Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[1]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").

Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS required to have this claim in the lead.VR _talk 22:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid speclative accusations.

The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [2]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR _talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not speculation, it's political propaganda.

Hamas is an extremist sunni organisation, that get support from wahhabi states. Iran is extremist shia.

Hamas doesn't get anything from Iran.

Iran has it's own organization in Gaza, the islamic jihad. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that what whoever meant was that Iran was involved, not Hamas said Iran was involved. You clearly are correct and this should be corrected. 71.104.111.79 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([3]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR _talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack, whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[4]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?

Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR _talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Economist has reported today that both Hamas and the IDF deny direct Iranian involvement in the initial attack, notwithstanding Iran's general support for Hamas. [5]

I think the IDF denial in particular ought to be included in the article alongside the Hamas and Iranian denials. It is relevant that both sides are in agreement. Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you, IDF's POV should be taken into account, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

XavierItzm: Where's the so-called interview with BBC? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Twice the BBC has reported that Hamas told it Iran helped it with the attacks. Please observe the BBC remains a WP:RS and therefore there is no need to qualify its reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm There is something odd about this BBC quote. Firstly, they don't actually give a verbatim quote of what Hamad said and in what context. "Backing" can mean anything, from active involvement to abetting to moral support. I wasn't able to find audio or video either. But what gives me even more pause is that the BBC itself withdrew the claim from its dedicated article on the question of Iranian involvement. Have a look at the earliest and latest versions of this article in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67058244 The earliest version contains the claim; the latest does not. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh! Great catch! That right there is proof of the desperate interference being run to disassociate Iran from the situation, most likely by the US government. Amusing: Rule, Britannia! But interesting as your find is, that's not the reference being used. The references are listed above, are currently available on the BBC, and are not being ghost-edited. So use them! XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that BBC article is not the reference currently being used in the article. But it is a more recent and arguably more authoritative BBC article covering that question than our current BBC sources:

• Paul Adams, Did Iran support plan for attack on Israel?, BBC, October 9, 2023 (current version, without Ghazi Hamad reference to Iran's backing).

Here are the archived versions:

• October 9, with Hamad
• October 11, without Hamad

If the BBC still stood by what they published on October 7, October 8 and October 9, why delete it a couple of days later?

Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. The BBC might have withdrawn the statement because they felt it was being misinterpreted. They might have withdrawn it because whoever first paraphrased Hamad did a poor job. (It's really unfortunate that they didn't quote him verbatim, and don't seem to have published the actual audio/video of Hamad). Or Hamad might well have said explicitly that Iran helped with planning etc., and all of this is, like you say, an attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube to avoid further escalation. What do you think, Vice regent?

For what it's worth, I have contacted Paul Adams on Twitter to ask about the deletion. If he replies, I'll report back. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul Adams is mainly relying on WSJ, right? I think WSJ's allegations should be included, but only in article not in lead, along with plenty of evidence we have against WSJ allegations coming not just from Hamas and Iran, but also from Israel and the US.VR _talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here's my take on this:
first, the Paul Adams article may be intended to be more authoritative. However, it has been shadow-edited, which (when other publications do it) is ground for Wikipedia demerits and inclusion on its "Perennial Sources" little black list of unwelcome media, deprecated or otherwise less worthy media. Therefore, I would extend that criterium and say: well, this here Paul Adams article is not very reliable, and so it can't be considered "authoritative" for this page.
Second, this here late Paul Adams article fails to deny that Ghazi Hamad said what he said on two BBC articles which remain published. The fact it fails to deny can only mean one thing: it takes it as good. Analogy: Adams also fails to deny the Earth is round in this article, so whether the article is "authoritative" or not, it simply has no beef with the Earth being round, and with Ghazi Hamad having said what Ghazi Hamad said.
Third, the Wall Street Journal agreed with the two BBC articles and with Ghazi Hamad, reporting: "Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas [...] A European official and an adviser to the Syrian government, however, gave the same account of Iran’s involvement in the lead-up to the attack as the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members".
Look, at the end of the day, we should not do WP:OR. The facts are that you have two BBC articles and one WSJ stating the exact same (plus, the WSJ cites a European official!) and traditionally these are considered silver-plated WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle that WSJ and BBC are unimpeachable RS, it is possible that the BBC felt obliged to remove the claim taken from the WSJ story after questions were raised about its probity. For example, a former Reuters exec publicly accused the WSJ reporter of fabricating the story:[6]. Of course, X is not a source, and this doesn't mean we can disregard the WSJ. Just context. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 Thanks, interesting. Andreas JN466 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It's partly circular. On Oct. 8 the WSJ stated A spokesman for Hamas, Ghazi Hamad, told the BBC that the militant group had received support from its ally Iran for its surprise attacks on Israel. This was based on the Oct. 7 BBC article saying Ghazi Hamad had told the BBC Hamas had backing (whatever that was supposed to mean) from Iran. Adams, largely summarising the WSJ claims, first included and then quietly deleted (or had his editor delete) the BBC statement about Hamas that the WSJ had repeated.

I am just wondering how confidently we should assert in our article that Hamad told the BBC Hamas had direct backing from Iran, given that –

• no BBC article ever marked any of this as a direct quote,
• we don't have audio or video,
• the statement was later quietly deleted from the Adams article.

My feeling is we should follow the approach of CNBC (cited in the article), who put a "reportedly" into their sentence ("reportedly told the BBC"). Regards, Andreas JN466 00:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your precision. But, "reportedly told the BBC" what? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein The current article wording is:

Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;, and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.

I find that statement too strong, and too keen to leave the reader with the impression it is established that Iran planned this. Moreover, we seem to have lost the statement from US officials and Blinken disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal. Andreas JN466 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Andreas, the word "support" can mean lots of things, including merely verbal support. Without additional details it is impossible to tell. Generally, in-depth and comprehensive coverage is preferable to sources that make drive-by remarks without clarifying what exactly they mean. So far we only have WSJ as the source of these claims (one of the BBC articles is nothing but a regurgitation of the WSJ article).VR _talk 06:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent We are in agreement here. But we have been prominently featuring Ghazi Hamad's statement in the article for days now, and it seems to me we are making a poor source do a lot of work here. Remember, he is the only named source in our article for this entire Iranian conspiracy theory which – for what it's worth – has been roundly contradicted by Blinken and other US officials who have been saying they have seen no evidence of Iranian involvement. Andreas JN466 13:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there may be audio. Apparently, Hamad spoke to Newshour. Checking. Andreas JN466 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Great catch, Andreas. Are you checking the BBC archives for the Newshour audio? I really don't want to have use a VPN and sign up for BBC services. But let me know... XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the interview. Time code 20:15. My transcript:

Hamad: You forget that thousands of Palestinians were killed in Gaza, civilians, women and children. We were fighting for 75 years during occupation, but no one listened to us. PLO had long negotiations with Israel, but Israel continue to do all kinds of crimes. The international community should focus the occupation, which ist the longest occupation in the world …

BBC presenter: And how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?

Hamad: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Other countries they help us, either with money, or with weapons, with political support, with everything, it is alright, to do that.

@Vice regent, Mhhossein, and XavierItzm: Thoughts? Andreas JN466 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That Iran funds Hamas in general is well known. There is nothing specific there about the Oct 7 attack. That would be as misleading as including all countries which sell weapons to Israel as being involved in this war.VR _talk 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no circularity. Do not conflate the small articlet ("card", the WSJ calls it) you cited above, where the WSJ merely reports on what the BBC reported, with the full in-depth WSJ article, with 3 authors, which not only cites Hamas sources, but also European and Syrian officials, and which furthermore locates the Iran-Hamas planning meetings in Beirut "since August" and which does not cite the BBC at all. Also,
◉ Since when do we demand audio or video from the BBC as proof of BBC reporting?,
◉ Two BBC articles currently include the Hamas statements.
Vice regent, can you explain your assertion "we only have WSJ as the source" when there are two BBC articles currently available on the BBC site for the statement? XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only named source is Ghazi Hamad. The October 7 BBC article said, A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel. That was then reported by others – CNBC e.g. said, Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, reportedly told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Iranian security officials helped with the planning and approved the attack at a meeting in Beirut last Monday. The long Wall Street Journal article you mention (archived here, for reference) does not mention Ghazi Hamad or the BBC at all. It only cites unnamed "senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah", and a "European official and an adviser to the Syrian government". As far as I can see, everybody else just reported what the WSJ (and BBC) said. Andreas JN466 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Because one of the BBC articles simply says Iran "supports" the attacks without specifying whether this support is merely verbal or material. If it meant material it would have provided some details, so it appears to be merely verbal.VR _talk 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Jayen466's transcript of the BBC interview confirms that Hamas didn't say Iran was involved in this attack.VR _talk 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The interviewer asks "how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?" and Ghazi Hamad responds: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Then the BBC twice further reports this fact. Then The WSJ reports that the planning for the attacks was jointly held in Beirut by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and this is confirmed by Europeans and by Syrians. It's all quite clear. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Like other users here, I don't believe we should take untold explanations from a very general phrase like "Iran help us". Such EXCEPTIONAL claims should be backed by "multiple high-quality sources". There is no evidence raised by the sources saying Iran was involved in this specific operation. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be true if you only had the BBC's interview with the Hamas spokesman, but remember: you also have the European officials, the Syrian officials, and Yahya Rahim Safavi: top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel. Let's not pretend the multiple BBC articles are the only source here. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Politico source begins by: "Government-backed Tasnim News Agency reported that..." (you'd better quote it completely). Also it's talking about "pledge". Nothing more, nothing less. Then I have to repeat again, "“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. None of what have been presented so far can be counted as a suitable evidence for this purpose. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia sez: "Tasnim News Agency is a semi-official news agency in Iran associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps". Are you really proposing that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard lied that military adviser to the Iran Supreme Leader Yahya Rahim Safavi, and I quote here, "Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel"? Wowza. Look, when an official means of communication of a government says something, they mean that's what that government means to say. And then when secondary WP:RS report on it, it becomes unassailable. Plus, you have the BBC, the WSJ, etc., all saying the same. XavierItzm (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article ... The current wording, in the Muslim world subsection, is Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;, and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.

Should that be changed and if so how? Andreas JN466 09:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I might append something along the lines of "it was not clear how much of the August thru October Iran-Hamas joint planning sessions in Beirut and subsequent execution on the ground in Israel differed from the regular guidance and weapons supply Iran provides to Hamas." The truth is, we just don't know the extent of the difference, if any. XavierItzm (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that was all that Hamad was referring to. :/ Note October 13/14 New York Times article: Hamas Attack on Israel Brings New Scrutiny of Group’s Ties to Iran – Officials from Iran and Hezbollah helped plan the attack, people familiar with the operation said, but the U.S. and its allies have not found evidence directly linking Tehran. Andreas JN466 14:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Funny article. Thanks. Per it, you have yet another named Hamas guy, Ali Barakeh, saying Iran was involved; four Iranian government dudes telling you they helped plan the thing and arm Hamas, contradicting their boss, the Supreme Leader, who on Oct 3rd all but telegraphed the whole thing, but who now denies all involvement; the US establishment agrees with the Leader and rushes to agree that he had nothing to do with this. Weapons of mass destruction, anyone? The Israelis, who are a US client state, toe the US headline, while subtly undermining it with contrarian facts. Also noteworthy: Hezbollah confirms Iran’s participation. Quotable quotes from the NYT:
• people familiar with the operation said that a tight circle of leaders from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas helped plan the attack starting over a year ago, trained militants and had advanced knowledge of it. That account is based on interviews with three Iranians affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, one Iranian connected to senior leadership and a Syrian affiliated with Hezbollah
• The implementation was all Hamas, but we do not deny Iran’s help and support,” said Ali Barakeh, a senior Hamas official
• Hamas gunmen captured and interrogated by Israel said they had been training for the latest operation for a year, according to Israeli defense officials
• training had been taking place in Lebanon and Syria, and a secret joint command center had been set up in Beirut, according to the Iranians and the Syrian
• audio reviewed by The Times of an April discussion among members of the Revolutionary Guards, including those involved with proxies in the region, a speaker said, “The message that is being communicated from Iran these days to the resistance is that we showcase a military maneuver to make the Zionist regime understand it is surrounded
Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran has not been added as of yet in the main infobox (under "Belligerents") as a supporting country Daffd2222 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, XavierItzm. Some of that info could be added, but overall (the Iran angle is mentioned in multiple places) the article seems to be reasonably in line with the RS narrative as it currently stands. Best, Andreas JN466 13:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

This article is completely pro-palestine

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.

---

This article clearly states the Hamas on the good side, while limits the horrific actions it did to babies and women, entire families were wiped away, burned in their house. Instead this article focuses on the safety of the Palestine people from April. Wake up! Hamas kidnapped kids and threatened to kill hostages. Hamas burned down houses to get civilians out of it and kill them. Look at the tragedy at kibbutz be'eri, the whole place smells like death! 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:C088:4426:FBA6:11B2 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What? Do you want me to go post here a picture of a beheaded baby? I pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:8437:EE5:FB03:6FC9 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You criticize the article for being partial, but you won't point out what sentences or claims are supposed to be partial? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Please add a picture of a dead baby by Hamas. Source: the daily telegraph (British newspaper) 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:244C:BF4:C802:D26E (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If the photo is under a compatible license, feel free to request an edit here to add it. However, most photos on news sites (like the telegraph) are copyrighted, which is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

that was a fake news and has now been debunked, you can now please shut the eff up and sit the eff down. It’s good it was never part of this article to begin with. 2001:14BB:AB:3B33:F980:F6C2:8B34:99DD (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean debunked by a 4chan post and a very inaccurate AI detection website? Many journalist, the US president, and Israeli authorities all talked about it so I think mention of it does belong in this article 1992HondaCivic (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This article, and all other Wikipedia articles, should not be written to identify good and bad sides. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. entropyandvodka | talk 02:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet this all article completely lack's of WP:NPOV and tries to justify a massacre with infinite examples of euphemism like civilians being "captured" and not "kidnapped", and being "captives" and not "hostages". Hamas terrorists being called "militants" (even after 82 countries recognized them as terrorists). dov (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're saying is that the article isn't 'neutral' because it doesn't embody your PoV. These are not euphemisms; they are the most neutral term to describe a situation with great moral complexity and must be understood within a profoundly complicated historical context. Jamesiepoo88 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Captured was used because civilians and soldiers were both taken. Hostages is generally used for civilians, while prisoner of war is generally used for soldiers. Captured and captive are the most neutral terms to describe both. Regarding the use of terrorist, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Note that terms like "freedom fighters" are also to be avoided. In what ways do you feel the article is justifying a massacre? Do you have specific examples you can point to? entropyandvodka | talk 05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

These people arent milatants or soldiers. Hamas is a recognized terror organization in many countries. Call them what they are ffs. TeRRoRiSTS. Damn libs and arabs ruining the world 2600:1017:A00A:722:1558:DD7C:A4FE:D4E7 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Damn libs and arabs ruining the world" Okay buddy, you clearly have extreme bias and should not be giving your opinion on a website focused on neutrality. Nohjmich17 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good sir, you clearly have extreme bias. Wikipedia is focused on providing factical information, without bias, and if you consider this to be a sign of "Damn libs and arabs ruling the world", no one forces you to use the website. RealNuclearFish (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean he's right this isn't neutral. It is very biased in favor of Palestine. Just saying. 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide concrete examples? Blanket statements about the article as a whole won't lead to increased neutrality in the article. entropyandvodka | talk 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, can you back up your statement that this article "clearly states that Hamas is on the good side"? And what evidence have you concerning the "actions it did to babies"? For are you not aware that - as reported by CNN and other news outlets - even the US President is now back-tracking on claims to have seen the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too caught up in the way the IP OP expressed their concern. The substance needs to be addresssed. Look at the "war crimes" section: A few lines about the Hamas attack and everything it encompassed - with crimes evident on their face, beyond any doubt. Then the article has many times more text of speculation about Israeli actions, most of which have not yet occurred or may not fit the definition of "war crime" or are inaccurately described. Then lots of speculation, general condemnations of crimes, and uncontextualized claims about the actions of the Israelis. And the section is replete with quotations and opinions of self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction, one of which boasts that it's a "youth run" Norwegian outfit in Switzerland. OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. You have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'tselem all cited in that section. Those are not "self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction", those are reliable sources on the topic of human rights and international law, and they are cited for making explicit accusations of war crimes against Israel. You can try to pretend that your framing of that section is accurate here as you couldnt get your way in the section above, but I wont play along with that fantasy. nableezy - 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"That's nonsense"? Nothing more focused to say? Note the difference between Amnesty International, whose words are measured and widely respected, and the random POV's of a dozen lesser outfits, including various UN monickers. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Various UN monickers? You mean the High Commissioner for Human Rights? I said considerably more than that's nonsense, I then explained why it is nonsense. nableezy - 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean the same organization that put Saudi Arabia in its human rights whatever arbitration committee? 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats the Human Rights Council. The High Commissioner on Human Rights is head of the Human Rights Office and is appointed by the Secretary General and approved by the General Assembly. nableezy - 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. If you’re using certain sources or bodies like human rights commission and amnesty international to add value and moral judgment to your argument then you cannot cherry pick like that.

if a given human rights body is served as a citation to term something as “war crime”, in another article while criticising Saudi Arabia you cannot find alternative sources to make a point.

this is extremely biased and wrong approach for a platform such as Wikipedia. You cannot sell some specific narrative or view by changing the goal posts whenever and however you want, depending upon your own biases. 2001:14BB:AB:3B33:F980:F6C2:8B34:99DD (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Use of "militant" for Hamas war crimes but "terrorist" for September 11 attackers

why would no one ever describe the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks as militants, but the page describing Hamas massacres and terror uses the term militants rather than terrorists? This is bias 68.193.48.39 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah. Actually, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. The NYT: settlements near the Gaza Strip that came under attack by Palestinian terrorists. See? The NYT is the holy grail in wikipedia, until it is not. XavierItzm (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT title originally used "terrorists", NYT changed it to "gunmen", and then changed it back. Which is why I've said we should slow things down. Anyhow, I had a "s" at the end of sources, indicating preponderance of RS. See WP:TERRORIST O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources tend to name attacking groups based on their size and level of coordination, not how much terror they instill. Guerilla wars often involve attacks that would be described as terrorism if carried out by individuals or small groups; but they are called irregular militias or guerilla groups. In this case it's the coordinated militias of an entire territory, elsewhere it could be armies of a nation. – SJ + 21:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's because this is a century-long geopolitical issue with heated debate on both sides and using the word "terrorism" would be taking a side. 9/11 was something else, where there is no context or justification for the act. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's absurd. There is nothing particularly special about 9/11, other than showiness. In fact, the murder of 3,000 civilians in NYC out of a population of 300 million is proportionally a much smaller-scale event than the murder of 1,000 civilians out of a population of 9 million. So if terrorist is appropriate in one case, it is appropriate in the other one. XavierItzm (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The 9/11 article should use "suicide attack" instead to make it clear that it is not meant to convey scale. There were many features of 9/11 that were analytically significant, like being a suicide attack. These two events can't be compared in any meaningful way, other than the point about population density, and perhaps the long term and ongoing consequences of the attack. Ben Azura (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

O3000, Ret. is correct. We do not have sufficient weight of sources to justify the use of the term 'terrorist' without attribution. I think we can trust readers to understand murder is bad without recourse to contentious terms. Riposte97 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the NYT is weighty enough in 99.99999% of wikipedia articles, but please realise that the NYT cannot possibly be weighty enough here. Oh no. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on war crime perpetrators

Is this sentence in the lede an accurate reflection of the body that mentions how rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes (MOS:LEDE: Lede is a summary of the body)?

"Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to warcrimes." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment "The United nations and human rights groups have...." might be better? (Amnesty, HRW and B'tselem afaik) Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you. "The United nations and human rights groups have...." reads better. Regards, ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support this or a similar revision. The current statement is "There were widespread deaths of civilians, and many allegations of war crimes." This is vague, and an inadequate summary of the issue. Readers ought to know who is accusing whom. entropyandvodka | talk 15:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Likewise agree with Selfstudier, would be a better summary of the section we have as well. Though I would change the wording of "amounting to", thats more for other crimes in international law, war crimes are generally about specific actions (targeting civilians, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment), the sentence I would use would be something like The United Nations and human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict. nableezy - 14:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Can someone provide the sources supporting this? For example, HRW's statement appears to support the proposed wording in regards to Hamas but not Israel - about Hamas it says amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law, but about Israel it says would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime.

  In other words, for Hamas it talks about plural war crimes in the past tense, but about Israel it talks about a singular war crime in the future tense; a singular war crime that it says if Israel continues down its path of besieging Gaza will occur, but hasn't yet. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  HRW has said Israel has already committed war crimes, eg here, as has the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, saying “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. ... “This amounts to collective punishment,” the UN experts said. “There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.” nableezy - 14:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you; I think your link for the second source is wrong though, but based on the quote I believe this is the right link.

  I'd be hesitant to go with plural for Israel - the white phosphorous allegation doesn't appear to have been made by the UN, and reliable sources reporting on it don't give it the same credence as they do other allegations - but singular is appropriate on the basis of the siege. I'm not sure what the best wording for this would be? BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Several reliable sources have reported on the usage of white phosphorous munitions, eg Washington Post. Oops, sorry about the link, too many open tabs. There are also statements by UN officials, eg the High Commissioner on Human Rights (see here), and the Special Procedures link covers both the indiscriminate attacks and the collective punishment of the over a decade long blockade, both being war crimes. So plural works for all parts of that sentence in my view. nableezy - 15:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Washington Post article was actually one of the ones I was looking at when I said the reliable sources reporting on it don't give it the same credence as they do other allegations; for example, rather than saying Israel has used white phosphorous, it tones it down and says they are alleged to have used it.

  Looking at the Reuters article, I'm not seeing allegations of plural war crimes; just the singular allegation in regards to the siege. The same with the special procedures link; in regards to Hamas it says:

  “We strongly condemn the horrific crimes committed by Hamas, the deliberate and widespread killing and hostage-taking of innocent civilians, including older persons and children. These actions constitute heinous violations of international law and international crimes, for which there must be urgent accountability,” the experts said.

  While in regards to Israel it says:

  “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.

  “This amounts to collective punishment,” the UN experts said. “There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.”

  Hamas it talks in the plural; heinous violations of international law and international crimes. Israel, however, it talks in the singular; a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  The sentence is about accusations by the UN and by human rights groups, and you are misreading the UN statement. This amounts to a war crime is about the blockade. The other war crime is the indiscriminate attacks. And then later, intentional starvation is a crime against humanity. There are also later statements by special rapporteurs that the order evacuate northern Gaza is also a war crime (source). And you seem to be ignoring the statements by the Human Rights Office as well. nableezy - 15:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, can you clarify what you are referring to with the statements by the Human Rights Office?

  My understanding is that "This amounts to collective punishment" and "amounts to a war crime" applies to the entire paragraph “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.

  Intentional starvation would be a second crime, but fortunately it hasn't gone to that extent yet and I hope and believe Israel will relent before it does; the sources discuss this in terms of a future possibility: Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity,” the experts said.

  However, there is a bigger issue with that proposed sentence, for both Hamas and Israel, that I've only seen now with additional information from the most recent source you provided: UN special rapporteurs are unpaid, independent figures mandated by the Human Rights Council. They do not speak for the UN but report their findings to it. At the moment, we only have sources saying that UN special rapporteurs that either party has committed war crimes; we don't have the UN saying it in its own voice. We need a source that does that.

  Assuming that a U.N. -appointed Commission of Inquiry speaks in the UN's voice then the Reuters source comes close, but doesn't quite do what we need for the proposed sentence as it only says "clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed" by all sides to the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Re Human Rights Office, its covered here and here (among other places). Türk heads the UN Human Rights Office as High Commissioner for Human Rights. nableezy - 20:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did put this article in at one point but someone removed it, it is a biased source but green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  "What the Israeli government is now doing, however, is replying to war crimes with war crimes."

  "It’s collective punishment, and these tactics are war crimes"

  https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2023/10/12 FunLater (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot), though I have edited the article before Support any wording along the lines of "The United Nations and human rights groups have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to war crimes." As for UN comments on Israel, note UN press release: “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. “This amounts to collective punishment,” the UN experts said. “There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.” The experts also expressed concern about reports that journalists and media workers reporting on the conflict had been targeted, with seven Palestinian journalists and media workers reportedly killed in Israeli airstrikes. ... As a result of the Israeli attacks against Gaza, by air, land and sea, at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, including older persons and 290 children, and more than 5,000 injured. The airstrikes appear to have targeted densely populated areas, including markets, two hospitals, destroyed residential buildings and damaged 20 United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency (UNRWA) facilities, including schools sheltering displaced civilians. As of 11 October, the UN estimated that at least 340,000 people have been displaced within Gaza, and nearly 218,600 people are sheltering in 92 UNRWA schools across the Gaza Strip. “Indiscriminately killing civilians in the context of hostilities, with no regard for the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality, is a war crime,” the experts said. They also stressed that indiscriminate rocket attacks, bombing of civilian infrastructure and shelling densely populated areas constitute grave breaches of international humanitarian law, whether committed by Palestinian armed groups or by Israeli Defence Forces. On 9 October, the Israeli Defence Minister announced that authorities would completely cut essential supplies to Gaza, stating they are fighting “human animals.” The Minister threatened to bomb those attempting to provide humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. On 9 and 10 October, Israel reportedly bombed the Rafah crossing at the Gaza-Egyptian border, disrupting movement in and out of Gaza, rendering the crossing closed and the enclave completely blockaded. “Besides this appalling language that dehumanises the Palestinian people, especially those who have been unlawfully “imprisoned” in Gaza for 16 years, we condemn the withholding of essential supplies such as food, water, electricity and medicines. Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity,” the experts said. --Andreas JN466 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  No where does it say that the UN accused Israel of war crimes. Read the article, they are "UN indepedent experts". The UN then goes on to define what an independent expert is by emphasizing that they are not UN staff. The UN created a distinction in their article because they felt that it was important. Wiki should respect that distinction in its article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support with modified wording per above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in lead, okay with in body - Implies that the "both" view is overwhelmingly predominant. Each organization's views should instead be given in the body of the article. KlayCax (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There's not a present consensus on the matter that Israel actually is committing war crimes, unlike Hamas. Although simply listing "Hamas" in the lead also gives a particular tinge of bias, imo. I recommend leaving both out for WP: NPOV views. KlayCax (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The suggested wording also strongly implies that groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad haven't been accused of war crimes. KlayCax (talk) KlayCax (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed wording only seeks to describe the views published by the United Nations and human rights organisations. It does not make a blanket statement in Wikipedia's own voice. So the question before us is merely whether the views are correctly described (I think they are), and whether the views of the UN and of human rights organisations on Israel's and Hamas's conduct (PIJ aren't mentioned at all in the lead section) are due a mention in the lead (I think they are). Andreas JN466 18:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the denotation. It's the connotation. It implies that there is a consensus among human rights organization that both sides have committed war crimes. The Economist says that this isn't the predominant viewpoint: In practice, though, international law and the specific rules that govern warfare—the law of armed conflict (LOAC), also known as international humanitarian law (IHL)—give Israel considerable latitude to attack Hamas, according to legal experts... Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says. It's a question of WP: Weight in the article.

Of course — there's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict background — so the obvious WP: NPOV choice would to be to simply leave the term as "war crimes" while explaining what that means in the section for it. The sentence implies to me that human rights organizations have a generally singular view of each actor's conduct during the war. There's multiple reliable sources that contradict this notion. KlayCax (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Economist gives that as one persons view, Aurel Sari. Not as a fact nor even as something they themselves are saying. It also does not change that the UN and a number of human rights organizations have indeed said both sides have committed war crimes. nableezy - 21:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but promoting one view over another is a WP: Weight question, as there's no current obvious consensus.

I'd be okay with wording such as: there have been allegations of widespread human rights allegations committed by participants in the war. Does that work? KlayCax (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there anybody saying the UN and these human rights groups have not accused the parties of war crimes? If not there is no weight issue in that sentence. If we were to say as a statement of fact war crimes occurred then there is a weight question, and then you may have a point. But there is no view that conflicts with the sentence the United Nations and several human rights organizations have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes. nableezy - 02:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but it privileges their viewpoint over others, which is why it would be a WP: Weight issue. There have been allegations of widespread human rights allegations committed by all major participants in the war would be totally in line with WP: Weight and WP: NPOV. Since it doesn't: 1.) Imply a common consensus on which committed war crimes 2.) Reflects the body 3.) Doesn't exclude other Palestinian militant groups. 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per Andreas. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Since the start of this discussion, the sentence has been changed multiple times, most recently by me (from a different, vague version apparently reached without consensus). This was partly out of confusing this discussion with another discussion about the same line, started by the same editor, and the other discussion appearing relatively inactive at the time, without the concern having been addressed and agreement there at that point in time. This wasn't an attempt to bypass consensus here, just a product of highly similar discussions happening concurrently on the same subject and not noticing the expansion of another one. Another user in third separate discussion about this pointed out that the allegations aren't just against Hamas and Israel, but other militant groups. If we have RS making that distinction as well and it's discussed in the body, perhaps the "final" version of the line could reflect that too.entropyandvodka | talk 00:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka Your change was reverted by User:KlayCax. It seems to me that revert was against current talk page consensus. I have therefore reinserted the reference to Hamas and Israel both having been accused of war crimes by the UN and human rights orgs in the lead, using the wording proposed by User:Nableezy above. (Klay, note that if you revert me as well in the next 20 hours or so, you will be in breach of the 1RR restriction that applies to this article.) For reference, the current wording in the lead after further edits by others is There were widespread deaths of civilians, and United Nations independent experts and human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict. Regards, Andreas JN466 08:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think people should familiarize themselves with what the UN source says. It's located here. Notably the UN does not accuse Israel of war crimes in this, but rather UN Independent Experts do. What's the difference? Well according to the article: "The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organisation and serve in their individual capacity." The UN goes to great lenghts to highlight that these are independent workers, calling them as such multiple times. They are affiliated with the UN but they also do not work for the UN. If the UN wanted to accuse Israel they would have. The UN in their own paper has taken the effort to distringuish themselves from their independent experts, Wiki should follow the UN's lead and respect their decision. To say that "The UN Says Israel Committed War Crimes" is strongly misrepresenting what the source says.Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Alcibiades979 Thanks. I don't think that it was a strong misrepresentation, given that these independent experts are part of the UN's process, and the UN publishes the views of these experts in its press releases, but I agree that saying "United Nations independent experts" has improved precision. Andreas JN466 08:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  This phrasing seems to reflect the general current consensus. As long as the line says who is accusing, what they are being accused of, and who is being accused, there shouldn't be any issue. The vague "and many allegations of war crimes" wasn't an accurate summary, and raised NPOV concerns. entropyandvodka | talk 09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Compromise suggestion

I think there's an overwhelming consensus among editors that war crimes allegations should be included in the lead.

How does everyone feel about changing it from:

Many allegations of war crimes

to:

"there have been widespread allegations of war crimes committed by participants in the war"

That's my proposal. @Entropyandvodka: @Nableezy: @Andrevan: @Jayen466: @BilledMammal: The sentence is neutral, correctly states that all sides have been accused of war crimes, and does not present WP: Weight issues by disproportionately highlighting a implying (non-existent) present consensus among scholars of international law on the matter. Does this wording satisfy everyone? KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that is near the point of meaninglessness. I also dont quite get the PIJ bit, nor the idea that there is a present consensus among scholars of international law. The proposed sentence does not say PIJ did not commit any war crimes, but they arent the major player in this conflict. The sentence also does not make a statement of fact which could mean a consensus among scholars, it merely relays what the UN and various human rights groups have said. None of the things you say are implied are implied in my reading of the proposed sentence. So no, I disagree with this and find it mealy mouthed and begs the question allegations from who? nableezy - 02:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Then "all" could be added to it: "there have been widespread allegations of war crimes committed by all participants in the war". I would be happy with that.

it merely relays what the UN and various human rights groups have said Why should their views be prioritized over others? No one's suggesting removal in the body.

I'm bringing up PIJ because the current wording implies that they haven't been accused of war crimes. Couldn't "all" work? That seems like the most reasonable wording to me. The other has connotation problems. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont see how, it makes no comment on it and beyond that where are the accusations against them anyway? Why would we prioritize the UN statements and the human rights groups? Because sources have prioritized them, compare how many sources have discussed HRW or the UN Human Rights Office or the Special Rapporteurs (lots), compared to Aurel Sari's view (one). nableezy - 03:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al. have all faced criticism of their own, and there's notable dissents from their opinion.

Aurel Sari isn't the only one with similar contentions, even within the article quoted. not a newspaper. We can wait for a consensus to emerge. KlayCax (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Again it would be a wording issue; "all participants in the war" can mean literally every combatant on both sides of the war. entropyandvodka | talk 09:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy here. The fact is that the UN independent experts and the human rights orgs have singled out Israel and Hamas and their views are very widely reported. Andreas JN466 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. DFlhb (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with the wording currently in the article (UN independent experts and human rights groups accusing both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict), per the discussions on sourcing above DFlhb (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Such statement equates Hamas and Israel. Sources do not do it, even such as UN, if one reads entire publications, instead of citing out of context. My very best wishes (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  That is untrue, and anybody who reads any of the reports will see that is just a flat out mistruth. nableezy - 15:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To begin with something, they are not equal because it was Hamas who attacked Israel, i.e. started the war. No one denies this fact. Using an obvious analogy here, it does matter a lot that Russia invade Ukraine, rather than vice verse, hence the Legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That is all personal opinion, personal opinion that ignores that Gaza has been under Israeli occupation since 1967, and under blockade since 2007. Yes, lots of sources deny the idea that Hamas started anything. But it is all personal opinion, and as such completely irrelevant on a Wikipedia talk page. Please use sources instead of providing us with your own novel analysis. Your earlier comment, that the sources do not give the same view on war crimes for both sides here, remains a falsehood. You can see proof of the lie at for example at this headline Experts say Hamas and Israel are committing war crimes in their fight. See how it says both of them are committing war crimes? What part is being cited out of context in for example the Special Procedures statement saying that they deplore the violations of international law by both Hamas and Israel? nableezy - 01:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

lots of sources deny the idea that Hamas started anything. Which sources are you talking about? Certainly not thee source you just provided [7]. It does say that Hamas was guilty of intentionally targeting and killing Israeli civilians during the massacres. It then describes opinions and denials with regard to Israel actions, and they are clearly different from the actions by Hamas militants. They maybe "better" or "worse", depending on someone's view, but they are definitely not the same - according to RS you cited and others. That is they are not equal. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is denying that Hamas attacked Israel and killed scores of civilians. But a number of sources put that in the context of the ongoing siege of Gaza over the last nearly two decades. The source I provided was showing that rights groups are saying that both of them are committing war crimes. That was two different points, one replying to your personal opinion, one replying to repeated false statements. What the source says, despite your inaccurate portrayal of it, is Experts say the blockade, which is hitting the territory’s more than 2 million residents, violates international law. “Collective punishment is a war crime. Israel is doing that by cutting electricity, water, food, blocking aid from entering the Gaza Strip,” Shakir said. and The International Committee of the Red Cross said the order to leave along with the siege “are not compatible with international humanitarian law.”

Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, also called the order illegal. It is “not an evacuation opportunity, it’s an order to relocate. Under humanitarian law, it’s called forcible transfer of populations, and it’s a war crime,” he said. nableezy - 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support "The United Nations and human rights groups have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to war crimes." or similar, the simplest and most straightforward representation of the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Sources need to be added to the sentence that ends with a number of human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict, ideally links to statements from the human rights groups making these accusations. A few appropriate sources to add there would be the UN independent expert link and the HRW link that specifically says What the Israeli government is now doing, however, is replying to war crimes with war crimes, their emphasis. Also, Amnesty International has stated The collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population amounts to a war crime – it is cruel and inhumane. Also, intriguing articles are to be found by doing a web search for "human rights groups critical of israel" including an article from John Hopkins University reminding us The rules, known as international humanitarian law, are designed to limit harm to non-combatants in war; they are distinct from the law regarding the legitimacy of going to war. Ender and Peter 19:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Added re the UN experts link. There were previously sources after this sentence but they may have been deleted in an contentious edit and not restored with the sentence. Since the statement currently reads "a number of human rights organizations", we should supply a source that says that explicitly. I think we have several already, but am open to discussion about which is most appropriate. Linking the major ones, HRW, Amnesty International, would also be appropriate in addition. entropyandvodka | talk 19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

McDonald's boycott

can someone add mcdonald's boycott under the reaction section in muslim world.isreali franchise begin provide free meals to Israeli soldiers following the outbreak of war source so many in muslim majority countries called to boycott mac forcing the franchise in these countries to post a statement that they don't have any relation with isreali franchise egypt boycott and pakistan boycott أحمد توفيق and other franchises in muslim world donate to palestine mac qatar and mac turkey(talk) 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Trivial in comparison to daily events. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@أحمد توفيق: Maybe you can add something to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be reported under international reactions or under muslim world(whichever is more appropriate). People are boycotting mcdonalds for providing meals to israili forces. mcd has also received a ton of backlash and has been forced to lock its social media accounts on X.A large crowd of citizens reportedly gathered outside of a McDonald's in Lebanon in protest of the move.

Codenamephoenix (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as it is some local franchises obeying their authority. This would be like reporting about some small grocery shop giving free food to local population in times of crisis. Cactus Ronin (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

2023 Israel–Palestinian War

Most biased Wikipedia article I've ever seen in a long time on this site and this is the most egregious case. From the Zionist propaganda term "2023 Israel-Hamas War to thinking this war started in 2023 and not 1917 and ignoring the years of settlers violence, the ongoing Nakba from 1948 to the present, occupation and genocide of the Palestinians just "started in 2023" because "the media told us so". Digusting. Gengeros (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gengeros I am with your opinion

The lines in the top section telling the one side story and hiding other related stuff of war like blockade of gaza and Killing of civilians and Children in homes and also in Hospital. Nauman335 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the current events. For the long term conflict see Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Seffardim (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I love how this talk page is flooded with claims of the article's blatant and disgusting bias, but all from different sides. "This article is so blatantly anti-Israel!" "No, it's blatantly anti-Palestinian! Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow Currently this page running Anti-Palestine Talks Nauman335 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some activists believe this was an act of resistance by Hamas. To most people it looks like a massacre. Hamas justified its violence against non combatants by claiming that no Jews living in Israel are civilians. This has been widely rejected, just as Israel's targetting of civilians and children would be rejected (but Israel does not officially admit to targetting civilians and more often has been prosecuting its own citizens when they take matters into their own hands). I expect it will be incorporated into the article somehow. Ben Azura (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Graphs

Due to concerns raised over the differing y-axis on two graphs, comparing Israeli and Palestinian deaths, I've combined the two. Feel free to modify or use as you see fit. This is my first graph, so if I've made any errors, please let me know. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Add it to the page! Miserlou (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Can you change the labels "Palestine" and "Israel" to "Killed Palestinians" and "Killed Israelis"?

Right now, if someone doesn't read the text in the middle, they could get the impression that the blue (labeled Israel) is how many people Israel killed and the orange (labeled Palestine) is how many people Palestine killed. FunLater (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I'll add it to the page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much. FunLater (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Can switch the positions of "X Israelis killed" and "X Palestinians killed"? because they are right next to the large column for Palestinians killed so one would associate this large column with the top sentence "X Israelis killed" at first glance 156.213.205.142 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean the two sentences in the graph? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes 156.213.205.142 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas incursion a 'razzia' (surprise attack against non-Muslims)

The Hamas incursion in Israel has been dubbed 'razzia' by renowned French political scientist Gilles Kepel :

https://www.lexpress.fr/monde/proche-moyen-orient/gilles-kepel-la-razzia-du-hamas-marque-une-victoire-pour-lislamisme-frero-chiite-BATUJBY4ERFY3JNGNT4PGHNGOE/

From razzia (military) article:

A razzia (from French razzia "incursion", and from Algerian Arabic ġaziya (غزية), "algara" or "raid") is a term used to refer to a surprise attack against an enemy settlement.

When executed in the context of Islamic jihad, the function of the razzia was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation. Since the typical razia was not sufficiently numerous to achieve military or territorial objectives, it usually involved surprise attacks on poorly defended targets (e.g. villages) with the intention of terrorizing and demoralizing their inhabitants"

Total casualties

In line with stuff I've seen in other places on wikipedia, should we add up the numbers in the casualties of both sides to create a total casualties number? Chessnut265 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy request fix

In "§ Statements by governmental figures and polities", second paragraph: the first sentence is attributed to the UN Human Rights Council, cites REF380. The 4th sentence is also attributed to the UNHRC, same citation, and an additional incorrect citation (REF282, which is actually about the UN Commission of Inquiry, not the UNHRC). The quote in the 4th sentence is wrongly attributed to UNHRC but is from REF282, the UN Commission of Inquiry. Could someone please delete the 4th sentence as it duplicates the first and second sentences, and is a misquote? Feel free to also move the quote to the second sentence, with proper in-text attribution, if you prefer. I believe I'm at 1RR. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Link for convenience: § Statements by governmental figures and polities, second paragraph.

The problem is deeper than I thought. The first sentence attributes "clear evidence" of war crimes by both sides to the UNHRC, as the Al Jazeera citation does, but there's evidence to believe Al Jazeera got confused and was referring to the UN Commission of Inquiry, not to the UN Human Rights Council.

clear evidence is a quote from the UN Commission of Inquiry, see here. If you check the AJ article, in that same paragraph, they quote the UNHRC as saying "The Commission is gravely concerned". Al Jazeera just got the attribution wrong.

(This has already been discussed in the RfC above and fixed in the lead, it just hasn't been fixed in the body.) DFlhb (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed claims?"

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)

Hamas War crimes

https://www.zman.co.il/live/429333/ "Dozens of experts in international law from Israel and the world stated that in its action nine days ago, Hamas committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. In the opinion, prepared at the request of the headquarters for the return of the kidnapped hostages, it is written that "under the circumstances of the matter, it is very likely to assume that the actions of Hamas also amount to a war crime of genocide." 2.55.34.46 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All the editors here are all fervently pro-Palestinian. Who exactly are you trying to address? 2A02:14F:179:724F:0:0:B797:17AB (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yupp, this attack is absolutely rooted in genocidal intentions. Don't say that to Wikipedians, though, they'll dismiss it and delete it. Just like they keep deleting our criticisms here of the article. This a disgrace and completely shameless. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. Israel is perpetuating a genocide. Hamas are "freedom fighters", you know? 2A02:14F:179:724F:0:0:B797:17AB (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To be Clear, why cannot comment be made within the article that forcing people from their land and bombing their homes to dust is not 'self-defense' - but a SS style genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Should we rename the topic?

Isnt better to name it "Israeli-palestinian war" or " Israeli- Gazan war" at least. Hamas are not the only fighters participating in this war. There are other militias. I know many of the western media are calling it "Israeli-hamas war" but It think the whole name is misnomer and ignores the role of the rest of the palestinians. M.hunjul (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

New statement by 100+ international law experts

"Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts", Times of Israel. What I want to know is where this statement released by "over 100 experts on international law" is. Was it released in Hebrew or something? I sure can't find it. I'm not contending that it doesn't exist, but I'd like the original statement to be cited in the article. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Check this link in The Globe and Mail. Maybe it's there. I am not sure though. You need a subscription to read it. 2A02:14F:173:68F8:0:0:B7A3:9C5C (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That article is too old to have a link to it. The statement was apparently released just today. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not; Irwin Cotler and Noah Lew separately accuse Hamas of genocide in that article, but they don't reference the international experts. BilledMammal (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Among the signatories of the expert opinion:

• Prof. Irwin Cotler, McGill University, former Canadian minister of justice

• Prof. Kai Ambos, Universität Göttingen

• Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, Chair the Lauterpacht Institute, Cambridge University

• Prof. Claudio Grossman, American University, Washington, member of the international law commission

• Prof. David Luban, Georgetown University

• Prof. Luis Moreno Ocampo, Sao Paulo University, former ICC prosecutor

• Prof. Sean D. Murphy, George Washington University, member of the international law commission

• Prof. Anne Peters, head of Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg

• Prof. Steven Ratner, University of Michigan 2A02:14F:173:68F8:0:0:B7A3:9C5C (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that citing international law experts on this subject is a good idea. UN has lost any credibility because one of the permanent members of UN security council is Russia, a country that committed countless war crimes in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UN statements are not made by Russia. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Russia was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council. [8] entropyandvodka | talk 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But not the UN security council. I think it's a fair thing to point out, and I don't think the UN's statements are consistent with NPOV. The US for example veto's condemnations of Israel that do not also condemn Hamas for what they describe as terrorism and the killing of civilians, which became a policy because the UN would constantly condemn Israel but not the people killing and targeting Israeli civilians (and the organization whose stated purpose is the destruction of the state of Israel). Chuckstablers (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

At the moment all I can find is the Times of Israel report and this piece by Arutz Sheva, both published earlier today.

• Arutz Sheva says, At this stage, this is only an initial list of signatories, in the coming days additional experts are expected to join the long list of signatories.
• The ToI says, Dan Eldad, who served as Israel’s acting state attorney from February to May 2020 and who helped put the letter together, told The Times of Israel that it may have key diplomatic value should Israel seek to persuade other countries or international organizations that remain on the fence to come down on its side, and in confronting those who express support for the Palestinian position.

I think at the moment it is a little premature to try and judge the importance of this statement – we will need to see how it's covered outside Israel. Andreas JN466 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already in the article. nableezy - 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, but I'm looking for the original source that the TOI was reporting on. We have the original UN statement by their own experts, for comparison, but here only the news report about this separate statement. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran Israel proxy conflict?

Diff I thought the WSJ report was subsequently denied by WH, Iran etc. Sure some want to blame Iran for everything but... Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas forcefully prevents Palestinians from evacuating

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/1713472153587167435?s=20

https://videoidf.azureedge.net/e9089368-485b-4410-bb61-9db004cd0e5e

Doesn't fit the narrative on this article, but it's the truth! In order to maximize the number of casualties in Gaza inflicted by the IDF, Hamas is taking the IDs and car keys off Gazan civilians so they can't evacuate.

Don't expect this to make headlines because it hurts the Palestinian propaganda war that the west loves to perpetuate.

They also set up roadblocks, so Palestinians can't evacuate:

https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-768382 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Why nobody included this conversation recording between a Gaza citizen and an IDF officer in the War crimes section?

Has this not been unconfirmed as of yet to not merely constitute IDF propaganda and fake news? 2A02:14F:1EF:676E:0:0:A0FC:BFB6 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Azure Edge link is a first party IDF filesharing website, so it came directly from them (but of course Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources like that), so I provided a secondary source Twitter link as well, which suits Wikipedia sourcing guidelines.

It is not propaganda in the way that would make it ineligible for Wikipedia. It is not fake news. This actually happened. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article is reliable for reporting the IDF claims contained within. The Twitter source is unusable, it's just some random person on Twitter pretending to be Mossad. About the Azure Edge one, I don't know, but I would presume not usable. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh it'll make it to the JP don't worry 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, CNN:

https://twitter.com/jconricus/status/1713715825234903156?s=46 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Around one hour in, here, the analyst says that Hamas won't let civilians evacuate because they rely on human shields as part of their operations.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OVjM0vIGPzY 2601:40:C481:A940:9DD7:DB69:290E:23BD (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

It should be "At least 1,400 Israelis were killed, mostly civilians" Seffardim (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the 2300 Gazans killed say mostly civilians too? nableezy - 15:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (2)

In the second paragraph these two sentences should be merged:

• The United Nations reported that around 1 million Palestinians, nearly half of the population of Gaza, have been internally displaced. [...] Israel ordered the evacuation of 1.1 million Gazans, while Hamas called on residents to stay put in their homes and set up roadblocks.

Into this sentence:

• Israel warned the population of North Gaza to evacuate to the South, causing around 1 million Palestinians, nearly half of the population of Gaza, to be internally displaced, despite Hamas calling on residents to stay put in their homes and set up roadblocks. [...]

The sources do not say that Israel "ordered the evacuation of 1.1 million Gazans", it was only a warning to evacuate to the south. Chronologically the warning came before the evacuation. Seffardim (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is an inaccurate synthesis. Actually, they were displaced by Israel's airstrike campaign prior to the evacuation order. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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. [9], [10], [11]) 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)

• Support: 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)

  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)

  There aren't really any rules on this kind of stuff. I really don't think it matters at the end of the day. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  As far as the claim that no source worth noting uses Israel-Gaza War, ahem. nableezy - 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support — Per what nableezy and Iskandar323 said. FunLater (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Oppose due to the common name argument listed above. KD0710 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. —Stewpot 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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. [12] [13]. 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)

• Oppose per BilledMammal. Pg 6475 ^TM 18:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as supporters' comments are more convincing.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support as Hamas gets less and less focus on the war, with the attacks primarily targeting Gaza. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support For same reasons as other supporters above. VSatire (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• Move to Israel–Hamas war, which already redirects here, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  @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)

• 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)
• Oppose per Cullen. Andre🚐 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Support per Nableezy and Iskandar323. Skitash (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Gaza City is about to be wiped off the map; regardless of what Israel claims, this is not just a war against Hamas. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 12:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above Idiosincrático (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, the WP:COMMONNAME is pure propaganda and just straight up false as outlined above. At some point we have to recognize that and go with the encyclopedic name. 2023 Israel-Gaza war would be better though. At some point we also have to consider 2023 Israel–Palestine war/2023 Palestine–Israel war as there have been killings of Palestinians in the West Bank by the IDF. eduardog3000 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WillowCity's comment below is also really good. I'm backing it up as an EC user. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just noting that I have removed that comment per WP:ARBECR, along with all the other ones. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  The comment in question. I completely agree with it:

  The WP:COMMONNAME argument is a red herring. The actual policy provides:

  "...Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

  Per the above, "Israel-Gaza War" is in common use. The current name has problems as outlined above. The current title is also pedantic, being based on the formalistic argument that "well, Israel says it's at war with Hamas". eduardog3000 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Worth noting that sources that have switched to using Gaza instead of Hamas are all using the form Israel-Gaza, not Gaza-Israel, so 2023 Israel-Gaza war. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the comments made by Iskandar323 - Amtoastintolerant (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Happy with the current title per various reasons given above by other users.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is preferred by a broad spectrum of English-language sources – Aljazeera, NYT, Guardian, Financial Times, South China Morning Post. --Andreas JN466 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose this war is no longer in Gaza. Hamas militants can be found in other places other than Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 15:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Per the OP, is in line with WP:NCE guidelines and consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with WP large body of content on the Gaza–Israel conflict. Also, from a WP:COMMONSENSE perspective, most of the non-Israeli deaths are of Gaza residents, and Israel is apparently about to "invade" Gaza and has requested that half the population of Gaza leave Gaza. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose "Gaza-Israel" because it seems nobody uses that... it's "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza," but never "Gaza-Israel," at least not that I've seen (including the links in the OP), unless I've missed something. I hope the closer pays attention to the number of editors who are supporting "Gaza-Israel war" while pointing to sources that say "Israel-Gaza war"...

  Oppose "Israel-Gaza war" because "Israel-Hamas" seems to be the more common name as compared with "Israel-Gaza," although that might change in the future: "Israel-Hamas" in AP, Reuters, NYT, WSJ, CNN, Independent, Guardian, Times of India, The Hindu, Japan Times, News.com.au; "Israel-Gaza" in BBC, WaPo, Times (UK), Al Jazeera; some like South China Morning Post use both (example, example). Based on this, "Israel-Hamas." I'd change my mind if/when the RS change the name. Levivich (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: a vote was held on this topic a few days ago and was almost unanimously opposed. Great Mercian (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as the war is increasingly shifting from just a Hamas attack and Israel response to a full-on confrontation between Israel and Gaza forces, including Hamas. The reality of an invasion of Gaza is shifting the focus of the war on a Gaza-Israel conflict. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose. Almost every reliable source is calling this the Hamas-Israel war/conflict. At this point I believe we have 22 against, 23 in favour. I think it's pretty obvious we are not going to be able to reach a consensus on this change. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As others have said, most sources currently use "Israel-Hamas war." It's also the phrase that currently receives the most search traffic. In general, we follow what the sources say. And particularly for current events like this, it's not terribly important to get this article's name exactly "right." An accepted name for the conflict will develop eventually outside of Wikipedia, at which point the name for the article will be obvious. For now, we can call it what most other people are calling it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The current war is with Gaza-ruling Hamas rather than Gaza itself which does not have its own regular army. Israel itself announced Hamas as the specific target, with the aim to avoid or minimize casualties among Gazan civilians. Brandmeister^talk 20:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources state that Israel formally declared war on Hamas, not on other Palestinian militant groups.

Merlin^sorca 22:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

war crime section

BilledMammal if you want to not attribute war crime allegations then do it consistently. You are accepting as fact HRW in one section and portraying it as merely opinion in another. Im fine removing those attributions, but the idea that only crimes by Hamas should be said in the narrative voice is a straightforward NPOV violation. Collective punishment is a war crime, using access to water as a weapon is a war crime, but you are couching those crimes as "potential" and "alleged" and so on. Yes, obviously attacking civilians is a war crime, and I dont have a problem saying that in the narrative, but your re-write makes statements of facts from the very same sources that you are turning in to mere allegations when directed at Israel. nableezy - 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the other section.

However, this: Im fine removing those attributions, but the idea that only crimes by Hamas should be said in the narrative voice is a straightforward NPOV violation

Is only true if that's not what sources do, and it is what sources do; they treat crimes by Hamas as fact, and crimes by Israel as allegations - and that is somewhat expected, as the crimes by Israel are less clear cut than the crimes by Hamas. Exceptions exist, with sources treating them as fact, but not enough to change how we are required to treat them by NPOV.

There are possibly individual crimes by Israel that are full exceptions are we can say happened in Wikivoice, but I'm not confident of these yet. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That you repeat the same false statement does not magically make it true. A number of reliable sources discuss Israeli war crimes as a fact. The Office of the High Council on Human Rights said The Commission is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment. Collective punishment is a war crime. The Special Procedures said Israel had resorted to "indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza" ... violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime. Human Rights Watch has said it verified the use of banned munitions against civilian targets and that this is a war crime. They have also called the seige a clear-cut war crime. Tom Dannenbaum says the siege order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b)) Those are all reliable sources saying as a fact that Israel's actions have included war crimes. nableezy - 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That you repeat the same false statement does not magically make it true. A number of reliable sources discuss Israeli war crimes as a fact. As I said, Exceptions exist, with sources treating them as fact, but not enough to change how we are required to treat them by NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, assertion void of any supporting evidence whatsoever. nableezy - 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that they're less clear cut, but how the article discusses it can be. It would be best practice to assert in Wiki voice the reality of the allegations, and include the attributed statements. Including relevant information about well sourced events relevant to the war crimes can and should also be stated in Wiki voice, in order to inform and establish context for the allegations.

For example, it's sourced and statable in Wiki voice that Hamas fired rockets into Israel. It's sourced and statable in Wiki voice that allegations exist calling this the war crime of an indiscriminate attack against a civilian area. We should avoid saying in Wiki voice "Hamas committed a war crime by firing rockets into Israel." I'm sure you would find it problematic to state in Wiki voice, "Israel committed a war crime by indiscriminately bombing civilians." entropyandvodka | talk 20:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, when I said "the reality of the allegations" I mean "the reality of the existence of the allegations" or "the reality that the allegations have been made". entropyandvodka | talk 01:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the rocket attacks, it's not just allegations; sources agree that these are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, and that such attacks are war crimes. To comply with NPOV we can't just discuss these as allegations; these are facts.

The Israeli airstrikes are more complicated; sources don't agree that these are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations. As such we would be in violation of NPOV to present them as fact; instead, to comply with NPOV, we need to present them as allegations that there is no consensus on. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You are literally just saying that without any type of evidence at all. What source has disagreed the order to withhold water is a war crime? What source has disagreed the usage of white phosphorous in populated areas is a war crime? nableezy - 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please state the specific legal authority which prohibits those tactics unconditionally. E.g. white phosphorus used in unpopulated areas as an obscurant of troop movements is unequivocally NOT a war crime. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Area” meaning the area of fragment landing, not the 5 km radius. Similarly, I am aware of no specific legal authority about the duty to supply water in a combat zone, when civilians have been expressly directed to leave that zone. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Any time that white phosphorus is used in crowded civilian areas, it poses a high risk of excruciating burns and lifelong suffering,” said Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians.” For water, This order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b)). ... Israel being bound by the law of international armed conflict would entail that civilians are protected by the lengthier ICC code of war crimes applicable under that conflict classification, as compared to the list of war crimes applicable in non-international armed conflict. The former includes the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv). In non-international armed conflict, that crime was incorporated into the ICC Statute by amendment in 2019, but the amendment has not yet been ratified by Palestine. Regardless, Israel is bound by the customary prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which the government itself has recognized, as I explain below. Moreover, the 2019 ICC amendment reflects recognition that it is a customary war crime in both forms of conflict (here pp. 687, 701-710). For "directed to leave that zone", “Forcible population transfers constitute a crime against humanity, and collective punishment is prohibited under international humanitarian law,” nableezy - 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The videos show the opposite of the obscurant being used over currently populated zones. They show it being used over open fields etc. If you know of other videos, please share. The passage about starvation is inapposite if measures were specifically taken to evacuate the affected area and provide water in Khan Yunis, as discussed in the article. Lastly, the context for the “forced relocation” language clearly shows that it does not apply to evacuations for the purpose of saving civilian life in a war zone. (Nor would a prohibition on that practice serve any reasonable objective or purpose for the laws of war.) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

More importantly, some of those sources do not, as requested, cite legal authority for the claims originally made. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Im citing expert views on what is a war crime. Thats what we do here. Trying to prove or disprove something myself is a violation of our WP:OR policy. When reliable sources say something is a fact then it is a fact on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reasonable interpretation of the “original research” requirement where citations to treaties and their governing interpretations is either “original” or “research.” It is just a superior form of citation. The “experts” you refer to, or their predecessors, made similarly absolute legal statements in the wake of, e.g., Operation Opera and Operation Cast Lead, and those statements were later called seriously into question by the legal community. That is why my request was for specific law. In either case, you are free to cite directly to the relevant law, if you are able. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, citing directly the law is original research. You are asking us to discount the expert views for your own view, or mine, which is that of a random person on the internet. We dont do that. As far as the laughably silly claim those statements were later called seriously into question by the legal community, uh no they were not. That no Israeli was ever held accountable for those war crimes does not change that they were, repeatedly, found to be war crimes by experts in international law. But, again, what we do here is look for expert views and relay those with the weight accorded to them in reliable sources. If you would like to disprove a reliable source you can start a blog and do that. This is not that blog however, and debating the real world topic is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you have sources that are directly related to this topic then bring them, if not then please stop asking others to ignore our policies for your amusement. nableezy - 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not for editors to prove the truth or untruth of the conduct of Israel or Hamas constituting war crimes. You may disagree whether some of the events that have transpired are war crimes, but you don't have room to disagree that allegations of war crimes have been made by major human rights groups and UN experts. The issue then is whether the allegations are noteworthy and due. There is overwhelming consensus that they are. entropyandvodka | talk 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The existence of allegations was not the original issue. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(And the existence of a legal basis for questioning the allegations against Israel was germane to the original question. Raising that legal basis was NOT an attempt at “proof.”) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is more an issue of finding relevant and due RS, then. entropyandvodka | talk 05:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the article isn't equivocating about the conduct of Hamas in the war crimes section or going into hypothetical legal defenses of their actions. entropyandvodka | talk 05:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The white phosphorus comment has been alleged but not confirmed. There are other oxidising agents used in munition explosives that have a similar heavy smoke patterned with powered aluminium. It would be worth stating it is not verified, only reported.Jaxjaxlexie (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW says they verified it. nableezy - 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV problems with article

There's recently been sweeping, massive changes to the wording to the article that are either: 1.) Inaccurate 2.) Presents significant NPOV problems related to statements on Israel.

Overwhelmingly, the claims are based on:

• The Al-Jazeera network, which is funded by the government of Qatar, a known de facto ally to Hamas.
• The United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a few others, many of which have longstanding claims of bias against them surrounding this topic, but are being reported as establishing a supposed consensus.
• And Francesca Albanese. (Social media here.)

All of which have been disputed by many notable international scholars of law. Yet these claims by them are now being written into the article as indisputable fact.

To start off with, the lead now reads:

and a panel of UN independent experts along with a number of human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict.

Instead of:

There have been widespread allegations of war crimes committed by all participants in the war

Without good reason. The first sentence implies a significant amount of excessive weight to the UN Human Rights Council + several organizations beyond due weight. (For the reasons explained above.)

Furthermore, this sentence:

Certain U.S. media outlets, such as The Economist, claim there is a "lack of consensus."

Is both a violation of WP: OR and completely inaccurate. The Economist isn't American. It's British. There's also non-Western sources that claim the same.

The "War Crimes" section has similarly grown out of control.

Presently, there are:

• 504 words on the Palestinian militants committing alleged war crimes
• 1030 words on Israel committing alleged war crimes (1462 words if you include the other section.)

Meaning that the section on Israel is anywhere between 2.2x and 3x as long as that of the Palestinian militants. That seems like an egregious WP: Weight issue in the article. (Whatever one's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole)

Two bar charts showing "Palestinian" and "Israeli" deaths have also been placed in the "context of the Israeli occupation" section. There's also multiple problems with the images section. (Both bias for and against Israel.)

• Firstly, the heights are inconsistent. It looks like there's more deaths for Israelis than Palestinians despite this not being the case.
• Secondly, the reasons for the deaths are never explained. (e.g. One could argue that the situation is asymmetric; Hamas could see it as a radicalizing factor for Palestinians, Israel doesn't want its civilians killed.)

The heavy reliance on the UN Human Rights Council and the Qatari Al-Jazeera presents significant problems for the article's neutrality, which has rapidly declined in the past two days. KlayCax (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, al-Jazeera cant be used because Qatar is a supporter of Hamas? So then can any Israeli paper be used? Can any US paper be used? Please see WP:RSP for what the community thinks of al-Jazeera as a reliable source, ditto for Amnesty International and if you want to raise HRW there Im sure that will garner the same response. As far as war crimes, the sources have discussed the crimes by Hamas on October 7 and the rocket firing since, but they have also focused on the Israeli war crimes since, including the usage of starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure and so on. That you feel that Hamas is morally more repugnant than Israel is fine, but that does not change the balance of weight in coverage on each set of war crimes. But this al-Jazeera is Qatari so cant be used is absurd, and if it were to be carried out with any consistency at all we would be left with using sources from basically Rwanda and thats it. NPOV does not mean adopting the POV you think is right, it means including all significant views. nableezy - 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is backed by the Qatari government. While they have much to be lauded for their work in reporting on issues, conflicts, and politics in the Middle East over the decades, they do have an obvious bias against Israel, and of course their backing by the Qatari government (which is pro-Palestine i believe but not sure about the Hamas ally claim) raises some concerns about the reliability and neutrality in some of their reporting. I agree that perhaps the article needs a decrease in reliance on Al-Jazeera sources, or at the least a disclaimer noting possible biases Al-Jazeera could have in its reporting.

Not saying we can’t use Al-Jazeera as a source at all, but that we should be less reliant on it and aware of it as a neutral source of information on the conflict AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As opposed to the Times of Israel or Jerusalem Post? You think they arent pro-Israel? nableezy - 00:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel aren’t government-owned or backed from my understanding, and i don’t know what you consider to be and not be pro-israel. From the articles i’ve read from these two papers over the years, they seem to provide surprisingly fair and accurate coverage on issues relating to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. I’m sure they have biases, likely pro-Israel, but from what i’ve read and remember, they aren’t militant or dogmatic about it.

You seem to not understand the issue i and the OP had regarding Al-Jazeera. I am presuming the OP mentioned Al-Jazeera due to the quite well-known fact it is affiliated with the Qatar government, which is going to affect their reporting in some form or fashion, whether majorly or minimally. It has nothing to do with the nationality of the news org in question, but everything to do with their links to governments that may or may not be opposed to Israel.

If you have any evidence or sources to hint at the Jerusalem Post or Times of Israel actually being government-affiliated or more unreliable than i believed, feel free to respond to me with the links! AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What you personally find isnt really relevant, and the idea that the Jerusalem Post is not militant or dogmatic is one that does not register for me. But likewise that isnt relevant. Al-Jazeera has been repeatedly found to be reliable at RSN, it has a stellar reputation internationally and is cited over and over by other sources. But because it gets funding from Qatar it is disqualified, but papers from a country that is actually engaged in armed conflict are just totally fine and unbiased? Do you seriously think that Israeli papers are unbiased in their reporting on Hamas or Israel? All sources have biases, NPOV does not mean deciding what POV is "neutral", it means including all significant views. People may not like certain views, but that does not make them less significant. You are proposing to effectively remove one of the few Arab-based sources used in this article. God knows nobody is going through any actual Arabic sources to use. nableezy - 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes being funded by the Qatari government does call into the question of the reliability of one’s reporting yes, especially when you’re receiving funding from a Government that has some stake in the conflict. Now yes there is more to Al-Jazeera’s bias then just “government funding”, for one its basically the consensus from the part of the world it is from that Israel is a bad actor, and then of course that mixed in with them simply just reporting on some of the bad actions Israel takes.

To get back on track, i am not suggesting Al-Jazeera be removed or “disqualified” as a source for this article for its affiliations, simply that it not be so relied upon or at least its funding made origins made clear when sourcing it, for reader transparency. Again, think you are misunderstanding and not fully reading what i am saying, and in fact you repeat things about Al-Jazeera i have already affirmed, such as its reputation. I think if you reread my posts in a more neutral and good faith way, you’ll see i am not saying the things you think i am saying. AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Al-Jazeera has a "stellar reputation" internationally. It's more of a case of having a crazy amount of funding from the Qatari government, which buys a lot of influence. Not too long ago Al-Jazeera sent one of its reporters straight into an military operation with Israel. In the most recent Gaza war, Al-Jazeera had Hamas weapons underneath its Gazan headquarters. In any case, there is a huge difference between a government-funded news agency (i.e. propaganda outfit) and an independent news agency that happens to be located in a specific country.

On this point, I see a circular issue that finds its way into Wikipedia. You take a government like Qatar, for example, who is closely allied with Iran. They fund a huge international news outlet, for example, Al-Jazeera. You take NGOs who are similarly funded and just happen to overlook human rights abuses from those countries (for example -- Iran). Then you get activists on Wikipedia to utilize those outlets as sources and essentially launder propaganda. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

you all are making arguments fundamentally at odds with both our consensus on the usability of al-Jazeera and our understanding of NPOV. You are deciding that if something is allied with a state you dislike then they may not be used. This is not a Zionist project, allies of Israel are not the only citable sources. They are of course citable, as are Israeli sources. But the idea that we are going to disregard an entire section of the world because you dislike them is a non-starter. nableezy - 16:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It is sad to see that you continue to purposely misrepresent and misconstrue my and others arguments. No one is saying nor cares about the nationality of media outlets, the problem is that they are affiliated with governments that support one side or the other. As such, it is important to put more skepticism and criticism into some of their reporting. I would say the same thing if this article primarily relied on the Stars and Stripes (the US military’s media arm) or CBC, or any other government-funded western media outlet, and of course any Israeli state-media outlets. However this article does not rely on state-funded western sources, it relies in part on Al-Jazeera. No one is saying that we should only use western media outlets, or at the least, i am not advocating that. What i am advocating is the use of a wide-array of sources from not only the middle east (Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya), but also the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Daily Telegraph, and of course the ToI and JP. All of these sources will have biases of some kind, but they will help paint a much more neutral and accurate portrayal and understanding of events. AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lol the BBC is state funded. Israel also provides funding, and other political favors, to Israeli-based news media. As far as what you are advocating, we already are using all of those sources, so shrug I guess. nableezy - 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue to focus on that might be the most productive here is what specific points are being established by the use of Al-Jazeera, are they being stated inappropriately in Wikivoice, and are the specific claims an NPOV concern given a possible bias. entropyandvodka | talk 19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

al-jazeera is fully owned(not even partially) by qatar- a direct open supporter of palestinian cause a country that provide shelter to hamas leaders and has direct stakes in this war.al jazeera is as pro muslim as opindia is anti muslim(which is not even owned or funded by any government(atleast officialy).It should not even be considered as a RS for this topic. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunate for your position, it is indeed considered reliable for this topic. nableezy - 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

the whole debate is about why it shouldnt be.fortunate or unfortunate, my position is irrelevant. i gave my inputs that why it shouldnt be. ill wait for others give their input and discuss it. if majority here concludes it is totaly reliable then so be it, ill accept. i wont comment on anyones talk page out of frustration. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, thats already been settled. See WP:RSP#Al Jazeera. nableezy - 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus is that any source is totally reliable or totally without bias. There's probably no such thing, even in articles about math and physics. The consensus is to focus on verifiable facts. If you believe there are specific points in the article in which Al-Jazeera is not a reliable source, it would be more productive to focus on those specific points. Do you have specific lines in the article that you believe are problematic, currently sourced to Al-Jazeera?

And by the way, stating that Al-Jazeera is "pro muslim" as a means of discrediting them as a source is not going to hold water. entropyandvodka | talk 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The article currently does feature the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, The Economist, CBS, Foreign Policy, The New York Post, The Washington Institute (Pro-Israel American think tank by the way), The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Intercept, Jewish Currents (based in New York), The Atlantic, NPR, CNN, Newsweek, The Associated Press, Business Insider, Reuters, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Independent, among others.

All of those sources are based in the United States or UK. The article is by no means deficient of the types of sources you are advocating for, in addition to sources from the Middle East and other parts of the world. entropyandvodka | talk 21:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Everybody that criticizes Israel is routinely accused of bias (along with antisemitism, typically) by Israel and its supporters. Sorry, I am not impressed with that sort of argument. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as without good reason for the war crime sentence, the good reason is that your position on how the sentence should read has been rejected by basically everybody on this talk page. Not liking consensus does not mean that consensus is invalid, sorry. nableezy - 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"That you feel that Hamas is morally more repugnant than Israel is fine" The article doesn't treat it equally. It devotes ~500 words to alleged war crimes of Hamas and ~1500 words to alleged war crimes of Israel.

Qatar is a supporter of Hamas? (Citation needed) This is well-known. And, no. I think government-funded news agencies should generally be excluded in which there's cases of a conflict of interest.

So then can any Israeli paper be used? Can any US paper be used? [Amnesty International], et al. With due weight, yes.

NPOV does not mean adopting the POV you think is right, it means including all significant views. Which is excluded if only one interpretation of the situation in the lead is accepted. Others have called it a false equivalence. Note that "there have been widespread allegations of war crimes committed by all participants in the war" is no means whitewashing any of the actors within the conflict. KlayCax (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think word count is necessarily a good metric in this way. It might be, supposing that both sides had been accused of one similar war crime, but then the article used triple the length to describe it in the case of one side. That isn't the case in this article. Hamas has two main war crime accusations: the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the taking of civilians as hostages. Israel has four: the indiscriminate killing of civilians in bombings, attacks on civilian infrastructure, collective punishment vis a vis preventing electricity, food, water, aid from entering Gaza, and the use of white phosphorus in a populated area.

If length of description needed to be exactly equal in total, the article would need to describe the allegations against Israel using half the words per crime, as there are double the number of allegations. Wouldn't that be pretty sketchy in NPOV terms? entropyandvodka | talk 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To compare the weight given to the alleged use of a munition that has a legitimate military use, is not automatically a war crime, and that israel denies and the mass murder of dozens of civilians in a clear and blatant war crime.

"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. Capable of creating intense heat at around 815 °C (1,500 °F), white phosphorus munitions can burn people down to the bone, and international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."

We have this great emphasis on the brutality of white phosphorous, how it "burns people down to the bone". We have as much text being dedicated to describing how "international law" (which based on the weight that brings you'd ASSUME that almost every country has signed/ratified it, which is not the case) PROHIBITS it's use. We go into great detail on, essentially, why it would be SUPER SUPER BAD if Israel did this. You'd even think it was an automatic warcrime to even use it at all after hearing about how it "burns people down to the bone".

"During their initial incursion Palestinian groups targeted civilians, shooting at civilian cars as they moved through Israel, and then upon reaching their targets carried out massacres; at the Re'im music festival they killed over 260 civilians, while at Be'eri and Kfar Aza they killed at least 112 and 73 respectively. The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded. Videos released on social media, primary by Hamas, documented torture, sexual violence, violence towards children, and molestation of bodies."

Then we get to this. Why don't we have the SPECIFIC references to why "targeting civilians is PROHIBITED under international law by such and such". We just have a very matter of fact, dry statement of the many many crimes against humanity that have been committed without specifically calling them illegal under international law. Surely targeting civilians is a violation of the geneva convention; why not point that out like we did with white phosphorous? You can't say that these two sections are being given the same weight, and given the obvious difference in severity and scale here and quality of the evidence one should be given far more weight than the other. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, I know we do say "Under international humanitarian law these are war crimes and crimes against humanity; the Geneva Convention describes taking hostages as a "grave breach"....". The point is the sheer difference in scales between the alleged use of a weapon prohibited in certain circumstances by a treaty only some countries ratified and the mass murder of civilians, hostage taking, etc and the almost equal weight being given to both of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've modified that specific line a bit. entropyandvodka | talk 06:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the line about white phosphorus burning. I hit the wrong reply link. entropyandvodka | talk 06:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against citing "the" international law the mass killing of civilians is a violation of, but that's what many international laws are about. If you think it should be more explicitly stated in the part pertaining to the massacres of civilians, I'm open to suggestions. The white phosphorus section is two sentences. Is the objection the part "Capable of creating intense heat at around 815 °C (1,500 °F), white phosphorus munitions can burn people down to the bone" being too vividly descriptive? I'm not necessarily against trimming that sentence, provided it's still meeting the basic encyclopedic criteria. The article establishes very thoroughly that killing civilians is a war crime, and pretty much everyone in the world knows that. Fewer people know off hand what white phosphorus is and why its use in populated areas can be a war crime.

Earlier I was speaking in more general terms regarding length. My point was that arbitrarily expanding or limiting a section to conform to a relatively equal word count is problematic in principle, as it would almost certainly mean devoting too little or too much weight where it's due. Also, please note the article is constantly changing, and some of these sections can look a lot different than when a talk page exchange began. I think the white phosphorous section was shorter before. entropyandvodka | talk 06:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an issue, that it's too vivid.

It's also an issue that the cited sources do not support this being a violation of protocol III. 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 Chuckstablers (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit; this is just one example of the stretching of the truth that's going on here. By saying this about protocol III, we're lying. It's that simple. It's not a violation of international law under that treaty to fire artillery rounds with white phosphorous into a densely populated urban area so long as the object of attack isn't a civilian target/dwelling.

"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;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities."

So the two instances they are citing in that quote clearly don't violate protocol II; the projectiles are being used as smokescreens, marking or signaling, meaning under b.i they are not incendiary weapons and not subject to protocl III. And from the video of the port strike which I saw, it seems like they were being used as described in b.ii: they combine blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You have a point, though there's additional nuance here. We're getting into OR and SYNTH territory, but I think it's worth discussing in the interest of reaching a consensus.

Geneva Protocol III, Article I, definition 3: "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Geneva Protocol III, Article I, definition 4: "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

Article II, item 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.

Article II, item 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.

I would say it is arguably true that white phosphorous was used in a densely populated area. One of the most controversial aspects of the airstrikes in general is how densely populated Gaza is. The video of the white phosphorus in Gaza is in an urban area with high rise buildings. We don't know what exactly the objective was with the use of white phosphorus in the Gaza case (Israel denied they even used it), but there may have been a military objective that falls under Article II item 2. There also may have been civilian objects that were the object of attack.

The difference between air-burst and air delivered might be less important. If a weapon is fired from the ground artillery but burst in the air, it can be argued it is still air-delivered (as opposed to a soldier on the ground using a flamethrower). You're right that there are loopholes to the use of white phosphorus, and major concerns about those loopholes. Rather than a lengthy discussion in the article about the nuance of the loopholes, I think it is best to use attributed statements from the RS, but not state in Wiki voice that all use of white phosphorus is a war crime on its face.

Still, we have the issue of accurately representing what is presented in the RS. The HRW source says, "White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians."[14]

So the issue isn't just the use of white phosphorous, but that the use of it was also (by the allegation) an indiscriminate attack, in the legal sense.

The article currently states in the part relevant to all this: "international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."

This could be reworded or clarified, given that it's a sloppy summary and comes off as more absolute. It would probably be best simply presenting what the claim is as an attributed statement. Do you have any suggestions for exact wording? entropyandvodka | talk 09:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is going to be no end to the number of accusations that Israel's opponents can make in regards to war crimes. The bottom line is all of them will be vague and in dispute, especially since Israel has received the full backing of the major Western powers who are involved here. Also Middle Eastern powers are involved without explicitly backing Israel. So if you get 10x as many war crimes accusations against Israel, that in no way translates to a section that is 10x as long.

On the other hand, the war crimes of Hamas are not vague and the actions themselves are not remotely in dispute. In fact, Hamas has bragged to the world about their heinous crimes. Furthermore, what Hamas actually did were acts of cold blooded murder in front of the cameras and no reasonable person could possibly say that these were within the context of war. The war crimes section on Israel should be shortened. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That is based on literally nothing but personal opinion. nableezy - 20:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just going to write a section asking how on earth we have come to say "Certain U.S. media outlets, such as The Economist, claim there is a "lack of consensus."" As you correctly say, The Economist is a UK publication. The Economist article, for those interested, actually includes a war crime accusation from an Israeli human rights org –

• B’tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, has accused Israel of “a criminal policy of revenge”, arguing that the scale of its air strikes and blockade constitute “war crimes openly ordered by top Israeli officials”. Médecins Sans Frontières, a humanitarian organisation, has accused Israel of unlawful “collective punishment” of Gaza “in the form of total siege, indiscriminate bombing, and the pending threat of a ground battle.”

The article can be read here. As for the UN independent experts' and human rights orgs' views, they have been so widely covered and debated that I don't think there can be any argument that we are giving them more weight than our sources have given them. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily against including the opinions of media outlets, they should always be attributed as such. I'm going to edit that particular sentence about The Economist, as it is making a claim in wiki voice that multiple media outlets assert the lack of consensus, but only provides one source. This doesn't satisfy the concern about whether or not this is due. Media outlets have all kinds of opinions, and questions of weight and relevance come to mind. Also, the opinion of the outlet seems less relevant than the opinions of the individuals The Economist was citing in the article. Some of those individuals might not be suitable for citation. entropyandvodka | talk 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Qatar is the biggest supporter of hamas.i mean all their main leaders are sheltered by qatar.its a well known fact which dont require any additional sources. i am not familiar with the process but al-jajeera should definitely be depriciated as a source.

also what is the meaning of including "context of israeli occupation" under regional and global effects? how is it relevant?how is it a regional or global effect? only middle east countries have attributed the root cause to Israel's decades-long occupation of the Palestinian terroteries as the cause of war.its their personal opinion.and in any case should not be included in the article as a seperate section which is mostly justifying it.and what is the meaning of these graphs? how are deaths previous to this war relevant? and what is the reason to include statistics from only 2008? why not add to the context and go back in history and show how jews were persecuted, their most important religious site destroyed, as well as their multiple exodus from their historic homeland? these sections dont belong here.This section is complete bias.its not only trying to justify hamas attacks but also trying to gain sympathy for Hamas. THis section should strictly be removed.redundant. Codenamephoenix (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You not getting your way in a discussion is not a NPOV issue. Your phrasing has not been accepted by literally anybody. The idea that we can use Israeli papers or papers from Israeli allies but we cannot use ones from Arab states that are allied with Hamas, even if that were true (Qatar provides financial backing to the political bureau of Hamas, not weapons or military assistance) is the very opposite of NPOV. And if the coverage of Israeli war crimes exceeds the coverage of war crimes committed by Hamas then our article reflects that coverage. There isnt much more to say about the Hamas attack, we document that it has been called war crimes. You want more words. Israeli actions have however resulted in more coverage as time has continued forward since October 7. If this were only an article on the Hamas attacks then yes you would have a point on the weight of war crime accusations. But it is not. It covers everything since then too, including the Israeli government instituting a total siege on a captive population, a siege that generated substantial accusations of violating the laws of war. You are basically saying allies of Israel can be cited without issue, allies of Hamas may not be. And you do that in the name of neutrality? nableezy - 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera currently accounts for 6% of all citations (38 citations last I counted). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources notes a perceived partisanship when it comes to arab israeli conflict from this source. More importantly, they are owned in whole by Qatar, a state that has funnelled 1.8 billion USD to hamas, a belligerent in this conflict. Is that not a reasonable concern when they are cited so much? Chuckstablers (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is cited 12 times, the Times of Israel some 64 times, why exactly is there no issue with their partisanship on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Is Israel not a belligerent in this conflict? nableezy - 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that said transfer of wealth was actively approved by the Netanyahu government.[15][16] entropyandvodka | talk 07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Meaning that the [war crimes] section on Israel is anywhere between 2.2x and 3x as long as that of the Palestinian militants."

Maybe it's because Israel has committed more war crimes? Shocking, I know, but try wrapping your head around it. 41.45.247.164 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The policy here is WP:BALASP; we need to provide coverage in proportion to the coverage in reliable sources, and reliable sources have been giving more coverage to the crimes against Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree there. You can find more reliable sources talking about Israel's war crimes, but at this point I really don't think you can make that claim.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that some of the sources used have an anti-israeli bias. Take Al-Jazeera,for example, wholly owned by the Qatari government. Despite their reputable reporting, the fact that the Qatari government has transferred more than 1.8 billion USD to Hamas, a belligerent in this conflict, raises legitimate concerns regarding neutrality when using Al-Jazeera as a "reliable source" for this article. This partisanship with respect to the arab-israeli conflict is even noted as a concern by "some editors" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Consider if we frequently employed Israeli state-owned media. Out of approximately 650 citations, we have 38 from this source, representing around 6% of all citations, emanating from a news organization owned by a state that has provided $1.8 billion in funding to Hamas. Is it not reasonable to raise this concern? Chuckstablers (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that the body of coverage of Israeli war crimes is large because they have been going on for more than one week, versus a single day involving Hamas war crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The sources we use to depict the narrative adopted by this encyclopedia must themselves be objective, or else qualified as having a bias, instead of using these sources to portray a supposed NPOV. The point about the Israel subsection of the war crimes section being 2-3 times longer than Hamas' war crimes is absolutely ridiculous and should be addressed immediately. Editors have been grossly adding to that section in the past few days, a clear WP: Weight problem. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed.i would even point out that hamas attack on israel was not even a war crime but straight up terrorism , which resulted in the war.hamas action cannot be called war crimes as israel and hamas were not in a state of war when hamas attacked. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic because Russia never declared war on Ukraine, you shouldn't call them bombing hospitals, or abducting children war crimes? You don't need to be at war for it to be a warcrime. You just need an armed conflict, which this was. I also think it was terrorism, but there seems to be a consensus generally here to not refer to hamas as terrorists, so I'm respecting that. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix This argument doesn't hold. The Geneva Conventions don't only apply to declared wars. [17]

"The Geneva Conventions apply in all cases of declared war, or in any other armed conflict between nations. They also apply in cases where a nation is partially or totally occupied by soldiers of another nation, even when there is no armed resistance to that occupation."

Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on July 6, 1951. entropyandvodka | talk 06:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

i see now.than you for the information : yes it can be termed as war crime as an armed conflict between a non-state actor (such as a millitant group or a terrorist organization) and a nation, even if it's not a formally declared war, can still give rise to war crimes if civilians are intentionally harmed. but remember GAZA is not a nation nor its classified as an occupied "nation". The United Nations, as well as many countries and international organizations, have referred to the West Bank as "occupied territory." This designation is based on the fact that Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967 and has maintained control over parts of it ever since.legal status of "state of palestine" in itself is a subject of controversy.There was never a modern nation state called palestine.it could have been if two state solution was accepted by arab leaders.so ya just wanted to point that out for some reason.

But yes i agree, hamas actions can be covered in war crimes. Codenamephoenix (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.

this is the full report on RS list. Borgenland (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would actually go beyond this and state that Al Jazeera has some of the very best reporting of any news platform on this conflict, in extreme contrast to the shocking bias in most Western sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has anyone considered exactly *why* Israel's crimes have 2-3x the word count? Here, let me tell you why... Israel has been indiscriminately bombarding mosques, schools, and medical facilities. Israel has, also ,cut off all aid to the nearly *Two million* civilians of Gaza including food, medical supplies, water, and electricity. Israel ministers have, also, been accused of dangerous, genocidal, rhetoric like "human animals.".You literally only need to look at the ITN section of WIkipedia to know this. The fact that everyone wants to gloss over things is just bizzare and seriously trying to push a POV/false balance where there isn't, and shouldn't be, one. 68.111.7.219 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) why play victim ? gaza chose hamas as their representative.hamas carried out a terrorist attack on israel indiscriminately. israel is now responding. israel atleast has decency to warn people and idf also asked civilians to leave.on the other hand hamas is forcing civilians to stay.hiding behind them. if palestine was in place of israel with such technology and millitary prowess, there would not have been any israel or a single jew left. i am just surprised israel is showing this much concern.ofcource pro palestinians would call israels attack indiscriminate even after idf mentioned clearly its attacking hamas sites.if hamas choses to hide in hospitals and schools, its on them.israel is not even obliged to warn after that terror attck. i am just shoocked that they are even warning people who want to genocide them .i just hope israel wipes out hamas as well as any millitant/terrorist organisation associated with it from the face of this earth . first capture jew land,expel them,destroy their religious places, change the demography, call for their genocide and then play victim when those people reclaim their land and retaliate. classic. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RS and expert opinion, "Israel, Gaza and the Spectre of Genocide Israel appears to be seeking collective punishment for Hamas atrocities, and this is not self-defense under international law Criticizes Hamas harshly and quite correctly but criticizes Israel more and finishes up "In this process, the idea of genocide must be returned from the political slogan it has too often become into the method of understanding, criticising and ending the violence of states and armed movements which was originally intended. Leaders who perpetrate genocidal violence must be held to account: many have argued this in the case of Vladimir Putin, but it also applies to the leaders of Hamas – and to Netanyahu.". Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is an NPOV problem with this article, it is its pro-Israel bias. An example: the (dis)infobox refers to "200+ 'abducted'", based on a YNET source posted 5 days ago, when in fact, as of today and per RS, Israel's own estimate is 126 captives. I don't see the word "abduct" on the page for Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. It's one thing to use this sort of language to reference civilians, but how exactly does one "abduct" an enemy combatant? Either there needs to be disambiguation between soldiers and civilians, or the language should be made neutral. WillowCity (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

lol if it was pro israel, hamas would have been labeled as terrorists long ago.no justification for them would have been entertained.if anything, pro palestinians are calling this article pro-israel because they cant digest ethat everything is not happening as per their pov. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"An example: the (dis)infobox refers to "200+ 'abducted'", based on a YNET source posted 5 days ago, when in fact, as of today and per RS, Israel's own estimate is 126 captives. "

Israel states they believe there are currently 126 captives. I don't see the two as being fundamentally inconsistent. Hamas doesn't have the best track record with hostages, being you know, hamas.

"I don't see the word "abduct" on the page for Casualties of the Russo-Ukranian war".

Because that is a war between two states. We are GENERALLY talking about civilians here.

"but how exactly does one "abduct" an enemy combatant?"

Civilians are not enemy combatants. They are civilians. Do you have a source stating that any of these 126 are members of the IDF? What would your solution here be, water down the language further and say "captured"? If so, I'd ask; how exactly does one "capture" a civilian and hold them hostage? Isn't that an... abduction? The language is already neutral; abduction IS the most accurate description for what took place here given that every reliable source that is talking about this seems to be implying that the clear majority (if not the overwhelming majority) of the people abducted to be kept as hostages were civilians. They went into villages/towns on the border, killed and abducted civilians, and are keeping them as hostages. Let's not even mention Hamas threatening to commit even more war crimes by executing the hostages. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

^WP:STRAWMAN with a healthy dose of WP:SOAP. Speculation is layered upon personal belief, without reference to any source. No attempt to grapple with the crux of my objection: that there should either be disambiguation or neutral language.

"Do you have a source stating that any of these 126 are members of the IDF?" I made a post about this previously with plenty of sources. You're going to say that doesn't refer specifically to the 126 (or 155, or 199, or whatever the number of the day is). But the fact of the matter is that most of the information on the captives is coming from the IDF, which has been profoundly humiliated (having its soldiers pulled from tanks by a ragtag band of guerrillas). They're not rushing to admit that their soldiers have been taken prisoner, when they can grandstand for international sympathy.

Moreover, you state: "every reliable source that is talking about this seems to be implying that the clear majority..." Here, we have a clear admission that the status quo is based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia does not deal in implication and innuendo, we state facts. WillowCity (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Regarding the core claims of lack of neutrality across the whole article, I don't think they are justified enough to leave the tag up.

1. Source bias While it is true that all sources may have some level of bias, the manner in which those sources are used is key. Take the example of Al-Jazeera reporting that several human rights groups have made allegations of war crimes. Despite Al-Jazeera being listed as a RS, assume at least some level of bias is true (in reality this is the case with most sources; humans have biases). If Al-Jazeera states as fact that Israel or Hamas has in fact committed war crimes, the bias is relevant and shouldn't be reiterated as fact in Wiki voice. If Al-Jazeera states that human rights groups and UN experts have accused Hamas or Israel of war crimes, the statement is at least attributable. If indeed the groups mentioned have made those allegations, Al-Jazeera is a valid source to make an attributed statement in Wiki voice, "Human rights groups and UN experts have accused..." etc. I'm not aware of any part of the article stating as fact that one side or another committed war crimes, as a de jure, settled matter of fact in Wiki voice. Unless specific parts of the article can be identified as doing this, this isn't a sufficient argument. The purported bias of the source is not relevant unless a fact stated in Wiki voice is affected by that bias. In those cases, the article should keep to the factual claims and not the editorializing of the source.

2. Length per allegation Length should be a product of what is required to adequately summarize the subject matter. Supposing there was one identical war crime on both sides of a conflict, but the length was double or triple in one explanation on one side versus the other, this would be an obvious issue. That does not appear to be the case here, with respect to war crimes (which seems to be the focus of the NPOV claim). The article should not seek to arbitrarily make a section longer or shorter to appear neutral, it should, in line with NPOV guidelines, supply the relevant information with RS and due weight. In fact, arbitrarily expanding or limiting a section to match the length of another would be a weight problem, as it would mean giving undue weight to one and too much weight to another.

3. Statement in lead There is already an open RfC about this, with broad consensus for the statement as it currently is. The statement very succinctly summarizes a significant section of the article, and does not appear in itself to have any neutrality issues, as it makes no assertions other than that allegations of war crimes have been made, identifies who made them, and whom they were made against.

4. Bar charts These have been added, removed over neutrality concerns, and added again. The old charts would have been a valid reason to dispute the neutrality of the article, but as it currently stands they have been removed, and replaced with one that appears accurately scaled. The old ones when placed together could be a kind of visual lie, but I don't see a problem with the new ones. This concern seems to have been sufficiently addressed.

For these reasons, I propose that the neutrality template be removed. entropyandvodka | talk 01:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is reliable. Hamas are terrorists, possible war crimes on both sides but certainly on Hamas' side taking all those civilian hostages. Andre🚐 03:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removal for above reasons. Cjhard (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removal per proposal by entropyandvodka. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removal. Every article now and then suffers NPOV problems: it’s all in the ‘game’ (= project) Wikipedia; it is inevitable. It simply is our hard task and fatigue, to trace NPOV problems (either created deliberately or inadvertently) and repair them. There’s no use for stating the obvious in a tag above the article (‘neutrality is disputed…’); general discussions like in this talk section are mostly a waste of energy. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely removed "Effect on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process"

There's little justification for a section to the article dedicated to what Americans with political science degrees have written on their blogs. I'm not sure why what they have to say is relevant enough to take up space on this article, and whatever they wrote on a Medium article has no bearing on what the peace process or what a single state solution would actually look like. Not to mention the factual inaccuracies present on many of them- Noah Smith's blog states that "from the river to the sea" is a call to an ethnically cleansed Palestine which runs directly contrary to what many advocates of the phrase state (e.x. Ilan Pappe), so they aren't unbiased sources.

If there's going to be a section on peace proposals for Palestine, it should be reliably-sourced proposals, that will likely come from politicians with actual footing on the ground, e.g. Israeli Knesset members or Palestinian political leaders, or U.N. representatives. We don't include peace plans made by political commentators on the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, only proposals from serious political bodies and are reported by mainstream news organizations, so I'm not exactly sure why this should be different.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Move and change title of subsection Context of the Israeli occupation

This subsection currently inserted in section "Regional and global effects" has nothing to do here. It does not describe the effects and consequences of the conflict. This subsection only presents some hypotheses to explain why the Palestinians militants launched the attack. The text should be moved to the "Background" section and its title should be changed to "Motivations for the Hamas attacks" which is far more accurate regarding its content. Manualofstile (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Manualofstile:. There's a current NPOV discussion about this I created. See above. KlayCax (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You moved this to the War Crimes section. This is not appropriate for that section. It makes more sense to have it in the background section. entropyandvodka | talk 23:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: in the sentence that mentions "NBC News reported on "top secret" Hamas documents," it should be added that, according to NBC News's reporting, these documents were found on the bodies of Hamas attackers killed by Israeli forces. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump sharing Israel intel with Russia

https://www.newsweek.com//donald-trump-israel-intel-russia-hamas-attack-1833094

Could people smarter than me discuss this topic and include it into the article where appropriate? Tiberiuus (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem, on its face, to have concrete relevance to this article. It contains speculation that Trump sharing details about an ISIS plot six years ago may have revealed information to Russia that may have been shared with Iran that may have been been shared with Hamas that may have been used in planning this attack. entropyandvodka | talk 20:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to these events. Does not belong in the article. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede Mention Casualties Only on One Side

The two opening paragraphs mention 2,339 Palestinian casualties. However, there is no mention of any Israeli casualties in the two opening paragraphs. This leaves the impression that no Israelis were hurt, even though more than 1,300 Israelis were killed on October 7, most of them civilians, and 150 Israelis taken hostage.

There are many reliable sources for this. E.g.:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/world/middleeast/israel-music-festival-massacre.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-attack-gaza.html

Shaferjo (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This was the result of this edit which removed a lot of content from the lede. I've restored it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. However, it appears that any mention of Israeli casualties has now been removed from the lede once again. Could someone please restore that information? Shaferjo (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's back. Thanks to whoever restored this! Shaferjo (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel resumes water supply to southern gaza

Israel resumes water supply to southern Gaza, energy minister confirms.The decision is publicised by US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan who told CNN that his Israeli counterparts had informed him of the move within the last hour.

sources:https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3238034/israel-resumes-water-supply-southern-gaza-energy-minister-confirms

https://morungexpress.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-gaza-strip

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-768469

https://news.yahoo.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-southern-161945863.html

https://punchng.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-southern-gaza/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Already in article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

why was the section "unconfirmed reports" merged into "disinformation"

even after confirmation from forensic department why was the section merged into disinformation when technically it should be under confirmed war crimes now? Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It was removed rather than merged. The justification was completely bogus, so it should be reverted. I don't want to be technically in breach of 1RR so can't do it right now. Alaexis_¿question? 18:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

yes it should be reverted to former one. and i advice all editors and admins to monitor who all are doing these things. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

in addition i also want to make it public that the editor who made this edit just threatened me that he will get mewrestricted in my talk page. so if i get blocked or restricted, other non biased editors should know why Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Then you should discuss that with them/file a report. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the listed items are obviously enough "misinformation" to belong in that section. This should be reverted, but I have already made my revert for today. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed. please keep an eye on these things.its a matter of time before some radical editor complains about me for raising these issues and a radical admin blocks me for it.they are more in numbers than you can imagine and all are united unlike us. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can and should revert, it was done by Nauman335 in this edit, which simply moved the Unconfirmed section into the Disinformation section. We can't call things disinformation without sources calling them that.DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't at 1RR, so I've just  Done it DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

"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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia’s not censored, period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Codenamephoenix The footage is not included in that video and you know it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Keep it. It's important. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

This is really sad . 😢😢😢 MrBeastRapper (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
• Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet another section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- Veggies (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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. WCM_email 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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.

---

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support also per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong venue, blacklisting is discussed at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? Awesome Aasim 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. MrBeastRapper (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @MrBeastRapper I would agree, but we have WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Awesome Aasim, just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong venue as explained above -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) Wrong venue per @Kusma (talk) --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) wrong venue per Kusma. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

The objectives of the operation in Gaza set by the Israeli War Cabinet

The war began after the murderous surprise attack by Hamas. According to the announcement: "The limited committee of ministers determined that the main goal of the operation in Gaza will be to undermine the rule of Hamas • Among other things, this is about destroying the "Metro" [ the tunnels of hamas], damaging the political level of the organization - and finally, completely disconnecting Israel from the Strip • The main goals - and the goals in the "day after" https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-c7dedd74b843b81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802- "The day after" goals: A targeted and purposeful maneuver to avoid "sinking in the mud of Gaza". A complete disconnection of Israel from the Strip. An effort to build an international force that will come in and carry out the reconstruction, with an emphasis on Arab and Gulf countries.

-2A00:A041:1CE0:0:9DEB:4793:AEC6:8A0B (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (3)

Remove "As seen on social media, multiple posters were vandalized and removed by Muslim residents."

from "Posters in North Finchley, London, highlighting people kidnapped by Hamas during the war. As seen on social media, multiple posters were vandalized and removed by Muslim residents."

line as it is unsourced, and because I've not been able to come across a source to verify the central claim. LocalWonk (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Marokwitz edit

Hi, @Marokwitz:. I was editing at the same time as you and accidentally reverted your edit.

Feel free to reinstate. Thanks. However, there's been a consensus on talk to not label Hamas a terrorist organization, so you might be reverted by someone intentionally. (Although I don't disagree.) KlayCax (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

quotes by individuals in lead

These dont belong, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Albanese should be quoted in the article, but not in the lead. nableezy - 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

resolved, thanks, nableezy - 23:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Update by United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

2023 Israel-Hamas warEdit On 14 October 2023, Lloyd Austin directed Dwight D. Eisenhower and her carrier strike group, which includes the cruiser Philippine Sea, and destroyers Laboon, Mason and Gravely, to the eastern Mediterranean in response to Israel's war with Hamas. This is the second carrier strike group to be sent to the region in response to the conflict, following Gerald R. Ford and her group, which was dispatched only six days earlier. 96.60.168.239 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this an edit request? I believe there is already something about this in the lead. Or are you asking for more expansive text in the article body? -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus-loopholing video names

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.

---

Hi, we have established consensus that Hamas should not be called terrorists, but two videos' file names, imported from Commons, call them that:

-File:Hamas terrorists kill civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, 2023.webm

-File:President Biden Delivers Remarks On The Terrorist Attacks in Israel.webm

Can we and should we change their names? FunLater (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where there is such a consensus, but in any case, the titles are decided on Wikimedia Commons, which is not bound by (and may not respect) any consensus reached here. You are free to raise the issue there, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on my memory, Hamas was described in the lead as terrorists, but following a discussion, isn't anymore.

Anyway, I submitted move requests on Commons. Thank you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Biden_Delivers_Remarks_On_The_Terrorist_Attacks_in_Israel.webm FunLater (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a matter for Commons. Biden used the word "terrorists" even if Wikipedia isn't using that word. Removing that word from the file name seems strange since Biden used the word five times in his speech. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I started a rename request, which was denied, so I started a discussion at Commons. FunLater (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@FunLater So the matter has been taken to Commons? -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think this talk-page entry should be achieved, as it discusses matters that are relevant to this page. FunLater (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion! :) FunLater (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @FunLater! I was looking more at closing the discussion since any consensus here will ultimately not effect the outcome :) Lenny Marks (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

“Context” sections: not limited to occupation

If the non-NPOV labeled “occupation” deserves a section, then there is no principled reason for excluding causes of the terror attack with similar explanatory power. There should be a number of other sections, including an anthropological section on celebrations of civilian death and nonrecognition of the civilian-soldier distinction that is pervasive in Arab conflicts. There should also be such a section on the role of other states in supplying and funding militant groups while blocking the egress of Palestinians, along with a discussion of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism, and the desire to block non-Arabs and non-Muslims from self-determination in former caliphate territory. These and other causes have similar explanatory weight. (Or: we could eliminate such sections, which are not seen, e.g., in the article on 911.) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No section “explaining” 911 called “Context of US imperialism.” No section “explaining” the Bataclan massacre called “Context of French colonialism and failures of integration.” No section “explaining” the Bucha massacre called “Context of Ukrainian Nazi collaboration and the expansion of NATO.” Only when the slaughter of defenseless men, women, children, and infants occurs in Israel do these “what was she wearing” sections arise. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not what people think they should say. When sources say this is the context of this conflict then so do we. nableezy - 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources attempting to justify other intentional slaughters of non-combatants are readily available. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

E.g. Russian commentators from academia and government who justify events in Ukraine in those terms are almost unlimited, and could easily be quoted for “context” for any human rights outrage in Ukraine. Evidently they must be. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So, for example, Id assume you would be fine with an article strictly on the Israeli airstrikes and the war crimes that have taken place without the context of the Hamas attack? nableezy - 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Separation of combatant and civilian casualties

Since there is information on how many of the Israelis killed and abducted were civilians as listed in the notes, should they not be listed down under instead of within the column of one of the belligerents? Lightspecs (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link - "Immolated" should not link to a Polish Death Metal Album "Immolated"(2000) by Dies Irae, and should instead link to "Death By Burning" (immolation).

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia edit, please be patient.

Typo under:

> War Crimes

> By Palestinian militant groups

> Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide

> Paragraph #1

> During their initial incursion Palestinian groups targeted civilians, shooting at civilian cars as they moved through Israel, and then upon reaching their targets carried out massacres; at the Re'im music festival they killed over 260 civilians, while at Be'eri and Kfar Aza they killed at least 112 and 73 respectively. The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded.:

As stated in the thread title "immolated" currently links to a death metal album of the same name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immolated, whereas the correct link should presumably be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning SapphoIamb (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I've fixed it. Riposte97 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Background

How come is there no mention of the 35 weeks of protests? Theres context to bibi and government that then leads to temp regime with benny?37.252.92.163 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that connects the judicial protests to the current war? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely it's part of the context for the situation? 2601:1C0:CC00:88F0:4D1E:2B91:1CB1:1D84 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli army vs Hamas militants

Why are Hamas armed forces being referred to as "militants" which means radical, fanatic renegade terrorist, when Hamas is the elected governing body of Gaza? Crampcomes (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Altough Gaza along with west bank has been recognized as a non-member observer state by the United Nations since 2012, it currently does not have the status of a sovereign state. Professional armies are often bound by international treaties and agreements governing the conduct of warfare, such as the Geneva Conventions. Hamas has committed several violations of these conventions. additionaly, Hamas is not considered a professional army because it lacks the attributes and characteristics commonly associated with recognized military forces. Its status as a non-state actor, its methods of warfare, and its political agenda contribute to its differentiation from conventional, professional armies.

it does not mater if it was elected or selected. I can also win an election in my local community and form an armed group using people who voted for me to fight for what I believe in. It would be termed as militants only, regardless of how noble my intentions are. And yes, it would be termed as terrorism if I carry out acts of terrorism using that armed group.

i hope this answers your question Codenamephoenix (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic the Afghan Armed Forces also shouldn't be called "armed forces" and the Afghan Army shouldn't be called an army because no country has yet recognized the Taliban government as the official government. Crampcomes (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

but afghanistan is a soverign state and afghan armed forces represents afghanistan ,not taliban. also Taliban is not internationally recognized as a legitimate government. It is considered an insurgent group or non-state actor that opposes the Afghan government and has used guerrilla warfare and asymmetric tactics. The Taliban's military force does not have the same level of recognition, formal structure, or international support as the Afghan National Army.

So, while the Afghan National Army is referred to as a "professional army" due to its recognized status and formal attributes, the Taliban is often labeled as an insurgent or militant group because it operates outside the conventional framework of recognized state military forces. The terminology used to describe these groups is not solely based on their professionalism but also considers their legal status, organization, and recognition on the international stage. Codenamephoenix (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Afghan National army no longer exists [18]. The Taliban army is the Afghan Army Crampcomes (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, should we also not recognize Afghanistan as a country anymore because it has been usurped by the Taliban, a non-recognized entity? It's worth noting that the Afghan army will always be there, representing Afghanistan, regardless of who rules it.its name can change from afghan army to islamic army etc depending on the power that controls it. Please refer to the first statement: 'Afghanistan is a sovereign state.' It's just sad that the Taliban has taken control of it. As of today, afghan army or islamic national army is still differentiated from the Taliban force. However, if this differentiation is nullified by the international community, then things can change.

For that i recommend you make a formal appeal in united nations. Codenamephoenix (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Add information about the United States military deployment of an amphibious assault unit to the Eastern Mediterranean City to Israel

2023Edit

As of 11 October 2023, Bataan, with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), along with USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) were ordered to leave exercises off Kuwait to potentially sail to the Mediterranean due to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. 96.60.168.239 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel identifies Gazans as animals

Israel made it very clear multiple times that they identify Gazans as Human–animal hybrid [19][20][21] and that's why they are "treating them as such". Although it sounds ridiculous, I believe it must be noted in the article. Because a country cannot commit war crimes against animals, and it's probably one of the reasons why Israel believes it's not committing any war crime. Crampcomes (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ron Prosor refers to Hamas as animalistic, not Gazans as animals. (https://www.politico.eu/article/ron-prosor-israel-evoy-hamas-animals-must-be-destroyed/) Yoav Gallant directly says: "We are fighting human animals" or more accurately "animalistic men". To say that Israelis believe that all Gazans are animals is taking their statements out of context, then generalizing it to the entire population, would be inaccurate. Hawar jesser (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Marokwitz (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. In the Israeli political and religious lexicon Palestinians have been called over the decades, by everyone from PMs down, 'lice, animals,two-footed beasts, drugged cockroaches scurrying ion a bottle, beasts and asses, ravening beasts, leeches, ants, snakes, niggers, monkeys, subhumans, crocodiles, mosquitoes, hornets, people who lived like dogs, two-legged beasts, grasshoppers to be crushed underfoot, a nation of monkeys, scorpions, morons, worms, not humans but Arabs, red Indians, savages, cannibals, aliens from a different galaxy, people lower on the evolutionary ladder, cancers required chemotherapy, local bacteria, genetically blemished, Arab scum, people who was be castrated to eunuchism if they resist the occupation (Ariel Sharon), non-people, pigs, swarming (insects), barbarians who are serial killers, a rabble of cave dwellers.' The 'animal' language is typical, and I suppose some source in the future will read it in context. Perhaps we need a wiki article on Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse. Every single term enumerated above, and many more, can be reliably sourced, and they come from the elites, not Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Neve Gordon, "Alongside this legal discourse, Israel also circulates a colonial narrative that presents the Palestinians as "human animals" that do not understand the laws of war." https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/16/the-myth-of-israels-most-moral?traffic_source=rss Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

When Israeli leaders talk about "fighting animals", they are talking not about all Palestinians, only about the Palestinian terrorists; and the word "animal" is referring to their behavior, not claiming that they are not biologically as human as you or me. Animal lover |666| 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli politics in the Background Section

A bit of feedback from when I was reading the article out of curiosity: the Israeli politics in the background section of the article feels disjointed when it jumps from the early 2000s to 2022 with no mention of anything in between. It makes for a bit of a jarring transition.

Hopefully this helps someone working on the article, someone more invested in the topic than I am. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The structure of the Background section is a bit strange. It begins with 2005 and then jumps back to "Israeli politics" without mentioning "Palestinian politics." When it comes to "Motives," I wouldn't mind creating a more coherent and balanced overview, perhaps without sub-sections. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Change link to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefalsim"

"Militants killed civilians at Nir Oz, Be'eri, and Netiv HaAsara, where they took hostages and set fire to homes, as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip.". Kibbutzim is not a city/town, it links to the wiki page on what a kibbutz is. Specifically, I'm fairly confident this is referring to Mefalsim, whose page has sources citing this attack (which is the subject of the disputed graphic video). Chuckstablers (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assertion that whoever wrote that sentence mistakenly wrote "kibbutzim" instead of "Mefalsim," due to the lack of capitalization and the use of the prepositional phrase "around the Gaza Strip," which would be a very awkward way to describe the location of a singular village.

The way I read this sentence, its clarity would probably be enhanced by making this adjustment:

"Militants killed civilians at Nir Oz, Be'eri, and Netiv HaAsara, ... as well as in other kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip."

There's also a case to be made that a completely different term should be used in place of kibbutzim. My experience is that the plural suffix -im is completely foreign to the average English reader, so even with the background knowledge of what a kibbutz is, kibbutzim might remain unclear. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked as "other agricultural communities" Infinity Knight (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Infinity Knight. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This article’s lead is completely pro-israel and needs to be neutral

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.

---

All the lead mentions is the war crimes committed by hamas, but won’t mention the war crimes caused by israel’s response such as bombing civilian shelters. Is it that hard to make an article simply neutral and acknowledge both sides atrocities? This is wikipedia not CNN or Fox News 78.171.249.53 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is most Anti-Israel article I've read about this conflict. I don't know what you're talking about.

2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is blatantly pro-israel"

"This is blatantly anti-israel"

I think we're doing something right here. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Explosion on Hamas evacuees; it is believed that the IDF did not strike them ==

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67113144

https://twitter.com/jconricus/status/1713363472405131740?s=46

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1713404793790550313?s=20 He also supports the Hamas taking car keys pointed out in above topic here 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No matter how strongly a claim/opinion is "believed", does it not remain a claim/opinion - until evidence is found to support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's breaking news. It needs to be investigated further before the perpetrator is discovered. The IDF and BBC are currently investigating it. 2601:40:C481:A940:9DD7:DB69:290E:23BD (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And, as Breaking News, might not reports be investigated before any details are published here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC) P.S: Has any major news outlet repirted that the IDF might not be to blame for this explosion?

Assuming we are talking about the same event, per the article, the FT investigation says that the IDF are most likely responsible. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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 ([22]) Chuckstablers (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Chuckstablers, DFlhb, Selfstudier: The law, for reference, can be viewed at [23] and [24]. 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)

I would prefer sources that have already consulted the legal treatises. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More stabbings

A 6-year-old boy was stabbed 26 times and his mother more than a dozen times. Their landlord was charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of a hate crime. The location was Chicago and the victims were Palestinian.[25] Do we include this, or remove the text about hate crimes against Jews? This article is about a particular war. Hate crimes have existed throughout recorded history and this will likely continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Its already in the article, outside conflict zone Oct 15 section. nableezy - 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is an increase in recorded hate crimes or antisemitism that is attributed to this war, then I think it could be included. If it is just a general observation, that is, the cause is not known, then I would say not. My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem briefly mentioning that hate crimes have been triggered in other venues. I don't see the value in listing every murder, not at the hands of the IDF or Hamas, related to anger over the war thousands of miles from the field. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with either solution, include specifics in some notable instances, or just have a general rise in hate crimes line. But we cant just include specifics for one set of crimes and not for another. nableezy - 13:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, all or nothing. I think it should be nothing as that requires no judgements of the degree of preexisting hate and how much it took, along with other coinciding influences, to trigger the act. None of these acts has been adjudicated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would've assumed the "outside conflict zone" would be more for incidents in the West Bank and parts of Israel/its borders well away from Gaza, no? Personally, I was expecting discussion of more far-flung hate crimes motivated by the conflict to be under the "international reactions" section, if they aren't being undertaken by anyone tied to the actual belligerent groups. --Totalibe (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree that this passage should be in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

We would need sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be the main (and resolving) point here. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"independent experts"

Corriebertus, regarding this edit, independent means not representing a state, they are outside experts. I dont really care if we call them independent in the text, but the wikilink also says Special rapporteur (or Independent Expert) are titles given to independent human rights experts whose expertise is called upon by the United Nations to report or advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. nableezy - 13:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

5 Canadians dead in 2023 Israel-Hamas war, see The Globe & Mail & CTV News articles

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-number-of-canadians-killed-in-israel-climbs-to-five/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/21-year-old-identified-as-5th-canadian-who-died-in-israel-hamas-war-1.6602981 2001:56A:75D8:9D00:D9FE:8F1:20F6:990 (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gazans drinking salty sea water equals genocide

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.

---

Gazans are being forced to drink salty sea water due to Israel's total blockade[26]. Drinking salty sea water causes death due to dehydration[27] Israel is committing genocide and it should be clearly stated in the article intro and body.Crampcomes (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Photo series

File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 49.jpg

A residential block (left) and the Palestine Tower (right) in the Rimal district, which until recently was the business and cultural center of the densely populated enclave, destroyed during the first week of intense Israeli air bombardment.

Please, group the photos, the objects are located at a distance of 150 meters from each other. 31°30′57″N 34°26′49″E and 31°30′52.2″N 34°26′48.2″E--91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up the fact that there are five or six (depending on the definition) images already of ruins in Gaza. How many times is the article going to show rubble over and over? I think the reader understands that a lot of the city has been destroyed. -- Veggies (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The article already has these photos, but they stand separately, so it gives the impression that the objects are in different places --Ucraniano2 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I'm just perplexed that there's so many rubble photos. -- Veggies (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Uneven war

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Israel is bombing the fully blockaded Gaza using advanced fighter planes while Gazans don't have anti aircraft guns. It's not a war; it's murder. And it should be noted in the article intro and body. Crampcomes (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Rather, it is a civil war in Israel between Jews and Arabs, which will probably end in the slaughter of the latter --91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC) At the end of the first day of the war, it became obvious that Israel was not fighting with Hamas militants, who committed terrorist attacks, but with the Palestinians of Gaza.--Ucraniano2 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel struck a childrens hospital with white phosphorous"

We're stating in wiki voice that Israel struck a children's hospital with white phosphorous. The source cited is Egypt Today, which as far as I'm aware isn't a reliable source. Should read that "the palestinian health authority reported an israeli strike on a children's hospital with white phosphorous" or something to that effect if we're to keep it. Because that's what the source actually says, that context is important given that no reliable source has confirmed that this happened. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You'd think that human rights watch, a reliable source, would be picking up on this and reporting it immediately if there's evidence of this. As far as I can tell, the only thing cited in the source (which again, not reliable, correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can tell it seems to be owned by an Egyptian media conglomerate which is state owned) is a report by the palestinian health authority. At the very least we shouldn't yet be reporting this in wiki voice, as if a reliable source has reported on it/confirmed it. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed Codenamephoenix (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This was allegedly October 13th according to the Palestinian Health Authority. We have reliable sources reporting on the use of white phosphorous after that date that do not talk about this at all. This seems like propaganda; it's cartoonishly evil, and the only evidence in the non reliable source cited is "an organization governed by a belligerent in this conflict said it happened". We have no reliable sources that reported on the topic of white phosphorous after this allegedly happened that talk about it at all.

Compare this to how we treated Israeli claims of babies being decapitated. It was cartoonishly evil. We had reporting in the media saying that the IDF claimed it, but that wasn't enough for us to say in WIKI voice that it happened. This is, in my view, the EXACT same thing. This is why people are talking about NPOV issues above. It needs to be removed unless we have a reliable source discussing it. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the babies decapitated things were actually reported by reliable sources as well. But because it was just the IDF saying it, and not providing any evidence, we removed it from the article. The same standard should be applied here if we're going to be consistent with NPOV. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)