Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre[edit]

While I generally tend to stay clear of Israel-Palestine conflict related things, I stumbled upon this during routine NPP. Do we really need separate articles for each individual attack? I feel like the primary article should be sufficient. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that it is an important event in the war I find it justified to have its own article; just like 1929 Hebron massacre is separated from 1929 Palestine riots, and Katyn massacre is separated from Soviet invasion of Poland. The separation also exists in different languages. Ronash (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose the event is part of the war but merging it would just muddy the article's information. The incident would only be a blip on the main article if merged. Rager7 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Since there are many details about each case in each of the settlements, as reflected in the many and detailed sources that report on what happened, in my opinion there is room to leave each article on its own. Consolidation of all the articles may lead to the situation of an article that is too large or an article that is not detailed enough. Yotamsahar (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which should be avoided on Wikipedia. Sebbog13 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is no need for a detailed article for every incident that occurred. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dl.thinker you can also say that about Jabalia refugee camp market airstrike. Lilijuros (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge at this time. There's room for another article on that event. Andre🚐 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try to expand this one? If there's no way to expand it, then sure, but I would have to think that there's enough local media coverage here that we could get the details filled in. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Red-tailed hawk, it just needs to be expanded. Sebbog13 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The massacre claimed the lives of at least 4 innocents, if not more. There is an article on the 2023 Eli shooting despite the fact that there were only 4 civilians killed in the militant shooting. Closetside (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Plenty of coverage by reliable sources, article should be expanded and not merged. Parent article is too long. Marokwitz (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems inevitable that as this conflict keeps growing, that these side articles will develop from the main one. A main concern is that this exact term "Ein HaShlosha Massacre" is not used much, if at all, in WP:RS news outlets. So editors may want to keep this in mind as it grows. Fuzheado | Talk 18:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wide coverage of this specific massacre around the world, and unfortunately the main article is too long and it will disapear in it Sunshine SRA (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith proposal mostly per above. These individual massacres are independently notable and with time I expect them to expand. Generally I am not a fan of unneccessary forks, but the long term trajectory of this article suggests it is going to get massive. Let's try not to add to that more than is absolutely necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pages like this should all be mentioned in the war page timeline. That's the most logical place to link them from, unless there would also be a section that lists specific such events. If this article doesn't get expanded, it should be merged. If anyone can be bothered to reasonably expand it, it can stay. In it's current size, it could entirely be merged into the war page timeline. GMRE (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is also the page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (title is being discussed), specifically about the attack and these massacres which started the war. –St.nerol (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to different target - I would recommend merging to the article about Ein HaShlosha, where there is already a section about the Ein HaShlosha#2023 massacre that links to this article. Develop there first, then decide if there is enough content for a separate article, rather than having this one remain a stub. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. KD0710 (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 – SJ + 01:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We already have a very wide coverage of this specific massacre around the world and more detail would come. It already seems to have separate notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It should/can be merged to page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, but certainly no 2023 Israel–Hamas war. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to different target — Cameron has it right. It should stay at Ein HaShlosha until there is enough for a split. Currently there isn't. Zerotalk 01:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge - This event is deeply linked to the current military operation. Additionally this article would benefit from a much wider span of sources, context and ramifications in the larger context of Israel-Palestine. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double Plus Ungood Oppose. I believe this is not contradictory - having a wider context in the main article does not contradict having an article targeting a specific incident. The latter could elaborate on aspects which may be less significant in the wider context. ChiliS44 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but right now this is a poorly-referenced stub. It would only gain from being integrated into a better-referenced, better-linked article with a lot more information.
It's not an isolated event, either from prior or subsequent events. Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The massacre article is a stub and would make main article more exstentive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1q9w (talk • contribs) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to different target per Cameron Dewe. The oppose !voters make a fair argument that the main article is so long that individual notable events will be hard to find. But there's just not enough here to justify a separate article entirely, making a merge warranted. Ein HaShlosha is an appropriate home for this information. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is another one I would support a merge into. Many oppose !votes argue there is enough information out there to warrant an expansion, and while I acknowledge the page is still new and so is the discussion, I held off !voting yesterday to see if it'd expand even a little, and no information has been added since yesterday. Typically, any new article - even one about a subject that doesn't have a whole lot of info out there - can easily contain more information than this. If this were a draft, it wouldn't be ready for publishing yet. That's not to say that the information isn't notable, it absolutely is and should be covered on the encyclopedia, and I understand and half-agree with the argument that the main article isn't the ideal option (we are only talking about a few sentences here, it won't make it that much more cluttered, the downside is that this info would be harder to find). There are better places to cover this.
TL;DR of this !vote: Support merge into either Ein HaShlosha or Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Mixed feelings on merging into 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Oppose keeping as a standalone article.
 Vanill a  Wizard 💙 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that the October 7 attacks generated at least nine new articles separate from the main article. Some of these are expansive enough that they probably ought to remain separate articles, but it would make it easier for the reader to find this information if several of them were combined into a single article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Several repeat information contained in other articles, and there are also sketchy sources (tabloids, reports that have since been found to be false). Putting all of this on one page would help to sort through this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re'im, Kfar Aza, and Be'eri all involved hundreds of people and 100+ dead, tantamount to a small battle. They don't get "Battle of" articles because the defenders were generally unarmed and caught unawares. The "stand-off in be'eri and ofakim" is not a thing, the towns aren't close, it should mostly be merged into the Be'eri massacre, and the few Ofakim details into a consolidated article. – SJ + 01:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is possibe to add links from the general term to all th other terms, but leave them as they are SamiBuzaglo (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have read the article about the massacre, and I think that the article should not be merged with the Israel-Hamas war article because it seems to be at the very least a minor (but still somewhat notable) part of the war. It's like if we merged the Storming of the Bastille article with the French Revolution article, it wouldn't make sense and would confuse readers. Davest3r08 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't even remotely similar. Look at the content in that article. Beshogur (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point: to be honest, I just realized that I used a poor example for my argument. Davest3r08 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uhh... the Storming of the Bastille was the pivotal moment of the French Revolution and has been analyzed to hell and back, it has an enormous article for good reason. This is one of at least nine massacres on one day in one war, one of the least deadly of the October 7 2023 massacres at that, with only a couple sentences of info on it. If that analogy is the basis of your !vote, I recommend rethinking your argument and refactoring it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a different target - Actually, I reread the article, and I think it should be merged into a list. Coverage of the topic is scarce at the very least as proven from a Google search. Davest3r08 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was pretty stupid of me think like that in my eariler argument. Davest3r08 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Talking about the French Revolution reasoning) Davest3r08 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, I've made plenty of arguments that I went on to second guess, it happens to everyone. what I don't see as often is editors not being ashamed to switch their !vote, and I am very appreciative that you did so.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or a list of massacres by Hamas in Israel. I could see why it could be merged there, considering that the massacre was a part of the aforementioned operation. Davest3r08 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we shouldn't go around getting rid of articles about massacres that outside of the war would get their own articles unchallenged. JM2023 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder of 30/500 restrictions This page is within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict and under extended confirmed restrictions. I am noticing an excessive amount of !votes from brand new accounts, even accounts whose first and only edit was a !vote in this discussion. First things first, you must have at least 500 edits and at least 30 days of tenure on Wikipedia before being able to edit pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that includes !voting in discussions like this. Second, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not a vote (hence the "!" in "!vote"). Decisions are made based on the strength of the arguments and their grounding in Wiki policy, not the shear number of comments in favor of one outcome or another. I have struck the !votes from non-extended-confirmed users.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get that people can't chip in on talk page proposals if they don't meet the 30/500 requirement? Not sure of this. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VintageVernacular: As per WP:ARBECR, which this is under:

    non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.

    VanillaWizard's striking of non EC !votes seems perfectly reasonable. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks. VintageVernacular (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Every such massacre is done by a group of terrorists. Killing a group of innocents. Deserves an article on its own.Eladkarmel (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Hansen SebastianTalk 18:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as 2023 Israel–Hamas war is getting too big, and will have to be subdivided or trimmed. So separate articles are good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a separate event/attack that is notable in itself.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What I am seeing in the press right now is coverage of each individual massacre rolling in. I believe it is also typical for us to have individual articles of massacres committed during wars in this region, compare with the Wikipedia category "Massacres of Palestinians" for instance. The article just requires expansion. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have separate pages for 9/11 and the Afghanistan War. The attack is a separate event that partially led to the declaration of war. Catboy69 (talk) 9:25 PM, 16 Octiber 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Lilijuros (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The massacre is part of the war, it is not posssible to merge. Nanchang17 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is so much more that's missing in the article but has been covered and proven by trustworthy news sources. I propose expansion of this article rather than merging. MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the main article is too long already and the massacre was WP:N and has WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The main article (merge to) is already very long. This incident is notable enough on its own even with just the sources given. Yue🌙 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Frankly, the article isn't nearly notable enough to justify a split off. It should be merged into this article at minimum, or merged into an article which catalogues multiple attacks. You could never write an entire, encyclopedic article off that single attack alone. It should be a section, somewhere. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The main Israel-Hamas war article is too big. However would support a Merge into Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which is proposed on the header of this article, but there is no RfC on this Talk Page for it (is it just one move RfC at a time)? Aszx5000 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood which covers the initial Hamas attacks in the beginning of the war. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel instead. Idol Destroyer (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed. Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interest in this merge discussion seemed to drop off palpably after the tag advertising the merge discussion was removed from the main article. One could argue this suggests that it would make it easier for the readers to access this information if as much info as possible about the many different massacres on 7 October could be found in a single place as opposed to many different one-paragraph-long articles, but I digress. With this discussion probably nearing its end, I will say that I don't envy whoever takes it upon themselves to close it. Trying to parse out a consensus and weighing the arguments might take a while. Doesn't help that it started as a proposal to merge into the main article specifically, but then some (but not all) of the !votes commented on merging somewhere else instead. Best wishes to whoever takes the time to make sense of this mess we've created for them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I’ve been wikignoming some of these pages. The multiple articles make sense to me because they are each notable and have sufficient WP:V if you look. They are held together to the main article by the “2003 Israel-Hamas war” box (normally under the article info box) so a reader can ignore or dig deeper if they wish. I haven’t looked at this article but have just adopted Alumim massacre (with others) where a dispute was brewing between very emotional new editors who didn’t want to understand wikifixation and veteran editors. There were clear wiki bureaucracy issues, but I considered it worth saving because of notability and available RS. In particular this one highlighted the differences that can occur in these events. Although as notable as any of the other articles Alumim had notable differences: Few Israelis killed because of successful defense, but high number of Thai and Nepalese workers killed because breakthrough was where they were working. (BTW don’t comment on Alumim yet, I’ve just finished reviewing the refs, and will only make changes over the next 24 hrs. I know it’s still a mess). Ayenaee (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not changing my !Vote, but having read this article and reviewed some of the others I can see what the problem is. The articles of this nature are split between POV stubs of one/two paragraphs, and more researched articles which are at least attempting WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. So for example the music festival and hospital attack articles make good attempts at wikified articles - as good as possible in the circumstances. But this and several other stub articles don’t. So rather an a one-size-fits all solution, we need a case-by-case process. For me, if editors are willing to create or revise articles related to an attack/battle/massacre which have substantial background, attack, casualty, aftermath sections in neutral, verified etc voice then these should stay a per my main !Vote. If a stub is always going to be a NPOV stub then it should be merged or deleted if not notable. Ayenaee (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is room for this information. In specifies because it regards a specific community massacre and history of actions. There is room to add information. If someone knows Hebrew, I'm certain there is more info avaible in Hebrew sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is ample properly sourced content to support a stand alone article, the target would not be improved by the merge. This fits properly into a SUMMARYSTYLE article structure.  // Timothy :: talk  07:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

There are currently four confirmed dead in this incident, at least one of which has been confirmed as the head of the security team that had a multi-hour standoff with the invading militants. Another account suggests that all four residents killed were defending the community at the time. Presumably, though not confirmed, these were also members of the security team. Based on the available information, it would appear that those killed were largely those that fought back (and were presumably armed, though again this is not stated), so this is less massacre and more attack/defense where some defenders were killed by the attackers. I also don't see "massacre" in the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reliable and independent source calling it a massacre? I don't see such a source being used at the moment. I think the page should move. --Mhhossein talk 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, but I thought I'd let the question air for a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If in fact none of the sources are using the term massacre, then the article may need a different title to reflect how it is described. I was able to find at least one of the English language sources using the term "attack" which might be appropriate. Any suggestions?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. 'Attack' seems to be the best word to default to right now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanilla Wizard and Iskandar323: I also agree with the term attack. What we know is that the current title not only POVish but also not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 19:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JTA uses the term "attack"[1]. VR talk 19:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Innocent civilians were murdered/killed. Massacre fits definition. Attack would suggest there the action was of military nature. Therefore it does not fit. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what fits; it's about what reliable sources use. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search
quote: Ein Hashlosha: At least 4 murdered
The 15-strong alert squad did battle with the terrorists for six hours before the IDF arrived. The military security coordinator was killed. Among those murdered is Marcelle Talia, who had come to Ein Hashlosha to visit her daughter, Liora Ben Zur, who had given birth to a daughter two days before the massacre. “I called my brothers. They showed up at the kibbutz on their own with guns and saved my family,” she recalls.[2] Homerethegreat (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
massacre | AMERICAN DICTIONARY
massacre
noun [ C ]
US
 /ˈmæs·ə·kər/
Add to word list
the killing of a large number of people, esp. people who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves
Fits criteria. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and internalize WP:OR and WP:NAME. nableezy - 09:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 09:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not OR, since that's how it's been called by sources other than me. Regarding name:
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. (Massacre used in different languages, used in English Media too)
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. (Naturally one would search massacre and not murder-spree or killings or mass-killing or other word variation of mass-death).
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) (Fits Dictionary Description)
  • Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.) (Massacre in one word shorter than other variations of mass-killings)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.) (Other titles in topic refer as Massacres, Re'im, Be'ri' etc.)
Homerethegreat (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except sources do not call it this as even your own sources do not call it a massacre. Imagine an editor saying well the Israeli bombardment of Gaza has killed 11,000 people with no ability to defend themselves, we should title the Massacre of Gaza. Sources call this an attack and that means we should too. I’ll be proposing a move. nableezy - 10:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that refer to it as a massacre, (quick google search)
,[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] Homerethegreat (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the title, if we see the details of the attack unlike other attacks, the settlers opposed to the attack, and many sources speaks as an attack. it is even called "encounter" in the spanish wiki.--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Tetsou TheIronman[reply]

Interesting point, I'll check now how it's called in different Wikis
French Wiki calls it a massacre
Portuguese Wiki calls it a massacre
Russian Wiki calls it a massacre
Norwegian calls it Attack on Ein Hashlosha
Hebrew Wiki calls it a massacre
Estonia Wiki calls it a massacre
Arab wiki calls it a massacre (from google translate)
Happy you brought up this point. So it seems a striking majority of Wiki articles call it a massacre. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia and no other wiki is a reliable source. nableezy - 08:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Homerethegreat:, please familiarize yourself with sourcing policy and naming policy. We cite reliable, secondary sources. We do not use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, that's circular. Can all those other Wikis point to English Wikipedia currently using the name as a source for why they should continue to do so as well? Of course not. We go with what actual sources say. This also means we need not engage in any dictionary warring or original research. We do not look at the event through our own eyes and determine based on the dictionary what title we would use if we were the journalists. We are not a publisher of original thought, just an encyclopedia that succinctly summarizes what reliable sources say into a comprehensive yet easily digestible article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last response give by Nableezy it is accurate, in the case of Homerethegreat, it is really guided more by your emotions. In the other case of deletion, i will try to give info about the argentinian-israeli civilian victim.Tetsou TheIronman (talk)--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023[edit]

A 39-year-old woman, daughter of a Chilean woman living in Israël, died after a Hamas militant entered her home and shot her eight times. [1] Morcha78 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 04:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, is the addition satisfactory? "A 39 year old Israeli-Chilean woman was shot 8 times" Homerethegreat (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005[edit]

This article states that one of the factors leading up to the attack is that Israel occupied the Gaza Strip. Not true. Here's what another Wikipedia article says:

In 2005, 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were unilaterally dismantled and Israeli settlers and army evacuated from inside the Gaza Strip, redeploying its military along the border. PastorAndyCook (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.24horas.cl/internacional/noticias/hija-de-chilena-murio-en-israel-tras-ataque-de-hamas-habria-recibido-8-disparos
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ein_HaShlosha_massacre&oldid=1211430673"