Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/July

Arbpia
Please do not make any further edits to the article until you are 500/30 or they will be reverted (I noted this already on your talk page).Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will work on my 500 edits for now Can I suggest the edits I already attempted to make here? they're long though Thanks for the help Belal2795 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, ideally, please edit other, unrelated, less controversial areas before making edit proposals in this area. Theoretically, the exception at Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles, 5.B.1, applies to such suggestions. Practically, please have a look at the community portal and the Task Center instead, as these pages contain more productive ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep but rename
I revised the page and made many factual and language changes to make it uptodate and neutral as much as possible The title needs to be edited though Belal2795 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that rename is needed. The reasons for the IDF targeting this area are not well-covered in the page at present. If the IDF's deliberate purpose was not to commit a massacre but that the Hamas military targets (logistics, weapons and materiel) are embedded in civilian centers, the word "massacre" in the page name is POV. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not define massacres necessarily in terms of intent, thoughy many such massacres were intentional. Whatever the IDF's intentions were won't be known until archives are opened some 50 years hence. If a military operation leads to over 40 civilian deaths, and there is no evidence forthcoming of any casualties among the militants ostensibly targeted, then there is no other word for what happened than massacre. If, as is the general rule for the IDF, the civilian vs militant kill score is 50/50, then a case can be made that the former were 'collateral damage'. That is not the case here. Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple citations of references
At a glance, the number of references in that section is inflated. The contributors, with one exception, didn't use the REF NAME template for multiple citations (e.g. one x12, one x9, etc.). If this page remains in mainspace, this edit would aid NPOV to more clearly show the balance of sources. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)