Talk:Re'im music festival massacre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Denial by Hamas that they have performed the massacre and accusing Israel in it

Hello friends. I would like to check if this passage starting from "On 19 November" is ok according to WP:QUESTIONABLE? Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean this diff. And why wouldn't it be? Ynetnews and Jpost are RS. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Correct. I have no doubt of Ynetnews and Jpost. I just mean that they have reposted a message of a organization which is designated as terrorist by several countries and trying to see how it fits the line "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" from QUESTIONABLE? Do we post opinions of any extremist group if they are recited by RS and does reciting make their views valid from the QUESTIONABLE point of view? Thats what I am trying to understand. Thanks. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• They have decided to quietly remove their message. So do we again want to keep the incorrect info and then add info about the quite removal? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mentioning a retracted story could be important to include. I think the story overall needs to be included, but possibly as a disputed narrative. I haven't looked into it properly myself, but I don't think we should just ignore it.

  The IDF helicopter version of the story is getting wide coverage in English language media from West Asia (Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan), some of the sources I would trust must from the region (but would still expect to have a pro Palestine bias). It's usually credited to Haaretz but Times of Israel seems to be putting "Haaretz" in scare quotes. I think it appeared in Electronic Intifada long before Haaretz, a very strongly pro-Palestine source.

  The more reputable success aren't saying Israel did the entire massacre, just that some of the civilians killed were caught in somewhat indiscriminate gun fire directed at militants.

  There is another story that some people were shot by soldiers on foot, but this seems to have been Palestinians in stolen uniforms, that one is very murky.

  Irtapil (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• This denial by Hamas and the accusation that Israeli forces killed their own civilians at the festival is pretty much WP:FRINGE. I removed this from the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth, Irtapil, and My very best wishes: I think the denial should be covered in the lede, since it is confirmed by reliable sources. Does something like the following sound good to you?Ghazaalch (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like only The Cradle is saying this. Haaretz says - maybe an IDF helicopter hit some festival goers while shooting at terrorists... It all sounds too much "maybe" and over the top. JPOST, Ynet says Palestinian Authority is blaming Israel for the massacre, Overwhelming sources point at Hamas. I don't see why there's any reason to add extra info. And you put a source about Israeli helicopters being guided by ground troops through WhatsApp... Overall only 1 source says that - The Cradle, and from a short look and a google search it really does not appear trustworthy. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas denied the massacre in line with the sources that say IDF helicopter hit festival participants.

I am a bit on the fence about it. Our readers will want to know Hamas' response to the event without digging through the body of the article. I do not have the time to review all the citations now. Perhaps within a day. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is currently mentioned on the page, which is fine. Should it also appear in the lead? I do not think so (too "fringe"), but it is currently included to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course this is WP:FRINGE. No serious source doubts that Hamas murdered the people at the festival, and pushing such nonsense has no place on WP. This is about at noteworthy and credible as some neo-nazis denying the Holocaust. Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And I certainly agree with this. Let's remove it from the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You all have a serious misunderstanding of FRINGE and DUE, but dont mind me. nableezy - 21:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The accusation that Israel activated the Hannibal Directive and bombed its own people to prevent them from being taken hostage and Hamas had nothing to do with it despite videos and testimony to the contrary is defiantly WP:FRINGE. However it seems it is 100% true that the Palestinian Authority claims Israel did activated the Hannibal Directive and bombed the area. I am not sure that the PA straight out denied Hamas was there, that seems to be an assumption made by the Israeli press. The PA did publish this document that specifically mentions the Hannibal Directive and Israel bombing the area. It does not seem to directly mention Hamas, but I am using Google translate to read it. Apparently, the PA removed the document and while making no announcement on the matter, a U.S. National Security Council spokesman said that the PA has since clarified that this is not its official position per this article. I have not seen any report that Hamas officials have said anything about the Re'im music festival directly. Since the PA has withdrawn it accusation and there has not been any real denial, just a bunch of pretending it did not happen, we should not put anything in the lead of that sort. We should add in the body that the PA withdrew the accusation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. The PA denial and withdrawal should be in the body. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Hamas as perpetrator

This is rather vague and monolithic. What is it supposed to mean? Does it mean that the Al-Qassam Brigades and no one else was involved, or what? And if so, based on what? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Terminology

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Please answer the first question and the second question with brief statements in the two Surveys. Please do not reply to other editors in the Surveys. That is what the Discussions are for. In the Discussion sections, remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.

Survey 1: Militants or Terrorists?

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

• Both In general as militants but mention that they have been designated as terrorists by multiple countries. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists (invited by the bot) Targeting of civilians in this context is slam-dunk terrorism. "Militant" is a totally different thing and not even established and also not a good choice on term even if it was. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Either or both.(Summoned by bot) No offense intended to North8000 immediately above, but the question under policy is very much not what we think is an appropriate descriptor in the circumstances, but the WP:WEIGHT given to the descriptions in the overall body of sources discussing the attack. (Although as a side note, I think N8 is correct that this is paradigmatic terrorism). While the volume of such sources covering these events makes it quite difficult to develop a hyper accurate sense of what the ratios are in this instance, I think it's pretty clear that both have been used liberally, across a broad swath of sources.
  Really, it's a matter of context and the specific statement in question, because most of the individuals that such statements will refer to will be both things (that is, militants as a general matter, and terrorists with regard to the festival). So, for example "a terrorist attack by Hamas militants" would be apt, and no element of such a statement would be out of step with the average source here. I think there are probably plenty even among those who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian view than the Israeli as a general matter who would still be able to recognize why these were terroristic events and why sources describe them as such. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants in general (ie. Wikivoice), terrorists only where attributed to sources using that term, per @Senorangel and MOS:TERRORIST. Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants: There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page . I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner, and the notion also flies in the face of the principle of consistency. A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages. Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.? I see no clarity on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page. I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner"

It's complicated: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override the application of a WP:PAG (WP:IAR and all that), but such an action will typically only be endorsed by a consensus of experienced editors in cases where it is necessary to facilitate accurate, reliable information and/or comply with other PAGs (because WP:CONLEVEL is an important factor). However, note that in this instance MOS:LABEL is not a WP:guideline, but rather a style page. As a much more minor expression of core community consensus, it certainly has to bend to give way to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT where the style guidance is in strong and direct tension with that pillar policy, as it very arguably is here.

"A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages"

I agree, but looking at the disputed wording here, this doesn't seem to be a question of trying to redefine any primary labels for Hamas as a group. Rather, the question is how to describe the particular assailants in this case, and as to that, it's pretty clear that there is a healthy volume of sources supporting "terrorists" as WP:DUE in that regard--probably even due enough for Wikivoice. Now, others in this discussion have proposed leaning into heavily attributed language in order to split the difference, and that may very well be a good option here, depending on what exactly that wording looks like. But personally, if consensus agrees to just describe the participants of the attack as terrorists generally, I think in this case it would be consistent with policy and permissible, given the weight of the sourcing.

"Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.?"

That's a good point, although I think it's going to take some time in order to reliably source the involvement of any organizational parties beyond Hamas. In any event, I do think we need to avoid any overly simplified descriptions about "Hamas terrorists". That said, "Hamas" and "terrorists", as separate descriptors, are probably unavoidable in the context of various different statements here--including in the lead, and quite possibly in Wikivoice. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • As the perpetrators of an unambiguous terrorist attack (politically motivated mass murder of civilians without any direct military objectives), they have become terrorists.
  • I disagree with my esteemed colleague Iskandar323. This doesn't automatically label Hamas as a terrorist organization or contradict prior discussions, as we are talking about the perpetrators of this attack specifically - the designation of Hamas as a group is another question.
  • There are plenty of existing articles that use 'terrorists' in wikivoice; this term is not banned.
  • To comply with WP:NPOV, for balance, we should probably include the viewpoint of Hamas - "Hamas disputed this characterization; Since most of the partygoers were Israeli citizens, this makes them legitimate targets according to Hamas". Marokwitz (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists - The terrorists which committed these acts of terrorism are terrorists, whether or not you acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Dovidroth (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  With respect, Wikipedia isn’t (and shouldn’t be) edited in accordance with what editors “acknowledge”, we are not the arbiters of what fits a particular definition or not, per WP:NPOV. Yr Enw (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorists - Action condemned as terror globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned, we should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

“Per definition” is likely WP:OR Yr Enw (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • Per @Marokwitz
  • Just because the BBC doesn't call them terrorists doesn't mean we don't call them terrorists. The BBC and Reuters don't even call 9/11 terrorists, and that doesn't affect us. MOS:TERRORIST says "widely" and not all sources around the world and "so what about Israel?".
  • There has been a history of Wikipedia considering war crimes as terrorist acts, such as the Camp Speicher massacre. Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is it’s not consistent across wiki at all. There is also Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others, which have all been described as terror attacks by certain sources, and yet are not called such in their articles (except when referencing the sources directly). Neither should they be, imo. Yr Enw (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, are you saying we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" at all? Not even in reference to 9/11? That is not what the MOS:TERRORIST policy suggests. Marokwitz (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, I’m saying we should attribute the word when and where we do, which is what WP:TERRORIST says. Yr Enw (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand if you're suggesting we should be consistent and change, for example, the September 11 attacks and Oklahoma City bombing articles to use the "t" word only with attribution - these articles don't currently do so. Marokwitz (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, personally, that’s what I would advocate. Yr Enw (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists seems entirely apt here given what happened. --Andreas JN466 22:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure why we need this survey. The event is the "largest terror attack in Israel's history,[1][15][13] and the worst Israeli civilian massacre ever.[16]". Who executed it? Peace fighters? Or what is the right word for someone who conducted a terrorist attack? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Both, "One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter"...--Ortizesp (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists or both. This is simply to be consistent. The attack itself is generally regarded in RS as a terrorist attack (see below). My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants in general (ie. Wikivoice), terrorists only where attributed to sources using that term per WP:TERRORIST, Senorangel and Yr Enw. Apart from the 'inconsistency' list supplied by Yr Enw above, I looked at King David Hotel bombing, which describes the act as terrorism, but the perpetrators in various ways, not including 'terrorists' (eg the Irgun members) - so there is no direct or necessary convention that perpetrators of acts of terrorism must be consistently referred to as 'terrorists' - certainly not throughout . Apart from any other consideration, stylistically it would become tiresome to have the same loaded descriptor 'hammered home' every time they are referred to. There are a range of neutral factual terms available + the attributed description. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists The term "militants" would be inappropriate in this case. Merriam-Webster, as one example, defines "militant" as "engaged in warfare or combat". The attack in itself wasn't warfare or combat. It wasn't a strike on a military base. The assailants weren't engaging with an opposing military force. Civilians were raped, mass murdered, and taken hostage. "Terrorists" is the more accurate description of the two options. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists (Brought here by WP:RFC/A) Agree with the notion that "militants" isn't accurate as per the Mirriam Webster definition provided in the comment above. (Thanks User:Kerdooskis). "Terrorists" is accurate and in line. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Militants - the who here are Hamas militants, the what is a terror attack. nableezy - 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion 1: Militants or Terrorists?

Since when are dictionaries our sources of definition here? Aren’t we supposed to use scholarly expertise, which will ultimately be where dictionaries get their defs too? Yr Enw (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey 2: Terror Attack?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

• Weak yes (invited by the bot). It's applicable. "Weak" (compared to my strong opinion on the first question) because the alternate is not such a bad choice as the alternate in question #1 as written. The implicit alternative on this question is just "attack" which would also be fine. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes This is related to how it has or has not been described as an act of terrorism. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes.(Summoned by bot) Per my comments above: it's not the only way to approach the description, but there's no denying that it's a defensible description, based on the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing. So long as the article as a whole strives to explain at least some of the historical background and broader context of the attack, describing these particular acts of violence in a fashion consistent with how the significant majority of RS do is not only acceptable and appropriate, but really the only option we have under our policies, which show deference to the descriptions in said sources, not our own idiosyncratic views on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• No except when referencing use of the term by sources (ie. "described as"), per Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others. Yr Enw (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this is widely agreed upon by mainstream sources. It is no different from the September 11 attacks in this regard, which are described in wikivoice as a terror attack. There is no way that a mass murder of civilians without a military objective can be described as an 'attack'. Marokwitz (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The events at the festival were quite different in at least one key way, and that is sense in which they were unplanned, as Israeli intelligence has noted. Most terror attacks are premeditated. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling it unplanned is absurd; it was a coordinated attack planned months, or years in advance. There are many terror attacks, probably most, where the attacker decides to carry out an attack and only chooses the actual victims randomly. Marokwitz (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Israeli intelligence services very well may speak in absurdities, but as clearly stated in the attached piece, the consensus is there was no advance awareness of the festival. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Having no advance awareness of the festival is quite different from calling the attack unplanned. They didn't cross the border for fun and games. Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Preparation and planning are separate constructs. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per mainstream media. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - Action condemned as a terror attack globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Wide notability in reference as largest terror attack on Israel. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned. International media and organizations refer to it as a terror attack. We should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should say it with citations from those “International media and organisations” or just in general regardless of attribution? Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely, yes, Hamas and their allies are recognized by countries around the world and most mainstream sources as terrorists. This should be reflected here. Attribution is inappropriate since this is the standard position held by most credible sources (a list of those calling them terrorists would be absurdly long).
• Yes, per the majority of mainstream media sources. The act was almost certainly intended to induce terror in civilian populations. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely Yes- not labeling it as such would be quite intentional counter WP:WEIGHT from RS. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - as above, the who are militants, the what they did was carry out a terror attack. Terrorism is a tactic, and it was utilized here by Hamas militants. nableezy - 00:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion 2: Terror Attack?

@Robert McClenon: In the last paragraph, massacre is written as a terrorist act, what other changes do you want to make? Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Parham wiki - I do not "want" to make any specific changes to the article, or to leave the article unchanged rather than make any specific changes. I am asking the questions neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist act is the most descriptive. Partly because "massacre" is a bit vague and open to interpretation in serval directions, the word "massacre" can cover both terrorism and genocide. Terrorism is a more precise description of the power dynamic and more likely motives. There is not really any neutral way to describe killing (e.g. I find the IDF tendency to say they "neutralize" their opponents very off-putting). But the word terrorist is probably best avoided, because militant or combatant are better options in those cases. Irtapil (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

General Discussion

This will become very hard to follow if editors have discussions in the voting sections. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference to the info about changed location

Hi, when you follow the link to the article that is suppose to confirm that the festival was moved just 2 days before doesn’t contain any info about that. Szczeps (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas isn't a militant group, it's a terror organization

Why is this page uneditable??? Yardensor (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Hamas are a terrorist organisation 147.235.203.40 (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• You can’t edit the page because the article is under extended confirmed protection. You can’t edit it until you've been on Wikipedia for 30 days and have made 500 useful edits (press the blue lock with the E in it at the top of the article for more detail). All articles in the Israeli-Palestinian area, very broadly construed, are under the protection (whether they’re locked or not) of the WP:Arbitration Committee via their ruling WP:ARBPIA, So even if you were extended confirmed and tried to change "militant" to "terrorist" you can be sanctioned quite severely (see my 2nd bullet for why).
• Wikipedia tries to maintain its own voice to be as neutral as possible. To achieve this the English Wikipedia community has created a guideline MOS:TERRORIST, which recommends not using the word "terrorist" in wiki-voice because of its emotional content. The word "militant" is preferred. You aren't required to agree with this, but if you want to edit Wikipedia you need to follow its rules.
• I recommend:

• If you find yourself ideologically or emotionally unable to comply that you find other venues on the internet where you can express your views. There are many.
• If you still want to edit Wikipedia, that you find other topics which interest you and edit those, while in the meantime familiarizing yourselves with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines Ayenaee (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

I would like Wikipedia to A) change from a militant group to a totalitarian terrorist regime as Hamas is indeed a terror organization as well as a regime that keeps the Gazans under oppression by its own people

B) please add photos from the following website official photos from the state of Israel https://saturday-october-seven.com/ Tomsanting (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2024

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. (non-admin closure) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Re'im music festival massacre → Nova music festival massacre – The previous move discussion was on 8 October, the day after the massacre. In the 3 months since, a significant majority of English-language RS have now appear to have settled on the stable WP:COMMONNAME of Nova music festival massacre. From the past week: BBC, JNS, JPost, Haaretz, JTA Longhornsg (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per OP.Tiny Particle (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tiny Particle Do you mean to agree with the renaming request? Longhornsg (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes Tiny Particle (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disaster management has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calling the event "Nova festival" is a journalistic error (induced by the need to abstract and simplify, making it a form of journalese of the dumbed-down type, see WP:NEWSSTYLE). It is an error because that was not the name of the event. The name of the event was what the article says it was. If we rename the article in this way this error will proliferate from the title of the article into the body, and will make the article less accurate, and it's better that the article be accurate then the name be a bit more recognizable but wrong. Let us not convert the journalistic error into an encyclopedic error. An encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate and is not supposed to use dumbed down language.—Alalch E. 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Quoting myself in a previous RM, in which the proposal was to move to Supernova music festival massacre:

    ... The festival is not called the "Supernova festival", it is called "Supernova Sukkot Gathering" and was the Israeli edition of the Universo Parallelo festival, hosted by the entity called Tribe of Nova on Facebook, which only has "Nova" as its logo. The festival is not called "Nova" and is not called "Nature Party" or whatever, which is also found in the sources. The usual sources widely diverge and are mostly inaccurate about all this, which is normal. The accurate source is Billboard. See also the official event web page.
    — User:Alalch E. 01:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    —Alalch E. 00:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

    I agree Alalch E. that its official name was "SUPERNOVA Sukkot Gathering" but the most accurate source are https://www.facebook.com/TRIBEofNOVA/posts/pfbid08NdD7yJdxFiozS5JJkvMjYQAymnrGBgTgjNFXnFnqXawvsraTbQkUwLscXma2DmLl and the Eventer announcement in Hebrew and English: https://www.eventer.co.il/event/novaparalello/j9qCL and https://www.eventer.co.il/event/novaparalellotranslate/wCqCL.

    For what it's worth I notice the Hebrew article is, and appears to have been for months, הטבח בפסטיבל נובה. Mcljlm (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This title would be incorrect, as that is not what it was called. The current title makes sense and complies with CONCISE and PRECISE. I do not find the COMMONNAME argument convincing. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (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.

Hamas is a terror organization.

Replace the world militants with terrorists. Shame. 147.235.220.60 (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Statue of Buddha and Indian idols

Why isn't the article mentioned that there was a huge Buddha statue at the music festival? 92.211.182.135 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in reliable sources? —Alalch E. 10:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The word 'settlement'

In this article, there is a use of the word 'settlement' wich implies that it's on occupied (by international law) territory. This is false, as we now this area where part of Israel on the UN resolution 181 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine). 176.12.222.186 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What would you call them then? Re'im is a kibbutz and other places mentioned in the article are moshavim (plural for moshav). Settlement is just a generalized term for any populated place. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Village. If you want you can use the Hebrew word moshav.

In Hebrew settlement is "hitnachlut".

The term settlement isn't neutral, as it used to justify the massacre by Hamas. Asafg8 (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I support his statement that settlement can cause confusion here. Israeli settlement for example is about settlements in the occupied territories and most mention of Israeli settlements happen to be in the West Bank and other occupied areas. You could say either moshav or just village as they meet the definition of both. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas didnt know about the festival. Festival changed locations right before.

It's been extensively reported on that Hamas didnt know about the festival in advance. Israel knew about the attack in advance. The location of the festival moved to the Gaza border right before the attack. This has all been extensively been reported on. Very relevent. 75.118.14.101 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Terrorists, not militants

Hamas is a known terrorist organization and recognized as such by the countries of the world, and its operatives are called terrorists and not militants, so just as it is written in the Wikipedia page about the terrorists of Al Qaeda who were responsible for the 9/11 attack that they are terrorists and not "militants", here too Hamad operatives should be called by their name - terrorists. The people who invade israel on that day were hamas and other small terror organizations, and some individuals, who commited crimes against humanity 85.64.153.54 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit-request-discussion: Number of civilian victims, possibly 368 not 364?

This is not in the strictest sense an edit request (but a prelude to one)

The named list of victims published by Israel lists 368 victims instead of 364. Swords of Iron: Civilian Casualties | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.gov.il) Bowad91017 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Idf kills

It's been confirmed that some number of the casualties were caused by the IDF. IDF confirmed that this happened and Israeli media reported on it extensively. The car damage scene was very obviously not possible from Hamas weapons. Should be an important part of the article. 75.118.14.101 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This damage is more than possible to be done with a molotov cocktail or any explosive which we know hamas had.

This information is misleading.

Israel also did not issue any official report that they killed civilians in the festival and to state as such would be misleading aswell. 147.235.214.94 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Supernova festival wasn’t a “target”

Israeli sources themselves assert that is extremely unlikely that Hamas knew about the music festival prior to attacking. To call the festival one of their first “targets” is categorically untrue. The word should we swapped by “location” or something similar. 208.59.97.3 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is a terror organisation and it should be written so.

Moreover, it wasn’t an attack, it was a massacre. Hundreds of innocent Israelis were slaughtered, butchered, tortured and kidnapped. Please be accurate and write facts as it was. 2A0D:6FC2:40C0:D700:A0B4:7996:95B6:3B72 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Number of hostages is wrong

In the wiki page it say at least 40 hostages, although true it was at least 240 hostages. 2.54.182.117 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Puryear rally

Should the Eugene Puryear rally (in which he supported the attack) be included among the responses? 12.182.106.130 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

In the lead section, please change "militant group Hamas initiated a surprise invasion of Israel" to "militant group Hamas initiated a surprise invasion of Israel" to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Meteorname (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

GRAMMAR CORRECTION Original text: Israeli security authorities suggested that Hamas likely lacked advance knowledge

Request change of "Hamas likely lacked" to "Hamas probably lacked" OR "Hamas is likely to have lacked.."

Reason: The word "likely" is not an adverb. It is an adjective. YorickJenkins (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: "likely" can function either as an adjective or as an adverb. popodameron ⁠talk 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)