Jump to content

Talk:Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque attack

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

Untitled

[edit]

Here is a Wikileaks Cablegate-Cable indicating the mosque was hit by a drone attack http://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10TELAVIV182_a.html Quote: "The new field investigation found video footage of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attack against two armed Popular Front operatives who were located at the time immediately outside the mosque. Mandelblit said the UAV fired two missiles against the operatives; the first missile failed, but the second hit the operatives. UAV footage of the strike provides evidence that shrapnel entered the mosque through an open door." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.94.138 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks isn't the most reliable source. Dunutubble (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was not keep, it was keep OR merge. Yossiea (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw It shows secondary explosion from the Missile attack on the Mosque.--66.229.21.217 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong mosque. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to know whether it was an air or ground assault.Trachys (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge

[edit]

I support the merge, but it should actually be to Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, where details of this type are currently located. NoCal100 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the merge. The decision on the AfD was to keep per obvious consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the result was "keep or merge". Please read more carefully next time. NoCal100 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The result was keep per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined and is bold enough to do so."--Jmundo (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
exactly - keep or merge. Why did you post the misleadign comment that"The decision on the AfD was to keep"? NoCal100 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:AGF. The infobox at the top of this discussion says Keep. Users can read the AfD discussion, I'm not misleading anyone. This discussion is about merging not my comments. --Jmundo (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying very hard to assume good faith. please help me. You were obviously not quoting from the infobox at the top of this discussion, since you wrote "The decision on the AfD was to keep per obvious consensus." - the language used only in the AfD itself, which continues to say "or merge" - which you omitted. Do you have a plausible, good faith explanation for that? NoCal100 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a sub-article, there's no justification for merging it. It could be expanded. Many war and conflict articles have splinter articles on battles, statistics, massacres, and specific incidents. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Al Ameer son. Military attacks on large groups of civilians are notable enough to warrant their own individual entries. And while I know this is not an accepted criterion, the incident has its own page in other languages. Trachys (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge. There is zero reason for this to be its own page. Yossiea (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be notable. See Qana airstrike for instance. There are also a few in the See also section of that page. But note that the strike on the UN school is at present not separated from the main page. That incident has got a larger reaction. Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but I strongly believe that a separate article should be made for that incident as well. Right now, as we are writing in the midst of the article, I think it would be wise to wait a few days to start that article though. This article, I believe, was started prematurely, but nonetheless it was started and I intend to keep it an independent article as it has potential for expansion. However, Tkalisky gave me an idea below. Perhaps if info about this incident stays at the current level, the article will always be a stub, which would kind of enforce the "merge" vote. However, if we were to start an article on the Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque, we could simply put the current info there. It's just an alternative idea and depends on two things:
1. Is there any other info on the mosque available to us?
2. Who knows what info they will have online about the mosque strike in a few days, weeks?

--Al Ameer son (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was closed with keep or merge, I suppose quite fast looking at the dates now. Should the AFD be reopened? Another similar article has been created too Al-Fakhura school massacre --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the AfD early because it was obvious that it wasn't going to get deleted; all the votes were either for "keep" or "merge." Such debates belong here, on the talk page of the article in question, instead of at AfD. BTW, the link to the AFD at the top of the article isn't working because of the multiple page moves, so here it is: WP:Articles for deletion/2009 Maqadna Mosque strike. I personally have no opinion on the merge. flaminglawyerc 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More historical detail

[edit]

Hello. Can anyone find some historical facts about the Al-Maqadna Mosque such as when it was built and by whom? I could not find any resources on the Internet. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article/deleting infobox

[edit]

Tomtom9041, please discuss any changes before moving page and deleting infobox. Wikipedia is about consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error/Ommission

[edit]

The image from the IDF video of a missile strike on a mosque is not the al-Maqadna mosque, as it wrongly states. That mosque was hit on Jan. 1 and the al-Maqadna mosque hit on Jan. 3.

Also, Israel initially denied hitting the mosque, but later admitted that it did hit it.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Gaza_Operation_Investigations_Second_Update_July_2010.htm

JRHammond (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has accused Hamas of using mosques to hide weapons and ammunition.[3][5] The IDF Spokesperson's Unit published videos showing secondary explosions that occurred after they had targeted mosques with missiles, alleging these were caused by the weapons and ammunition hidden inside of them.[6][7]

The above would seem to imply that Israel struck the mosque on the pretext of weapons stored inside. Israel never suggested there were weapons in the mosque. The above two sentences would seem totally irrelevant to this article. If people think they are relevant, it should be noted that Israel did NOT claim weapons were stored in the al-Maqadna mosque.

JRHammond (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

move

[edit]

If you'd like to suggest a new name feel free, but this has been stable for over a year and is the current consensus name. nableezy - 19:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 October 2021

[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: moved to Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike. Per WP:NDESC. Overall consensus to move to a more neutral title although no consensus on the new title. Per WP:OTHEROPTIONS, a new move request can be created at any time to discuss the exact wording and possible addition of the year. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque → 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike – Per WP:NPOVNAME, non-neutral names such as "massacre" are only permitted when such a name is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. This strike received, as far as I can tell, minimal coverage in English-language sources, but the coverage it did receive declined to term it a massacre, as can be seen in this Amnesty International report and this the Guardian article. As such, we must also decline to do so.

Note that this would revert the BOLD 2020 move. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support move, per WP:COMMONNAME and the detailed rationale by BilledMammal, above. I also note that this is what the article was originally named, before it was moved to this POV title without following the "requested Move" process for controversial moves. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no commonname afaics in which case we may resort to a descriptive title, the proposed move describes the method of attack (a "strike") whereas the current title is focused on the outcome, namely the death of 15 innocents which could well be called a massacre in ordinary discourse.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am not opposed to any move, I am opposed to this one in which what has been called a war crime and the intentional bombing of a mosque filled with 200 people is described as merely a "strike". That is no more neutral than "massacre". Open to other suggestions, but this one substitutes one POV for another. nableezy - 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque killings, even if massacre is somewhat debatable, no one could disagree that people were killed? Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike or 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike per nom. As far as I know, no one could disagree that the mosque was hit by a missile strike, although there is likely to be disagreement over whether the death and injury of a large number of worshippers was the intended outcome. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absent any feedback on my suggested compromise, I will formally oppose the proposed move as POV and second Nableezy comment that I am not opposed to any move but I am opposed to this one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No replacing one point of view with another. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike per BarrelProof. We must have "missile" or it looks like an article about an industrial dispute. We don't need 2009 because we have no other similar article. I find the opposes unsatisfactory: to say the proposed move substitutes one POV for another accepts that the current name is POV, so we can't keep the article at its current name. It's correct that this is a WP:NDESC situation, which means we must "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", which the current title clearly does not. There does not appear to be a single RS describing the event as a "massacre". We need a short neutral description of what happened, and it's uncontroversial that a missile struck the mosque. Even if this is anodyne, it still accurately identifies the article subject. Necessarily the article title will not convey all information about the subject, although I suspect readers will be unsurprised to learn that a missile strike on a mosque resulted in the deaths of worshippers. Havelock Jones (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you probably just missed the UN judgement "Judge Goldstone referred to the incident as a case where there is no other possible interpretation for what could have occurred other than a deliberate targeting of civilians." Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (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.

Requested move 19 June 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike → Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque attack – It is not at all clear that what happened was the result of missiles launched by a manned aircraft. Forward quotes lieutenant colonel in the Israel army calling it "a drone attack", while The Guardian blames "Israeli shells" and "artillery fire" for the attack. An article in the Journal of Palestine Studies also calls it "shelling". The most detailed account is given in the Goldstone report as "The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque".VR (Please ping on reply) 04:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 01:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps “strike” as the broader, but not fully broad term? Attack can be anything. FortunateSons (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're aiming for WP:OVERPRECISION here. Unless there's another attack on the same mosque that also has an article on wikipedia, we don't need to disambiguate between various types of military attack. We don't need to specify type of munition in the title. Secondly, RS seem to use the word "attack" more so than "strike". Finally, as Havelock Jones mentioned, the word "strike" by itself doesn't denote a military attack, but rather strike action. For example, Pilbara strike, Pullman Strike, 2021 John Deere strike, Hopedale strike are all about labor disputes, not military attacks.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the phrasing also used in the article, so I wouldn’t call it overprecise. It also includes the word mosque in front of it, so I don’t think the average reader will have a hard time discerning the difference between the two word uses.
Just on a minor note, manned is not a requirement in such a case, Drone strikes in Pakistan is an example of a use case for Unmanned aerial vehicle as well; that would still be missile strike or strike. FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "drone strike" is different from a "missile strike". No one would agree to moving Drone strikes in Pakistan to Missile strikes in Pakistan.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because drone strikes are (generally) missile strikes, but not all missile strikes are drone strikes.
And both of those are strikes. FortunateSons (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, drone strikes aren't always missile strikes. People don't refer to loitering munitions (which as definitely a type of drone) as "missile strikes".VR (Please ping on reply) 19:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are also some more artisanal drones with dropped munitions, which is where “(generally)” comes in. However, the prototypical war-on-terror drone strike is a missile strike, and that’s where the name came into common use. FortunateSons (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It’s the phrasing also used in the article, so I wouldn’t call it overprecise". I'm not sure you understand what WP:OVERPRECISION entails. Just because a detail is in the article, doesn't mean it belongs in the title.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s one of the ways the missile strike is referred to, per the Forward article. FortunateSons (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
824 and 836 in Goldstone refer to missile strike, btw. FortunateSons (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation. Best, Reading Beans 01:25, 26 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibrahim_al-Maqadma_Mosque_attack&oldid=1238777198"