Jump to content

Talk:2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings

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


Requested move 2 June 2025

[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 Rafah aid distribution killings. While not everyone's first choice, consensus settled on this compromise option, which mitigated the degree of concerns about neutral point of view, euphemism, and other policy issues. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah aid distribution incidents → Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacresRafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres – Massacres, not "incidents". These are the Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident Flour Massacre on repeat and overdubbed. They should be renamed to reflect what they in fact are, where they have happened (Rafah), what distinguishes them from other massacres (Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's involvement). Erminwin (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:NCENPOV says to avoid the term "massacre" due to its POV connotations unless used by most reliable sources. The Flour Massacre is named such because it is the WP:COMMONNAME for the event. No such argument has been made here, only that this is a massacre because of the personal beliefs of the nominator. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: WP:EUPHEMISM would necessitate the euphemistically termed Rafah aid distribution incidents → Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation killingsRafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation killings at the least.Erminwin (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you proposed originally, but "killings" would be the best descriptor.
The only issue is that naming the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation implies they're the perpetrator or victim of the killings. It's also unclear whether the killings occurred near the GHF or not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 11:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess:

It's also unclear whether the killings occurred near the GHF or not.

Of course GHF & IDF did, still, and will deny that the massacres / killings occurred near GHF's "aid" hubs or at all. Even so, several Western "reliable" sources still reported witness testimonies, wherefrom those Western RSs drew the conclusion that the massacres / killings might have happened near GHF's aid hubs.

The Gaza Health Ministry said Israeli forces have killed at least 49 people heading toward the GHF’s four functioning distribution points over the past week. The Post has interviewed five eyewitnesses in recent days who reported gunfire coming from the direction of Israeli forces in the lead-up to GHF sites.

— Berger, Cheeseman, Loveluck and Balousha (2025 June 1) "More than 30 killed by gunfire near U.S. aid site in Gaza", WaPo

Palestinian paramedics evacuated the bodies of at least 23 people from the vicinity of the distribution center in the southern Gazan city of Rafah, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society.

— Boxerman & Harouda (2025 June 2) (updated [2025 June 1]) "More Than 20 Killed Near Aid Distribution Site in Gaza, Health Officials Say", NYTimes

Witnesses say Israeli forces opened fire on people near distribution point run by Israel-backed foundation.

— Tondo & Tantesh, "Palestinians gunned down while trying to reach food aid site in Gaza, hospital says", The Guardian

UN chief Antonio Guterres called Monday for an independent investigation into the killing of dozens of Palestinians near a US-backed aid centre in Gaza on Sunday after rescuers blamed the deaths on Israeli fire and the military denied any involvement.

— "UN chief calls for probe into killings near Gaza aid distribution centre", France24

naming the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation implies they're the perpetrator or victim of the killings

Point taken! I'd add one word "site", making the title Rafah aid distribution site killings
Erminwin (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of recent events, it might be better to call it "shootings", because that allows us to include future flare-ups regardless of whether they're isolated killings, widely agreed to be massacres, or disputed as to whether the shootings killed people.
"Rafah aid distribution site shootings" focuses on the actual dispute, which is whether the IDF shooting at people from an aid distribution site is justifiable and caused the deaths of civilians. Both the IDF, Hamas, intl organizations and reliable sources agree Israel shot at people from the aid distribution site, they only differ on death toll and justifiability.
"Killings" offers an alternative interpretation that the deaths were caused by some other mechanism. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Rafah aid distribution site shootingsRafah aid distribution site shootings. Concise & informative. Acceptable in my book!Erminwin (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are currently alternative interpretations: “There were three children and two women among the dead,” Mohammed Saqr, the head of nursing at Nasser hospital, which received the 27 bodies, told the Guardian. “Most of the patients had gunshot wounds, others had shrapnel all over the bodies, which means they were targeted with tanks or artillery munitions.” The Guardian EvansHallBear (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks and artillery pieces both "shoot". Shooting refers to any kind of projectile launch. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True. Usually not what is meant when something is called a shooting though. Attacks might be better. But I don't have a problem with Rafah aid distribution site shootings. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "shooting" makes someone think of a gun. That is something that we want to keep in mind if we oppose calling "mass killings" "massacres" due to the effect on the audience. Easternsahara (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't 31 random civilians being gunned down in a short period of time the textbook definition of a massacre? Like of course people are going to attach connotations to a term describing people being killed en masse, but we have to confront such things as they truly are. I would support "Rafah aid distribution killings" over "incident" because what even is "incidents"? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCENPOV. Despite it obviously being a massacre, no RS are using that term.
Support Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation killings or Rafah aid distribution killings per MOS:EUPHEMISM EvansHallBear (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NPOV and WP:SPADE. Maintaining neutrality requires us to do the best we can with WP:BIASED sources. As noted below, western media has used emotionally loaded terms like "slaughter" and "massacre" disproportionately during this conflict. This is obviously a massacre even if many RS refuse to call it one. By only using the term massacre when talking about Israelis and not Palestinians, we are violating WP:NPOV. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support massacres but if we had to compromise, at least include violent incidents right? Like what was the incident? Some ice cream truck came and gave everyone ice cream instead of aid? No, the title should be precise, right now it has lots of ambiguity. However, I have a question User:Erminwin, why is it that you include "Foundation" in the title? It makes it less concise. Easternsahara (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara: Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is the full name of the shadily funded US organization which ostensibly acts as the alternative aid distributor instead of the UN. Palestinians coming to seek aid at GHF's hubs were reportedly killed by the IDF. Rafah GHF massacres / killings shall be more concise yet GHF is a very newly-formed org so possibly most ppl in the Anglosphere shall not know what the acronym GHF stands for. Erminwin (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, then I support the current name. Easternsahara (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So according to some pro-Palestinian sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5): Palestinian themselves dubbed the massacre the Witkoff massacreWitkoff massacre, after Trump-appointed US special envoy Steve Witkoff, who had supported distribution of aid by GHF, at whose hubs Palestinians were massacred. Maybe a few "reliable" sources will pick that up? Erminwin (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as per Doctors Without Borders official press release. The Witkoff massacre is interesting, but I doubt it will get reported as such by RS, especially in the West. JTtheOG (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a quote of where that release uses the word "massacre"? I can't find that word anywhere in that press release. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: The press release is titled “Dozens of Palestinians massacred at US-Israel backed food distribution sites”. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was looking everywhere except the headline. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 12:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support because a quote from Dr Marwan al-Hams, a medic from Nasser Hospital, “The situation in the hospital is catastrophic, due to the massacre of the hungry in Rafah city, near the aid distribution centre”.
Source: 'Palestinians gunned down while trying to reach food aid site in Gaza, hospital says'
Url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/palestinians-gunned-down-while-trying-to-reach-food-aid-site-in-gaza-hospital-says
Plus, the incidents, literally fitted the definition of "massacres". It's very weird to call these "incidents" as just "incidents". Call them simply as "massacres" or "killings".
Other sources referred as "massacres":
- Massacre at Rafah aid center: 23 martyred, hundreds wounded in Gaza by the Gulf Times
• https://www.gulf-times.com/article/705551/region/massacre-at-rafah-aid-center-23-martyred-hundreds-wounded-in-gaza/
- Nearly 230 killed or wounded as Israel carries out largest massacre since new aid mechanism was enforced in Gaza by Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor
• https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6749/Nearly-230-killed-or-wounded-as-Israel-carries-out-largest-massacre-since-new-aid-mechanism-was-enforced-in-Gaza
- ‘Deliberate massacre’ in Gaza as starving Palestinians seek Israeli-US aid by Al Jazeera English
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/27/heartbreaking-chaos-in-gaza-as-starving-palestinians-seek-us-israeli-aid
- British Surgeon in Gaza Reports on Rafah Massacre as Dozens of Palestinians Killed Waiting for Aid by Democracy Now!
• https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/2/gaza_doctor_israel_aid_attack
- Israel kills 32 starving Palestinians in latest US aid point 'massacre' by the Middle East Eye
• https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-kills-32-starving-palestinians-latest-us-aid-point-massacre
Qhairun (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, more of these sources use "massacre" than "incident". If we actually read the sources:
  • The Guardian does not use "massacre" except in a quotes, but does use "incident": Media reports said dozens of people were being treated at the hospital after the latest incident at the controversial site in Rafah.
  • Gulf Times uses "massacre" in its own voice, and uses "incident" in quotes.
  • Euro Med Monitor uses the term "massacre" and "incident" in its own voice: These incidents should not be dismissed as procedural issues fixable through operational adjustments.
  • Al Jazeera does not use massacre except in quotes, but does use the word "incident": several people also went missing in the ensuing stampede, officials in Gaza said, with the incident coming amid widespread hunger
  • Democracy Now calls the event a "massacre", and does not use "incident".
  • Middle East Eye uses both the words "massacre" and "incident": In both Rafah and central Gaza, eyewitnesses described the incidents as “ambushes” carried out by Israeli forces.
So, if we go by your selectively chosen sources, it's called a massacre by 4/7 of the sources in their own voice and an incident by 4/7 of the sources. That's without considering that WP:DEMOCRACYNOW and Euro Med Monitor aren't WP:GREL while Al-Jazeera and The Guardian are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Call it what it is. If not massacre, then killing. Killing is much better than massacre Lova Falk (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the title to "Rafah aid distribution massacres" (though I would not be opposed to "Rafah aid distribution killings"). I would even argue that the word "Incidents" is WP:POV as it equates mass killings of like 30 random people to a man stripping naked and streaking through a soccer stadium. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The following from WP:NCENPOV holds: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." As of now, there is no common name broadly used by RSs. The current title is WP:EUPHEMISM, but better than the proposal under consideration here. Eigenbra (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eigenbra: How can using euphemism not "carry POV implications" and thus is "better"? Erminwin (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether massacre, killings, deaths, or another word is used, I personally think that this should be moved away from the use of "incidents". It's vague and euphemistic. Mason7512 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I find massacres/shootings equally acceptable. Whichever has sufficient support. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose “massacres” per above. Many of the sources listed by @Qhairun:, as well as Doctors Without Borders above that, are advocacy orgs - we could use those in the article as attributed (ex. “some humanitarian groups referred to the events as a “massacre”), but they’re not acceptable as RSes to use for the overall title. Many of the votes without sources, meanwhile, are the sort of “well, it was a massacre” simplistic votes that we try to avoid. That said, support “killings” as I agree that the current title feels euphemistic. The Kip (contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MSF is not treated as an advocacy org on Wikipedia, regardless of your opinion. Mason7512 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re a nonprofit, neither a news organization nor a scholarly/academic source. They’re clearly reputable/well-respected and therefore WP:DUE, but they are not the sort of source we don’t attribute. The Kip (contribs) 18:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. It's an NGO, which don't strictly have to be attributed, but this is very current (therefore preliminary), so I understand attributing their statements in text right now. I just wanted to make clear MSF is not an advocacy group. Mason7512 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The press release cited says MSF reinforces that, along with displacement orders and bombing campaigns that kill civilians, weaponizing aid in this manner may constitute crimes against humanity. Only a lasting ceasefire and the immediate opening of Gaza’s borders for humanitarian aid—including food, medical supplies, fuel and equipment—can ease this man-made catastrophe. That's advocacy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you feel about "shootings"? That's a compromise proposed above. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess I'd support that as well. The Kip (contribs) 00:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm still worried about this becoming hard to resolve if we all start suggesting multiple options, I would also support "shootings" probably. Incident is not descriptive enough, I agree with those saying that. But "massacre" is not used in reliable sources from all sides enough for it to be merited in the title here (yet). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Wikipedia is going overboard withholding usage of the term massacre to describe massacres of Palestinians. According to WP:NCENPOV, If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". These massacres don't have a common name in reliable sources; they're not being called Aid Distribution Killings, let alone Incidents. So we're at liberty to describe them as massacre, not least because that's the most accurate and brief descriptor of these "incidents." Rafe87 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, it's obviously a massacre. But the term "massacre" isn't a generally accepted word used in English language reliable sources though. For better or worse, we have to follow what RS say. Maybe there are good non-English RS using the term? EvansHallBear (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I said above, based on wikipolicy, that doesn't prevent us from using the term massacre because there's no other settled term in RSs either. Rafe87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either "massacres" or alternatively using the term "killings." I prefer "massacre" since it's the most unbiased characterization of the events based on what sources are saying, but either is more descriptive than "incidents." Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. NCENPOV is an expansion of POVTITLE intended to clarify how it applies to events. POVTITLE is itself a policy - stronger than a guideline - which itself explains WP:NPOV - one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Generally speaking, as you go "down the chain" from the 5P to policies to guidelines to explanations of those guidelines, the reasoning isn't because the underlying 5P should be violated, but that there are increasingly likely to be exceptions to those general guidelines. There is no exception warranted just because some people merely want to title something with a word that sounds stronger.
    The question here is whether "massacre" is a generally accepted descriptive word. Note that "generally accepted" means "accepted across the spectrum" - not merely used by sources that tend to one side or the other. The only sources that have been presented so far that label it a "massacre" are either borderline reliable at best, and/or are heavily slanted towards one side of the dispute. Of the neutral sources provided so far, not a single one calls it a massacre. Thus, it cannot be called a "generally accepted descriptive word" as NCENPOV would require. This makes it untenable to include in the title because it is blatantly a loaded/POV term.
    Furthermore, I will caution most (not all) of those !voting support that this is a contentious topic, and as such it is expected that we take extra care to avoid violating NPOV and other policies. Statements like Wikipedia is going overboard withholding usage of the term massacre to describe massacres of Palestinians, or Like what was the incident? Some ice cream truck came and gave everyone ice cream instead of aid, or I would even argue that the word "Incidents" is WP:POV as it equates mass killings of like 30 random people to a man stripping naked and streaking through a soccer stadium (in no particular order) are purely POV statements and are not helpful to building consensus. It would benefit everyone - and thus the encyclopedia, if people could refrain from making such clearly POV statements as part of your comments here. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a point of view against inconcise euphemisms. At the least, I think it should be moved to killings. Easternsahara (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reserve judgement on "killings" - but I could support that potentially. I think it would be best to treat that in a new move request - or at least in a separate subsection from the primary title. Otherwise, arguments for/against "massacre" will be caught up and confused as to whether they apply to "killings" as well, making it much more difficult to form a consensus. But I think it would do us all good to try and keep things strictly on topic - what we read in the PAGs (policies and guidelines), how we interpret those PAGs, and any sources for our reasoning. While analogies are sometimes helpful, in a topic area like this they tend to just inflame both sides - one side who agrees with the analogy and thinks "why can't anyone else understand this", and the other side who thinks "this is such an absurd analogy that it's disruptive" - for example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While everyone should be on their best behavior here, WP: NPOV only applies to encyclopedic content. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not intending to imply that it applies to talk page comments. However, comments that include unconstructive POV commentary are not helpful by definition - and CTOPs require as you say "best behavior". We should all strive to limit our comments (even outside of articlespace) to clear rationale and discussion of how PAGs apply - and not make wild analogies. At best, they do nothing to sway other editors, and at worst they make it much harder to form consensus because of side discussion of the analogy. To be clear I haven't seen it delve into side discussions yet - and I won't comment on it again - I was just trying to remind everyone that it's best to "stick to business" as much as possible so that side discussions don't break out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to treat that in a new move request I agree, and I just did that. Lova Falk (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming my opposition to this move request but my support for the speedy move to killings that took place to remove "incidents" from the title, as I tend to agree that it is a euphemism that isn't ideal. I would encourage others who have already !voted (in any way) to confirm their views in light of the new title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In my personal opinion, I don't understand why we're so pedantic about calling a spade a spade on here. From our page on Massacre:
"A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person."
There are some lists of massacres by country which distinguish between airstrikes and ground massacres. Since this is not an airstrike, and it was not a battle, it seems like that would be the logical conclusion. In regard to WP: NPOV, multiple events on October 7 committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians are called "massacres" here. See Alumin Massacre, Be'eri Massacre, Kfar Aza Massacre, Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, and Psyduck music festival massacre.
As for use in media:
Democracy Now
Al Jazeera
The Guardian and Reuters (not in headline but mentioned in article)
Also want to add that CNN investigated and found evidence that the event both targeted civilians and was committed by Israel. It uses the word "mass casualty" but evidence supports calling the event a massacre. Wisenerd (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — Wisenerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is a really good point! Studies of western media sources (that Wikipedia would deem "reliable") have shown substantial bias in the use of terms like "massacre" or "slaughter" in this conflict. [1] [2]
If we stick to the generally accepted word criterion from WP:NCENPOV, we will be replicating the bias in our sources in violation of WP:NPOV. So, in this case, there is a good argument that we should WP:IAR and call them massacres to preserve neutrality in covering attacks on both Israelis and Palestinians. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a good point at all. It's just a brazen violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You cannot just decide the sources are wrong and to ignore them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to right great wrongs at all, just trying to maintain WP:NPOV as best as possible by calling things what they obviously are. And I'm not proposing contradicting any sources, just using a descriptive term they refuse to use for Palestinians but have no issues using for Israelis. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptive term for Arab-Israelis you mean? /j Easternsahara (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha!
Also, I'm not using the term when no one else is so this isn't WP:OR. The term has been used by MSF and by Palestinians quoted in RS. The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument would be fair if I was proposing using a term that wasn't widely used already. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources themselves have to use the term. You've acknowledged that RSes do not generally use the term "massacre" to refer to this event. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I changed my vote back to oppose. I mistakenly assumed that the article titles for October 7 attacks reflected a broad consensus of RS. Looking into them further, I see that naming involved a much smaller discussion with limited references to RS. I also see that you've requested a move on one of these articles to conform with WP:NCENPOV. Per WP:OSE, we should follow policy here even if it hasn't been followed elsewhere.
I still think there is a broader issue around bias in some RS that needs to be accounted for, but violating WP:NPOV on this article isn't the way to go about that.
I really appreciate your patience on this. As we discussed elsewhere, I know these RMs take up a lot of energy. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything that doesn't refer to the killing of more than 100 people as "incident" per WP:NPOV, including "killings" and "massacre" — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 00:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per reasons listed above. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per WP:NCENPOV, no evidence that this is the common name or "a generally accepted word used when identifying the event." It's not used by most of the sources in the article, e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6]. Alaexis¿question? 08:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "massacre" or "killings", per WP:EUPHEMISM. TurboSuperA+(connect) 14:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is not the common name for the event. Nehushtani (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support since some reputable sources (e.g. Doctors without Borders) describe these events as massacres, and per WP:SPADE we should describe them as what they are. Arguments about WP:NCENPOV are being misused, effectively promoting a EUPHEMISTIC title that that in fact violates WP:NCENPOV policy. -Darouet (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DWB is relatively low on the "reputable sources" list for this consideration - they are directly involved in this conflict, for example, as an advocacy organization just as much as a humanitarian one. We should not be basing our title off of them any more than we'd be basing it off a news story by Al Jazeera or Haretz. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this. Although their statements are insufficient to change the title of this article, they are a humanitarian org and not an advocacy org. That they have reached strong conclusions about the ongoing starvation of Gaza and subsequent killing of desperate hungry people, does not imply they are biased. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, that’s a distinction without a difference when it comes to I/P. Any org that puts out out enough material beyond standard press releases tends to advocate for something, at the very least the prevention of what they interpret as human rights violations. FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge distinction between an organization whose primary focus is humanitarian and a political advocacy group. Strong statements from MSF are not an indication of bias (unless you count killing innocent people is bad as biased.) EvansHallBear (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world yes, but MSF, RSF, UNRWA, Zaka, the ADL etc. often actively act both in a humanitarian and an advocacy function, and saying „70% of what they do is humanitarian, therefore we shouldn’t treat the other 30% as the advocacy it is“ is going to be impractical, inconsistent, or both. This doesn’t apply to objective and knowable statements of facts to the same degree, but anything that’s disputed fact, analysis or opinion is pretty likely to be closer to advocacy than fact. FortunateSons (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. I still think we'd need to weigh the credibility of each organization. If the BBC, MSF, CAIR, and Hamas all describe something as a massacre, MSF's statement would carry more weight than CAIR's, which would carry more weight than Hamas's statement. I realize that could get impractical quickly, but at least in this case since the majority of RS aren't using massacre, we don't need to worry about the relative credibility of MSF. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that order and don’t think they should be disregarded either, but weighing them accordingly gets complicated in less clear-cut cases. And you’re right about the conclusion here: it doesn’t matter in this case. FortunateSons (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this move discussion is a perfect metaphor for how the west has reacted to the whole Gaza thing - bureaucratic hairsplitting in the face of obvious mass slaughter. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM FortunateSons (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: Reminder that WP:SPADE and WP:EUPHEMISM exist.Erminwin (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware of the policies, but neither of those can override the requirement of policy-based arguments for or against the move. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the expressed sentiment, this isn’t one. (Meta-)commentary often adds to discussion which are already too long to begin with, and someone will have to read it to close the discussion FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: To quote Darouet: "Arguments about WP:NCENPOV are being misused, effectively promoting a EUPHEMISTIC title that that in fact violates WP:NCENPOV policy." The current "incident" is still a euphemism for the more descriptive "killing". Erminwin (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might really like the comment directly below this one. Unfortunately, what you’re responding to has no relationship to that, as my response is to @DERPALERT and not @Darouet. FortunateSons (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose massacred for the reasons described above, mostly by Chess, which shows that the term (which is broadly considered to be a POV term) is not used as a common name by English-language reliable sources. Killings and shootings are both more policy-compliant than massacres, and arguably less euphemistic than incidents. Still, the former would require the exclusion of all incidents without deaths (acceptable, but something that requires consensus) and the latter would exclude bombings (which might become an issue in the future). Having said that, a reasonable argument could be made that either of those is a better title than incidents, as long as the comes with an appropriate restriction in article scope in line with the chosen descriptive title. FortunateSons (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUTURE rules out the latter would exclude bombings (which might become an issue in the future)., imo. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I‘m not sure if that policy is specifically relevant here, however, I do agree with the larger point. Nevertheless, I do consider it to be plausible enough to be of concern, and would feel a lot more comfortable supporting that option if there was at least an informal agreement to exclude bombings from an article titled shootings. FortunateSons (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue now, because "massacre" rules out any deaths related to the humanitarian centre that aren't confirmed to be a "massacre" (whatever that may mean). And it's reasonable to assume that people will keep getting killed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even in the body of the article, if it's a disputed value-laden characterization, it's best to back off and use more descriptive terms instead. And that's without even talking about the higher bar for putting it in the title which is a highest level assertion in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: to be fair, Gaza genocide had a RM close with a consensus to name the title that even while consensus to not call it a "genocide" in wikivoice was maintained and even reaffirmed after that RM. So I don't know that the title being the highest level assertion of wikivoice is something many editors care about nowadays, even though I agree with you that it should be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: Thanks for the post and ping. Well, in that example, at the simplest level, the title was not a question in the RFC and so there was no decision about the title including no explicit or implied approval. At a bit more complex level, while people might question a title, few explicitly notice that terminology contains (implied) assertions and statements. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah aid distribution killings

[edit]

Since "Rafah aid distribution killings" was proposed above as a compromise, let's gauge consensus separately to make this easier to close. Pinging @Erminwin, EvansHallBear, Easternsahara, JTtheOG, Qhairun, Lova Falk, Eigenbra, Mason7512, Monk of Monk Hall, The Kip, Berchanhimez, Jweiss11, Rafe87, Yung Doohickey, Closetside, Smallangryplanet, IOHANNVSVERVS, Wisenerd, Skitash, The Cheesedealer, and Alaexis: Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, prefer to use "killings" rather than just "incidents". Qhairun (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose - Large numbers of civilians are being repeatedly gunned down at aid distribution centers that have been universally condemned by international human rights organizations. Is there any reporting of people shooting at Israeli forces to provoke these mass killings, or, of people shooting back in response? If not, I stand by the proposed title of "massacre" noted above. Of course, it goes without saying that "killings" is nonetheless vastly superior to the practically shameful title "incidents." -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an application of clause (3) of WP:NCENPOV Eigenbra (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support killings for a quick resolution to this conflict. Massacres maybe in the future but we don't have a crystal ball yet Easternsahara (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, to close and get it over with (and "incidents" is very odd anyways) Evaporation123 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving from incidents -> killings. Would also support a later move from killings -> massacres if the move discussion is reopened later. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support (responding to ping) First choice would be the current title... "incidents" better matches the scope of the article (it's not just about the killings......there is coverage of the overall incidents plus of woundings). Second choice would be deaths or fatalities which doesn't rule out combatant deaths if that is being claimed by the IDF.....there's little on what IDF said regarding that in the article. "Rafah aid distribution killings" is a practical compromise. Not too inappropriate because it looks like "killings" legitimately describes what is at least a significant and noteworthy part of what happened. And it doesn't have the numerous problems with "massacre" that I previously described. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For full transparency, this basically describes my reasons for supporting this title above, though I figured my shorter comment was okay originally. It's a compromise title, and as time goes on, a more apt title may arise - whether "less strong" (ex: "incidents") or "more strong" (ex: "mass killings" or "massacres"). But until then, this is a good compromise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Those are clearly not only "incidents" Sgnpkd (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I've fixed MOS:LISTGAP by changing everything to start with an asterisk/bullet point. Please remember that even though many of us don't use screen readers/accessibility features, there are also many editors who do, and we should strive to make discussions accessible to all. Changing between colons (unbulleted lists) and asterisks (bulleted lists) causes issues with screen readers which treat that change as the start of a new list (per the link above). I don't think anyone has done this intentionally - and the reply tool messes this up not infrequently - but it's a good idea for all of us to look at our replies using that tool to ensure they comply with LISTGAP. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FortunateSons: as part of the LISTGAP fixes I tried to fix your comment by moving the signature to be on the same line as the !vote and comment. Please feel free to edit as you see fit or revert if there's a good reason for it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:29, 12 June 2025 (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.

Multiple massacres

[edit]

If there have been multiple massacres on separate dates, wouldn't it make more sense to split this page into multiple pages? JPHC2003 (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If editors end up agreeing that this page should include the term "massacre", the next step is going to be removing all of the killings that aren't recognized as massacres by reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree this should be the next step. Rafe87 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, each instance of mass killing doesn't meet notability on its own. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2025

[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: Procedural close. Ongoing RM above. (closed by non-admin page mover) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah aid distribution incidents → Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres – The massacres at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aren't limited to Rafah, so it will be inaccurate and misleading to put Rafah in the title. And these are outright massacres, so they should be shown as such. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2025 (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 17 June 2025 - Total death toll clarification

[edit]

My first request is that the paragraph about the June 17 killings be corrected to the following:

On 17 June, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Israeli troops killed 59 and injured 221 others who were waiting for aid from U.N. and commercial trucks in Khan Younis, with witnesses reporting that Israeli soldiers and drones fired onto civilians and atleast two Israeli shells landed in the middle of the crowd, describing the attacks as a "massacre". This was the deadliest incident of killings of aid seekers. The incident wasn't related to the GHF sites.

The source to add is: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-gaza-aid-06-17-2025-7af5503ea7d2176674fba26d34f6ef74

The source states that "The shooting did not appear to be related to a new Israeli- and U.S.-supported aid delivery network that rolled out last month" and that "At least 51 Palestinians were killed and more than 200 wounded in the Gaza Strip while waiting for U.N. and commercial trucks".

It needs to be clarified that this incident isn't related to GHF sites as many previous ones as the victims were waiting for U.N. and commercial trucks.

My second request is that the third sentence in the first paragraph be changed to:

According to the Gaza Health Ministry, over 300 Palestinians have been killed while trying to reach aid distribution areas throughout Gaza, including GHF sites in Rafah.

As noted above, not all killings have occured in Rafah or at GHF sites including the latest one in Khan Younis. As this page is apparently about Rafah aid killings, it needs to be clarified that the total death toll figures are not restricted to incidents in Rafah or at/near GHF sites. I think this page title should be expanded to Gaza.

The currently cited BBC source notes "Two hospitals in Gaza City said 25 people were killed overnight, near a convoy transporting flour and a food distribution site run by the US- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in the area of the Netzarim corridor, an Israeli military zone." One of these incidents wasn't at a GHF site and the other wasn't in Rafah. 102.17.118.220 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is  Already done, I added the bit about GHF denying its involvement Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2025

[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. There is rough consensus for the move as proposed. While some have suggested alternate disambiguators, none of them have yet attained consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah aid distribution killings → 2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings – The killings have occurred beyond Rafah, with masscares also occuring around other places like Khan Yunis. I suggest the title of the article be changed to "2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings". Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Erminwin (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres or Gaza Humanitarian Foundation killings would probably be more descriptive, unless some of these killings took place at non-GHF aid sites. Yung Doohickey (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Erminwin (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think including 'aid distribution' in the name is more clearer to serve as a descriptive for what's supposedly happening during these killings. Hsnkn (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian aid distribution killings is better because many people who know about the killings don't know who is behind them. Easternsahara (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara: Palestinian aid distribution killings can easily mislead readers into believing that Palestinians were the sole aid distributors and solely responsible for killing other Palestinians. The IDF is identified by many RSs as the culprit behind most killings; while the Israel-backed Popular Forces - made up of Palestinian collaborationists - were known for working alongsides the IDF to kill Palestinian aid-seekers on June 9 (source). Erminwin (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza humanitarian aid killings? Easternsahara (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subtly yet poignantly pointing to the IDF's accomplice Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. I like it. Have my thanks! Erminwin (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support using the word massacre specifically. These are several instances of the IDF firing on displaced civilians seeking food and aid, “killings” feels too soft especially given the scale and how protracted this is. Hundreds have been killed already by IDF and allied highwaymen firing on defenceless hungry people The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. !voting based on "'killings' feels too soft" isn't an appropriate justification. Try looking at the sources per WP:NCENPOV. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, why do we need 2025, have there been other humanitarian aid killings? At the rate that the current "war" is going on, there may be more. However, it doesn't seem like there are any articles about previous humanitarian aid killings, so the 2025 is an unnecessary disambiguator. Also, I think we can just use "gaza" instead of "gaza strip" in this context. Similarly we don't need "distribution" as a disambiguator either because there were no separate killings that occurred after the distribution or before. I propose Gaza aid killings or Rafah aid killings because those are the most concise titles. Easternsahara (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people have been killed while seeking aid in Gaza before 2025. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would also add disambiguation like (May 2025–present) in order to differentiate it from other aid distributions killings earlier in the war, such as the Flour Massacre. Hsnkn (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Flour massacre happened in 2024, and so far there has been no notable killing of aid seekers except the ones at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2025 (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.

"Deliberately"

[edit]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-deliberately-at-unarmed-gazans-waiting-for-humanitarian-aid/00000197-ad8e-de01-a39f-ffbe33780000 — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 10:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 June 2025 - Remove Poisoning

[edit]

Would someone please remove Poisoning from the infobox. It was added with no source. There are no reliable sources claiming this and it's not even talked about anywhere in the body. A quick Google search came up with some unreliable (Turkish and Saudi state news) sources claiming that Gaza authorities (Hamas) found drugs in some bags. There are not even any claims of any casualties or that it was deliberate and widespread which is what putting Poisoning in the infobox would imply. Even if the claims are true, this would only loosely be relevent to the massacres near aid sites and definitelynot belong in the infobox.

Thanks 567 I DONT (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for being alert! Lova Falk (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Complicity" of GHF

[edit]

@Yung Doohickey: You made a revert, [7] saying the Center for Constitution Rights is quite clearly stating the GHF is complicit. It's unclear if we are reading the same source, which describes "potential legal liability for complicity". At no point does this center directly accuse the GHF of being "complicit". It's also unclear to me how a singular press release and news article on that press release are WP:DUE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way it reads is that the GHF is complicit and thus faces potential legal liability, and the implication is apparent regardless. Even if the accusation isn't direct, the way the article currently presents such information is fully within context, and I've revised the infobox to describe "potential complicity" instead of the previous characterization. I think it is important to keep the fact that an advocacy group has sent a legal notice for potential liability for genocide complicity. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Center for Constitutional Rights' senior staff attorney explicitly states For the past twenty months, Israel has used the denial of food, water, and other basic necessities to carry out its genocide against the Palestinian population of Gaza. As Palestinians now face mass starvation, Israel has teamed up with GHF to make accessing food not only dangerous and potentially deadly but also a tool of forced displacement. So there is some level of accusation here. Yung Doohickey (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disproven

[edit]

Camera footage has largely disproven this incident as fabricated Hamas propaganda. The Washington Post has retracted their article. The wikipedia page should be updated. 2600:1700:1E10:A020:F15B:F764:9DFE:8B0 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distribution_killings&oldid=1298708358"