Talk:Use of human shields by Hamas

POV scope

This page has been created with an intentionally POV scope, selectively copying material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a clearly one-sided manner, presenting only Palestinian and not Israeli usage of human shields. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Presumably that would be because the article is not about use of human shields by Israel? Why should an article about the price of tea in China focus on the price of tea in Iran? --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear. This page has been created from exactly one-side of a two-sided and balanced section at the parent page, making this page no longer two-sided and balanced, but POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The part that was unclear to me was "and not Israeli usage of human shields." I agree that it should balance out all POVs (i.e., IDF alleges, Hamas denies, HRW says x, WHO says y, and so forth). But suggesting that we should be saying "Oh, and by the way, Israel also uses human shields" seems off topic. Are you saying this article is a POV fork? --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, it is rather. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Are you going to nominate it for deletion? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Does having rocket launching sites near schools and playgrounds not count as human shields. They haven't got babies strapped to their chests but the goal/outcome is the same. There is videos of these sites in close proximity to civilian locations. Hamas' use of human shields is systematic and apart of there doctrine. This is why there is a whole article dedicated to just this topic. When one side is systematically using human shields I think you are creating false balance with the attempt to assert that both sides use human shields. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the original article that suffers from WP:FALSEBALANCE. The sections about Israel and Palestine are of similar size, and only you read it carefully you will realise that since 2009 there were about 20 cases of supposed Israeli use of human shields (even if we consider all the sources there equally reliable), whereas in case of Hamas it's been systematic. Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is 20 cases not "systematic"? If a workplace had 20 incidents of sexual harassment or 20 health code violations in 14 years would these not be "systematic" problems? Or at least "systemic" ones? This article is a POV fork and should probably be nominated for deletion, or renamed "Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to allow for a more honest and complete picture. WillowCity^(talk) 01:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the size of the organisation. In the best-run organisation with thousands of people there will be instances of sexual harassment from time to time. Alaexis_¿question? 07:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Systematic - "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical". Hamas has been proven to fire rockets from civilian areas. places like schools, apartments, hospitals. This is systematic, its time and time again. 20 cases over 14 years is not systematic, "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical." IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade me that 20 instances of the same war crime in 14 years is not systematic, or, at the very least, systemic.

And, really, the "last 14 years" thing is a bit of a red herring, considering the duration of the conflict. Israel's human shield practices were so systematic that it employed a grotesque euphemism for them: the "Neighbor Procedure". This "fixed plan or system" was an entrenched historical reality. WillowCity^(talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a notable topic that merits its own article. It is balanced and presents important information. Dovidroth (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2023

Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations of use of human shields by Hamas – Per WP:NDESC "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)" Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as discussed at length at Talk:Israeli_war_crimes#Requested_move_11_October_2023 --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  . . . where, notably, Selfstudier's comment was This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WHATABOUTX Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  There, it was two sides, here it is only one, that's why we avoid whataboutism, the two cases are not the same. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  To me they appear to be exactly the same. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  And I you to mine. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mine gives a reason why they are not the same, yours is mere assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty clear WP:TENDENTIOUS editing [1] by Selfstudier. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  How so? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Saying they're the same shows blatant Palestinian bias. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC) user is non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Orgullomoore and WP:CONSISTENT. Marokwitz (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Consistent with Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, assuming the article scope is not changed to be more balanced. Above, I suggested Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is broad enough to encompass human shield allegations against both parties. Until such a time as there's consensus for a change of scope, though, this title is far preferable. NDESC, cited above, is pretty clear on this point. We're not the ICC or ICJ, it's not for us to make legal conclusions. Or, if it is appropriate to play judge and jury, maybe we should move "Palestinian genocide accusation" back to its prior title, "Genocide against Palestinians"... there's certainly ample evidence supporting that legal conclusion. WillowCity^(talk) 05:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't that create a false balance? Renaming Use of human shields in Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates a false balance that both sides systematically use human shields. Only one side is proven to systematically use human shields. Specifically for this topic I think it should stay Hamas. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)user is non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Per international law and UN criteria of genocide. Israeli action has not been defined as genocide, therefore it remains within accusation scope since there is scholarship that deals with this issue. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed we're not international law judge and jury and therefore ought to stick to legal definitions and not accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  And due to international legal experts as well as notable condemnation from supranational organization (EU), other international organizations and experts, we should adhere to referring to the term as it is: in this case, Use of human Shields. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  ICC puts burden on Israel to prove Hamas uses human shields - analysis Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, MOS:ALLEGED there are quite a few international bodies and countries which have confirmed the usage of Hamas's usage of human shields, so using the word allegation is not accurate in this case.

for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/hamas-human-shields-tactic/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-condemns-hamas-using-hospitals-human-shields-urges-israeli-restraint-2023-11-12/ Elie goodman (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC) User indefinitely blocked based on evidence of being a sockpuppet [2] --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:WEIGHT, the vast majority of experts and international organizations agree that human shields have been used by Hamas over multiple incidents. Regarding renaming to in Israeli-Palestinian conflict Human shields use, due to overwhelming evidence and notability (per WP:WEIGHT) toward Hamas, in this case it would be inappropriate to change the name. Thus the name ought to remain as it is, although I personally would prefer Hamas use of human shields, (minor, therefore, don't think its worth discussing or changing).

per sources already raised above, EU has condemned this practice. So has US Per source [3] Homerethegreat (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support adding "allegation" or "accusation" for consistency. Other articles from the same conflict have similar or even more defensive titles than "allegations of" e.g. "Palestinian genocide accusation". Both sides in this conflict appear to have committed multiple war crimes. We can't present one side's war crimes as fact while simultaneously impaling other's war crimes are a baseless "accusation". They should have a comparable qualifying term, like "alleged". There have been massive civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, over the years and especially this month, and "human shields" is the constant excuse given for many actions that - to many impartial observers - look like very deliberate targeting of civilians. Irtapil (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that this isn't really preferential treatment. There's an article that deals with Israeli War Crimes, (rightfully) without using alleged in the title, because these are well documented and undisputed facts. That there's a genocide happening against Palestinians on the other hand is disputed, which is why the title you linked makes sense.

  Wouldn't the main criterion for deciding on this particular move be whether the statement "Hamas is using civilians as shields" is disputed or not? FynnFreyer (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is sometimes an unreasonable accusation. The IDF often claims of "human shield" use when what they seem to have done is bomb a guy's home and kill his entire family and neighbours. But I hadn't seen the Israeli war crimes page, the title of this page does seem more balanced in that light. But the "accusation" in Palestinian genocide accusation is still wildly inappropriate, because "accusation" doesn't just imply dispute, it implies that one side is making an unreasonable accusation. It's strongly biased terminology, and last time I looked, somebody shut down an attempt to discuss the title before any other editors had commented. Irtapil (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I might be biased in that matter, but I think saying Israel is committing a Genocide against the Palestinians is an unreasonable accusation. Anyway, it should probably be less about what we think about the issue, and more about what can be reasonably alleged or disputed ans substantiated with sources.

  Even though the IDF might sometimes unreasonably claim use of human shields by Hamas they're by far not the only party saying that Hamas does this, and in several instances it's a matter of public record. Also, the section on the current situation starts off with a sub heading "Israeli claims" which definitely shows that this is sourced from an interested party. I feel like this should satisfy neutrality in that regard, while the rest of the article still warrants not using an "alleged" here. 158.181.79.13 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) user is non-ec - WillowCity^(talk)

• Oppose. When there are pictures, videos, recordings and explicit statements, So it's not about "Allegations".

If we go this way, half of the articles on Wikipedia will start with the words "Allegations"Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly over-use or abuse of the term should be a sub section? There are many cases when the IDF strike a residential area claiming to be targeting an enemy, when to me really looks like they killed the guy at home some with his entire family and neighbours. Combatants spending time with their wives and kids is really not a reasonable user of the term "human shield", and there is never very much evidence shown that these locations are being used for substantial military activities, just the presence of an individual the IDF wanted dead. Irtapil (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Orgullomoore, Elie goodman and Homerethegreat. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Homerethegreat. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, and a future article Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Use of human shields by Israel should also not include alleged.VR _talk 00:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. --Orgullomoore (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Homerethegreat Zanahary (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. The proposed change would move us from a more precise to a less precise title so accepting it would be a serious setback for Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. There is no debate, unless an issue has majority opinion it makes no sense to have a definitive title. For example, this wikipedia page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge) uses the word "allegation" to great effect , even though aspects of the page are certain(like diplomatic help and the good deal of testimonies), the overall picture is not a settled issue. Until most human rights organisations make this claim, we should not deceive people by suggesting it is absolutely true. Moreover, America and Israel both have conflicts of interest,since they are legitimating their operation, and thus their claims must be taken with scrutiny. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also the definition of human shield should be examined closely, as amnesty international seems to be using a different definition (in their definition firing rockets near hospitals NOT considered a case of using "human shields" but falls under a different category).Please provide a definition in the page. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) struck per WP:ARBECR, user is non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was it struck? Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above and WP:CONSISTENT. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

someone removing comments in this page

someone deleted a comment on this talk page, the comment wasn't particularly constructive, but i thought we were only supposed to remove other people's comments in extreme cases of vandalism? Irtapil (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil: As per a recent amendment to WP:ARBECR, non-EC users can only use the talk page to post edit requests. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil -- What @ARandomName123 said. If it's not an edit request, it's subject to removal. Especially if it's just bait to turn the talk page into a forum dumpster fire. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)