Jump to content

Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel: 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
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 5) (bot
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 342: Line 342:
:::::The first three don't mention cooperation in tunnel construction, the fourth one is sourced to an Israeli intelligence agent. By the way, RAND is predominantly funded by the U.S. Army. Can't you find more reliable and impartial sources for what are expected to be statements of facts? — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::The first three don't mention cooperation in tunnel construction, the fourth one is sourced to an Israeli intelligence agent. By the way, RAND is predominantly funded by the U.S. Army. Can't you find more reliable and impartial sources for what are expected to be statements of facts? — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::There seemed to me to be a direct contradiction there between "North Korea’s Link to Hamas" and the Economist article. Perhaps the Economist confused Hamas with Hezbollah? [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::There seemed to me to be a direct contradiction there between "North Korea’s Link to Hamas" and the Economist article. Perhaps the Economist confused Hamas with Hezbollah? [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

== Photograph of dead baby is WP:UNDUE ==

The photograph of the dead baby is clearly [[WP:UNDUE]] as it gives a misleading impression that young children were targeted by Hamas, and basically indirectly promotes the "mass baby murder" Zionist narrative that has been widely debunked at this point. In reality, only two babies died in the operation, as the article itself notes. The overwhelming majority of victims were adults. The proportion of child (<15 yo) deaths on October 7th was remarkably low in the circumstances (something like ~2%) and orders of magnitude better than Israel and other militaries engaged in an urban warfare context.

Furthermore, the location of the dead baby photograph is also curious. It is placed in the "Reported Atrocities" section. However, while the death of the child is tragic, we don't know whether the killing was deliberate. The child could have been killed by stray gunfire, which would be an accident but not a war crime. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:56, 14 February 2024

Section about denialism of the attack

Since denialism of the attack becomes a phenomena, we should have a section about this.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/ 85.65.215.23 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is a post truth world. False flag attacks are a thing okay but this most obviously and definitely was not one. How much more evolution does mankind have to have before this sort of stupidity is weeded out or is there some evolutionary advantage to it? Progression from ape to idiot on the internet NadVolum (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about ahaving a section on it. There's crazies on every topic - I think wait and see if it actually becomes notable and the maybe write a separate article about it rater than cluttering this one up. NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that so far, there's not enough material and content to justify another section. Maybe in the future as this progresses.
I suggest an edit to mention it, and maybe in the future link it to the cross-article series about anti-semitism.
The ADL concentrated many notable cases of denial by public figures, organizations, politicians, leaders, journals and medias in one article:
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre
Thewildshoe (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more source about the denialism
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre 46.116.188.197 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://forward.com/opinion/574713/holocaust-denial-belief-oct-7-hamas-israel/ 46.116.188.197 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning is not a bad idea. A separate section? No. Secondly, just pointing out that non-extended--confirm editors are only allowed to make edit requests, not contributions iike this. The policy was changed in November 2023. I think it's a bit much, but there it is. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an edit request to put something about denialism into the article. We can't expect new users to cross every t and dot every i. NadVolum (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe I'm being too stuffy about it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I just unhatted a section above from a new editor. You have a point on that. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Yes, there should be a denialism section, even a denialism page. Drsruli (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I started one. Please add as you see fit. Mistamystery (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich The editor in question violated an edit rule that would potentially be subject to administrative sanction. Individuals don’t get to decide what outlets are and aren’t RS. It’s not covered under BRD. The edit should be restored. Mistamystery (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not right. First of all, nobody is deciding that WaPo isn't an RS, that's just false framing, drop that rhetorical nonsense. Just because something is published by WaPo doesn't mean it automatically must be included. Hell that's literally right in the WP:ONUS section of WP:V. The edit summary was clear as to the reasons for the removal, and frankly I agree with it. I think there are more sources out there about this, but whatever is added about denialism should be sourced to multiple high quality sources about the topic. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the source is "questionable" and that the author "can't hide their bias", then please articulate how that original research is meaningful on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it’s also a personal attack on the Washington post author. Drsmoo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an external author is not an expert or their writings are biased is certainly an opinion, however you'd have hard time to convince a court of law that it amounts to an attack. — kashmīrī TALK 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She’s an expert on social media, which is why she’s writing an article on Oct.7 atrocity denial and its pernicious spread seeded on social media. In your edit summary you claimed she was “biased”, please explain how you came to that conclusion.
I disagree with having a section using only one source. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://forward.com/news/570511/deborah-lipstadt-hamas-attack-denial/ - "Deborah Lipstadt, who rose to fame combating Holocaust denial, said Monday she was disturbed about how many people are denying that Hamas committed atrocities in its Oct. 7 terrorist attack in southern Israel."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-opinion/exposing-max-blumenthals-deceptive-claim-israel-is-responsible-for-most-october-7-victims/0000018c-102f-d65f-a7dd-f0ff7b550000 - "The Grayzone editor has a history of denying war crimes, so it's no surprise he provided a piece that very selectively uses facts, includes purposely edited quotes to change their meaning and grossly plays down the atrocities against Israelis" Drsmoo (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-04/ty-article/.premium/how-media-outlets-like-haaretz-are-weaponized-in-the-fake-news-wars-over-israel-and-hamas/0000018c-3076-d15f-a7af-b27664390000 "According to the BBC’s Sardarizadeh, the denialist narrative that “it was Israel that killed its own civilians on 7 October, not Hamas,” has become appallingly widespread online." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs)

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/feminists-hamas-rapes/ - "On October 7, Hamas fighters raped Israeli women and girls. Whatever may have been unknown in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the rapes are by now as substantiated as anything ever can be in an ongoing war. There is eyewitness testimony. There are reports from doctors and others who saw bodies of women who had been sexually abused. There are photographs. You have to be a conspiracist or rape denialist to dismiss all that as fabricated. And yet, social media is crammed with dismissals of the evidence as Israeli propaganda." Drsmoo (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think the Nov Haaretz story is very relevant as it's mostly about one person, but I do think the WaPo, Forward, and Dec Haaretz articles could support something in the body about growing denial (that atrocities happened, that it was a false flag, etc). Still wouldn't support a separate section unless it was long enough to justify it (like multiple paragraphs). Levivich (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is WP:DUE weight; devoting an entire section to this requires substantial sourcing - enough to cover it in a neutral manner. And in particular when evaluating due weight it's important to avoid excessively imbalanced usage of WP:BIASED sources; they are usable, but an entire section cited to sources that are biased in the same direction is often a problem. With that in mind... all three of the sources you listed are plainly WP:BIASED in the same direction. On top of this, one of the Haaretz sources you added is an opinion piece. How much coverage does this aspect of the topic have outside of sources who share that bias? How are sources of comparable weight and quality that don't share that bias covering this aspect? We can still mention it in a sentence or two, but it becomes hard to justify devoting an entire section to it. And just at a glance, if we're talking about how sources have covered atrocities, war crimes, and denials thereof, if you look at sources outside of Israel, they largely present both sides as being accused of committing atrocities or war crimes, and both sides as having denied the accusations of atrocities made against them, without the clearly one-sided presentation you're suggesting for the section here - that doesn't mean that it's completely equal or equivalent, but the section you added was one-sided in a way that significant amounts of high-quality coverage are not. See [1][2][3][4] Similarly, coverage of conspiracy theories related to the war are not one-sided; see [5][6][7][8] - again, there's substantial coverage of conspiracy theories being spread on social media by supporters of all sides, in sources that are at least as high-quality as the ones you presented. In particular if we're going to add the conspiracy theories you referenced we ought to add the "crisis actor" conspiracy theories; WP:DUE weight is relative and that has comparable coverage among high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There seems to be a majority against the move (also known as option E), with a rationale that the current descriptive title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attacks – The most common name for the event. Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The current title is a very good description, but nobody actually calls it that? The extremes of both sides, and everyone in between, all refer to the event as 7 October.

The page "7 October" already exists as a page about that date in history (in a series including every day of the year), so calling it 7 October attack (which is already a redirect here) or 7 October attacks is the best available option to fit WP: common name.

If we add any extra elements we should keep the whole thing "Hamas-led attack on Israel" to match prior consensus, and thus avoid re-litigating every word.

Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone knows most things, but I've not seen it called anything else? Irtapil (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precise I agree with, but it's definitely not common. It works as an intro sentence or article description more than a title. Irtapil (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Global" was the reason for "7 October" only the USA puts the month fist, and a few global news services aimed at the USA maybe. I really don't know where it isn't called October 7 or 7 October? It covers the whole spectrum. Irtapil (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in any case, whatever we decide we will need to have a new election in the future to change the name from historic perspective. Especially if the rule WP:TOOSOON is used ArmorredKnight (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 7 October is probably going to stick., I don't see it being likely to change? I weirdly keep forgetting which year September 11 happened in, but it's definitely called September 11. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D: I’m against A and B because they’re the most ambiguous. E’s not really a good name, cause someone can see the name and say:

Well, which Hamas-led attack is it?

— The average Wikipedia reader
It’s also not a good idea to remove the year, but based on the context of the attacks, I’m fine with C. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. (I read up on the tl;dr thing, which according to Wikipedia policies, E’s the best choice). I don’t really care about conscision, I just care if people find it not ambig. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: WP:Article Title doesn’t only have one criteria (i.e. COMMONNAME) it has 5 (2 with 3 sub-criteria, so actually 9). I‘ve detailed these in the hatted section below and analyzed the options by them (not deep maths, just a baseline for decision). I’ve assumed that 7 October is the COMMONNAME, although I think it’s TOOSOON to determine. I believe most readers will look for "Hamas" and "Israel" not 7 October. The rest of my thinking is in the hat.
One issue is calling this "7 October attack" to be consistent (a criteria) with "9 September attack". Consistency has 3 sub-criteria — When? Where? and What?. The current name is consistent with other names giving all 3 — When: "2003", Where: "Israel", What: "Hamas-led attack". You can drop any of these 3 if it’s so well known that the subject is identifiable by the others. So 9/11 attack is so well known by the date that we could drop Where and What and just call it "9 September". IMHO the same isn’t (yet?) true of this attack, and all 3 elements are needed.
TLDR, see !vote

You’re welcome to call me a nerd or something similar - no offense will be taken.

WP:Article Title criteria
  • Recognizability – by someone familiar with subject but not necessarily an expert
  • Naturalness –
  • Readers will naturally search
  • Editors will naturally link
  • Usually what it’s commonly called in English.
  • Precision – unambiguously identifies subject
  • Concision – no longer than necessary to identify
  • Consistency – consistent with the pattern of similar articles
  • When
  • Where
  • What
Analysis of article names
Key: 1 = complies (or doesn’t need to comply), ½ = partially complies, 0 = doesn’t comply
Options Total Recognise Natuaral Precise Concise Consistent
Readers Editors Common When Where What
A - 7 October attacks 61% ½
readers less recognise		 ½
readers less search		 1
Editors more link		 1
AGF it’s common		 ½
ambiguous for some		 ½
2nd most concise		 1
7 October		 0
requires "Israel"		 ½
attack, no "Hamas-led"
B - 7 October attack 67% ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1
most concise		 1 0 ½
C - 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel 72% 1
Hamas, attack, Israel		 1
Hamas, attack, Israel		 ½
editors used to E)		 0
AGF not common		 1
unambiguous		 0
4th most concise		 1
7 October		 1
Israel		 1
Hamas-led attack
D - 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 72% 1
+2023		 1
+2023		 ½ 0 1 0
least concise		 1
+2023		 1 1
E - (no change) 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 83% 1 1 1
editors already use)		 0 1 ½
3rd most concise		 1 1 1

E&OE

Ayenaee (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then why not using 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel?ArmorredKnight (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ArmorredKnight, I know it wasn’t your intention, and no harm done, but it’s not generally permitted to comment within other editors’ comments, and in this case it hides you query, so I’ve moved it out of the hat so I can answer. You asked your question under my comment on being nerdy, which was my acknowledgement that I’d maybe gone to far in putting a "model" together for this !vote. My attempts at humour often fail :). But the nerdiness confirmed my feeling (to me at least) that if you look at all the WP:Article Title criteria rather than focusing on only COMMONNAME, the. The answer to which title to use sometimes isn’t the common one. JDalia’s !vote below this says why I chose E much more succinctly than I have. Ayenaee (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: WP:Article Title "generally" prefers the most common name but this is by no means an absolute rule. The article on the September 11 Attacks is perhaps the best example of this: "9/11" is by far the most common name for the event but there is widespread consensus against its use for a variety of reasons. For this article, there are a number of crucial issues at play here which disincline me to a name change. First, WP:AIN'TBROKE. Second, I believe we should consider longevity. Most sources refer to this attack right now as the 7 October attack (or some variant thereof). But this is in part due to the fact that it was recent, so when we say "7 October" there is no ambiguity that we refer to the year 2023. In the long run, most similar terrorist attack article titles do end up including the year (again 9/11 is the main exception). Option D also includes the year but it is neither natural nor concise. JDiala (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There's a significant difference between attacks "on Israel" and "in Israel". As far as I know, the 7/10 attacks took place in Israel, but they were not specifically targetted against the entire state and its institutions – targetted were mostly random civilians present near the border. Compare: the 2003 US attack was on Iraq, not "in Iraq", as the US selectively targetted state military infrastructure. However, the Bataclan attack was in France, not really on France. While war propaganda will often try to build a community spirit by presenting major attacks as being "on us", "on our state", we should always keep in mind this semantic quirk. — kashmīrī TALK 22:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri
Iraq 2003 seems like a very weird example, that claimed to be aimed at the Ba'ath party but killed half a million civilians, in terms of "targeted at military" that's the second-worst example after the nuclear attacks on Japan. Or do you mean just very early in the war?
The target of Al-Aqsa Flood was definitely the state of Israel, but being a small irregular not-quite-a-military they were limited in how much they could reach. There actually were several military and security targets, and there were fewer survivors at those locations, like Nahal Oz lookout. But they're not covered very well in the current version of this Wiki page. The lookout is the only one even mentioned? But there were several others. They also destroyed a lot of automated watch towers on the Gaza barrier.
And if it wasn't an attack on Israel, what on Earth was it?
The dubious spin is "Hamas are ISIS" - a narrative some Israeli sources are trying to push that Hamas are somehow a global threat, when really their target is very specifically Israel.
00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil Yes, re. Iraq I indeed meant the invasion phase that lasted 4–5 weeks; not the occupation phase. Civilians were killed mostly in later stages – 2003 invasion of Iraq mentions that only a relatively small percentage (10–20%) of deaths during the invasion phase were civilians. We didn't see that with Hamas's attack – its appears they targeted whomever they came across, although naturally they also paid attention to neutralising major threats on their way (military outposts, etc.).
I'm wary of claims often made my politicians who deplore untoward developments under their watch as "attacks against the country". It's not just actual military attacks – these days, even a minor terrorist incident is termed as an attack "against our country".[9] See that? Three criminals murder 8 people on a London street, and this is instantly termed by propaganda as an attack on an entire country (243,000 sqare km and 67 million people).
It's not my intention to play down the impact of the Hamas attack. My argument is that it was rather a savage attack carried out by frustrated people who simply intended to take out revenge on the Israeli population, whoever came across, more than a well-executed military attack against the state. — kashmīrī TALK 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri
If you meant the first 5 weeks that makes a lot more sense.
After reading to the end I see your point now, I think it's somewhere in between what you meant by nation vs a few civilians. They would quite like to defeat Israel, but their ability to actually DO that is kind of minimal and really doesn't warrant the current IDF response? Is that what you're getting at?
The problem with "the nation" vs "a few civilians" in this specific case though, is "our enemy is the state of Israel, and not the Jewish people" is the way the Palestinian militants frequently frame their side of the story (partly because Israeli sources quite frequently accuse them of wanting to massacre the entire Jewish diaspora) and by "the state" they mean the military, police, Netenyahu, etc. not Israeli civilians.
Irtapil (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this following bit responding to the first half. But it is still somewhat relevant.
On October 7 things seem to have kinda descended into a mess. Like the Iraq war maybe, but in a day and a half, instead of a decade.
There's two almost non overlapping versions of the event that focus on different parts.
  • first they destroyed the wall and checkpoints (that's what anyone celebrating on 7 October saw)
  • then they attacked military bases and massacred soldiers (a few people celebrating on October 7 maybe saw that bit) but they only managed to take a few as hostages.
  • then the Kibbutzim (their version seens to be they only killed the armed neighbourhood defence teams who they regard as military, which is definitely not the whole truth, but then "40 beheaded babies" and many more stories like that go equally far in the other direction)
  • and the music festival wasn't part of the plan so seems to have been complete chaos
  • then the military from other locations showed up and caught them back into Gaza.
There were a lot of Western outlets that covered the whole thing, but often kind of briefly. A single article or 10 minute video about the early stages. There's Israeli Newspapers that have reports on the attacks on Erez border crossing and Nahal Oz lookout base, I've not looked for the others yet.
But international press focused mainly on the Kibbutzim and festival.
There's not even much about the "faught them back into Gaza" bit except in Israeli sources and sources very focused on military topics? I can't even work out if that lasted half a day or a week? the conclusion seems to be that it might have been sporadic, there were a few follow up raids that didn't get far or something.
Irtapil (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E Part of a continuing effort (not just here) to turn October 7 into a brand a la 9/11. Bah. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: Opposing any change no one in this discussion has yet demonstrated how this naming is supposedly the most common naming. Citing a few articles does not make this the most common naming. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E. Any robbery that occurred on 3 February will be referred to by newspapers as "the 3 February robbery," that doesn't mean we should call the article on it "3 February robbery." IMO the threshold for a demonstration that a "date-name" is the WP:COMMONNAME is very high: not every calendar date can be like "September 11 attacks," I'd have to see that the "date-name" is by far the single most common name used to refer to the event by reliable sources, a la "September 11 attacks." If it were shown to be such an indisputable singular common name, I'd support it, but absent such a showing, I'm convinced (after discussion at Selfstudier's user talk page) that (1) the date may not be recognizable to all readers, and (2) a "date-name" may improperly imply terrorism to some readers. So, I think the proposed names aren't shown to be WP:COMMONNAMEs and the current name is a better match under WP:AT criteria (equally natural, but more recognizable and neutral outweighs less concise and precise IMO). Levivich (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. This article's topic about what happened October 7, 2023. Currently, many news outlets refer to the attacks as "October 7th attacks" but, globally, 7 October should be used. We still call the terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001 the September 11 attacks, and that was 23 years ago. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of reliably sourced information from the lead

@Kashmiri, you quickly reverted my edit with the summary "As much as they were awful crimes, the sources don't use "widespread" or "systematic" in their own voice; it's a quote in one of the sources." That isn't accurate.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks - "Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks" "The chaos meant there were significant failings in preserving evidence of gender-based violence and what is coming to be seen as the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war by Hamas." They then go into the details: "By cross-referencing testimonies given to police, published interviews with witnesses, and photo and video footage taken by survivors and first responders, the Guardian is aware of at least six sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist. Two of those victims, who were murdered, were aged under 18. At least seven women who were killed were also raped in the attack, according to Prof Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, a legal scholar and international women’s rights advocate, from her examination of evidence so far. The New York Times and NBC have both identified more than 30 killed women and girls whose bodies bear signs of abuse, such as bloodied genitals and missing clothes, and according to the Israeli welfare ministry, five women and one man have come forward seeking help for sexual abuse over the past few months."

https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack-rape-bb06b950bb6794affb8d468cd283bc51 "Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took more than 240 hostages that day." "The group Physicians for Human Rights Israel, which has a record of advocating for Palestinian civilians in Gaza suffering under Israel’s longtime blockade of the territory, published an initial assessment in November. “What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times,” Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for the organization, said Tuesday." Do you have and reasoning why Physicians for Human Rights Israel wouldn't also be a reliable source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html "A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7." Drsmoo (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, "widespread" is indeed part of a quote, and "systematic" is mentioned in the context of "coming to be seen as", not "is confirmed as" – so, as it is, it currently remains as a postulated, extraordinary claim whose language is not supported by multiple reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use “coming to be seen as” and attribute widespread to physicians for human rights Israel. We can also include “ establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence” and “ sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants”. Your argument about an “extraordinary claim” doesn’t hold up. Multiple reliable sources have attested to the breadth of the sexual assaults. Arguing that they used different words to do so is semantics. Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need much better sourcing if wanting to make a serious allegation of systematic sexual violence in that conflict. — kashmīrī TALK 19:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the sourcing is insufficient for the same reasons as others said above. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what the sources are not enough?
You have more than one reliable source that show that there were systemically sexual abuse. That should end the discussion as Wikipedia is following what the sources say. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added attribution and restored the reliable sources that were removed.
@Drsmoo The term widespread occurs only in a quote from a person interviewed by a journalist, whereas your edit tries to make an impression that it is commonly used by the media to describe the events. Which is unsubstantiated, diplomatically speaking. The term systematic also occurs only once, and again not as a foregone conclusion. Then, you have been pointed out twice that the NYT investigation itself is controversial and potentially unreliable.
Making thinly substantiated statements aimed to malign a political adversary is actually a core feature of propaganda. — kashmīrī TALK 19:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re going to dismiss the Associated Press, NY Times, Guardian, Physicians for Human Rights Israel by calling them propaganda and/or weak sourcing then I’m not sure how best to continue. But here goes, do you have any reliable source(s) calling them propaganda? Drsmoo (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the sake of clarity. Your argument is that The New York Times, The Guardian, The Associated Press, are all “propaganda”? Drsmoo (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EOT. — kashmīrī TALK 23:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, claiming The NY Times, Associated Press, Guardian and Physicians for Human Rights Israel are “propaganda” isn’t going to fly. Drsmoo (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added quotations may be more suitable for inclusion under the relevant body section. The article lead is already bloated, and these reports don't seem to substantially change the content. Ertal72 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Attributed statements are virtually never due for inclusion in the lead. It's also overcited and "was described as" is WP:WEASEL, and frankly I just kind of object to the wishy-washiness of two attributed statements characterizing it. Was it widespread? Was it systematic? If so then the article should just say so, if the sourcing backs it up. If it's one group or one media outlet who says it, then who cares? If many say it, then say it in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove attribution and restore it as it was. The sourcing backs it up. Claiming that the NYTimes, Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, Haaretz, Associated Press are "weak sourcing" or propaganda, is frankly quite odd. Drsmoo (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK enough straw manning already, nobody is biting on any of the rhetorical games. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what is the rhetorical game? Please elaborate how any of these highly notable sources are "weak"? And dismissing reliable sources as "propaganda" is simply unacceptable. It is a complete non-argument. Drsmoo (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^-- that right there is the rhetorical game, the strawmanning. That is not an accurate summary of the concerns about the edit, and you know it. Seriously, give it a rest. Respond to people's arguments if you want to, or just stop posting, but don't straw man. Levivich (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is exactly the position that was articulated. Specifically on the talk page for "Denial of the 7 October attacks".
"I'm sorry that you can't tell facts from propaganda."
"Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing." Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those is claiming that NYT is propaganda or weak. Look, I can read English, you can read English, we both know what the objections raised in this thread are. As our colleague said, EOT. Levivich (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's broader than NYT, unsubstantiated accusations of "propaganda", along with personal attacks "you can't tell facts...", "your unfaltering belief", "your edit tries to make an impression", "ones like you". and accusations of bad faith are not acceptable. If one is going to dispute multiple reliable sources, than show alternate reliable sources that assert the opposite. Ideally ones that aren't flagged here as biased or unreliable. Drsmoo (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just revert non-ECR editors and leave them a {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{alert/first}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
we have more than one reliable source that show systematic use of rape.
that should end the discussion as Wikipedia should follow sources.
We are not going to vote if the earth is flat and everything that related to fact Wikipedia should just stick to the sources.
we have reliable sources that mention systematic use of rape so we should mention as it is. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri, what you are doing here is editing wikipedia against what the sources say.
This is not for voting. Voting can not decide what is correct.
If there it is insist of removing this part then I think it should be taken up to moderator. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArmorredKnight This is not how Wikipedia works. There are no moderators on Wikipedia, and discussions are precisely there to work out editors' consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 12:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri
discussion can not claim that the earth is flat despite of what the sources say.
You may not like the sources, but the sources verify that there were systematically sexual abuse. Wikipedia works by sticking to the sources. you are going against Wikipedia rules and philosophy when you deny all the reliable sources.
The fact that you don't like what the source says doesn't give you the right to remove it. ArmorredKnight (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArmorredKnight: I think you misunderstand an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is not a collection of press clippings. Editors are required to judge, for instance, the reliability of a particular source, relevance for the article topic, or whether the claim is confirmed by other sources. Also, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. A claim that an organisation has resorted to systemic and widespread criminal activity requires really strong evidence; much stronger than what was presented here. If you believe – as it seems to me – that whatever has been published can be copied to Wikipedia, then I ask you to read this policy. — kashmīrī TALK 12:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systematical sexual assault and sexual assault in general are relevant to the article. This is really absurd to claim otherwise. I mean we describing the attack and if the attack included sexual assault then it should be mention. not only here but generally in any article about any attack, provided that there are sources.
The sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia standard and there are more than once. There are several reliable sources.
"much stronger than what was presented here" - the sources are very strong and are more than enough than what we usually use in order to include a fact in Wikipedia.
But feel free to say what exactly will be enough for you and then we can judge if your demand fit to the Wikipedia standard or it is just your own standard because you may no like mentioning the fact.
please say exactly what is the minimum that you demand to be in the sources and then we can see if your demand match Wikipedia.
As ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by the way Systematical sexual assault and sexual assault are not exceptional claims. It is not something that contradict anything that we know about the world. It is just denied by Hamas, but that doesn't make it an exceptional claim. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

The text under the subsection ‘Accusations of Genocide’ currently reads: According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas's assault amounted to genocide.[370][371][372] Legal and genocide experts have condemned the attack,[373][374] saying it represents a serious violation of international law.

It should read: An open letter statement was published by Haaretz, signed by Israeli and foreign nationals, condemns the actions of Hamas on October 7th, and claims that these actions constitute a genocide [372].

Rationale for change: 1. Reference 370 is an anonymous apparent opinion piece that provides no facts sourcing their death toll claims (of which some have been widely debunked by Israel itself in subsequent press releases). 2. Reference 371 is an Article from the Israeli newspaper ‘The Times of Israel’. It cites an open letter but provides no references or link to said letter, states a single name of a so-called ‘expert in genocide’ is a signatory, and states without facts that the actions of Hamas were genocidal. 3. Reference 372 is an open letter published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, to which anyone can sign. I am not a genocide expert but I could add my name to this document if I chose. There is no demonstration or attempt at demonstration by Haaretz that any of the signatories are experts in genocide or that they even work in an area of human rights, legal fields, or public policy. As such these signatories cannot be called ‘legal’ or ‘genocide’ expert. 4. Reference 373 is an article that cites anonymous anecdotal Israeli reports of rape against Israelis by Hamas. This article does not mention genocide nor does it provide substantiation for any claims of rape. Indeed subsequent reports have shown that a number of anecdotal reports made by Israelis were indeed false, therefore this reference is doubly inappropriate here. 5. Reference 374 is also an article about rape, and is problematic for the same reasons as reference 373. 2601:803:201:7B00:6DE8:B71A:8776:ED6C (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: but IMO it's worth further discussion. Will post more thoughts shortly. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some of these refs either shouldn't be used or don't seem to support what they're being cited for. I don't agree with the proposed change, per MOS:CLAIM and because I think the condemnations go beyond just the one open letter. Going through the five sources listed:
370 - I question whether Genocide Watch is an RS
371 - I don't know where WP:RSN is on ToI but it's not on WP:RSP. I think it's an RS for (quoting the source) "Over 100 experts on international law issued a statement Sunday assessing that the Hamas terror group committed multiple war crimes in its massive assault on Israel last week and that its actions in slaughtering 1,300 people likely amounted to genocide." However, I do understand the objection to using Israeli or Palestinian sources for this.
372 - Haaretz is green at RSP. I get the objection to Israeli sources categorically. But it says "Hamas' October 7 massacre of over 1,300 Israelis and foreign citizens constituted the “crime of genocide,” hundreds of international jurists and academics, including the former Justice Minister of Canada, declared Monday. In an open letter, some 240 legal experts, including experts from Harvard and Columbia Law Schools, King's College London and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, asserted that last weekend’s attack constituted a 'gross violation of international law, and, in particular, of international criminal law.'" I think it's an RS for that statement.
Note: Neither ToI nor Haaretz needs to prove in their article that these people are in fact experts, etc. Their stating that the signatories are experts is good enough for Wikipedia's purposes unless there are other RSes that say otherwise.
373 - NYT, but I don't see where it verifies that "Legal and genocide experts have condemned the attack"
374 - WaPo, same as NYT
Besides those, there are also refs 376-379 at the end of the paragraph. I haven't looked at those carefully, but they all seem like RS at first glance.
So in sum, I think you're right that some of these sources should be taken out. I'm not entirely sure about the Israeli ones. But there are still other sources that are cited that seem unproblematic, and I'm not sure what the paragraph should say once the problematic sources are taken out (but I think it's more than just the open letter mentioned by Haaretz). Levivich (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 -- Remove speculation on North Korean involvement regarding tunnels

Non-expert speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, and the bolded line should be removed completely:

"In 2014, Hamas employed 900 full-time staff for tunnel construction, each taking three months and costing an average of $100,000. Funding came from commercial schemes via Gaza's mosques, with contributions from Iran and North Korea.[75]"

Citation 75, an Economist article purported to cite North Korean funding for underground tunnels, is totally free of any evidence to that effect, and only contains a single sentence of speculation. The Economist article couches its speculation with the phrasing that Western adversaries "are thought to" have funded tunnel construction, while the current Wikipedia article declares it as a fact. It does not specify who is making this speculation, and this claim cannot be confirmed or researched further through this citation. The only knowledge gained here is that The Economist is willing to publish unattributed speculation to this claim.

Quote from the Economist article:

"By 2014 the group’s tunnelling effort employed 900 full-time staff, with each tunnel taking three months and an average of $100,000 to build, according to a study by the RAND Corporation, a think-tank. Hamas raised capital for the tunnels, pitching them as commercial investment schemes, complete with contracts drafted by lawyers, through mosques in Gaza. Iran and North Korea are thought to have helped with construction, supplying money and engineers."

As per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation may be used only if it is attributed to "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field". Even if the original source was an expert, this cannot be included in the article because it is unattributed, and it cannot even be attributed to the author, since Economist articles are not attributed to any Economist writer.

The other claims on tunnel funding are also sourced from the same piece of unattributed speculation, and they should be removed if they cannot be better supported. The claim that Iran generally funds Hamas can be attributed to many other sources, including the U.S. State Department and US-based NGOs. The claim about investment schemes through mosques does not seem to be as easily supported, and should be deleted if this is the only viable citation.

Citation 75 should be removed and replaced with a citation to the RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Economist article, which gives fuller access to the source of the cost estimate information (the phrasing on the cost figures should also make clear that these are estimates). The RAND study does not have any information regarding North Korean or Iranian financial ties to Hamas, nor about claimed commercial investment schemes involving mosques. Curlsstars (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd prefer to find more sources than remove text, the current accusation is so poorly sourced and, perhaps in any other instance, could be considered libellious that I've decided to remove it for now. Any editor can please re-add it if better sources are found. — kashmīrī TALK 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to edit the content to attribute the claim to the Economist; it's a top tier source, so I don't see justification for complete removal. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist only quotes an unnamed report by RAND Corporation, of unknown reliability and with possible COI. — kashmīrī TALK 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI? How? And what matters is that the Economist saw fit to print the claim - they've assessed the claim and decided it is sufficient to print, and unless we consider the Economist to be unreliable we shouldn't be rejecting it on the basis of us not liking the Economist's source.
Also, a quick search finds this.
We should probably also include North Korean influence more generally; in particular, the use of North Korean weapons has received a lot of coverage:
  1. Evidence shows Hamas militants likely used some North Korean weapons in attack on Israel
  2. North Korea training, providing weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis - report
  3. South Korean military says North Korea may have links with Hamas
  4. Expert: Hezbollah has built a vast tunnel network far more sophisticated than Hamas’s (North Korean support for Hezbollah tunnel effort)
BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first three don't mention cooperation in tunnel construction, the fourth one is sourced to an Israeli intelligence agent. By the way, RAND is predominantly funded by the U.S. Army. Can't you find more reliable and impartial sources for what are expected to be statements of facts? — kashmīrī TALK 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to me to be a direct contradiction there between "North Korea’s Link to Hamas" and the Economist article. Perhaps the Economist confused Hamas with Hezbollah? NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of dead baby is WP:UNDUE

The photograph of the dead baby is clearly WP:UNDUE as it gives a misleading impression that young children were targeted by Hamas, and basically indirectly promotes the "mass baby murder" Zionist narrative that has been widely debunked at this point. In reality, only two babies died in the operation, as the article itself notes. The overwhelming majority of victims were adults. The proportion of child (<15 yo) deaths on October 7th was remarkably low in the circumstances (something like ~2%) and orders of magnitude better than Israel and other militaries engaged in an urban warfare context.

Furthermore, the location of the dead baby photograph is also curious. It is placed in the "Reported Atrocities" section. However, while the death of the child is tragic, we don't know whether the killing was deliberate. The child could have been killed by stray gunfire, which would be an accident but not a war crime. JDiala (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1207440888"