Jump to content

Talk:Al-Tabaeen school attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Al-Tabin school attack)


Arabic sources?

[edit]

@Skitash, @Makeandtoss, is there additional details that Arabic sources can add to this? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This article outlines the reactions of Arab states to this attack. I'll add it to the article in a bit. Skitash (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article?

[edit]

This seems like a duplicate article - there is a far more complete article here: 2024 Al-Tabin school massacre. Is there any reason to keep both? Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one was created first, the other should be redirected here. Copy any necessary material over and start an RM for a title change if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Before there is trouble :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I didn't see that this was created first. I'll start an RM and copy necessary material over. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet, we should have a way of doing this so forks aren't created again. I see you added your article to Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present). I added mine to Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza.VR (Please ping on reply) 11:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Before I checked the date I added it to the Attacks... article as well. I can remove it from the timeline and add this one instead looks like this has already been done. By "a way of doing this so forks aren't created again", do you mean something other than an RM? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant next time you or I are creating an article. How can we check if it hasn't been created just 10 mins ago? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be based more on Wikipedia’s inability to call Israel massacres a “massacre” rather than being created. It should be moved to the “tabieen school massacre” if Wikipedia is actually neutral as it claims, unless calling an event where 100 people including children being blown up a “a massacre” is pov The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: I have created a move request, please follow established procedure. @Vice regent I guess the tricky thing is when two articles are created with the same content but different names... maybe searching for the proper noun in question before creating the page (i.e. "Al-Tabaeen") will cover most cases? Especially tough with rapidly developing events like this one. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I’m not mistaken the “al-“ prefix in Arabic is lowercase when transliterated to English, and “Tabaeen” seems to be the more widely used transliteration of the school name The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria ok! I don't know what that has to do with this conversation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

I'm seeing RS that say 90+, maybe we should lose the earlier 100? Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I’m seeing Al Tabaeen way more than Al Tabin, and the Arabic name also suggests this is not the best transliteration with an Ayin yih being transliterated in to basically a kasra. nableezy - 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an uncontroversial move you can WP:Boldly do.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as usual, downplaying Israeli massacres

[edit]

Every source that can actually label Israel as a perpetrator this refers to it as a massacre. The downplaying by Wikipedia of Israeli atrocities is reaching ridiculous, disgusting, and delusional levels


https://bokra.net/Article-1550371

https://www.aljazeera.net/amp/news/2024/8/10/جثث-متفحمة-وأشلاء-متناثرة-للمصلين

https://www.elnashra.com/news/show/1680457/مواقف-سياسية-ودينية-استنكرت-مجزرة-مدرسة-التابعين-غ?amp=1

https://www.maannews.net/news/2122994.html

https://www.emaratalyoum.com/politics/news/2024-08-10-1.1874249?ot=ot.AMPPageLayout


https://aawsat.com/العالم-العربي/المشرق-العربي/5049218-تنديد-عربي-ودولي-بـمجزرة-الفجر-ذروة-الإرهاب-الإسرائيلي-واستخفاف

The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ARTICLETITLE can only be based on English sources, unfortunately. But we can still mention a commonly used Arabic name, in bold, in the first name of the article.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought up the issue with these English sources, being that there is a clear bias, everything from omitting Israel’s name from the article, putting “Hamas-run” before any mention of Palestinian casualties, and using “Gaza” or “Gazan” as demonyms to avoid acknowledging a Palestinian people, a clear bias exists in all these sources (check Reuters which changed the article name twice to make it more friendly towards Israel) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2024

[edit]
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: not moved. Arguments about the definition of a massacre and whether this constitutes one were not compelling. The governing policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE; both rely on the descriptor used in reliable sources. A handful of sources, primarily non-English, were produced to support the move, but most participants on both sides agreed that "massacre" is not the prevailing descriptor in reliable sources. There is thus not an adequate policy justification for the move. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tabaeen school attack → Al-Tabaeen school massacre – The flowchart on WP:DEATHS makes it clear that as the people are dead -> because of homicide -> not capital punishment -> nobody is convicted, we could go with "Al-Tabaeen school killings", but given the number of people who were killed, I believe massacre is, sadly, appropriate. Foreign ministries across the Arab world have also considered it a massacre, and we refer to other such tragic events - of varying scales - as a massacre (i.e. Bucha massacre, Hoddle Street massacre, Samashki massacre, etc.), so I believe this change is appropriate considering the scale of the incident and the number of dead and wounded as reported by RS within the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support several sources have described and called this a massacre
https://bokra.net/Article-1550371
https://www.aljazeera.net/amp/news/2024/8/10/جثث-متفحمة-وأشلاء-متناثرة-للمصلين
https://www.elnashra.com/news/show/1680457/مواقف-سياسية-ودينية-استنكرت-مجزرة-مدرسة-التابعين-غ?amp=1
https://www.maannews.net/news/2122994.html
https://www.emaratalyoum.com/politics/news/2024-08-10-1.1874249?ot=ot.AMPPageLayout
https://aawsat.com/العالم-العربي/المشرق-العربي/5049218-تنديد-عربي-ودولي-بـمجزرة-الفجر-ذروة-الإرهاب-الإسرائيلي-واستخفاف
A systemic bias exists within English sources, it is impossible for them to acknowledge a massacre by Israel as such, in some cases even omitting Israel’s responsibility while putting “Hamas-run” next to any mention of civilian casualties The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nomination Durranistan (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support.. Given the casualties number, especially women and children. 'massacre' is more accurate. Bassimoo7 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the number of non-combatants' deaths as well as multiple characterizations as a massacre by various media outlets. Erminwin (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Jebiguess (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Are we serious? This is an encycloepdia, we are supposed to be neutral. (A) at the moment, the claim of 90+ deaths comes directly from Hamas information office, and is not verified independently in any way. (B) Actual casualities lists published by Palestinian sources following the incident reported 33 deaths by names, of which at least 19 of which are confirmed Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants per Israeli intelligence. ABHammad (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the Hamas information office isn't to be trusted, but Israeli intelligence is? Parabolist (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is widely accepted by many reputable agencies around the world. Not only that some reputable journals have suggested that the death toll given by the Gaza health ministry is actually a minimum as it lists confirmed casualties by name, excluding missing and unaccounted for. Bassimoo7 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The “confirmations” include people who were killed days prior to the bombing. Israel can post a random infographic alleging some people it killed previously were “khamas” to justify the next massacre, doesn’t make it true though The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which English-language sources, if any, call this a massacre? BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there aren't many, so instead a vague allegation of systemic bias has been raised. Needless to say, if this were accepted it would be a POV pusher's dream. All manner of citations could be tossed because of, say, "systemic leftist bias in academia".
As a whole cottage industry of partisans for the other side exists to nitpick these same sources, the centrist cliche "if both sides hate you then you must be doing something right" would seem relevant.
Sure, "other tragedies are titled massacre". Lots of others are not.
PrimaPrime (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most western journals are highly biased towards Israel. I think it should be pretty obvious by now. Bassimoo7 (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you, this is not a policy based argument, which is the problem with a lot of these recent pagemoves in the A/I topic area. This needs to be based on policy and coverage in reliable sources, not personal opinions. That being said, I would support this per Selfstudier's rationale. Jdcomix (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not our policy to decide titles based on one attributed opinion so consider me still an oppose. We can bold an alternate title in the first sentence as has been done at e.g. Majdal Shams attack.
We will definitely find out whether whoever closes this believes Wikipedia is actually just a popularity contest. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources that use/refer to massacre besides Borrell, what I find fascinating about that is it is a first break in the current Western tradition where Jews are massacred and Arabs are merely killed (or even just die, inexplicably). There was a recent discussion at the boards about the use of the word massacre and I did say there I would prefer it not to be used at all (I would prefer something that can be defined) but that if it is going to be used, then I think account should be taken of a systemic bias that we know exists. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be better to deprecate "massacre" in all but exceptional cases until after history has written its judgment.
But arguably "tradition" was broken a while ago as Palestinian civilian casualties in what was by all accounts a pitched battle were POV forked into being "massacred", while Israeli villagers with no soldiers anywhere near them were moved to being merely "attacked" because, and I quote, there wasn't enough "weight of sourcing actually names it as massacre".
So, what's the weight of sourcing here? So far we only have a smattering of non-English ones and attributed opinions. In other words, we might have an alternative title for the first sentence. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Hold on, I haven't seen any mainstream outlets referring to this as a massacre. Let's wait and see if that changes. For now, I oppose this. PeleYoetz (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it's good enough for the EU's Josep Borrell, per the NYT, referring to the recent school attacks, it's good enough for me. "There’s no justification for these massacres."Abdulrahim, Raja; Kim, Victoria; Boxerman, Aaron (August 10, 2024). "Israel Criticized After Strike Kills Scores in Gaza" – via NYTimes.com. Other English language sources also make use of the word and one cannot deny the scale of the civilian killings, acknowledged by all RS. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:RSEDITORIAL
QalasQalas (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support --محمود (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to bludgeon, but this isn't a numbers-based vote. You need to have an actual argument for why the page should be moved. Jdcomix (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless محمود (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person. محمود (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Western English language sources that are normally considered reliable (NYT, BBC, etc.) are biased in favor of Israel. The lack of any plausible non war crime rationale, targeting at the exact moment of dawn prayers when they knew the maximum amount of people would be congregating, makes this a massacre. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a right great wrongs argument. Policies like WP:POVNAME have no provision for assigning weight to sources based on our perceptions of correctness or biases; it's only about reliability (based on WP:RSP etc). — xDanielx T/C\R 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Selfstudier. As an aside, can we get some more policy-based arguments here rather than WP:SPADE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Feels like the majority of !votes are getting dangerously close to that, even if I agree with the points raised. Jdcomix (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. "Massacre" is, of course, a loaded term which in this case is not widely supported by reliable English-language sources. Let's wait for broader input before making such a significant change. UnspokenPassion (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is described as a massacre by multiple sources
Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. On the other hand, sources that employ the "massacre" description tend to be biased. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support more than 100 civilians among childten were killed, I believe massacre. 78.182.196.155 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EC editor. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a few reasons,
  • While there's probably a reasonable case that this was a massacre, definitions vary, and it's always a bit murky when both soldiers and civilians are killed.
  • No argument has been offered for why "attack" or "strike" are not perfectly suitable. Why use a term which is arguably accurate when we can use one that's objectively accurate?
  • The WP:POVNAME standard is a significant majority of English-language sources. A handful of partisan sources does not establish this. More mainstream sources like BBC and NYT use "strike".
— xDanielx T/C\R 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dozens of civilians were killed while praying in a school. Seems that for some people the MoH is always lying and we should always put their numbers into question (even though they have been historically deemed reliable) but also accept whatever the IDF claims, which is not verified independently in any way, and it's usually at least partially debunked afterwards (in this case some of the supposed Hamas operatives were killed days before, not to mention there's never any proof of them being actually involved with Hamas other than being palestinians and male). Also to answer some of the questions being raised:
  • A massacre is the killing of a large number of people, typically in a context where the victims are unarmed or not actively engaged in combat. I'd say this event fits that definition
  • Strike refers to a precise and targeted action which should in theory reduce the amount of civilian casualties. There were three rockets dropped in a school during Fajr. Doesn't sound like a surgical strike. Attack also lacks the specific connotation of indiscriminate or excessive violence against non-combatants. Not to sound repetitive since this has already been mentioned but lets call a spade a spade. Using "attack" or "strike" would undermine the specific characterization of the event as one involving disproportionate violence against civilians
  • As some other editors have mentioned, English language sources are largely pro Israel. A lot of headlines constantly use passive language describing in a very abstract and vague way what happened, but never the culprit (when it is Israel). We do have as of now at least one EU diplomat calling it a massacre
  • Just take a look at List of massacres in Israel where the vast majority have fewer casualties than this event, or the average hospital bombing by Israel, yet are is still deemed a massacre. Why is the issue of neutrality and bias only brought up when the victims are palestinians? - Ïvana (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say a massacre is the killing of a large number of people in a non-combat context. That's why we have Al-Dawayima massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Sabra and Shatila massacre and Cave of the Patriarchs massacre where defenceless Palestinian civilians were deliberately shot in cold blood. (Though when defenceless Israeli civilians were deliberately shot in cold blood at Nir Oz they were downgraded to having been merely "attacked".)
Conversely here we have deaths in an airstrike during a war, allegedly targeting combatants, in which some amount of civilian deaths are permitted by international humanitarian law. Are a preponderance of reliable sources saying Israel ought to have known in advance the civilian casualties would be excessive relative to the purported military objective, or that it knew there were no militants at all and was simply happy to kill any Palestinians it could?
Because if not then what has usually determined whether an article is titled "massacre" is clearly not pro-Israeli bias, but the intent of the perpetrators. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know why I dislike the use of this word at all, stuck with it tho. Here there is only one sensible argument against it, that a plurality of English language sources do not call the event a massacre, although quite a few do make reference to the fact that others call it a massacre. We are supposed to just ignore systemic bias but personally I find that I cannot, particularly when it is glaringly obvious and there are RS that comment on it. It's a tough call, I feel for the closer. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Western media can be deprecated for systemic pro-Israeli bias (despite its regular output of content that Israeli propagandists rush to denounce), can Al Jazeera and the Journal of Palestine Studies be deprecated for systemic pro-Palestinian bias? And in that case, what sources would we even have left to write articles with. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Palestinians kill Israelis day in and day out and other stuff as Israelis are doing and AJ reported that in the same way as the Western press, sure, why not. But that's a hypothetical, whereas the current situation is for real. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:PRESSTV and WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY are deprecated for pro-Iran bias or in western terms "disseminating state propaganda" AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International law is incredibly unambiguous about attacking a school being a war crime - https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/attacks-against-schools and so far there's no evidence that there were any 'legitimate targets' in the school; the only proof that has been offered is from the IDF, which obviously is not a reliable source in the matter. (The names they provided were almost immediately shown to be civilians who had died in other incidents.) To date no RS has had any independent evidence of this being a combat operation targeting combatants. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - it's in fact incredibly unambiguous that any civilian object can be attacked if it's used for military purposes. There is a presumption of civilian status that Israeli lawyers would have to rebut if this ever ended up before a competent court, but we're not the judges of that. We can only go by what RS have said, for instance that according to Palestinian officials only 17 of the 75 identified victims were women and children, what has de facto become the flawed proxy for discussing civilian status in this conflict.
Now, I can think of two explanations for the highly disproportionate number of male casualties: (1) it was prayer time so the genders were separated, or (2) militants were in fact congregating there. Or perhaps both are partly true. But again, we can't decide this on our own. Have RS weighed in here? PrimaPrime (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is that number is because prayers in congregation are almost exclusively attended by men, militants being there is COMPLETELY ruled out given that Israel’s infographic of “militants” show people who were killed days prior so it is obviously nothing more than a typical Israeli lie The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is that number is because prayers in congregation are almost exclusively attended by men, militants being there is COMPLETELY ruled out given that Israel’s infographic of “militants” show people who were killed days prior so it is obviously nothing more than a typical Israeli lie The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Completely ruled out" according to which RS? Claims by some NGO run by a guy who spent October 7 celebrating Hamas's "heroic knights" obviously don't cut it - certainly not if we're allowed to handwave away the BBC ("cannot independently verify figures from either side") for its supposed bias.
In reality we are unlikely to ever get solid proof one way or the other. All we can do is summarize RS, and if a significant majority don't conclude that this was a deliberate massacre of civilians, we can't move the page. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do dead people come back to life, primaprime? Because that is the only way Israel’s argument of “19 teghoghists killed” has any merit The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what "teghoghists" are and how they are relevant to the lack of RS for your position? PrimaPrime (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To justify the massacre, the idf presented an infographic showing 19 of them, however when the identities of the “khamas teghoghists” were shown it ended up including people who were killed days prior
https://www.ajnet.me/news/2024/8/11/بعضهم-استشهد-قبل-يومين-معلومات
In short, the idf producing a fancy infographic to justify a massacre is not evidence, let alone conclusive enough to warrant calling it an “attack” because of alleged military presence The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase you, "a systemic bias exists within Arabic sources, it is impossible for them to acknowledge the presence of Hamas."
Now, is repetitively mocking the way you think people from another country talk the most persuasive argument you can think of? PrimaPrime (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this “systemic bias” include Arabs time travelling and writing obituaries for people days in advance of their killing?
https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1822369854550339752 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ICRC link is clear: "It cannot automatically be assumed that any object that appears dubious may be subject to lawful attack. This is also consistent with the requirement to take all feasible precautions in attack, in particular the obligation to verify that objects to be attacked are military objectives liable to attack and not civilian objects..." Given that Wikipedia is not a competent court, what right do we have to rule that this was an 'attack' as opposed to a 'massacre'? If "women and children" serves as a flawed proxy (agreed!), aren't we taking a non-NPOV by arbitrarily declaring that the school was dubious enough that this was not a massacre? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the points by selfstudier and others. There is a systematic pro-Israel bias in Western media. Josep Borrell Fontelless, EU's chief of foreign policy, and Lisa Doughten, a director at the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have directly called this a massacre [1]. They have been covered by RS English media.
The majority of Western media continues to use vague titles that either omit the offender (Israel), the venue of the attack (a school), the verb (replacing it with an adjective like "deadly" or "terror"), or the scale ("some deaths, reportedly a few civilians"). Based on some of the arguments here, we would have to rename the article "Deadly Al-Tabaeen incident reportedly involving a smattering of civilians" instead. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I'd add it isn't just Arab ambassadors who have called this a massacre, but also Josep Borrell of the EU. Rafe87 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per xDanielx. There's clear evidence this is referred to by some sources as a massacre but there isn't strong evidence it's the common name. WP:POVNAME suggests we should be looking for overwhelming evidence before using non-neutral language like massacre in a title. Using more neutral language in a title does not undermine the seriousness or significance of the event itself. As xDanielx noted, "strike" does seem to be the most common term here, and I would support moving to "Al-Tabaeen school strike". Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I think "strike" is a bad choice here; even though it's a more commonly used name, it's not precise. "School strike" is easily confused with the usage of the same term to refer to a student protest or a strike action among teachers or other school workers. The rest of my comment stands. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nom, Borrell, and others. It should also be noted that this topic has a range of alt names, including the "dawn massacre" (e.g.) and the similar "fajr massacre" (e.g.) – with a notably consistent theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nom and Selfstudier. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

"The IDF and Shin Bet released the names of 19 Hamas and PIJ militants that they said were killed in the strike." → "The IDF and Shin Bet released 19 names of people killed in the strike they claimed were Hamas and PIJ militants."

According to [1]

I actually encourage y'all to include that this claim is being actively disputed in whatever wording y'all like. Please know that this is not fringe as the IDF framed AJ journalists for example as Hamas militants to justify killing them many times before.— 🧀Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thank you for flagging. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Motamedi, Maziar. "Israeli military 'falsely claimed' school bombing victims were Hamas". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-08-10. A Palestinian national and chairman of the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor says the Israeli military is trying to frame innocent citizens as fighters to justify its latest massacre in Gaza.

Prayer Time vs Attack Time

[edit]

The attack time is currently written as 4:40 AM. Fajr prayer is to be done between first light and sunrise. First light was at 5:38AM and sunrise was at 6:04 AM.

The current revision states the attack happened during the prayer. This seems contradictory 2A0D:6FC2:6510:6D00:65C2:C284:E0C:8961 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 5:38 and 6:04 times you have written are not the correct times for Fajr locally in Palestine. You can find the times on most prayer time calculators, but Fajr for Gaza falls before 5 am.
https://www.salahtimes.com/palestine/gaza
https://www.edarabia.com/prayer-times-palestine/
https://www.islamicfinder.org/world/palestine/ Tupsharrum (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Include section about IDF threats on journalist who covered massacre on ground

[edit]

Al Jazeera Anas Al-Sharif is under threat by the IDF spokesperson, and being demonized by Israeli media, for his work on this massacre. I think this merits includion in the entry. The Al Jazeera Network released a public statement in his defense, asking for support from the international community. Other Al Jazeera journalists have been killed by the IDF less than a month ago under unproven allegations that they were militants. This is notable enough for this entry. DanielCarriço2014 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I reverted this request once already and idk why you have reposted it. This is not a proper edit request, your first reference says "In the light of the statement made by the Israeli military spokesperson"...what statement? X(twitter) by a non notable person is not a reliable source. That other journalists have been killed has no relevance to this article. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

[edit]

I suggest replacing The current map in the infobox with one of the following images, whichever you like.

Al-Tabieen school massacre 01.jpg
Al-Tabieen school massacre 02.jpg

— 🧀Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 02:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First it is during the immediate aftermath and more visceral The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gore would be a bit excessive, per WP:OM and MOS:OMIMG. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd picture isn't that gory (nor is the 1st one IMO), and I think pictures of dead people aren't out of norm for Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 20:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:OM and MOS:OMIMG are more useful here, since they clarify how to apply WP:NOTCENSORED particularly to graphic images. They do leave quite a bit of room for interpretation, and a few pages like Boston Marathon bombing do include somewhat graphic images, but it seems like the broad convention is to prefer less graphic images as seen in e.g. Huế massacre (shrouded bodies and various symbolic images) or Be'eri massacre (damaged buildings etc). — xDanielx T/C\R 21:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I think the 2nd picture would work, it's mostly shrouded bodies (with the exception of some 2 bodies, which IMO barely look graphical).
As for the preference of less graphic images, I'm not sure if it is a systematically applied policy or even a convention since articles likes 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Re'im music festival massacre not only contain graphical pictures (blood and dead bodies and such) but also videos illustrating actual killings. — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 21:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i moved related images to Gallery QalasQalas (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have the right to comment any further, and I don't know if all the pictures are due. But if you think they are, allow me to suggest using Template:Multiple image within the body of the article rather than allocating a section for them because it looks messy.
I personally think only one is enough within the Infobox. — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 23:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the formatting, I've changed it using the multiple image template. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

[edit]

at the end of the second paragraph of casualties, it talks about how israel provided names for people who were killed in this attack but were killed a few days earlier, the proceeds to provide the source. in the source all they provide for proof are the words

"Palestinian sources told Al Jazeera"

and

"The sources added that two of those named in the list were martyred two days before the massacre in other areas, and also explained that the martyr Yusuf Al-Wadiya, who was included in the list, was martyred two days before the massacre in a different place, and that one of the pictures belongs to a martyr named Montaser Daher who was martyred on Friday with his sister away from school."

this cannot be taken as a real source of information and the claim sould be taken down.

The claim to take down: "However two of the Palestinians Israel claimed as "Hamas operatives" who were killed in the strike were found to have been killed earlier in different regions, such as Yussuf al-Wadiya who was killed two days earlier in a different region, and Montaser Daher who was killed alongside his sister earlier on 9 August far from the school.[21]" Royleny (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 12:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

[edit]

The IDF is intimidating Anas Al Sharif, an Al Jazeera journalist who covered the massacre, saying he covered up "Hamas activity" in the school. Al Jazeera made a corporate statement in his defense calling on the international community to rally around for the protection of its employee. Recently this cause has been taken up by the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists; a few other English-language Asian and Arab sources have covered the matter, as well. The CPJ has also acknowledged the IDF has threatened him before, in December, and that it killed his father when it bombed his house in the same month. We could create a separate section, or perhaps a subsection called "Aftermath", and include the following:

After the IDF accused Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al Sharif of giving a misleading coverage of the school bombing, Al Jazeera released a corporate statement condemning Israeli "incitement" against its employee and calling on the international community to rally around Al Sharif. The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists has subsequently expressed its concern about his safety, recalling that Al Sharif had already been the object of Israeli threats previously in the conflict and that his father was killed after the IDF bombed his family's house in December 2023.

Here are the main sources:

Additional sources (if necessary):

DanielCarriço2014 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could just be rolled into the Israeli response section; "The IDF accused an Al Jazeera journalist of covering up Hamas activity in the targeted school, a claim which Al Jazeera condemned." – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 12:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack&oldid=1245560816"