorsed close. On the contrary, the opening statement appears to be a copy-paste of the same evidence presented in the previous RM in a comment on 3 March. Simply pestering the community with identikit arguments is clear abuse of process, and if nothing has changed it means the RM should never have been opened. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Don't see what changed since the previous RM, which was endorsed at move review, where you wrote:
 * Working through WP:RSP, it is clear that there is not a consensus in reliable sources:
 * ABC News - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Age - Does not use "massacre"
 * Al Jazeera - Uses "massacre"
 * Associated Press - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Australian - Does not use "massacre"
 * Axios - Does not use "massacre"
 * BBC - Does not use "massacre"
 * Bloomberg - Does not use "massacre"
 * CNN - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Daily Telegraph - Does not use "massacre"
 * Deutsche Welle - Does not use "massacre"
 * Financial Times - Does not use "massacre"
 * Forbes - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Globe and Mail - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Guardian - Does not use "massacre"
 * Haaretz - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Hill (newspaper) - Does not use "massacre"
 * The Hindu - Does not use "massacre"
 * So this looks like mere repetition of a failed argument. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What's changed is that reliable sources continue not to use massacre, and the additional distance from the event will allow us to better consider what title is most compliant with our policies - the previous RM did have off-wiki canvassing issues. BilledMammal (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the question was what has changed since you presented your arguments last time? AusLondonder (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * procedural close per Selfstudier this is a repetition of a failed argument. Further the term 'flour massacre' is used by RS  including the Guardian  and CNN  which are listed as not using 'massacre' at all—blindlynx 01:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren’t using the term; they’re mentioning it. For example, CNN says The tragedy, which has become known among Palestinians as the “Flour Massacre”. Even if this title wasn’t already forbidden by naming conventions, NPOV would tell us that preferencing the name preferred by a single POV in this way would be a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah but con is this is a case of WP:POVNAME—blindlynx 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * POVNAME requires that the name is used in a significant majority of English language sources - this name isn’t even used in a significant minority. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but consensus was to use the current name as it's '[...] descriptive of the event and recognizable'. This RM presents is just rehashing of the move review and not demonstrating that anything has changed since then.  Moreover, i'm slightly concerned about your list as a few you describe as not using massacre defiantly do—blindlynx 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 116 dead constitutes a 'massacre'. CNN states that it became known as the 'flour massacre. Your proposal is not neutral but neutering.Nishidani (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to decide what is and isn’t a massacre. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN flat out says this is known as the Flour Massacre. They are reporting that this is the common name. Your OR to attempt to disprove that is immaterial.  nableezy  - 07:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN says this is known as the Flour Massacre in Palestine. Further, WP:POVNAME requires use; CNN isn’t using the name. BilledMammal (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN: More than 100 people were killed in the incident in northern Gaza, which has become known as the “Flour Massacre,” as Israeli troops opened fire near civilians gathering around food aid trucks, triggering panic. … UN experts earlier this week condemned the incident as a “massacre,” BilledMammal's addendum: they only say it is known in Palestine. Nableezy: ???. And who even said massacre is POV here?  nableezy  - 07:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is from shortly after the tragedy; a more recent one has clarified who uses this name; The tragedy, which has become known among Palestinians as the “Flour Massacre. Incidentally, you asked above for a source saying that "Flour Massacre" is not the global common name; this, as the exception that proves the rule, is that source. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * UN experts are not from Palestine, and neither is Al Jazeera, and that Palestinians *also* call it this does not mean it is not called this by others or known as the Flour Massacre as CNN reports. And no, that source does not support your conclusion, that is just silly and I expect anybody who reads your comment to reach the same conclusion.  nableezy  - 08:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please stop edit warring and self-revert to bring yourself into compliance with WP:BURDEN which clearly states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The burden is on you as you have restored masses of text that has nothing to do with the massacre directly and is in violation of LEDE guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is unclear why you keep pretending the content isn't verifiable. The two short paragraphs are supported by twenty citations, many from sources you have personally endorsed as reliable. Repeated and long-winded citation of an irrelevant policy does not make it any less irrelevant. Your assertion that the sequence of events leading up to the massacre "has nothing to do with the massacre" does not do much for your credibility. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." (WP:VNOT)
 * Exactly why is it that this information needs to be included, and in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the lede is a summary of the body, this may belong elsewhere, but definitely not in the lede where it obscures and overwhelms readers with everything but how the Israeli military killed hungry people and then lied about it, according to CNN. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't want the facts to get in the way of your narrative. Thank you for your honesty. To mark this special moment, I vacate the field. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not my narrative, it's the factual narrative of CNN, a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Title formatting
If this is a definite event with a proper name, shouldn't it be "Flour Massacre", with both words capitalized? Arkadios 200 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it depends on what sources use, but lowercase is generally considered to be "default" when sources use various options. Loqiical (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor problem with the article's titles
There's an article I've been trying to rename called "Al-Rasheed Street" into "Al-Rashid Street" for a more accurate and less confusing title as the Iraqi cultural street was named after Caliph Harun al-Rashid, and is more known as "Al-Rashid Street". But the problem is that it keeps telling me there's already an article called "Al-Rashid Street" and the only article that seems to have this title redirects to this one. I would appreciate it if this redirection could be removed since I don't want to rename the article "Al-Rashid Street, Baghdad" because there's no article on Wikipedia with this title. It should be noted that this "Al-Rashid Street" is an old Iraqi cultural area unrelated to the Palestinian street which doesn't seem to have been known about generally before the massacre took place. Ayham4002 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * List it with reasons at Redirects for discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)