Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Tel al-Sultan attack

(

)

~~... that American missiles were used to bomb a displacement camp in Rafah?~~

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/middleeast/israel-us-rafah-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/world/europe/carnage-and-contradiction-examining-a-deadly-strike-in-rafah.html

Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Personisinsterest (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Personisinsterest (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

I'd like to propose some alternative hooks, if that's okay:
- ALT1: ... that the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, struck by Israeli fighter jets, was located only 200 meters from the largest UNRWA humanitarian aid storage warehouse in the Gaza Strip? Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-rockets-central-israel-gaza-strip-sirens/
- ALT2:... that a viral image showing tents in Rafah arranged to spell "All Eyes on Rafah" called for global attention to the humanitarian crisis following the Tel al-Sultan attack? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/middleeast/all-eyes-on-rafah.html
- ALT3: ... that the Tel al-Sultan attack was the deadliest incident of the Rafah offensive? Source: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/27/rafah-tent-camp-strike-biden-israel-red-line

Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As a DYK, I would prefer either ALT1 or ALT3 as a better alternative to the suggested DYK, simply because, in warfare, all sides make use of weapons supplied to them by other countries, and sometimes innocent lives are taken away inadvertently by these weapons. Furthermore, the article goes on to suggest that there was in proximity to the camp a weapons' storage facility.Davidbena (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest, Smallangryplanet, and Davidbena: I loathe the Israel-Palestine topic area on a cellular level, but I need a QPQ and this is the oldest nom, so once more unto the breach. This is long enough, new enough, and does not incur a QPQ. ALT2 is the only hook to meet WP:DYKINT (the others are bogstandard features of war) and I have struck the others. There is way too much close paraphrasing in this article for this even to have got through GA, never mind this, and this will need to be addressed before this can run; as this is already past WP:DYKTIMEOUT, I will close this after a week if this is not fixed.--Laun chba ller 16:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/Launchballer, I totally agree with you. I am not happy with the current DYK, as it purports to highlight Israel as the main antagonist in this ongoing war, a war that was forced upon Israel. There ought to be more balance in this article. Balance is lacking. I would agree to forego the DYK.Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Do the sources highlight Israel as the main antagonist? If so, WP:NPOV is met.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The news media outlet, Al Jazeera, is cited a handful of times, which has a clear bias against Israel. Mostly, however, the writer(s) of this article are "cherry-picking" their sources to portray Israel in a bad light, even though Israeli claims about the same incident in question is that the camp was next to some kind of incendiary ordinance planted there or some arms storage facility which caught afire and caused most of the unwanted deaths. It all comes down to lack of balance, as the writing comes across as being marked by an unfair animus against the IDF in a war that was imposed upon it.Davidbena (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ALJAZEERA says that Al Jazeera is generally reliable, though might have some bias on this topic. I think we satisfied WP:DUE in the article, where we cited that source. Regardless of the broader context of the war, there's no way to discuss this incident without mentioning Israel's role. I'm also not sure about WP:CLOP being an issue here as it's an essay, not an official policy. @Personisinsterest and Abo Yemen: can you both chime in here about this? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you actually doubting al-Jazeera's reliability???Abo Yemen ✉ 06:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing is a potential copyright violation. It's serious. @Davidbena: What specifically do the sources say that the article should?--Laun chba ller 15:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves, but the tone of the article, in my view, should be toned down to reflect more balance, given the apologies expressed by the Israeli government (see, for example, this BBC report) and given the extenuating circumstances. I have no more to say about this specific matter.Davidbena (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of the risks w/r/t CLOP, but I'm not sure if it applies. Even if you run the page through the copyvios tool, the majority of similarities are direct quotes or proper nouns, things that are unavoidably similar across sources. So would you be willing to provide an example of something you'd like to see fixed? Also, w/r/t balance - the page does include that exact reference and discuss it, amongst many others. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I ran the page through the first ten pages. There was one phrase, "the first time in months", though I note that it appears in several sources and so may well come under WP:LIMITED. (It would be very useful if the article stated when it last Hamas last fired them, though that's probably exceeding the DYK criteria.) All of the other terms Earwig picks up on are either quoted or come under that policy. I am expressly rejecting Davidbena's argument and approving ALT2.--Laun chba ller 00:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Launchballer:! I've updated the page per List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 to not use "first time in months" and reference a rocket launch in January of 2024. Is there anything else we need to do here or does the DYK enter the queue? Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In theory, a promoter should come along to promote this fairly quickly as it's at the top of T:TDYKA, unless they find issues I haven't seen.--Laun chba ller 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer RoySmith Can this be promoted with an article name change discussion tag? SL93 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea. I'm not that into DYK rules arcania. RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith Thanks for responding. I also posted this on the DYK talk page to see what others said. I will likely just give it a day and then promote the article if no one says otherwise. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)