Talk:Kfar Aza massacre

Number of residents

The population of the kibbutz was 765 (as of the last count in 2021), not 400 as the article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:6F12:9200:5D6C:248B:7123:3871 (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The lede is currently saying 700, and a different paragraph is saying 400. The cited sources are saying 400. The main Kfar Aza article cites https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/settlements/Pages/default.aspx?mode=Yeshuv which lists 765 (under the spelling Keffar Azza) Rattic (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Was this issue ever fixed or agreed upon? I still see the difference in kibbutz head counts in the lead and massacre sections. Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrived edit

I change the description of this village ("Kfar" is village in Hebrew) from "settelment" to "kibbutz". That because this vilagge defines itself and has to properties of a Kibbutz. I think that the name "settelment" is misleading (it is usually used for Israeli settlement, while Kfar Aza is within the Green Line (Israel)). Please accept the change. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think "community" is fine. I'm trying to not overuse "kibbutz", and I think it fits as an alternate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Beheadings

I'm getting a bit of mixed feedback on these claims from RS upon a more thorough examination; none seem to be willing to put the claims in their own voice. While we're waiting for more information, is there a better way to describe this stuff? Should we omit it until we get independent verification, or should we keep it attributed to the soldiers on-scene, as it is now? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not 100% sure either. BBC reports, with a correspondent on the ground, that civilians were beheaded (at least one woman). The commander the journalist talked to - David Ben Zion - also stated that only some of the civilians were beheaded, and not all. The Times of Israel also stated that the dead babies claim came from another journalist from i24 talking to a commander in the town (unsure whether same one as BBC article). Itai Veruv also claimed there were dead babies, but not necessarily in Kfar Aza.

The Hill stated that the decapitated babies claim came from an interview between Nicole Zedeck of i24 and Ben Zion. The Hill article also stated that an Israeli major heard claims of decapitated babies, but there were no photos or videos. Currently, all claims come from Israeli soldiers in the town and Ben Zion. The AA article also states that the Israeli government couldn't confirm the babies claim.

I think it's best to add the claims of the decapitated babies into the article - they are one of the reasons the massacre is so notoriously gruesome - but mention that all claims came from the soldiers in the town and their commander Ben Zion, with no photo or video evidence available, along with the Israeli govt's lack of knowledge per AA. Jebiguess (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Jebiguess, all the sources do not include the claim that all of them were beheaded. These are some of the 40 babies who were murdered.

This journalist (Margot Haddat) claims she confirmed:

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/hamas-kills-40-babies-and-children-beheading-some-of-them-at-israeli-kibbutz-report/ שמי (2023) (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

First off, the NYPost is not generally considered a reliable source, and the article doesn't make any claims I haven't mentioned above. Haddad's tweet, however, adds more clarity to the claims. This Daily Dot article is pretty good at explaining the history of the claim, and it's assessment of the baby killings was that it appears to be true. No one is denying that the killings of the babies happened, only that the specific claims about 40 babies should be mentioned with a degree of caution until more journalists enter Kfar Aza and more primary and secondary sources are available. Jebiguess (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve been told about Judaism, photographing corpses is bad. Honoring the dead is important, and there is something I don’t quite understand about witnessing corpses making people impure (again not a Judaism expert). All that is to say, there may be a cultural/religious reason that we aren’t seeing these pics. Hi Biktor627 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The President of United States, Joe Biden confirmed that he saw photo evidence of babies beheading: “I’ve been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see, have confirmed, pictures of terrorists beheading children.”

However later White House press retracted the claim as: A White House spokesperson later clarified that US officials and the president have not seen pictures or confirmed such reports independently.

It will be a lot more helpful to cite all pieces edited. LeJawwad (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The White House released a statement clarifying that “Biden hasn’t seen pictures or confirmed such reports” so he lied, stop spreading propaganda

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12621085/amp/joe-biden-confirms-pictures-Hamas-beheading-children.html Areejdf (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I WAS SAYING THE SAME THING, STOP UNCITABLE INFORMATION. LeJawwad (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

1. The NY Post made be deprecated, but all they are doing is reposting the independent confirmations from Haddat (though it may be better to wait until it's actually published)

2. Other RS have independently corroborated the claims made by the IDF:

• The Messenger: "Dozens of babies were brutally murdered — some even decapitated — by Hamas terrorists inside a kibbutz in southern Israel during Saturday's shocking assault on Israeli civilians, according to journalists who were let in to see the aftermath of the massacre" [1]
• CNN: What I saw, hundreds of terrorists in full armor, full gear, with all the equipment and all the ability make a massacre. Go from apartment to apartment, from room to room and kill babies, mothers, fathers in their bedrooms… They locked themselves in the protection rooms of their houses and people were out with their children and they killed them. They killed babies in front of their parents, and then killed the parents. They killed parents and we found babies between the dogs and the family killed before him. They cut heads of the people." [2]

Longhornsg (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Now CBS, citing a direct eyewitness first responder (not the Israeli military or government):

• "Yossi Landau, the head of operations for the southern region of Zaka, Israel's volunteer civilian emergency response organization, told CBS News on Wednesday that he personally saw adults and children, including babies, who had been beheaded."

Longhornsg (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This CBS News article implies that they did not confirm the report themselves nor receive corroboration from anyone else. It is my understanding that news organizations will often require more corroboration/confirmation that just that before making less serious claims. This feels like an instance of a news organization letting its standards slip in order to fit a preconceived narrative. It may ultimately turn out that these claims are true, but I do not feel that this specific news article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a credible source. ROADKILL (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times of Israel source cited in the article states "A reporter from i24 News said that an IDF commander told her that they had found the bodies of some 40 babies, some of whom had been beheaded." i24NEWS cited David Ben Zion as the IDF commander who made those claims. In 2021, David Ben Zion was the Deputy Head of the Samaria Council according to 7ISRAEL National News. In February 2023, Ben David was reported by 7ISRAEL to have said "the village of Hvara should be wiped out, this place is a nest of terror and the punishment should be for everyone". "Enough with nice talk about building and strengthening settlements," "The other inline source in that sentence is paywalled. If it's reliable at all, can someone with access be more specific as to what it says? Are there any other, better sources or do we intend to rely on one statement made by someone who wants to wipe out Palestinian villages? Kire1975 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times wrote

“ Every few minutes soldiers broke the silence to announce that more dead people had been discovered. Some said that up to 40 babies’ corpses had been found among entire families who were shot dead as they slept. The children in particular appeared to have suffered gruesome deaths: there were claims that some had had their throats cut. ”

We can attribute it rather than stating in the wikivoice in the meantime. Alaexis_¿question? 12:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Kire1975, please be more careful. This edit summary is irrelevant and completely unnecessary. Don't throw around factoids or claims or suggestive remarks that can easily be misunderstood or misapplied. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Factoid? Suggestive remark? Instead of casting aspersions, could be you be specific? Kire1975 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Firsty, the article contains viral false information that 40 children are claimed to have been beheaded, which went viral after a misrepresentation by Belarusian media.

This should be added:

The Belarusian media outlet NEXTA claimed "Israel showed the world bodies of 40 beheaded Israeli babies", which went viral, despite being a misrepresentation.

Secondly, the inclusion of journalists on site validates these these allegations if it does not clarify that the journalists that accessed the site have not witnessed any evidence of beheadings.

This should be added:

Journalists that accessed the site have not witnessed any evidence of beheadings. SluggishSchizophrenic (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. See discussion above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Massacre"

• The Independent
• Washington Post
• Times of Israel
• ABC (Australia)

Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Potentially useful source for expanding

Ynet. It's in Hebrew, of which I don't understand anything, but it appears to be fairly detailed based off of the google translation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

Following a discussion in the article's Talk page I ask you to replace the word "settlement" when refering to Kfar Aza in the word "Kibbutz" or "Community". The word "settlement" is misleading because it is usually used to describe Israeli settlement while Kfar Aza is within the Green Line (Israel). Yonathan33 (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Confirmation from second hand source that children were indeed beheaded

Too macabre, as reporter states, for me to discuss further. In French. Here you go... https://twitter.com/margothaddad/status/1711756690574479651#m

No more disputes over this matter 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are the children??? This photo already have been confirmed that it belongs to adults https://fr.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ni-une-guerre-ni-un-champ-de-bataille-mais-un-massacre-un-officier-superieur-sur-les-lieux-du-massacre-du-kibboutz/ Areejdf (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (2)

2607:FEA8:3B5E:4E00:398A:D8F8:A897:F296 (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

the report about the beheading of babies has been discredited, this post is extremely biased, please look at the sources and the content of this page.

Sources:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

New york post and CBS by the way is not known for supporting Israeli agenda. But I guess you'll keep calling it biased untill you see the pictures yourself? דוב (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Closing without changes as topic is being discussed at length and through an RFC below. Tollens (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

In the line "and it had taken two for the Israel Defense Forces to wrest back full control of the community." would it better if it were "and it had taken two days for the Israel Defense Forces.." Milktime (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Looks like the change has already been made: ...and it took two days for the Israel Defense Forces to wrest back full control of the community. (revision 1179733653) Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The 40 babies story is a false accusation and the story has debunked

The one who spreads the lie, tweeted that she doesn’t know for a fact if it happened or not https://x.com/beltrew/status/1712023042560291083?s=46&t=KbbT_q4q8xaJ5tlDeA-aKA [ also the Israel army didn’t confirm the story https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/]https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/ . Wikipedia, be accurate for once and delete the false article Areejdf (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It did happen

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-babies-killed-hamas-terror-attack-kibbutz-kfar-aza-first-responders-say/ David O. Johnson (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

where is the evidence of the 40 babies being slaughtered? Give me the proof, a picture of their dead bodies or a funeral, and what about their families statements!! I have numerous pictures and proofs of Palestinians kids being killed and tortured by Israel. Areejdf (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This CBS News article cites a spokesperson from Israel's military, and does not claim that that CBS has received any other corroboration. I do not believe that claims from the Israeli military can be seriously considered as credible without corroboration. Would we consider an uncorroborated and unconfirmed claim by the Russian military as sufficient? Or to use a more famous and specific example, if a media outlet reported that a US Government spokesperson said that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, would we accept that as a credible citation for the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? The answer, I hope, would clearly be NO.

Respectfully, this does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a credible citation of 40 beheaded babies. ROADKILL (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"This CBS News article cites a spokesperson from Israel's military, and does not claim that that CBS has received any other corroboration."

That's not true.

It's right in the middle of the CBS article:

"Yossi Landau, the head of operations for the southern region of Zaka, Israel's volunteer civilian emergency response organization, told CBS News he saw with his own eyes children and babies who had been beheaded."

"I saw a lot more that cannot be described for now, because it's very hard to describe," he said, speaking of parents and children found with their hands bound and clear signs of torture." David O. Johnson (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that that was NOT a military spokesperson. I unfortunately misread the article and apologize for my mistake. That being said, I still do not believe that this is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a credible source. The article implies that they did not confirm it themselves nor get anyone else to corroborate the claim. That doesn't mean this won't turn out to be true, but for now I believe that we lack sufficient corroboration to report this claim as fact. ROADKILL (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is better to remove that part. We can add it back once proof is available. That shouldn't be hard as these kids must have families and they will make public statements later 117.219.135.238 (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the children part, unless Wikipedia wants to promote propaganda which is not acceptable Areejdf (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates based on WP:RS, not on what a new SPA account happens to believe or not believe. Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@ROADKILL, your argument seems moot. Nowhere in this article does it say that there were 40 beheaded babies. It says that some victims were beheaded, and it says also babies were killed. Both of those claims are verified in numerous reliable sources. I agree it should not say there were "40 beheaded babies" but I don't see that claim in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede removal

Hi,

In this edit here [3], information was removed from the lede, with the edit summary reading, "Non notable, please give the solid reference", but the sources are given in the body of the article.

The lede isn't supposed to have any references, anyways. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That removal looks like downright vandalism, or complete lack of knowledge of WP policies. Reported in leading media throughout the world. Jeppiz (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

This article is disinformation. Multiple news outlet have back tracked the story detailed here and no concrete evidence has been provided to back up this claim. All we have is hear say from the IDF and they have even made comments to say they have no evidence to back up this claim. This article should be removed until it has concrete confirmation that this has occurred. PatsyJ69 (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say is wrong. Multiple journalists have visited Kfar Aza and independently confirmed the massacre. It has been reported in detail in media of record in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian etc. That some propaganda accounts on Twitter say otherwise is entirely irrelevant. We go by WP:RS on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, is that so? Could you point me to a single article that does not just point to the claim made by an IDF soldier or other articles that point to that IDF soldier's claim? I'm guessing you can't.

You guys keep on getting caught in a lie. Biden had to walk back his lie about having seen the bodies.

When the dust has settled and the full truth is out, I will do everything I can to make sure you face sanctions from Wikipedia for spreading these inflammatory lies. 128.84.126.211 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

While it is not true it's just an IDF soldier's claim, it wouldn't matter even if it were. Again, WP:RS applies. If BBC, CNN, The Times, Le Monde, Die Zeit and others all held the evidence credible, so would Wikipedia. Also, read WP:NPA and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz, here. Just listing the number of mainstream news sources that endorse the rumour means nothing. I worked for months in Kfar Aza, so I have a personal emotional investment in seeing that shocking massacre correctly written up. The only ostensible reason I have found given to explain the government's curious ongoing refusal to state unambiguously that they have proof children were beheaded (as opposed to some shot in the head) is the one that suggests respect for the dead means the photographic evidence, if there is any, cannot be made public. Special pleading. No one wants to see such evidence made public - they simply want to be sure that such evidence exists, and has been independently shared with the President of the US and the intelligence communities. Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani, you are 100% correct. We should not repeat rumours and need to be careful. I wrote above I am not in favor of including a claim of beheaded kids, because I have not seen sufficient WP:RS support. What I have seen widely reported is mass killings, killing of babies (method not stated) and some beheadings. In this subthread, the IP claims that nothing happened and this article should be deleted. That is clearly nonsense. Between denying everything and repeating unsubstantiated claims, there's a middle road of repeating the facts that are supported. Jeppiz (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say there is some solid confirmation now.

Jerusalem Post tweet about independently verifying it:

https://twitter.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1712460425529372821

Warning NSFW or NSFL: https://twitter.com/israelipm/status/1712471782303867144?s=46

I think having alleged was appropriate since there was no pure confirmation previously, but I don't see why the JPost or Israel would make this up.

Entirely possible that they're AI generated images, but it seems unlikely. 1.157.208.97 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

twitter link expired photos taken down

jfc 69.249.102.223 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

backup, again NSFW: https://imgur.com/a/EWSpqbM

again, entirely possible that this is Israeli propaganda but seems unlikely. 1.157.208.97 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

40 babies beheaded.

This is a outrageous lie, IDF Itself put out an statement that It is a false accusation.

There is no evidence whatsoever, It is a lie and whoever wrote it Is spreading lies about the resistance of Palestinians. S.AbdulBasit20 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

it seems your the one with the personal agenda here

not a single reliable western source has outright denied the claims thus far. just that many have not 100% confirmed it

there is enough eyewitness testimonial to include it in the article, plus the controversy itself is enough to warrant its inclusion 69.249.102.223 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

S.AbdulBasit20, the article doesn't claim that. Pick a fight somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Numerous policy violations by User Makeandtoss

User Makeandtoss just did a number of drastic and undiscussed changes, in violation of all sources. Makeandtoss removed from the lede the sentence that killings and beheadings took place, despite it being well sourced. Makeandtoss instead inserted, multiple times, the utterly irrelevant claim that no verification exists for "40 beheaded babies"; a claim the article didn't even make. This is shockingly poor editing, even worse in an article under ArbCom protection. Having reverted once today, I hope someone (in the best case Makeandtoss themselves) will revert these remarkably poor edits. Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah,I think the "beheaded babies" allegation is somewhat of a red herring. Mainstream sources don't seem to actually doubt that children were killed in the massacre. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I've brought this issue to ANI [4] as it is just one of many policy violations on ArbPia articles by Makeandtoss in the past few days. Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the changes discussed above, although retaining a SkyNews source which might be helpful. It's probably fair to say that there is some "confusion" about beheadings, ages and numbers, so I left a remark to that effect. -St.nerol (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@St.nerol Should the links to Decapitation and Dismemberment not be removed from the Attack Type heading for this article, given that the claims are disputed? Including them there makes it seem as though it were unquestionably factual. Wschreyer (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

40 babies beheaded

Israeli officials claimed 40 babies were beheaded, and then continuously contradicted themselves. The decapitated children unconfirmed claim spread so wildly that it was uttered by the president of the United States, who, to make things worse, claimed to see pictures of it. This certainly deserves to be mentioned in the lede, not only because it has negative implications, but also because the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies. Furthermore, I have not seen any source reporting on alleged decapitation. "with beheadings, dismemberment and the killing of children being reported, although with some confusion" is not a descriptive and honest sentence on what had happened, and certainly doesn't reflect reliable sources and the investigative reports done by CNN and Sky News (in contrast to the initial parroting done by some RS without question). Makeandtoss (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There are two separate claims here: "babies were decapitated" and "children (including babies) were killed". The controversy here seems to specifically be about whether babies were specifically decapitated, not whether babies were killed by Hamas, which does not seem to be widely disputed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No babies were killed and no babies were beheaded. There is no single piece of evidence to proof this. 89.205.128.124 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The journalist was there saw dead babies. The are videos who published about the killing. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The journalist walked it back and tweeted that she hasn’t seen dead bodies

[5]https://x.com/beltrew/status/1712023042560291083?s=46&t=KbbT_q4q8xaJ5tlDeA-aKA Areejdf (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

They did not claimed it and they were not officials. It was people who was there. The israeli government listen to them . The essay at Wikipedia contradict the sources. just read the sources. They are from the beginning spoke about *part* of them, not *all* of them.

From the first: "including about 40 babies and small children — **some** with their heads chopped off. [6].

I add the zaka man, the journalist (Margot Haddat). 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources to report on this propaganda spin. NBC newsMakeandtoss (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is propaganda spin, other sources, like The Telegraph, are reporting that Blinken remarked that he had personally seen images of dead babies with bullet wounds. [7] Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Bullet wounds is something, and 40 decapitated babies is something else. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Anadolu Agency[8]: A French reporter based in Jerusalem, Samuel Forey, said on X that he was in the Kfar Aza settlement, located less than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) from northeastern Gaza, on Tuesday but no one had mentioned the alleged decapitations. "I have verified with two emergency services (wishing to remain anonymous, as the subject is sensitive) that have collected many corpses. Both affirm that they have not witnessed such atrocities, without saying that it did not exist." Kire1975 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency has been found to be unreliable for international politics, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anadolu_Agency_(controversial_topics) so it's not usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Mayadeen complains about this article

See [9]. This might a source of some of the disruption. Given that Al Mayadeen is widely seen as a pro-Syria/Hezbollah propaganda outlet, I don't think their criticism are worth giving a toss about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not pay attention to news sites that are not neutral (such as Al-Mayadeen), but we should search for the truth as well, and continue to implement all Wikipedia policies, including neutrality and documenting the truth. Osama Eid ^(talk) 20:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Press added Kire1975 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (2)

change One member of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who had responded to the site said in an interview with I24NEWS that some corpses of the killed 40 children had been discovered beheaded,[14][15] Israeli soldiers in the town stated that several civilians had been beheaded.[5] CBS News later interviewed Yossi Landau, regional head of the first responder organisation ZAKA, who corroborated that both babies and minors had been beheaded alongside corpses of dismembered adults.[16]

The IDF stated to Insider that they would not investigate the allegation further, citing that it would be "disrespectful for the dead" to do so. to the information about the casualties number being 40 children was proven to be false Aishasaltt (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept is considered "generally reliable" but also "a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed" at WP:RSP. The "disrespectful for the dead" claim is also reported at WP:BUSINESSINSIDER but "There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider." Kire1975 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on the 40 babies claim

Would this sentence in the lede reflect the body accurately?

"Despite reports of beheadings occurring, a claim that 40 babies were decapitated gained widespread media coverage, but was later walked back on by Israeli officials and has not been independently verified." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait I am not sure it would be WP:DUE to add to the lede what did not happen, but open to add it to the body of text after we have confirmation about what happened. The claim was reported in media so debunking it in the body if it's not true would make sense. As WP is WP:NOTNEWS, better to wait until we know whether it's false. Should not take long. Jeppiz (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait. If this is one of those breaking news blips, we may want to just affirmatively write what happened (i.e. mass casualty event, some people burned to death, some people mutilated), rather than jump here at this point. Let the facts come out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support a sentence along those lines. Many reliable sources are reporting that they are unable to verify this information. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• No As far as I can tell, Israel initially said they could not confirm the claims, and then later supported them, so they've not really walked them back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  NBC News and CNN reported otherwise, two reliable sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Status quo is sufficient so no need for RFC now.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, as above. Let reliable sources evaluate the claims once the dust has settled and the initial outrage has passed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read carefully: Beheadings and killings confirmed; no confirmation for beheaded babies

Some users unfortunately seem unable to distinguish between the claim 40 babies were beheaded (unverified) and the claim multiple killings of old and young, some victims beheaded (well verified). Removing the second claim despite all sources because one finds no support for the first claim is poor editing, just like inserting the first based on sources saying the second is poor editing. Unfortunately we see users repeating both of these mistakes. I would urge users to be more careful in their editing and not remove what is well sourced (mass killings and beheadings) nor add ehat is poorly sourced (40 beheaded babies). Jeppiz (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences from the lead again. We need reliable secondary sources to support this kind of information, and none have been provided. (These two sources do not confirm that anyone has been beheaded.) If supportable, it should also be covered in the article body and not just in the lead. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is just carelessness (at least on the part of some users). Just because the 40 babies beheaded claim is dubious, does not mean that babies/children were killed is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ed, you have violated the strict 1RR in place on this article. Please self-revert, or be reported. Moreover, references for the beheadings are given in the text. While your edit warring to remove sourced content is bad enough, violating the clear red line 1RR is unacceptable. I try to assume good faith, but this much "carelessness" starts to look intentional. Jeppiz (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted my edit per [10]. Jeppiz and Hemiauchenia, please remember to assume good faith and not cast aspersions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My comments weren't about your edits, to be truthful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The indenting made it look like it was in response to me! Never mind, I misread the indenting. Apologies.

I've added a {{failed verification}} tag to the info in question. Neither of the sources given support the information we have, especially on immolation. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've provided citations to the CBS news and NBC news stories, which support the immolation and dismemberment claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Immolation as a result of Israeli actions has been commonplace in Gaza for 15 years, so it is not improbable that the same occurred when Hamas militants invaded Israel. This is also true of dismemberment (a father in Beit Hanoun the other day was found wandering around with bits and pieces of his children's limbs). The only difference is, one is done at a distance, impersonally, the other executed by militants directly with their victims. Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, you know I hold you in respect and you're a valuable contributor, but the above is very rare yet clear breach of WP:NOTAFORUM. This talk page is to discuss the massacre in Kfar Aza. Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for saying pointing that out. I too have respect for Nishidani as an editor, but there's no point in pontificating on related issues here, or resorting to special pleading and conspiracy theories. And I think equivocating what Hamas did (which is just a series of crimes against humanity), and cases of apparent Israeli aggression, is beyond the pale. Hamas was intentionally targeting children, in schools, daycares, and youth centers. Not the same thing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Presumably both dismemberment and immolation in those cases were induced by the use of explosives? I'm unclear as to whether explosives were specifically used in this attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This might be a usable source in regards to the "40 decapitated babies" discussion.

Regarding the lede of the article, I do not understand why "though there was controversy regarding claims that babies had been decapitated" is included. If the claim is, in fact, misinformation (which appears quite possible), it shouldn't be given false balance in the lede. The "allegations of beheadings" section should suffice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope that we will move away from wars of liberation and liberation rationally

Hello everyone, our goal at Wikipedia is to document facts and write history, noting that what we write here or in any other article will remain for years, and even after our death it will be read many times. Let us remember that we write for future generations.

We must avoid editing wars, cooperate rationally, and implement Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The information is very conflicting, especially in light of the rapid development of events. I hope that the editors will follow (neutral) Arab and foreign news. Any party’s retraction of its claim is questionable, and what was built on doubt will remain doubtful.

I hope you avoid editorial wars, and write relationally and in accordance with Wikipedia standards and policies. With a commitment to neutrality and correct documentation. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 19:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note of article inconsistencies

Hey there, I just wanted to point out that the leading paragraph and section about casualties currently contradict each other both from a content perspective and a references perspective. HeyDimpz (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? David O. Johnson (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it got addressed. At the time I posted my comment the Casualties section detailed the beheadings of babies statement had been walked back, but the leading paragraph lacked that addition. The casualties section also pointed out that articles referenced in the leading paragraph was modified, archived or updated.

But again, its been fixed. HeyDimpz (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider

Re, this edit. WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is not a reliable source. It's a reversion of an edit of mine that's less than 24 hours old. Please undo or seek consensus to change WP:BI. Kire1975 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any real doubt that Insider is actually accurately reflecting what the IDF said? I don't think this IDF comment adds much to the article, so I don't have a huge problem with it being removed, so I'll let others weigh in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Kire1975 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL and facts

Is there any problem with now stating in Wikivoice that beheadings took place, and that people of all ages (including children) were murdered? All of that would seem well-sourced. The article currently says there are "claims" this happened, and does it best to cast doubt on it. It was all good to be careful when news first emerged, as per WP:NOTNEWS. In the first hours, even a couple of days, we had conflicting media reports and both hasty confirmations and hasty "fact-checks". Somewhat confusingly, some of those sources (while WP:RS in themselves) are still used even though more facts have since emerged. Is there any support in any reliable source from the past days to continue to say these are "claims" rather than to follow most sources that describe them as facts? We should not make claims that cannot be supported, but neither should downplay facts that can be sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the recent Sky News article for example demonstrates that most of what Israeli sources claimed happened probably really did occur. I think the wording could be tightened, but I don't think it does it best to cast doubt, it's just phrased cautiously, reflecting the uncertainty in the early reporting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that these deaths are used as a pretext for hate crimes at protests, the killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume in Plainfield and war crimes by Israel, we should be painstaking in adhering to all WP:VERIFICATION rules to the letter. Kire1975 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a red herring if ever there was one. Of course we should adhere to WP:VERIFICATION, but the question here is whether there is any doubt in any RS about the abundant verification already present in many RS. Jeppiz (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What is being asked for here? To censor the word claims? Besides the short mention in the lead, it only appears in the "Allegations of beheadings" with much confirmation of doubt in RS that they are true. Kire1975 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. Definitive confirmation, undisputable verification , that the babies are in fact decapitated.

https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/

Babies were found without heads. Whether they were cut off or blown off, before or after their death is unknown. Regardless, they were in fact, unquestionably, beheaded.

Please add this to the main article, too, since i can't use the talk page there. 2601:40:C481:A940:8150:610F:D350:E508 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me but The Media Line is restating what is already in the article as reference #4.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Just found this eyewitness testimonial. She saw kids without heads on the street.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JP6dtCmrf-Y 2601:40:C481:A940:8150:610F:D350:E508 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, YouTube is not an acceptable source.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Allegations and counter claims

I believe this whole section about allegations should be removed, if the story is verified according to WP:RS then put in a section about it. If it hasn't - then it does not arrent a section that literally invites conspiracy theorists and cranks. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there are reliable sources which support both sides; just read this Talk page from the top if you want examples. Regarding conspiracy theorists and cranks, Wikipedia has ways of dealing with them:

• WP:CONSPIRACY
• WP:FANATIC
• WP:FRINGE   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Numbers.

Initial reports said over a 100 were killed. This was downscaled to over 70. Then we had 52 victims confirmed, with 20 missing (some were taken as hostages back to Gaza like Daffa Adar). There is a gap of 11 between the confirmed victims and the victims listed by name, which number 41. I presume that 11 must refer to victims whose remains were so charred as to require forensic identification, but that is only a guess. No babies are mentioned and the youngest listed victim is a 14 year old lad from the Kutz family (all 5 of whom were slaughtered). Of the 41, 12 formed part of the security guard or had military functions. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

JP

@Shrike: Did you bother to even read my edit summary? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I did read the confirmation is relevant to the dicussion also this information does not appear in the article so there is no duplication Shrike (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It is literally mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Jerusalem Post article in no way confirmed that 40 babies were decapitated, which is what the paragraph was about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also it's "confirmation" that babies were decapitated was disputed by other sources like NBC News, so there's no reason to place undue weight on it in the absence of other sources. (Having personally seen the images, I couldn't determine whether the baby had been decapitated either, due to the blurring of the face covering the neck, as well as due to the photo angle). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cooking a baby in an oven claim

Several tabloids have been awash with this claim regarding Kfar Aza.

The actual details or what we know so far are as follows (not for inclusion in the article until the claim, which is sheer inference, undergoes some verification)

Asher Moskowich deputy head of the Elad branch of Hatzalah’s volunteer first responders states that he (11 October) found a baby who had been cooked in an oven among the remains transported to Camp Shura base, stating  that the corpse was discovered in Kfar Aza. His view was based on what professional staff told him there, on the basis of ‘telltale marks from being pressed against a heating element.’ From this he concluded that ‘“They took the baby and put it, literally, in a kitchen oven." I.e. some Hamas terrorist wished to repeat what occurred in Auschwitz’s ovens.  Hatzalah’s founder and president Eli Beer, revealed this at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual conference  in Las Vegas, adding that another of his volunteers had see it, presumably at Kfar Aza, on the 8^th of October. This has been picked up by tabloids, but not with the caution Beer cautiously added, which should forestall jumping to conclusions.

That paucity of knowledge leads, Beer said, to a number of gruesome questions: Did Hamas terrorists put the baby in the oven, then kill the baby as they turned the oven on? Did the baby’s parents hide the child in the oven to keep them safe from the attackers, only to burn as the house was set aflame? When was the baby killed? Ben Sales, An Israeli first responder recalls tending to the body of a baby burnt in an oven. Jewish Telegraphic Agency 31 October 2023 Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So this is an inference, drawing on a Holocaust analogy. We simply don’t know. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that someone with just over 600 edits on all ranges of topics, has suddenly discovered this article and, against caution, used the above to enter what is not factual but several steps down the hearsay line. I'm familiar with numerous editors who come to pages I'be edited almost immediately after getting past the 500 Arbpia barrier. Perhaps this is not the case, but . . the text is now expanding on hearsay about beheadings, roasted children, and mutilation that don't tell us what happened, but what the meme cycle repeats as reportedly happening. Perhaps these things will be substantiated but encyclopedias do not give undue weight to rumours.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that caution is advisable when covering gruesome claims like this. I certainly don't think they should be stated in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it feels undue to include. JTA is not a reliable source for this; we don't need to amplify a claim by including it just because it is mentioned in a source in order to refute it. Moving the section here for now. – SJ + 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Dead baby in oven claim

During the transport of bodies for autopsy, two first responders with Hatzalah said that they encountered the corpse of a baby with oven marks on its body in the remains of a burnt house, and the organization's president spoke about the incident publicly for the first time at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas in late October. Hatzalah's president stated that it was unknown how the baby made it into the oven, and suggested it was possible the parents of the child had placed the baby in the oven in an attempt to protect it from the fire, rather than the baby being deliberately placed in the oven by the Hamas attackers. The claim was deemed false by Israeli newspaper Haaretz and by Yossi Landau, a representative of first responder organization ZAKA. Haaretz reported that Israeli police found no evidence for it. The claim had been seen by tens of millions on social media, after being shared by John Podhoretz and others.

This article is an embarrasment to Wikipedia

A think the entire Casualties section, which now dominates the article, is just horror stories common in wars. The section should be reduced to known facts. All unconfirmed allegations should be thrown out. Apparently no baby was burnt or beheaded in Kfar Azza (or anywhere else?). No baby was even killed there. The only children who died there were two teenage minors, together with their soldier big sister. None of them reported beheaded or burnt or fried in ovens.

And as Haaretz wrote, spreading made-up horror stories, puts a question mark on all the actual atrocities carried out in Kfar Azza.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS in action, and allegations made during the fog of war cannot be trusted. @Jokkmokks-Goran: would you be able to provide quotes from the Haaretz piece? I would be happy to try to fix it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Here you have the whole article: https://archive.is/fCj9i

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that it may be good to cut the sections down, but I think the lurid claims need to be mentioned so that they can be debunked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

But I would prefere to throw EVERYTHING out. Not to waste Wikipedia space on crap and then waste aditional space on refuting the crap. Just write something like "horror stories about bound, beheaded or burnt babies in Kfar Azza have not been confirmed". Apparently there is an article for Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating in your response. And please refrain from such language. I'm certain one can find a better term than "crap" and "Not to waste Wikipedia space on crap". Homerethegreat (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You can say that some actions have been doubted later by Haaretz piece and wait for further sources. [11] Attests that other Hamas actions have been done there. I think you're over jumping to conclusions based on one piece and need to look at more sources beforehand. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the Haaretz list of fatalities on 7th of October and counted to a total of 29 minors killed, 11 by rockets (5 of them Arabs), 13 of them young children (below 13), of which 1 infant (10 months), and 16 teenagers below 18. Two teenagers were killed in Kfar Azza: Yiftach Kutz (14) and Yonatan Kutz (16).

Anybody interested can get a copy of my name list. One interpolation done. Haaretz wrote that 10 minors died in Be'eri. I found 8 with stated age and two very young looking boys without age. So I included them: Ido and Alon Even. And sorry for swearing. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Media

The recent addition of media to the article is extremely problematic, as the Israeli website in which these pictures are taken from is known to have fabricated some of the photos. These additions require independent verification. The video of the interrogation of the Hamas operative also is problematic. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit of an innuendo, which website are you referring to? Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamasisi23.com and thisishamas.com are the sources of these images, which have been implicated in disinformation. A reliable source is needed for both using and captioning these images. The video can't stay here, no secondary RS have used it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be missing something, but where do you see that the images come from these websites? Alaexis_¿question? 12:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Interrogation is problematic in general, and not least when there is no context and no assurance that the situation is not staged/manipulated. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but also the two pictures that have been added and the accompanying captions without a reliable independent secondary source are also very problematic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess that's a bit of a conundrum. If a picture can't be found on the site of an RS then its unverified (I agree unverified images don't below). If it can be found on the site of an RS then its probably a copyright violation.VR _talk 04:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas as perpetrator

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that the Al-Qassam Brigades and no one else was involved? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The picture in the "Casualties" section

In the casualties section there is a photo of a clearly very young child, which the caption refers to as having been killed in Kfar Aza. Further down, in the part about the Haaretz article addressing disinformation about the massacre, it is stated that the only minors named as killed were aged 14 and 16 (thus problemstising the beheaded babies allegation). There's an inconsistency there which may confuse readers.

As I see the possibilities are:

1) The authenticity of the photo is unverified, and it should therefore be removed.

2) More than two minors were killed but only two have been named, in which case this should be clearly stated in the article with a citation, otherwise pointing it out in the context of disputing the baby-killing rumours leads the reader to believe that they were the only two. Djehuty98 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, both photos can't stay without independent and reliable secondary verification. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• No violent pictures. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word massacre is well documented and the events are related.

There is an issue with rationales and sources of the pictures. The wp:neutrality / wp:reliable source policies matter. Users have to find pictures coming from English sources/media that don't come from the country that is involved in the conflict.

it is also members of Hamas who did the massacre, so the "palestinian" adjective must not be used instead of "Hamas" in the ratinales of the pictures. Iennes (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems there is no objection to the picture of the dead woman, unlike the child. If it's ok with you, we could add it to infobox instead. Dovidroth (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Both pictures lack independent verification. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Only the picture of the child is explicitly contradicted by RS info in the article, but that also problematises the other images that have been used here because they come from the same (demonstrably unreliable) sources and are no more independently verified than the picture of the child.

If someone makes two statements and provides no proof for the veracity of either of them, but only one of them can be unequivocally proven to be false, it is irrational to assume that the other is true. You should consider it suspect unless independently verified. Same principle here. Djehuty98 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what? Neutrality and reliable sources do not say that Israeli sources can't be used. They just need to be properly attributed if controversial. Andre🚐 10:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You really want us to use Hamasisi23.com and thisishamas.com as sources? Because that's where the images were taken from. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I was simply responding to the rationale above. Andre🚐 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the sources for the images are Israeli is not the problem. The problem is twofold:

1) They are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.

2) What at least one of the images claims to show blatantly contradicts information provided elsewhere in the article which does cite a reliable source (an Israeli one, incidentally).

Hamasisi23.com and thisishamas.com are not RS so unless a source of at least equal calibre to Haaretz, Israeli or otherwise, verifies the authenticity of the images, then they should not be included. Djehuty98 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Garden hoe decapitation video and decapitated soldier photo

I read about this when the story first came out, but I didn't add it to this article (though I did add them to the main Hamas article) because none of the sources I found stated that the (attempted) decapitations happened specifically at Kfar Aza. Unless sources are found stating that these events specifically happened at Kfar Aza, they should either be removed or have it be mentioned that their location is unspecified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Notable for brutality

This is part of two examples in lead of singling out an incident reported early on at Kfar Aza as marking this kibbutz off from others for a peculiar type of brutality there.

The attack is notable for brutality in the form of victims having been burned alive according to Israeli testimonies.

What happened there happened elsewhere in several kibbutzim, so this is not peculiar to Kfar Aza. Secondly, the sources do not back up the claim. Of 52 (actually 53) victims, the first source cites one case of a couple and their child. Our text generalizes this as a consistent feature of what occurred in Kfar Aza in a plurality of instances. The second source is The Telegraph which is not an RS for articles like this certainly, and was printed in the heat of the events. Nishidani (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this can be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with this edit but The Telegraph is a perfectly good source. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely not. The only opinion I ever shared with the conservative Peregrine Worsthorne was this. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of one editor (nor an opinion from 22 years old by one person) does not trump consensus. WP:RSP, and an RFC as recently as 2022, disagrees. It is a perfectly reliable source. I don't particularly think that the AP does a great job in I/P, and a former journalist there agrees. I can't just wave my wand and declare it not a RS because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Longhornsg (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No sources are 'perfectly reliable'. Did you read the article? Three of its journalists, within a day of the Hamas invasion, underwrote as facts all of the spurious misinformation circulating in those days, much of which was nonsense at a glance (40 babies beheaded etc) almost all of which has been since dismissed. Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that no source is "perfectly reliable," especially when written in the fog of war. I was taking issue with the wholesale dismissal of the Telegraph as an RS.

Nevertheless, a number of RS have, with the benefit of time and more reporting, confirmed -- and, of course, disputed (though not "almost all") -- details about the unique devastation wreaked on Kfar Aza. These can be substituted for the heat of the moment reporting. I'll add those in. Longhornsg (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

To keep the unbiased integity of Wikipedia, the title should reflect so. The use of massacre immediately causes an emotional response before even beginning to read it. especially when at the end of the article Israel officially says no babies were killed and this main page even links to 'misinformation'. If massacre is kept, it should be explicitly stated that IDF contributed to many civilian deaths. Megaladoink (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Shadow311 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

There were decapitated children in the 7th of October attack, here are the photos: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/fe5cbf_a1479c402ed64259b93a9b5e09caed28~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1280,h_851,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/Hamas-massacre_net%20Remains%20of%20an%20Israeli%20body%20with%20their%20head%20chopped%20off%2C%20burned%20beyond%20r.jpg https://static.wixstatic.com/media/fe5cbf_3d6c515b4c2d4699a39b9126492cf5aa~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1280,h_726,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/Hamas-massacre_net%20Remains%20of%20an%20Israeli%20body%20with%20their%20head%20chopped%20off%2C%20burned%20beyond%20r.jpg

Now stop being pricks and holocaust denials, this website became a joke. 2A06:C701:42B9:8000:B57E:CCE1:4369:1FE2 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There is no confirmation that these pictures portray victims from Kfar Aza. They also appear to be from a Wix site which likely falls under user-generated content. Jamedeus (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)