![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 3, 2013, November 3, 2016, and November 3, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has a section titled "Press coverage" in which it says that Joe Sacco made an extensive account of the killings but someone who was actually there, and is an historian (Sacco is not) disputes this account. At the same time the entire article is based on Sacco's account. So which is it—is Sacco's account disputed or not? If it's disputed, which appears to be the case, the article should definitely qualify everything taken from it, and should give it much less weight. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dozens of individuals, both in and out of Sacco's interviews, report that what occurred was not justified. Marek Gefen, who was a military witness to the incident, like Meir Pail, claims it to be a massacre, while Pail does not. The article represents the views of the IDF and others who dispute the incident as civilian killings and claim it to be aggression against armed resistance. I will be removing the neutrality tag. Seeing that 2 Israeli military witnesses both offer differing accounts, and that the article does not solely rely on Sacco's material (as you claim), I believe this to be an appropriate move. I will also be asking a completely uninvolved person to re-rate the article for WikiProject Israel. I can't help but feel that you, as an Israeli, (and one with nationalist tendencies at that) are attempting to weigh the article in Israel's favor. (PS-I would be in favor of renaming the article to "Khan Yunis incident." That may be more appropriate given the disputed nature of the deaths of the residents of Khan Yunis.)1Matt20 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is blatantly not NPOV, and is due for a significant overhaul. The origins of the Suez crisis are complex, but saying that Israel invaded "...in an effort to acquire neighboring Egyptian territories" (opening paragraph of the article) is an outright lie. (Israel's stated war aims were to open the Straits of Tiran, illegally blockaded by Egypt, to Israeli navigation, and to put an end to fedayeen terrorist attacks on the Israeli population. Israel also cooperated politically with Britain and France in their effort to occupy the Canal Zone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.50.223 ( talk) 08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree, and have added the POV template, which should not be removed until the article has been redone by someone both able and willing to write from a NPOV about the history of Arab-Israeli conflict. Davidhof ( talk) 13:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This is just a modern version of Mein Kampf. If you want the truth you need to learn Hebrew -
Deleted lying Israeli propaganda, sorry.
( talk) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The primary culprits guilty of using Wikipedia for propaganda have been, and consistently are, Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews and non-Jews.
The accusation of this being a "modern version of Mein Kampf" is both hilarious, incredibly pathetic, and absolutely predicable, and goes a long way in showing what value we should put on the words of those who would try to play the victim card/bring up the holocaust every time events like the Khan Yunis killings are brought up.
Pathetic, and absolutely disgusting.
There are multiple contrasting eyewitness reports of what occurred in the village of Khan Yunis during the Suez Crisis. The latter mentioned accounts are clearly laid out and written within this article. However, seeing that there is an ncredibly strong amount of local rhetoric that indicates negative Israeli involvement, those are admittedly given a greater amount of attention. With this being said, Marek Gefen and Meir Pail were both IDF troops who passed through Khan Yunis during their service during or in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. These two Israelis both present hugely contrasting views which are both presented in this article. In short, its made clear that Wikipedia is not taking sides as to whether or not a mass murder of civilians occurred in the Gaza Strip during its Israeli invasion. To move to another issue, I recognize that the use of "massacre" within the title is very inappropriate; this is biased and I apologize for its insertion in the first place. I'll move the page to Khan Yunis incident. Thank you for reading. 1Matt20 03:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (Note: I'll be taking the liberty of changing the wording in the article, which at times can imply that the word of the Palestinian refugees is completely true against that against that of Israeli military sources.)
<- I have moved the page back to Khan Yunis massacre again while this discussion is ongoing. The title of the article must be based on WP:TITLE and nothing else. Arguments that ignore WP:POVNAME aren't going to be useful here or elsewhere. It would be good if all articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area with contentious titles, titles that can start fires in the topic area, were reviewed to ensure that they comply with WP:TITLE. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was Mark Pail’s account removed? Drsruli ( talk) 01:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Not RS for historical facts but Sacco is a trained journalist and highly regarded as an investigative journalist. If you look at reviews for the work, e.g. NYT [1], it is seen as a serious piece of journalism ("investigative reporting of the highest quality...it is difficult to imagine how any other form of journalism could make these events so interesting"). So in my opinion it can be used carefully if properly attributed.
On a side note Meir Pail was battalion commander for the Israeli army in Khan Yunis during the massacre, so although a historian he is certainly not a third party source for facts on this topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 10:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"According to one account from a fleeing fedayee" was changed to "According to Sacco's comic book a fleeing fedayee" and "Local residents allege that 100 Palestinian men" was changed to "Sacco's comic book further claims that 100 Palestinian men" by Gilabrand, who said "source of claims added". You not only added "comic book", which is not needed as it is already mentioned and trying to diminish the source is not right, but you deleted where it came from in the first place. Now it looks like that it was only something according to Sacco's book. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I reinserted it now. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 11:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Gilabrand showed no interest in this discussion but still comes and reverts me. As I have said, where the information comes should not be removed and only changed to something only coming from Sacco's book. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at a few of the sources and the general structure of this page. Can anyone give a good reason why this article shouldn't be merged with Rafah massacre? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have advertised the matter on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Request_for_comment. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
MarciulionisHOF has not bothered to notify here that he has started a discussion at WP:RSN. Since he is new, I have done this myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
For some strange reason, half of the discussion is going on here. My attempts to merge were reverted. Anyway, both halves have the same quality. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khan Yunis massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the article talk about everything but details of the massacre? Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 3, 2013, November 3, 2016, and November 3, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has a section titled "Press coverage" in which it says that Joe Sacco made an extensive account of the killings but someone who was actually there, and is an historian (Sacco is not) disputes this account. At the same time the entire article is based on Sacco's account. So which is it—is Sacco's account disputed or not? If it's disputed, which appears to be the case, the article should definitely qualify everything taken from it, and should give it much less weight. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dozens of individuals, both in and out of Sacco's interviews, report that what occurred was not justified. Marek Gefen, who was a military witness to the incident, like Meir Pail, claims it to be a massacre, while Pail does not. The article represents the views of the IDF and others who dispute the incident as civilian killings and claim it to be aggression against armed resistance. I will be removing the neutrality tag. Seeing that 2 Israeli military witnesses both offer differing accounts, and that the article does not solely rely on Sacco's material (as you claim), I believe this to be an appropriate move. I will also be asking a completely uninvolved person to re-rate the article for WikiProject Israel. I can't help but feel that you, as an Israeli, (and one with nationalist tendencies at that) are attempting to weigh the article in Israel's favor. (PS-I would be in favor of renaming the article to "Khan Yunis incident." That may be more appropriate given the disputed nature of the deaths of the residents of Khan Yunis.)1Matt20 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is blatantly not NPOV, and is due for a significant overhaul. The origins of the Suez crisis are complex, but saying that Israel invaded "...in an effort to acquire neighboring Egyptian territories" (opening paragraph of the article) is an outright lie. (Israel's stated war aims were to open the Straits of Tiran, illegally blockaded by Egypt, to Israeli navigation, and to put an end to fedayeen terrorist attacks on the Israeli population. Israel also cooperated politically with Britain and France in their effort to occupy the Canal Zone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.50.223 ( talk) 08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree, and have added the POV template, which should not be removed until the article has been redone by someone both able and willing to write from a NPOV about the history of Arab-Israeli conflict. Davidhof ( talk) 13:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This is just a modern version of Mein Kampf. If you want the truth you need to learn Hebrew -
Deleted lying Israeli propaganda, sorry.
( talk) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The primary culprits guilty of using Wikipedia for propaganda have been, and consistently are, Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews and non-Jews.
The accusation of this being a "modern version of Mein Kampf" is both hilarious, incredibly pathetic, and absolutely predicable, and goes a long way in showing what value we should put on the words of those who would try to play the victim card/bring up the holocaust every time events like the Khan Yunis killings are brought up.
Pathetic, and absolutely disgusting.
There are multiple contrasting eyewitness reports of what occurred in the village of Khan Yunis during the Suez Crisis. The latter mentioned accounts are clearly laid out and written within this article. However, seeing that there is an ncredibly strong amount of local rhetoric that indicates negative Israeli involvement, those are admittedly given a greater amount of attention. With this being said, Marek Gefen and Meir Pail were both IDF troops who passed through Khan Yunis during their service during or in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. These two Israelis both present hugely contrasting views which are both presented in this article. In short, its made clear that Wikipedia is not taking sides as to whether or not a mass murder of civilians occurred in the Gaza Strip during its Israeli invasion. To move to another issue, I recognize that the use of "massacre" within the title is very inappropriate; this is biased and I apologize for its insertion in the first place. I'll move the page to Khan Yunis incident. Thank you for reading. 1Matt20 03:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (Note: I'll be taking the liberty of changing the wording in the article, which at times can imply that the word of the Palestinian refugees is completely true against that against that of Israeli military sources.)
<- I have moved the page back to Khan Yunis massacre again while this discussion is ongoing. The title of the article must be based on WP:TITLE and nothing else. Arguments that ignore WP:POVNAME aren't going to be useful here or elsewhere. It would be good if all articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area with contentious titles, titles that can start fires in the topic area, were reviewed to ensure that they comply with WP:TITLE. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was Mark Pail’s account removed? Drsruli ( talk) 01:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Not RS for historical facts but Sacco is a trained journalist and highly regarded as an investigative journalist. If you look at reviews for the work, e.g. NYT [1], it is seen as a serious piece of journalism ("investigative reporting of the highest quality...it is difficult to imagine how any other form of journalism could make these events so interesting"). So in my opinion it can be used carefully if properly attributed.
On a side note Meir Pail was battalion commander for the Israeli army in Khan Yunis during the massacre, so although a historian he is certainly not a third party source for facts on this topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 10:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"According to one account from a fleeing fedayee" was changed to "According to Sacco's comic book a fleeing fedayee" and "Local residents allege that 100 Palestinian men" was changed to "Sacco's comic book further claims that 100 Palestinian men" by Gilabrand, who said "source of claims added". You not only added "comic book", which is not needed as it is already mentioned and trying to diminish the source is not right, but you deleted where it came from in the first place. Now it looks like that it was only something according to Sacco's book. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I reinserted it now. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 11:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Gilabrand showed no interest in this discussion but still comes and reverts me. As I have said, where the information comes should not be removed and only changed to something only coming from Sacco's book. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at a few of the sources and the general structure of this page. Can anyone give a good reason why this article shouldn't be merged with Rafah massacre? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have advertised the matter on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Request_for_comment. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
MarciulionisHOF has not bothered to notify here that he has started a discussion at WP:RSN. Since he is new, I have done this myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
For some strange reason, half of the discussion is going on here. My attempts to merge were reverted. Anyway, both halves have the same quality. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khan Yunis massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the article talk about everything but details of the massacre? Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)