Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 330: Line 330:
:'''Support -''' I agree that it is a [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support -''' I agree that it is a [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]]. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]]. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply <span style="font-size:large;"><u>'''''traumatic'''''</u></span> for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.
This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply <span style="font-size:large;"><u>'''''traumatic'''''</u></span> for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.


Revision as of 17:44, 20 October 2023

"Unconfirmed reports"

Considering the two following statements in the article :

1.

Yossi Landau, regional head of the first responder organisation ZAKA, claimed that both babies and minors had been beheaded alongside corpses of dismembered adults.

2.

Jewish burial rites may complicate the search for answers, given the emphasis on the dignity of the dead and the requirement for burials to take place within 24 hours if possible. Viewing and exposing the body is also considered objectionable and disrespectful

Someone should write in the body of the article that these two facts along with the fact that the beheadings are "unconfirmed by outside sources" actually add up because Israel never invites people to see atrocities of enemies to use it as propaganda (Unlike Palestinians). 2A02:14F:170:3559:0:0:B796:528F (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for that assertion, that would be a start. Riposte97 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion about "unconfirmed reports" makes absolutely no sense because Israel invited Western media to view the bodies and carnage of the massacre conducted by Hamas and subsequently verified the reports. Also, there are tons of articles with reports from ZAKA, so I do not understand where you are coming from. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these:

  • The UN's aid agency told the BBC that Gaza is "being pushed into an abyss"
  • The US has sent a second aircraft carrier to the region to "deter hostile actions against Israel". Meanwhile, Iran has warned of "far-reaching consequences" if Israel continues attacking

Scientelensia (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source? ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364?ref=tippinsights.com
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=652bce5e364b3f1612ec4e7b%26Israeli%20army%20may%20need%20more%20time%262023-10-15T11%3A34%3A55.300Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:cfe1c143-9b2c-45cb-b0c8-921c4c969882&pinned_post_asset_id=652bce5e364b3f1612ec4e7b&pinned_post_type=share
All here, I believe. Thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate civilians from soldiers in Israeli casualties

"1400 killed" paints the wrong picture when 90% were murdered civilians.

Only 286 were soldiers. Source: https://www.idf.il/59780?q=&page=1 Raymond Saint (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, say most Wikipedians, a footnote is enough!
This was brought up a week ago. They added a footnote. I agree it's not enough. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "At least 1,400 Israelis were killed, mostly civilians" Seffardim (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the 2300 Gazans killed say mostly civilians too? nableezy - 15:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's adequate citations then yes the number of civilian deaths on both sides needs to be mentioned. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update from today: 306 IDF solidiers lost their lives, do the math. Soruce: IDF Operational Recap: October 18, 2023 Raymond Saint (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2023

Template:RM protected

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza–Israel war – This page should move back to a descriptive title both consistent with the WP:NCE guidelines and consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's huge existing body of content on the Gaza–Israel conflict. In the rapidly evolving news, both "Gaza–Israel" (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) and "Israel–Hamas" are clearly extant variants. In this context it is reasonable for Wikipedia to refer back to its own naming policies, such as WP:NCE and WP:CONSISTENT, in making a choice. Speaking to WP:NCE, the guidelines call for the title to be composed of "when, where, what", and, in line with this, "Gaza–Israel" is a "where", while, by contrast, "Israel–Hamas" is not a "where" at all, but a hybridized "place–participant", and so lacks internal consistency, let alone functional adherence to WP:NCE. In terms of the naming discussion that brought us here, it is worth noting that in that discussion there was a considerable voting preference for "Gaza–Israel", but the RM went in a different direction that was less consistent with WP:NCE or consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's existing content on the topic - unlike the prior title of "October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict", which was consistent. There was also a second, snow-closed RM that presented no new arguments and was snow-closed for the obvious reason that it was one-sided in its proposed "where"/geography. See my vote below for further considerations excluded here for brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Comment: Beyond the consistency points raised above, another point that was inadequately incorporated into the closure of the previous successful RM is that the use of "Hamas" alone in the title is, from an encyclopedic perspective, simply inaccurate and imprecise. Whatever the news headlines state, the actual description of events in the news makes plain that the incursion into Israel was undertaken by multiple militant groups, including the PIJ (another major group), and possibly others, so "Hamas" alone is simply not accurate, let alone precise. Another problem with the reference to just "Hamas" in the title is the way in which it lends credence to the simplistic and mildly propagandistic characterization of all Gaza as "Hamas". This is an issue that has only grown as the conflict has progressed and clearly all of Gaza has become embroiled in it; it is now clearly not just Hamas that is feeling the brunt of this conflict on the Palestinian side, but all of Gaza, by virtue of the transparent and roundly acknowledged collective punishment that is currently at work in Gaza. To continue to use only "Hamas" in the title of this page is to pander to the Israeli-US-Western narrative that this is still some sort of targeted and rational military operation that has not drawn 2 million people into its crosshairs. Note that the child article October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip does not refer to a "blockade of Hamas", or the "Hamas Strip", because this is not the scope, and these are not the terms. The notion that this war is limited to "Hamas" and has not broadened to all of Gaza at this point seems frankly silly, and again, headlines aside, simple unencyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    is it allowed for the person who suggested to support his own nomination? i mean nominating it counts as a support vote and you don't have to write it again Abo Yemen✉ 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RMCOMMENT says not to do this for RM's. It is customary in other types of discussion where nominations are required to be neutral. SilverLocust 💬 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck the "support" and changed it to "comment". Let me know if anyone oppose what I did. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Israel is bombarding Gaza, it is preparing to launch a ground invasion of Gaza, Israel has cut off the electricity and water supply to Gaza, half of the population of Gaza has been displaced, over 2,000 non-Hamas civilians of Gaza have been killed. This framing of Israel is only at war with Hamas is as POV as you can get, it is pushing the Israeli propaganda line that they are only targeting Hamas. Nearly every descriptive title for a war has the territories. eg Russo-Ukrainian War, or 2006 Lebanon War, or ... . nableezy - 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the claim that no source worth noting uses Israel-Gaza War, ahem. nableezy - 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that international media is referring to the war as the Israel-Hamas war.
    Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, CNBC, Al Jazeera, NBC... etc.
    https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-17-23/index.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/photos-israel-hamas-war/
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna120978
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/israel-hamas-war-gaza-live-updates-latest-news.html
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/17/israel-hamas-war-live-anger-after-israeli-strike-kills-500-in-hospital
    I have included mainly English language sources since we are dealing with an English language article. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The WaPo link you linked to is entitled "In photos: Scenes from the Israel-Gaza war." Also, just look at WaPo's front page, www.washingtonpost.com, and you see it's called "Israel-Gaza war" at the top. Same at WaPo's live update page.
    Al Jazeera also calls it "Israel-Gaza war" at the top of their homepage, www.aljazeera.com. It's still "Israel-Gaza war" for the top navlinks on their live update page, but the title of their live update page is "Israel-Hamas war". At best, Al Jazeera uses both (although I still give the nav link more weight than the headline, when it comes to common name and recognizability).
    NBC and CNBC are the same company, they should only count once.
    CNN, WaPo, Al Jazeera, NBC and many others, have been linked to, discussed, and categorized in depth here already. I agree with you that more int'l media use Israel-Hamas than Israel-Gaza (and I posted links showing that in my vote below), but these links you've linked don't all say what you said they say, and it's important that editors are very careful and accurate in representing sources in this topic area, so that other editors don't have to waste time fact-checking links. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ding. Also, while I disagree with your vote, I agree there is more usage of Israel-Hamas. But I dont think that usage is so much more that it makes it the common name, I think both names are commonly used. And when there is not a single common name we are obliged to consider neutrality as well as commonality. And here I think the balance of those two ends on the side of Israel-Gaza. nableezy - 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and while I disagree with your vote, I agree that both names are commonly used, and as we both know (but maybe not all the editors voting here know), it's not just about what "the most common name is," there are other aspects of WP:CRITERIA than just recognizability (the common name), a point that WP:COMMONNAME makes in some detail in its opening paragraphs ("Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above."). So even if one or the other were "the" common name, that would not be dispositive, and I think pretty much everyone can agree that int'l media are using both names -- indeed, as we've seen in some of these links, some outlets literally put both names on the same page.
    BTW preemptive hats off to whomever closes this discussion :-) Levivich (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NPOV phrasing. Israel is a political entity. Hamas is the political entity governing the Gaza Strip. Loksmythe (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the Israeli government is a political entity, Israel is a country. Hamas is the government of territory known as Gaza. You dont have IDF-Hamas war either, your argument here is nonsensical. nableezy - 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I almost brought up that IDF–Hamas would be the like-for-like equivalent, but dropped it, again for brevity. But yes, Israel is a territory, like Gaza, the IDF, like Hamas, is doing the fighting. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is high time. Hamas is just one of the groups fighting. It is true that it rules Gaza. But Israel's problem is originally with the Palestinians as a whole because of the political impasse. Most Palestinians killed are not affiliated with Hamas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It was completely wrong for the article to be called the "Israel-Hamas war" in the first place. It's not just Hamas fighting Israel and that is abundantly clear, especially now that Israel is making incursions into Gaza, a place in which not every single man, woman, and child is a fighter for Hamas. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Per what nableezy and Iskandar323 said. FunLater (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Israel is the country, not the government in charge of the country that is fighting the war. The Russia-Ukraine war for example is not Putin-Zelensky war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reliable sources are overwhelming that this is a war between Israel and Hamas. I would favor "Hamas-Israel War" (reversing the order), due to the nature of how it began, however for the purposes of this discussion I support leaving the title alone. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Searching for news articles from the past hour I find 19 articles using "Israel-Hamas war" or similar, including the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. For "Israel-Gaza war" or similar I find just four, and none from any sources worth noting.
At the moment, this descriptive title is also the WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm not seeing any sufficiently strong justifications for ignoring the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Normally we put 2023 Israel–Palestine war, but the title 2023 Israel–Hamas war is not appropriate compared to 2023 Israel–Gaza war. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the common name argument listed above. KD0710 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per comments above. —Stewpot 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per BilledMammal - The term "Israel-Hamas war" is more frequently used in recent news articles, as evidenced by 19 articles from top tier, reputable sources like the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. In contrast, the term "Israel-Gaza war" appears in only four articles from less notable sources. Given this, the term "Israel-Hamas war" not only serves as a descriptive title but also aligns with our policy and I see no compelling reasons to deviate from using the common name at this time. Marokwitz (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find the "geographical argument" persuasive and it is in line with our previous namings. It is a bit rich to imply by article title that the war is solely with Hamas at the same time as killing thousands of Palestinian Gazans along with the extensive destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments on the aforementioned snow-closed RM, which for reference I quote below:
[Oppose] on two accounts: that (1) throughout the course of events Hamas is the primary actor in the majority of attacks, with other militant groups playing a supportive role, and (2) Hamas being the only belligerent named as the enemy belligerent in most sources' descriptions of the Israeli declaration of war, e.g. [4] [5]. This would not be the first military conflict on Wikipedia after only the two major parties of several involved (e.g. Russo-Georgian War not including unrecognised states South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or the Iran-Iraq War not including the variety of militant groups of various nationalities), and it would not be unreasonable to follow that convention rather than incorrectly imply that, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad had anywhere near as much authority or influence over the attacks as Hamas.
The argument applies in the exact same way for the exact same reasons now, among which are arguments for its consistency with other wars named in a similar manner. A "geographical" descriptor identifying Gaza has its own issues: a Lebanese and Syrian front is also active and there are ongoing events in the West Bank. And above all that, there is BilledMammal's WP:COMMONNAME argument above, which serves as an ideal tiebreaker for all of the descriptive titles on offer which, by necessity, all fail to completely describe the war. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. Pg 6475 TM 18:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as supporters' comments are more convincing.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A new move request every day? The three cherry-picked sources cited by the proposer not withstanding, the majority of reliable sources use "Israel-Hamas", i.e., WP:COMMONNAME applies. In addition to the sources mentioned by BilledMammal, there's also AlJazeera, CNN, CNBC, Reuters, NBC, NPR, WSJ, Foreign Policy. WP:CRITERIA for article titles says that the five characteristics are goals, not rules. Consistency with other article titles takes a back seat to common name (recognizability), naturalness, precision, and concision. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Hamas gets less and less focus on the war, with the attacks primarily targeting Gaza. Hansen SebastianTalk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Aside from it being a weird mix of actor and place, the original title may have made sense initially, but Israel is now bombing and preparing to invade Gaza- not Hamas.. Zellfire999 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this might not be very helpful, but i do not think either one is necessarily an better or worse. the status quo appears to me to be just as good as this suggested move.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Israel and Hamas are at war. Israel is not at war with Gaza. Major English language newspapers call it the "Israel-Hamas" war.—Finell 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as the vast majority of sources are referring to it as the Israel Gaza war in order to distinguish this separate, declared, war from the conflict at large. This is far simpler for both editors and users. Also, there is the technical matter of Gaza as an entity; I do not support any change but if there was one I would think it should be some form of 2023 Israel War in Gaza. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For same reasons as other supporters above. VSatire (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's follow reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. Infinity Knight (talk)
  • Oppose Israel is at war with the terrorist organization, not the strip of land the terrorist organization is de facto in charge of. Reliable sources seem to characterize it as Israel-Hamas, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Zaathras (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources also refer to it as Israel-Gaza War. Example Washington Post, BBC, ABC (Australia), The Times (UK), The Times of Israel (!) nableezy - 00:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. As said earlier, the war is mainly centered in and around Gaza, and “hamas” is not the only war party, all palestinian resistance factions and paramilitaries are in this war. The current title neither specify where the war is exactly and ignores all other major palestinian paramilitary groups in this war. I don’t see why it should be any different or exceptional from 2014 Gaza War Stephan rostie (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Israel–Hamas war, which already redirects here, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, "Israel-Gaza" would be misleading because the war is already happening in a number of other areas, such as North of Israel, West Bank, etc. - see 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Outside_Israel_and_the_Gaza_Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the exchanges with Hezbollah in the north then yes, that is another reason why "Hamas" is ridiculous in the title, since again, it's scope is far broader. But it is centred on Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The involvement of other Palestinian factions is trivial and opportunistic, and the war is taking place now because Hamas chose to launch an aggressive campaign of genocidal antisemitic butchery. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: I would suggest that the involvement of Palestinian Islamic Jihad is not trivial at all. This is a group that Israel is almost as equally fixated on as Hamas - all of the incursions into Jenin in the past year or so have been to root out the PIJ. It's grossly simplistic to ignore all of this in a descriptive title, in addition to being patently imprecise. As one editor quizzed earlier, how is this different from an other Gaza war in terms of its actors? The answer is, it's not. Hamas is always a large component of any engagement between Israel and militant groups in Gaza, but not a single one of the previous Gaza war titles go down this pigeonholing route. It's inconsistent. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. The war has been called by various media outlets such as CNN, Reuters, Axios, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, etc. as the "Israel-Hamas war". --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 03:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cullen. Andre🚐 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name might change in the future, as the role of other Palestinian groups becomes clearer. I'd also note that the word 'Israel' in the title does not refer to the place in which the fighting is occurring, but to one of the polities engaged in hostilities. Riposte97 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per common name, which was evaluated in the last discussion and hasn't changed (see my comment in the last move request). I'll just bring up another source which was never brought up before in this discussion or the last: Le Monde, a major newspaper of record, which uses "Israel-Hamas" too. Also, we want people to see this article, and recognizability and naturalness are WP:CRITERIA too (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for); look at which search term is most-used to refer to this conflict: Google Trends; people search for "Israel-Hamas" 10-times more than they search for "Gaza-Israel". I also disagree with the consistency argument; that's a high priority for articles that are part of a series (e.g. "Accession of Turkey to the EU", "Accession of Serbia to the EU"), but is a lower priority for articles that are merely about topics of the same nature; WP:NCE, brought up above, also says to priorise the common name. DFlhb (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The war as stated is not against Gaza but against Hamas. In similar context, when the US fought ISIS in Syria, it fought ISIS not Syria. Furthermore Hamas operates in other locations, not just Gaza. Israel is fighting Hamas mostly in Gaza but also in other locations. Therefore it seems that the name Israel-Hamas war is most fitting. It also appears to be the name used most in the media, by the Guardian, New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN and more. I'll include a few links for proof.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-conflict
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-16-23/index.html Homerethegreat (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support title change to: "2023 Gaza-Israel war"
The war is not exclusively limited to fighting between Israel and Hamas. Israeli state is fighting multiple Palestinian factions. There are also skirmishes with Hezbollah in the Lebanese border.
Also see the article Hamas government of October 2016: "The Hamas government of October 2016 is a faction of the Palestinian government based in Gaza and is effectively the third Hamas dominated government in the Gaza Strip.."
The Israeli state is waging a war against the government of Gaza. Multiple Palestinian armed groups are fighting alongside Hamas. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reliable sources state that Israel formally declared war on Hamas, not on other Palestinian militant groups.
Merlinsorca 22:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not only is Gaza an inaccurate description of the area. The conflict is extends to other areas, including the cyber domain and information warfare. The title is more accurate to say Israel-Hamas as it does currently. ~
.
Aeonx (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador: FYI, Al Jazeera has switched and is calling it "Israel-Gaza war" on its banner and front page, while the BBC has been using it for a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't. That one article may use the term "Israel-Gaza War", but the news category says "Israel-Hamas War" right there. Cortador (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main geographic areas involved are also uncontrovertible. It is generally agreed that there was an incursion by militants into Israel and IDF forces are responding in Gaza in kind.
Whereas, names of belligerents are less helpful in article titles for conflicts due to their number (there are SIX militant groups fighting on one side in this war), any uncertainty of responsibility (which may develop) and ontological difficulties (e.g. Israel, IDF and Shin Bett, Netanyahu, the Netanyahu/Israeli government).
Llew Mawr (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/14/757
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-rages-israeli-forces-kill-27-palestinians-west-bank-2023-10-11/
  3. ^ https://www.npr.org/2023/10/15/1205950932/israeli-troops-have-killed-several-dozen-palestinians-in-the-occupied-west-bank
  4. ^ https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_fatally_shoot_seven_palestinian_boys_in_the_occupied_west_bank

Extremely violent execution video in the body section

There is an extremely violent execution .webm file from the body section. During the video, a civilian is shot in the head by Hamas. Subsequently a large blood pool is seen emerging from the victims body. Such extreme content should not be included. Ecrusized (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already reverted your edit per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." FunLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is WP:OM, and that says that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. Awesome Aasim 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not born out in standard Wikipedia practice. The article for 9/11, for instance, has footage of the plane crashing. I beleive showing readers the actual event that happened does a much better job of imparting information than words do, particularly in a case like this where there will be strong efforts from both sides to selectivly edit and word things in a way favorable to thier own point of view. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks It is ridiculous to compare footage of planes crashing into a building (or, as in this article, a building blowing up) to someone being executed and bleeding out in the street and another person being bayoneted. Your belief that "showing the real event" is beneficial to the reader does not overcome Wikipedia's image content policy. Moreover, the video in question is taken from an unsourced reddit post, so it is not clear that this is Hamas, that this actually happened where it is claimed to have happened, or that this actually happened when it is claimed to have happened. This is not a NOTCENSORED issue. It is a WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:GRATUITOUS, and MOS:OMIMG issue.
From MOS:OMIMG: Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. A dubiously sourced snuff film is not encyclopedic. lethargilistic (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is about authenticity and sourcing, that is another matter. Of course if it cannot be verified it should not be included (offensive or not). My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value, particularly in a conflict which is complicated and confusing for many. Trying to create levels of offensiveness (i.e. Bombing, plane into building, murder with a gun) is not really relovant. If the video has encyclopedic value, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter if it is "5" offensive or "10" offensive. The verifiability of the content is an entirely separate issue. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value" - No it doesn't. The most obvious example is illustrating an anatomy article where censoring would compromise the informative purpose of an encyclopedia. Uncensored doesn't mean an image can't be removed: The article already has too many shellshock images. More maps and informative images you would see in an encylopedia would be an overall improovement. Ben Azura (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks We'll deal with verifiability separately, then. What, exactly, does CCTV footage of a murder inform a reader about how the (overall) attack was carried out? You say it is obvious, but what does it clarify about this, in your words, confusing situation? lethargilistic (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethargilistic So I think you made a few assumtions there. The first is that the image has to show to how the "overall" attack occurred. There is nothing to say that it can't serve to provide the specific details of how an attack was carried out. Additionally, you seem to assume that media must clarify something ambiguous to be used. WP:IMGCONTENT states clearly:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article
— wp:IMGCONTENT

So the video can be encyclopedic simply by illustrating a fuller picture of the article content. By your own acknowledgment this article contains many media depicting airstrikes. I presume that you do not wish for these to be removed as well? I believe that those videos are encyclopedic for the same reason, as they provide the reader with a fuller picture/understanding of the events described. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLA is also applicable, specifically that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain (from wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). I think whether the video should be on Wikipedia is better suited for an FFD discussion or Commons Deletion Request, rather than here. Wait there already is one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm. But I don't see how the media being described can't accurately be described in words alone without crossing WP:SYNTH. Awesome Aasim 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - Wikipedia:Image use policy
This is a video which purports to DIRECTLY depict people (hamas militants) doing things (killing israeli civilians) as described in the article. It's relevant.
"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." - Wikipedia:Image use policy
Are we claiming here that this is being used to bring attention to an article? I don't see how you can make that argument. What is the argument for removing it exactly? If the argument is "but these actions are already described in the text", then why have pictures at all on wikipedia? Why have videos? This is literally the purpose of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks: [Reply edit-conflicted with above comment front Chuckstablers] I would theoretically be in favor of removing the airstrike footage, frankly. However, airstrike footage is normalized by the media. Therefore, I don't think it's disqualified by the part of WP:IMGCONTENT about reader expectations.
Yours is a good argument based on that guideline. To articulate where I think we are actually disagreeing, I reviewed WP:NOTCENSORED again and I think this recenters to why I think this article should be removed: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. If we turn to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, we see the picture captioned This image of a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House shows neither adequately. My problem with the image is not that it depicts a military action, really.
My first problem, with regard to appropriateness, is that it does not clearly show the activity of the fighters. The person is shot from offscreen and bleeds out in the foreground, fighters come across the field in the background, and then the other person is attacked with the bayonet almost out of frame. Im not sure if we would disagree here, necessarily. Even if, as a general matter, footage of Hamas fighting is relevant and encyclopedic, unclear or sufficiently inappropriate depictions would still be kept out.
Second, I think that what this picture does show adequately is not suitable for Wikipedia even under WP:NOTCENSORED. In my view, at least part of the video is WP:GRATUITOUS:

Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The man being stabbed does not appear especially clearly, so I'm more concerned about the man bleeding out in the foreground. We disagree as to whether depiction of death is encyclopedically valuable in principle, but I think we should be asking whether depicting this man bleeding out is unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. Regarding the broad conflict, it is unnecessary to show someone bleeding out like this. Regarding the desire to depict Hamas fighters in action as an activity under the war's umbrella, it is irrelevant and draws the focus away from the Hamas fighters' depiction. And showing a dead person's blood slowly seep into the stones is gratuitous. It is far in excess of what a reader would expect to find on Wikipedia, even under an article about a war. Moreover, I think it's extremely disrespectful to the dead person to immortalize their death so clearly on Wikipedia, however besides the point that may be regarding policy.
I contend that this video is sufficiently out of bounds that it should overcome WP:NOTCENSORED on its own, but the alternative suggested by that policy and WP:GRATUITOUS is to find a video that is a more suitable alternative if we want to show Hamas's (or Israel's) ground fighting. Another option would be an image of fighters. (And if the purpose of the image does happen to be depicting death specifically, perhaps there is a CC-licensed image of ZAKA handling bodybags available.)
I think we could find consensus on an alternative image that shows a military action by Hamas and does not show someone bleeding out like that. That compromise would satisfy your belief that showing a military action by Hamas is beneficial to the article and my belief that these specific deaths are not appropriate depictions of the action and are beyond what should be tolerated under WP:NOTCENSORED. Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethargilistic Well I'm glad we now (mostly) agree on the policy :) While I understand and appreciate your point of view, to some extent I think that this just comes down to a simple difference of opinion which may be irreconcilable. I think that the footage is both relevant and uniquely so. That is to say, I don't think replacing it with general footage of "Hamas ground fighting" would be as informative unless it is also of one of the similar Kibbutz attacks. I think that there is an element of the type of attack that was carried out that was unique to this round of fighting and is relevant to the article and to the developments.
As an aside, I think I disagree with your take on the Sydney Opera house picture in that I think the policy there is designed to guard against images that do not properly depict the thing that makes them relevant (in that picture, a helicopter or the building). In our case, I think that the video shows unambiguously the attack that occurred and also the broader type of attack that was carried out in the opening phase and is described in the article. I do not think that that is diminished by a knife that is partially out of frame or an unideal camera angle, but I suppose I would be open to some of the CCTV footage from the other Kibbutz attacks, as they might also accomplish this goal. Yet I digress as this is really usurped by our more fundamental disagreement. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethargilistic I just wanted to follow up two parts of our previous discussion. Your (correct me if I'm wrong) main objection was that you thought part of the video was GRATUITOUS enough to overcome NOTCENSORED. I have since researched the practice in a lot of other articles and found there to be a general trend to include such material such as at Abu Ghraib abuse and Einsatzgruppen. Does this alter your perspective at all, or do you feel that a)This video is different or b)They got it wrong?
Also, have you made any progress in identifying a possible less graphic replacement? I think that that would honestly be the least contentious way to resole this?
Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks I think it's pretty easy to distinguish them for the purposes of WP:GRATUITOUS, but you'll forgive me if this is not based in policy quoting because (not directing this frustration at you) I have a life outside of this video and I did not anticipate this dispute blowing up like this.
Firstly, they're images, not videos. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the video from 9/11. Readers can watch footage of people dying elsewhere. And the flowing of the blood in particular makes it disturbing, as I talked about before. Secondly, the point of documenting those topics is at least in part that those events are so excessively violent that people regularly do not believe occurred. People die in wars all the time, and I do not align with the view expressed in this thread that that this death's brutality was educational because of its excessive brutality. There's nothing notable about any one person dying in a war. If they had gone further and defiled the corpse, it would not be more notable or educational. Third, I understand the reasoning behind looking to mass murder events for a comparison, but I think the person's death here is more comparable to an assassination or (perhaps counter-intuitively) a suicide. I know you don't think the camera angle here is a particular issue, but I do, and the killing is center-stage in this video and arguably its subject. There is no footage of the deaths in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Suicide of Ronnie McNutt, or Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém despite the footage of those events literally being the complete subject of the article. (And in McNutt's and Lem's cases, the footage is the reason it's notable at all.) Nor should there be.
No matter the textual interpretations we get into, the fact is that your position is an aberrant one as far as Wikipedia norms go. If you take this beyond this thread, the policy is more likely to change than this sort of video becoming more accepted/common.
No, I have not yet begun looking through footage to find a suitable alternative. I am a law student and booked solid. I'll point out that I did not remove the video when I joined this, so this isn't me trying to worm out of our compromise. I'm busy. (If the resolution of this is to remove it, I'm not going to replace it myself, tho.) lethargilistic (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers: I think I've clarified my position well enough in my last reply to Lenny, so check that out. Remember that WP:NOTCENSORED is, by its own text, not categorical and the various other guidelines we've been discussing have things to say about its limits. lethargilistic (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I get more where you're coming from, and I appreciate the concern. It is a bit over the top. My issue is that it displays, in a short video format, the type of thing that happened in so many of these massacres against civilians. Civilians running away from militants who chased them down and killed them. This was not combat, this was not an engagement, it was a massacre. The brutality, which is unprecedented, helps explain the way the conflict has evolved (to a degree). Portraying that adds value to the article.
With that out of way, I can agree that it's over the top. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." What equally suitable alternative would you have in mind to replace it with that achieves that purpose? Displaying the nature of the thing that actually happened here, which I think is kind of important here. Just like it's important to display the blood stained kitchen in the image below (that is a very effective way to show that militants entered their homes and murdered civilians). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the photo should go too (though it is a much less problematic and pressing issue); both pieces of media are indecorous to our purely educational purposes here. To frame the policy considerations here in the terms you raise above, we don't need the video to illustrate that militants went around killing people in the streets, just as we don't need the photo to demonstrate that they went into homes to kill civilians: both facts are easily, efficiently, cogently, and completely imparted to the reader by simple textual descriptions.
And the key word there is "facts"; the media in question do not add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone. They add emotive emphasis and subtext, which makes the content potentially powerful and possessed of significant social value if presented in the right forum (news media, editorial media, social media), but such emotional and visceral emphasis does not tonally serve a significant enough encyclopedic priority to even begin to offset the immense potential (or indeed, certainty) of harm that will result from keeping the video in the article, where it is likely to be stumbled upon by countless people merely looking for an encyclopedic summary of events.
And all that is putting aside the numerous other policies this content violates. By my tally, the video (at least) clearly violates WP:OM, WP:BLP, WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:DUE, and at the moment WP:ONUS as well, insofar as it was re-added before there was consensus to do so, in violation of WP:BRD. That's a pretty impressive list of core policies we'd have to turn a blind eye to here to keep the video, for essentially no factual/encyclopedic context added that prose cannot satisfy. This is just not the place for this content. SnowRise let's rap 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that they have to "add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone" is not in the image policy, and if applied equally would essentially result in 90% of the images on this wiki being removed. I have to strongly disagree with you on that one. See the image policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". That does not read "the purpose of an image is to add factual information that cannot be described by text alone". Those are very different things. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing an important nuance of that language, though you are by no means the first person, and it is largely down to an issue with the ambiguity in the phrasing in the policy itself: just because an image exists and "directly depicts" a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it "increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" as a per se matter. Those are conjunctive predicates, not a predicate and a result.
An example to clarify the distinction: this image of a carcinoma is the lead image of our skin cancer article. It both depicts an aspect of the subject matter of the article and can be reasonably expected to increase the reader's understanding of that aspect, since a) the average reader will not be aware of what such a mass looks like and b) purely textual descriptions are unlikely to impart all of the features of such a growth with substantial clarity in the reader's mental imagery. By stark contrast, the video here does not enhance any description in the article, because pretty much any reader can intuitively conceptualize what is involved when we describe that the militants roamed these communities shooting people. The reader is going to know what guns are, what it means to be shot, and what death is. Factually, no empirical information is added by the video as an illustrative feature. In terms of anything other than an emotional element, events can be perfectly competently captured by words here, with pretty much zero lose of accuracy and detail in terms of information imparted.
Now, mind you, that description matches a great number of images on this project; not every image has such specific educational value as that of a clinical photo of a medical phenomena, of course, and we tolerate large numbers of these images with very indirect and minimal informative/educational value. This is in part because the "cost" of including such images is generally very minor, so even trivial demonstrative benefits are enough to justify many such images.
Such is not the case here though: there are massive policy problems with this video and significant real world harms (again, not potential, but pretty much certain) that will arise from including it, and on top of all of that, it really does nothing that a couple of well-crafted sentences can't accomplish. The cost-benefit is all wrong here, which is part of how this video fails community expectations on such content. And that includes IUP: it is by no means the only policy which leverages for removal here, nor indeed even in the top four major policies that require this content to be removed. But it is yet another guideline that converges on the same conclusion all the same, if all of its requirements are applied in full. SnowRise let's rap 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise, I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects WP:IMGCONTENT. You are right to say that "just because an image exists and 'directly depicts' a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it 'increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter'". Where I think you are making a jump is concluding that since it does not impart new factual information that is not in the text (which, by the way, it does) that it also does not increase the reader's understanding. This project and this article itself are full of media that are there not strictly to give new information but to enhance the picture of the information contained in the text and there is certainly not consensus for your interpretation of that policy to suggest that that is not good enough. Would you suggest that we should also remove all off the images here of airstrikes (which is a huge percentage)?
I think that the airstrike images are valuable and I think this footage is valuable as well. Not only does it shows the readers this particular attack, but it also provides understanding of the kind of attacks that were carried out throughout Israel and are emblematic of start of this particular war. It is an example of a type of action that was unprecedented until this round of fighting and helps explain how the war has developed. I certainly think that this is sufficient to "increase[s] the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" per wp:IMGCONTENT.
Once the media has encyclopedic value, it does not matter if it is graphic.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:CENSOR

Lenny Marks (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers I agree with strongly your position above. I think that if we could find a less graphic video to show one of/the various kibbutz massacres it would be more appropriate, but in lieu of that I think there is good reason to include this video. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a more typical video (which this one might be, for all I know), instead of one deliberately selected for making killing people seem as non-violent as possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why include a less violent video?that reasoning is flawed. wikipedia is a not a censored encyclopedia. its absolutely educational video.it teaches readers about the extent of what humans can do to other humans in cold blood.it teaches the difference between a professional moral army and a millitant group with no code of conduct. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia’s not censored, period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is a parallel discussion on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. lethargilistic (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This CCTV footage was verified by multiple WP:RS as authentic. and also WP:NOTCENSORED."Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Codenamephoenix It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Codenamephoenix The footage is not included in that video and you know it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i agree the exact footage which is used in the body is not included that link.my bad for prematurely posting it. if no concensus to keep the video is reached maybe another video can be used in its place(altough the current clip used in body looks genuine enough) for eg https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/caught-on-cam-how-hamas-ruthless-terrorism-spares-no-innocents-in-its-wake/videoshow/104349952.cms Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's important. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz The poll is below if you are trying to !vote Lenny Marks (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this anyways? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CooperGoodman The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it should probably not have been removed, but I can see why it was, as it could potentially be traumatizing to a younger viewer like me. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that concern, but this is an article about a terror attack and a war and, unfortunately, many people have been killed. By longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not censored and by policy, graphicness alone is not a reason to remove a video. It must also lack an encyclopedic purpose. (See wp:GRATUITOUS). Lenny Marks (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So do you oppose or support the removal of the video? I oppose the removal of it but don't know where I can express my opinion. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 If you scroll down on this discussion there is a poll where you can vote Support or Oppose removal and put a sentence or two explaining yourself. Personally, I oppose the video's removal -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish not to see such graphic photos or videos but want to read the article then see Help: Options to hide an image. It will help on the coding on hiding certain images. Cwater1 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that it is a WP:GRATUITOUS issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SteelerFan1933. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks
I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply traumatic for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.

The mere fact that we do not censor ideas in our content in no way means that we check all respect, decorum, social responsibility, or concern for the possible impacts on our readers at the door, in exchange for some robotic moneky-see, monkey-share mentality for such media. What would you say to the family of one of these people if they saw that this content was up here for the entire world to see? "Oh, sorry, we needed to see exactly how your husband's body crumpled as everything he was or ever would be was stolen from him in an instant. Oh gee, terribly sorry that five million people watched your daughter's head beaten to a pulp with a cudgel. We needed to see it in order to understand that real people died here!" We are WP:NOTNEWS: we provide high-level, abstract summaries of our subject matter. We don't have a mandate to create a compelling representation of the real human costs of these events; that's what primary and secondary sources are for. This kind of imagery is not necessary to our educational purposes and it deeply violates principles of least astonishment that could easily cause significant real world harm to a non-trivial portion of our readers, while simultaneously shredding our protections of the privacy of non-notable persons.

Those (mostly relatively newer, I think) editors reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED might want to stop to ask themselves why they don't see more such content elsewhere on en.wikipedia, despite no shortage of articles on massacres that have footage out there. It's because we have other policies which expressly and specifically limit that principle, including WP:OM and our image use policies. Which actually allow for the restriction of media with much lower concerns than those involved here. Further, this is hardly the first time the community has had to face such an issue, and the general consensus is that media needs to have more than shock value in terms of informative quality. There's also the fact that this almost certainly violates our non free content policy. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. SnowRise let's rap 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said @Snow Rise! Not censored means that an image being offensive or having shock value is rarely a good reason to be included or removed. BTW I already put a request to blacklist the media for now on the bad image list due to its potential for vandalism and disruptive additions. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good call: I also left a notice of this discussion at WP:VPN to help speed along discussion and action here, since I think there are concerns for harm that justify a rapid response. I almost took the matter to AN to see if an admin was willing to revdel on some of the grounds discussed above, but ultimately decided that was not the ideal route, as I didn't want to unintentionally give the impression that there are behavioural issues here: everyone here is clearly contributing in good faith, regardless of the fact that some of the arguments are emphatically not sustainable under policy or (imo) good sense. SnowRise let's rap 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. I never even noticed the second part with the beating to death, only the first with the man being shot on mobile (was under the impression there was some blurring there, but no, there's not, and it's in HD, so yeah, no). Apologies for arguing for it's inclusion in light of that; That's brutal, horrific and goes well above any lines that would warrant it's inclusion.
That being said; I'd still say there should be some replacement in image form for it regarding the killings at "Kibbutzum" (Mefalsim, which is what the link in kibbutzim in "as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip" should be changed to), given that we have an image displaying the blood stained kitchen of a family in another kibbutz described in the text of the article. We're describing militants driving around in SUV's gunning down civilians, while you don't have to show the graphic part as discussed there's nothing wrong showing the whole "militants driving around in pickup trucks in fatigues" thing.
I'd also have to push back against the BLP violation claim? That's a bit of a stretch. By that logic you basically can't show any photos of any human being, and that's not what that policy is about (I just re-read it)? There's plenty of valid reasons to object to it's inclusion. I bring this up because I don't want a BLP objection from you to replacing it with images of militants as previously discussed. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there must be content out there that would satisfy the value of presenting the brazenness and brutality of the attacks that is still well short of depicting the actual massacre of random civilians--although it may take some time to find a free-license option (as noted above, that's another issue with this media). In other words, there must be a satisfactory medium here.
As to the BLP issue, I don't think it's a stretch. I'm the first person to push back against that policy being talismanatically invoked, believe me, but the entire purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy and dignity of inherently non-notable individuals, and I can't see how it is not imputed in the context of a decision which puts a depiction of their brutal, dehumanizing ends directly into the article for all the world to see. Other institutions (journalistic in particular) might make a value judgment that the social benefit of animating reactions in their audience outweigh that intrusion, but I don't think we can make that same argument here, since the factual depth (our own focus) added to the article is so minimal, compared against the likely harms. It's not the single biggest policy reason for removing the video, but it's a pretty compelling reason in and of itself, imo. But for the record, you won't hear objections of the BLP variety from me with regard to representing the militants generally (or even all their acts of violence). It's just that this particular video raises particularly strong concerns in this area. SnowRise let's rap 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. This is potentially, slightly traumatizing material that adds nearly no benefit to the article, along with violating several community expectations and Wikipedia guidelines. I think this video should be replaced by something less graphic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon.yb093 Which Wikipedia guideline does it violate? Can you be specific? I appreciate that the material is graphic but that on it's own does not disqualify it per wp:CENSOR. I agree that if we found less graphic footage that also depicted a kibbutz massacre then that footage would be preferable, until we do I think that there is strong reason to keep the footage we have as it clearly depits a tupe of attack that was unprecedented and carried out en mass at the start of the war, and it enhances reader's understanding of the conflict. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise, I appreciate your concern, but I'd like to say that people won't develop PTSD from this video. When it's not you or your own (close) loved ones under threat, the DSM-5 requires "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others". A video of a stranger being murdered may be "deeply upsetting" and or "extremely distressing", but it isn't traumatizing. (See also Therapy speak, which I recently wrote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WAID, it's nice to see you. I appreciate your perspective as well, but if I can be blunt without giving offense, a short quote from the DSM does not much alleviate concerns in this area. The concern is not for PTSD in particular; "trauma" is an idiomatic catch-all term for a much broader spectrum of biopsychological phenomena that impute a variety of harms. Here my major concern is for readers who have recently had their lives touched upon by the violence, as well as those who may not have observed it first hand, but may have suffered personal loss connected to it.
And then there's another another major vulnerable category: children generally. Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content (you'll have to trust me on this, but my work and field of inquiry puts me in a position to be well informed on childhood traumas). And indeed, this concern is one reason why violent content has been an ongoing contentious issue on the project whenever it has come up. I've avoided completely avoided broaching this big wrinkle of the situation here thus far because I was concerned about triggering certain voices to double down on reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED, as there's a few editors here under the mistaken belief that CENSOR is a much more absolute principle on this project than it actually is--the reality is that it's anything but. And with so many other compelling policy violations, risks of harm, and other practical reasons to not allow this media to be added to this article, I didn't see the point in raising an issue that might draw an outsized reaction.
But yes, children read our articles. Lots of children. And the way we structure our content should always take that into account. Now it goes without saying that we have major, major constraints that sometimes mean we cannot accommodate protecting children in every context. But when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose, the possibility of children seeing their first murder absolutely becomes a situation where the huge potential for traumatic exposure massively outweighs the countervailing considerations. That has in fact been a major concern anytime the subject of especially violent content has been discussed on the project, and I don't doubt that it was also a major factor in the WMF's adoption of the principle of least astonishment standard.
To the maximum extent possible without substantially compromising our educational purposes with regard to the rest of our readers, we want children to benefit from this site. That's less likely to happen if parents can't be confident that their child won't see their first death/murder/someone's face bashed in, simply because they were reading a high traffic article on a current event that they wanted to know more about. Likewise, juvenile educational institutions would be very likely to reconsider open access to this project if such content were to start to proliferate on the encyclopedia. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. This law concerns itself, among various other subject matter, with violent content and child welfare on large online platforms, and the DSA administrators have already designated Wikipedia as one of the 18 sites that it per se applies to. And there have been indicators in the last few days that they are looking to aggressively enforce these rules (which were promulgated last year but just went into effect) with regard to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict.
But we shouldn't need that extra threat of headache / inviting state oversight of the project in order to decide that the cost-benefit calculus is off the charts in the red if we include this video. The mere fact that we would inevitably be sharing a "faces of death" equivalent video with a non-trivial number of children, just to add something that doesn't demonstrate a single act (or any detail identified by any editor in this discussion) that couldn't be easily, fully, and accurately described in prose really ought to be enough.
Our outrage and desire to expose the savagery of men who would murder innocents is an understandable impulse stretching out from our humanity. But here it has to take a backseat to the numerous and compelling considerations arguing against adding content that adds only emotive subtext, violates the privacy and dignity of the depicted in their final horrific, agonized, and dehumanizing moments, and shoves that imagery in front of many readers who aren't seeking it and can reasonably be expected to be harmed by it. Especially considering that such motivations to expose such evil to the light of day, natural as they are, are not particularly well-aligned with the purposes of this particular project (said purpose being to provide a high-level, relatively dispassionate summary of the events in question). There are other places to accomplish the goal of sharing the brutality of these attacks with the world.
Nor do you have to be especially young or sensitive to be negatively impacted by that video, especially if you had a loved one killed in the attacks or one held captive at this very moment. Or, you know, you just happen to be Jewish. All of which includes people who might reasonably take an interest in this article. So, I'm standing by my assessment of the potential for traumatizing significant portions of our readers, some of whom may not have the capacity to appreciate the consequences of hitting that play button. SnowRise let's rap 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content Then parents shouldn't allow their children on Wikipedia (much less the Internet as a whole) unsupervised. That's why editors have written advice for parents on how to manage Wikipedia for children. This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be "traumatized". when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose Here's another reductive argument. There's a reason that we use and rely on images on Wikipedia. People are visual learners and images of pogroms and executions of Jews are far more impactful at an immediate glance than 10,000 words of text going into the Holocaust. I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere. I don't doubt that such an image would be distressing for a very young child. That's why as a parent/guardian you should guide your children when exposing them to the bad parts of history. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me. Plenty of countries outright censor and block access to Wikipedia already. You sound like you're either not aware of that or are trying to get editors to self-censor down to the lowest common denominator—again: a shutting down of the project. You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia. -- Veggies (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be 'traumatized'.
No...not "something": the violent, sadistic murder of two people and the frenzied mutilation of a corpse. We're not talking about some speculative span of possible content here. This is not a philosophical debate about possibilities or a slippery slope scenario. We're debating the appropriateness of a very specific, concrete piece of content, and it's pretty much as absolutely bad is anything could be in respect to the potential for harm to our readers and invasion of the privacy and dignity of the subject,
"Here's another reductive argument."
I don't find it particularly reductive. Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video that is not already perfectly well imparted in the prose already (or easily could be). For the most part, the few responses to this inquiry have a decidedly begging the question quality to them, with vague "well it illustrates how the attacks unfolded" language repeated ad nauseum, but without any indication that there is so much as a single fact (I mean one small thing, even) that the video is necessary to communicate that isn't ably done with prose.
In fact, the closest anyone has gotten to an actual, meaningful answer to that question was an editor who (and I think this is the honest and understandable answer at the heart of the support for this video) that the video demonstrates the barbarity and cold-bloodedness of the attackers....and then they immediately went on to opine about how it illustrates the difference between a restrained, honourable "professional army", versus the irredeemably malignant and animalistic "militants"; i.e. a not-at-all subtle comparison of the IDF and Hamas. They said the quiet (if somewhat understandable) part out loud: this is seemingly at least partly about showing how evil Hamas are, for at least some of the minority of editors who want to include this grossly gratuitous video.
And even for those of us who might be inclined to agree, on a personal level, to this reading of the video as an unambiguous demonstration of sociopathy, that's still just too subjective and emotional a subtext to use to justify this image, considering its potential harm to our readers, and its profound BLP implications. To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified and isn't available under an established free-use license, and so can't be used on en.Wikipedia regardless...
"I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere."
No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with other matters off-project when you both commented. I happen to be a very busy person in my professional, home, and volunteer lived who, apropos of nothing, has a member of the household just out of the hospital and has had about seven hours of sleep in the last three days... I don't contribute on your schedule and I'm not compelled to answer every comment you think I should. And b) I've said as much as anyone in this thread, if not more, and there comes a point at which you need to stop responding to every comment, especially if you perceive the discussion to be going in circles. And the fact of the matter is, you haven't given me the impression of someone who is open to having their mind changed on any of this, so I did not feel highly motivated to respond to you in particular. I actually have several paragraphs of a response to Lenny's post, which I found polite and cogent, if not terribly compelling, but by the time I found the time to finish it, WAID had pinged me on another aspect of the discussion which I felt was more fruitful ground for discussion, so I made a choice. I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.
That said, if it's that important to you to have a response, here's just a partial list of the reasons that comparing The Last Jew in Vinnitsa to this video constitutes a non-sequitor and a false analogy:
1) One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.
2) the video depicts the deaths of people who were until very recently alive, meaning they are covered by our BLP guidelines. The image does not.
3) The image is WP:verified, as all disputed content on this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.
4) The image is free-use content, as all media used in this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.
5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. The video is not.
6) I'm quite sure from your previous comments that you won't find this compelling, but it actually pulls some weight with me as someone who comes from a cognitive science/biopsych background: the image, horrific though it undeniably is, does not actually depict the completion of the act of murder. The human brain processes a high-fidelity, real-time representation of a violent act in motion differently from an illustration implying that act. It just does.
Now you and I might actually agree that as an abstract, rational matter, the difference is arbitrary and the result of a cognitive bias, not a logical analysis of any substantial difference in the levels of brutality between the two acts. But for a vulnerable person stumbling upon that image (say a child for example, or someone whose loved one was murdered in one of these attacks), it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of the harm done. You may not agree with that, but good news: you can still take your pick from numbers 1-5.
"That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me."
I clearly am not or anything that even remotely looks like it. I didn't threaten to take legal action. I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles, which is perfectly valid and appropriate subject matter for a policy discussion. That is neither a bad faith action nor anywhere in the same universe as [[WP:NLT]--and if you can't tell the difference, you really, really, really' need to re-read that policy.
And if I'm blunt, at this point your behaviour here towards all your rhetorical opposition is getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND, acid-toned, inclined towards unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS, and verging on WP:DISRUPTIVE . We all managed to get through this very loaded discussion perfectly politely until you joined the discourse, with your sarcasm and no-holds-barred mentality. Ever since consensus shifted strongly away from support for your perspective, you keep trying to chill, curtail, or define the focus and manner of other users' !votes and responses, in ways you just are not permitted to on this project--all of it wrapped it in hostile, derogatory tone. It appears you haven't been a super heavy contributor in recent years, but if you've been on the project since 2007, you should really know better--and regardless, you should drop this course of action immediately: it isn't doing the appeal of your arguments any favours and if you keep it up, your conduct is likely to end up scrutinized at ANI or AE. Which won't help consensus here in any way. You don't have to like the outcome or the arguments of the majority / emerging consensus, but the snideness is patently unhelpful to your position and to the rest of us.
"You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia."
Well, you're both very right and very wrong about that. You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it. Please don't expect further direct engagement from me here. Beyond that fact that I don't think engaging with you would be particularly productive, I think I've more than said my piece in this discussion in general. I nevertheless hope you have a pleasant rest of your day, however. SnowRise let's rap 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: I see you didn't even attempt to address the very valid point that parents should not let their kids have unmonitored access to Wikipedia, much less the internet as a whole. In fact, you pretty much dropped the "think-of-the-children!" argument in this last reply. There's a reason Wikipedia has and has had for a long time a content disclaimer which reads Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts. and Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video"
The same "information" that, say, The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that images of the casualties of war bombings add to their articles. War and violence produce harrowing images. Harrowing images are, often, graphic, but necessary to include in articles in order to further the reader's understanding of what occurred—especially if we recognize that most readers are not going to do a detailed poring through from title to citations of all the text. They will skim, jump to sections that interest them, and pause to look at images. Humans are very much vision-oriented. A perfectly cited text-only Wikipedia article on the Holocaust would not be as moving as one with images, harrowing that they may be.
it's profound BLP implications
There are no serious BLP implications. Nowhere in this video are any of the victims named. Hell, the video blurs the face of the most prominent victim, making recognition extremely difficult by anyone. Also, even if this victim was recognizable, they aren't portrayed "in a false or disparaging light".
To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified
Verified how, exactly? Are you claiming that it isn't Kibbutz Mefalsim or that this didn't actually take place as it shows? It's likely that the IDF released this video, which then filtered down to Reddit, and finally to here. Someone with a better understanding of Israeli freedom of information or beaurocracy could probably find the original press release for the video.
and isn't available under an established free-use license
Who says it isn't? It's on Commons under a PD-CCTV license. I'm a little unfamiliar with that license, but it's false to say it isn't actually available under that license.
No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with ...... I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.
If your time is so short and your sleep deprivation is so bad, you should probably spend less time writing paragraphs about it and more time responding substantively (after a full night's rest). The fact of the matter is: Lenny made a counterargument at ~08:00 on 16 October which you didn't respond to (despite having "many paragraphs" at the ready) even though you replied to others. Again, you should probably go sleep if you're that admittedly short on time rather than making long, drawn-out "think-of-the-children!" pleadings that I find quite unconvincing.
One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.
The former is an argument of time, not whether or not the content is encyclopedic or too graphic. The latter is more special pleading about how somebody might find this video and consider it offensive. Again, I find it quite unconvincing. I've covered 1 through 4 of your list already.
5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. This video is not.
Again, that's rather the point of this discussion, isn't it? If things that haven't been discussed about whether they are notable in their own right, then new images to Wikipedia can never be notable in their own right because they haven't been discussed yet.
I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles
Legal ramifications to Wikipedia over our edits are not something to discuss or bring up in article-space. If you really feel like including the video in Wikipedia or Commons is a violation of some law, you should contact the Wikipedia legal team or start a discussion at an admin noticeboard. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it.
You sure about that? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPD: You can find VERY GORY VIDEOS ON WIKIPEDIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CooperGoodman: That video is not used on Wikipedia. You can see that in the "file usage" section. That image exists on Wikimedia Commons, which is a file repository and does not have the same rules as Wikipedia. That link is valid for Wikipedia's API for convenience (and IIRC Wikipedia once did store files locally), but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. lethargilistic (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethargilistic:That's not exactly true. That video was used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article was deleted for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the verifiability part alone because I've said my piece on the rest (and images like your Vinnitsaexample) elsewhere: WP:VERIFY's opening sentence defines verifiability: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. That is, the issue of verifiability is not an abstract "did this factually happen?" question that can be answered by "someone could theoretically go through IDF releases and find it." The limited question is whether this is cited to a reliable source, and it simply isn't. It's from reddit. Moreover, it could even (theoretically) be footage of Hamas attacking a kibbutz last year with the current date superimposed and it would not belong in the article as it was not part of this conflict. I have seen video debunkings in the last several days where IDF violence with no timestamp has been attributed to Hamas. (Again, this is applying policy, not an argument that it didn't take place or wasn't Hamas or whatever.) We don't know what this is because the video has not been connected to a WP:RS. The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the footage to provide that RS. Until one has been provided, it is not verified.
Believe me, that policy does not particularly bring me joy. It means that Wikipedia is not about the literal truth. It occasionally reproduces information that I know to factually be untrue, but it is "verified" because it was reported in the New York Times. How does a person get the literal truth into a reliable source to correct the record and Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not (perhaps cannot) provide a great answer.
In any case, Verifiability means giving a Reliable Source for the video, not "it probably filtered down to reddit and we might be able to find it." WP:V, unlike NOTCENSORED, is categorical and absolute. If someone who wants the image in cannot provide an RS, the video is out of the article and the rest of this discussion is merely theoretical. lethargilistic (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise, does "idiomatic" mean "the definition some people use on social media"? A modern linguist wouldn't call that (or any understandable use of any word) wrong, but I'm looking at the DSM-5, under the heading of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Children 6 Years and Younger", pages 272–273, where I find the words "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others, especially primary caregivers.  Note:  Witnessing does not include events that are witnessed only in electronic media, television, movies, or pictures" (emphasis added).
IMO children can "absolutely" be terrified, upset, and distressed, and they can absolutely have a biopsychological Stress response, but it appears that the DSM does not call watching a distressing video trauma, no matter how horrified the viewer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Jew in Vinnitsa

Can anyone explain to me the content difference between The Last Jew in Vinnitsa and this CCTV footage, because I can't see it. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters that is a still image clearly showing the victim still alive and no insides spewing out and is a publicly available artefact in its own right. And as much as corpses are never eye candy, the circumstances in which they were captured (esp. Black and White) make them slightly more stomachable for users. In the context of the Holocaust (which is generally agreed to be a genocidal operation) that photo also serves its purpose to educate.
as for the video, yes that blood is way too WP:GRATUITOUS and the way editors have been reacting to this has indicated that it has not been as educative as it was expected to in an encyclopedic article now that some editors seem to be using this as none other than political football to call editors they hate as either anti-Semites or Western lackeys. (See every discussion we had relating to NPOV) Borgenland (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland This is, I believe a total misreading of WP:GRATUITOUS, which's simple point in that the graphic nature of content should not be a reason to include or not include any material. It is not a comment on subjective levels of graphicness.

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive"
— wp:GRATUITOUS

I'm sorry, but nothing in there states that becuse you think pictures are more offensive in color than in black in white that they should not be excluded. The policy goes on to state:

"Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"."
— wp:GRATUITOUS

In conclusion: Editors have made strong arguments as to why this image enhancies the understanind of the article topic. You are free to dispute that, but you are not supported by GRATUITOUS in saying it should be removed because other massacres are shown in black and white. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is really sad . 😢😢😢 MrBeastRapper (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "insides spewing out"? You mean blood? There's plenty of images of blood and wounds on Wikipedia. If you mean the person being bayonetted at the very end, it's obvious what's happening, but there's no graphic "insides spewing out" like you're asserting. I guarantee that if this video was desaturated to black and white, you would still oppose its inclusion, so let's throw that argument out as frivolous. Images of the Holocaust are "stomachable" for you only because the images have become part of the historical canon and have been widely shared and discussed and you live in the era of HD video where an older photograph isn't as shocking to you as motion video. That's simply an argument of medium, not content. Why wouldn't this video serve an educational purpose? It's CCTV, so it certainly wasn't framed to capture this specific event, unlike the Vinnitsa photo. And this is a major event in regional, if not world history—much like all the wars in the Middle East. You need to cite what part of WP:GRATUITOUS you think this falls under. I've read the guideline and can't find where this meets any Wikipedia definition of gratuitousness. As for "the way editors have been reacting to this", that's irrelevant to a rational discussion about policies and image use. It's certainly educational, regardless of a few editors' emotional reactions. I haven't called anyone any names and I'm fully in favor of including this video (as I would be a copyright-free video of Israeli settlers running down, killing, and bayonetting Palestinians). As for Jihadi John, his videos are edited to be blatant ISIS propaganda so would obviously be less neutral than CCTV footage, but, yes, if they were copyright-free, I'd be fine including them in an ISIS or Jihadi John article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veggies Since you don't want discussion down there, I'll answer you up here. Regarding the police brutality video, I think the main distinction is that the subject matter of that article is whether the police officers' conduct constitutes murder, and hence a video showing their precise actions (apparently cited by the prosecutor as grounds for bringing charges) is highly relevant. In the case under discussion here, it would seem incontrovertible that the civilians were brutally murdered. Regarding the copyright issue, I would say that if the blood-gushing and head-dropping motions are relevant to an enhanced understanding of the incident, we could theoretically create a model animation depicting Daniel Pearl's beheading. Would you support inclusion of such an animation in the article, since it would show what the copyrighted videos show, without violating copyright? I am trying to test your logic here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orgullomoore I don't think that there needs to be real ambiguity (such as in the police brutality video) in order to justify an image. I think it's clear per wp:IMGCONTENT that an image can be used to enhance readers understandings of what is in the text. This is especially true here where the image represents not just this particular attack but is illustrating an unprecedented type of attack that occurred many times on October 7. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lenny Marks: I am not persuaded by this reasoning. Setting aside copyright issues for the purposes of this argument, if your reasoning is correct, then our article on sexual assault should have a video of a person being sexually assaulted (preferably, in all the various ways--groping, male-on-female penetration, female-on-male penetration, male-on-male, sodomization via objects, etc.), the article on revenge porn (setting aside BLP issues for the sake of argument) should include an actual revenge porn video and the victim experiencing extreme shame and ridicule as a result, the beheading video article should have a beheading video (if copyright is an issue, then a visual animation model), the article on crushing videos should include a video of a cat being crushed (the article currently contains a video of a kiwi fruit being crushed), the article on exsanguination should show someone bleeding out, the various school shooting videos should show and so on and so forth. Applying your reasoning, all of these videos should be as graphic and sharp as possible so as to enhance the reader's understanding of the type of pain and anguish experienced by the subject. I think this reasoning would lead to a situation that is simply distasteful. This is an argumentum ad absurdum that I am presenting here. I think it is simply not true that a person needs to watch immense suffering in order to understand that immense suffering occurred. I think a person who looks up the October 7 attacks is not wanting to see the attacks, but rather learn about the attacks. Certainly, learning can be aided by images, but there is a point at which the shock and obscenity of some of the images detract from the learning. I am not confident that I can articulate where that point is, but I am confident in saying that the examples I have described (and the video under discussion here) are beyond that point. And thus is the nature of obscenity generally: an extremely subjective and nebulous concept that evades definition but not recognition. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's words in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio are by now a cliché, probably for this very reason: The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (from the article).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orgullomoore I was not making a blanket statement that all graphic images should be used in every article. I was merely pointing out that their are good reasons to include here. I understand the argument your trying to make but I don't really think it's analogous. Obiously, neither one of us is interested in going through each of those instances on their merits to see why the media wasn't included. Equally, though, I could list many articles that do have graphic and extremely disturbing media, such as: Abu Ghraib abuse (actual torture), Einsatzgruppen (mass murder), and 9/11 (planes and buildings exploding). Ultimately, it comes down to the individual topic and the level of understanding, fact, or context drived from the images. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article?

  • Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have carefully read and considered the reasons for an against. Ultimately I do not think it should be removed because words do not convey the savage casual violence against unarmed and innocent civilians shown in the clip. WCMemail 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I have been carefully following the discussion and beleive there is definitely encyclopedic value to satisfy wp:IMGCONTENT. The arguments against inclusion would also apply to a huge swath of material on this article and other well regarded articles on this project. No better alternative has been proposed. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Veggies. While the video is indeed graphic, there is precedent for using graphic media, and I have a better understanding of the atrocities committed by Hamas having watched this video. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I have seen multiple videos of the conflict that show dead and wounded people on both sides. This particular video is one of the most gruesome ones out there. If I were someone who had not seen any gore or murder footage before, watching this execution video on Wikipedia would deeply disturb me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW support. Look, let's just for the moment put aside the WP:OM issues, the BLP concerns, the substantial potential for causing traumatic responses in our readers, the WMFs principle of reader expectation rule, the likely knock on effects of Wikipedia hosting such content that could lead to the article as a whole reaching less eyes, and any other perennial issues that come up with such material. And by the way, this is a good place to say that I'm very impressed with everyone for keeping the tone polite and even-keeled all through the discussion so far, despite clearly strong feelings on the editorial considerations and the highly contentious nature of the article: it's very nice to see and speaks well to priorities, good faith, and level-headedness of those commenting.
Now, all that said, even putting those substantial editorial and harm concerns aside, this content just isn't going to stay, longterm: if nothing else, it violates WP:V and none free content policies. Both of which are pretty much never abrogated in circumstances like these, ultimately. We can't confirm the provenance of the video and we don't have an appropriate license for it. For those reasons alone, it has to go. The other concerns represent important and heavy editorial issues and I think it's a valuable thing to have that discussion in parallel--and indeed I think we should continue to have that discussion simply on the principle that we might be looking at other similar media in the future, that is licensed properly. But those are simply additional reasons to consider removing the video, whereas verifiability and NFC are buck-stops-here concerns that there aren't any viable arguments to get around. SnowRise let's rap 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - There is now a video of a trench in Gaza where Palestinian bodies are being buried in a mass grave because the morgues are full and the population forced to leave. Will we end up with competing videos? We are here to dispassionately document, not to push for one side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it shouldn't be a question; material should not be included solely because it is offensive, nor should it be removed solely because it is offensive. But grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia; especially when less offensive alternatives exist. WP:BLP also applies, specifically "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This might also be a good application of WP:IAR, but consensus gets muddied in discussions like this. The straw !poll will help a bit with assessing consensus. Awesome Aasim 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Videos showing someone being hurt badly or even murdered shouldn't be in the article. While Wikipedia don't censor things, this is too extreme in my opinion. Context clues without looking, snuff films sound like the film is violent. Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Awsome Aasim You say that "grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia". This is simply untrue and not in line with standard practice of articles covering large traumatic events. (see Einzatsgruppen, Abu Ghraib abuse, 9/11.) --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwater1 It may be too extreme in your opinion, but I do not think that is the cuttoff for inclusion in Wikipedia policy. Graphicness is neither a reason to include or exclude material, encyclopedic value is. If there were too equally illustrative videos and one was less graphic, it would obviously be the better choice. But since that is not the case, it is not policy to remove the video because someone thinks it is too far. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with you. As long as it is legal, then it can stay. We don't have disclaimer warning saying, "it may be disturbing to some." It is implied in the WP:Content disclaimer that Wikipedia can contain something graphic. Cwater1 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwater1 Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks I strike out the comment. <s> I put a new reply saying keep video. Cwater1 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwater1 I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I know there is no auto-play on Wikipedia, so every reader can make their own decision whether to watch it. Alaexis¿question? 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per Snow Rise. This has clearly been chosen specifically because it is WP:GRATUITOUS. It is possible to present comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of an armed attack without showing videos of people being killed. Even so, BLP issues (which applies to both the living and recently deceased) should make it overwhelmingly clear that removal is the correct answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal I have refrained from watching the video based solely on what has been said about it here. I saw the Daniel Pearl beheading video, many years ago, and it disturbed me for a long time. Same thing goes for some of the Islamic State beheading incidents and James Foley (journalist) videos circa 2014. It's worth noting, by the way, that the Daniel Pearl, beheading video, Islamic State beheading incidents, and James Foley (journalist) articles all lack beheading videos. Images (especially videos) are very powerful in conveying things that words cannot, and the grotesque character of the attacks help explain the forceful reaction and unprecedented unity of the Israelis. It is not the same to say, "Innocent civilians were chased down and shot at close range" as to show a video of an innocent civilian being chased down and shot at close range. But my opinions is that we should leave it to the Wikipedia reader to google that for themselves if that's what they want to experience.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Orgullomoore: This isn't the place for a discussion, but since you didn't contribute in the greater discussion above, I'll have to retort here. Daniel Pearl et al. videos are copyrighted and wouldn't fall within fair-use. This one is evidently not and doesn't have to meet that strict requirement. The article Killing of Kelly Thomas contains CCTV footage of his killing by police officers (with audio). The video is copyright-free, graphic, and was included in the article. Shocking, right? -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per SnowRise. Andre🚐 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •Remove: Don't see the justification on including something that goes to THAT level of violence. I can see a justification somewhat for some violent or graphic videos/images, but someone literally gets their brains blown out in HD and someone gets stabbed to death and beaten to death (after being shot I believe). All in one video. It's brutal, and on balance I can't justify including it for all the reasons discussed above. It doesn't add enough to justify it's inclusion (given it WILL reduce viewership, and probably traumatize several people, it's pretty damn bad). Text with images that don't involve depictions of murder suffice. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose most of the pro-removal arguments as Wikipedia is not censored and the video serves to illustrate some of the violence of the events for the reader. This article is about inherently violent events, so the inclusion of violent/distressing images is certainly due. However, we do not seem to have a good source verifying this particular video at present and the video should be removed unless/until we do. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose removal - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal - WIkipedia is NOT censored, period. This is by far not the most graphic video out of the conflict, and the suggestions by some that less violent videos be used as a replacement are egregious and against policy. Our goal is to depict incidents as they occurred, not depict what we think might be pleasing to the eye of the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal - There are far more illustrative videos we could use. Frankly it's not even a good video and does not much of anything to the reader's understanding compared to, for example, video of the paragliders, the invasion itself, or rocket fire. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! MrBeastRapper (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? How would a video of a paraglider (if you could even find a copyright-free one) be "more illustrative" to educating readers about this war than this video. And you didn't explain why it "does not much of anything to the reader's understanding"—whatever that means. -- Veggies (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.
      See WP:GRATUITOUS (incorrectly cited by many who want a removal) :- Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On the flip side, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. This is what most of the support comments have been arguing - that issues like WP:BLP and wmf:Resolution:Controversial content also greatly apply here. We don't (or at least shouldn't) keep offensive material unless if it adds value to the encyclopedia; I don't believe this clip does that. Its sole purpose is to offend, not to educate, and we are not LiveLeak or Daily Mail or New York Post (or any news agency for that matter that aims to be sensationalist) and there isn't significant cultural significance in this CCTV that merits keeping this, unlike The Falling Man which conveyed a powerful message after 9/11. Awesome Aasim 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with the fact that we shouldn't remove an image or video just because it is graphic. There is that disclaimer on top of the talk page saying that there are options to hide such content. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware Wikipedia isn't censored and there are ways to hide certain images and videos. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because a video or image is graphic don't mean we remove it. Visitors don't have to watch the video of they don't want to. That's why we got the ability to hide graphic content, see Help: Options to hide an image.
  • Keep/re-add/oppose but wait – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the biased file name and possible copyright and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the copyright issue (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 — Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (killing video)

Is there now enough of a consensus to remove the video? 10 votes to 5 looks pretty strong to me. The footage has not been in the article for very long (only maybe a day or two), so I don't think that "implicit consensus" counts for anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, nobody is voting here. This isn't a democracy. Second, the discussion has only been active for less than thirty-ish hours. A bit quick to be making snap (ahem, "executive") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, consensus is not about mathematical ratios of poll results. If if you were at the right time to close a discussion (much less knowledgeable about how to do so), your rationale needs to be more than "10 > 5". You should probably read what closing a discussion requires. I suppose I should be gobsmacked that an editor with almost 45K edits isn't aware of these fundamental guidelines and procedures, but very little surprises me anymore. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? You've been here since 2005, long enough to understand the concept of consensus and WP:ONUS. It's incredibly rare in AFD discussions for instance, for a 2:1 vote to be overturned, and you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based. The results of this discussion show that so far there is no consensus to include the video and therefore it should be removed, per ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You also apparently know that the copyright status of this video is unclear, but voted keep on Commons anyway [27], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? As long as necessary. We might even choose to go to WP:RFD if arguments become intractable to get a broader opinion. A far less graphic but far more heated discussion took years (and many archived pages) to resolve. There was a template long ago called Linkimage (also dealing with graphic or "offensive" images on Wikipedia) which was nominated for deletion three separate times over the course of over a year before it was finally (and rightly) deleted. So, what's the rush? I'm fully aware of ONUS. you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based I can't quote the entire discussion in a reply. The arguments are in the main discussion section above. Those who oppose removal (myself included) have made counterarguments to the pro-removal editors which are strongly policy-based and at least two of us have yet to read a response. You, again, are relying on mathematical ratios to further your points. maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you As for the deletion discussion on Commons, I didn't come up with PD-CCTV and I don't have a strong legal understanding of the inherent basis behind that public domain justification, so I'm fully in favor of keeping the video if it's truly copyright-free, but I'm unsure whether it is. But, again, I didn't come up with that template on Commons. I have to defer to the more knowledgeable people who did. It's perfectly "coherent" to say 'I think this is fine content-wise, but I'm unsure about the copyright status.' -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the !votes are to make it easier to assess consensus especially when discussions gets muddied like this. Because the original question was about what to do with the media the straw !polls serve to make assessing consensus easier. Awesome Aasim 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except two things: 1) Many people who cast a !vote didn't contribute to the larger discussion and/or didn't cite applicable policies, either making incendiary statements "snuff film" "gore site" etc. or just saying "per [another user]" and 2) not everyone who contributed to the discussion contributed to the poll. -- Veggies (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I havent voted and dont intend to, but ONUS applies to inclusion of content, and with the straw poll as it is now I think it is fair to say that at the very least there is no consensus for inclusion so it should be out. You, Veggies, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- Veggies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @Veggies. Images and video media are included in articles to help illustrate a point to the reader. The video in question unequivocally helps to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.
Most of the arguments against inclusion implicitly rely on a moral assertion that people should not see certain things, due to vaguely-invoked and unquantifiable harm. Despite claims to the contrary, these arguments are motivated by the same censorious impulse as most moves to restrict content on Wikipedia, and can be dismissed for similar reasons.
We have a policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and we should apply it. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. nableezy - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point. The guidelines on closure state clearly that consensus is to be found through the arguments (consistent with policy) made by responsible Wikipedians. Not just a head count of people who were not involved in the discussion at all, polling with an argument that flatly contradicts policy. I would suggest that when the time comes that we seek an outside party at Requests for closure. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). Simply arguing "Wikipedia is not censored" or "we need to show how brutal/savage/gratuitous it was" is not enough to meet the requirement for inclusion. There's some irony in people making those arguments and then saying that exclusion violates policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). wp:GRATUITOUS is not an inclusion criterion it is a policy which states that graphicness is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion, and that less graphic options should be used when possible. The people arguing that the video can't be excluded for graphicness are not precisly correct, but they are correct barring an alternative with the same encyclopedic value. Simply saying that the video is offensive is not a reason for to remove it. GRATUITOUS goes on to say Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. The inclusion requirements for images are clear:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.
— wp:IMGCONTENT

-- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir. Could you provide some of the more illustrative videos you think there are? There are several people in this discussion that have agreed that they would be open to changing to a less graphic video that also displayed the attacks on civilians. If you could provide it would go a long way towards reaching consensus. --Lenny Marks (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will look through these Lenny Marks (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few more:
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not impressed.
The first is a twelve-hour stream of talking-heads. If a CNN or Fox News twelve-hour stream were free-use, I don't see what it would add to the article if included in-line. Maybe as an external link, this is valuable. Also: it has commercials which I have serious doubts about whether they are actually free-use.
The second is drone footage of an excavator moving rubble. Given how many rubble photos we already have in the article, I don't see what this adds of any value. More importantly, however, Kanal13 is a copyright-washing account. (see [28] vs [29]). NowThis News has a live stream of Trump at a courthouse and Kanal13 straight-up snipped their footage and uploaded it as their own CC content. No way we can trust any of these videos you have of them as being actually copyright-free. That disqualifies the third, fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth of your videos. As an administrator, I expect you to be aware of copyright washing, so, as I said above, I should probably be gobsmacked at your careless citation of these shady channels, but very little surprises me anymore.
The fifth is a little bit better, but it's a compilation of videos from various sources as well as just "breaking-news"-style talking heads. Not worthless, but not any better at describing the horror of the initial Hamas attack than the video we're discussing.
The seventh is sensationalist rapid-fire jump-cutting with ostentatious music. Did you not watch it? Even if the channel actually had the right to use all those clips (and I'm skeptical that it does), it's editing is way too NPOV. -- Veggies (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate your work but I share many of the concerns listed above. Most notably, we haven't found a video that shows the unprecedented type of attacks that were carried out and that shows the careful and thorough targeting of civilians that occurred. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Should the video be blacklisted from the English Wikipedia?

Closing this discussion, as it's taking place at the wrong venue. The discussion should instead take place at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Additionally, media is not pre-emptively added to this list, but added when it becomes necessary to prevent further disruptive use of said media. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


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.

White phosphorous use does not violate protocol III

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's Crisis Evidence Lab have reported that Israeli military units striking in Gaza and Lebanon have employed white phosphorus artillery rounds; Israel denied the report. White phosphorus burns carry an increased risk of mortality, and international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."

The issue, as I outlined in another response but will repaste here, is that this is false and not supported by the sources cited. Article II of protocol III states "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.". It specifically leaves out ground delivered weaponry, which is what the human rights watch source concludes and admits was used here. See this document, which specifically calls for the closing of this "loophole" and "Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles." (source), meaning they're not air delivered and therefore not a violation of protocol III or international law (at least not under protocol III).So we really shouldn't be saying that "using these weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of protocol III" because it factually is not unless those weapons are air delivered, which these aren't.

They also said in that cited source that "Human Rights Watch also reviewed two videos from October 10 from two locations near the Israel-Lebanon border. Each shows 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles being used, apparently as smokescreens, marking, or signaling." - also not a violation of protocol III (source) which states that "b.) Incendiary weapons do not include:(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems", so neither of these are violations of protocol III as well.

Therefore the statement made in the article about the violation of article III is disproven by it's own sources and should be removed.

Chuckstablers (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without that violation of protocol III, I see no reason to include it in the war crimes section as well as it's inclusion there seems to rest solely on it violating protocol III Chuckstablers (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). While the protocol contains weaker restrictions for ground-launched incendiary weapons..." admission from the source cited in support of that statement ([30]) Chuckstablers (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All that above is very interesting but all we need is reliable sources saying that the Israeli usage (which they deny) is all legal. Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the point; the problem is with international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether it violates protocol III, Time magazine's HRW interviewee says it "should" be illegal, not that it is, and HRW themselves say it's unsettled and the legal loophole should be closed. The legality of Israel's use of white phosphorus is a separate question, and HRW uses international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk as the basis for it being a crime, not Protocol III. Chuckstablers, please stick to analyzing sources we cite and not primary sources, it helps keep discussions productive. DFlhb (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers, DFlhb, Selfstudier: The law, for reference, can be viewed at [31] and [32]. It says:
  • 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. (my emphasis).
  • "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
I think the key point here is air-delivered. I'll add that. Andreas JN466 16:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer sources that have already consulted the legal treatises. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier WaPo says, Aerial incendiary weapon attacks primarily designed to set fires and burn people in civilian areas are prohibited under the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III, but Israel has not joined, and it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by this agreement.
Note however that the UN clearly classifies white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon: "Incendiary weapons are weapons or munitions designed to set fire to objects or cause burn or respiratory injury to people through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, resulting from a chemical reaction of a flammable substance such as napalm or white phosphorus. ... In 1980, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects was adopted with the aim to ban or restrict the use of certain types of weapons considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to indiscriminately affects civilians. Protocol III of the Convention restricts the use of incendiary weapons. The Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III) aims at protecting civilians and civilian objects from the use of this type of weapons. It prohibits targeting civilians and restricts targeting military objects located within populated areas. The Protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on forest or other plants unless the vegetation is used to conceal military objects.”" Andreas JN466 16:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas: no, that's WP:OR. Check all three citations we currently use: HRW gives us a legal analysis, and says it's illegal for reasons other than Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether white phosphorus falls under Protocol III. My comment stands.
The fix is simply to replace and international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (a misreading of the HRW source) with and "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life", according to Human Rights Watch. Protocol III is about regulations specifically on incendiary weapons, that's not the rationale HRW is using there. DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed in this diff. WaPo appears to be the only citation we use that addresses the question of whether it's a war crime; HRW focuses on the violation of humanitarian law. DFlhb (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more comfortable with that being there as it is currently, thanks for the change. I can understand why we'd put it under the war crimes section, but I still have reservations on why a "potential" war crime is included in the same section as the mass murder of civilians for which we have thousands of pieces of direct evidence (and which nobody denies). Kind of gives a false balance, but ultimately if we're fine with it I'm fine with it at this point. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I read the law. There's no claim the civilians were the TARGET of the attack here, it was an attack on the port (I saw the video) so Article 2-1 of Protocol III does not apply ("It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons", the part you put in bold).
You posted the summary of Protocol III but ignored what the human rights watch source actually said; which is that Protocol III doesn't prohibit ground launched incidenary munitions, which is what human rights watch says was used (they call it a loophole and advocate for closing it) (see my original comment where I point this out). It only covers air launched munitions; in this case these were not air launched munitions.
Finally; it's OR. We don't need to even analyze what Protocol III says. We only need to analyze what the HRW source says. Which is that it doesn't actually violate Protocol III. That's why the change was made, and the text as it currently reads accurately represents what our sources say. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers @DFlhb Several points.
  1. The part I put in bold was not what you quote, Chuck, but It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
  2. HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions. Please have a look at the HRW article we cite. The lead image of that article shows a white phosphorus airbust. It is followed by multiple references to airbursts. (Airbursting of white phosphorus projectiles spreads 116 burning felt wedges impregnated within the substance over an area between 125 and 250 meters in diameter, depending on the altitude of the burst, thereby exposing more civilians and civilian structures to potential harm than a localized ground burst.)
  3. HRW also says in that same article: Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording as it stood after my edit. For reference, that wording was: international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.
It wasn't me by the way who introduced the reference to Protocol III originally, but many sources covering this do mention Protocol III, including Reuters, so I think a mention of Protocol III is due. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions Correct
I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording It's not indistinguishable because HRW don't say that "international law forbids its aerial use [...]", they say there's a loophole, and WaPo says: it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by [Protocol III]. DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Protocol III is international law ...? The loophole is about this, according to HRW: Protocol III applies only to weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires or cause burns, and thus some countries believe it excludes certain multipurpose munitions with incendiary effects, notably those containing white phosphorus. There is more about white phosphorus and Protocol III from HRW here, and from the UN here. I confess I am quite baffled, reading those two pages: the UN – or at least the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs – flatly states white phosphorus is covered by its Protocol III (as does Reuters: "White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."), and HRW states it isn't (or that there are loopholes). --Andreas JN466 08:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a useful Q&A on reliefweb.int, a site administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), that goes into the details:
Andreas JN466 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the UN republishing a HRW article, and it says the same thing, analysing legality in terms of: violates the requirement under international humanitarian law that parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life, and concurring with the Amnesty Int. guy we quote that White phosphorus can also be used as an incendiary weapon and When used as a weapon, munitions with white phosphorus are considered incendiary weapons in other words that whether it's an incendiary weapon (= against Protocol III) depends on how and why it was used.
The UNODA link you give is a primary source, requiring WP:OR. Now what we should be on the lookout for is new publications by experts that analyse what the intent was, how it was used, and whether it was a war crime in more detail; not trying to analyse primary documents. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (Note that I was wrong in equating airburst and air-delivered. Air-delivered means delivered by plane. So while an airburst from a WP projectile fired from a mortar is different from a groundburst it is not classified as air-delivered. So mortar-fired munitions would not fall under Article 2.2. but under 2.3. of Protocol III.) Regards, Andreas JN466 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We're doing a lot of WP:OR here, while we've got this exact quote from Reuters:
"White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it."
Currently, the article states in Wiki voice:
"Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits its use against military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory."
It should be pointed out that Reuters isn't claiming white phosphorous is explicitly covered under Protocol III, but saying white phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, and incendiary weapons are explicitly covered under Protocol III.
Perhaps the line should instead state this, or something amounting to it:
"White phosphorous is considered to be an incendiary weapon, and Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory." (cite Reuters).
That may be too close to the exact statement from Reuters to not put it in quotations, but at any rate we shouldn't state in Wiki voice that Protocol III prohibits white phosphorous explicitly. entropyandvodka | talk 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protocol III is 463 words long. Of that, the relevant section, Article 2, is 177 words long.
I would like to advance the controversial opinion that we do not in fact require a reliable source to tell us what the equivalent of 177 words of text say (i'm being a bit cheeky here I know, but seriously). "Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on military targets located among civilians," is pretty close to the truth, but it's wrong. Objectively wrong in the way that saying 1+1 actually equals 3 is wrong.
Article 1 of protocol III defines the terms used, Article 2-1 prohibits making a civilian object the target of an incindenary munitions strike, Article 2-2 prevents air launched incindenary munitions from being used on military targets in civilian concentrations, Article 2-3 prevents any other type of incindenary munitions from being used on milittary targets in civilian concentrations EXCEPT when that objective is clearly separated from the civilian concentration and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize civilian loss of life. Article 2-4 prohibits the use of incindenary munitions on forest/plant cover except when the enemy is using it. That's it; that is all of Protocol III. Read it if you want, it's here https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf.
My point ultimately is that the statement currently is wrong is an objective meaningful way. It's relevant because it implies that using white phosphorous was an automatic violation of Protocol III by Israel and that's not the case. We're saying something that's wrong in an objective, structural manner (the words themselves do not say that). I'd agree this is OR if there was any interpretation, or requirement for logical deduction/reasoning that leaves room for differing opinion, but there's literally not. It's just factually not what Protocol III says. We need to accurately represent reality to the best of our ability here. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayen466
Here's Human Rights Watch saying the thing you said they didn't say.
"Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles. Other videos posted to social media and verified by Human Rights Watch show the same location. Dense white smoke and a garlic smell are characteristics of white phosphorus."- quote from the HRW article
Artillery SHELLS are NOT air launched. Artillery is ground launched. Shells rely on spin stabilization, imparted from a long tube with rifling and grooves on the shell. Otherwise they would tumble end over end. Israel is not launching artillery shells from planes. That would actually be brain dead.
AIRBURST refers to the DISPERSAL mechanism. Much like a cluster munition airbursts to deliver it's bomblets, white phosphorous rounds AIRBURST before hitting the ground to DISPERSE the fragments of flaming metal over a wide area. If you want I can share some links explaining the terminology to you.
"Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording as it stood after my edit. For reference, that wording was: international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons
The issue was it's irrelevant as it wasn't air delivered and we have a reliable source proving it. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Protocol III more than once. Regarding 2.2, this is probably part of the controversy in how this particular international law is interpreted. Some almost certainly argue that air-burst artillery shells amount to air-delivered, with the concern of the law being about the diminished accuracy or larger spread of air-delivered attacks (ie, vs a soldier on the ground with a flamethrower or incendiary grenade directly attacking a target). Putting that aside, 2.3 is probably the bigger problem, in that it doesn't matter for 2.3 if it was air-delivered, and the nature of the attack shows a large dispersal of white phosphorus in a location that might not be "clearly separated from the concentration of civilians" or have taken all measures to the extent it outlines to protect civilians; but this is all WP:OR and speculation on our part.
I did change the line so that it doesn't state white phosphorous is explicitly a violation of Protocol 3 (in which we were agreement on needing changing). It now reads:
"White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, and Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits their use against military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory."
(note "and" and "their", and how those alter what explicit propositions are being made in Wiki voice)
We also have later in that section that whether this specific use of it may or may not be a war crime, with an attributed quote. I think in this particular case, we have to be very careful to only summarize, or give attributed statements or exact attributed quotes that stick with RS. entropyandvodka | talk 03:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuckstablers You must have missed my post 11:48, 17 October above. The article currently says:
  • Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits their use against military targets located among civilians.
  • The source for this is Reuters, which says:
  • White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it.
So what we are saying is a very, very close paraphrase of what Reuters is saying. I think we're good. Regards, Andreas JN466 09:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust"

A number of media observers have made this claim in one form of the other. Here's the latest: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-played-israel-hamas-heres-why-putin-picked-side-terrorists . I propose adding a line to the intro/lede saying "The Hamas attack has been described in media accounts as the largest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust." 152.130.15.107 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is not a reliable source for this and we should also avoid opinion columns, making this a doubly poor source. Looking through RS, I'm finding related statements in several places. But, I don't see it in the voice of RS. All that I was able to find were quotes from politicians and organizations. Perhaps find better sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of this going around (Biden included), the idea appears to be to conflate Jews everywhere with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to me to be a possibility that even excluding non-Jews from each event, the statement may still be correct. Unless you are saying there has been a bigger massacre of Jews (or partly) elsewhere that has been overlooked by the statement? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this passage should be in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the lead in the German and Hebrew articles. It should be here, as well. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would need sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the main (and resolving) point here. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about "300 killed on Saturday, the largest number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks in a single day since 2008" per Reuters, shall we add that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as relevant imo, but I'm not opposed to it. The holocaust comment is more relevant due to the length of time involved; we're talking about roughly 80 years vs 15. Reuters is behind a paywall for me; does it specifically bring attention to the significance of the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in 15 years? Can you provide a quote or something? The fact that this is the largest number of jews killed in one day since the Holocaust has significance that the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in one day since 2008 doesn't, but ultimately if we have a reliable source calling attention to this fact to a similar degree that the source called attention to the holocaust thing, then I'm not opposed to it's inclusion necessarily. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding this bit for balance: "Hamas' Head of Political and International Relations, Basem Naim, told Sky News that no civilians have been killed by the militant group. When asked about 'civilian casualties on a horrendous scale' during the Hamas attack, Naim responded, 'It is not acceptable, it is really shameful to discuss while now 3000 Palestinians have been killed in massacres by the Israelis.'" Per sources in this section. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of factoids relating to this conflict and we can't make the lead a list of trivia. Al-Arabiya (and others) say that the attack was the worst security situation since the 1973 war[33]. The Atlantic says that it was the most brutal act since "Israeli-controlled Christian militias massacred unarmed Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila"[34]. And what about the Israeli retaliation? The Hindu points out[35] that the current Israeli attack on Gaza is the "deadliest" of the 5 wars unleashed on Gaza.VR talk 09:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that every single Jewish source, whether political or non-political, are calling this the biggest massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust. If someone can find me a singular day or event with more Jews being killed since 1945, please share it. This can be disproven easily if someone actually has evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely valid claim. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs an update

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-evacuating-28-communities-lebanon-border

Needs to be expanded to all of israel, not just gaza and the surrounding areas Lukt64 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukt64: I had planned to create a separate zoomed-in map of the northern front, which includes the Israeli-Lebanon border and the Golan Heights frontier, in case Hezbollah joins the war. However, as of now, 99% of the conflict is still limited to the Gaza Strip and its surrounding areas. Nonetheless, I can still create a map that shows the evacuated settlements on the northern border if users are interested. Ecrusized (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add more details about HAMAS war crimes in the war crimes section

I do not think that this page is biased or anything, but I just think that there should be more detailing of HAMAS war crimes in the according section. More than half of the section is about Israeli war crimes, and I do not think that that should be removed, but it just seems disproportionate. It would be nice and would provide a less biased view to the reader if there was more info on the Palestinian war crimes. RealNuclearFish (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess part of the issue is that there's not much else to say about them. I'd agree that maybe we could expand on it a bit. The issue is that the TYPE of war crimes committed were fairly limited, and the depth of analysis by reliable sources on it was less than Israeli war crimes (which require more legal analysis and application of international law).
For example, chasing down civilians in pick-up trucks, shooting them in the head, and stabbing/beating them to death is obviously a war crime. I don't really know what else should be said there; maybe cite specifically what international laws are being broken? But even that would be kind of unnecessary; it's OBVIOUSLY bad to chase down civilians and kill them. The issue at this point is really that these war crimes occurred in a couple of days, whereas the Israeli ones have been happening for longer at this point. The SCALE or number of people killed in war crimes might be comparable, but there's just more to talk about when it comes to Israeli ones.
I do agree it presents a bit of a false balance, though. I don't know what the solution really would be. We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We also can't just arbitrarily pad out the section for Hamas's war crimes. Suggestions? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt much more to say is the point, Hamas's violations of international law in targeting civilians and taking civilian hostages are documented, as are accusations against it for the use of rockets that cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. But thats the end of the story there, and while rockets continue and that can be noted the coverage of the ongoing Israeli strikes and siege and the war crimes involved have become more and more widely covered and discussed. If Israel is accused of even more war crimes that section will grow. If Hamas is accused of more war crimes, then that too will be covered. nableezy - 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand stems from contrasting accusations of war crimes. In one case, there are allegations of war crimes, such as the controversial 'white phosphorus' incident, where sources were misrepresented (see the earlier discussion about this where it was shown that the reliable source cited was misrepresented, resulting in a change in the section). Just now, for instance, it was claimed that Israel used 'white phosphorus on a children's hospital' based on an unreliable source, the Egyptian Times, quoting the Gaza government. However, despite this allegedly occurring on October 13th, reliable sources on white phosphorus use make no mention of this potentially severe war crime, even when published two days later. Despite this, we're stating that this happened in wiki voice?
This inconsistency is the crux of the issue. While reliable sources reporting IDF statements on decapitated babies were insufficient to make a claim in 'wiki voice' regarding Israel, in the case of Palestine, it seems acceptable to assert in 'wiki voice' that Israel bombed a children's hospital with white phosphorus. This assertion is made despite the absence of reliable sources supporting it, with the only reliable sources available (from human rights watch for example) not saying a word about this despite being published 2 days after the alleged use of white phosphorous on a childrens hospital. The unreliable source reporting on this in any case is just citing the statements of the palestinian health authority in gaza, part of the government that is a belligerent in this conflict. But when a reliable source reports the statements of the IDF, also a belligerent in this conflict, that's not enough to say in wiki voice that babies were decapitated. Which I agree with. It's this double standard that is why we have an NPOV tag, and why it's probably not going away anytime soon unless this changes. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is misrepresented it should be fixed. If a source is attributing something to the Ministry of Health in Gaza then so to should we. I dont see how that is the case with the war crime section though. Everything there is from third party sources. nableezy - 22:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically said, in wiki voice, that a childrens hospital was evacuated following an attack by a white phosphorous projectile. It didn't attribute it at all to who actually said it; part of the government of Gaza. We would've needed a reliable source stating it, and it's pretty obvious propaganda. Israel is striking childrens hospitals with white phosphorous now? The source cited claimed 70 people, mainly children were killed. And nobody reported on that apart from a paper owned by the government of Egypt (with spelling mistakes and clear alignment with the egyptian governments take)? That's the issue. That this kind of stuff is being added and would stay unless someone fights it is why we have an NPOV tag. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was in a subsection that I did not notice, I fixed it. And put the CNN source that reports on it. nableezy - 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All we have is a claim by the palestinian government in Gaza about it's use. The cartoon villian levels of evil are mirrored in the decapitated babies claim. We also had reliable sources REPORTING on what the IDF had said about that. We are not including that in the Palestinian war crimes section. My issue is that we are reporting on things that are only sourced from the government of gaza. There's a double standard there, that's the issue. If the decapitated babies thing doesn't go in palestinian war crimes, why do claims sourced solely from a belligerent in the conflict belong in the Israeli war crimes section? When there's no evidence it happened other than they said it did. Because again; that's all the CNN source says. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when we have reliable sources that would've confirmed it had it happened given that they reported on it's use when nobody was alleged to have died, and didn't report on it's use when 70 people allegedly children died. Because we have three reliable sources earlier on in the section that notably don't mention it despite being published after it was initially reported. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um the article says Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. That is based on Israeli government reports. nableezy - 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the Kfar Aza part. Israel kinda did a PR offensive, Bucha massacre style there. Loads of independent reporters went there, checking things out and talking to the rescue workers. So we can tell in wiki voice what these reporters reckon they saw and attributing what the rescue folks are saying since those are associated with the Israeli government, right? Going into all the gory details of how those brave folks caused these little ones to pass on might not be super necessary, I reckon." Infinity Knight (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What independent reporter said that they found babies beheaded? Because all the sources say that is from an IDF soldier telling an i24 reporter that. nableezy - 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not entirely sure. I'd kinda expect to hear that info from the rescue workers, but you know what, there were tons of TV crews out there, check it out. This might be a good kick-off point; you'll find some solid sources there. It's just a thought on how we might handle the Kfar Aza stuff, delving into the nitty-gritty of how those brave souls caused those little ones to meet their maker ain't all that necessary, I'd say. Infinity Knight (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Im not going to watch hours of video to look for a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist. If you find one youre welcome to bring it. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to assist, but when you say "a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist" does that mean you want to get rid of all the Kfar Aza content? Infinity Knight (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is not reliable for a claim, new sources must be found or it must go. That is policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the primary reliable source for bodies condition, independent of the Israeli government, would be Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, which according to their page ZAKA prefer to call the organization and their work Chesed shel Emet (חסד של אמת‎ – lit. 'Kindness of truth'), because they are dedicated to ensuring that the bodies of Jewish victims are buried according to Halakha, Jewish law. After acts of terrorism, ZAKA volunteers also collect the bodies and body parts of non-Jews, including suicide bombers, for return to their families. The phrase Chesed shel Emet refers to doing "kindness" for the benefit of the deceased, which is considered to be "true kindness", because the (deceased) beneficiaries of the kindness cannot return the kindness. he's talking about what's happening in other villages too, and because of his position, he probably has the answer to your question. There's that i24 source, which seems pretty reliable to me, and also a Reuters source that doesn't dive into as much detail. I wouldn't be shocked if he's given more interviews to reliable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We can, however, be more concise; there are a lot of quotes in the section that merely restate what has already been said - we can and should remove those, as they don't add anything to the article but do cause it to violate WP:BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have, once again, merely asserted the balance of sources is not followed, and you have, once again, provided no evidence for that assertion. Repeating the same false statement does not make it more true. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you've asserted that they are being followed. But lets try to get some evidence. I searched Google news for Israel Hamas war "war crimes" and opened the first 20 articles:
  1. Wall Street Journal: The Siege of Hamas Is No War Crime
  2. The Conversation: How the ‘laws of war’ apply to the conflict between Israel and Hamas
  3. Time: Atrocities Seeks Extreme Reaction. Don’t Give Hamas What It Wants
  4. Reuters: What war crimes laws apply to the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
  5. Sydney Morning Herald: A war crime is still a war crime, even in retaliation
  6. Al Jazeera: Israel-Hamas war updates: Iran tells Israel to stop before ‘it’s too late’
  7. Times of Israel: Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts
  8. Washington Post: Have war crimes been committed in Israel and Gaza?
  9. The Guardian: Israel-Hamas war live: latest news and live updates
  10. Asia Times: No winners so far in Hamas-Israel PR war
  11. SBS: Which war crime laws apply to the Israel-Hamas conflict?
  12. Financial Times: Rules of war: international law and the Israel-Hamas conflict
  13. The Guardian: Progressive Democrats bring resolution calling for ceasefire in Israel-Hamas war
  14. Atlantic Council: Hamas’s actions are war crimes. Israel should not respond with further war crimes.
  15. Associated Press: Experts say Hamas and Israel are committing war crimes in their fight
  16. Amnesty International: Israel: Palestinian armed groups must be held accountable for deliberate civilian killings, abductions and indiscriminate attacks
  17. The Strategist: The spiral of violence that led to Hamas
  18. The Nation: We Must Not Let the Truth Become a Casualty of This War
  19. DW: Are war crimes being committed in Israel-Hamas conflict?
  20. NDTV: Explained: What Are War Crimes And Are Israel And Hamas Committing Them?
These results are biased, as most of the war crimes against Israel were committed over a week ago and Google News preferences recent results, but they're still a reasonable estimate. Reviewing them I find that the coverage given to the actions of Hamas and the actions of Israel is roughly equal, although the wording is different - sources are consistently unequivocal that Hamas has committed war crimes, but they are not consistently so about Israel.
As such, to comply with WP:BALASP we should provide roughly equal prominence; at the moment we have 510 words for the actions of Hamas, compared to 1024 for the actions of Israel. Either we need to expand the former, or shrink the latter; I suspect the best option is to do both, by adding quotes to the former and removing quotes from the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no planet in which you counting 20 google news results makes it so your estimate of sources is accurate. For example, HRW or the WHO or any UN agency for that matter is not in your list. Google news is not the only reliable source repository. Hell your first result is an op ed. And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal. You can ignore what you want to, but I don’t need to, and I’ll make sure coverage of Israeli actions is consistent with the sources and push back on any attempt to wave over them because a user doesn’t like the amount of coverage given to them. nableezy - 05:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for evidence, and I provided it; A random sampling of sources is the best way that we will be able to get an estimate of the depth of coverage we need to provide to comply with WP:BALASP, and I can't currently think of a better way to obtain that random sampling than something along the lines of "first 20 google news results from a fair search query".
And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal What I said is that they aren't consistently unequivocal. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy perhaps provide an analysis of your own if you wish to dispute these findings? I, for one, consider the cold blooded murder of civilians in broad daylight, happily celebrated, to be a far more important event than a unconfirmed report that someone used white phosphorous artillery (which is legal, by the way). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are war crimes. We say so. So is the intentional starving of 2.2 million people. So are indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate attacks. The idea that Hamas is bad so we cant say Israel did anything bad either is both stupid and in violation of our policies. And the sources quoted above do not back uo BilledMammal's view, because the amount of space is not based on which crime is less disputed, its based on which is discussed in reliable sources more often. And every single one of them discusses Israeli war crimes, with some giving arguments they are not. But if you are under the impression that your personal outrage meter is what determines Wikipedia content you are wrong. nableezy - 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources quoted above do not back uo BilledMammal's view, because the amount of space is not based on which crime is less disputed, its based on which is discussed in reliable sources more often. That's what I said? BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they all devote significant amount of space to Israeli war crimes, and they continue to do so. Lets take another look at google news results for "war crimes" israel gaza
  1. AJE: US weapons used in Israeli ‘war crimes’: Expert - Biden is expected to request approval for $10bn in weapons for Israel during a national address tonight, as the White House continues its “extraordinary effort” to bolster support for Israel, says Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University’s Justice and Peace programme.
  2. AJE “Targeting churches and their institutions, along with the shelters they provide to protect innocent citizens, especially children and women who have lost their homes due to Israeli airstrikes on residential areas over the past 13 days, constitutes a war crime that cannot be ignored,” the patriarchate said in a statement.
  3. HRW Hamas, Islamic Jihad: Holding Hostages is a War Crime
  4. Op-ed in Guardian by Prof Lyla Mehta (Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex) and Dr Alan Nicol (Researcher in international water policy) Cutting off water to Gaza is a war crime
  5. The Intercept - Israel has invoked that right in its assault on Gaza, which has already killed more than 4,200 Palestinians and displaced more than 1 million. But collective punishment — including measures like Israel’s blockade on fuel, food, and electricity into the occupied territory — and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians constitute war crimes under international law. A number of legal experts have argued the actions may also amount to crimes against humanity and genocide, as defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention. On Thursday, a panel of U.N. experts issued a separate statement that condemned the bombings of schools and hospitals in Gaza as crimes against humanity and warned that there is a risk the crimes might escalate to genocide.
  6. AP: Hamas and Israel have both been accused of breaking international law during their latest conflict, and the United Nations says it is collecting evidence of war crimes by all sides.
  7. WaPo: Well, the Hamas attack is clearly a crime against humanity, meaning a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. Taking hostages is also a war crime. It’s also possibly genocide because Hamas has the intention to destroy Israelis. ... The problem is that the response from Israel … it’s complicated. Just the blockade of Gaza — just that — could be genocide under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are creating conditions to destroy a group. ... You have to discriminate. Israel cannot pretend it’s just destroying Hamas because in the meantime it is killing masses of civilians. That is a crime for a crime. ... These are war crimes, possibly a crime against humanity. And then there’s the starvation in Gaza, also possibly a genocide.
  8. CFR: Mostly focused on Hamas's war crimes, cautions Israel against pursuing some of the policies it has enacted as potential war crimes
  9. Jacobin: only in headline
  10. UN: condemns Hamas war crimes, condemns siege and withholding water
  11. Reuters: same quote on Patriarch on leveling the church as AJE above
  12. NPR: discusses both
The evidence does not show that war crimes by Hamas have received more attention in reliable sources, in fact as time has continued forward from October 7, the ongoing accusations that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes grows to be a larger and larger proportion of the coverage of war crimes. nableezy - 13:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use "israel gaza" in the search; it's Hamas/PIJ/etc committing the war crimes, not Gaza.
However, even using your sources, the distribution is as follows:
  • Approximately 3500 words covering both
  • Approximately 4000 words covering Hamas
  • Approximately 3500 words covering Israel
This does include the entirety of the problematic Jacobin article, despite it continuing to blame Israel for the hospital explosion, but does not include any words from the Intercept article, as I did not have access to it. For articles reporting about events generally, I only counted the paragraphs that were discussing war crimes, broadly construed.
This reinforces my previous statement, that the two have received approximately equal coverage in reliable source, and thus we should give them equal coverage in our article in order to comply with WP:BALASP.
Given your comments (But they all devote significant amount of space to Israeli war crimes, and they continue to do so., The evidence does not show that war crimes by Hamas have received more attention in reliable sources), I am wondering if you have misunderstood my position; I'm not saying that Hamas has received more coverage, I'm saying that it has received equal coverage, and thus to comply with BALASP we need to provide equal coverage to each in our article - something we are unfortunately not currently doing, with 703 words for Hamas and 1238 for Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BALASP argument is not at all persuasive, the whole idea of word counts needing to be the same is nonsense. We go by the sources, editors bring non repetitive sources and it ends up where it ends up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts is how we determine, within our own coverage, how much weight we have given an aspect relative to other aspects - and from there, whether we have given the correct relative weighting in line with BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhuh, the weight we give is determined by the sources...duh. As I said below, I am not particularly fond of what amount to lists of war crimes, if that is going to be the way it works then Israel will come out with lots more words simply because it has committed a lot more crimes, even the argument that the initial attack was awful now pales when you look at the number of dead in Gaza. Genocide is now being openly spoken about when it was at least in part, taboo, before. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhuh, the weight we give is determined by the sources...duh. I agree. And assessing the sources, we see they give equal weight to each topic. It doesn't matter whether we believe Israel has committed a lot more crimes or not - it doesn't even matter if that belief is true - all that matters how much coverage reliable sources provide. BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that any conceivable article on war crimes by Hamas, PIJ, or random Gazan will include the word "gaza" in the article. Making your first point about search terms completely moot. Second, that is not what BALASP means. It means opposing viewpoints need to be given the same prominence in our articles as they get in the sources. But Israel committed war crimes is not the opposing viewpoint to Hamas committed war crimes. The arguments for and against the accusations are the opposing view points. All of that is a part of WP:BALANCE, which opens with Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. You are treating different parts of similar topics as though they are opposing viewpoints, and they are not. And the proof of that is that the very same people are saying Hamas committed and is committing war crimes are also saying Israel has committed and is committing war crimes. The idea that the section covering war crimes by Hamas has to be balanced by war crimes committed by Israel, or vice versa, is completely divorced from our policy. Those two things are not competing viewpoints, they are not things that are balanced against one another. nableezy - 14:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that it will exclude results; because we are only sampling the results and not doing a complete review we also need to be careful how our search causes results to be prioritized. Part of how search algorithms work is term proximity; documents where the provided terms are closer together are ranked higher than documents where they are further apart.
Because Gaza is where Israel is committing the actions, we expect all three of the terms - "war crimes", "Israel", and "Gaza" - to be in close proximity when discussing Israeli actions. However, because it isn't directly involved in actions committed by Hamas, we would only expect "war crimes" and "Israel" to be in close proximity for those.
Thus, the results provided are biased; discussion of Israeli actions are prioritized relative to Hamas. Meanwhile "war crimes", "Israel", and "Hamas" are less biased, because even when discussing Israeli actions we would expect "Hamas" to be in close proximity as the nominal target of those actions.
Those two things are not competing viewpoints, they are not things that are balanced against one another.
The basis for my position isn't that they are competing viewpoints. BALASP says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
If these aspects are given weight equal to each other in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, then as part of treating these aspects with a weight proportional to its treatment we need to give these aspects equal weight in our coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, a. it is not true they are given equal weight in the sources, b. that isnt relevant as these are not competing viewpoints. BALASP is about balancing competing viewpoints. These are not competing viewpoints. There are full length papers on specific Israeli orders and how they are war crimes here. You would say "thats one source" and it is balanced by another source that has a paragraph about Hamas war crimes. Im sorry, but that is not how the math works here, and the idea that you can say we should not cover this topic as much as we do because there is not as much to say in this other related but not equivalent topic is not grounded in our policy. If you are of the belief that war crimes by Israel is a "minor aspect" then you can hold that belief, but the article doesnt have to follow it. nableezy - 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is not true they are given equal weight in the sources On what basis do you say this? Every piece of evidence so far - even the evidence you presented - has said that they are.
There are full length papers on specific Israeli orders and how they are war crimes here. You would say "thats one source" and it is balanced by another source that has a paragraph about Hamas war crimes. That's the exact opposite of what I said; I counted the words in order to address that. For example, I included every single word from the Jacobin source.
BALASP is about balancing competing viewpoints That isn't accurate; BALASP is about balancing aspects. At no point does it even mention viewpoints, let alone competing viewpoints. Consider the example of an entrepreneur who has been arrested; BALASP tells us how much coverage to give their arrest compared to their business ventures, even though they aren't competing viewpoints.
If you are of the belief that war crimes by Israel is a "minor aspect" then you can hold that belief As I've said repeatedly, I am of the belief that it is an aspect equal in weight to the aspect of the war crimes by Hamas. I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that I consider it a minor aspect - unless you consider the war crimes by Hamas to be a minor aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those aspects are not opposing, and as such they are not balancing one another. Where I got the impression on "minor aspect" is that you quoted An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. None of these are minor aspects. As far as how is it not true? We have 2000+ word count articles devoted to specific Israeli orders. Now lets look at a reliable expert source, Amnesty International. There articles on Israel and the Occupied Territories can be found here. Of the results since October 7, we have as follows (excluding a couple calling on European countries to safeguard the right to protest):
  1. Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
  2. Israel/OPT: Appalling Gaza “evacuation order” must be rescinded by Israel immediately focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
  3. Israel/OPT: Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza as power plant runs out of fuel focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
  4. Israel: Palestinian armed groups must be held accountable for deliberate civilian killings, abductions and indiscriminate attacks focused nearly entirely on Palestinian group war crimes, slightly more background given of Israeli war crimes than in the above gives to Palestinian ones
  5. Israel/OPT: Civilians on both sides paying the price of unprecedented escalation in hostilities between Israel and Gaza as death toll mounts Discusses both
So how is it that sources are giving equal attention? Even if that mattered. nableezy - 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BALASP doesn't qualify what it applies to, such as by saying ...treat each opposing aspect with a weight proportional...; it just says ...treat each aspect with a weight proportional.... Consider the entrepreneur example; if reliable sources gave equal weight to their arrest and their business ventures, but we gave twice as much weight to their arrest, then we would be in violation of BALASP despite the aspects not being opposing.
Further, I would argue that makes sense; our article would be biased against the entrepreneur if we gave disproportionate weight to their arrest, just as our article is biased against Israel because it gives disproportionate weight to Israel's actions.
So how is it that sources are giving equal attention? Because a single source is not representative, particularly when the single source is selected rather than randomly chosen. Even a group of selected sources would be problematic - we need a fair way to select a representative group of sources, and that fair way is not for you or for I to manually select the sample. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not manually selecting anything, we can do that with any expert source on international humanitarian law you like. News articles are considerably worse sources than views by established experts. nableezy - 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like Amnesty are sources we can and should use, but there is no basis in policy to consider them considerably better than sources like the BBC, Reuters, or the New York Times - indeed, my reading of their RSP ratings suggest we prefer those three to Amnesty.
We can and should consider academic sources more reliable, but they aren't going to start coming out in any significant numbers for months at best. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty International is an advocacy group that has a particular mandate and often does good work but certainly has certain biases (towards the issues it advocates) and is hardly a particularly "established expert." Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that this initially started out straightforwardly and then both sides have taken to competitive editing so as to make the other side look bad and their side look less bad. The high point is that both sides are likely guilty of war crimes, there is no dispute about that and that is what is in the lead.
Now the body, we can go for more detail and then it is just a question of reporting what sources say, quotes ought not be necessary (usually). I dislike this split between the sides, instead of making what amounts to lists of war crimes, better would be prose combining both in a sensible way, articles like the WSJ/ToI/time above are unlikely to be helpful in that whereas the FT, Amnesty, AP, WAPO articles covering both, probably would be (judging by the headlines). Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, both arent "likely" guilty. One side has been accused of war crimes (Israel).
The other side has not only absolutely committed war crimes, but proudly declared it themselves. (Hamas)
Our response cannot be a simple "both bad", it draws a false equivalence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Selfstudier. We are not here to make judgement calls. Let's just document from reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt disagree with what I said. If you are contesting my reading of the sources as for the extent of guilt, please explain in more detail. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just go with the sources else it is just a personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with us making any assessments of our own. And I do not know that there is a false equivalence in treating both sides in the same manner. I certainly do not believe in doing a simplistic Google search. I'm not even certain at what time period we begin. "ABABABABABAB". Does A follow B or vide-versa. Both sides always say the other side started going back one incident. Like two quarreling siblings. Nor do I know the sides. Is Israel fighting Hamas, Palestinians, or Gaza? Sure looks like they are fighting all Palestinians to me. But, that's just a personal observation. Until we have documentation of the long view in RS, let us be careful about drawing any conclusions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We make assessments of our own based on the sources, it is absolutely necessary. See WP:SUMMARY. And treating both sides similar is a fine argument, but it does not follow that their crimes, which are represented differently in RS, should also be treated similarly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A war crime is a war crime" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update article to reflect evidence of rape by Palestinian militant groups and move from unverified "claims" under disinformation section to War Crimes section


  • What I think should be changed: The entire section called "Claims of sexual violence by Hamas" needs to be rewritten and moved to the section of "War crimes by Palestinian militant groups":
- Replace header with "Sexual violence and rape".
- Remove all lines starting with and following "As of October 11..." with "On October 14, evidence of multiple cases rape were reported by the Israeli military forensics."
  • Why it should be changed: Because it is not accurate, and is written citing information available as of October 11. New information has come out that requires changing the "claims" section, as it is no longer relevant in essence.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

eyal (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that says is Israel has said this, it also says no evidence was presented. It is attributing this to "a reserve warrant officer". We can update with the information sure, but saying the narrative voice this as fact is still not supported by independent sources. nableezy - 01:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this reasoning seems to be inconsistent with the way facts are established using other references in the article. For example, the article uses references that cite various Palestinian government bodies to report the number of dead, e.g.:
- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/16/854881/ cites the "government media office"
- https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/14/Israeli-strikes-on-Gaza-kill-324-including-126-children-in-past-24-hours-Ministry cites the Palestinian Health Ministry
- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/13/854160/ cites Palestinian Health Ministry
Even directly under the corresponding section of "War crimes by the Israel Government, Medical neutrality", the claims that Israel deliberately targeted medical vehicles use e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/war-crime-gaza-medics-say-israel-targeting-ambulances-health-facilities, which cites the medics themselves and again the Palestinian Health Ministry. No "independent" source was required to add these accusations of deliberate targeted attack directly under the Israeli war crime section and not under a separate "Claims" section as is done for the rape accusations.
I think in all of these cases, we understandably won't wait until a more "independent" body actively verifies the reports. For consistency, we should apply the same standard everywhere, including in the cases related to this edit request. eyal (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We use the equivalent Israeli sources for dead and missing as well. But for claims that arent being accepted as fact by third party sources we attribute it as they do. See for example the material on al-Durrah Children's Hospital being hit by white phosphorous, we attribute that to the MoH of Gaza. The hitting of ambulances and hospitals has been reported by independent sources like the WHO and news agencies. And it does not say deliberately targeted. What it says is there are reports of that, not saying as a fact it happened. nableezy - 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of this makes sense to me, and I'm saying that we should apply the same standard for the rape accusations relevant to this edit request as described above, i.e. move them from the "Claims of..." section directly into the war crimes by Palestinian militant group section. In addition, we should make clear that this evidence was reported by the Israeli military forensics. I'll update the edit request to add this wording. eyal (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire current contention seems to hinge on the fact we don't know the name(s) of any of the victims. There are multiple eyewitness accounts, an Israeli military-forensic attestation, a video from a hostage-taking that may have indicated it, and of course that war rape is practically a general fact of war. Almost all of the reports skeptical of the claims were published before the forensic report. I have to wonder where the line on moving it to the war crimes section is. I've mainly been focused on keeping it from being labeled "disinformation", that is, emphasizing the difference between unconfirmed reports and disinformation. But I have to wonder just how unconfirmed it really is by this point. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request was made in part because we already concretely know where the line is: it's been set by the writing of the current war crimes section (as discussed above). I only argued above that we should apply that line everywhere. eyal (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a double standard in the war crimes section. We're relying on what a belligerent is reporting in one side, and the other when it comes to rape/other awful things, we're NOT including them because it was "only" reported by a belligerent? Chuckstablers (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some problems with the war crime section due to competitive editing but this is only going to make that situation worse. There is another discussion about the war crime section which may eventually resolve this issue as well.Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just saw it, for reference it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Add_more_details_about_HAMAS_war_crimes_in_the_war_crimes_section. Disagree that it would make the situation worse. At most, it would make the situation more balanced, which is not worse. eyal (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, in mine it is just trying to make one side look less bad compared with the other. If it were just down to me, I would do away with the separate "lists" and only include external independent reliable sourcing covering both sides that calls or attributes an expert calling something a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your proposal could be a better outcome overall, but until that edit is complete (it's a re-write of multiple sections) I think we should at least move the contents of the "Military forensic report" (odd heading) section away from "unconfirmed reports" and to the war crimes section. There are plenty of equally "unconfirmed reports" in the war crimes section as well, so this move would just concentrate everything under the same heading, which improves WP:STRUCTURE. I don't believe it makes sense to delay making this incremental improvement until a "grand rewrite" is completed. eyal (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written right now, we can not title this section "Disinformation" because none of that is disinformation, but rather just unverified and controversial claims. Some of that may be true, a lot maybe not true, but that might be clear only after independent investigations. And even after that, it might be not ultimately clear, but remain a controversy with claims and counterclaims by all sides. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Israeli forensic teams describe signs of torture, abuse". Reuters. Retrieved 17 October 2023.

I'm a bit uncertain about this edit. The reasoning for deletion is "This article says "some" Kibbutznikim "tend" to support more pro-Palestinian initiatives. Not "Many are peace activists", the source's title actually is "Peace Activists Are Among the Israelis Missing and Killed". Thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted that the attacks on civilians were indiscriminate. Naturally, this means their political beliefs weren't considered... of course they weren't. I question the value in Wikipedia specifying such. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be due. The victims of the attack likely had a wide range of different political views, just like other civilians killed in the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 10:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was the one that added that reference, I am fine with shortening the sentence to just say "Many of the Israeli kibbutz residents among the dead or missing were peace activists" and leaving out that they "supported Palestinian rights". But the information and reference should be kept. JJMM (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just added that. JJMM (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas claim that hostages were killed

Hamas has claimed that 9 hostages were killed due to Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.[36] Should this information also be reflected in the infobox, but of course with attribution of it to Hamas.VR talk 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The figure now appears to be up to 13, see [37] - not particularly surprising in the context of the indiscriminate bombing, though very much surprising in the level of collateral damage being tolerated. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Context to the deaths:
  1. Israeli hostages will undoubtedly be used as human shields in brutal Hamas-Israel war
  2. The Choices of War: Hamas Using Kidnapped Israelis as Human Shields, What Should Israel Do?
  3. ‘Human shields’: Israel grapples with complexity of rescuing Hamas’ hostages
  4. Hamas hostages effectively ‘human shields’ against Israel military
  5. Relatives of hostages held as human shields in Gaza beg Israel not to bomb Strip
BilledMammal (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Indiscriminate bombing" is a conspiracy theory. There are no reliable sources that say that. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be just as easily an intentional disinformation by Hamas (just as many other statements made by similar sources). They did not provide any evidence like videos, photos or details (who, where and when was allegedly killed). Hence, I would say "no", not every claim by Hamas belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So many discussions that weren't concluded were archived

Giving a single day for a discussion to be concluded before being archived seems excessive Bobisland (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar concern. I was addressing one in particular that was still an open concern (though it didn't seem to warrant an article change), and it was archived as I was writing the reply. The discussion was only a few days old. I get that the talk page was getting pretty heavy, and in some places chaotic, but the archiving at least in that case seemed too hasty. entropyandvodka | talk 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar; a question was asked of me at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 17#war crime section and before I had time to respond the discussion was manually archived. I think the one day auto-archive is fine, but given how short the archive period is I don't think editors should be manually archiving discussions unless they have obviously concluded. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the talk page has been autoconfirmed-level protected for a week, I don't think it should be too much of a problem to raise the time-to-archive bar a little. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see what happens when the protection expires tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the feedback here, I've changed the archive time from 1 to 2 days. Let's see if that helps and re-evaluate as needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pinging the most active users of OneClickArchiver on this Talk page – @Chessrat and WWGB:. Can you folks slow down the archiving of threads as a number of them were archived less than 24 hours, and many of them did not have a natural conclusion? The are concerns above that they are going away too quickly, and I have to say I was surprised when the Requested Moves disappeared so fast as well. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking I've only archived discussions after less than 24 hours if the discussion has obviously come to a conclusion (e.g. answered edit requests) or been definitely closed; when a topic hasn't even been addressed at all I've left it for more than 24 hours. Now that things are relatively less hectic it's probably worth extending Lowercase Sigmabot's auto archival time from 1 day to 2 days and in general not archiving before 2 days unless the discussion is obviously over. Pinging @Riposte97: as the main person who has been archiving this in the last several days. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was probably me archiving things while still underripe. Happy to let the bot take over now the page is more manageable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's archiving way too fast. -- Veggies (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From now on I'll only archive discussions after 48 hours of no messages, or when it's been definitively closed. Hope this sounds good to everyone. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the protection on the talk page is lifted as scheduled, and the pace of posting picks up to an extreme again, I think it may be reasonable to pick up the pace of archiving again. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background info on Hamas in lead section (continued discussion)

We have previously discussed the presence of background info: [38] including with @Vice_regent @DFlhb @My very best wishes @KlayCax

I removed the following: The operation was named the "Al-Aqsa Storm" by Hamas. It was claimed by Hamas that the Al-Aqsa Storm responded to the Egyptian-Israel blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (possibly in April 2023), Israel's attacks on women, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza.

But it was restored by this edit: [39]

@Corriebertus I removed this text because:

  • We are giving too much weight to the justifications of this conflict of one side.
  • This wording will invite edit warring. If say "Hamas blames A, B, C", then some editors will think that's not enough and add more "A B C D E", some editors will want to remove, and others will want to do the same for Israel: "Israel blames X, Y, Z", giving us a very bloated lead section.
  • Hamas says a lot of things. Generally, sides in conflicts say a lot of things about the other side. But is it notable? If so, we could fill paragraphs upon paragraphs about what Israelis and Palestinians say about each other. Rather, let's examine the true actions and cause and effect like how War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) we simply state that Bush demanded Al-Qaeda, how the Taliban responded with a denial, and then what Bush did in response - start the war.
  • In this case, Hamas appeared to be preparing for attacks for around two years (even lessening their activity to lull Israel into a false sense of security). In that case, how can 2023 events be the cause for the attack that they prepared two years ago?

Merlinsorca 11:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, "Egyptian-Israel blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (possibly in April 2023), Israel's attacks on women, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza." have been complaints for a long time not just 2023 (not sure about the attacks on women). Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but those are all things that fall under the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I would rather link to instead of listing all out in the lead (which leads to bloat). After all, the conflict is 70+ years old. Merlinsorca 23:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of RS have connected the attacks to various things like the occupation etc, see most of the sources in this section. We should briefly mention them in the article in accordance with WP:DUE.VR talk 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the info can go inside that section instead of the lead. Instead in the lead, we can provide a brief statement about the blame on Israeli violence. The text is currently
…in response to Israeli settler violence, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem as well as Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades.
The list of reasoning keeps changing.
@Alcibiades979 also provides a source that also references Hamas’ own charter which espouses antisemitic views and calls for killing all Jews and wiping out Israel. So should we list that too to give due weight? This brings me back to my argument about edit warring and the endless listing of rationale. We should really just mention the wider conflict. Merlinsorca 07:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing here. The motives (“background info on Hamas…”, as you call it, seems misleading: a motive freshly stated is not ‘background’ of the organisation stating it), named by Hamas in October 2023, go back (most or all of them) much further than 2023 or last two years. Blockade of Gaza (and settlers’ violence) and restrictions on movement: decades. Attacks on (their) women: I’ve no idea, but I fear, also long-standing. Desecration of Islamic holy sites (like Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem): CNN themselves points to such possible desecration in April 2023 (see given CNN ref sources) but that doesn’t mean that 2023 was the first time such things happened (in the perception of Hamas). So, the “2023 [attack-evoking] events”, in Hamas’ view, probably were, mostly or all, repetitions of similar events in the last 75 years. Is it “notable”? Yes, a declaration of motives for an (escalation during a) war is relevant, because it includes clues for the other side (and for observers outside the two warring parties) as to how the conflict might ever be reconciled. If Hamas now listed these (rather comprehensive) six motives, I don’t expect them to come up with motive 7 or 8 or 9 (but if they would, it would perhaps further clarify the existing conflict). Israel’s motive is stated and is clear: retaliation. So, the reasons (which is not the same as ‘justifications’) for both sides, for recent escalation, are now mentioned in the lead; that those reasons for one of the parties take up more words than for the other party doesn’t mean we consider them more important or more convincing than those of the other party. Eventual further, older, motives for both sides, dating further back, can be found by our readers, by clicking on the two wikilinks that you gracefully added in the lead section, today, 10:48. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merlinsorca. I also think it's WP:CHERRY. I mean according to The Atlantic article here :
"First, there is Hamas’s notorious charter, a Frankensteinian amalgam of the worst anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the modern era—the very same that have motivated numerous white-supremacist attacks in the United States. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” the document opens. “It needs all sincere efforts … until the enemy is vanquished.” The charter goes on to claim that the Jews control “the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others.” According to Hamas, the Jews were “behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about,” as well as World War I and World War II. The charter accuses Israel of seeking to take over the entire world, and cites as proof the most influential modern anti-Semitic text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian fabrication that purports to expose a global Jewish cabal.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,” Hamas declares in its credo. “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews.” In case anyone missed the point, the document adds that “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” In 2017, Hamas published a new charter, but pointedly refused to disavow the original one, in a transparent ruse that some respectable observers nonetheless took at face value.
In any case, Hamas communicated its genocidal intentions not just in words, but in deeds. Before it took control of Gaza, the group deliberately targeted Jewish civilians for mass murder, executing scores of suicide bombings against shopping malls, night clubs, restaurants, buses, Passover seders, and many other nonmilitary targets. Today, this killing spree is widely blamed for destroying the credibility of the Israeli peace movement and helping derail the Oslo Accords, precisely as Hamas intended. And it did not stop there. Since the group took power in Gaza, it has launched thousands of rockets indiscriminately at nearby civilian towns—attacks that continue at this very moment and that have boosted the Israeli right in election after election."
In the words of Sigmund Freud sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The passage Merlinsorca quotes almost reads like a very rose tinted explanation for a group that is completely open about the fact that they don't want peace and their ultimate goal is the annihilation of Jews and Israel. I realize that the Israel Palestine situation as a whole is enormously complex, moral grey areas, yada yada yada. But Hamas is pretty open about what it is, and why it does what it does. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue I have is that if we list Hamas’ motives of 6 things, it’s going to be too long for the lead. We can just provide a brief statement and link to the a section below, or a separate article.
As for creating new motives like 7, 8, 9 - my point isn’t that Hamas would do that, but that other editors would because they feel the original 6 is not comprehensive. @Alcibiades979 brings up a source showing that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill jews, so does that mean we should add those 2 motives to the lead? It’ll never end. Merlinsorca 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of evacuees in Israel

According to the source - https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1697526771-around-half-a-million-people-displaced-in-israel , Nearly 500,000 people in Israel have been internally displaced since the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7. The information according to this source corresponds to the number of towns and villages that were evacuated in the north and south and receives additional assistance from the fact that the Health Board of the Parliament (Knesset) announced that one hundred thousand citizens were housed by the government except for all those who found evacuation solutions on their own. https://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/Pages/press17.10.23b.aspx . מי-נהר (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, מי-נהר. I find both sources pretty reliable, the second one as a primary source with proper attribution. Does anyone have suggestions on where this information should be added? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox, intro and humanitarian impact section (subsection Israel) Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds cool to me, if someone's up for the task. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline

The timeline section needs to be shortened significantly to the respective article, as this article is already far too big, could someone do that? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do this would be to update Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 on a regular basis and link out to that, I do try myself to keep up with events but no way to keep it all going right now with so much going on. EDIT: Another possibility I forgot about is the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. Too bad that article doesn’t look well-formatted. Borgenland (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is trying to draw Egypt and Jordan into a war

Please add in the preamble the articles about the pressure on Egypt and Jordan by Israel and its allies to open their borders and accept more than 1 million refugees. This means the penetration of Hamas militants into the territory of Egypt and the involvement of Egypt in the war. The European Union also categorically refused to accept refugees. Almost all publications write about it. Ucraniano2 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing Egypt and Jordan into the war part is your opinion. Historically, accepting refugees has never made a country an active participant in the war. Also, bad apples mixing with refugees is very common and also doesn't mean the country is an active participant in warfare. There is no reliable source I know of that uses that kind of language AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza hospital bombing

according to these sources:[40][41][42][43][44], at least 500 civilians were killed in an airstrike by Israel. This should have more than just a sentence or two talking about it Abo Yemen✉ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at the linked article, the IDF say it was a failed Hamas rocket launch, early days yet. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about it? can you send its wikilink here please Abo Yemen✉ 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked up above the sentence or two you mentioned. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh okay found it Abo Yemen✉ 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever killed them, a lot of civilians were killed. This is happening in all war zones. Since the entire Gaza Strip has become a war zone, it would be an imperative to urgently allow all civilians to leave this area if they want (sure thing, lots of them want it). Not allowing their entrance to Egypt (as they do so far) would definitely be a war crime. That should probably be noticed on the page, but I am not certain what would be the coverage of this in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babies beheaded?

Looking through some of the archives, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the accusations of baby beheadings. I have, however, seen several mentions of making sure all such atrocities are very well sourced. The baby beheading is also a section in the "Unconfirmed Reports" section, should we remove the beheading mentions in the "Timeline" and "War Crimes" sections? Porg656 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli military has not confirmed that this happened. There are several cites in the article. But it appears they have all originated with one I24 reporter's claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary resources. We have one poor source. This requires removal O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How accurate is this statement? (currently in the war crimes section, under the massacres by Palestinian militant groups:
"The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded."
It is stating it in wiki voice. If the consensus is that it's not adequately sourced, it may need to be modified. entropyandvodka | talk 06:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noted in the sections "10 October" and "Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide" that the reports of beheaded babies have not been independently confirmed. A later third sections already stated that, and the second section already had a source stating that the reports have not been independently verified. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, the IDF and their forensic teams do maintain that beheadings of children and infants took place. The "40 beheaded babies" claim though, in particular, was the distortion of what seems to have been the overall amount of people who were at that time claimed to have been decapitated. A distortion which seems to have originated among journalists, especially the October 10th i24 report, and a French television correspondent. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been extensive discussion at the specific Kfar Aza massacre talkpage. I think there's more to it than just I24 account, but the origins of the claims should be clearly attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the primary reliable source for bodies condition, independent of the Israeli government, would be Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, which according to their page ZAKA prefer to call the organization and their work Chesed shel Emet (חסד של אמת‎ – lit. 'Kindness of truth'), because they are dedicated to ensuring that the bodies of Jewish victims are buried according to Halakha, Jewish law. After acts of terrorism, ZAKA volunteers also collect the bodies and body parts of non-Jews, including suicide bombers, for return to their families. The phrase Chesed shel Emet refers to doing "kindness" for the benefit of the deceased, which is considered to be "true kindness", because the (deceased) beneficiaries of the kindness cannot return the kindness. he's talking about what's happening in other villages too, and because of his position, he probably has the answer to your question. There's that i24 source, which seems pretty reliable to me, and also a Reuters source that doesn't dive into as much detail. I wouldn't be shocked if he's given more interviews to reliable sources. copied from another section Infinity Knight (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not find that self-serving quote useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he has, were are those interviews? Cortador (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two interviews provided above. There are a bunch of Yossi Landau's (ZAKA) interviews in written form here. The top one in the search results is from France 24, where Landau recalled, after entering the first home and finding a dead woman, "Her stomach was ripped open, a baby was there, still connected with the cord, and stabbed." The Zaka volunteer said he saw multiple civilians, including around 20 children, who had their hands tied behind their backs before being shot and torched. "We saw some victims positioned that they were sexually abused," he added. It is interesting to see if the beheading claim could be connected to Landau. My understanding is that the IDF says "Hamas decapitated babies", but they are not going to provide photographic evidence, because it is "disrespectful for the dead". Due to the right to privacy of the victims and their surviving relatives, I reckon. The condition of the bodies is outside of my field of interest. I am just talking about approaches on how to report about it in a reliable way. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ZAKA interviews have already been shown to be open to abuse and misinformation propagation - what we really need here are some Coroner's reports, but I understand that this rather crucial evidential step might have been avoided for the sake of privacy and other reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to the IDF spokesperson you linked to. The lengthy discussion was about the hospital bombing. It was interesting in that he kept saying you cannot take the word of either side in a war, but complained that the media was believing Hamas. He made one reference to beheadings relevant to this complaint. But I didn't hear him claim there were beheadings. I didn't hear the beheading question asked or answered. When the reporter explained it was difficult for the media to report from the field, he admitted that journalists have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the IDF link to more relevant one. ZAKA should be credited for their work. If you have sources suggesting that ZAKA might be susceptible to abuse or spreading misinformation, please share those sources. I'm just pointing out that Landau and his team meticulously handled all of the human remains, whether Israeli or Palestinian, inside Israel, as part of their religious mission, and they have the complete picture. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're a primary source, they aren't coroners, they're certainly traumatized, and, as it stands, no one seems willing to provide evidence to corroborate. We can quote quotes, weighted for their prevalence in sources, but beyond that, we're still far from the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BBC, "Zaka's responsibility is to gather all the remains of the deceased, including their blood." When secondary reliable sources quote ZAKA, it indicates their trustworthiness. Per Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources should be credited appropriately, so we should handle ZAKA in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It indicates that reliable sources think the quotes are of interest to their readers, and it grants weight here; it does not convey 'trustworthiness'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree on the issue of relevance. Given that these individuals regularly handle human remains as part of their work, calling them "certainly traumatized" might be stretching it. Do we have any sources that indicate ZAKA could be at risk of being misused or spreading false information in the aftermath of the Hamas attack? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of false claims were initially spread by less than stellar sources, some using excerpts of ZAKA testimonies, probably out of context - that's what I mean. It's a moot point now, since there are reliable sources covering this conflict, and concerns regarding reliability have given way to those of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally get your point about all the false claims flying around. Thanks for diving into this topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC quotes Yacoub Zechariah, a ZAKA volunteer and deputy mayor of Bnei Brak. Zechariah reported seeing bodies of children with severe injuries and burns. Some of the deceased children appeared to have been decapitated, although the exact circumstances were not clear. I reckon we could use this source to clear things up, attributing it to Zechariah. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The man you're naming can't be trusted for his neutrality as you yourself mentioned that he is also a political figure what we need is an independent neutral source, only sources such as 'UN', 'Red Cross', 'hospital officials' or known neutral NGO can be trusted. Balaj Khan (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the existing sources within the article, there is a substantial amount of evidence, including photographs that have been shared with the international press. Additionally, several individuals in Israel, who are not affiliated with the government and include public figures, have been engaged in the processing of the bodies, providing further confirmation of these claims. Moreover, a number of international figures have attested to witnessing evidence of decapitations.
While it's undeniable that the evidence may appear somewhat exaggerated, I am uncertain as to why, after a thorough review of the available sources, these references are still categorized as "Unconfirmed" within the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photos Thus Far -- Balanced and Concise?

  • The direct effect of the war in Israel
  • Blood in Israeli kibbutz
    Blood in Israeli kibbutz
  • Satellite image of fires after Hamas attack
    Satellite image of fires after Hamas attack
  • Israeli rubble #1
    Israeli rubble #1
  • The direct effect of the war in Gaza
  • Gaza building being bombed
    Gaza building being bombed
  • Gaza rubble #1
    Gaza rubble #1
  • Gaza rubble #2
    Gaza rubble #2
  • Gaza rubble #3
    Gaza rubble #3
  • Gaza rubble #4
    Gaza rubble #4
  • Palestinian wounded child #1
    Palestinian wounded child #1
  • Palestinian wounded child #2
    Palestinian wounded child #2
  • Palestinian wounded child #3
    Palestinian wounded child #3
  • Palestinian bodybags
    Palestinian bodybags
  • Palestinian ambulance destroyed #1
    Palestinian ambulance destroyed #1
  • Palestinian ambulance destroyed #2
    Palestinian ambulance destroyed #2
  • Crying Palestinian
    Crying Palestinian
  • Israeli relief efforts
  • Israeli kidnapped posters
    Israeli kidnapped posters
  • Israeli relief supplies #1
    Israeli relief supplies #1
  • Israeli relief supplies #2
    Israeli relief supplies #2
  • Pro-Israel rallies and memorials
  • Pro-Israel memorial #1
    Pro-Israel memorial #1
  • Pro-Israel rally #1
    Pro-Israel rally #1
  • Pro-Israel rally #2
    Pro-Israel rally #2
  • Pro-Palestine rallies and memorials
  • Pro-Palestine rally #1
    Pro-Palestine rally #1
  • Pro-Palestine rally #2
    Pro-Palestine rally #2
  • Pro-Palestine rally #3
    Pro-Palestine rally #3
  • Politicians
  • Netanyahu #1
    Netanyahu #1
  • Biden #1
  • Herzog #1
    Herzog #1
  • US-Saudi Arabia #1
    US-Saudi Arabia #1
  • Russia-Iran #1
    Russia-Iran #1

These are the photos we have in the article thus far. I would say there's very little in terms of fighting and far too much redundancy when it comes to Palestinian direct effects. How many photos of rubble, wounded kids, and wrecked ambulances on one side can you have before it becomes unintentionally NPOV? Also, do we need so many photos of pro-whatever rallies and politicians? I'm dubious. What are everyone's thoughts? -- Veggies (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly had the same concern that there was some real redundancy with the photos of direct effects in Gaza. It's just difficult, because due to the electricity and internet blackout, the only images from Gaza have all come from the same day, even though the immediate and direct fighting has occurred in it for more than a week now. Definitely curious to hear others thoughts too though. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How many more photos of rubble do we need exactly? Whereas a lot of editors seemed to be against including photos of bloody kitchens/destroyed Israeli towns. That being said; there's objectively been more deaths in Gaza now. So maybe fair enough. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling you all that some editor mass restored/reverted some pictures under a misleading edit summary that also wiped off info. Borgenland (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just got through fixing it and I gave the user a warning. Thank you. -- Veggies (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies I think you did a really good with trimming the photos, but I do think adding an additional one in the Healthcare section in the Humanitarian Situation would be really helpful. It's a long section (due to the sheer extent of the humanitarian "catastrophe"), but as a result, so much text with only one image is really hard on the eyes. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox militants killed

Inside Israel 1,000 militants are said to have been killed (independent of the undifferentiated overall kill count figures for Gaza). Why is there no parallel reference to 301 soldiers and 55 policemen killed inside Israel, in clashes with those militants. Are they to just be dissolved in the overall Israeli casualty figure? Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were there once, idk what happened to them. Perhaps because the narrative runs that it is a terror attack and not a military operation? Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the same reason we aren't differentiating inside Gaza.
Regarding the 301/55 figure; do we know if they were all acting as soldiers and policemen when they were killed, or were some of them functionally civilians? It appears to include reservists who were working as "local security officers", suggesting that the latter is true. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Israel wiped out a whole school of police graduates in a graduation parade in the first hour of a prior war, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 they were classified by the IDF/Israel as Hamas militants, along with 251 policemen in stations throughout the strip though technically police are not part of any army. That was exposed quickly enough, but stuck. Here you are suggesting that even soldiers were 'functionally civilians', when something similar happens to Israelis. The important thing is to muddle the details.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It stuck"? Did it? Have you looked at the infobox for the article you linked? Operation Cast Lead? It sure LOOKS like it specifies 255 police officers. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under international law, demobilised reservists are civilians; at the time of the incursion, Israel’s reserves were not mobilised.
If Operation Cast Lead classifies police officers as militants and the Gaza police are not gendarmeries, paramilitaries, or similar then we need to correct that as well; errors in other articles don’t justify errors in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-17/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-first-hours-of-the-israel-hamas-war-what-actually-took-place/0000018b-38bc-d0ac-a39f-b9be58df0000 while not a complete account as yet, makes it clear there were soldiers, eg, "Many of the kibbutz guards were killed, as were soldiers from the Paratroopers’ Brigade and the Golani Brigade stationed in the south of the country to guard the communities." Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were certainly soldiers present, and some of the victims were soldiers and thus legal targets. The issue with Nishidani's source is that it doesn't differentiate between demobilized reserves and soldiers. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-names-another-31-soldiers-killed-since-saturday-taking-confirmed-military-toll-to-220
"IDF names another 31 soldiers killed since Saturday, taking confirmed military toll to 220" seems clear enough. Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters what the sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most wars involve both terror and military operations, that's what Shock and Awe, which legitimized the confusion, underlined. I don't edit here also because the wiki page is swept up in the war of representations and therefore is a part of the war it ostensibly describes. An Israeli friend in battle formation tells me a friend was killed by 'friendly fire' and a nearby group of comrades was almost wiped out by the same. That will take a long time to be reported. In any case, the erasure of that parallel is simple text manipulation for the official POV to prevail, and as such, must be reverted, whoever did it.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the Israeli government - Indiscriminate attacks - Additional subsections

Currently, we have two sub-sections for this, "Al-Shati refugee camp airstrike" and "Jabalia camp market airstrike", each of which with a paragraph of coverage?

This seems excessive; are we also going to create subsections and add paragraphs for each of Be'eri massacre, Ein HaShlosha massacre, Holit massacre, Kfar Aza massacre. Kissufim massacre, Nahal Oz massacre, Netiv HaAsara attack, Nir Oz massacre, and Re'im music festival massacre?

If we keep the two subsections and paragraphs for the airstrikes, then to comply with WP:DUE and WP:BALASP we would need to add them for each of the massacres; I think this would be excessive. I think we should remove them; we currently have the airstrikes linked under "Further information", and we do the same with some of the massacres. I think such links are sufficient.

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux:, I see you added these subsections? BilledMammal (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I can remove them. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of other issues I see with this section.
1. The phrasing: "Indiscriminate Attacks" do we have any reliable sources that say that Israel is just carpet bombing and attacking randomly? If not then we can't put in Wiki voice that they're attacking indiscriminately.
2. Every time something tragic happens someone says "This is awful, it must be a war crime", and it gets listed under Israeli War Crime section without regard to what War Crimes actually are. A good example is the hospital explosion, according to the Economist: Some open-intelligence analysts posited that it happened when a Palestinian rocket exploded mid-air—perhaps intercepted by Israeli air-defence systems—and the warhead fell onto the hospital. If such is the case then the Hospital Explosion is tragic, but not a war crime. The Economist had a great article here about what war crimes are and whether Israel has committed them. The wiki article should put much more thought in to what's included particularly in regard to what sources say, rather than compiling a list of all the tragedies that have occurred because otherwise this is just our opinion of what a war crime should be. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations in multiple RS say indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks don't mean carpet bombing (although those are indiscriminate attacks, if not deliberate/direct attacks); it means attacks that fail to distinguish military objectives from civilians or civilian objects, ie, attacking both. It is a distinct crime from deliberate attacks on civilians, in which the civilians themselves are the targets. The latter category we don't have a section for in the present war, though the UN fact finding mission has found Israel to have committed that crime in the past, and it may require a separate section if RS come up making that allegation as well. entropyandvodka | talk 03:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive citations

What's up with those excessive citations? Can someone take care? Beshogur (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are close to a limit: Post‐expand include size: 1816947/2097152 bytes, so it can only increase 13% before loss occurs. Perhaps we only need one reference to confirm something instead of multiple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now: Post‐expand include size: 1925158/2097152 bytes so only 8.3% space left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate sources have also been an issue. There's software available that can merge duplicates, but I have no experience with using it. entropyandvodka | talk 03:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only a small increase today: 1941743/2097152 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone either removing my tags, or adding more and more sources. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza casualty numbers are unreliable and reqire a note

The numbers about casualties are taken from Hamas-controlled organizations. These are extremely unreliable and there is no justification for taking them without question just as they arep resented. A terrorist organization that hides fighters and rocket launch sites amongst their own civilians, actively targeting Israeli civilians, is not exactly a good source and history has shown that they have repeatedly lied, since they do not abide by any international standards or rules of behavior when it comes to presenting the truth. This is yet another propaganda instrument. It is completely unjustified to, for example, on the one hand add notes for casualty numbers given by the Russian governemnt in the Russian war against Ukraine, as well as to those given by the Ukrainian side, yet leave out such information in this conflict, where the Hamas-controlled side can only be doubted. Their press agent even claimed they did not kill a single civilian and did not take hostages. Not questioning doubtful sources damages the reputation of this site. Kulmanseidl (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is already a note that mention the casualty numbers are per hamas same with the west bank that say it's per fatah.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do something to prevent the constant creation of new articles about every detail?

This is something that quite frequently happens during major events. Every time a new development emerges, someone creates an article about it. What ends up happening is that there are hundreds of articles (if not more) about details given undue prominence, and someone else has to clean them up. Just look at the thousands of COVID-19 articles that have basically been forgotten. What can we do to prevent this from becoming another years-long cleanup project? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, there is supposed to be a wait before creating articles, doesn't happen anymore, it is more like a news ticker and a race to get the article up asap. Hard to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This tendency leads to duplicated and wasted effort down the line (as you say, years-long cleanup project). When a topic is clearly part of another topic, there shouldn't be a split until size issues require it. I boldly merged one stub to a parent article but the redirect got reverted (the merge didn't); it's not ideal. DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(By "parent article" I'm referring to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which has no size concerns, not this article.) DFlhb (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already over twice the normal recommended article length, and we're only just over a week in. I don't think forks are necessarily bad thing in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that forks are helpful, and I would support some of them, but it needs to be in an organized fashion. Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war already has about 50 pages, not counting the ones that already existed prior to the war's beginning. Obviously the rate will slow down as time goes on, but we're likely looking at hundreds if not thousands of disparate articles. For example, we don't need individual articles a few paragraphs long for each massacre, especially since we also have a list of massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. A few of these articles could just be a bullet point at Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. There are also ways to make the article shorter, mainly ensuring that WP:SUMMARY is followed (where size splits come into play) and replacing the timeline section with a summary of each phase of the war (which should probably be two subsections currently: the initial attack and then the subsequent conflicts). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the creation of other articles that start relatively small isn't a bad thing. Many of these will grow as RS continue to report on or study them. Some may end up merged back into this article later if they don't grow. entropyandvodka | talk 01:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map image caption

For the of the image of the fires around Gaza, can you change the caption? "Satellite view of widespread fires in Israel on 7 October 2023 when militants set fires, massacred civilians and took hostages at areas neighboring the Gaza Strip" Is that last part necessary? Its already in the article that those things happened, it has nothing to do with the image, and it feels like its forcing that point Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

terrorism

The definition of terrorism is:

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Most sources also emphasize terrorism in the context of warfare or violence against non-combatants, a textbook description of exactly what Hamas did.

If "militants" is the preferred term used by mealy-mouthed journalists, then perhaps some mention of this controversy may be in order (in the "reaction" section?), along with some of the weak excuses major news outlets have offered as to why they're avoiding the t-word[45]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"disinformation"

The story about beheaded babies was not "disinformation" -it was a journalist reporting what IDF officials had told her, which is standard warzone journalism. No news outlet claimed to have seen any videos, photos or any evidence confirming this report, although more than one journalist has[46].

In an age when "fake news" accusations are thrown around all too casually, this is not a small distinction to make. There is a vast difference between a journalist reporting what soldiers on a battlefield or government officials have told her vs people deliberately fabricating information and sources with the purpose of manipulating people. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. The information about decapitated babies has been reported by reliable sources and meets the standard for inclusion in an article as it is notable and properly sourced. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can’t definitely say it was from beheadings. Heads can also be blown off due to explosive devices, missiles, and the like,” Kugel said. Renee Ghert-Zand, Foreign media given unprecedented access to forensic institute to witness atrocities Times of Israel 17 October 2023. All multiple media reports go back to one comment made by a West Bank settler noted for his hatred of Palestinians, as reported by one journalist, who works for a pro-Netanyahu TV. It may be true. But so far we have nothing but hearsay.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the settler as a source, I believe you're paraphrasing an article in the The Grayzone which was reviewing the i24 report. The person in question is not the only source for beheading claims, neither the only source for beheadings of infants or children. A separate individual was interviewed by CBS for instance and the military forensic report made similar claims. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, okay. And even if that's true, a journalist reporting what she's heard from a soldier or military official is not "disinformation" -it's how most information is obtained in a warzone.
And more than one reporter claims to have seen evidence of this, networks based in multiple countries (see Snopes article linked above). Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to people above, as discussed already e.g. [47], we have to establish a uniform way of getting facts from references. At the moment, we have an increasingly widespread double standard where reports made by Israeli sources are placed under headings like "disinformation" and "unconfirmed claims", while reports made by the Palestinian Health Ministry or Palestinian individuals are placed directly under the war crimes heading.
To be clear, the article rightly attributes those accusations to the sources within the "war crimes" section, the issue is the placement: Equivalent claims by the Israeli side are placed under the "unconfirmed reports" section. This current arrangement violates WP:STRUCTURE. eyal (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and that's why I raised this issue. This article is clearly taking a side. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18

Please add Fatah and its military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades to the "belligerents" and "units involved" sections of the infobox. The Martyrs' Brigades have taken responsibility for artillery attacks on Ein HaShlosha and Sderot, per the Institute for the Study of War.[1] SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parham i actually think you should have a serpate column for miltary groups who have bombed israel, but not being involved in fighting so you could look at something like this
Belligents
Islamic Jihad
Hamas
Involved.
Hizbolah
Fatah.
i'd do it but i'm wait for a user-extended confirmation which i hope to get. Infomanfromearth (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Infomanfromearth: You can do this. Parham wiki (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Infomanfromearth (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Parham wiki. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New request: Please move al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades from the units involved to the belligerents section of the infobox.
I have recently learned that Fatah is not warranted to be included as a belligerent because the brigades operate independently of the political party.[2]
Even though the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades appear to be operating as an independent entity without a parent organization, this still warrants their inclusion in the belligerents section rather than the units involved section, as they cannot reasonably be considered a "unit" of Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, or DFLP.
Pinging @Parham wiki and @Whatever748 for discussion - thank you both for your previous edits involving the groups
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parham wiki (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Iran Update, October 17, 2023". Institute for the Study of War. October 17, 2023.
  2. ^ ""Palestinian Authority cracks down on protests over Israel Gaza attacks"". Al-Jazeera. October 18, 2023.

Number of killed Palestinian children and women in infobox

In the infobox under "Casualties and Losses" there is a note (d) that mentions the number of women (936) and children (853) killed; This is a vague unclear notion (WP:VAGUE) and should be highlighted as such. What is "children"? Are young males aged 17-18 or 19-21 also deemed children?

Also, under Islamic law, a married 14-year-old girl can already be called a woman. Therefore the same vagueness can be also argued for the number of women killed. Deerove (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source which it comes from states that the women and children were civilians. The numbers could be added up and placed as civilians instead. However that would make it synth as there is likely to be additional civilians who were adult males. Ecrusized (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a clear definition in the source provided by Hamas of what constitute women, children, adults and men either. Therefore I assert that the notion of "women" and "children" should be highlighted as vague (WP:VAGUE) by Wikipedia's standards. Deerove (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any secondry/tertiary source confirming that(not directly the religious book as primary source cannot be taken) or is it your personal opinion that married 14 year olds are called women in islam? if you have nothing to back it up then its clear case of islamophobia(not racism as islam is not a race like some jew factions(eg:ashkanazi and sephardic jews have their own genetic markers and judaism is the only major religion which is also sometimes considered as a race)).but in any case, these statements are inflammatory and of no relevance in deciding what modern world considers women or children. Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bullshit about under Islamic law? Is nobody else going to call that out? Whatever you assert do it on a blog, we follow the sources not some Orientalist propaganda. nableezy - 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user above attempted to walk back that racist bit of propaganda while also modifying my comment. Needless to say I dont take that vandalism as a serious constructive attempt at discussion. nableezy - 12:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli official confirms rape of Israeli women during Hamas attack

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDXxL-PdF4 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish diaspora

I think it's wise if this section is split up into two subsections — with one subsection on Jewish support for Israel and one on support for Palestine. The current section starts out with the pro Israel events and then goes to just some celebrities bernie sanders, so that I think creates a bias that the Jewish diaspora is by and large for Israel. I likewise didn't see any explicit discussion here on the role of the Jewish diaspora as *groups* who support Palestine AND attended the protests AND locked the White House and surrounded various US congress/senator offices (like Pelosi's). Hovsepig (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war also likely needs sub-dividing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this. I think a summary of pro-Palestine responses from the Jewish diaspora is a good idea. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? (Tbh I'm just commenting here because I fear the archiving bot) Hovsepig (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gutierres

@Borgenland: I don't get why this was removed or the edit summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was placed under the subsection events outside the Gaza Strip, Still figuring where to place it in the article. Borgenland (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just tweaked and moved to Humanitarian situation, subsection healthcare Borgenland (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it might be worth holding off on reactions until the dust settles on the Al-Ahli "strike"—especially if they're based solely on journalism that simply parroted Hamas misinformation. It seems increasingly certain that a Palestinian rocket—not an Israeli "missile" or "strike"—was responsible for "the largest loss of life in a single event in Gaza since 2008." ElleTheBelle 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not increasingly certain. NYT full article
"Many questions about the blast remained on Wednesday. Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified." Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this information under reactions>international>selected timeline

CAN someone summarise and add this to the section where different countries "airlifting" their citizens is reported: On October 12, Indian students in Israel received a mail, informing them that the Ministry of External Affairs would run a chartered flight from Tel Aviv to Delhi.As fighting in the Gaza region intensifies and death count nears 4,000, New Delhi launched Operation Ajay to airlift Indian citizens. On October 14,The second flight carrying Indians stranded in war-torn Israel arrived in New Delhi. About 235 Indian nationals, including two infants, arrived safely via the special flight organised as part of ‘Operation Ajay’. On October 18,the fifth flight under Operation Ajay landed in Delhi carrying 286 Indian including and 18 Nepal citizens.Upon their arrival, the citizens were received by the Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting and Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, L Murugan.Speaking to ANI, the Minister said, “Wherever Indians are stranded, our priority is to bring them back. We have successfully conducted Operation Ganga and Operation Kaveri now under Operation Ajay we are bringing people back from Israel. This is the fifth flight, and we have already brought 1180 people back home. We are the first country to start the evacuation, and we are also bringing people belonging to our neighbour (Nepal) countries.…"

sources:https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/israel-gaza-war-israel-hamas-war-indians-in-israel-operation-ajay-operation-ajay-first-flight-to-evacuate-indians-from-israel-tonight-4473665

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/in-focus/story/operation-ajay-second-flight-carrying-235-indian-nationals-arrives-in-new-delhi-from-war-torn-israel-401976-2023-10-14

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/israelhamas-war-5th-flight-under-operation-ajay-carrying-286-passengers-including-18-nepal-citizens-arrives-in-delhi-11697589210674.html Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done partially. It might be a good idea to include the past Indian operations, Ganga and Kaveri, and emphasize that India has been at the forefront of evacuations, helping people from neighboring countries, per "Back Back Israel-Hamas war: 5th flight under Operation Ajay carrying 286 passengers, including 18 Nepal citizens arrives in Delhi". mint. 18 October 2023. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to trim it here because it was relatively too heavy when you pair it with other countries evacuations. You can expand it in the International reactions article there is a section on evacuations there. Borgenland (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well its not india's fault other countries are not going "too heavy" for their citizens and i agree with @Infinity Knight that it should be mentioned that india is also doing evacuations for neighbouring countries(nepal). Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Chicago Stabbing Incident in "Outside the conflict zone"

The unfortunate incident of Stabbing of an Palestinaian-American boy which has ikipedia Article as Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume should be included in 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Outside_the_conflict_zone section as there are mentions of 2023 Alexandria shooting and Arras school stabbing already. Thanks. SwapanZameen (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s already there. Borgenland (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebdoy also add the shooting that killed 2 people in brussels? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source that links the 2023 Brussels shooting to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Pmokeefe (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Syria in "10 October outside the conflict zone"?

In "10 October outside the conflict zone" it says "Shells from Syria struck Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. Israeli forces returned fire, targeting the launch sites."

I think there should be a source for this sentence. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions: Arab world

The source for this section is an article by the economist. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/10/18/the-arab-world-thinks-differently-about-this-war

Why not mention the protests in Cairo, Morocco and Jordan? This section seems to imply that the Arab world isn't on the ground protesting for Gaza

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeast/gaza-hospital-blast-middle-east-protests-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/gaza-hospital-al-ahli-al-arabi-blast-explosion-protests-demonstrations-middle-east

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-biden/card/watch-protests-spread-across-middle-east-after-gaza-hospital-blast-dvOOAmOKxJhh50zRy4dI Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually a several sources for the section, majority yes are from the Economist. It does currently state that there are protests for the Palestinians: "There have been numerous rallies in support of the Palestinians...", but it also says that feelings are complicated in places like Egypt and Lebanon where they don't want a spill over from the war, they don't want more refugees and they don't want more instability particularly after the Arab spring. What I'd like to avoid is how the section was written before where it was simply a list of: country x said y, and country p said q but country u said q as well and there were protests in countries j, h and k. Because prose like that add little of real substance. We should be writing this article for how these events will be viewed as relevant in 10 years time. I'm not sure if in 10 years anyone will care about whether or not there was a protest in Tunis or Dhaka. Rather, what truly is significant about the current events? Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question, well certainly the remark by Knesset member Meirav Ben-Ari on Monday in Parliament that “the children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves.” Jonathan Ofir, Israeli politician: “The children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves” Mondoweiss 18 October 2023Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to the significance through the lens of the Arab World reaction. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Arab world" meaning governments and talk show hosts or the Arab people who constantly stand with the Palestinians? Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These protests are important to document from a historical point of view. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Aid from U.S.

The U.S. and President Biden has announced $100 million in U.S. aid to Gaza and the West Bank for humanitarian relief. Should be added to the humanitarian section.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/18/biden-humanitarian-aid-gaza-west-bank-00122212 AstralNomad (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah involved?

I saw Fatah appeared in the infobox. Wasn't president Abbas that said a few days ago that Hamas' war doesn't represent the wish of the Palestinian people? Weren't pro-Hamas Palestinians in West Bank revolting against him? RAMSES$44932 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RAMSES$44932 I was the person who pushed for Fatah to be included.
To answer your question, elements of the military wing of Fatah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, have been actively involved in this conflict since it began, both in Gaza and all across the West Bank. It is unclear to me whether or not they are acting independently of Abbas or Fatah. Until references emerge that make this more clear, the best solution may be to list the military wing under the belligerents section instead of the political wing.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RAMSES$44932:
I have located a reliable source cited in our article that confirms the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades operate independently of Fatah and Abbas, going so far as to call him a "legitimate target" for military action if he fails to relinquish the nominal control he apparently has over one of their departments.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

I think it would be easier if we put the timeline of events, for example [48] and move it to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, since this would make the article easier to read and other similar wars like Russian invasion of Ukraine and World War II did something similar like what I am requesting.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entire Timeline section can be just removed and moved to that page. It doesn't seem like this page's timeline section isn't even updated anymore from the last two days of events (October 18 19) Hovsepig (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the article's excesses

As noted above, the article could use some shortening if possible, most especially if there's anything extraneous. A good place to start would be the "Reactions" section. I've added a banner at the top of this talk page (under the "Other talk page banners" shell) which measures the length of each section in the article, and currently it shows that the "Reactions" section is quite long. At a glance, the details in the "Jewish diaspora" and "Palestinian diaspora" sub-sections are two of perhaps lesser importance. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I went ahead and trimmed the Economic Impact section that added essentially nothing. Seems reasonable to axe the Diaspora reactions. I'd also add another thing to do is that in these current events articles there's a tendency to add article after article and summarize the article so it starts to read like a series of headlines. It's a pain to do but going through and trying to reduce quotes and summarize can also trim a lot of unwanted fat. Look at the Historical Context section, this should be straight forward because it can use real secondary sources instead of newspapers, but it's just a long list of quotes from random people for FIVE paragraphs. What's particularly baffling is that it's followed by a "Background" section. We could probably just delete the entire Historical Context section and anything it has worth keeping can be added to Background. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the war is going to be a long one, the Russian invasion of Ukraine series of articles could serve as some inspiration for restructuring. They break the timeline up into multiple articles of their own. I'm not saying this should be done yet, but thinking ahead this may be necessary. VintageVernacular (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza death toll

The reference for the death toll is a publication widely regarded as a propaganda arm of Hamas, using numbers directly supplied by Hamas, and especially in light of the controversy around the al-Ahli hospital explosion's death toll, the fact that the claimed numbers are from a Hamas-controlled source should not be relegated to the notes. I suggest it say "Gaza Strip (Hamas claim)" or "(Gazan claim)" just as it currently says "(Israeli claim)" at the Palestinian deaths within Israel. THMWikiAcc (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each side provides its own casualty numbers. For Gazan casualties there's a footnote saying they're sourced to the Gaza Ministry of Health, there's no need to repeat that on each line - DFlhb (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll by Hamas is seriously questionable. War casualties are notoriously unreliable, even if they're not released by Hamas. They're extremely difficult to count or estimate and belligerents on all sides have an incentive to nudge the numbers every which way, even now there are fierce debates on the casualties of decades old battles.
Why can't we redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article, similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox? Instead of just stating the number as fact. I guarantee the vast majority of readers who got here from Google just looked at the number and not the footnote. Meeepmep (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I most definitely support this. THMWikiAcc (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background vs. Historical Context (and deleting Historical Context)

All the pertinent information in Historical Context is covered in Background, only better and more concisely. Historical Context is five enormous paragraphs and they're not well written: For History we should have published and peer reviewed sources so that we can write clear and concise information in wiki voice. Historical Context is five huge paragraphs of quotes and according tos. If there's anything worth salvaging from it, let's add it to Background then delete the Historical Context section. As is the article is way too long, it seems like this is a low hanging fruit for clearing it up. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is gigantic and this is a plan to start reducing the size. KD0710 (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It was initially inserted incongruously in the Analysis section so I moved it nearer to the Background so that others could see what could be salvaged if it came to this. Borgenland (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland was there a talk page discussion about recreating it and inserting it in the humanitarian situation section? I couldn't find anything but noticed someone did this. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misleading title though. As User:Alcibiades979 mentioned it sounds like a more concise version of the background and an unnecessary duplication. The last thing we need is someone to make a historical context of every section in this article from casualties to war crimes citing its insertion into the humanitarian context. Borgenland (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right? Like what does a section talking about "a 2020 U.S. State Department report said Iran funnels roughly $100 million a year to Hamas" have to do with the humanitarian situation in Gaza during this war? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was done here [49] by Timeshifter with the edit summary of "per talk." Where was the talk discussion to move it into the humanitarian section? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is truly ridiculous that the inline comment mentioned by the restorer is defeated by the content inserted in this "humanitarian"-only section. I'd have more respect for this edit if it were moved into the casualties or the war crimes section. Borgenland (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ring them in here? Borgenland (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think so. I don't agree with this edit. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter please address these concerns stated above. Borgenland (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

war plan

Outline of the war plan to change the situation in Gaza. Commentary by Ron Ben Yishai.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skvr6rcbt שמי (2023) (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli officials just clarified their plans: [50],[51]. However vague, there are certain key points. For example,
  1. We are in the first phase, in which a military campaign is taking place with [airstrikes] and later with a [ground] maneuver with the purpose of destroying operatives and damaging infrastructure in order to defeat and destroy Hamas,” A ground maneuver [in Gaza]. Meaning the ground operation.
  2. He says the objectives include eliminating the Hamas terror group by destroying its military and governmental capabilities, and completely removing any responsibility Israel has over Gaza by creating a new “security regime” in the Strip. "completely removing any responsibility Israel has over Gaza", that's the key. here is my understanding: perhaps this will be a no man's land after the operation, but this will not be a responsibility of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather vague. It looks like Israel plans to create a no man's land 1-3 kilometers wide along the Israeli-Gaza border, within Gaza, where the IDF can enter but not Palestinians. Presumably whatever is there will be leveled. Which is to say effectively annexing more land. It also appears that Israel will install a new government to rule Gaza. But, that's my reading and could very well be incorrect. Anyhow, I don't see adding this until it is better understood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already made a section, Israeli war aims. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"forensic reports"

Why is a former chief rabbi being quoted in the forensic reports section? nableezy - 12:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because he saw the bodies of some of the victims, for the purpose of helping identify them. He is quoted about what he saw. Animal lover |666| 12:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But he has no expertise in forensics? That isnt a forensic report. nableezy - 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF rabbinate is responsible for identification of bodies, it is one of its main functions, and a rabbinate officer has extensive knowledge of this. [52] Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not questioning the identification of bodies, Im questioning his usage for things outside of that area. nableezy - 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So not a forensic expert. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a report from a source within or directly supporting a forensic team, the forensic team can make various forensic and non-forensic reports. I see no issue. Aeonx (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not a forensic report, he is saying things that a coroner or a medical doctor would be an expert on, not a rabbi. nableezy - 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. also "white phosphorus " section should be moved to "unconfirmed reports" as idf denied the claims and no forensic, chemical expert or medical expert team was utilised to investigate and publish the premature report. Codenamephoenix (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious expert in forensics and corpse ID. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? He is quoted a former chief Rabbi, thats it. nableezy - 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chief army rabbis are in charge of forensics, it was his job. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Id imagine the person quoted as head of the forensics lab is in charge of forensics. But Id be happy to see some source outlining the chief Rabbi of the armed forces forensics responsibilities. nableezy - 19:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi Weiss is identified in the press (the link above, the cite in the article) as a leader of a team identifying bodies. He is quoted in his capacity as the leader of the team. Maybe the heading shouldn't be called "forensic reports" or maybe this content should be moved to a different section, and WP:DUE is another question, but if we're attributing statements made from that team, it doesn't matter if their spokesperson/leader is a Rabbi or the Pope or a professor or what. It doesn't matter if it's "forensics" or if he's an "expert" (under any definition of those words)... this is basically an attribution to the Israeli government, as I see it. "According to Israeli government agents identifying bodies, the bodies had these kinds of injuries..." is the gist, as I take it. And if it's widely enough reported (I'm not sure, haven't checked), then the attributed statement is probably WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I haven’t removed it from the article, I’m not questioning if it can be used. But in a forensics report section there should forensics reports not non expert non medical reporting. nableezy - 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Lions' Den from belligerents

Remove the Lions' Den from the belligerents section in the infobox.

References fail verification that this organization is a belligerent in this war. References only claim that the group announced a mobilization and publicly called for its supporters to attack, particularly "lone wolves."

If attacks in the West Bank have been attributed by reliable sources to the group, or if reliable sources report the group has claimed responsibility for attacks, please add these references to the article or make an extended-confirmed-edit request to do so. Assuming that the group is responsible for unclaimed attacks in the West Bank simply by virtue of its call for attacks is WP:SYNTH

Also, remove the group from the note that is currently labeled [l], which begins "The list of groups included..."

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, Lions' Den is a WB grouping and not involved, at least not directly. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Lion's Den openly and officially declare war on Israel -- that is, according to Lion's Den, Lion's Den is a belligerent in this war. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they are WP:DUE for inclusion; I'm finding very little RS about Lion's Den's declaration/statement/whatever, but there's MEMO, ISW, and Roya News (don't know much about their reliability). IMO, issuing a formal call to arms makes you a belligerent, doesn't it? Levivich (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But is it this war? It's not Gaza and not Hamas although the group may contain some Hamas supporters/members. The call to arms is a likely response to all the recent arrests, raids and settler violence. There are other similar groups in the WB, Jenin Brigade springs to mind. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barring any source saying that Lions' Den partisans have actually fought Israel in this conflict, I agree with others here that they should not be included as cobelligerent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

The article says: "[Netanyahu] lost in 1999 but twenty years later in 2009 ...". This should be corrected to "ten years", obviously. I can't edit myself because the article is protected. ראובן מ. Reuven M. (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All info on living conditions in Gaza before the war has been removed

See diff. The removal of the "Historical context" section was based on a very short discussion between 3 editors. Removing the work of many editors. The overall premise of shortening the article was, and is, a good idea. Return the Context section. At least the parts having to do with Gaza itself and the people who live there.

I suggest moving the huge section called "Regional and global effects" elsewhere. The idiocy of world politics (in my opinion) is much less important than the facts on the ground before, during, and after this war.

Here is the Historical context section (collapsed) just before it was removed:

Extended content
Main article: Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli-occupied territories, and Blockade of the Gaza Strip
Israeli and Palestinian deaths preceding the war. Most were civilians.[1][2]
Rocket attacks fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, 2001-2021[3]

In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops and citizens from the Gaza Strip, aiming to lessen its direct control over the area. However, in 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza by force, escalating tensions. Israel imposed a blockade, while Hamas tunneled under the border wall to launch cross-border attacks and fired rockets into Israeli territory. This led to multiple conflicts, escalating into multiple outright wars, wreaking havoc on civilians from both sides, and a preponderance of Palestinian deaths. Despite the violence, Israeli leadership found this arrangement manageable, relying on the Iron Dome rocket defense system for defense and utilizing targeted strikes, euphemistically dubbed "mowing the grass," to keep Hamas in check, aiming to minimize the militant threat to a tolerable extent.[4] American political scientist Stephen M. Walt said Palestinians feel they have no choice but to resist in response to Israel's decades long oppressive treatment of Palestinians, even though they acknowledge attacking civilians is wrong and the methods Hamas has chosen are illegitimate.[5] The Hindu wrote that the Israeli occupation was "the longest in modern history" and created a "fuming volcano".[6] The Associated Press wrote that Palestinians are "in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza".[7] ABC News reported the August 2023 UNRWA figures for Gaza of 81% of people living below the poverty level, and 63% being food insecure and dependent on international assistance. ABC News also reported the UN OCHAoPt numbers of roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis killed in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 2008 through September 2023, before this war.[2][8][1]

Roger Cohen wrote that the increasing Israeli control over millions of Palestinians "incubated bloodshed".[9] Prior to the attack, Saudi Arabia had warned Israel of an "explosion" as a result of the continued occupation,[10] Egypt had warned of a catastrophe unless there was political progress,[11] and similar warnings were given by Palestinian Authority officials.[11] Less than two months before the attacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan lamented that Palestinians have "no civil rights; no freedom of mobility".[11] Cohen wrote that many Israelis assumed the Palestinian question had become a nonissue, and it had disappeared from the global agenda.[9]

Simon Tisdall pointed to the uptick in Israeli–Palestinian violence in 2023 as portending war,[12] and claimed that Benjamin Netanyahu refused to negotiate the peace process, adding fuel to the fire,[12] and that the rights of Palestinians were ignored.[12] Yousef Munayyer wrote that the Biden administration had ignored the Palestinian issue.[13] As late as 29 September, Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor, proclaimed that "the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades."[13] Iranian officials publicly boasted for years about their role in arming militants in Gaza, and a 2020 U.S. State Department report said Iran funnels roughly $100 million a year to Hamas.[14] At a White House news conference on 12 October, Sullivan said Iran was "complicit" in the attacks, but the U.S. could not confirm whether Iran knew about the attack in advance or helped coordinate it.

According to an analysis in The Independent, the blockade on Gaza created hopelessness among Palestinians, which was exploited by Hamas, convincing young Palestinian men that violence was the only solution.[15] Daoud Kuttab writes that Palestinian attempts to solve the conflict via negotiations or non-violent boycotts have been fruitless.[11] For The Times of Israel, Tal Schneider wrote: "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. The idea was to prevent Abbas—or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority's West Bank government—from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state."[16]

Hamas said its attack was in response to the blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza.[17] Following the attack, American counterterrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman pointed to the 1988 Hamas Charter, alleging that Hamas had always had "genocidal" intentions and that it had no intentions for "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace".[18] Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, argued that the attacks were "part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel" and that "Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad".[19]

Many of the Israeli kibbutz residents among the dead or missing were peace activists.[20]

References

  1. ^ a b "Data on casualties". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHAoPt). United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  2. ^ a b Alfonseca, Kiara (11 October 2023). "Palestinian civilians suffer in Israel-Gaza crossfire as death toll rises". ABC News. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  3. ^ Pinfold, Rob Geist (2023). "Security, Terrorism, and Territorial Withdrawal: Critically Reassessing the Lessons of Israel's "Unilateral Disengagement" from the Gaza Strip". International Studies Perspectives. 24 (1). King’s College London, UK and Charles University, Czech Republic: 67–87. doi:10.1093/isp/ekac013.
  4. ^ Beauchamp, Zack. "Why did Hamas invade Israel?". Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  5. ^ Walt, Stephen M. "Israel Could Win This Gaza Battle and Lose the War". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  6. ^ "Original sin: on the attack on Israel and the occupation of Palestine". The Hindu. But at the same time, Palestinian territories, under the yoke of the longest occupation in modern history, have been a fuming volcano. There is no peace process. Israel has continued to build settlements in the West Bank, raising security barriers and checkpoints, limiting Palestinian movements, and never hesitating to use force or collective punishment to keep organised Palestinians under check. This status quo has only turned Palestinians more radical and Hamas even stronger.
  7. ^ Adwan, Issam; Federman, Josef (8 October 2023). "Hamas surprise attack out of Gaza stuns Israel and leaves hundreds dead in fighting, retaliation". AP News. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  8. ^ "Where We Work. Gaza Strip". United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  9. ^ a b Cohen, Roger (8 October 2023). "A Shaken Israel Is Forced Back to Its Eternal Dilemma". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
  10. ^ Wong, Edward; Nereim, Vivian (7 October 2023). "The war could upend Biden's diplomacy on Saudi-Israel normalization". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 8 October 2023. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  11. ^ a b c d "The lesson from the Hamas attack: The U.S. should recognize a Palestinian state". Opinion. Washington Post. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  12. ^ a b c Tisdall, Simon (9 October 2023). "In the midst of war, Benjamin Netanyahu is a liability who can only make things worse. He must go". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  13. ^ a b Hussain, Murtaza. "Biden Doubled Down on the Abraham Accords — to "Devastating Consequences"". The Intercept. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  14. ^ Kube, Courtney; Lee, Carol E.; De Luce, Dan (10 October 2023). "U.S. investigating whether Iran gave advanced training to Hamas militants". NBC News. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  15. ^ Hall, Richard. "The US has ignored the hopelessness of the Israel-Palestine conflict for too long". Voices. The Independent. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
  16. ^ Schneider, Tal (8 October 2023). "For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  17. ^ "Fears of a ground invasion of Gaza grow as Israel vows 'mighty vengeance'". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 8 October 2023. Retrieved 8 October 2023. Hamas said its unprecedented offensive by land, air and sea was in response to the desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque as well as Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades. These include the 16-year blockade of Gaza, Israeli raids inside West Bank cities over the past year, increasing attacks by settlers on Palestinians as well as the growth of illegal settlements.
  18. ^ Hoffman, Bruce (10 October 2023). "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  19. ^ Hart, Benjamin (13 October 2023). "What Israel Didn't Understand About Hamas". Intelligencer. Retrieved 13 October 2023.
  20. ^ Rabin, Roni Caryn (10 October 2023). "Peace Activists Are Among the Israelis Missing and Killed". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 October 2023.

There are many more authoritative articles on the terrible living conditions in Gaza before the war. Many from the UN. For example:

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoration, essential background info. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe focus it more clearly to a section titled: "Prewar conditions in Gaza". The huge section called "Regional and global effects" can be moved (most of it) to make room. Move it, and add link here:
Template: 2023 Israel–Hamas war
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, should be restored. Andreas JN466 21:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be made more concise then added to the Background Section? Because background is essentially what we're talking about here. Also what would be great would be getting rid of all the quotes and putting a trimmed down version in to Wiki voice. If you look at the Background Section of a comparable article such as 2006 Lebanon War it gives a good example of what I think we should be aiming for. I mean Hamas took over in 2007 which should be when the blockade began, so there's no need to use newspapers. And what's to say? "The Palestine Israel issues dates back to the end of British occupation, but the particular difficulties in Gaza date to the election of Hamas, a group whose founding charter declared the need for a global jihad to destroy Israel. Since then Israel and Egypt have imposed a partial blockade on the Gaza strip which has created wide spread poverty, destitution and salaries that are a quarter of what they are in the west bank." It would also be worth going through the Background Section as it currently stands and identifying what you feel is present in Historical Context that is missing because when I read the current Background Section, I feel it does a pretty good job covering the bases. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly naughty to make such changes after such a brief exchange. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See: 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Humanitarian situation and its first subsection for Gaza. One would think its many subsections would be covering the terrible living conditions in Gaza before the war. But it barely mentions it. If the terrible living conditions after the war merits this large of a section, then "Prewar conditions in Gaza" merits the measly 5 paragraphs allotted to it. As I said, other sections in the article are far less important, and need to be shortened and spun off into more articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical context" section returned, but as the first section of 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Humanitarian situation.
See diff of my 2 edits.
--Timeshifter (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter There's a lot of stuff that should be branched or deleted. But beyond that I would make one point about the presentation of the antebellum living situation. Obviously Gaza would be a pretty miserable place to live in. But Hamas predates the blockade by two decades. Ie Hamas was not created by the blockade. But it goes beyond that, Hamas was and is categorically against a two state solution, when Fatah and the PLO were doing the Oslo accords Hamas did a series of bombings in Israel to sap the Israeli pro-peace movement. So it wasn't the blockade or any of the living situation in the run up that created Hamas. I'm also not saying that Israel is blameless, but what I am saying is that Hamas has its own agency, which it has routinely used against peace, against Israel and against the Palestinians and has been a major driving force in the creation of the antebellum Gaza strip and the current situation and that agency has created been one of the driving forces in forging the current situation, it is not a product of it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Popular Resistance Committees, apparently the third-strongest faction in Gaza behind Hamas and PIJ[1][2], to the belligerents section of the infobox.

Correspondingly, add their military wing, the Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades to the units involved section of the infobox.

The brigades are attested by the ISW to have used drones to attack targets in Israel.[3]

The head of their military wing was killed by a targeted airstrike in Gaza City last night, which was considered notable enough to warrant an announcement by the Israeli Defence Forces.[1][4] Therefore, I also suggest including Rafat Abu Hilal in the commanders section of the infobox, including the killed in action symbol.

If further evidence is need, what appear to be transcriptions of the group's statements claiming involvement in the war between 7 and 10 October have also been published by Al-Manar[5], Al-Mayadeen[6], and Hezbollah-owned Al-Ahed News.[7]

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b "IDF says it killed head of military wing of Gaza's Popular Resistance Committees". The Times of Israel. 19 October 2023.
  2. ^ "Popular Resistance Committees". ynet. 27 January 2012.
  3. ^ "Iran Update, October 8, 2023". Institute for the Study of War. October 8, 2023.
  4. ^ "IDF Eliminates Head of Popular Resistance Committees in Rafah". The Jewish Press. 19 October 2023.
  5. ^ "Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades declare launching a number of explosive-laden drones towards the occupied territories". Al-Manar. 8 October 2023.
  6. ^ "Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades: We bombed the settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip with dozens of missiles in response to the massacres against civilians". Al-Mayadeen. 10 October 2023.
  7. ^ "'Al-Nasser Salah al-Din' Brigades: Our mujahideen are engaged in violent clashes with enemy soldiers inside the occupied territories". Al-Ahed News. 7 October 2023.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page

According to reports, the United States Navy shot down some missiles allegedly fired by Houthis in Yemen. Apparently, it is believed that Israel was the primary target. Should this incident be mentioned in this page?

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/gma/us-navy-destroyer-red-sea-185700181.html Randomuser335S (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the USS Carney incident, but did not add the US or Houthis to the belligerents list. What is the threshold for inclusion? Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a number of reports of Iraqi PMU units deploying themselves to Lebanon and sable rattling about intervening in Gaza. However, any attempts at including them in the infoboxes get removed, as the accounts don't seem to have been fully authenticated yet.
I can't fully answer your question about inclusions about belligerents, but I'm guessing that they will be added if American troops or Houthis militiamen are directly engaged in combat. With that out of the way, it seems like this page should be renamed "Axis of Resistance-Israel War" soon. Every couple of days or so now, there appears to be a new report of an Iranian aligned militia like the Lebanese Hezbollah, several PMUs in Iraq, and now the Houthis of Yemen, interfering or threatening to intervene in this current war. Randomuser335S (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. To the best of my knowledge neither Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, Syria, or Iran have even used the term Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah and Israel are just trading shots, and Iran is just mouthing off, not having not (to date!) gotten directly involved. There shall be new nomenclature if and when. kencf0618 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked documents

There's a leaked document reported by Iran Inrernational that Hamas militants knew before their October 7 attack that nearly all residents in kibbutzim are civilians (20 military personnel for every 1000 civilians). Aminabzz (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold for Infobox Inclusion

I’m not strong on including the USA in the infobox, but an argument can be made that since the U.S. has taken military action by shooting down missiles headed for Israel. Can we establish a consensus on what inclusion is appropriate for the infobox? KD0710 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the threshold would be direct and successful strikes - for example, if the US bombed Hezbollah militants we would add the US, and if the Houthi missiles had hit Israel we would add the Houthi's. BilledMammal (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Israel was reportedly beyond the range of these missiles, we do not even know if it was the target. As about US engagement in this area, and especially in Syria, they have been involved all the time, but this is not a part of the war Israel-Hamas war. Yet. Some experts think that any mobilization of forces (such as bringing the aircraft carriers) is already a part of a war, but this is hardly a direct engagement at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drug

Israeli Channel 12 reported that Hamas militants were on the effect of Kaptagon drug in the October 7 attacks. Aminabzz (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to include this unless it was a pattern. A similar report appears in Jerusalem Post, but cites that this was simply found in the pockets of some dead Hamas members. Meaning it could have simply been a personal choice to carry or use it. Completely trivial. VintageVernacular (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question and edit regarding the lead

Am i allowed to edit this “block” in the first few lines lead ? I don’t know what that is or if am i allowed to edit it or not, this is the first time i see it on wikipedia.


i want to replace the part that says “some 2,500 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier and massacred civilians in neighboring Israeli communities..” With “some 2,500 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier and attacked several IDF military bases and neighboring civilian areas”.


as the current lead doesn’t mention anything about that, while in fact, palestinian militants even captured entire IDF military bases like reim military base. Stephan rostie (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're extended confirmed, so you can boldly edit - just be warned someone may revert you! Riposte97 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Frey

The "reactions in Israel" section should include a section on violence against anti-war Israelis like Israel Frey

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/far-right-israelis-threaten-attack-journalist-who-dedicated-a-prayer-to-gaza-victims/0000018b-3434-d450-a3af-7d3ccb9d0000 Hovsepig (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it has a place here, since the story has evolved, he was assaulted, and is now in hiding. However, this is most pertinent at Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties infobox

@Meeepmep: Why did you remove all casualties from the infobox? There hasn't been a dispute regarding them. The argument regarding Russia-Ukraine war is WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is actually a dispute regarding the casualties in that conflict, unlike here. Ecrusized (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was, Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Gaza_death_toll. Either way, I don't think it's helpful state dodgy casualty figures by Hamas and Israel as fact like that, especially when it's been so heavily weaponized. It's all in the lead anyways. Meeepmep (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a discussion between an user with 15 edits and yourself. One user already appears to have voiced his opposition. Hamas figures were used in the past conflicts. They are also cited by reliable sources such as Reuters. Ecrusized (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not their fault that no one else bothered to participate in that discussion apart from a new account. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In certain ECP articles in the past, non-ECP accounts were prevented from participating in RfC's and move discussions. I don't know if that's the case here but given the controversial nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be. Ecrusized (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK that is still true, but this wasnt an RFC nor a move discussion. This is a very trivial process compared to those, so just have a discussion about why it should be included. The onus lies on those asking for inclusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters article you linked is a report on the release of the death toll by the Hamas-run ministry, it doesn't say anything about the veracity of the number. The parroting of Hamas figures by media has been criticized by the US State Department, and of course, it's been disputed by Israel. Figures released by the Health Ministry has already been directly challenged by US intelligence agencies Meeepmep (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the 2014 war, Hamas casualty figures were cited by the UN HRC[53]. The figures by Hamas are likely to be inflated, but should be around the true number more or less. As with all large conflict casualties, there can never be a perfect figure. Ecrusized (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the same conflict, Hamas claimed 70%[54] of the casualties were civilians, according to the UN investigation 65%[55] were. So the figures should be mostly accurate. Ecrusized (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there's a little disclaimer tucked away in the footnotes, but it was kind of hard to spot, even though I was on the lookout for it. In this whole mess, there's a huge gap between the numbers Hamas is putting out and what independent sources are saying.
For instance, according to Hamas, there were zero civilian casualties during their attack, which is clearly way off. And when it comes to that hospital explosion, the independent reports are all over the place.
Seems like the smart move would be to tag the numbers in the infobox clearly as "unconfirmed." Maybe we should even think about ditching the constantly changing scorecard in the infobox and instead talk about the numbers in the article body. We could do that until we've got some solid, independently verified sources for those figures. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDF and settlers bind, strip, beat, burn, urinate on 3 Palestinians in West Bank

Add this to the article:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-settlers-alleged-to-bind-strip-beat-burn-and-pee-on-palestinians-in-w-bank/ Chafique (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi, @CarmenEsparzaAmoux:. Why did you revert this? KlayCax (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Date" outside the conflict zone?

Is there a reason the subsections in "Outside the conflict zone" also have "outside the conflict zone" in their subheaders? It seems a bit redundant. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one should remove "outside the conflict zone" from all these subheadings. But I am not sure that creating whole big section "Outside the conflict zone" was reasonable. There is no such thing as a narrowly localized conflict zone right now. The content of section "Outside the conflict zone" proves that the war is already much wider than just Gaza Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181074175"