Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/August

Major Edit
I've completed a major edit in an attempt to address some of the issues with the article. The following list gives a general idea of the change, but is not exhaustive:


 * Replaced "Massacre" with "Airstrikes" or similar as appropriate - in the absence of reliable sources calling it as massacre, we are unable to do so.
 * 11-day attack on Gaza -> 11-day 2021 Israel-Palestine Crisis
 * Corrected MOS:CLAIM issues, such as:
 * Hamas affirmed -> Hamas said
 * Israel claimed -> Israel said
 * Changed background to match a shortened version of the lede to the 2021 Israel-Palestine Crisis article. In general, heavily reduced background information unless it is directly connected to these strikes; for instance, removed the background about the International response, as all the listed responses were to the crisis in general, and not to these strikes.
 * Fixed sentences not matching sources; for instance the article previously stated that Saleh Hijazi stated that the strikes were a war crime, when the provided source says he stated they might be a war crime.
 * Added HRW's statements about this being an "apparent war crime" to the article, as well as the results of their investigation into the presence of underground facilities - lede and body
 * Added Israel's statements about the lack of warning and their hypothesis for the extent of the damage - might be appropriate to add that hypothesis to the lede, but not done for now.
 * Changed general number killed to specific, and added the number wounded

The article still needs a lot of work, but I believe this is a step in the right direction.

If anyone has an issue with part or all of these edits, feel free to revert in part or whole - but please then mention your reasons for doing so here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be better to first change the name via a page move before going through and categorizing the nature of the attack. You don't first decide the name by way of edit and then change the name after, it needs consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You followed due process negotiating a compromise on a marginal point 'tunnels, central command centre, arms factory, ammunication stock'  became 'underground military infrastructure, fine. Then, overnight gutted the article, changed its title, and rewrote it from an Israelocentric perspective (indeed sneakily you then in the lead reintroduced and expanded statement about the military infrastructure).  Everyone admits the article has numerous points needing carful redrafting, but a unilateral solution by a single editor of sparse experience is not the way to do it. You don't like 'massacre'? The extremely cautious, conservative decidedly pro-Israel New York Times wrote:
 * "'In a conflict in which both sides are accused of war crimes, the air raid on Al Wahda Street that night stands out for its shocking civilian death toll and for nearly decimating entire families'"
 * It went on to cite expert opinion that this specific strike 'can easily lead to catastrophe and could be a war crime Human Rights Watch, which is neutral, after a month of close investigation, on the ground interviews, requests for clarification from the IDF (unanswered) and material analysis, satellite imaging etc., said there were solid grounds for judging the 'ìncident' a war crime. Amnesty International is likewise cited to the same effect. T
 * Of course one may challenge 'massacre' but simply rewriting 'Israeli aistrikes', just like any one of the several hundred airstrikes Israel made which had no such devastating civilian impact, and which, in response to the massive civilian death toll, army spokesmen stated was a 'freak'. The use of 'decimation' by the NYTs is tantamount to stating it was a 'massacre', for example. Well, we could use 'decimation' etc. As I noted above, we have no hesitation in using massacre of numerous incidents where many Jews/Israeli civilians were killed. And if, as appears so far, the tactical use of the heaviest bombs in military armories dropped on a high density civilian neighbourhood killed 44 civilians, and resulted in no militant death, and was admittedly done on what the NYTs said was 'limited intelligence', massacre (even state newespapers in Italy called it a strage) is a fairly exact description. Intentional or not has nothing to do with it,Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What BilledMammal is suggesting is the bare minimum. Too bad his improvements got reverted, the article now looks like a cheap Hamas propaganda piece.
 * Nishidani supports calling it a massacre and then proceeds to mention a source that doesn't call it that (completely disregarding wp's policies). Good sources using that term are very, very!, scarce. -   (talk)  19:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus the article needs careful rewriting. We began to do that, with BilledMammal. A solution arrived rapidly. So one expected to proceed systematically in the normal way we do things round here. No. Having worked for a compromise, BM, off their own bat rewrote the article by chucking out a significant amount of text. No prior consultation, no bulletted suggestions beforehand as to what they considered as things requiring fixing. I reverted and began to start that process, nota bene, introducing an entire paragraph BM had suggested, with very minor adjustments. A second compromise step. And that is how one works here. As to Hamas propaganda, I couldn't give a fuck for Hamas the PNA or whoever. I certainly do want the page to represent the realities of what Palestinians experience accurately. For them it was a massacre, just as for Jewish memory, Hadassah was a massacre. People on these pages should begin to think neutrality. The criterion for what constitutes a massacre should be applied regardless of who it is affected, or who executed the deed that led to it. It's called NPOV.
 * I note nothing I wrote above has elicited a careful response. It seems as if it is an all-or-nothing approach. So, collaborate on resolving the issues one by one, no unilateral coups. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal's version is more neutral The title is also not neutral. Free1Soul (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your editing is disruptive. A request to revert an undiscussed move has also been filed.Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reversion of POV material and title is disruptive. Free1Soul (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep going, AE awaits.16:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word 'disruptive' of edits made in conformity with recommended procedures. You are just 135 edits into the IP area (635) as BilledMammal has racked up 225 (725 edits) to qualify. This evident lack of experience with the norms implied by these extremely low edit counts should suggest that taking drastic measures, like eviscerating 11,000ks of text, without any prior notice or attempt to discuss the issues involved, is rash. There is agreement the text needs work. In several articles recently, the title, when challenged (Palestinian bantustans and Sheikh Jarrah property dispute), was subject to an RfC  after extensive discussions, and in the case of the latter, patently POV, we are 2 months into dispute resolution. It may be tiresome, the title may indeed, as the RfC for the former determined, remain POV by consensus, or it might be changed to something more neutral, as should be the case in the latter. So too here. Editors who barge into the I/P area and charge round like bulls in a china shop, rather than rolling up their sleeves to carefully edit piece by piece, discuss, and collaborate, are wasting their time. I'm still asking a question: why is the death of 44 civilians in a massive bomb assault on a civilian area where to date, no known military casualties or infrastructure have come to light, not a 'massacre'?Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani. I'll work through your points one by one. However, first, I would ask that you phrase future responses differently; in particular, I don't feel like words such as "sneakily" are in compliance with best wiki-etiquette.
 * Israelocentric perspective - Please provide examples of this, so that I can respond to them. I am relatively neutral on the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, and I tried to rework the article to remove the existing bias, not introduce new bias.
 * (indeed sneakily you then in the lead reintroduced and expanded statement about the military infrastructure) - The context here is different from the other article. If you look at what you wrote: Israel stated the purpose of the attack was to destroy military infrastructure underneath the street ... Israeli Intelligence had no precise information about the exact location of the infrastructure it targeted you will see that it is making a statement that is not supported by sources. Specifically, the sources say that Israel that Israeli Intelligence had no precise information about the location of the targeted command centre. It makes no such statement about the location of tunnels or other infrastructure. As such, to include the statement about available intelligence, we have to specify command centre. If you don't like the way I do that in my new revision, feel free to edit it - but please don't replace it with a broad statement that goes beyond our sources.
 * Then, overnight gutted the article - The article as it stands has a lot of content that is related to the broader crisis, and not to this event specifically. I removed those, as we should include a brief background overview of the broader conflict and allow the reader to proceed to the main article if they wish to read more. I will leave those in for now, but please list the elements that I removed that you believe should stay, along with your reason why, so that we can start working towards consensus.
 * I'm still asking a question: why is the death of 44 civilians in a massive bomb assault on a civilian area where to date, no known military casualties or infrastructure have come to light, not a 'massacre'? - It isn't our job to decide whether it is or isn't. It is our job to create an article that reflects the content of reliable sources, and reliable sources, with the possible exemption of the Italian article (could you link it, so that we can assess it?), don't call it a massacre.
 * My plan now is to reimplement some of my previous edits. If you have objections, please feel free to revert the sections you have issues with, but please detail your reasons for objecting here so that I can understand your position and start working towards consensus with you. In this reimplementation, and in light of your specific, though reasonless, objection raised here, I will leave the background information as it is for now, pending further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I note you still retain the vice of declaring what you will do, then waiting a half an hour and going ahead with the changes you want. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Implemented change. I changed The incident sparked widespread outrage or protest internationally. to The incident sparked outrage internationally as that is all the source supports. Does anyone have additional information on the international outrage, as the source provides no information beyond stating that there was outrage? BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say whether this rises to the status of rs The International Institute  for  Rights  and  Development, Swiss NGO, in special  consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) since 2018 has submitted a Memorandum to UNHRC stating "These massacres led to the wiping of entire families from the civil registry, in front of the eyes and ears of the international community. This includes the massacre of Al-Wehda Street in the center of Gaza City where the family of "Abu Al-Auf" and "Al-Kulak" were almost completely killed. We  also  note  that  Israel  continues  to  use  its  methodology  to  deliberately  target  civilian homes  and  wipe  out  residential  neighborhoods,  as  happened  in  previous  military  attacks,.." Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We have as well https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4380/Horrific-crimes:-Israel-destroys-homes-with-families-inside-%E2%80%93-19-families-targeted,-53-Palestinians-killed Updated report on the Israeli massacres during the military attack on the Gaza Strip] Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, at best their reports can be mentioned if attributed. Can you please move the page already based on the AfD? (to start another discussion would be a waste of time). \\\ There's no evidence that those deaths were deliberated (which is what the word massacre implies). Israel has a well documented history of issuing warnings before attacking, while Hamas has a well documented history of purposefully inserting military personnel and structures in residential areas in order to increase the number of collateral deaths and use those deaths as propaganda. \\\ This was obviously a tragedy that Israel should have avoided and condemnation is due. However, it was mostly likely accidental (just like those hamas rockets that misfire and end up killing palestinians), until proven otherwise. -  (talk)  19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have several more. If any time was wasted here it was filing AfD for an obviously notable article. Had an RM been filed instead it would have been resolved by now. One will still be needed however.Selfstudier (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the default description in Arabic sources, and the one used by Palestinians. These must be included in any google search, since this is not a place to air the airbrushing habits of the English mainstress press.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Several of the English articles give translations from the Arabic press and massacre would appear to be the default description but it needs to be checked.Selfstudier (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is what Gazans called it.
 * "'A sign has been erected with the names of the dead and “Al-Wehda massacre” written on it in Arabic .'Oliver Holmes,Hazem Balousha [HTTPS://WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM/WORLD/2021/MAY/22/WE-DONT-RECOGNISE-OUR-OWN-CITY-ISRAELI-BARRAGE-REDRAWS-THE-MAP-OF-GAZA We don’t recognise our own city: Israeli barrage redraws the map of Gaza] The Guardian 22 May 2021"
 * What that means is that this is the local, and Pan-Arabic standard name and, ifthe English title is changed, it still goes in as the equally valid alternative in the definition.
 * In Europe, mainstream newspapers have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade.


 * Benjamin Barthe Dimanche à Gaza, le massacre de la rue Al-Wehda : « Cette nuit-là, on a tous cru qu’on allait mourir » Le Monde 17 May 2021


 * Pierre Haski Après le massacre de Gaza, l’impossible statu quo Le Nouvel Observateur  16 May 2021


 * Gabriella Colarusso,'Strage di bambini a Gaza, i resti della casa distrutta dalle bombe,' Corriere della Sera 15 May 30


 * 'Gaza, l'Unicef denuncia la strage di bambini: "Già 17 morti".' La Repubblica 13 May 2021


 * That's just a short collection. More if needed.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In the absence of clarified objections to my previous removal of superfluous background content, I have removed that content again due to my belief that the content is unrelated except in the general to the article and is better left to the main article, 2021 Israel-Palestine Crisis. Should anyone disagree, please revert in part or whole - but if you do so, please explain why you disagree here so that we can have a discussion and build towards consensus.
 * I also believe we should move the second paragraph of "Israel's Response" into a new section, one discussing the response of NGO's, as the information contained within is not directly related to Israel's response, with the possible exception of the NYT investigation, but I have left it as it is for now pending further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2021

 * 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: moved. In this discussion both sides are trying to determine an accurate title for the events. There seems to be a consensus (at AfD) that the current title does not have consensus. In this discussion, there is a consensus to move to Wehda Street airstrikes. Supporting editors felt the current title (Wehda Street massacre) is not "widely used in reliable sources" enough to use what some may consider a biased title. Some support votes appeared mostly to want to move away from the current title, rather than having a deep preference for "airstrikes" specifically. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wehda Street massacre → Wehda Street airstrikes – According to the AfD closure, there’s almost a clear consensus to rename this article. When you search for “Wehda Street” at Google News, the word ‘’massacre’’ is nowhere to be found in the top results, nor in the best sources like The Independent, WaPo, DW, NYT and The Guardian. When you put the word ‘’massacre’’ into the search, only questionable sources appear. That’s why some editors here are desperately trying to find sources using that term in other languages (they are having to resort to that). The POV pushing and subversion of WP to right great wrongs is clear. By Nishidani's own admission, they're not interested in reproducing what the "mainstream media" "English mainstress press" [sic] says, but what is more sympathetic to their favored party in the conflict.)  -   (talk)  00:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC). Tweaked  -   (talk)  12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "By Nishidani's own admission, they're not interested in reproducing what the 'mainstream media' says, but what is more sympathetic to their favored party in the conflict"
 * This is a deliberate distortion of what I wrote above. I know you and the other fellow have just a few edits over the legal bar here, as you jumped into this area rather than edit any of the 6,500,000 articles demanding attention, but you are not permitted, esp. in an RfC to deliberately distort by caricature what opposing editors write. Strike it out. Indeed, your use of such a prevaricating skewing of an argument invalidates an RfC, which must be phrased neutrally. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPM states: “Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can”. But I´ll add a verbatim quotation anyway and other editors are invited to read the discussion above and judge for themselves if what I wrote was a distortion or not. -  (talk)  12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While a RM need not be neutrally worded, impugning other editors and their motives (including by name) is not a good look. By all means, make an argument based on sourcing and policy, all the rest is dross. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:POVNAMING tells us that titles such as Boston Massacre that appear to pass judgement on an event are only permitted when that name is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. A review of the literature shows us this is not the case, with the sources that Daveout has provided, and with these sources from the BBC and from Al Jazeera - particular weight should be given to the lack of use by Al Jazeera in this case, given the possibility of bias it has towards the Palestinian cause per WP:RSP. Outside of the title and alternative titles, it is likely that the term should be used in the article, though first a discussion with WP:UNDUE in minds needs to be had as to whether it should be included in the lede or the body, but that is a discussion that should be held elsewhere.BilledMammal (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reject. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not a synopsis of Western English mainstream newspaper reportage. I live in Europe: there mainstream newspapers had no problem with describing what happened as a 'massacre', as I briefly illustrated above.
 * Wikipedia's 'Category:Massacres' reads
 * "A massacre is a specific incident which involves the killing of people, although not necessarily a crime against humanity. The numbers of killed range from just a few people to many millions. The common factor for massacre (compare to mass murder) is multiple people being violently killed by other people"
 * 44 people, three families, died as a result of a pinpoint Israeli bombing run involving the dropping of 11 bunker-busting bombs along streets in a civilian area of one of the most densely populated urban areas in the world. The asserted aim was to hit military infrastructure. None so far has been found. The aim was also to eliminate Hamas militants: none are listed as casualties. Those who died were civilians, including two of Gaza's top surgeons in Gaza’s exhausted health care, taken out together with their families. Israel has a practice called Roof knocking to alert civilians when they might be at risk of collateral damage from urban bombing raids, missile and artillery barrages. That  was not used. Israel also controls the population registry of Gaza, and has computerized the addresses, telephone and Iphone numbers of every resident, and, though on prior occasions this was also used to alert citizens, in this case, no phones rang. The New York Times tells us that the 11-18 bunker busting  ordnance was dropped along a kilometre of road, metres from high rise apartment buildings, without Israel having any precise knowledge of where the target they desired to hit lay.


 * The only neutral bodies to have reported on this, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli NGO B'tselem, called it probably a war crime. Amnesty indeed said that it was the latest in a pattern of Israeli military operations that display ‘a shocking disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians’.  In Europe, Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Monde, Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, openly wrote of the incident as a ‘massacre’.


 * To use the right term to describe reality ios not POV pushing. One knows, editing here for 15 years, that it utterly pointless righting a great wrong. One knows since the judgment of the Israeli court at the Kfar Qassem Massacre where soldiersfgunned down 49 civilians returning home from work, that the commander pay a 10 cent fine, that Palestinian deaths at the most are just ‘shit-happens-move-on’ episodes, and are best called ‘incidents’, ‘strikes’, ‘operations’ as opposed to the word massacre we reserve for incidents when Palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians. The pattern Amnesty detects over several wars was described  by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz, which noted 12 entire families had been wiped out in Gaza in three days in the period we are dealin g with, as one where

"Wiping out entire families in Israeli bombings was one of the characteristics of the war in 2014. In the roughly 50 days of the war then, UN figures say that 142 Palestinian families were erased (742 people in total)."
 * The elephant in the room regards a WP:Systemic bias problem, whether US/English/Israeli preferred usage or euphemism is to trump all other sources, including those in Europe and the wider non-Anglophone world. In my view NPOV demands, where a military operation causes 44 civilian deaths and zero military casualties, that we call the ‘episode’ a ‘massacre ‘. That is how the non-USA press in Europe and throughout the world calls it, and per parity one cannot avoid the fact that the common name throughout the Arab world certainly is 'massacre', which, setting aside hot air, happens to be a correct term for the incident's effects.
 * ‘Massacre’ per the wikipedia category definition is an objective description of what happened. Attempts to change this to ‘airstrike’ suggest there was nothing distinctive about this one episode in the 450 ‘airstrikes’ Israel conducted without similar ‘collateral damage’.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Three of the four sources mentioned above do not mention Wehda. Two of them ‘’Corriere’’ and ‘’La Repubblica’’ are from before the attack (which happened on May 16). -  (talk)  12:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Israel made hundreds of strikes from May 11 onward. Two of the articles in the mainstream continental press describe incidents in which entire civilian families were wiped out, as massacres. The other two refer directly to the Wehda Street incident. I am short of time but this can be amply documented: i.e.Dopo strage Gaza Turchia espelle ambasciatore Israele. Papa: dolore per i morti in Terra Santa,basta violenze Ansa 16 May 2021 Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * While it is true that Wikipedia (as a project) is a global encyclopedia, this is en.wikipedia.org and our reliance on reliable, independent sources means it absolutely is a "synopsis of Western English mainstream newspaper reportage". In fact, that's a pretty apt description of what English Wikipedia is.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per consensus at AfD this RM is not needed at all. Airstrike or airstrikes is NPOV and is used by the majority of reputable sources. Free1Soul (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (in disgust) This attack, the deadliest single attack of the latest round of the IP conflict, has been characterized, along with two others, as a war crime by human rights watch (“Israeli forces carried out attacks in Gaza in May that devastated entire families without any apparent military target nearby,”), amnesty (who previously published evidence that the Israeli military had a deliberate policy of targeting family homes during the 2014 conflict) and other human rights organizations. So how does one characterize the death of 43 civilians with no apparent military target? If one goes by the majority reporting of Western news media, they have mainly settled on "airstrikes" (or bombings) although to give them their due, most do then go on to express the outrage felt by all civilized persons. Others, like Le Monde, a French newspaper of record, pulled no punches and called it what I would call it, a massacre ("Sunday in Gaza, the massacre of Al-Wehda street..."). But it seems there are an insufficient number willing to do that (for now) and so I am hamstrung by WP policies in this case and while concurring with Nishidani's assertion of systemic bias, I am forced to support this anodyne description. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have forgotten that, even if it were changed by default(because English sources while admitting it had all the characteristics of a war crime that should be reported for investigation as such to the International Court of Justice) to Wehda Street Israeli Airstrike, it has, in Arabic and Turkish sources, an alternative name, namely Wehda Street bloodbath/massacre. Change the name by all means, but the first sentence still requires per NPOV that the word used by Palestinians and the Arab world at large is 'Wehda Street bloodbath'. Since when does reliable sources mean only Western points of view, or silence? Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten, it will need to be established and will doubtless be once more disputed by the usual suspects.Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I thought the number of dead iot "qualify" beeing called a massacre was about 5? If we change the name of this article, we should also change the names of Passover massacre, Dolphinarium discotheque massacre, Bat Mitzvah massacre and half a zillion other such articles. Or, is it only Palestinian civilians you can kill with impunity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huldra (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, that's the systemic bias problem Nishidani mentioned, a bit difficult to fix that here though.Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably read too many non-Western sources then. (Incidentally, I read about the recent Hizbollah/Israel clashes: a (Western) sources presented Hizbaollah as the Goliat and Israel as David . It is such BS I cannot take much of anymore.) Huldra (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of victims is not the only thing to consider. To qualify as a massacre there should be an intention to kill, just like an execution. This is something that all the examples you mentioned above have in common, but that was not proven in this case. Present evidence that this was intentional and I'll support calling it a massacre. \\ Systemic bias claims are BS, the large majority of editors here are "more pro-palestinian"; we also have Al-jazeera as a reliable source providing an "arab-centric" perspective. However, WP should not take the arab (or israeli) pov as the most important nor the only possible POV, specially in a conflict. -  (talk)  20:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I cited the wiki policy for defining a massacre. It nowhere speaks of 'intentions' as a criterion. So tell me where you fished that lame excuse up from?Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You mentioned not a policy but an unsourced category description. \\ I'm basing myself on Robert Melson's (PhD) definition, which reads: "by massacre we shall mean the  intentional  killing by political actors of a significant number of relatively defenseless people". (see also: Massacre). -  (talk)  23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply don't believe that the high civilian death-count was "an unanticipated outcome": if anyone believe that; they must think that the Israelis have an IQ of below 65; anyone with an IQ above that would have seen the consequenses of bombing a heavily populated civilian area.  The truth is (as shown again and again and again); that the Israelis don't give a damn about how many Palestinian civilians they kill. (Or Lebanese lives, for that matter)
 * Anyway; I'm done here; nothing I will say will chenge your mind, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that they're dumb, it's just that, believe it or not, Israelis are just human and they commit mistakes. Look at these headlines about IDF soldiers hurting\killing themselves by mistake: "Soldier moderately injured after apparently shooting herself in the leg" \ "Elite soldier sentenced to 18 months for accidentally killing comrade" \ "Teen reportedly loses two fingers while putting up tent during IDF tryout". \\ Of course, the number of casualties rises drastically when powerful weaponry is involved. \\ While Israel's carelessness deserves criticism, that doesn't necessarily mean intention to kill. -   (talk)  23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously didn't bother to read https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/gaza-israel-wiping-entire-palestinian-families-hamas-1.9820005 "The numerous incidents of killing entire families in Israeli bombings in Gaza – Parents and children, babies, grandparents, siblings – attest that these were not mistakes. The bombings follow a decision from higher up, backed by the approval of military jurists" presented as analysis, not an opinion, and I have no trouble at all believing it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Attacks of this nature are called both airstrikes and massacres on Wikipedia for instance the Atarib market massacre and Armanaz massacre are called massacres while Tokhar airstrike and Togoga airstrike are called airstrikes and some are even called bombings like Hass refugee camp bombing and Amiriyah shelter bombing there is no real consistency for the names of attacks such as this one.--Garmin21 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - having suggested as much in the AfD, I remain of the view that the article title should be changed. I am conscious of 's well-made point above, but would suggest those articles that include the word "massacre" should probably have their titles changed also. The term "massacre" is a loaded one in the English language are is very rarely used by those seeking to describe something neutrally. Regardless of how it might be used (or misused) elsewhere or in other languages, this is still en.wikipedia.org and we are trying to describe something neutrally.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Rename it to Wehdra street airstrike. "Massacre" is a loaded term and implies malice. The current name totally fails the neutrality test.--RM (Be my friend) 04:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why malice. All we know is that numerous independent and neutral organizations in 2008-9, 2012, 2014,and 2021 have noted a consistent pattern of Israeli bombing of civilian family homes totally unconnected with Hamas. They say there is a pattern. This time round some 15 families were killed each in numbers that are close to 5, the starting point for determinations of massacres. Unlike Stewart, I have no problem in calling Palestinian acts of terror by that name. Wikipedia does so. But as soon as similar numbers come up for Israeli acts that occasion mass civilian deaths, editors twitch, as do reporters. Systemic bias. Fears of being 'unfair' or even 'antisemitic'. Consistency.  But I know stating the obvious is a lost cause here.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What matters is intent. Israel's argument is that it targets military infrastructure and civilian casualties are unintended collateral damage. Keep in mind that the Gaza Strip is densely populated, so its a highly plausible claim. In this case Israel claims that it was targeted Hamas tunnels under Wehda Street but the attack's planners didn't realize that the underground military infrastructure runs under the foundations of nearby buildings and that destroying it would shatter the foundations of those buildings. You can believe it or not, but unless some very convincing evidence that it was a deliberate killing of civilians comes to light, we should be totally neutral and not put assumptions into titles.--RM (Be my friend) 20:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Massacres are not defined by intent. But if you use that argument then Israel does perform massacres intentionally, in the sense that the IDF is well aware that its best statistical breakdowns of the ratio of civilian versus militant deaths in wars in Gaza always come up with a roughly 1 to 1 ratio. The people there are not as dumb as the spokesmen for that organization suggest readers out there are: they know perfectly well that mass bombing of dense civilian areas will, on average, kill as many civilians as it does militants, and this is certified five times since 2008. The rest is just pulling the wool over the public's eyes. It's distasteful even to make these arguments, this evening, as Gino Strada's death has been announced. That one man's initiative saved thousands of lives in wartorn areas, even among the Taliban. The only people who ever tried to make life uncomfortable for him were US government officials. When Israel shot with snipers 223 youths last year at a comfortable distance it did that with intent. It was a serial massacre. So even  the intentional argument is sheer nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We typically don't call accidents in the fog of war massacres. And the rest of this is just you pushing your own personal interpretations. Of course going to war in urban areas means you will potentially kill civilians. Israel makes efforts to minimize collateral damage, but trying to argue that you are intentionally mass murdering civilians if you knowingly enter a war in which civilians will be killed is taking it to the extreme. Under this standard pretty much any time you wage war in a densely populated area with the knowledge the civilian casualties will potentially be significant you are willfully massacring civilians. Then you also have to bring up a completely irrelevant anecdote about Afghanistan (admittedly about a genuine hero, and his death is sad but has nothing to do with this), and go back to the 2018 Gaza border incidents where again its highly disputed, since its the view of many people (including my own) that these were riots and not peaceful protests and the use of lethal force was justified to prevent a breach of the border (even if there may have been individual incidents of excessive force). You may disagree and call it a massacre, but it's Wikipedia's mission to give information in a neutral tone and let everyone draw their own conclusions, not use highly emotive language.--RM (Be my friend) 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is of course the official Israeli government explanation. . What I wrote reflects what independent NGOs of proven neutrality state: there is a consistent pattern of killing Palestinian civilians, knowingly. In the real world no civilized country, even in riot situations, where cops and 'rioters' (protesters) are separated by a hundred yards and an impenetrable fence, permits soldiers to pick off 223 protesters over several months because they threw stones ineffectively at the fence. Nor do they allow their troops, as Israel does at Beita, to shoot dead week in week out, 6 so far since mid-May,  people protesting the ongoing theft of their land by blow-ins from the world over. I know for the usual reasons that this name change will go through,- generally editors here either stoutly defend the official Israeli POV or know nothing of the area- but this article, whatever the result must bear the alternative Palestinian title per NPOV. Just as we do with things like Kent State shootings, also known as May 4 massacre and the Kent State massacre.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can call these events whatever you like, and use whatever criteria to determine your own language as you see fit. And you can argue your case here (and editors are given a lot of grace to do so). And you can attribute other editors' opinions to whatever point of view you believe they have. But you're skirting the edges of some thinly veiled personal attacks and should probably stop.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of personal attack unless I consider your remark as a personal attack? Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani's casting aspersions as to my motivations (and those of others) and suggesting that editors were biased. The WP:IDHT in the comment above is obvious.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, still don't see it, maybe you could provide a quote? IDHT? Nishidani? Don't think so.Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have a medical checkup. I suspect that my interoceptive sensibility, always a prescient anticipator of incipient problems, is perhaps not normal, but egregiously anomalous - that's what, on reflection, 15 years of editing interactions suggests, in hindsight. The quack may come up with a diagnosis of hypertrophy of my ventromedial prefrontal cortex, but at a certain age one has to live with frailties.:) Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have no dog in this fight; I came here after contributing to the AFD. You're editing in an area subject to arbitration remedies and making declarations like, "but this article, whatever the result must bear the alternative Palestinian title". So regardless of the consensus that develops among editors in this RFC, your personal POV should be imposed? Good luck with that. And I made one comment here before being singled out for my contribution as some kind of apologist for terrorism; "Unlike Stewart (sic), I have no problem in calling Palestinian acts of terror by that name." which had exactly zero to do with my rationale and is plainly ad hominem.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That just means this article, no matter its title as decided by consensus, should still include a significant alternative name, as per WP:ALTNAME that used by the Palestinians. That is not imposing a personal POV.  nableezy  - 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll WP:AGF and assume he meant "alternative name" when he said "title" in an RFC about the title, and assume he meant "should" when he said "must". And I'll assume he meant "all editors generally opposed to my personal point of view" when he mentioned me specifically and ascribed to me a view I did not express.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use caricature. I represent here what neutral NGOs concur in stating. Anyone familiar with the literature will know that. Of course I share that view, just as I agreed in primary school that 2+2=4. Since I didn't name the policy on which my alternative name was based, I'm happy to see Nableezy has cited it, WP:ALTNAME. I've known from the start that the change of title proposed by three low performing newbies would pass. But the Arab and Palestinian term will gloss that, just as we do with so many other articles. That is how we do things here.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2021 (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.

"Victims"?
Why is there a section dedicated to describing the victims? I cannot think of any other mass casualty event for which the Wikipedia article has a section about the victims. The section strikes me as an attempt to drum up sympathy for a particular POV. I think the entire section should be deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Originally there was a complete list of names, the names were simply removed, leaving things a little messy in the article and then people have mainly left it alone pending the outcomes of a deletion and the current move discussion, which should be resolved shortly and then people can concentrate on editing the article in the usual way.Selfstudier (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreee, very POV and memorial like. Removing. Free1Soul (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edit
I've removed the remaining mentions of "massacre", such as in the header of the infobox; I've also switched the infobox over to one without charged language such as "perpetrators". Finally, and possibly most controversially, I've moved references to alleged war crimes by both Israel and Gaza, outside of this airstrike, to the background; I believe that is a more appropriate location for them. BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

On the use of 'allege'
"Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and commentators have alleged that the strike possibly constituted a war crime due to its disproportionate impact on civilian life"

This is an example of catachresis. 'to assert without proof or before proving (MW)'. One cannot 'allege' a surmise or possibility: one alleges a putative fact, whose factual nature is later proven or disproven.

What the above bodies did was, on the basis of a set of facts (the casualties, the area bombed, etc.) raise the possibility, i.e., made a suggestionthat the incident might constitute a war crime, since proportionality determines how one evaluates such claims. They did not allege Israel committed a war crime. I will adjust to that end.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, I will remember that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)