Talk:Nahal Oz attack

Link to general attack

The article has a link labelled Hamas’ ‘surprise attack on Israel’ but this links to the article for the whole war rather than the article ‘2023 Hamas attack on Israel’. Seems like it should be the latter. 2600:1017:B83B:A473:6073:D305:EEC7:5AA (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2023

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) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Nahal Oz massacre → Nahal Oz attack – The title of this article is out of step with the contents it describes (WP:NCE) and the sources (WP:NPOV). The bulk of what this page describes is an attack on military base, and the bulk of the casualties it describes are military personnel - and I do not see any sources using the word "massacre" to describe the events at the military base. The rest of the material is about a related attack on the nearby kibbutz, but even in the sources for this the word "massacre" is not obviously forthcoming. The only extant source that uses "massacre" in its headline does so, in the body, in reference to the festival massacre. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a series of similar and similarly named articles. But as you point out, this one is about attacks on both a kibbutz and a nearby military base. Possibly the article should be split?

The body says that most soldiers at the base were unarmed and almost all were killed, so frankly "massacre" does not seem off the mark either way. –St.nerol (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We currently only have Israeli (and Russian?) sources confirming this, as with many of the other details on the page, so I'm not sure how much stock should be put in it. A split is a potential option. The bigger issue is that there is little to no source support for the term 'massacre' in general, which makes it something of an WP:NPOV issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Not a massacre according to sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ok, this is silly. First, it is ridiculous to suggest that only coverage in Israel is an issue -- that's where the event happened. So if there's only coverage in Palestinian, American, Egyptian sources for an event in that country, is it a problem or the result of how news is gathered? It's also a reflection of systemic bias against Israeli sources -- not Israeli military sources, but sources solely because they are Israeli. Second, RS across the political spectrum use the term "massacre": Haaretz (left), Israel Hayom (right), Jerusalem Post (center), The Atlantic (USA), Le Monde (France), among others. Third, from a WP:SKYBLUE perspective, how is the slaughter of (at least) 12 civilians a military "attack"? Beggars the mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to unsigned, only source out of those 5 using the word massacre is Haaretz which uses it as a headline and then only in passing rather than as a name, Hayom is in the headline only WP:HEADLINES, JP refers to the Simchat Torah massacre, neither Atlantic nor Le Monde use the word at all. Evidently not skyblue. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Haaretz source is also about Nir Oz, not Nahal Oz so off-topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  The death of 12 civilians in a war would find difficulty being classed as a 'massacre' especially as the main target of the attack as declared by Hamas was the Nahal Oz base, this is especially true when you consider that many civilians in Nahal Oz are military reservists and that some have duties as local security personnel for the settlement. When you consider this altogether, classing this as a 'massacre' rather than a battle or an offensive is absurd. Hamas fighters would have hardly been interested in running around killing people randomly in the midst of the most daring offensive they have ever done when they know every second counts. Renaming this as the 'Nahal Oz Offensive' or 'Battle of Nahal Oz' is more appropriate especailly considering that the current Israeli attack on Gaza is labelled as an 'Offensive' rather than a 'Massacre'. Surely if you're willing to say that the death of 12 civilians in this settlement is a 'massacre' then you'd be willing to say that the death of 12 thousand Palestinian civilians so far is a 'massacre' too? We need some proportionality and lack of bias in naming these events as the name matters a lot and calling this a 'massacre' while calling the Israeli attack an 'offensive' is just completely disproportionate. We also need to consider the effects of Hamas having zero media or diplomatic representation compared to Israel having an infinite amount of it on how we obtain and present our sources. Does Hamas having less outlets to present their versions of the truth mean that we should completely ignore their side of the story? Including their intentions and the route of their offense which are of paramount importance and which they have already declared? I think this approach needs to change if we are to present a clear and unbiased view of these events to readers. Odin818 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support It's the neutral way of expressing the event. See Suicide attack, September 11 attacks, Duma arson attack, and 2008 Mumbai attacks. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of Israeli and international sources documenting the massacre and death of civilians in Nahal Oz. Zbase4 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Where are they? Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The consensus is leaning towards a move. Relisting for broader consensus. Reading Beans (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support for now as the current name is a WP:POVNAME and doesn't appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME either. When I google "nahal oz oct 7" (a fairly neutral search term), the top results are:
  • Guardian uses "attack" and not "massacre"
  • Times of Israel uses "attack" and not massacre
  • NBC also uses "attack" but not "massacre"
  • Another Times of Israel article that uses both "attack" and "massacre"
  • New York Times uses "attack" but not "massacre".
  • CNN article uses "attack" but not massacre.
  • Radio Canada uses "attack" but not "massacre".
  • Note I omitted several reliable links, including several from the Ha'aretz, because they are behind a paywall that I can't access. VR _talk 22:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Also BBC uses "attack" but not "massacre".VR _talk 22:12, 18 November 2023 (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 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) 10:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Al Qassam Brigades is one of the wings of Hamas, so they're venn diagram intersection where Al Qassam is a smaller circle inside of a bigger circle Hamas. It's a proper subset. Andre🚐 10:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability

Most sources are primary news sources, and all but ~2 do not say anything about a specific "Nahal Oz attack" or "attack on Nahal Oz", but rather discuss the broader attack of 7 October. For this article to justify its standalone existence, multiple reliable third-party sources would need to be included that specifically discuss a "Nahal Oz attack", otherwise we're left with either WP:OR or the parroting back of biased news coverage. Dylanvt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, it's notable enough on its own and meets GNG. Andre🚐 19:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you disagree with? Do you disagree that the vast majority of the sources don't say anything about a specific "Nahal Oz attack" or "attack on Nahal Oz"? Do you disagree that we would need multiple reliable third-party sources that specifically discuss a "Nahal Oz attack" to establish notability? Dylanvt (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has 18 sources to establish notability, which is sufficient. There are quite a few articles just about the attack on this kibbutz. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] "Attack on Nahal Oz" is just as valid a term to substantiate WP:SIGCOV which clearly exists, so I disagree with your arguments wholesale. Andre🚐 21:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose merging this page into 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as has been done with most similar pages detailing individual incidents on October 7. Riposte97 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The statement that "most similar pages [have been merged]" is not strictly accurate. Please see my reply to a similar comment on Talk:Netiv HaAsara massacre#Proposed merger where three similar articles had AfDs closed as keep last week (where merge was an option) and which I’m now updating to bring to wiki-quality. Although I haven’t reviewed this article in detail (I will once finished with the others) this one has 3-4 more sources than those did, and seems to be much better written. Therefore even before I update it, all things being equal it is more likely than those to not pass a merge/delete vote. Ayenaee (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger, thanks. Riposte97 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Massacre of unarmed military

The massacre of unarmed military (mostly here but I think possibly a couple of other bases too) seems like it should count as some sort of war crime? But is there anything specific we can cite? It comes close to three definitive war crimes, it's illegal to:

• kill enemy combatants you've already taken prisoner
• kill enemy combatants who surrender
• "take no prisoners" and only kill

But…

• They weren't already taken prisoner, so it doesn't count as executing POWs
• There is no evidence they surrendered, they tried to run away (or some might have been asleep), and killing retreating enemy is legal. I'm having trouble finding anything that explains if them being unarmed changes this?
• and it wasn't "take no prisoners" because Al Qassam and Saraya Al Quds (and possibly others but I've not found a citable source for anyone else yet) were actively trying to take some prisoner.

People who are asleep or unarmed teenage girls who describe their job as "looking at screens all day" don't seem like active combatants? But I'm a bit of a pacifist. What does international law actually say on it? Owen Jones thought it was covered under a broad interpretation of some of the crimes mentioned above, but he's not a legal expert, just a UK journalist. MWQs (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Map

Gaza and their sympathisers claim the Kibbutz is pretty much part of the base. But the sources who claim this are not very balanced (e.g. Electronic Intifada). Is there anywhere we can find a map? Preferably one we can embed a link or included as an image. But if not, then just something citable we can describe would be good to clarify the geography of the story. MWQs (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Victory"

1. There is no distinction mentioned between Nahal Oz Army Base and the Nahal Oz Kibbutz. Curious. The photo is of the kibbutz, not the army base.
2. Why is it labelled as a Hamas/PIJ victory? What victory? Whilst the initial attack could be seen as "a success" -- the army base and kibbutz were reclaimed after hours of fighting, so the current text is not only incorrect, but also fairly disingenuous. The citations are also obscure.
Basically, much of this page is inconclusive, and not really an accurate representation of the facts. Terrapinspeed (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hannibal at the Nahal Oz outpost in which female spotters were based

Please add:

In July 2024, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that, according to the army’s confirmation, the Hannibal Directive was issued during the morning of October 7, 2023 at the Nahal Oz outpost, in which female spotters were based. 91.54.19.113 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)