Talk:Israel–Hamas war
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel–Hamas war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Israel–Hamas war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Israel–Hamas war at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
extremely outdated map
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/GazaMapWithWithdrawal.png/220px-GazaMapWithWithdrawal.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_%2810_April_2024%29.svg/220px-Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_%2810_April_2024%29.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_%2810_April_2024%29_%28fill%29.svg/220px-Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_%2810_April_2024%29_%28fill%29.svg.png)
the map is outdated and shows no accuracy.
Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change. Lukt64 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control. Borysk5 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Institute for the Study of War still displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map. Ecrusized (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a “furthest extent” map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area
- https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1
- https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I added a map with withdrawal areas. Borysk5 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
User Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think. Ecrusized (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor. Ecrusized (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from Lukt64 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The “easy” solution in this case is for the map to have “areas under Israeli control” renamed to “maximum extent of the Israeli invasion” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible. Evaporation123 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the “original research” policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible. Evaporation123 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the “original research” policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible. Evaporation123 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The “easy” solution in this case is for the map to have “areas under Israeli control” renamed to “maximum extent of the Israeli invasion” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the “maximum extent of the Hamas invasion” it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up
- https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1ik1ztva
- https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-774246
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-2-gaza-terrorists-found-in-rahat-a-month-after-october-7-assault/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See https://oct7map.com Ecrusized (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-withdraws-ground-troops-from-south-gaza-leaving-just-one-brigade-in-enclave/
- If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.
- As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control". Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don’t think it would be an issue to label it “maximum advance”, the ISW uses “reported clearing operations”, but they have acknowledged Israel “completing its mission” or withdrawing from areas even though they’re still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map
- refer:
- https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Evaporation123 and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Ecrusized (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on? Evaporation123 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- No idea. Ecrusized (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on? Evaporation123 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Evaporation123 and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Ecrusized (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control". Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See https://oct7map.com Ecrusized (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
ISW separated areas Israel withdrew from
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_11_May_2024.svg/220px-Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_11_May_2024.svg.png)
@Lukt64, Borysk5, Evaporation123, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, and SaintPaulOfTarsus: Here is what the revision would look like based on the latest ISW update. Let me know if you support this change and I'll update the file. Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ecrusized: Compliments on the work, glad to see ISW finally made a change to their mapping practices. Personally I would prefer more of a "pink-ish" color for the new layer, if possible, because it is closer to red it immediately suggests to the eye at first glance that the area is currently under the "control" of the Palestinian side, but that may just be my personal interpretation so no objections if we proceed with this version. Thanks again and my best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is only an optional suggestion and not a requirement, colouring Gaza green, IDF blue, and withdrawn form areas a light green The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Great, and especially with ISW also showing areas withdrawn from, it should clear any worries of original research issues. Go for it I say The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Saved for the time being. Ecrusized (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Finally, at last. Borysk5 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Late to the party but yeah this is definitely an improvement. One thing- isn't Rafah under the evacuation order too? https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/5/11/thousands-flee-rafah-after-israeli-forces-issues-evacuation-order Evaporation123 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
RFC: Primary title and alt titles in the lede
There are two primary questions.
- Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel–Hamas war")?
- If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
- Israel–Gaza war
- Gaza war
- Israel's war in Gaza
- Israel's war on Gaza
- Operation Swords of Iron
- Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
- Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood
07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood added 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Any additional alt names should be added to the list, with a timestamp noting when they were added 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion, MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us
If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section
. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) - Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday here and answer there as well. Deblinis (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The number of sources mentioned in that last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. NasssaNser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday here and answer there as well. Deblinis (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Appendix:
Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering.
It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see link archived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see link. El País which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see link1 see see link2. BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor.
The "Israel–Hamas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requests
Deblinis (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Deblinis (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category.
- Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- (invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel–Hamas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead. Yeoutie (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after ? Deblinis (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel–Hamas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after ? Deblinis (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against. FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding Israel–Hamas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. NasssaNser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding Israel–Hamas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. NasssaNser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as per SelfStudier. If we include the article, then I would start a discussion as to which of the numerous alt names to add. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel-Gaza war makes far more sense since there are more groups involved than just Hamas. Gaza war (2023-) could also work. Compare Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War. We don't call other wars by whatever the ruling parties are called. We don't call Eastern Front (World War II) the "NSDAP-CPSU(b) war". As for bolding, looking around other war articles it seems common enough to put the name of the conflict in bold in the lead. See for example Finnish War, World War I, Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) etc etc.. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above arguments. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel–Gaza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. NasssaNser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names. NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:MILMOS#CODENAME says no. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. NasssaNser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Palestinian militants use “battle of Al aqsa flood” to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and “operation of Al aqsa flood” or “battle of October 7” to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has “معركة طوفان الأقصى” even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification; I've found a source that supports that. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Palestinian militants use “battle of Al aqsa flood” to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and “operation of Al aqsa flood” or “battle of October 7” to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has “معركة طوفان الأقصى” even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
- The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state.
If this rfc is about voting with this in view [1] and that [2]: the wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one ? Deblinis (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Everyone has their own opinions", indeed > [3] [4] Deblinis (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text
This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel–Hamas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."- There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example. Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should consider whether confining the name of this war to Gaza is even appropriate. Gaza is the main front, but the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) is obviously another front of this war, albeit a less intense one. That includes the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. You could classify the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war as yet a third front as well. We should maybe think of a name that incorporates this fact. If the northern front intensifies into a full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon and/or a wider conflict with Iran I don't there will be any doubt about the need to do that.--RM (Be my friend) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either. RM (Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel–Gaza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage" ?
Western media outlets (The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ), name it the "Israel–Gaza war";.
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?
If so, could this draft work ?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[5][6][7][8][9][10] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[11] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[12] El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[13] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[14] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[15] Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- Support per WP:NPOV. Deblinis (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters. JDiala (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
- Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population; urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30¨% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers. Deblinis (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- On condition of relying on Western media sources.
- Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media. Deblinis (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- A little reminder that the US and other Western countries are involved in this conflict. (Red Sea crisis, 2024 missile strikes in Yemen, etc, etc) Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself. Alaexis¿question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a cul de sac. Deblinis (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire article Israel-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine. Chetsford (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This editor is a blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- As an additional note, they were not blocked at the time of the !vote - socks can only be struck and discounted if they made a duplicate !vote, or if their master was blocked at the time of the !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets#Cleaning up after a sockpuppet is blocked, this vote must be removed or struck and discounted.
In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. The goal is to make it obvious they are a sock so when the discussion is closed, their input will not be considered. This should be done for all blocked sockpuppets and sockmasters in a discussion
- That one editor wants to make a burocratic issue out of this practice is neither here nor there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- As an additional note, they were not blocked at the time of the !vote - socks can only be struck and discounted if they made a duplicate !vote, or if their master was blocked at the time of the !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This editor is a blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF [16]) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner. The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.[17] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict".[18] Deblinis (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need sourcing more along the lines of The media navigates a war of words for reporting on Gaza and Israel ("who are the adversaries? Israel and Gaza, Israel and Hamas or Israel and the Palestinians" @ 2'25). We know that CNN were instructed from on high to go with the second version. It is possible that it is too soon to expect scholarly coverage of the issue, which is what is really needed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be wp:undue. Deblinis (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the latest on NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps”.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be wp:undue. Deblinis (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Article size and child articles
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.
Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.
Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:
- Humanitarian impact -> Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)
- Allegations of war crimes -> War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
- Negotiations and diplomacy -> Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war (as well as Ceasefire -> 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire)
- Regional effects -> Effects of the Israel–Hamas war
- Media coverage -> Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war
WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.
None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.
Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie: Casualties, Healthcare collapse, Gaza famine, Scale of destruction and Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.
To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example 7 October attack is a lead-like summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?
I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right"
. For example next up would be a split of Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.
CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start. Deblinis (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- No need for assumptions of bad faith and ad hom attacks on other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have? Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- This wouldn't be a good idea for now I don't think, as the lead section only has two paragraphs to excerpt (basically just one really). At 13,000 words, it should easily be four paragraphs at minimum, probably even 5-6. It also fails to reference the grandchildren articles such as; Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war and Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, among others, that would all require referencing and linking in a single summary.
- My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- As an example – and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management – if you look at Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree per WP:SIZERULE.
- Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document. JDiala (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree and support the spirit of this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun. Yeoutie (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that these sorts of edits are way too bold, so I'm going to be bold too and undo one of them. This is one of the most pressing and complex topics in current events. This page averages 30,000 views a day while Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023-present) gets around 300. Whatever the policy on article size, these sweeping edits on such a controversial topic are careless and don't help the lay reader. It's important to have enough detail on one page that a reader can get a thorough understanding of the most relevant aspects of this topic without opening a hundred tabs. I agree that the article needs to be trimmed but it needs to be done carefully and with precision, and ideally with strong child articles in place first. Unbandito (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't know how to undo your edits. Nevermind. But this ain't right. Unbandito (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Example (sort of)
- See this diff: [19] shown here [20] regarding Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor
- First...Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at MOS:CITELEAD... H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. "Moxy🍁 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy🍁 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary.Moxy🍁 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy🍁 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Update
- War crimes section summarised War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war [21] (May 1)
Done
- Negotiations and diplomacy summarised to Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war [22] (May 2)
Done
- Humanitarian crisis summarised to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) and Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war [23] (May 6)
Done
Other issues
I've added summarize templates to the following sections:
- Invasion of the Gaza Strip until the truce (27 October – 24 November): This could do with being replaced with first two paragraphs of lead from main article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), as the 3rd-4th lead paragraphs are more generic and covered elsewhere in main article.
- Regional effects - This probably needs cross referencing with main article Effects of the Israel–Hamas war as child summary and lead are completely different. Potentially the lead of child article needs dramatically improving based on content in this article.
- Media coverage - This is the most difficult as the child article lead Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war is almost nonexistent followed by a bunch of WP:OVERSECTION issues. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Removal of photograph
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
![Caked blood on the floor inside a house](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Gaza_envelope_after_coordinated_surprise_offensive_on_Israel%2C_October_2023_%28KBG_GPO09%29.jpg/220px-Gaza_envelope_after_coordinated_surprise_offensive_on_Israel%2C_October_2023_%28KBG_GPO09%29.jpg)
Should this photograph be removed from the Israel-Hamas war#7 October attack section? 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- No. This image depicts the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians, attacks that have received and continue to receive expansive coverage in media, and are the reason this war began. Non-trivial coverage of them is warranted and required under WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP, and removing this image would leave us with only one piece of media depicting this impact, which would be insufficient to meet the requirements that we cover these in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support removal and/or replacement with any image that is not uploaded by the Israeli government. Plus showing blood without any bodies is giving pure propaganda vibes Abo Yemen✉ 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose replacement with a different picture that depicts the impact of the attacks on civilians (and would support it over removing the image entirely), but I'm not sure why we care who uploaded the image? BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel, especially after the oct. 7 attacks, tried to make one of the most embarrassing and absurd propaganda campaigns I've ever seen (I'm sure that you still remember the 40 imaginary beheaded babies) Abo Yemen✉ 17:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel (ditto IDF) totally unreliable in the conflict, equivalent to Hamas as a source, or worse, since Hamas haven't been caught out telling porkies half as often. Fact Sheet: Israel’s History of Spreading Disinformation (and that's just through October). Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be a reliable source; for example, one of its examples that it uses as evidence of Israel spreading disinformation are Israeli "claims that Hamas fighters raped women during their attack on October 7". The indications are that those claims are correct. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be relevant here, unless there is evidence that images uploaded by Israel are not what they are claimed to be? BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of sources for Israeli fibbing. Including the doctoring of images and vids. Therefore unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Plenty of sources for Israeli fibbing.
Name some of them. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)- Read [[24]]. I thought everyone knew this? Apparently not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- As part of a PR campaign, pro-Israeli advocacy which is Israel's practice of shaping narratives; in one word for that image: sensationalism. Deblinis (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh boy this is going to be fun to watchAbo Yemen✉ 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sensationalism, putting forward an emotional narrative to impact Western populations and obtain a blank check from Western allies for military actions, without any right of inspection. Deblinis (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read [[24]]. I thought everyone knew this? Apparently not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of sources for Israeli fibbing. Including the doctoring of images and vids. Therefore unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be a reliable source; for example, one of its examples that it uses as evidence of Israel spreading disinformation are Israeli "claims that Hamas fighters raped women during their attack on October 7". The indications are that those claims are correct. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be relevant here, unless there is evidence that images uploaded by Israel are not what they are claimed to be? BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose replacement with a different picture that depicts the impact of the attacks on civilians (and would support it over removing the image entirely), but I'm not sure why we care who uploaded the image? BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are other similar images that can be considered such as these: 1, 2, 3, 4. In any case, there should be at least one image to illustrate the attack besides only a map, reminding WP:NOTCENSORED too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- #1 is too remote - it isn't clear that the impact is on civilians - while #2 is from after the attacks, from rocket barrages. I would support #3 or #4. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose anything uploaded by the Israeli government (I'm talking about number 3 here). I remember number 2 being from that video where IDF soldiers we're shooting at empty hallways (Correct me if im wrong with this one). Now, with number 4, while I don't want to look like im defending the killing of a child here, I personally find it kinda weird for the uploader of the image not uploading the full video where the supposed Hamas militant kills the child. I mean it would definitely cause more reputation loss for Hamas, no? Plus cctv footages are "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain" and could have been uploaded easily Abo Yemen✉ 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- #4 isn't from CC TV; it has been released with a compatible license ("These footage are free to use, in hope the world will see the true horrors that took place here. All we ask is that you attribute "South First Responders" group for the important work that the guys are doing."), but it's a still image taken by first responders. I have corrected it on commons. BilledMammal (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this should automatically mean exclusion if it is attributed unless there are reasonable doubts about its authenticity. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose removal, or support replacement. I agree with the reasoning of BilledMammal. A photo like this illustrates the human impact of the events that took place on civilians.
Wikipedia is not censored. There was a 2009 RfC to remove a picture of a killed Palestinian baby from the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict article, and I think that was wrong for the same reasons. We wouldn't remove the picture from the My Lai Massacre article either.HenryMP02 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)- I think everyone knows of WP:NOTCENSORED. That's not the problem. The main problem here is how reliable the photograph is. According to Abo Yemen, the photograph was taken for propaganda purposes, citing the picture being taken by the Israeli government, and the fact that there are no bodies and only blood. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I accept that it probably was distributed for propaganda purposes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I don't see reason to suspect of being fake, even if there are no bodies visible. There are videos which show Hamas militants going into homes. Many were killed and injured on October 7th. From what I know at the moment, I believe the photograph is authentic, if that's what you mean. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think everyone knows of WP:NOTCENSORED. That's not the problem. The main problem here is how reliable the photograph is. According to Abo Yemen, the photograph was taken for propaganda purposes, citing the picture being taken by the Israeli government, and the fact that there are no bodies and only blood. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Gaza_envelope_after_coordinated_surprise_offensive_on_Israel%2C_October_2023_%28KBG_GPO11%29.jpg/220px-Gaza_envelope_after_coordinated_surprise_offensive_on_Israel%2C_October_2023_%28KBG_GPO11%29.jpg)
- On the right is another picture of the supposed crime scene taken by the same photographer, Kobi Gideon. If you zoom in, you'll find your average murder mystery Netflix-level of a scene. Random pictures scattered on the ground, your usual art colored by the 6 year old living in the house, whatever that tripod is doing inside the home of this unheard of influencer/tiktoker/youtuber who could have made a video of the crime or something close to that.
- Now I might be wrong with my somewhat quick investigation, but my point is that pictures taken by either israel or hamas should not be included in the article, unless it is made clear to the reader who took the picture and/or who distributed it Abo Yemen✉ 11:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED says that rated R photographs should not be excluded by default. That doesn't imply they need to be included. JDiala (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. There is already a thread immediately above about this and I've outlined my rationale there. The number of media for 7 October is adequate in my estimation. There is a full video dedicated to showing corpses from the music festival. Possible compromise position: I might be willing to consider photos or videos of Hamas killing or having killed Israeli soldiers if the opener of the RfC and others are open to this. I am worried that the media we have currently paints Hamas in the worst possible light, and portrays 7 October as having been purely a massacre of innocents rather than the military operation (with some complex and tragic consequences in execution) it was. By adding media of deceased soldiers, it could signal to the reader the military nature of the operation, which would be more balanced. JDiala (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose this compromise. Two thirds of those killed on 7 October were civilians, so this would be misleading (just as it would be misleading to only show pictures of Hamas fighter casualties and not civilians) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the compromise wasn't suggesting replacing the image in question, but supplementing it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose supplementing it with images of Israeli military casualties. I read JDiala as saying instead not also, but that might be my misreading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the compromise wasn't suggesting replacing the image in question, but supplementing it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose this compromise. Two thirds of those killed on 7 October were civilians, so this would be misleading (just as it would be misleading to only show pictures of Hamas fighter casualties and not civilians) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Multiple editors have brought up WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a highly disingenuous strawman argument which no one on the other side has made. WP:NOTCENSORED states that being graphic isn't a sufficient condition to force removal. That doesn't imply that other reasons aren't sufficient conditions. Reminder that the editors here all have 500+ edits so are aware of WP:NOTCENSORED. Bringing it up repeatedly is just muddying the water and responding to an argument never made. JDiala (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I struck it from my comment above -HenryMP02 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There is a raft of "Israeli" pix at the article actually about the attack, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, should we "balance" those as well? Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is interesting that there no photos of bodies of Hamas fighters who died on 7 October. I recall seeing videos of Israelis urinating on their bodies, should that be added to contribute to the balance? JDiala (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I Support doing so Abo Yemen✉ 11:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose adding videos of Israelis urinating on bodies to the 7 October article, given these do not have any reliable source but appeared on self-published social media. One or two images reflecting the Palestinian victims of IDF actions on 7 October would however be due there, just as one or two images reflecting Israeli and other victims of the actions of Hamas and its allies on that day are due here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose removal on account of WP:NOTCENSORED and, like others have said, it serves best to show how the conflict has human impact. I don't think the fact that Israel posted the photo is sufficient enough to remove the image (this did happen in Israel, it's going to come from an Israeli source no matter what happens). That being said, I agree with JDiala in that we should include images of military action whether by IDF or Hamas to give a more through picture of what happened – there was a lot going on that day, and focusing solely on one aspect would be detrimental. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove The pictures are unbalanced for the article. For this one there's lots showing dead Palestinians. At the very very least one would expect parity. Also I don't think the photo shows he scene of a death. If somebody was killed there I would have expected blood spatter around the place whereas it looks like the blood was put on the floor and shoved around. I hate to say that about the possible death of someone, it sounds like one of those damned conspiracy theory types, but unfortunately that's what it looks like to me. I would downvote the picture as authentic of anything. NadVolum (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove as completely and utterly WP:UNDUE. The 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (which has its own article and a video in this one) is a small part of this war in which the overwhelming majority of the casualties (by a mile) are Palestinians. As for the "human impact" that keeps getting mentioned, we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten). M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten)
Just a heads up, this really ruins your first (entirely valid) point/opinion – it makes it sound like you think this should be/is a coatrack article. There is an entire article on Palestinian Genocide, we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not to include an image in a section talking about the initial attack. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- Just a heads up, the genocide point is definitely valid Abo Yemen✉ 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible I'm missing something, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, the genocide point is definitely valid Abo Yemen✉ 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. The article already has an adequate number of images; but beyond that, images that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution - even if they are accurate, they may be non-representative, specifically framed or chosen to maximize emotional impact, and so on. This doesn't render them unusable but I would prefer other images when available (and they are available.) I would also echo the people above who are bothered by the continuous attempts to cite WP:NOTCENSORED when nobody has asked that the image be removed due to its graphic nature - the flip side of NOTCENSORED, in my opinion, is that of course the graphic nature of an image is not inherently a reason for inclusion; we don't include shocking images simply for the sake of shocking people. As a general rule, when people cite NOTCENSORED in an overly-defensive manner like that it makes me nervous that an image is being used primarily for its shocking impact, which is not a valid rationale in and of itself. See the essay Wikipedia:NOTNOTCENSORED for some discussion about how reflexively defensive invocations of NOTCENSORED can be a warning sign that an image has problems. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Would you support replacing it with NoonIcarus’s #4, which was taken and released by civilians? BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove there is a video which is already a strong bias, this was explained in the section above this one. Re: my previous replies. Deblinis (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. There should be at least one photo in that section illustrating the attack on Israeli communities. It's good that we have a video but it's not a replacement.
If I read this report correctly, very few people watch it, compared to the number of readers of the article.I'd be fine with using alternative images #3, #4 suggested by u:NoonIcarus. I'm not sure that the reliability arguments are made in good faith. There are hundreds of similar photos in every newspaper showing the destruction [25]. Alaexis¿question? 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well I certainly would like a good reliable source to have a look at the photos and say what they think they illustrate. There must be plenty of crime scene experts around the world who could do that. Sorry if you think that is bad faith but I can't just unquestioningly accept everything from the government press office of a country engaged in a war. I think a picture like those in the Guardian illustrate what was happening much better and it is a reasonably independent source. NadVolum (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have nothing against using other photos. There are obvious copyright problems as we'd have to prove fair use (or whatever it's called nowadays) but if someone is willing to do it we could replace this photo.
- My point was that we have very similar photos from other RS (one more example), with the destruction and blood, so I don't think there are real grounds to doubt the authenticity of the image in question. Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that example also is a far better illustration. Surely someone had a camera and took a photo there and was willing to release it rather than everything being newspaper reporters and the government office? Those government office ones are just uninformative photos except perhaps for shocking people who have a thing about blood. They don't really illustrate the subject matter never mind about any other worries about them. NadVolum (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well I certainly would like a good reliable source to have a look at the photos and say what they think they illustrate. There must be plenty of crime scene experts around the world who could do that. Sorry if you think that is bad faith but I can't just unquestioningly accept everything from the government press office of a country engaged in a war. I think a picture like those in the Guardian illustrate what was happening much better and it is a reasonably independent source. NadVolum (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. Why would some even raise such question? Terrorists from Hamas have massacred people and this image directly represents the event. An attempt to censor Wikipedia is not a good thing to do. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- For the last time, this isn't about WP:NOTCENSORED. It's about the reliability of the photo. Cited from @Abo Yemen: the photo was taken by the Government Press Office of Israel, and there are no bodies present and only smeared blood, indicating that it could be Israeli propaganda. Just for reference, I'm not taking sides here. I'm just a coordinator. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep photo- unless I'm missing something, nobody has raised any credible reason to doubt the veracity of this image- there are no third-party sources claiming it to be inaccurate, for example. A photograph being released by a government agency is not in itself a reason to cast doubt on the accuracy of the source. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- No Unless there's a credible reason that's backed by reliable sources that the image is fake then I don't really understand the objection to this photo's inclusion. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Photo - It would appear that there is not valid reasoning strong enough to remove the photo in my mind. Seems that WP:ONUS is satisfactory at the moment. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS would be an argument for removal, correct?
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.
Were you referring to something else? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS would be an argument for removal, correct?
- Remove Mainly because the photo is totally uninformative and contextless, I have no reason to doubt its authenticity, but in terms of what it conveys, it could be a police photo from any crime scene or a photo from any film set anywhere in the world, it tells us nothing specific. Killing is gory and leaves mess behind, but who did not know that already? Also as said by others it is
utterly WP:UNDUE.
in the broader context of the war, as opposed to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Alsoimages that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution
.Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - Remove: the photo is published by a government engaged in the conflict as part of war propaganda. It does not give essential information about the subject and so could be considered (despite its graphic and potentially upsetting nature) a "primarily decorative" image. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - First, I would note that if images from Israeli government agencies are regarded unusable, then the same standard should be applied to any images by Palestinian or Iranian government agencies. Currently images from Wafa and Fars News Agency can be found in the article. Moving on, civilian impact of 7 Oct attack is very much relevant to the article, so an image depicting it would be appropriate. On other hand, there is already somewhat of an overload of images in the section at the moment of writing this comment[26]. When read on a large monitor, 9 October situation map is out of sync from article text, so some pruning should be done. I, for one, question why are there two maps for showing extent of 7 Oct attack, one would sufficient, and picture of IDF generals meeting doesn't feel all that vital either.--Staberinde (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not censored, so don't bring up "questionable" or "disturbing" graphics in your opinion. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- What indications do we have this is human blood.... or this is the result of some sort of attack? Moxy🍁 16:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- We don't know. That's literally the whole point of the discussion. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- What indications do we have this is human blood.... or this is the result of some sort of attack? Moxy🍁 16:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are there actually any RS that call into question the credibility of this photo? Given the nature of the October 7 attack, I'm pretty sure a bloodstained floor would be fairly common. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The accuracy of figures in the lede
@BilledMammal: as for this edit I should say that the figures given by Israelis are also disputed but we don't mention the disputation in the lede. Attributing the figures to "Gaza Health Ministry" is enough to know that the figure may not be a "fact".Ghazaalch (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Attributing figures, and saying other sources dispute them, are too different things; in this case I think it is appropriate to do both - we can’t give these figures in Wikivoice, and we can’t ignore the fact that these figures have been questioned. BilledMammal (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: There is no need for attributing majority of reliable sources which have cast no doubt on the figures.
- You have also made even more controversial edits changing "children" to "minors" [27] despite "children" being used almost exclusively by RS.
- Also you have removed mention of how the mentioned women and children are the majority of killed. [28].
- Waiting for your self-revert on these three edits that go against reliable sources reporting. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Almost all reliable sources attribute; as such, we have to do the same.
- Saying "majority" and providing the figures is redundant and bad writing; we should do one or the other, and trust that our readers know how numbers work.
- "Children" has different meanings depending on the culture; "minors" are clearer. In addition, "minors" are what we use in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then you change the body. Most WP:RS use children. I have reverted your edit. JDiala (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant definitions for the two words:
- Child:
a young person especially between infancy and puberty
ora person not yet of the age of majority
- Minor:
not having reached majority
- In this case, the sources are referring to individuals under the age of 18; shouldn't we use the word that clearly conveys that meaning, rather than the one which might result in the reader misunderstanding the sentence? BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Red herring, no one is discussing these definitions. We are discussing what RS have used in their reporting of the war and they have exclusively used the term children because legally speaking those under 18 years of age are called children; which is an objective definition not relating to any subjective culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- We're not obliged to use the exact wording used by reliable sources; in this circumstance, why would we want to use less precise words when more precise words exist and ensure that our readers won't misunderstand our content? BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, we will not be using euphemisms for what is universally reported as 13,000 dead Palestinian children. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if you're going to POV push I'd suggest not being so transparent about it. The word "child" is not imprecise. JDiala (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- We're not obliged to use the exact wording used by reliable sources; in this circumstance, why would we want to use less precise words when more precise words exist and ensure that our readers won't misunderstand our content? BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Red herring, no one is discussing these definitions. We are discussing what RS have used in their reporting of the war and they have exclusively used the term children because legally speaking those under 18 years of age are called children; which is an objective definition not relating to any subjective culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then you change the body. Most WP:RS use children. I have reverted your edit. JDiala (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no need to attribute the death toll. That the death toll is attributed in WP:RS is immaterial if it is clear from the context that the reliable sources are taking the death toll as a statement of fact, which in most cases they are. See for instance [1] the title explicitly says "30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians" indicating reliable sources have a confidence in the health ministry. JDiala (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:HEADLINES; we don't consider headlines reliable. In the body, which we can consider reliable, reliable sources almost without exception attribute - and often in more detail than we have done in the article, with the sources mentioning that the health ministry is run by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- No one said either that we consider headlines reliable, but that the figures were not cast doubt on by majority of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the comment I was replying to, you would see that JDiala was basing their argument on the headlines of an article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did read it. JDiala was giving an example and did not say that headlines are reliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's a significant number of sources you can find which explicitly state, within the body, the 30,000 toll. See e.g., [this] or [this]. It's true that some other sources choose to attribute within the body. The point is that figures are not really contested in the mainstream. If we make a decision to attribute, that's in effect casting doubt on the numbers when no such contest exists. (I know you cited the TabletMag piece but that was debunked many times) JDiala (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- "An analysis published in the Lancet medical journal in December found that Gaza's health ministry has "historically reported accurate mortality data.".[29] Deblinis (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the comment I was replying to, you would see that JDiala was basing their argument on the headlines of an article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- No one said either that we consider headlines reliable, but that the figures were not cast doubt on by majority of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:HEADLINES; we don't consider headlines reliable. In the body, which we can consider reliable, reliable sources almost without exception attribute - and often in more detail than we have done in the article, with the sources mentioning that the health ministry is run by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't expect all readers to do maths while reading and conclude that Israel had mostly killed Palestinian woman and children, this is a removal of an important piece of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no need to attribute the death toll. That the death toll is attributed in WP:RS is immaterial if it is clear from the context that the reliable sources are taking the death toll as a statement of fact, which in most cases they are. See for instance [1] the title explicitly says "30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians" indicating reliable sources have a confidence in the health ministry. JDiala (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The data provided by the Gaza health ministry are not disputed anymore, they were proven to be falsified. Since figures provided by the Gaza ministry are now known to be non factual, they should not appear on this page unless confirmed by an independent source. Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Israel's international isolation
Turkey's ban of trade; Colombia's cutting of diplomatic ties; Jordan withdrawing its ambassador; etc. Israel is becoming internationally isolated per RS. [30], [31], [32] This satisfies WP:Notability in deserving a standalone article; and should be elaborated and expanded here in this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. That sounds important. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Lede
@Galamore: [33] Please self-revert these additions, many of which have been proven false per RS, and seek consensus first on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I've had to go no patience man on this one. It's child article detail and lead bloat. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: You are in violation of WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, in which you are first expected to gain consensus and demonstrate verifiability on the talk page before reinserting disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, we had an RFC on including sexual assault in the lead. That failed to gain consensus, edit-warring around that is disruptive editing. nableezy - 14:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The RfC was closed as "no consensus," there was no decision not to include it. Also note that it was closed in February, and since then the UN report has been released and one of the victims found the strength to tell her story, so now we are much more certain that sexual violence took place and this should be reflected in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 15:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are at liberty to conduct a further RFC. Note that the "UN report" was not an investigation. Hamas mass killings and hostage taking are included at the lead as is the destruction of hospitals, starvation of and indiscriminate mass killings of civilians by Israel. Why does this particular crime rise to the level of these crimes? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have the burden of consensus the other way around here, you need consensus to include disputed text. That material is relevant for the article on the 6 October attack, not for a war lasting 7 months with some 23,000 dead women and kids and accusations of genocide and using starvation as a weapon of war over that time. Regardless, edit-warring in disputed content is and remains disruptive editing, and if I see it repeated I will be performing the next logical step with repeated disruptive editing. nableezy - 16:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sexual violence, mutilation and such are all important aspects of the October 7 attacks that caused this entire war. They are mentioned by a large range of reliable sources when discussing the start of the war. I don't see why the lead goes so deep into every single action of Israel but has zero mention of Hamas' atrocities, which are covered by important publishers. Unfortuantely at this point the lead screams bias, so maybe it is time to put a POV tag on. Galamore (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Israeli narrative is certainly not relevant. Deblinis (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The lead does scream bias, way too much emphasis on the start of the war when most of the article is not even about October (and there is an entire child article for it anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sexual violence, mutilation and such are all important aspects of the October 7 attacks that caused this entire war. They are mentioned by a large range of reliable sources when discussing the start of the war. I don't see why the lead goes so deep into every single action of Israel but has zero mention of Hamas' atrocities, which are covered by important publishers. Unfortuantely at this point the lead screams bias, so maybe it is time to put a POV tag on. Galamore (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: You are in violation of WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, in which you are first expected to gain consensus and demonstrate verifiability on the talk page before reinserting disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Splitting out the reactions section
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 page now has major length issues, at 21,000 words, and one of the most egregiously overlength sections is the reactions section, also separately tagged at 5,900 words. This is now an obvious section for splitting. Aside from the general principle of these sections always becoming magnets for every undue reaction under the sun (the classic ad absurdum argument being that if you included a reaction from every country, you'd have 200 country reactions), hopefully every can see the amazing two birds with one stone opportunity here in that removing 5,900 words (save an appropriate summary) would basically bring the entire page back down within reach of an acceptable length again. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think that this is a good idea. The article is way too long and is almost impossible to read in one sitting. Reactions and events that have occurred due to this war are a major part of the news on this topic. I think a separate article for this would be great, with maybe a little revision. Antny08 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to just go for it. Anyway, support. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Selfstudier – perfect time to drop a Bold edit. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agreed on all points. JDiala (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I feel like the countries' reaction doesn't add any value to the article. 3skandar (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support This article is too long, as the reactions page doesn't add much value to the topic itself, as many of the reacting countries have had little influence on the war. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support especially with a bold edit. Even with this split, it wouldn't bring the article down to a reasonable size, re:Article size issue CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, some sort of split is definitely needed but the vast majority of the "Reactions" section is in fact international, so would be better suited in International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. As a transitional measure I'd be fine with the proposed split, but it probably needs to be in combination with some sort of wider cleanup and reorganization. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I see the split has already occurred boldly. I'm fine with that, but thought definitely needs to be given to reorganization, or at least a renaming to make the current division make more sense (e.g. International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war renamed to List of international reactions to the Israel–Hamas war by country) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the International article needs to be a list, it should simply better summarised in the Reactions_to_the_Israel–Hamas_war#International section, as is now effectively a child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war is arguably now a WP:COAT article, as a majority of the text is about the international reactions. There are now essentially two articles primarily focused on international reactions. I'm not sure the best answer to this- maybe domestic and international reactions don't fit well in the same article? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- With this edit [35] I've replaced the international reactions sections with summary from child article, and also added lead re-write template. I agree the article was far from ideal. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war is arguably now a WP:COAT article, as a majority of the text is about the international reactions. There are now essentially two articles primarily focused on international reactions. I'm not sure the best answer to this- maybe domestic and international reactions don't fit well in the same article? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the International article needs to be a list, it should simply better summarised in the Reactions_to_the_Israel–Hamas_war#International section, as is now effectively a child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I see the split has already occurred boldly. I'm fine with that, but thought definitely needs to be given to reorganization, or at least a renaming to make the current division make more sense (e.g. International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war renamed to List of international reactions to the Israel–Hamas war by country) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle, I am in favor of splits that reduce the length of this article and I don't think this proposal is controversial. Ppt91talk 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Replace the map in infobox lead with pictures from the war
The ISW is a biased source per its own article on Wikipedia (Institute for the Study of War). Unfortunately, the ISW map we have been depending on is objectively no longer reliable- it refuses to admit changes in control that have been widely reported by an array of news sources, perhaps most prominently the Israeli withdrawal from the southern Gaza Strip, among other things. The problem is that we cannot find a reliably sourced alternative map.
@Ecrusized has proposed that the current map be replaced with a few images from the war, as is done in the lead infobox for Russo-Ukrainian War for example. I strongly support this over retaining an outdated and misleading map. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Gaza War Unit Tracking who discussed concerns about ISW's biases with me. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Evaporation123: Please don't quote me on thing I didn't say. I have not proposed that. I said that the map should be replaced with images after the war ends. Ecrusized (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, had misread Evaporation123 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- While the suggestion being made here is apparently a misquote, having closely followed the discussions about the map here, I must
agree with the proposal to temporarily remove the map from the infobox if current IDF-controlled areas cannot be reasonably differentiated from formerly IDF-controlled areas, following the widely publicized withdrawals from Khan Younis, northern Gaza and elsewhere. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Ceasefire
@BilledMammal: This part of the lede needs to be trimmed, not expanded. [36] It already took a disproportionate size. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Accuracy and neutrality are more important than conciseness. However, I see Selfstudier has already made some reasonable cuts. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yea, I saw that, too. Got rid of the quotes but still seems a relatively minor current detail rather than anything of lasting significance. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- No objection to removing it entirely. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Summaries of child article only deserve one sentence at best, with a link ideally. Take for example the line
"During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed"
regarding October 7. That's a great summary for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (10/10 even), but otherwise way too much detail for a summarising the Israel–Hamas war. Notably the first two paragrpahs of the lead are overly focussed on October 2023, while the article isn't mainly about this month. Ideally someone could improve the lead summary to reflect the content from the body per mos:lead. In summary, yes it started on October 7, and yes, Israel reacted soon after, but does it really take two paragraphs to summarise all of this? Absolutely not. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Displaced Israeli
I don't know if I am hallucinating, but I think I already opened a discussion about this tagging @BilledMammal: regarding displaced Israelis, which @פעמי-עליון: seems to have restored.[37] "Hundreds of thousands" is vague and the sources are all from 2023. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- "The third part has always focused only on the actions of Israeli forces/policies on the Palestinians (and on the ground in Gaza) and not the other way around, and without any inclusion of the Israeli narrative." RE: 30 April 2024. It would be necessary to edit it promptly. Deblinis (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't refer to the procedure because I wasn't aware of any discussion (but I'm always pro-discussions); about the content - the article describes the whole war and not only the current situation, so I don't see any reason not to write something like "as well as hundreds of thousands of Israelis, 330 thousands in the beginning of the war" ([38]). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @פעמי-עליון: That would be undue, and would be more due in the 7 October article. Please find a more specific recent number or at least something more consistent throughout the >200 day war. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would the number of the displaced Israelis at the beginning of the war be undue? The number of the Palestinians is not so recent (at least there is no source that indicates this is still the number of the displaced Palestinians). Again, the article is not a journalist report but an encyclopedic article, so the general description of the war is not less important than the description of the current situation.
- I suggest: "as well as 330 thousands in the beginning of the war[39], gradually decreasing to 114 thousands in December 2023 and about 60 thousands in March 2024[40]" (but it should be noted that displaced Israelis who were temporarily resettled in other settlements (these, not these) are not included in this counting). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 10:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- @פעמי-עליון: Because the war is >200 days now and one day information is not due for the lede. Obviously all of the Gaza Strip's population is still displaced.
- The figure of displaced Israelis seems to have dipped below 100k by January 2024, so as a middle ground solution we can say ten of thousands here; and in the invasion article hundreds of thousands. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not all of the Gaza strip population are displaces, but indeed almost all of them; and yet, Wikipedia:Verifiability says that our information may be correct but we still must back it up with sources. But that's another topic.
- how about "as well as hundreds of thousands in the beginning of the war, gradually decreasing tens of thousands currently" - I think it's short enough, but still mentions the hundreds of thousands because this wasn't true in the day of the invasion, but for months after. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Galamore: The number you inserted is misleading, please check this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I will take that compromise. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Great! I added the sources in Hebrew. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @פעמי-עליון: That would be undue, and would be more due in the 7 October article. Please find a more specific recent number or at least something more consistent throughout the >200 day war. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Lead
This is too long and needs to be summarized in one sentence:
"Israel's next stated objective is a major offensive in Rafah, despite objections from the international community. On 6 May 2024, Hamas accepted the terms of a ceasefire proposed by Egypt and Qatar, similar to one proposed earlier by Israel and the United States. Israel executed airstrikes in Rafah earlier and later the same day, saying they would pressure Hamas, and stating that the deal that Hamas agreed to was not acceptable and that both negotiations and hostilities would continue."
To: "Israel's upcoming offensive in Rafah, criticized by the international community, is nearing execution while ceasefire efforts remain ongoing." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's a good reading, and certainly easier to understand from a quick glance. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, the shorter wording is better. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Sde Teiman desert camp
Human rights abuses documented at the Sde Teiman desert camp. I'm not sure where this could be added, or if it deserves an article of its own.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html GeoffreyA (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about new articles. So many new articles have been created since October 7th. It could be added to existing articles. Unlawful combatant hasn't been updated since the law changed in Israel. Ben Azura (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note earlier Haaretz report: [41] Much of what CNN reported was the subject of an official letter sent to Israeli ministers a month ago. Andreas JN466 08:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Festival bodycam footage
This video is not appropriate for the article and should be removed. It takes a horrifying incident from 7 October 2023, one that is highly emotionally provocative, and gives it a prominent position in an article about a >200 day-war which has seen similar horrible incidents of murder and mayhem in Gaza, of which there are plenty of videos but are not included here. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the amount of graphic coverage of the October 7 attack is about okay, so is there something you'd like to substitute for the video? NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- It might be okay, but it is unbalanced when you consider it alone. I have removed for now until this could be remedied somehow. No idea what to substitute with but suggestions are obviously welcome. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a valuable illustration of the attack, it should not be removed.
- Also, we had a discussion recently about the photo of a bloody kitchen in a kibbutz, and one of the arguments for removing it was that the video is sufficient. So how come both media are removed? Alaexis¿question? 20:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: No one disputed that; what we are discussing is how there is no balance..? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you can add a video or photo showing Gazans loss or something to balance. I think the festival footage is informative and not too graphic. Personally I didn’t find it that emotional comparatively because I have also seen videos of dead Gazan babies so I actually don’t think the festival footage is that graphic but it is informative. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's appropriate to have at least one picture in this section showing the results of the attack, especially considering that there is a fair amount of disinformation about it.
- The fact that the war has been going for more than 200 days already does not mean that the October 7 events should get 1/200 of the coverage. The article about World War I dedicates a section to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand even though these events only lasted a few hours and only one person was killed. The October 7 attack has triggered this round of fighting and is significant in many ways (number of Israeli victims, failure of the intelligence, etc) and the appropriate weight should be given to it. Alaexis¿question? 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not my point, I have been talking about balance. What is there to balance this video? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you referring to WP:BALANCE? The policy says that
an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject
. The October 7 attack is obviously not a minor aspect of the subject and the video in question illustrates it. The other aspects, such as the impact of the Israeli operation in Gaza, are given due weight in the article. Alaexis¿question? 20:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- @Alaexis: October 7, as evident by the name, is one day, out of an article about a >200 day war. So yes, this is a minor aspect being highlighted more than any of the horrible videos coming out of Gaza since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- We base balance on the level of coverage in reliable sources - and sources give October 7 far more than 1/200th of the coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: October 7, as evident by the name, is one day, out of an article about a >200 day war. So yes, this is a minor aspect being highlighted more than any of the horrible videos coming out of Gaza since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you referring to WP:BALANCE? The policy says that
- Again, not my point, I have been talking about balance. What is there to balance this video? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: No one disputed that; what we are discussing is how there is no balance..? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
First, I don't think the video is of free use or of fair use. But, if it were, I would keep it in the article. In a largely one-sided war, the October 7 attack triggered it and showed the most brutality of Hamas. For that, it deserves to be illustrated. In no way is October 7 a minor aspect of the war. starship.paint (RUN) 15:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Lede changes
I made extensive bold edits to the lede of the article to reduce its size by summarizing and make it more chronologically reasonable by removing duplications. As you can tell the article is large and the talk page even larger, so I hope I haven't changed anything against any consensus that I had not noticed. If I have, please let me know so I can revert myself accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I thought your edits were good overall. The only thing I felt was somewhat unbalanced was the removal of language discussing Hamas' motivations for Oct 7 and for the taking of hostages. If Hamas' motivations don't belong in the lead, the part about Israel's stated goals for the invasion probably shouldn't be in there either. Alternatively, we could work on adding a brief mention of Hamas motivations into the lead. Unbandito (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- For Oct 7 I didn't remove that, only summarized. As for the hostages, it is overdetailed and is better left out of the lede, as it is currently. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Table for Body Counts and Excess Deaths?
How about a table with body counts, to include civilian casualties and deaths due to dehydration, starvation, and possibly later to disease and lack of medical resources (excess deaths)? I know the numbers may become more controversial as more Palestinians die from slower forms of violence, but there should be somewhat objective counts that can be updated in a table. https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/death-rate-elderly-people-northern-gaza-strip-soars-due-bombing-starvation-dehydration-and-lack-healthcare-enar Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where's your source for any of that? NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Johns Hopkins. [42]https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/04/15/tak-igusa-gaza-qa/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the report. https://gaza-projections.org/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Johns Hopkins. [42]https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/04/15/tak-igusa-gaza-qa/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- With restricted access to Gaza and the health system basically completely falling apart it’s difficult to find numbers for thirst, hunger, etc. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Lancet did it for the Iraq War. Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- And there was a Body Count Project. Iraq Body Count project Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Mass graves and an estimated 10,000 people buried under the rubble could also be a problem, but some numbers, even if estimates, are important to understand the scale of death and destruction. [43]https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-05-11-24/index.html Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Lancet did it for the Iraq War. Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Protests on campuses?
How about a section on protests on campuses about the war? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should be noted, perhaps in a sentence or two, but where? GeoffreyA (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war ? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds appropriate. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. And perhaps the protests article too. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war ? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps this can be added to useful idiots DutchPatriot (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, if we look at the footage captured during their protests and the “occupation of college property,” we can see that they don’t know what they are actually protesting for. Either they are simply repeating what they see on social media (mainly Tiktok) or they have an ideological reason.
- Can you elaborate? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended rationale that veers a bit too far into NOTFORUM territory. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Foreign involvement
In the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, there is a lot of explanation regarding foreign involvement. Starting with the Belligerents section of the infobox, there is a note that directs readers to a "foreign involvement" section that explains how other countries have provided lethal aid (and humanitarian aid) to Ukraine, and that this is a significant factor in Ukraine's capacity to wage war. However, the foreign involvement in this article seems to not have as much emphasis. In the infobox, no mention is made of the substantial amount of lethal aid that Israel is receiving from the United States. There is one small section of "international" under "reactions", and that section mentions that the United States has provided substantial lethal aid. However, that is a bit misleading, as United States lethal aid to Israel is not a 'reaction' to contemporary events, but rather a longstanding policy (in contrast to Ukraine, which only began receiving substantial amounts of lethal aid 'after' the Russian invasion). Of course, there has been lethal aid provided by the Untied States to Israel that is in response to Hamas's Oct 7th attack. Nevertheless, I think US lethal aid to Israel should be given more coverage (given that it is so substantial and fundamental to Israel's ability to attack Gaza and countries in the region).
My proposal is that, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, the infobox also have a note next to Israel directing readers to a section titled "Foreign involvement" that details longstanding US UK, German, and other western support to Israel. Here is the sum total of mentions of foreign aid to Israel in the article right now:
"Israel has received significant support from its traditional Western allies, most notably the United States, which has provided Israel extensive military aid throughout the war[needs update] and has vetoed multiple UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions." (from the lede)
"The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany have supplied Israel with substantial military and medical aid." (from the "international" subsection of "reactions").
This is literally it. Nowhere else does the article explain in detail the lethal aid that the United States is provided to Israel. In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine goes into further detail in explaining the aid that the US is providing to Ukraine (among other countries). While it is true that United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war exists (and is linked to in that lede sentence), surely that warrants its own separate section in this article? Perhaps a section titled "foreign involvement", given that there has been substantial amounts of it.
Relatedly, there seems to be lacking a significant mention of just how much the United States is militarily directly involved in the conflict. There is 1 (one) line in the article that mentions this:
"On 19 October, the United States Navy destroyer USS Carney shot down several missiles that were traveling north over the Red Sea towards Israel." (from the "Yemen and the Red Sea" section).
Arguably, this action could be used to classify the United States as a belligerent in this war. Yemen is listed as a belligerent in this article, and surely if someone engages in active combat against a belligerent, they are themselves a belligerent? Operation Prosperity Guardian is a military operation led by the United States in support of Israel.
So, in summary, I propose two changes: First, that there should be, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, a section that deals specifically with foreign involvement. That section can use the main article template and direct to United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. Second, I would like a consideration of the role of the United States as a belligerent in this conflict, given its military (and humanitarian) role in defending Israel. This includes the proposed pier that the United States says it wants to construct in Gaza (imagine if China announced it would be using its military to build a pier in Mariupol???).
I notice that there is another section of the talk page that is dealing with a similar issue. For that reason, I'm going to ping the editors who commented there. @Bubblesorg:@Iskandar323:@NadVolum:@BilledMammal:
Let me know what you all think. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. This war cannot be understood without detailing US and European involvement since 1917. Perhaps this should include numbers (amount of funds, particular weapons, UN votes)? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I agree, but also because of the fact that conflicts tend to be nuanced and in this particular conflict there have even been direct military actions taken against some of these parties. The current list contains the Houthi movement, which did face off agianst the USA, UK and France --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support: At bare minimum a section on foreign involvement should be included. As you say, these are not "reactions", but material support as part of long-standing strategic alliances and patterns of material support. "Military aid" is a very silly euphemism for material support – if it's arms shipments, those are often at least partially paid for, so not aid, and if it's tactical assistance, that's material support. The Red Sea stuff is a bit off to the side and something of a halfway house that makes it hard to say whether it's a direct part of the conflict or not. But, since the Houthis are already included under "other theatres" on one side, the US bombing of the Houthis in retaliation should be on the other. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support per every argument listed Abo Yemen✉ 01:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good idea to have a section on the foreign support. Of course, the enemies of Israel are also supported by other countries (for example, Iran arms and supports such groups as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which took part in the October 7 attack). Also, we should describe a country as an ally or co-belligerent only if RS do it. Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"US says Israel’s use of US arms likely violated international law, but evidence is incomplete"
Is this worth including in the article? Or does the US need to be more certain in their statements? [44]https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-gaza-war-nsm-international-law-c83b6f39ce2799e5d2c473a337e2f857 Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Table for munitions used?
How about a table with the number of munitions used, particularly bombs? [45]https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/intelligence-assessment-dumb-bombs-israel-gaza?cid=ios_app Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Summarizing quotes
Makeandtoss regarding this edit would it not be better to summarize the quote? Does the article really need to mention Israel's "orgy of occupation"? VR (Please ping on reply) 21:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: Yes, I remember the quote fully being cited in dozens of RS in the immediate days after 7 October 2023; they highlight the motivations and the political justifications of the group as stated by the head of its military wing and its mastermind, Mohammad Deif, who rarely makes such appearances. This quote is very significant in my opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's because at that point not much else had been said by Hamas. Since then, they've released an official response, not to mention many in depth interviews given since. VR (Please ping on reply) 23:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Friendly fire and IDF troop deaths
An interesting part of the IDF body count. This report indicates that 1 in 5 IDF deaths are due to friendly fire. The article suggests that the deaths may due to lack of leadership and troop experience. [46]https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226977365/israel-idf-gaza-middle-east-deaths Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article says Israelis were run over by their own bulldozers and a big part of the article is from military experts also attributing the friendly fire to the densely populated urban warfare environment. It also mentions the area being treated as a “free-fire zone” with modern weapons shooting “right through walls” and Hamas militants jumping “out of the hundreds of miles of tunnel networks and firing “at Israeli soldiers who are tense and ready to squeeze a trigger”. Seems the phrase “there is no safe place in Gaza” also is applying to the Israelis. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another case: 5 IDF soldiers killed by tank fire. [47]https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-5-idf-soldiers-confirmed-killed-in-northern-gaza-as-a-result-of-friendly-fire Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
UN changes reported casualty figures
@BilledMammal, Nableezy, and Makeandtoss: Note recent changes in reported UN figures for Palestinian women and children killed. Compare:
- https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-213
- https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-215
It looks to me like the figures we have in the lead for women and minors killed may be too high, at least as a proportion of the 35,000 (the figure might be correct if you include an estimate of those still buried under the rubble). At any rate the proportion of verified women and children killed appears to be around 56% (52% + half the 8% elderly total), according to the UN figures.
The latest UN figures at https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-217 are:
- 34,904 reported fatalities, of which:
- 24,686 identified as of 30 April, including:
- 10,0006 men (40%)
- 4,959 women (20%)
- 7,797 children (32%)
- 1,924 elderly (8%)
- 24,686 identified as of 30 April, including:
- Above figures do not include more than 10,000 reported missing or under the rubble, per Gaza's Government Media Office and Ministry of Health.
Also note Jerusalem Post report:
The "seemingly" would be the operative word (the new UN figures only relate to the 24,686 fully identified as of 30 April and do not include any of the women and children among the other 10,000 reported dead). This article by the FDD, a neo-conservative think tank, plays even more fast and loose with the numbers, but is still worth reading:
Putting these articles' hyperbole aside, there seems to be no question that early reports of 60% or 72% of women/children casualties were too high. And while "15,000 children and 10,000 women" might be a reasonable overall estimate, to my mind, if you included the estimated 10,000 dead buried under the rubble (for a total of over 45,000), it doesn't relate to the 35,000 figure (25,000 out of 35,000 is about 71.5%, and that figure seems definitely off now).
An added complication is that as the hospital system has broken down, numbers of dead are being underreported and some are being registered in a different way to how it was done when the hospitals worked properly. This Sky News article provides a useful overview and specifically comments about the 72% percent figure:
Thoughts? --Andreas JN466 08:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Too early to say to be honest given that RS have not touched on this change yet. Coverage will probably pick up in the upcoming days and then we can decide accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sourcing for the UN figures hasn't changed, its still the GHM so the reason for changes must be there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at day 213, the source for the >9,500 women, >14,500 children is given as GMO (Government Media Office). In day 215, the only source given is MOH, the Ministry of Health. However, last month's Sky News article quotes the chief of the health ministry at length, and says the ministry had been reporting the 72% figure. The minister described it as a media estimate. (I could imagine that the ministry gave estimates for the total number of women and children killed, including those buried under rubble, and that journalists then worked out what percentage of the reported, verified total that number would represent – but that is pure supposition on my part.) At any rate, the Sky News article also refers to a figure of 61% for women, children and elderly victims. Andreas JN466 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sourcing for the UN figures hasn't changed, its still the GHM so the reason for changes must be there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
https://www.thejc.com/news/un-appears-to-halve-gaza-casualty-count-for-women-and-children-si3ahvvw I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-revises-gaza-death-toll-50-less-women-children-killed-previously-reported
- Consider the ones making the most noise, Fox, the Jewish Chronicle, The Jerusalem Post and FDD and the watchword should be caution while we round up more reliable sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Galamore:
- There is no consensus her so far to change the sources and revise the figures so I am not sure why you have done so? } Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- It also got coverage from USA Today [48] which writes “According to the UN's latest figures, 40% of casualities in Gaza have been men, 32% children, 20% women and 8% elderly.” As well as Reuters [2]. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters seems to have the most accurate reporting here:
Literally nothing changed, they only added additional information on the bodies that the MOH has complete records for. nableezy - 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)The death toll in the Gaza Strip from the Israel-Hamas war is still more than 35,000, but the enclave's Ministry of Health has updated its breakdown of the fatalities, the United Nations said on Monday after Israel questioned a sudden change in numbers.
U.N. spokesperson Farhan Haq said the ministry's figures - cited regularly by the U.N. its reporting on the seven-month-long conflict - now reflected a breakdown of the 24,686 deaths of "people who have been fully identified."
- Ignoring headlines per WP:HEADLINES, the sources pretty much are reporting the same thing. Although USA Today says the number of unidentified is 11,000 according to Hamas vs. 10,000 reported by the other sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters is saying the number hasnt changed, they are just specifying how many of them have complete records. I think thats the closest thing to accuracy here, and also dont think it matters nearly as much as people seem to be thinking it does. nableezy - 20:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is a useful Guardian report as well:
- Peter Beaumont, Gaza ministry revises down figures for women and children confirmed killed, 13 May 2024
- Andreas JN466 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- CNN released an article that says “ The number was reduced because the UN says it is now relying on the number of deceased women and children whose names and other identifying details have been fully documented, rather than the total number of women and children killed. “ [49]
- CNN and its headline is probably the most reliable at this point. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Haaretz Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reporting from CNN was more helpful with clarification from the UN. The sources saying the total number of deaths is unchanged was unclear because the confusion was over the categorical deaths. Very confusing… some of us need things clearly spelled out to understand!! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- That confusion was because of media focusing on the apparent halving rather than the big picture. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t understand Reuters, nableezy, or Haaretz… need a calculator or Excel spreadsheet without CNN. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- CNN, UN says total number of deaths in Gaza remains unchanged after controversy over revised data and Guardian, UN denies Gaza death toll of women and children has been revised down. Seems clear enough, its only the details that are confusing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the media has updated us. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- CNN, UN says total number of deaths in Gaza remains unchanged after controversy over revised data and Guardian, UN denies Gaza death toll of women and children has been revised down. Seems clear enough, its only the details that are confusing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t understand Reuters, nableezy, or Haaretz… need a calculator or Excel spreadsheet without CNN. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- That confusion was because of media focusing on the apparent halving rather than the big picture. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reporting from CNN was more helpful with clarification from the UN. The sources saying the total number of deaths is unchanged was unclear because the confusion was over the categorical deaths. Very confusing… some of us need things clearly spelled out to understand!! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Haaretz Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ignoring headlines per WP:HEADLINES, the sources pretty much are reporting the same thing. Although USA Today says the number of unidentified is 11,000 according to Hamas vs. 10,000 reported by the other sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters seems to have the most accurate reporting here:
I think that having the UN data and the Times of Israel article ([50]) is enough coverage. No one is disputing the new numbers afaik. Alaexis¿question? 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the difference now is between reported and identified, we need to also reflect that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- We have to be careful here – the phrasing "including over 7,797 children and 4,959 women" does not quite hit the mark. The 7,797 children and 4,959 women represent the percentage of women and children among only 24,686 of the dead, out of a total of 34,844 (again, not including those missing or under the rubble). The remaining, over 10,000 dead in the Ministry of Health total (excluding those buried under the rubble) will again include thousands of children – probably around another 3,000, based on the 32% average. So the total number of children killed is likely to be well above 10,000 at least (again, excluding those buried under the rubble, which may add several thousand more). Andreas JN466 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "identified" numbers are just the MOH figures from May 2. There isnt anything new here, they just are going back to the MOH figures as "identified". nableezy - 17:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The percentage of women and minors among those is slightly lower than hitherto reported: 56% rather than around 70%. That adjustment does make sense. The old percentages implied that more children were killed than men, and that the number of women and men killed was almost equal. With the new percentages, the men killed clearly outnumber the minors killed as well as the women (roughly 11:8:6). What remains true is that the clear majority killed in Gaza are women and children. Andreas JN466 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually there is no reason to suppose the number of children killed is lower than the men. Most of the killing has been by big bombs and there's no indication they are very discriminating in the middle of a city - and there's about twice as many children as men. The IDF also try to hide militants they kill as a matter of policy. One should expect as many or more men killed as women but the extra won't include all the militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, from the numbers you posted 40% men, 20% women, 32% children, 20% + 32% is 52%, which is a women and children majority. Plus we have an unknown 10k currently unidentified. All the new reporting on this are listing the modified numbers. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your percentages only sum to 92%. The difference is the seniors – 8% – for which the ministry has not give a gender breakdown. Assuming an even split for the seniors, you have 44% men, 24% women, 32% children (11:6:8). This would make 56% women and children. At any rate, the majority. Andreas JN466 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- That’s interesting. How the ministry decided not to breakdown the senior category by gender and instead put it into an individual category. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the figures are probably badly unrepresentative, but if they were representative then we could consider at a very minimum about 22% of the men were civilians - 24% like the women but take off 2% for Hamas killed by accident. That would leave 22% militants at most and 78% civilians. NadVolum (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- NadVolum can you explain how you got 24% of women being civilians and 2% of Hamas killed by accident? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- That 24% of women is from the identified figure as in just above from Andreas. Assuming 24% of men are killed alongside women as collateral is about the minimum and I also assumed 2% of the total population are Hamas and to be conservative assume they are all men. The percentage of men and women are the same and this assumes civilian men are killed at the same rate as women which is probably not true, men would be more likely to be working in infrastructure or other jobs targetted by the IDF or simply killed because they are male and of military age but as I said I'm being conservative. By accident here I meant Hamas killed as collateral like civilians rather than directly targetted. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- NadVolum can you explain how you got 24% of women being civilians and 2% of Hamas killed by accident? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the figures are probably badly unrepresentative, but if they were representative then we could consider at a very minimum about 22% of the men were civilians - 24% like the women but take off 2% for Hamas killed by accident. That would leave 22% militants at most and 78% civilians. NadVolum (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- That’s interesting. How the ministry decided not to breakdown the senior category by gender and instead put it into an individual category. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your percentages only sum to 92%. The difference is the seniors – 8% – for which the ministry has not give a gender breakdown. Assuming an even split for the seniors, you have 44% men, 24% women, 32% children (11:6:8). This would make 56% women and children. At any rate, the majority. Andreas JN466 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The percentage of women and minors among those is slightly lower than hitherto reported: 56% rather than around 70%. That adjustment does make sense. The old percentages implied that more children were killed than men, and that the number of women and men killed was almost equal. With the new percentages, the men killed clearly outnumber the minors killed as well as the women (roughly 11:8:6). What remains true is that the clear majority killed in Gaza are women and children. Andreas JN466 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the UN OCHR figures for the breakdown should be put up prominently as indicative of any real percentages of deaths. The number of identified men for instance is increased a lot by widows filling in the forms for their husbands death so they can receive state assistance, there is much less incentive to identify women and children. I haven't the foggiest what the OCHR thinks it is up to. NadVolum (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's a lot of media circus that previous figures were falsified. This is just not correct. All that happened is that UN separated verified deaths with complete data (e.g., the name), and known deaths without such precise documentation. The total sum of known deaths remains ~35,000 and even this is not accounting for thousands more missing and presumed dead under rubble. When counting women and children, the policy has changed that it only looks at those subset of victims with precise documentation. It is not an issue of the previous numbers being falsified but rather that there is just a higher threshold of evidence and documentation required now. The higher threshold means the estimates are very conservative. JDiala (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Editors should also look at Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war which I believe has been over-edited to misleadingly reduce casualty numbers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Casualties in lede downgraded from 35 to 24 thousand
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.
Comment below regarding your position about this change please.
I Strongly Oppose latest changes to casualties in lede that changed the number of Palestinian fatalities from 35 to 24 thousand, children and female fatalities from 15 to 7 thousand and 10 to 4 thousand respectively. The UN assessment notes that there are indeed 35 thousand fatalities, and that only 25 thousand of them have been identified so far. Mainstream media, virtually all across the world has been reporting the Gazan Health Ministry figures, and the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias. Ecrusized (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - The UN has clarified the meaning of their update and it doesn't overrule the GHM's count. If we want to add the number of casualties identified by UN OCHA I think that's fine, but it should be done so in a manner that distinguishes reported and identified casualties. Unbandito (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Also oppose. The top line figure remains unchanged. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also opposed, clearly there is no consensus for the recent changes. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Me too. But we've still got to cope with the mess in the figures somehow. We've now got identified casualties, reported casualties and missing probably killed - and people are already mixing up the unidentified but reported casualties with the figure for the missing under the rubble etc. And using the identified casualties to try and get a hold on the overall percentages is a guessing exercise because of strong differences in the recording of the deaths of men women and children compared to each other. There's been a number of obvious propaganda attempts to try and minimize the civilian deaths which is to be expected, however there has been one report by an expert which may have caused the Ministry to do this.[1] I haven't the foggiest why he says in that 'Second, the announced total number of Gazans killed in the war, now exceeding 33,000, may seem plausible but it is not a documented fact' when that figure was for recorded deaths not total deaths and yes recorded deaths probably are a bit high because of duplicates. This then leads to 'Thus, we should dismiss the common claim that, because many of the dead are trapped under rubble or are missing for other reasons, the announced totals are undercounts.' You only get that if you mix up the missing with the ones recorded but not identified in the Health Ministry figures. You have to start saying the missing is exaggerated too and with 86,000 buildings totally destroyed I don't think so. NadVolum (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems often overlooked in comments here (speedreading), but, subtracting women and children from the total to ascertain how many men (people over 18 up to those classified as 'old' i.e. 64 and over) or male victims there are among the fatalities does not yield a figure for Hamas dead. It does only if one assumes the wild premise that all adult males are Hamas militants, which is of course nonsense, given that their estimated military combatant units range from 30-40,000, something markedly less than 10% of the overall male population (18-64 =627,000 from memory).Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This is factually incorrect and a misunderstanding of the update that actually happened. The original ~35,000 number remains correct and the UN clarified this subsequently. JDiala (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. We should keep the 35,000+. However, we do have a problem with the figues for women and children (minors). At the time of writing, the article says: "Since the start of the Israeli operation, more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women" The figures for women and children are not tenable at this point. They are mathematically impossible, now that we know the breakdown of confirmed, fully identified dead. --Andreas JN466 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here. If you're a casualty counter for the Gaza Health Ministry and you come across a mangled body, that still counts as a casualty, but not as a fully identified one. You'd record that person as "unidentified man/woman/child" until further information allows you to verify who it was. There's no mathematical impossibility here, just a gap in information due to the realities of war and the breakdown of the health system in Gaza. Unbandito (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a non-problem. Over 35,000 corpses have been registered, of which the lower figure refers to those identified. One simply cites the overall figure and clarifies the breakdown into total versus identified in a footnote, or adds, '35,000+ of which 24,000 identified'.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Israel releases new Gaza civilian death toll, says Hamas’ numbers are ‘fake and fabricated’ Latest Israeli propaganda via the totally reliable FoxNews. Perhaps something to do with the ICJ hearing on Friday. Ho hum. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- U.N. Cites a Lower Death Toll Among Women and Children in Gaza Gray Lady version of events. "The overall count of those killed has not declined, but incomplete information about many of them has prompted the United Nations to use more conservative figures for children and women." Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think Netanyahu is being extremely stupid. But then again people continued believing in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction long after they were searching ice cream trucks for them. NadVolum (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't we simply follow RS?
Maybe I'm missing something but this shouldn't be controversial. The sources report both numbers (35 thousand and 24 thousand) and this is what we need to do as well.
We should not use older sources when we have more up-to-date ones. We have the new UN data and plenty of RS reported on it without placing them in doubt (other than the usual Hamas-controls-the-Health-Ministry caveat).
I'd suggest changing the popup as follows
“ | Per Gaza Health Ministry, the total number of deaths are 34,844 [51]. 24,686 identified casualties include
7,797 children 4,959 women ... |
” |
Here the NPR says that the percentage of women and children is 52%. Unless we have newer sources which dispute it or provide different figures, this is what we should use.
Alaexis¿question? 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- NPR actually says "Based on the identities confirmed so far, though, the U.N. now says about 52% of those killed have been women and children." We could contract that to 52% of the casualties whose identities have been confirmed are women and children but I really don't see the point, there's so many problems with trying to interpret the figures. I'm very surprised the UN says that, have you found where they do that? NadVolum (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- In a word, no. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. UN has retracted its statement, the NPR article which you quoted, citing 50% of the fatalities being women and children is using the retracted UN statement. Mainstream media, virtually all across the world except in Israel has been using the Gaza Health Ministry figures, which have been saying that 70% of the fatalities were women and children. Israeli government is widely believed to be tampering with the figures in order to prevent a possible genocide indictment by the ICC which could come as early as this week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lol. Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- That twitter link leads to the business about the Israeli televote at Eurovision which didn't translate to views unlike Bambie Thug which went right up. :-) Anyway we probably should remove the 70% figure for now I think until the whole business clarifies. We can report the number of identified casualties but I had a look at what Farhan Haq said and he said the number of women and children probably under the rubble is probably high because the women are left at home. That's arguable too and I think the bombs probably killed people in about the overall demographic rate. We just can't say anything like that without some proper expert or the Hamas Health Ministry and then with attribution. The historical business could be left in the article about casualties. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- BBC Verify Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes that points out a problem I had with what the Health Ministry is doing, I believe to avoid duplicate counts, see Israel-Hamas war: Gaza's morgue network has effectively collapsed - how are they recording their dead?.
The majority of deaths reported through this system (55%) are working-age men. Mr al Wahaidi says this is because it is mainly used by widows, who must formally register their husbands' deaths to obtain government assistance. Once a death is confirmed through this system, Mr al Wahaidi and his team add it to the hospital's systems and one fatality is removed from the count of unidentified bodies.
- If this is really what they do it can lead to strange effects since some of the forms may refer to people who have not been listed as unidentified - basically they would be undercounting and with more men being identified the GMO figures imcluding unidentified women and children simply wouldn't make sense like the BBC points out. NadVolum (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- BBC Verify Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- This seems sensible; reliable sources give more credibility to the GHM numbers than the GMO numbers, and sources find that the GMO numbers "strains credibility".
- I would also suggest changing the lede, from
more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women
tomore than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, of which over 24,000 have been identified, including 4,959 women and 7,797 children.
- Alternatively, we could say
more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, with over 24,000 have been identified. Of these, 52% are women and children, 40% are men, and 8% are elderly.
- BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Either sounds pretty good to me. Two niggles: in the second wording we must remember that the elderly include women too, so 52% will be too low and should not get stuck in readers' minds. Perhaps we should start with something like "in addition to 8% elderly of both sexes ..." so readers know right away that the 52% aren't the full number.
- Also I think it should be "fully identified" or "fully documented". I understand that they collect a number of personal data on each victim and if just one datum is still missing the record isn't included. Andreas JN466 01:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, that distinction between GMO and health ministry is key. The WHO has reiterated that it has full confidence in the health ministry data. Andreas JN466 01:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- We should try keeping the number of identified casualties separate from the recorded casualties. They are incompatible as the quote I put above from Mr al Wahaidi shows. In a hospital there is no problem - an unidentified person comes in and if they are identified the number of unidentified people goes down and the number of identified goes up. However now we have extra unidentified people being recorded by media sources, and we have a source of identified casualties from the forms. The ones on the forms decrement the unidentified bodies and increment the identified bodies - but an identified body may not be one of the unidentified ones. The forms identify men disproportionally because women want assistance, whereas adult male casualties will probably be recorded less frequently than they actually occur because Israel has a policy of hiding the bodies of those they think are militants. Using the count of identified men with the number of unidentified deaths will just lead to the result that there are very few or even a negative number of unidentified men casualties. That is not a problem with what the Health Ministry is doing - it is a problem with peoples' interpretation. It is logically possible with the system they have to even have more people identified than the total recorded deaths but that is very unlikely to happen. NadVolum (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've updated the article based on this discussion to the percentage version suggested by you. For the moment I've continued using "identified", however, as that seems closer to how sources refer to it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- you've mioxed them up not making it obvious that the percentages refer to the fully identified ones and then put 10,000 missing afterwards as if it might be extra to the identified ones to mke the total. Some care would be appreciated. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I used the text I proposed a few days ago, incorporating the changes recommended in this discussion. If you have additional changes that you think would be beneficial I encourage you to suggest them. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the latest change. Most RS are still highlighting mainly the reported figures. As for the identified figures, these are a subset of the reported figures. But elaborating on the subset without mentioning the whole picture would be misleading. Elaborating on both would not be a good summary. Hence my middle ground solution proposal: an elaboration of the identified killed in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every recent RS that I can find is highlighting the MOH figures, not the media office figures. We have reliable sources saying the media office figures are questionable; we can no longer include them in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- MOH figures are still the same [52]: "Two officials from the Palestinian Ministry of Health have told CNN that although the ministry keeps a separate death toll for identified and unidentified individuals, the total number of people killed remains unchanged."
- +
- "CNN has seen a daily report from the Palestinian health ministry which matches the number OCHA published in the revised version. A total of 15,103 children and 9,961 women have been killed in Gaza since October 7, the Gaza ministry of health said in its latest report."
- What are you trying to say here? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Other sources say differently, and the CNN source is a little vague:
- The UN explained that incomplete information had led to the initial higher percentage and that they are now using figures from the Hamas-run health ministry instead of the Government Media Office (GMO).
- The UN’s relay of GMO data—often incorrectly identified as MOH data—persisted until May 8, when OCHA accurately relayed what the MOH was claiming for the first time in five months, resulting in a major decrease in the total reported deaths for women and children.
- On May 6, the U.N. agency published the Gaza government media office’s latest estimate that 14,500 children and 9,500 women had been killed. Two days later, OCHA reported a much lower number of Palestinian women and children killed in the conflict based on those who the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health claimed had been specifically identified by name. The new figures were 7,797 children and 4,959 women killed and subsequently identified.
- In recent months, when detailed age and sex breakdowns were not available, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported fatality numbers from the Hamas-run Gaza Media Office. Now it is only reporting deaths when the body has been identified with a full name and other details by Gaza’s Ministry of Health.
- Until May 6, OCHA was citing only the over-34,000 death toll, and the far higher figures for women and children fatalities which were reported by the Hamas-controlled Government Media Office (GMO) organization in Gaza.
- In addition, sources have questioned the GMO figures because for them to be true almost every unidentified casualty has to be either a woman or a child - an improbability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Almost every recent RS that I can find is highlighting the MOH figures, not the media office figures. We have reliable sources saying the media office figures are questionable; we can no longer include them in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also disagreed, please stop creating new discussions about casualties immediately after the old one ends. Casualties should not me synthesized with anything except Gaza Health Ministry figures. Mainstream media has only been using Gaza Health Ministry figures and so should Wikipedia. I propose a moratorium on casualties in order to stop the non-stop discussion on talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The figures we are discussing here are from the MOH; the ones in the article are from the media office. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- We spent a lot of time and effort establishing that the GHM was considered reliable both pre war and during. Anyway, what we need to do now is agree on how to present the new data, which is on the face of it, a recategorization of the old, pending identification, if I understood it correctly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it’s not a recategorization of the old, but a breakdown from a different source - the breakdown currently in the article is from the media office, the breakdown we are discussing here is from the ministry of health. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is anyone disagreeing that we should be using GHM data? Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- No and this discussion shouldn't have been opened in the first place since the old one was closed with overwhelming opposition less than a week ago. Ecrusized (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Makeandtoss just restored the data from the media office, after I replaced it with the health ministry data. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, this is clearly a snowball cause. This issue has been discussed over a dozen times in talk page, latest one being less than week ago. And you are currently arguing against multiple users who reject your argument. Ecrusized (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The topline data is the same, the categorization is different, right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; the 35,000 is not disputed, only the breakdown. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said anything about any media office, I haven't even heard of this entity until now, noting that I am reading the news on a daily basis. There is no such distinction made by RS on the casualty figures. I have just quoted CNN to you and you claimed it is vague [53]. There is nothing vague about this explicit quote: "A total of 15,103 children and 9,961 women have been killed in Gaza since October 7, the Gaza ministry of health said in its latest report." The other quotes you cited are talking about something else. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- + "The total number of people killed has not changed, OCHA says — and the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either" [54] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- "In the long run". Until then, we should use the figures reliable source consider more reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- That Vox report (along with CNN) seems to capture the essence of it, surely we can just explain the category issue in a note? Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unless we are including all categorisation in a note, I don’t think so - the GMO figures are too controversial to include without equally prominent context. Further, if you look at the pile of sources I provided, you see they prefer the GHM/OCHR figures. BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/Gaza_casualties_info-graphic_17_May_2024.pdf (notice that they still say they are using GMO as well)
- This infographic from 17th captures the overall situation. It is true that the unidentified portion has no official categorization any more than the additional 10000 missing/under the rubble does but that doesn't mean we should highlight only the lower categorized numbers, that would be very misleading. As VOX says, the category totals may not change that much over time and conceivably could even increase. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think our two options are to either make it clear that the categorisation is for only a subset of the total deaths, or to exclude the categorisation from the lede - either placing it in a note with full context, or in the body with full.
- I prefer the first, but I won’t object to the second - if neither work for you, perhaps an RFC? BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Give it a day or so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- CNN, as demonstrated before, has reported that the long-standing categorization still exists for the total reported death count, and not for the confirmed ones. Adding further sources: "According to the Health Ministry’s latest official count, 35,000 people in Gaza have been killed, 15,000 of whom are children and nearly 10,000 women. Those numbers are not in dispute, Haq said, and the 24,000 figure from the OCHA report represents the people "for whom full details have been documented — in other words, people who have been fully identified.”" [55]
- The only reasonable middle ground solution I can think of is we do not mention the numbers of the categories of the 35k Palestinians killed, but instead mention that the majority have been women and children. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unless we are including all categorisation in a note, I don’t think so - the GMO figures are too controversial to include without equally prominent context. Further, if you look at the pile of sources I provided, you see they prefer the GHM/OCHR figures. BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- + "The total number of people killed has not changed, OCHA says — and the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either" [54] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is anyone disagreeing that we should be using GHM data? Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it’s not a recategorization of the old, but a breakdown from a different source - the breakdown currently in the article is from the media office, the breakdown we are discussing here is from the ministry of health. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- We spent a lot of time and effort establishing that the GHM was considered reliable both pre war and during. Anyway, what we need to do now is agree on how to present the new data, which is on the face of it, a recategorization of the old, pending identification, if I understood it correctly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The figures we are discussing here are from the MOH; the ones in the article are from the media office. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the latest change. Most RS are still highlighting mainly the reported figures. As for the identified figures, these are a subset of the reported figures. But elaborating on the subset without mentioning the whole picture would be misleading. Elaborating on both would not be a good summary. Hence my middle ground solution proposal: an elaboration of the identified killed in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I used the text I proposed a few days ago, incorporating the changes recommended in this discussion. If you have additional changes that you think would be beneficial I encourage you to suggest them. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- you've mioxed them up not making it obvious that the percentages refer to the fully identified ones and then put 10,000 missing afterwards as if it might be extra to the identified ones to mke the total. Some care would be appreciated. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I really would caution caution mixing up the figures for reported and identified casualties or putting straight calculations in as fact. The identified bodies are not a subset of the reported deaths, there will be a very large overlap but they come from different sources. The 24,000 identified cannot be taken straightforwardly from the 35,000 reported casualties, the number of reported casualties who have not been identified could very easily be a thousand higher and this is liable to get quite a bit worse. This is independent of different proportions of men, women and children for various reasons being liable to be in the different figures. I think the reported deaths and the missing can be mentioned together, and I think the number of identified ones and its breakdown can be mentioned together though I'm not sure it is relevant for this article. However I think we should be very wary of mixing the two up and definitely not put any conclusions from that in anywhere as anything but attributed opinion. NadVolum (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The identified bodies are not a subset of the reported deaths
Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that the health ministry is saying there are approximately 35,000 dead, and that of these approximately 25,000 have been identified. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)- Their description of what happens says when they receive a form with details identifying a dead person they remove one from the count of unidentified - not that they check first somehow if someone identified by a form was one of the unidentified or that they check that a media report gives somebody for whom a form was already filled. The unidentified in that are a target to cut down. And I believe that is the correct thing to do, the numbers will be right eventually. What you're talking about isn't really feasible in the middle of the war. Have you got a reliable source saying that they are doing doing something else? Anyway the number of identified ones is pretty irrelevant to this article. NadVolum (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That switch puts the number of confirmed fatalities at 24,686 identified dead people in Gaza as of April — 10,006 men, 7,797 children, 4,959 women, and 1,924 elderly people, according to the Ministry of Health. Then “[t]here’s about another 10,000-plus bodies who still have to be fully identified, and so then the details of those — which of those are children, which of those are women — that will be reestablished once the full identification process is complete,” Haq said, which would bring the total numbers of deaths so far to approximately the 35,000 figure that has been widely reported.
- In addition, it’s relevant because of concerns reliable sources have expressed about the reliability of the media office figures; they consider them implausible. However, I won’t repeat myself on that - it can wait for the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well it's very possible some of those identified by the forms aren't actually dead, but since they don't add to the total that's also irrelevant to all that. The 35,000 are the dead that have been seen. He's just giving a conservative figure. 35,000 reported deaths plus another 10,000 probably missing under the rubble is the total number of deaths that should be used using reliable sources. The identified ones has very little to do with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we have no agreement as to how to display this information in the article and it seems that we do not, then I don't object to an RFC but I have to say that this seems to be very much a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The only really important thing is that there are this many dead persons, some of whom are not as yet fully identified, which I take to mean, for example, here is this body of a woman, we don't have an ID so its unidentified and here is this child, in pieces, so we don't have an id, etcetera. If there is a source (Vox, are there others?) saying that the numbers are going to end up being the same, more or less, at the end, to me that's sufficient and all this other stuff is just a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is people assuming the counts should be easy and straightforward rather than messy and not acting like they think and needing corrections. Just look at the reduction in the number of Israeli killed after October 7, nobody writes stupid articles saying they made the figures up and resurrected hundreds of people and yet they do that with the health ministry numbers where they have a much harder job. And that's without getting to the ones who deliberately engage in specious arguments where they obviously know better. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see that now the breakdown has been tagged as unreliable, I think we should show the full categorization in the lead, men, women, children and unidentified (plus reported missing?) together with an explanation of the latter in a note per the NYT
- "There’s about another 10,000-plus bodies who still have to be fully identified,” Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the U.N., said on Monday. He added: “The details of those — which of those are children, which of those are women — that will be reestablished once the full identification process is complete." We can also add in the note Vox commentary that the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either.
- Is that a solution? Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the casualties article to cover all the mess about the figures, under what heading is identification of the dead relevant in this article? It is not covered in any subsection. Or if we are going to talk about the identified figures we should separate that from the number of dead, it is just too easy to inspire original research by sticking the two together. Even that Farhan Haq above is getting confused - they'll have all the people under the rubble to identify too and they already have the id's of some of them just haven't matched them with the bodies. So they have at least another 20,000 to identify. More figures aren't going to stop people putting in tags, NadVolum (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes but what to put in the lead here? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The number of those reported killed due to the war and the number of those missing presumed dead. If you really feel the need to put in something about the identified dead it should not draw any direct parallels with anything in the count of the dead. I had a look at the cites from the BBC article [56]. It looks like the health authority has made a mistake about the ages of children and includes 18 year olds rather than just 0 to 17 unlike what the article says, and that Prof Michael Spagat they talked to is reputable but has made a mistake about the methodology of the health ministry in [57] and thought the forms added to the count of deaths so deaths might be duplicated, he also made a number of other unfounded and unwarranted assumptions, I think he probably never read the bit about their current methodology. Anyway if people like that can go badly wrong you can see the problem with mixing them up which will just encourage people to try citing a whole load of denial sites. NadVolum (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- So nothing about women and children? Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Recent RS seem to be taking the line that at least half of the dead are women and children (56% UN). Maybe we can say it like that? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see there would be any objection to that. It's practically definitely higher than that but that is given by the OCHA. NadVolum (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The number of those reported killed due to the war and the number of those missing presumed dead. If you really feel the need to put in something about the identified dead it should not draw any direct parallels with anything in the count of the dead. I had a look at the cites from the BBC article [56]. It looks like the health authority has made a mistake about the ages of children and includes 18 year olds rather than just 0 to 17 unlike what the article says, and that Prof Michael Spagat they talked to is reputable but has made a mistake about the methodology of the health ministry in [57] and thought the forms added to the count of deaths so deaths might be duplicated, he also made a number of other unfounded and unwarranted assumptions, I think he probably never read the bit about their current methodology. Anyway if people like that can go badly wrong you can see the problem with mixing them up which will just encourage people to try citing a whole load of denial sites. NadVolum (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes but what to put in the lead here? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the casualties article to cover all the mess about the figures, under what heading is identification of the dead relevant in this article? It is not covered in any subsection. Or if we are going to talk about the identified figures we should separate that from the number of dead, it is just too easy to inspire original research by sticking the two together. Even that Farhan Haq above is getting confused - they'll have all the people under the rubble to identify too and they already have the id's of some of them just haven't matched them with the bodies. So they have at least another 20,000 to identify. More figures aren't going to stop people putting in tags, NadVolum (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is people assuming the counts should be easy and straightforward rather than messy and not acting like they think and needing corrections. Just look at the reduction in the number of Israeli killed after October 7, nobody writes stupid articles saying they made the figures up and resurrected hundreds of people and yet they do that with the health ministry numbers where they have a much harder job. And that's without getting to the ones who deliberately engage in specious arguments where they obviously know better. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we have no agreement as to how to display this information in the article and it seems that we do not, then I don't object to an RFC but I have to say that this seems to be very much a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The only really important thing is that there are this many dead persons, some of whom are not as yet fully identified, which I take to mean, for example, here is this body of a woman, we don't have an ID so its unidentified and here is this child, in pieces, so we don't have an id, etcetera. If there is a source (Vox, are there others?) saying that the numbers are going to end up being the same, more or less, at the end, to me that's sufficient and all this other stuff is just a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well it's very possible some of those identified by the forms aren't actually dead, but since they don't add to the total that's also irrelevant to all that. The 35,000 are the dead that have been seen. He's just giving a conservative figure. 35,000 reported deaths plus another 10,000 probably missing under the rubble is the total number of deaths that should be used using reliable sources. The identified ones has very little to do with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Their description of what happens says when they receive a form with details identifying a dead person they remove one from the count of unidentified - not that they check first somehow if someone identified by a form was one of the unidentified or that they check that a media report gives somebody for whom a form was already filled. The unidentified in that are a target to cut down. And I believe that is the correct thing to do, the numbers will be right eventually. What you're talking about isn't really feasible in the middle of the war. Have you got a reliable source saying that they are doing doing something else? Anyway the number of identified ones is pretty irrelevant to this article. NadVolum (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Displacement
Although indeed there were Israeli displacement as well but I feel we are creating a false equivalency and a implicit justification with this level of detail on the lede as currently is. Displaced Israelis, a portion of which staying at five-star resorts at the Dead Sea and some due to Hezbollah not Hamas, isn't really equivalent to the conditions face by displaced Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: I agree with your iterated version so my concern no longer holds for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It has been changed as far as I can see. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Title moratorium
Has expired, so this issue may be revisited and given all the developments, I think should be, at any time.
This Is Not a War Against Hamas The Gaza war is essentially over — but Israel can still win the campaign The War in Gaza: Israel Will Win Militarily But Not Politically
+ genocide + famine + war crimes + Rafah + no day after, etcetera, etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't expire for another two weeks; while the moratorium discussion was closed three months ago, the closer specified that it was to go into effect
upon the conclusion of the current RM
. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- Start discussion now and good to go by then. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I support changing the title to Israel-Gaza war (2023-present). It should have been done long ago. Unbandito (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also support changing the name to "Israel-Gaza war (2023-present)". Professor Penguino (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support change to Israel–Gaza war (2023–present) or simply Israel–Gaza war. RS is pretty split on describing it as Israel–Hamas and Israel–Gaza war, but otherwise describe it as the Gaza war for shorthand (rather than Hamas war or Israel war), which helps to sway my opinion on titling it as such. There are also other belligerents involved in this war, so Israel–Hamas war simply isn't accurate anymore. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just wait two more weeks, everyone. starship.paint (RUN) 02:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Two more weeks to start it, this is RFCbefore. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Gaza War (2023–2024), like the Gaza War (2008–2009) and Gaza War (2014), is also a reasonable candidate and consistent with past practice when the principal adversary was also Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- First, I'd go with this, Gaza War (2023-202x), and secondly, Israel-Gaza war (2023-202x). GeoffreyA (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I find this an acceptable alternative, but I think Israel-Gaza war is more technically correct since this is the only of the century's Gaza wars with a substantial, organized Palestinian advance into Israel. Unbandito (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, at this point it's difficult to justify characterizing this as just Israel v. Hamas... not only because of the sheer amount of non-combatants being killed and civilian targets being destroyed, but also because, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of sources demonstrating that Hamas aren't even the only combatants on the Palestinian side. Actually, given the annexations, escalations, and sporadic fighting in the West Bank (such as described in [1]), it's difficult for me, personally, to even say this is just Israel v. Gaza, but that at least is far more accurate given the amount of belligerent parties than "Israel-Hamas War." If there are sources saying it's an "Israel-Palestine War" then I might support that, though given the comparatively smaller scale of what's going on in the West Bank, I would understand if others opposed. Gaza War (2023–2024) would be perfectly fine. Albert Mond (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Id support this as 99%[a] of this was happened in Gaza itself Abo Yemen✉ 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Not quite literally 99% but you get my point
No mention of Hamas sexual violence crimes in lead
The employment of sexual violence by Hamas on 7 October warrants mention in the lead, as do Israeli war crimes as are in effect mentioned or implied with reference to the extreme destruction in Gaza. Will Thorpe (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Discussed at #Lede above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What is the souce for the Israeli Security Forces death numbers?
I was unable to find any sources claiming these numbers other than Wikipedia. NesserWiki (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- See the timeline pages. Some editors insert a daily tally there. Borgenland (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- There should have been a citation in the article but it looks like somebody did a cut and paste on a named ref in the infobox template. It needs to be fixed up, \i've put a request on its talk page. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Rafah offensive begins (6 May 2024 – present)
This isn't intended as an attack on anyone in particular, but what part of this last sentence in this section is a summary of Rafah offensive?
"Meanwhile, on 17 May, as attacks continued across Gaza, including in Jabalia camp in the north, humanitarian aid began arriving in Gaza via the US's temporary floating pier off the coast. However, officials noted that it would not replace aid coming through land routes, most of which were shut."
I just checked the article and there is no reference to this, so it clearly can't be a WP:SUMMARY of the child article. Does this section need a note to remind editors that the section is only a summary of the child article, similar to other sections that were reduced to summarises? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That was me. You're right that it should be a summary and is going into too much detail. I was just adding the latest information that has been on the news. So, would you say that it's best for the child article to be filled out more and then summarised here? GeoffreyA (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the suggestion here. That sentence should be in the child article, and summarised here (if necessary). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- All right. I'll go ahead and move it. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- All right. I'll go ahead and move it. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the suggestion here. That sentence should be in the child article, and summarised here (if necessary). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC on inclusion of Hamas sexual violence & rape in lede
![]() |
|
Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties: Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This statement replaces a non-neutral statement by the nominator. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Support - Given that:
- Since the last discussion of this, there has been reporting in reliable news media about the commission of rape on a systemic scale during the 7 October invasion;
- There has been a UN report to support this;
- The ICC chief prosecutor has just announced that he is seeking arrest warrants for Hamas (and Israeli) leaders, with the commission of rape and sexual violence among the charges;
- Rape and sexual violence are no less significant war crimes than the others mentioned in the lead, including (relatedly) murder and abduction;
- Their non-inclusion does injustice to their significance in the context of these and other war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in this war;
I propose the following amendment:
'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip. Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged.'
Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I apologise that the format of my prompt has not followed normal RFC formatting, something I have subsequently realised. Nonetheless I believe the question warrants discussion. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we are going to include one, then we should include them all. Alternatively we can collect up RS following the warrants announcement, see which ones they focus on and include only those. Including them all would mean including these on the Israeli side.
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
- Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
- Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
- Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
- and these on the Hamas side
- Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
- Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
- Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
- Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
- Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
- Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
- Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier All of them should be included in the article. As it comes to murder and extermination these may be inferred by the other crimes mentioned in the lede. I believe the inclusion of sexual violence, something which isn't at all, gives further weight to the imperative for this to be included. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also there is a dedicated child article for war crimes to consider, normally we would only want a summary of that here and then a summary of that summary in the lede of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier All of them should be included in the article. As it comes to murder and extermination these may be inferred by the other crimes mentioned in the lede. I believe the inclusion of sexual violence, something which isn't at all, gives further weight to the imperative for this to be included. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a little early to jump right into another RFC although this has been discussed previously up above at #Lede, where you can see that there was already an earlier RFC about this (nocon). So need to judge whether enough things have changed since then to warrant another RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The section in the article about the attack on October 7 has a link to an article about it and there and another article devoted entirely to these rapes. In the wider context of the war I don't think it has sufficient weight to be in the lead of this article which has rather a lot of other stuff in it. People who are interested in the war will find it easily enough NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh come on we've done this before, a lot Abo Yemen✉ 13:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Think this should be procedurally closed, the RFC is not neutrally worded (apart from having been set up wrong initially and still wrong now), if we consider the section #Lede, the prior no consensus RFC and the comments here thus far, it seems this is unlikely to go anywhere just at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as currently written, mainly because of the word "
widespread
", and without a quantifier I would be more likely to support. I do not think the prevalence of rape has been fully investigated or confirmed. We should not give too much to credence to unconfirmed reports. starship.paint (RUN) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) - Oppose in any form. This is the article about the war as a whole; individual blow-by-blow aspects of the October 7 attack don't belong here (it is given mention in the lead at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, where the weight is more appropriate.) Note that it currently only has a single, brief one-sentence mention in the body (without the "widespread" qualifier); that isn't enough to justify placing it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: "widespread" has already been proven to be false and would be misleading to characterize it this way. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the body and this would give undue weight, given that no information is provided on the horrific conditions of Palestinian prisoners taken from Gaza, who were likely tortured to death like Adnan Al-Bursh or forced to stay still in humiliating sexual and physical conditions as was reported by CNN. Very important to note that the ICC was explicit in saying the supposed sexual violence crimes were committed against captives and not on October 7. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary in lead but should be in body. I think the tight concise lead now is good and this detail too specific to the first day to be relevant in this article lead. However, I think the mention of it should be beefed up a little in the relevant section of the body, i.e. the start of the timeline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not convinced about this either, it's parent lead only provides one sentence "Many cases of rape and sexual assault occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters" at present, suggesting that this is all that is due as part of a summary. The 7 October attack section is already an overly detailed "summary" of the main article, it should look more like the lead of the article it attempts to summarise, as a concise summary, rather than focus on unnecessary detail – even if users argue these details are essential parts of this article, they clearly aren't, as it doesn't follow basic guidelines. The only reason it looks like it could do with more detail regarding sexual/gender based violence, is because that section isn't well summarised in the first place. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point, but I think (a) that sentence from the parent lead would go well in that section of this article and (b) that lead needs to expand beyond one sentence on the topic to reflect the long section in its body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also a fair point. My issue is more with the lack of summary in that section. If it were more refined, then certainly more of an expanded summary for this would make sense. I shouldn't be conflating two separate issues though, so generally just fair point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point, but I think (a) that sentence from the parent lead would go well in that section of this article and (b) that lead needs to expand beyond one sentence on the topic to reflect the long section in its body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not convinced about this either, it's parent lead only provides one sentence "Many cases of rape and sexual assault occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters" at present, suggesting that this is all that is due as part of a summary. The 7 October attack section is already an overly detailed "summary" of the main article, it should look more like the lead of the article it attempts to summarise, as a concise summary, rather than focus on unnecessary detail – even if users argue these details are essential parts of this article, they clearly aren't, as it doesn't follow basic guidelines. The only reason it looks like it could do with more detail regarding sexual/gender based violence, is because that section isn't well summarised in the first place. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The article in question is a child topic of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, not Israel–Hamas war. Per WP:SUMMARY it should be summarised in that article, not this one, which it is, as well as referenced in the lead. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is otherwise summarised in this article, as well as linked in the lead, for those who want to know more. Sexual and gender-based violence is already wikilinked in the correct section summary in this article. The structure works. We can't include references to all grandchild articles in the lead, especially those that are children of single events, and not the war as a whole/overall. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Support without the term widespread: I would say that this is as relevant as the amount of farmland that was destroyed. The content in the article could probably use some more numbers and another sentence (maybe two). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AquilaFasciata I should've asked a broader question. It all could be summed up in one sentence: 'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip and reports of rape & sexual violence by Hamas-led militants emerged.' Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint I'm pinging you as the above seems like it might gain your support. @Makeandtoss I would support a broader statement in the lede about reports of sexual violence in the war, given that Palestinians have been victims of it too. My main contention is that the element of sexual violence in the war needs acknowledgement. It could be mentioned in the context of reports/allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel and Hamas. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Willthorpe: It seems fine, though from the other comments here it seems like the body doesn't have much content on it. There could be some body content taken from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#UN report of March 2024, that in March 2024, the United Nations reported that
"there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang-rape, in at least three locations": the Nova music festival and its vicinities of Road 232 and kibbutz Re'im. The report also found "clear and convincing information" to show that Israeli hostages in Gaza had been subject to "sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
Also, yes, this article should mention sexual violence suffered by Palestinians. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Willthorpe: It seems fine, though from the other comments here it seems like the body doesn't have much content on it. There could be some body content taken from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#UN report of March 2024, that in March 2024, the United Nations reported that
- @Starship.paint I'm pinging you as the above seems like it might gain your support. @Makeandtoss I would support a broader statement in the lede about reports of sexual violence in the war, given that Palestinians have been victims of it too. My main contention is that the element of sexual violence in the war needs acknowledgement. It could be mentioned in the context of reports/allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel and Hamas. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AquilaFasciata I should've asked a broader question. It all could be summed up in one sentence: 'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip and reports of rape & sexual violence by Hamas-led militants emerged.' Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It should be in the relevant article, which is not this one. All that should be here in this top level article is summary to the effect that both sides are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity without any further details because those details are or should be in the relevant child articles, with a level of detail that is due for the particular child article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier This is a start if nothing else, and should be hyperlinked. I would agree to that, if nothing more specific about sexual violence is included. Will Thorpe (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support The paragraphs on Hamas' and Israel's attacks currently describe each attack's characteristics (scale of casualties, hostage-taking, aerial bombardment...). Sexual violence appears to have been a significant feature of one, but not the other. It's not critical to mention (and the wording above might not be optimal), but it's perfectly appropriate given the current lead. An alternative would be to cut down most of the above details. Ornilnas (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as before, undue weight for this article. We have an article on the October 7 attacks, it is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. That has details of the attack in its lead. This however is a war that has spanned over 6 months, and the weight given to sources to the alleged sexual violence is significantly less than the weight given to what we do cover in the lead. nableezy - 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - this kind of information belongs in child articles where it can be treated with appropriate nuance and detail. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Double mention
There is a double mention of the the Al-Asqa Marytrs brigades, and the footnote on the one in the lebanon section is unrelated to that specific group. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
"International repercussions" in lede
I added a short text to the last paragraph to note that not only Israel, but also Hamas has been strongly denounced internationally. I was reverted twice for WP:FALSEBALANCE, because: "this section is about the international repercussions of the war; condemnations of hamas are arguably non-notable in this context because they haven't led to a decline in hamas' international standing, making this an instance of WP:FALSEBALANCE better suited for the reactions section". I don't agree that condemnations of Hamas have not led to a decline in their international standing (that statement almost seems contradictory to me). And even if Hamas' standing had not been affected, I don't see how that makes the condemnations non-notable in the context of "international repercussions". I feel like I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here. Ornilnas (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit added text relating to terrorist atrocities against Israel to the 4th paragraph of the lead. But the 2nd paragraph of the lead deals with that. The lead has a roughly chronological order, so adding mention of widespread international outrage against the October 2023 atrocities to the 2nd paragraph would be fine, but adding it to the 4th paragraph is extremely confusing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to mention condemnations of Hamas in the 2nd paragraph. But I disagree they don't belong in the 4th. Israel's response is in the 3rd, while the 4th seems to be about the war as a whole: "The war has had significant international repercussions." Even if the 4th paragraph was solely about Israel's response (which I don't read it to be), Hamas has received much international condemnation for its actions during the invasion of Gaza as well. So I don't see how mentioning Hamas condemnations is extremely confusing. Nevertheless, if you think they more properly belong in the 2nd paragraph, can you propose how we should word it? Ornilnas (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- That section should reflect the reality that public opinion and international pressure are shifting against Israel, due to the impact of the war, because that's the truth of what's going on. Vaguely stating that Hamas has been condemned too is false balance. Some of the actions taken by western countries to intensify pressure on Hamas might be notable, such as defunding UNRWA and perhaps the ICC warrants, but countries and organizations that were calling Hamas bloodthirsty terrorists on October 6 continuing to do so isn't necessarily notable. The only new terror classification I could find since the start of the war was from New Zealand. Unbandito (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current section does not say that "public opinion and international pressure are shifting against Israel". If the sources support this, I think that would be relevant to add. It does mention condemnations of Israel in the Islamic world, and I don't see how they are different from condemnations of Hamas in other parts of the world. Perhaps my wording was vague, but so is the current wording in the sentence about condemnations from the Islamic world. Perhaps we should remove it? Ornilnas (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be discussed in the article body, so it should definitely not be in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. It currently only mentions support for and denouncements of Israel. I might add some reactions on Hamas to the body from one of the other articles. Thanks. Ornilnas (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- C-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Lebanon articles
- Mid-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Mid-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Syria articles
- Low-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- C-Class Yemen articles
- Low-importance Yemen articles
- WikiProject Yemen articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia requests for comment