Talk:Israel–Hamas war

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents

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.

No consensus, new RfC(s) needed. Discussion should commence to determine if United States should be included in the infobox. There is also support to include Houthis and Hezbollah, though not necessarily a consensus, which are currently in the infobox. There appears to be significant confusion about the question being asked, as some editors have interpreted the question to be regarding inclusion in the infobox (which could include as a non-belligerent, i.e. supporting) and others have read the question as literally written which discusses the parties as belligerents. There should also be care in any subsequent proposals to outline the nature of the inclusion, such as inclusion as a belligerent or as a supporter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah

Option 1 – Add X
Option 2 – Do not add X
Option 3 – Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)

RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Germany? AstroSaturn (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia, Germany?

can you provide context? Cactus Ronin (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Add the US as being supported by, they're doing everything apart from fighting, they're also directly helping Israel by flying drones, which indicates a major support measure. — Karnataka ^talk 09:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Add US, Germany as supporters of Israel (Weapon suppliers, alliance network...)

Add Iran, Russia, North Korea as supporters of Hamas (alliance network, weapons supplied...etc.)

Hezbollah as one of belligerents (on side of Hamas) (Fighting is between Hezbollah and Israel also, in the North). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait Selfstudier, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I think WeatherWriter was confused because, while Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.

I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.

It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, Parham wiki made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bermicourt, not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with opposing adding other sovereign states as belligerents, and would instead support adding them as in a sidenote about foreign support. Such foreign support should be concrete (i.e. lethal military aid) in the military conflict, not for example foreign aid to Gaza.

In other conflicts the consensus has usually been only to include as belligerents countries or similar entities (i.e. political parties or groups taking over a region or country) whose own soldiers are fighting in the conflict or whose territory a significant amount of the fighting has been on. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose adding most; support adding the US: The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza.[1][2] And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it).[3][4][5] The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. nableezy - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. nableezy - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  “US military equipment pours into Israel”[6]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well put. – SJ + 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I second this opinion so long as there is one or more reliable sources that identify a country as a belligerent. This removes the interpetation and opinions of editors and keeps it clean and objective. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Addendum added after RfC reopened. All these proposed additions fail WP:V. The sources and quotes cited are dependent on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and don't come anywhere near the level of coverage or certainty that we would expect if the war had escalated in the manner implied. DFlhb's excellent list of sources outlined later, clearly show that all of these parties, particularly Hezbollah are being treated by the majority of sources from various countries as potential beligerents if the war escalates and any actual present military action is being treated as a 'border incident' or sabre-rattling. As User:DFlhb says If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.

Do not add: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany. Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Hezbollah, oppose all others as per other users below. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note – Hezbollah was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all except Hezbollah. None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. ([7]) Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn Parham wiki (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Close RFC there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn and also Add Syria Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah (or anyone else) rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of (not loosely related to) this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research. nableezy - 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [8] Original research, was it? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict. nableezy - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No original research. Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. See here [9]. Title "Authorities name 315 soldiers, 58 police officers killed in Gaza war". The IDF has published the names of 315 soldiers "killed during the ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists since October 7, mostly on the border with the Gaza Strip", they then further expand stating the number includes soldiers killed on both the Lebanon border and in the West Bank. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree on exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they won’t start a war". An expert is quoted saying: “Hezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,” said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut (italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"These clashes have led to a rising death toll on both sides, sparking fears of a new war front" ... "Which leads to the second front: Israel against Iran and its other proxies. That is, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Islamist militias in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi militia in Yemen. All of them in recent days have launched drones and rockets toward Israel or at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria." West Bank a possible 'THIRD front' for Israel

It's not about Hezbollah entering or not entering the war, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation (or "full frontal war", as Reuters put it). As of October 26, Hezbollah had lost 46 fighters. That would have been a rather high death toll for an 18-day period during Hezbollah's first war with Israel. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated these clashes as part of the war Hamas started, and as another editor pointed out, Israel too considers them part of that war. Add in the active involvement of Hamas fighters on the Lebanese-Israeli front, and it is starting to look increasingly absurd that this front is left out of the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your first and third source frame Hezbollah/Lebanon as a potential future front, not a current front; they contradict you. The second source is considered generally unreliable. The next paragraph is original research contradicted by sources. It's true that the skirmishes are a response to the Israel-Hamas war, but it is also irrelevant. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote is contradicted by sources? Both Israel and Hezbollah consider the clashes as part of the war; the only ones arguing otherwise are seemingly Wikipedia editors. (Also, read again the part about threshold of escalation. There is no contradiction at all. The first source makes a distinction between a full-scale and a limited war.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't include something that fails WP:V, or side with original research over sources; this is sensitive enough that we need to be careful. Sources say Hezbollah has not yet joined the war. That makes them not a belligerent.

• New York Times, yesterday
  • Hezbollah sits on the sidelines of the conflict and will enter the war if... (future tense). That's from yesterday.
  • They quote an expert: inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war (hypothetical)
  • Quotes another expert: The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah (implying they are not yet involved).
• Washington Post, October 29
  • “All Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,” said a senior Lebanese official (implying they haven't entered the war yet)
• Bloomberg, October 23
  • Israel’s military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah “is mainly in the contact line.” Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called “rules of engagement,” which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
  • Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel (as explicit as can be)
• CNN, October 11
  • Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamas’ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border. They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
• FT, October 11 (after the skirmishes escalated)
  • Quotes an expert: If it’s a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war] (future tense).
  • Says: Hizbollah’s entry into the war would have profound implications, and Hizbollah’s participation could also trigger, and Joining the war would be (all hypotheticals).
  • You (and others) say the skirmishes make Hezbollah a belligerent in this war. That's WP:OR. The FT describes them as belligerents in a flareup of the separate, decades-long Hezbollah-Israel conflict. You are confusing the flareup being a reaction to this war, with the flareup being part of this war. FT quote two experts who say years-old "red lines" (preceding this conflict) have not been crossed, which concurs with the Bloomberg quote above.
• Bloomberg, published October 11 but still on their main page:
  • if Hezbollah were to enter the war (hypothetical)

Even if you dispute this, logically, if there's any ambiguity, it belongs in the body not the infobox. Note Hezbollah is already listed as a belligerent in 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes, where it belongs, and we describe that as a "spillover" of this war. RfCs based on WP:OR are a waste of everyone's time, and I wish we'd treat them as malformed. If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we? DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) edited 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I concur and would like to note that Yemen also struck Israel directly by drones at Eirat, not just in the Red Sea. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add Hezbollah per users above. W9793 (talk)
• Add Hezbollah since it is directly involved in the war at the North of the country. Houthis can also be added since they openly declared that they fired the missiles. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add the Houthis and the United States. The US has stated it shot down missiles heading towards Israel, and NPR (a RS) stated[10] this action "could represent the first shots taken by the U.S. military in defense of Israel".VR _talk 02:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Could represent" does not mean "is". Levivich (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Elsewhere it was stated that a government is reliable for its statements about itself. NPR is in no way disputing, rather, is open to the possibility other actions previously occurred. Any basis at all to doubt? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add US, Houthis and Hezbollah. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Strong Support because they are all active shooters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all If any of those named become actively and significantly involved in the fighting, RS will clearly identify them as combattants. This is not currently the case. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all as almost all sources avoid making such obviously contentious statements. This is why we avoid original research. Per DFlhb this is not a good use of RfC energy; @WeatherWriter: please be more careful in how you solicit people's time. – SJ + 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all per DF and SJ et al. The sources don't support listing anyone else as a belligerent, and proposals to add belligerents to the infobox need to come with sources describing the proposed parties as belligerents -- not potential belligerents -- in order to comply with WP:V. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the infobox haven't cited any RS in support of their views. Countries/governments delivering armaments — the reason could be treaty obligations of, as harsh as that may sound, business as usual. Having people talk to the parties involved in armed conflicts could have any number of reasons, from military advice to efforts to end the conflict. Hezbollah attacking settlements along Israel's northern border is nothing new, there are just more attacks now than "normal". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I see Nasrallah is already, absurdly, listed as a 'commnander' in the war, anticipating an outcome of this discussion. If Hezbollah's pressure by minor skirmishes on the northern border (retaliatory threats are a chronic part of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict for decades) constitutes participation in the war, then placing battleships offshore, and having US military experts in the IDF's operations warroom could likewise lend itself to such a construction. Multiple sources do not permit this inference and neither shopuld we.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Don't add anything we exclude obvious relevant players at Russian invasion of Ukraine so let's do it here too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah I did a google search this morning and here are the most recent news that bears on this issue:

Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight. - From AP

While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations. - From BBC

In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah — which has previously vowed to destroy Israel — has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollah’s next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesn’t more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza — but also has the power to stop it. Vox

Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.

Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral.”

Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add US - has both troops on the ground in unknown capacity and naval vessels for deterrence. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, US commandos have been deployed, not necessarily in direct combat roles, but these are units that are neither purely advisory or data gathering in nature. They are deployed. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add US The time has come. Statements have been issued throughout the week confirming their support for Tel Aviv. This is no longer in doubt. Dl.thinker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That and the otherworldly volume of ordinance handed over. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per, WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait until American forces get involved in combat. Non-combat and material support is not belligerence. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why Belarus was added to the infobox of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? There are no combat involving Belarusian government soldiers! Dl.thinker (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was added because Belarusian territory was used to launch a ground invasion of Ukraine. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Off topic

I don't think it is contestable that (a) This is a war between two parties, Israel and Hamas (read also the Palestinian people) (b) The overwhelming bulk of sources used to document it are Israeli newspapers (c) The Israeli sources named (and not named, Haaretz etc.) thoroughly identify themselves with 'our boys', and the Israeli victims. I read most articles and 95% are so partisan and emotional that they are 'unreadable' for facts, as opposed to how facts are to be neutrally represented. I didn't state that they are unreliable sources. They qualify technically. I read an account of the British-Argentine war in the Falklands recently: newspaper accounts were alluded to quite often for how they egregiously spun, twisted, invented stories to titivate the anxious home readership. Serious military histories (and I read Burton Maugham's Tobruk and El Alamein (1952) as a control for this) use war memoirs (from both sides), government archives to describe the technical mechanics of battle, and almost never allude to, or rely on, contemporary newspapers. No time is wasted documenting that Rommel, for example, was a general in an evil regime's armed forces, or that Italians were pawns of fascism, an equally despicable regime. The narratives tell you the only thing that is worth grasping. How one or another side managed, with what matériel, or strategic stroke, to win ground or lose it, and why the adversary retreated. All wars are accompanied by intense efforts by specific army/government related bodies to massage, manage, persuade and dominate the home side's perceptions. An informational war kicks in, as the governing states or bodies view to dominate the narratives to the end of enlisting public and international support for their respective campaigns. Wars are 'sexy' and attract a large influx of editors wishing to participate in shaping the way the narrative is represented on wikipedia. Most have no background understanding, quite a few are emotionally committed to one party. This makes for a perfect knit between source bias and editorial passions. The result is massive WP:Undue, as the factual record, very thinly accessible, is flooded out with official points of view or one's side's commentariat prejudices. Nothing can be done to fix the resulting WP:Systemic bias. It will take a year down the road for us to access reliable independent analyses that are even-handed. Till then we will have this mother-lode of tripe to represent wikipedia's idea of NPOV. My note was just a wake-up annotation to remind readers and editors that these articles are intrinsically flawed and will remain so for some considerable time. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani - A caveat about your comment, specifically part a. You seem to say it is not contestable that this war is between two parties (Israel/Hamas). That, to me seems more like a weird amphiboly comment. While true that it is between two parties, if one was attempting to say only two parties, that would be factually false as more than two parties are involved. I would also point out that the "inarguable" comment might be more or less "pushy" (not sure if that is the right word I am looking for), since several editors have argued for the inclusion of another party proposed in this RfC. Just a few small things to keep in-mind. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add Hezbollah, Neutral on Houthis, Oppose rest. Hezbollah is widely documented as engaged in fighting on the Israeli-Lebanon border as part of this conflict. With the exception of the Houthis, the rest lack documentation along those lines; neutral on the Houthi's because while some sourcing exists, the minimal scale of their participation has resulted in a lower level of coverage detailing their participation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are now reports that Israel retaliated against the Houthis [11]. As for Hezbollah, they struck IDF posts along the border within hours of the Gaza ceasefire ending. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add the Houthis, Hezbollah, and US support - Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been documented on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and the Houthis have attempted to fire missiles towards Israel and have attacked Israeli-owned ships. US ships have shot down these missiles and drones. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah per all above. Also per Template:Infobox military conflict: the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add United States. Oppose all others. My reading of the WP:RS is that it's only the United States' level of integration into this conflict that makes them a belligerent, aside from the two primary players . All the others are peripheral. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all, this is not a normal war, so we shouldn't be treating it like one. Andre🚐 06:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah per above comments. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - The United States has not fired a shot against any of the main belligerents (yet). No one denies that they are involved, but it is premature to label it a belligerent. Furthermore, we now have a separate article for the US endeavour against the Houthis. If we are to list every country that has shot down Houthi missiles, we'd have to add Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France as well. I think that would be a bit confusing and silly. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  That Operation is a non-starter and the noted engagement precedes the announcement of that Operation. Yemen declared itself for Palestine. The drones and missles were intended for Israeli-aligned targets. If this were a Walmart, you'd want to be aware of all the active shooters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close

Some remarks in addition to my closure comment. There is likely to be a consensus against including Iran, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Russia in the infobox, but this discussion largely ignored these as individual options and an explicit consensus on those could not be determined. There may be consensus to include Houthis and Hezbollah, as there may be for United States, but as they are already included, I consider there to be less need to start a discussion on inclusion for those. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas exaggeration in the lead

"As of 3 December 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 15,500 Palestinians, including over 6,000 children as of 23 November 2023, have been killed, making this the deadliest wars for children in modern times." Gaza Health Ministry is run Hamas, and these numbers are likely greatly exaggerated, and were disputed by the United States.[12] Describing this war as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source goes against neutrality. Crampcomes (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If "Hamas source goes against neutrality" then we should go through and delete every claim made by the IDF or Israeli government? Obviously that would be somewhat nuts, but we should be equally skeptical of both sides (not sure if that's supposed to have a K, the Latin alphabet is my nemesis). Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That is very old news from Fox, the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount. This has been repeatedly discussed, and the bit on deadliest war for children comes from the UN, not any Gazan agency. nableezy - 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Current figure according to Hamas: 20000 killed, while according to Israel only 10000 civilians killed.[13] Since the total number of casualties is disputed, we can't make such strong statements such as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source which were copy/pasted by UN. Crampcomes (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

And Israel has previously said 20k dead in Gaza (and that was back in early November). Israel's propaganda can be noted, but sources treat the numbers from the MoH as reliable, and the UN statement on deadliest for children is independent. And previously discussed here for that matter. And oh by the way, the number from the MoH is 15,889 from your own source. The 20k includes the people that haven't been rescued from collapsed buildings. nableezy - 20:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What you cited is an unreliable blog post. Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source, while Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization that recently committed mass crimes per many sources. Nonetheless since the number is disputed, for the sake of neutrality, we can't make such strong statements in the lede until it's fully verified. Crampcomes (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli government and the Hamas government are BOTH government sources (though one was about a decade over due for an election). One is currently committing a genocide, the other has speculated possible genocidal aspirations (the one currently committing genocide is the one who cut off the food supply to over 2 million people). We should not take either side at face value, but there are at least two reports in the Lancet that say the Gaza MOH data is not fabricated OS exaggerated. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, thats Ynet, one of Israel's leading news sources. Cool story on your personal analysis, but this isnt your blog so it doesnt really count for anything here. And the material in the lead has been verified, you just think that means something that it does not. But it is a verifiable statement that the MoH in Gaza has given that as its count of dead. nableezy - 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Even Ynet is very "tabloid" - I will consider taking your claim seriously if you can support it with Haaretz or Times of Israel? But there's two Lancet papers that back up Gaza stats. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That blog post basically quoted a "security guard," not an official government statement. Crampcomes (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

it isnt a blog, and it quotes a senior security official, not a security guard. Not sure why you are just making things up for no apparent reason but cool I guess. nableezy - 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source, Sorry, but that is one strange statement. Gov't sources are not reliable in a war. Look at the gross exaggerations by the US gov't during the Vietnam War. Governments and militaries lie. Militaries even lie to their own governments. OTOH, the Gaza Health Ministry is a civil service group and generally considered reliable. You should self-revert your Hamas-run change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Any Al-Qassam stats I regard as fiction until proven otherwise. Though they do this weird "not lying" thing of making deliberately ambiguous claims. Irtapil (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

BBC clearly says "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" [14] as do many other reliable sources[15][16] Crampcomes (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas are a political party and the de facto government of Gaza. Hamas's militant wing is the Al-Qassam Battalion. I do not trust Al-Qassam stats, or IDF stats, those are fiction until proven otherwise. But both health systems are the most reliable sources available for those populations, they're not perfect, but they're better than any other. (There's a messy schism within Palestine. Hamas won the parliamentary election for the whole country, but somehow the Fatah president ended up controlling the West Bank, and I'm not sure who decided the Pal Authority should be running anything? The Pal Authority seem to be Israel's idea? which does not seem very legitimate? but on a good day they seem to function as a peacekeeping force, like when they arrested the October 17 assassins in 2001?) But - whatever the explanation is for Hamas not being the government of the West Bank - their ministry of health isn't just pulling numbers out of thin air, they are providing the names and identity details of >20,000 real people. And independent people who have looked at it say it looks like real data, including those two papers I read in The Lancet, and family members of the real people who have died, including family and friends overseas. Irtapil (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean to question the UN comment on the deadliest war for the children by this? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with any UN comment. Crampcomes (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. This has been discussed to death already here and on other pages. Gaza MoH is considered reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry is considered reliable by whom? It is known to be run by Hamas which is considered a terrorist organization in the West. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

By multiple RS, follow the link. Was also discussed at other pages. Do keep up, to help, here are some sources:

WAPO OC 24: "Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls" "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements."

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable

AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies."

Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."

Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? "Israel and Joe Biden have shown scepticism about accuracy of rising death toll but others point to historical reliability of data"

Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? discusses the MoH methodology and goes into more details than others (e.g., immediately reported numbers are less reliable)

BBC: World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy. "We're confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis," he said, adding "the data over the years has been quite solid".

Die Zeit: English translation: The World Health Organization, like many other organizations, trusts the figures. "We have had good experiences with the Ministry of Health in the past, for example with vaccination campaigns. We see no reason to fundamentally doubt the numbers of wounded, dead and sick. And the question for all of us is: would we have a different discussion if there were 100 or 200 fewer deaths? I don't think so," says Lindmeier.

WSJ, 11/10: U.S. Officials Have Growing Confidence in Death Toll Reports From Gaza

Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

But the fact remains that more children died in the Syrian Civil war... I honestly do not think its appropriate to start comparing deadliness in the tragedy of war. But we must remain encyclopedic. (By mid-March 2022, opposition activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 25,546, and that 15,437 women had also been killed) [17] Homerethegreat (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right it is disputed. And I'm pretty sure the Syrian Civil War has been deadlier, also according to the Al Jazeera source the Syrian Civil war had more casualties. Although I do not like the notion of starting to compare the deadliness of war we should not have in the page info that is unsourced. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Guterres "graveyard for children" was removed on the thesis that a quote was inappropriate in the lead so it was replaced with RS prose instead. Sourcing such statements is not difficult, for example

NYT "In less than two months, more than twice as many women and children have been reported killed in Gaza than in Ukraine after two years of war." or "experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza show that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century."

The rate of killing in this conflict is notable and commented on in many sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"has few precedents in this century" - you can write, one of the deadliest. But you cannot write the deadliest since it is not fact. In the Syrian Civil war more children died. I do not like this notion of comparing the deadliness of war but we must remain encyclopedic and act according to sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

My dude, I have seen the satellite maps. We definitely have a basis not only to assess the tactical situation but also the reliability of sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't trust the people who killed them. I trust both health systems and neither military.

The IDF are also under reporting t own wounded, Israeli hospitals report at least triple.

own Irtapil (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@nableezy, if the numbers have been independently assessed as accurate by a third party, then that source should be cited within the article. The sources as the stand (CBS News and Aljazeera) don't actually provide the source/references for the information within their reporting other than "according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza". It is not sure where or whom from the MoH in Gaza provided that number nor whether it is reliable. We need to use better sources or change the wording to be definitive. Aeonx (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, there are sources saying the MOH numbers are reliable but no source is independently assessing each update. The sources saying the MOH are reliable are enough for us to treat them as such. nableezy - 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Heh? You claimed "the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount." from that comment I can only assume there has been some sort of secondary assessment, either by the US or another 3rd party, as to the Gaza MoH numbers. All I'm asking you to do is reference your comment using a suitable source in the article. At present the article references merely references news reporting which claims to reference Gaza MoH but doesn't actually provide a Gaza MoH source or reference. Whether you think/believe the Gaza MoH is reliable or not is irrelevant because it is NOT the cited source in the article. Let's get it fixed. Aeonx (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes they said that the MOH numbers are accurate but they are not under signing every update. It isn’t about what I think, it’s about what the sources think and they say the numbers are accurate. nableezy - 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy, From what I can tell, the cited sources in the lead DO NOT say the numbers are accurate. I would suggest that news reporters simply repeating the numbers they are given are not making any assessed judgement as to the accuracy of the numbers. Whilst the UN and some other parties have stated they believe the overal MOH numbers are generally accurate - there is no clear assessment as to whether the deaths are civilians or armed militants, there is also clear argument that the numbers may be propaganda - which isn't mentioned in the article. Based on your responses and others to this thread thus far, I believe it is appropriate to flag the numbers as Disputed until such time there are reliable sources to verify the numbers given are indeed from reliable MoH sources or are otherwise assessed as reliable - both incrementally, and in terms of a detailed breakdown. There is no cited source I can see in the article that does that. At present we have neither reliable cited sources as needed, and I can only agree with @. Crampcomes on this one. There are also locally-based assessments which dispute the numbers, for example: JCPA . Aeonx (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aeonx: This article by PBS, a reputed source, has pretty much answered your doubt with the Gazan Ministry of Health. The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions. You're not convincing us with a neo-conservative think tank/pro-Israel advocacy group source like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting a source is unreliable because it's opined to be Israeli neo-conservative. That reeks of bias. As for the PBS claim, it's not referenced in the article nor does it provide an assessment of the incremental numbers. Or the breakdown of civilians/militants. So no, it doesn't answer my doubt. The Wikipedia article is quoting numbers as reliable fact that for all we, the UN agencies, and PBS actually know could simply be Hamas propaganda numbers. The Wikipedia article should at least state that the numbers are claimed, not verified. Aeonx (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t what the sources say and you cannot use your opinion in place of the sources. And here is The Lancet saying that the MOH numbers are reliable. Here are the Israelis saying the numbers are accurate. That you don’t believe the numbers is your own problem, one that this article need not take seriously. nableezy - 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, NONE of the sources you provide ascertain that the breakdown of deaths in terms of Hamas reporting of civilian deaths vs militant deaths are accurate. None. Zilch. Nada.

The issue isn't the total number of deaths but the breakdown. Hamas claims they are civilian deaths, Israel claims they are Terrorists/Militants.

Where is the reliable source that verifies they are civilian deaths and not militant deaths? Aeonx (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The ministry of health has claimed no such thing, that objection appears to be entirely made up. They have reported women and children but have not claimed any civilian vs militant breakdown. And neither does the article. That little goalpost shifting attempt now is interesting but has nothing to do with what the article or the sources say. Think we’re done here now. nableezy - 12:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me women and children can not be militants / terrorists? It's well known that Hamas recruits children to fight, unsurprising given Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. Aeonx (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

According to past discussions on WP:RSP[18], JCPA is generally unreliable. If you think JCPA's credibility or claims can rival those of UN or Lancet, please gain acceptance on WP:RSP first, which is almost a guaranteed failure. Other than that, there is not much can be said, so please drop the stick and move on. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, but you missed the point. I'm not disputing the TOTAL numbers are inaccurate. I'm merely stating there appears to dispute publically over whether the civilian death numbers are accurate as civilian deaths instead of militant / terrorist deaths. This isn't an argument for me to claim one source is better than another, just an argument over what sources ACTUALLY say, and how they sources are presented within the article. Aeonx (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your argument concerning civilian/militant casualties has little to no relevance to the credibility of Gaza MoH. According to the Associated Press, Gaza MoH never distinguishes between civilians and combatants.[19] Wikipedia relies on information from credible sources, and in this instance, the UN backs Gaza MoH as impartial and non-propagandist. If you cannot present another reliable source regarding the civilian-to-terrorist casualty ratio, this debate is essentially concluded. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this argument. Numbers, if the only source is Gaza Health, should disclose that. But the preference should be for the assessments of actual news organizations and first hand reporters. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet Irtapil (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is more to that. There are Casualties numbers in Infobox and they are not attributed. There should be an attribution at who is the source for the number is. Manyareasexpert (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

they're sourced directly, aren't they? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They are sourced and they also should be attributed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

why? WP:ATTRIBUTION is satisfied and the info infobox is not a place to do WP:YESPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As a reader, I want to know which side reports the number. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are links. You can't expect all this detail in an infobox. Not its purpose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's take one. "Number of UN staff killed in the Gaza Strip rises to 79". What side is this? Attribution is one of basics of WP:NPOV. I don't want all the details. "Source: Israel" or "Source: HAMAS" or "Source: UN" would be enough. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at [20] O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly why when you click the citation it takes you to the reference list for you to see who said it EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are very good recent reports I've seen in Times of Israel and France 24 with detailed stats for Israeli side, they're in some of my 3000 open tabs… someone else will probably be able to find them before i do. Irtapil (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the NYTimes, Israeli sources estimate ~15,000 dead in Gaza, with at least 5,000 of them being combatants. Its not an official attribution, but if its more widely reported can put a stop to this conversation. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They said more than that, they said that the Gazan MoH numbers are roughly accurate according to Israel too. On Monday, a senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under army rules, told reporters that the Gazan ministry’s estimate of 15,000 total deaths was roughly accurate but that at least 5,000 people killed in Gaza were combatants, rather than civilians. nableezy - 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reuters today latest on this, confirms historical reliability of Palestinian figures as well as the likelihood that the actual death toll is actually higher than reported. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is supposedly concurrently running a campaign of misinformation since this war started, see this report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies: Social Media Platforms Were Not Ready for Hamas Misinformation. According to some reports, Hamas's misinformation has been parroted by some media, see these for example: Media are still promoting Hamas’ cynical lies, and Why Hamas is an Unreliable Source and How Many Reporters Fail to Disclose This Crampcomes (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That stuff can go in Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I ask for reliability evaluation of the 3 sources provided by Crampcomes, namely "Center for Strategic and International Studies", "The Jewish Star" and " InvestigativeProject.org". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

InvestigativeProject is an anti-Muslim hate site and not a usable source. The Jewish Star article is a partisan opinion piece in a minor newspaper, not very valuable. CSIS is a US think tank (meaning, an undisclosed lobbying organisation for U.S. weapons manufacturers) but their article appears factual. DFlhb (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The CSIS paper also has nothing to do with casualty figures or the ministry of Health. nableezy - 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys join my talk section “ Subject on moving first paragraph lead sentence to second paragraph” as there is no one joining in Bobisland (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Most developed nations have a national health care system. We wouldn't call the Israel national health care system "IDF-run" or "Likud-run." If anything, the Gaza Health Ministry is less run by Hamas than Israel's is run by the government because Gaza's healthcare system isn't very well developed due to the occupation. Catboy69 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas-controlled" attribution

I am okay if the ministry of health being controlled by Hamas is mentioned sparsely, but this attribution being abused by certain bad-faith editor who wants to imply unreliability of the ministry of health is simply unacceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and even Western sources are dropping the meme of Hamas controlled. NYT article: While the collapse of Gaza’s health system has made it challenging to track exact numbers, the World Health Organization has reported at least 369,000 cases of infectious diseases since the war began, using data collected from the Gaza Health Ministry and UNRWA, the U.N. agency that cares for Palestinians — a staggering increase from before the war., Another one: The Gaza Health Ministry said that 73 bodies and 123 injured people had been brought to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, in the city of Deir al Balah, in the past 24 hours. The circumstances of the deaths and injuries were not immediately known, and the health ministry did not elaborate. But aid workers have described intense bombardment by Israeli forces, which say they are advancing on the major southern city of Khan Younis to root out Hamas militants there. nableezy - 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to find recent articles which do append "Hamas-controlled." [21] [22]. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing bad faith about attributing if the reliable sources do as well, and I think we should, because it's relevant. Andre🚐 21:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" has become a trope at this point, and the clear import of this phrase is to call into question the astronomical casualty rate. You may think it's relevant, but clearly lots of RS don't: e.g., NYT (see above), Reuters, the Associated Press, and the CBC (the linked article actually discusses the appropriateness of the "Hamas-run" comment, but at the bottom of the article, not in the lede). Another editor has used the phrase "poisoning the well" to describe this turn of phrase and I really think that's apt. WillowCity^(talk) 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we have an RFC on this that determined it should be attributed? Or, charitably, why don't you tell me what your interpretation of the last RFC outcome pertaining to the consensus on this article was. Andre🚐 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we had an RFC on how to attribute in the infobox, and that result was with an inline citation and not just saying "Hamas controlled MOH" as had been pushed in. nableezy - 22:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And it is easy to find ones that do not. That fact means that prepending Hamas-run to every instance is uncalled for. nableezy - 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Selecting just the pro-Israeli sources that cast doubt on casualities in Gaza is biaised editing. It is time to select sources like those users who edit this page with a pro-Israeli angle do. Cleaning their stuff, or adding sentences with other sources that don't doubt the UN reports on casualities and don't let them add appendix at the end of your sentence, like some users do out of the blue a few days later (a similar case RE section Neutrality Lead just above this one) Iennes (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard AFP referred to as a "pro-Israel source" https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231213-gaza-health-ministry-says-out-of-children-s-vaccines "Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said Wednesday it had exhausted its supply of children's vaccines and warned of "catastrophic health repercussions" That's Dec. 13. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the casualities and this way of providing the number of killed Gaza people, with the mention 'according to Hamas". Not using the present tense but Would + verb in the lead, rises questions...France24 journalists are pro Macron, pro liberalism, and so they defend colonialism. I am saying that many English well known media update on the number of dead Palestinians without writing according to Hamas, because they base their research work on what Human Watch, Greenpeace, Red Cross, etc... are saying which is a similar number of human losses. Where is the updated percentage of squashed/lost buildings in Gaza ? It reaches 70%, and it appears nowhere on this article Iennes (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

France24 AFAIK is reliable[23], and this narrative that Western sources are pro-colonial or pro-liberal is problematic for me. We don't exclude sources for being mainstream. Quite the opposite, we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight. This isn't Wikipedia the free anti-war anti-colonial encyclopedia. We have to attribute groups with a strong declared POV that are advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch or Greenpeace, and attribute their statements if they need to be attributed. Andre🚐 00:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I must have missed the memo where we have to attribute HRW, or the one that says they have a strong declared POV. Didn't see that on RSPSS.

I understand the thrust of what you're saying, which is generally consistent with policy, but comments like we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight are the reason we have a systemic bias problem. "Non-English" or "Non-Western" is not synonymous with "unreliable".

But we're getting off-track, because plenty of nice, reliable, Western, English-speaking corporate media refers to Health Ministry figures without the sort of caveat that's being pushed here. WillowCity^(talk) 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Criticism of Human Rights Watch, and yes they're reliable enough for simple facts and I didn't say they were unreliable, I said they should be attributed for statements that might be perceived to have a bias. Andre🚐 00:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a WP article, not a WP policy or guideline. Lots of sources have that type of article: CNN, BBC, CBS News. Anyway, I usually don't oppose attribution, unless it's phrased in a needlessly prejudicial manner ("Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" when just "Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice). WillowCity^(talk) 00:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know, and it's all hypothetical since I haven't made this edit, but more generally, when things like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Brookings Institution are discussed at WP:RSN, they can be used but should be attributed when they have a "side." HRW is unabashedly antiwar and clearly has a side on some of these questions. That's all. It's also an org I've given money to for years, FWIW. Andre🚐 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, CBS just last week, wrote in present tense "They are among the more than 18,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza",[24] they did not cast doubt on the number. France24 is reliable, but neutrality is not only used with pro neo liberalism / pro israeli sources; This isn't Wikipedia the pro israeli pro-colonial encyclopedia either. The bad music that UN/ Greenpeace/ Red Cross... is antisemitic, has been going on and unsurprisingly, innuendos can pop up. Iennes (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Who said antisemitic? You're bringing up antisemitism. Honestly, Iennes, I've never seen you before today and all of your comments are all over the place, no offense. We're talking about the type of attribution necessary. France24 requires no attribution. However if they attribute it, or if other sources that are "Western Mainstream" attribute the figures, we should as well. As I mentioned earlier, there was an RFC on the infobox. Maybe we should have one about more generally whether the Hamas Health Ministry figures that come from the Palestinian Information Center need to be attributed. Andre🚐 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am like WillowCity on this, <<"Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice>> because casting an exaggerated doubt over the number of Gaza victims goes against neutrality. Iennes (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an RFC I'm interested in having. In my view there is a meaningful question of style and also whether this situation is exceptional. It's exceptional for many reasons, not the least is that Hamas is not a state, it is a quasi-state with territory. So the RFC I'm interested in drafting is something like. "Should the reported figures for the totals from Gaza health ministr(ies), given that they are in a gray area as far as officialness compared to say the NIH, CDC, NHS etc, be attributed to them inline in text with a written label?" Andre🚐 05:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t the question you’re asking though. We do attribute in line to the Gaza Health Ministry, what is being pushed in the edits objected to here is prepending the poisoning the well of Hamas controlled every time the MOH is mentioned. That is not in keeping with the treatment by reliable sources, and that is what is being objected to. But the material is already attributed in line, and we have wikilinks for a reason. We don’t include that the Israeli border police is run by a convicted terrorist supporter whenever we mention them either, much less every time they are mentioned. nableezy - 05:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Nableezy summarized in the above reply. This represents my stance on the matter. The Gazan Ministry of Health, whether under Hamas' control or not, is considered a reliable source by other verifiable secondary sources, most notably the UN. While Israeli (and to some extent, US) officials may question its reliability, their opinions are not deemed neutral due to their direct conflict of interest on this subject. In contrast, a third party like the UN is regarded as more impartial. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

They have all said that the numbers by the MOH are accurate or even an undercount. It isn’t even in dispute. nableezy - 11:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It's actually now considered reliable most notably by The Lancet, a medical journal that supersedes the news source commentary on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the Lancet is a lot more significant. Andre🚐 21:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing this source, it's definitely valuable. Please note that they write that [Gaza] MoH communications and mortality reporting collapsed on Nov 10, 2023. The latest data comes from the PA ministry of health in Ramalla. Alaexis_¿question? 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The MOH stoppped providing daily updates, but are still providing semi-regular numbers. nableezy - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Anywhere that appears, add the Lancet report https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02713-7 as a counterpoint. Irtapil (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

They're is a second one that shows they have ID numbers for all reported dead and those ID numbers are real data. Also the Lancet. Title is something along the lines of "no evidence of fabrication". They're not just making up numbers. If they are faking it they have faked the deaths of tens of thousands of real individuals with recorded identities in Israel as well as Palestine.

Depressingly one of the papers looks like death recording has "hit a ceiling", deaths are occurring at a rate higher than they can be recored. But that's my own observation, those authors only conclude that there is not sign of the death count reported being higher than reality.

Irtapil (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Could insert words to the effect of - "The overall casualty counts from the Gaza Ministry of Health (Gaza MOH), show no sign of being inflated or injuredfabricated and thus appear to be a reliable minimum death count." with those two refs. Irtapil (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Mention of apartheid RfC

In the historical background of the war, is it necessary to include references to apartheid claims? Dovidroth (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth Yes it is Abo Yemen✉ 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Most mainstream sources do not mention apartheid in the context of the war or as its background. Dovidroth (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• WP:RFCBEFORE???? nableezy - 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Here??? I know the discussion was 2 weeks ago, but I simply didn't have time to sit on formulating the question. Dovidroth (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the discussion that showed a lack of consensus on this topic? Not having time isn’t a reason to make everybody else waste theirs. nableezy - 12:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I just sent you the link. Dovidroth (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• No per Davidroth, and I note that the references to apartheid in the article (such as the one with footnotes 181 and 182) fail to reflect that the sources concern denial of the apartheid claim. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  so? they wouldn't be denying a claim that wasn't made? Irtapil (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• No per Dovidorth, I think it was rather unfitting and rather disconnected per the time. Furthermore, there is a truth to Dovidorth's statement that most mainstream sources do not mention Apartheid in the context of the war.Homerethegreat (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources do mention the apartheid in the context of reporting on the war(The Guardian[25], Times of Israel[26], Human Rights Watch[27], Vox, Professor John Mearsheimer[28], The Jakarta Post[29], MSNBC[30], Amnesty International[31], BBC News[32] etc). Even pro-Israeli news reporting mentioned (and argued against) the apartheid analogy([33][34]).The question is not whether it should be mentioned, but how we can mention it in a neutral way, giving WP:DUE weight to all opinions. VR _talk 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you search for that term in your query, you can find articles that mention it, but that is WP:CHERRYPICKING, and invalidates your conclusion. Because there is now such a vast number of articles about this war, you can find a lot of terms if you search for them, but that is a biased search and doesn't prove anything. Here are a dozen articles that mention "New Jersey" somewhere in the article: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12). This list of articles doesn't prove anything, except that there are now lots and lots of articles about the war. Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did you read the articles I mentioned? They mention apartheid in some meaningful and relevant way. The stuff about New Jersey could very well be relevant - one of your articles says one of the victims of the Hamas attack was from New Jersey, and that is covered in the part on foreign casualties (whether in this article or the subarticle on casualties). VR _talk 18:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. The majority of sources on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war do not mention apartheid, therefore per WP:UNDUE neither should we. I did an unbiased news search for 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Looking at the titles of the first 100 results, the number of articles with apartheid in the title was zero; the number with apartheid in the search result abstract was zero. I opened the top ten and checked the entire article with search-in-page, and the number of articles with apartheid in the body of the article was zero. My conclusion is that apartheid is hardly ever mentioned in current news articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  News sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  You may well be right about that. This article documents a current news event; some day, there will be books written about it, and I can well imagine that they might discuss the background going back to British Mandatory Palestine and possibly use the term apartheid, and if and when they do, those would be great WP:SECONDARY sources to use to include the background information you wish to include. But lacking that information now, under what policy or guideline do you propose that we should mention it at this point, if the sources do not? Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: if being mentioned in the first 100 articles in an unbiased news search was the threshold for inclusion, there's a LOT that can be removed from this article! Also, kinda curious how you determined that none of the articles mentioned apartheid. Did you read through every single one of them or use some tool? VR _talk 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reread my comment; I was completely transparent about my methodology. It's possible that another search method will demonstrate that apartheid does belong in the article, and if someone does that, I will change my vote. I'm just saying no one has done that so far. Wikipedia needs to follow the sources, not start with what we want to include, and then search for sources that validate it; that's backwards; we need to start from the best sources available, and summarize the majority opinion we find there, wherever that takes us. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  The "first 100 results" is not a methodology specified in our editorial policies. Please cite at least one paragraph from our policy which could back you up. First of all, as IOHANNVSVERVS have already said "news sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events". This is even more relevant for an ongoing military conflict started few months ago. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I can do that. But it's too long for the Survey section, so I'll add it to the Discussion below. Thanks for asking. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you're searching for "Israel Hamas war" that's what the majority say, but sources calling it that are giving one side of the story. A few sources I've seen from South Africa (relevant to apartheid) call it "operation Toofan Al-Aqsa" or things like "Resistance against the colonial occupation" etc. those are probably too biased to include, but "war in Gaza" or "Israel Palestine war" etc. might find some more moderate views from the middle. We shouldn't be basing this article too heavily on USA sources. Irtapil (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC is similar to a previous discussion on this talk page here [35]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, VR provided many sources referencing apartheid as relevant to the background of the current war in Gaza. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• YesI seems perfectly valid to include at least a reference to this. In my brief search I have turned up several RS that support this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• unrelevant RFC. What matters is what the sources say. The criterias for naming apartheid rely on several strict points established by International Court of Justice; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be wp:censorship. Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions. Iennes (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @IennesPlease strike your comment falsely accusing people with a different opinion of lobbying. If I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, please correct me. Drsmoo (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Iennes - You are entitled to disagree with me and many others here, but you are not entitled to cast personal attacks and accusations without evidence. If you do not strike this, I will consider reporting you. Dovidroth (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly would you like Iennes to strike from their comments?

  "Denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be wp:censorship" and "Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions" are both reasonable statements which do not include personal attacks. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  “Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions.” I see this as a personal attack against pro-Israel editors. If it is not, please clarify. Dovidroth (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WIAPA — "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic"

  WP:NPOV — "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV) [...] without editorial bias."

  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC, but yes. In addition to the sources raised by VR, two more from Vox discussing apartheid in the context of the war: 1 2; from Reuters: 3; another from Amnesty (UK) discussing apartheid at some length: 4; from Jacobin (possibly an opinion piece but not labelled as such): 5; from Newsweek: 6; from HuffPo: 7. Not only is it relevant background to the war as a whole, it also contextualizes other details such as South Africa suspending relations with Israel and the rhetoric used in ongoing ceasefire protests. Outright exclusion is not justifiable, the issue is NPOV and WP:DUE. WillowCity^(talk) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, Absolutely. Just because the Israeli government denies it doesn't make the mountain of academia on Israeli apartheid any less valid. To not mention it would be purposefully ignoring the context and causes of the war. You might as well try to rewrite Rhodesian Bush War without mentioning apartheid. ArthropodLover (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• No, Absolutely per Dovidroth. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• No per Dovidroth and Mathglot. Zanahary (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. OP (Dovidroth)'s claim that apartheid isn't mentioned in mainstream media is false, as the apartheid issue of Israel against Palestinians has been being consistently mentioned in reliable sources since the Oct 7 terror attack. Presenting apartheid as a background of this conflict is in line with our WP:DUE weight policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Israel and apartheid. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. while it is very relevant to mention that "Palestinians are in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza" as a part of the context (and it is indeed mentioned), the use of the term "apartheid" is inconsistent with the low-key spirit of Wikipedia , being factual and non-judgmental. Mentioning that some non-profits "have likened the Israeli occupation to apartheid, although this characterization is disputed" just emphasizes the fact that the point about the despair is factual and sufficient in the background. By the way, similarly, the phrase "viewed from Gaza, things were only going to get worse, considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners opposed a two-state solution for the conflict. He suggested they would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank" is relevant, while the speculative non-factual addition "even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state" is biased, judgmental and not with the spirit of Wikipedia. Agmonsnir (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please quote our policy or guideline which specifically requires Wikipedia to be "low-key spirit". If anything, Wikipedia actually encourages editor to be bold, as long as the edit is consistent with our editorial policies. If multiple reliable sources agree on a point of view, whether it is disagreed by other entity, we present that POV in our articles without unnecessary compromise. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: per the sources provided by VR. If the sources say it, we can say it, duh. Doesn't need an RFC to state what is obvious from basic policy. If RS mention it, it is relevant for inclusion. If they say it is related, we sat it is related. If they say it is unrelated, we say it is unrelated. Etc. Also WP:TROUT the filer for inadequate WP:RFCBEFORE and source hunting, i.e. simply not looking hard enough for the relevant sources that were so readily discovered. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was a large discussion here. How do you think that this is lacking WP:RFCBEFORE? Dovidroth (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes? Even if the apartheid is debatable, adding information on it to help people come to their own conclusions is better than obscuring history. Salmoonlight (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, it should have a brief, carefully-worded and attributed mention in the article body (likely just a single sentence, part of a sentence, or even as little as just one word in a prose list of some sort, such as the list motivations claimed by Hamas.) There's sufficient coverage to support the idea that it is something enough sources consider relevant that it ought to be briefly mentioned; the sources that do exist support the idea that it's a small but significant flashpoint in the underlying background. I don't think the arguments against it above are sufficient to exclude a mere single-sentence mention in the body - they would make perfect sense if we were discussing adding it to the lead or creating an entire section or paragraph for it or somesuch; but we're discussing a bare mention, which has a much lower standard. We don't need to have the majority of sources mentioning something just to include a single sentence noting somewhere in the body; we just need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists, which it certainly does. --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• No per Dovidroth and Mathglot. TaBaZzz (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• No per Dovidroth and Mathglot. Ilenart626 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes This is extremely important context, and is well-sourced from many reliable sources. The idea that it is irrelevant because breaking news stories don't always include it is absurd on its face- news articles updating on a war do not need to include a history of the conflict. An encyclopedia entry, however, should. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• No This is undue in an article about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The vast majority of reliable sources do not mention this concept in the context of the war. Even most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip, where there are no Israeli settlements. Marokwitz (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Categorically untrue that most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip. The very first sentence of B'Tselem's page on apartheid: "The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime." In the main Human Rights Watch report on Israeli apartheid, "Gaza" is mentioned over 250 times; HRW has very recently, in the context of the war, discussed Israeli apartheid in relation to Gaza. And from Amnesty International, just this June: "Israel/OPT: latest Gaza offensive highlights human toll of apartheid; and in another article published in October: "[independent investigation] is vital as ending the longstanding impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity and securing justice and reparation for victims are essential to prevent recurrence of these atrocities and to address the root causes of the conflict, such as Israel’s system of apartheid imposed on all Palestinians." These are three of the most prominent sources alleging apartheid, and all of them refer to Gaza; HRW and Amnesty refer to it in the context of the war. So should we, with adequate attribution. WillowCity^(talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• No, per Agmonsnir. פעמי-עליון (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. The notion of apartheid is totally irrelevant here - per Dovidroth, Agmonsnir and Marokwitz. GidiD (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per VR and others. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per VR and WillowCity Parham wiki (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - discussing Palestine, in an article this long, without mentioning apartheid in the background information is nonsense. The amount of source material available that discusses apartheid in this context is humongous. If you just Google the word "apartheid", you don't have to scroll for long before encountering mentions of the Zionist entity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• No. It's not relevant to this article. Apartheid has to do with the West Bank Palestinians first and foremost, since they are the ones who generally commute to and from Jerusalem to work and stuff like that. Gaza was actually given back to Hamas for complete self-determination. Andre🚐 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  So it's like a Bantustan then. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the Bantustan analogy, it doesn't work in several respects. The Bantustans were nominally independent, but lacked any actual autonomy. Whereas in Israel, there are Arab members of the Knesset. There are also political parties that represent both the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike the Bantustans, neither Israel nor the West Bank nor Gaza are ethnically homogeneous or enforced for particular ethnic groups. Israel has Christian, Jewish, Arab, Druze etc citizens who all have political and civil rights. In the Palestinian territories, each one has chosen their own leaders; while they haven't held elections for a while, they aren't following a system imposed upon them by Israel. If they were, one assumes, they'd have little Knessets. The Bantustans consisted of black citizens of South Africa who were deported or forced into "independent" places, some of which were not, even in name. You can certainly claim that because of the blockade, Gaza is de facto occupied, but politically, they are not subject to Israel. Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinian citizens of Israel exist, there were no black citizens of South Africa when they were forced into the Bantustans. Andre🚐 06:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  No part of that last sentence is true. nableezy - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  See Israeli disengagement from Gaza Andre🚐 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,[15] the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel" - Gaza Strip. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the blockade yes, but there's no apartheid in Gaza was my point. It's a separate walled off place where Hamas is in charge. Andre🚐 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  So say you. Plenty of RS disagree. And as for "walled off", well... that says it all, doesn't it? WillowCity^(talk) 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, apartheid refers to a working underclass, and I'd accept it may apply to the West Bank, but Gaza is walled off, the settlements there were dismantled, and it's administered by Hamas who haven't held an election since 2006. Andre🚐 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have never seen this definition of apartheid before, including under the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA, but even if such a definition existed, would it include a working underclass like this? WillowCity^(talk) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, like that. But that ended in 2007 due to Hamas taking over, that's my point exactly. Andre🚐 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is not correct at all, there were approximately 19,000 Gazan men working permitted to work in Israel (predominantly in construction and agricultural jobs) when the war broke out on October 7. The Israeli government avenged itself on them by stripping them of their legal status, rounding them up, forcing them into cages for several weeks, and ultimately deporting them back to Gaza (with many still wearing plastic ID tags around their wrists and ankles). Edited for accuracy. WillowCity^(talk) 01:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I stand corrected; Hamas's takeover greatly curtailed but did not entirely end the practice.[36] Before the Hamas takeover in 2007, some 120,000 Gazans worked inside Israel. Nearly all lost their permits when Israel tightened the blockade that year. Andre🚐 01:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  “Occupied by Israel” does not mean “apartheid”. The accusation is a fringe view to begin with and is undue in this context. Dovidroth (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's factually incorrect that it's a fringe view. See Israel and Apartheid. JDiala (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Im well aware. Your statement is entirely false on all angles. Not Hamas, not self-determination, not complete. nableezy - 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

this is because you are defining "mainstream" as "USA" - the world is not the USA. Irtapil (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Bickering among editors addressing each other's behavior and unrelated to the Rfc question.

@Andrevan: Much of your discussion above is WP:OR. It is important to note that your own views on whether or not it is apartheid are not particularly relevant. We go by what the WP:RS say, and there are myriad independent reliable sources alleging apartheid. Furthermore, whether or not the designation applies to Gaza or just the West Bank is likewise not relevant. Hamas has clearly indicated (and which we have also included in the article) that provocations in the West Bank were deemed by it a casus belli. JDiala (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) It's not OR, this is a talk page an an RFC. Don't WP:BLUDGEON the proceedings. I really don't care what Hamas thinks or indicates or deems. There's no justification that should be added about apartheid as that itself would be WP:SYNTH. Andre🚐 21:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) You are using your personal unsourced opinion on what apartheid constitutes as a rationale for excluding the accusation. This is clearly WP:OR. The article clearly does care what Hamas thinks, given that Hamas' justifications for the events figure predominately in the background sections. Several of those justifications discuss events in the West Bank, so the distinction between apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza is immaterial. It's not WP:SYNTH as several sources explicitly mention apartheid in relation to the war. JDiala (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I don't need to provide sources for all of my sentences on talk pages, JDiala, nor does OR apply to talk pages. I did not say the article should omit Hamas' POV, I said I do not care. Leave me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments. Andre🚐 00:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) With respect to your last allegation of "wikilawyering", I would refer you to WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. Deciding to exclude well-sourced material purely on the basis of personal disagreements with said material is clearly WP:OR. JDiala (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) You're once again misusing that policy, thus my statement of wikilawyering, which is not incivil when the appropriate in-context description of what you're doing; you don't understand how that OR policy applies, you can't charge me with OR when I haven't even edited anything. I explained why I think apartheid applies to the West Bank, and not to Gaza, due to Hamas taking over Gaza in 2006 and therefore, it's no longer apartheid, but now something different. Still bad, but different. That's throwing you a bone, but the point is that if you want to convince me to change my view, you need multiple high quality sources that say Gaza is an example of apartheid and that precipitated the war. Continuing to bludgeon the discussion after I asked you to leave me alone isn't going to do anything. If you have those sources, you are welcome to present them. Andre🚐 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I will once again refer you to WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. It is strange to me that an editor with such substantial experience believes it appropriate to resort to personal attacks on RfCs. The term "wikilawyering" is clearly an ad hominem attack, regardless of the spin you provide to defend its use. It is likewise bizarre to ask to be "left alone" on a talk page where the point is precisely to engage with others on these issues. With respect to OR: if you argue on the talk page to make an edit X such that if edit X is made it would constitute an instance of WP:OR, that is ipso facto an OR violation. The irony here is that your legalistic rendition of the OR policy is more akin to wikilawyering than anything I have said. Most sensible editors realize it is inappropriate to make personal assessments on what technical legal jargon like "apartheid" means without reference to WP:RS. Finally, with regard to sources, and with regard to the Gaza/West Bank distinction, this has been discussed extensively elsewhere in the RfC. JDiala (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) You are now the one personalizing the dispute, by bringing my experience into it, or questioning whether I am "sensible." Again, wikilawyering refers to your misuse of a policy and not to you as an ad hominem. It is not an OR violation for me to use logic to discuss what I presume to be background information on this topic, and if I am challenged on a specific statement that I make, I may then provide support for it with sources, but what I've stated above I believe to have not received any specific such challenge. Other users may then dispute that logic or interpretation if they wish, but it's not ok to say that it's OR, because that's not what we're dealing with. Your comments are a bit out of touch with the norms of a Wikipedia discussion. WP:BLUDGEON, I've referenced it a few times. There's nothing strange about me asking you to leave me alone and stop badgering me. Andre🚐 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) The statement "[leave] me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments" in response to a criticism of your argument is clearly a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF, regardless of how you want to spin it. It is a matter of tone. You have clearly demonstrated yourself to lack the ability to communicate with other editors in a professional way, as indicated by your talk page where several other editors have criticized this. As I've already noted, the irony is that your accusation of wikilawyering would be a more apt description of your conduct. You are engaging in obvious original research, mouthing your own opinions which are not sourced and in fact flatly incorrect when compared with the actual international law, as a rationale for excluding sourced material from the article. You're justifying this by claiming that you hadn't made an edit yet and you're on a talk page. You are attempting to skirt the spirit of the WP:OR rule (whose entire point is to ensure that the encyclopedia's content is based on well-sourced WP:RS material) by litigiously hiding behind the fact that this is an RfC on a talk page. In fact, this doesn't really matter, for the reason I mentioned. Promoting decisions based on WP:OR on the talk page is in effect engaging in original research, even if you haven't made an edit proper. Lastly, re: bludgeoning, this is a silly point. I have made far fewer comments on this RfC than many others. The root of the problem here is that you are making incorrect, false, and unsourced claims regarding the definition of apartheid (e.g., that it somehow requires an "underclass"), and personally attacking others when called out on this. JDiala (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I'm going to ignore most of your circular and repetitive comment and charitably interpret it as a request for a source for the term "underclass" in apartheid. Myanmar authorities’ system of discriminatory laws and policies that make the Rohingya in Rakhine State a permanent underclass[37] (HRW) this isn't SYNTH, because I'm not adding to the article. I'm using it to illustrate the use of the term which I am interpreting your comment to be challenging due to the use of scare quotes around it. Andre🚐 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC) You mentioned a "working underclass" (my emphasis). I should have included this adjective in the above comment, but in any case it was the adjective that you used. The implication here is that that apartheid specifically requires some form of economic subjugation or economic exploitation. This claim is (1) not true, and (2) even if it were true, would not prove the point here, since Israel does in fact exploit Palestinian labour (e.g., Gazan and West Bank labourers). JDiala (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I was not implying that apartheid requires economic subjugation. It just so happens that the apartheid in the situation we were describing involves commuting through the border checkpoints. Yes, it is possible to have apartheid without it being a "working" class, but I believe that this is critical to the aspect of the West Bank, it involves labor power relations, and class is fundamentally an economic concept in my conception of it. Regardless, you're going a bit further in my comments than what I said. Apartheid is the existence of an underclass maintained by a policy of discrimination, essentially, in my conception of it, and seemingly described in the above source, and I think applicable to the subset of Palestinians who exist as a class in Israeli society, as opposed to being segregated into a separate walled city with its own institutions. Andre🚐 05:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Andrevan is right, you do not understand what WP:OR means. You also do not understand what ad hominem means. Ad hominem is an attack on the person, as opposed to an attack on the person's reasoning. An accusation of wikilawyering is an attack on your reasoning, so it is not ad hominem. Please stop it, you are wrong and off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This is a rather meaningless comment. You are just repeating what he himself said without engaging with my responses refuting his points or elaborating on his points. This contributes exactly nil to the debate. His conduct is clearly ad hominem and a violation of WP:GF when you consider the childish, adversarial tone of his prose ("leave me alone"). Furthermore, as I note, the "wikilawyering" accusation is more aptly applied to him, considering that his argument basically hinges on a tendentious interpretation of WP:OR, where he is somehow interpreting the talk-page exception for WP:OR as a carte blanche to use his own personal, unsourced and frankly incorrect opinions on the interpretation of legal terminology to take a stance in an RfC. Note that WP:WL explicitly disallows "[abiding] by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles." This is precisely what is going on here with respect to Andrevan and WP:OR, where he is trying to hide behind the fact that this is a talk page to justify him bringing up entirely unsourced content in an RfC. This is no different than an editor claiming in a talk page discussion in, say, Alchemy, that he personally turned granite into gold and so the page should be changed. Would it be so unreasonable to deem that situation a WP:OR violation? And if not, what rule would you suggest citing in that case to criticize said hypothetical editor? JDiala (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Collapse bickering. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• No The mention of apartheid in the context of this war is undue and not mentioned in most mainstream sources. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then that still means there are mainstream sources that mention apartheid. Just not "most". Salmoonlight (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think what he is saying is clear - it’s not in most sources and thus undue in the context of the war. Dovidroth (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Like Iskandar said, if a source says something, we can relay it. It doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not. Please stop dodging Wikipedia policy and being obtuse. Salmoonlight (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is contrary to our oath here. Please read WP:NPOV which will demonstrate that we do not present such content. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Any individual claim X regarding the war which is included in this article will not be included in most published news sources about the war. This is true by definition since this article is by its very nature far more comprehensive than any individual published source. JDiala (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Rationales for excluding the allegation are bizarre. Multiple WP:RS sources (including all mainstream human rights organizations) allege Israel is engaged in apartheid. This allegation has been brought up following the start of the war and in relation to the war by innumerable sources [1]. There is no standard that "most" sources need to specifically mention apartheid in relation to the war for it to be included in the article. This is not a standard used for anything. The vast majority of individual sources will not constitute a comprehensive discussion of the war; it is precisely the job of an encyclopedia entry to synthesize all of these sources. JDiala (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• No. We can by all means describe the nature of the occupation, the activities of the West Bank settlers, the Netanyahu government's enabling of the far right and deprecation of the two-state solution. But labels -- there are many proposed on many CT pages on this site -- always end up like an inkblot that each reader interprets in their own way. And that is the opposite of what good encyclopedic content should achieve. The relevant specific detail is informative. Labeling it apartheid is not. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Apartheid is not a "label." It is a specific crime with a specific definition under international law which Israel has been accused of. Furthermore, it is not us who are "labelling" it apartheid. The statement is attributed to those making the allegation, not considered a statement of fact. Given the ubiquity of the allegation in WP:RS sources, it seems entirely reasonable to include, provided appropriate balance is given to those who deny the allegation. JDiala (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  @JDiala: i agree. Irtapil (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely - Include at least some South African sources to support them. Given the current sentiment on the Palestine issue from many South African voices, I think the people who experienced the first named Apartheid would support the comparison. I don't have any specific citation links handy at the moment (and if i open one more tab my browser will collapse), but we definitely should include the South African perspective. Irtapil (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October - Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war. But just searching for recent writing about apartheid gives results that are mostly relevant and from a wider range of perspectives. collecting some sources below… Irtapil (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Your conclusion is not valid; see response at your discussion section below. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It is not an opinion that Israel practices apartheid in the Palestinian territories it occupies, of which Gaza is one. Whether this features frequently and as prominently in newspaper reportage as beheadings, rape, ovening of babies etc or not is neither here nor there. This is not about newspaper coverage but what the best independent, authoritative NGOs mention as background to the present conflict. They are the closest thing we have at the moment for the scholarly sources that in the future will form the basis for a detached, analytical account of this particular moment of the IP conflict. I.e.,

There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, without diagnosing it correctly. The discourse about the way forward needs to be based on the reality on the ground of decades of Israeli repressive rule of Palestinians. Major Israeli, Palestinian and other international human rights groups have found that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians, as has the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory and many others. Lama Fakih, Omar Shakir, Does Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Rise to the Level of Apartheid? The Los Angeles Times 5 December 2023

The injustices and violations that are among the root causes of this violence must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Civilians will continue to pay a heavy price until Israel dismantles its system of apartheid against Palestinians, including ending its illegal blockade on Gaza. Palestinian Armed Groups Must Be Held Accountable for Deliberate Civilian Killings, Abductions and Indiscriminate Attacks, Amnesty International 12 November 2023 Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, sufficient sources exist to support the idea that it's a significant flashpoint in the … background and we only need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists per Aquillion. We would not expect to find daily mention of this issue in news articles, since it is inherently a 'background' issue.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

less biased search strategy for apartheid views

Since so many people above are saying "most sources say" based on what Google shows them for what they call the war, I'm attempting a less biased search. Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war.

logged in to Google on the profile I usually use for news etc.

Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October, then just skimming for what is relevant to the war, a bit haphazard, but only ruling out things that don't seem to mention Israel or the war at all. I've not read these in full.

• top relevant hit Israel and apartheid
• Al Jazeera English - "Apartheid South Africa reached a tipping point, Israel will, too" - Suren Pillay - Chair in African Studies at the University of Cape Town
• vox "The argument that Israel practices apartheid, explained" (mostly background aimed at a USA audience)
• Richard Boyd Barrett interviewed by well known Turkish news site Anadolu.
• Al Jazeera English - "US political scientist John Mearsheimer: Israel is choosing ‘apartheid’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’ - John Mearsheimer on Israel’s ‘punishment campaign’ against the civilian population in Palestine."

adding "war" to the search

• Al Jazeera English - "Harvard students blame ‘apartheid regime’ for Israel-Gaza war, alumni react"
• The Jakarta Post - "The flames of Hamas, Israel, apartheid, and Palestine"

Nothing I spotted in the top few really refuted it, except that "alumni react". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Irtapil, thanks for your search attempt. Unfortunately, this is a textbook case of cherry-picking; that is, you searched for the term which you wish to prove as naturally occurring in articles about the topic. This completely invalidates your search, and your results are worthless for determining the outcome of the Rfc. The volume of articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is so large, that you can find pretty much whatever term you want if you search for it, whether it's apartheid, or something else. By the same reasoning you gave here, someone might say that we should add '"New Jersey" to the lead, as I (falsely) "proved" in this comment above. Please redo your search using unbiased query terms without the term apartheid in it, and show your work so others may respond. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, as I have discussed at ample length elsewhere. Any individual claim X about the war will not be in many articles about the war. This is simply the nature of current events. Individual news story are inherently not exhaustive. It is not WP:CHERRYPICKING as that specifically refers to the exclusion of contradictory information. However, the sentence we have on apartheid in this article in fact discusses the contradictory view. JDiala (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There certainly is a standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, and it is the policy called WP:DUEWEIGHT; merely claiming the contrary doesn't make the policy go away. Any search query that includes the term apartheid in an attempt to determine whether articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war tend to include content about apartheid or not is an extreme form of WP:CHERRYPICKING and completely invalidates any conclusion reached from such a query. If the "contradictory view" is only present in a "tiny minority" of sources then it must be excluded, per policy. In Jimbo's words:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

That's quoted at WP:DUE, is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy) and exceptionally among policies, it cannot be overridden by consensus but must be followed. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Google is individualized. It shows you pages which, according to their algorithm, you are likely to click on. When I apply the same search, I get lots of Nelson Mandela stuff. With "war", Israel is mentioned in the 8th hit, without war, in the third (because it talks about South Africa supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel). Google apparently gives you more antisemitic different pages than me for some reason. Please consult WP:GOOGLE to find more reasons why your reasoning is invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That antisemitism line is very close to a PA; might want to strike it. AryKun (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. I could not find a good euphemism without being dishonest, so I used "different". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

refs

References

Discussion (apartheid)

In response to Sameboat's question above about providing a policy basis for using top Google results as methodology: Policy generally does not specify methodology, it specifies goals, such as mentioned by WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of our WP:Neutral point of view policy, which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and cannot be overridden by consensus, such as by the result of an Rfc). NPOV says this:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. (emphasis added)

When a niche topic has only twenty-seven sources in total, you can go visit all of them, count them up, and figure out which ones are majority and minority views, and write your article content accordingly. When there are thousands of sources, you cannot do that, and you need some kind of proxy or methodology, that lets you figure out what the majority and minority views are. One such proxy is the results of the ranked search results of an unbiased query to a trusted search engine. If you believe my query was biased, or if you believe that Google is rigging the game and failing to fairly surface results about apartheid for that query for some reason, that would be a valid way to attack my argument. But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Wikipedia editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive. Note that the very next line at WP:DUEWEIGHT is this explanatory note:

The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

So, you could start by attacking my query, my methodology, or Google search results if you wish to claim that a 100-result survey is not a valid indicator. Even better, would be to come up with a superior methodology yourself, showing that my method was inaccurate, and that your method demonstrates that apartheid is, in fact, part of the majority (or significant minority) content in articles about the topic. But merely claiming this or that without evidence will not affect the result of this Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

An obvious methodological issue with this is the risk of recency bias (see also: WP:RECENTISM). The current war has been ongoing for two months, so news outlets aren't necessarily going to be rehashing every relevant detail, they'll likely assume a level of baseline awareness on the part of readers. Whether you "sort by relevance" or "sort by date", the first 100 results are overwhelmingly, almost entirely from the last week (at least, they were for me when I followed the link); if that was our metric, the article would be dominated by the IDF's execution of three hostages, Lloyd Austin's visit to Israel, the upcoming UNSC vote, etc. Our content is qualitatively different than a news article; it has to be enduring in a way that news stories don't, necessarily.

Another methodological issue is the phrasing of your search. For example, by searching for the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" you may be excluding or lowering the ranking of news outlets that use other names, such as Israel-Gaza War.

A third question is geographic situation. Depending on your Google preferences, the result may be skewed toward outlets from a certain region (e.g. a noticeable proportion of my results were from Canadian outlets, even though I followed the link you posted). I also got a large amount of coverage from Israeli sources (particularly JPost and ToI), which raises its own issues.

A fourth issue is the fact that aggregated Google News results don't filter for reliability, which is a core policy. So I'm getting Fox News stories, blogs and opinion pieces, etc., which are irrelevant to this discussion.

A fifth issue is depth of review. You say that you reviewed the search abstract, which is (somewhat, but not really) equivalent to the lead of a wiki article; but we're not talking about putting apartheid in the lead of this article, we're talking about including it further down.

So there are a lot of methodological issues arising from this approach; I've never seen this method used to determine notability or due weight. WillowCity^(talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In essence, the approach of relying on the "top Google search result" lacks credibility in determining due weight. This is due to the inherent bias in Google's algorithm, influenced significantly by the user's IP or search history. It's regrettable that seeking clarity on your methodology is interpreted as an "attack." (But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Wikipedia editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive.) If you believe your methodology deserves recognition on Wikipedia, consider gaining consensus from the community, perhaps through avenues like WP:Village Pump/Policy. Currently, your approach seems to conflict with information from reliable sources, as highlighted by user:Vice regent. We shouldn't compromise our content based on Google's search results, but we can still use Google when specifically seeking information from reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As additional reading, please take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test. While not a formal policy or guideline, it provides an in-depth guidance of the appropriate way to use search engines while maintaining neutrality when editing Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Show me the data that supports your view. I see a lot of pointing out *possible* issues (which I respond to individually below) but nothing concrete to really respond to. Regarding recency, WP:RECENTISM is an essay, but I'll respond anyway. There are issues with recency to be aware of, and WP:RSBREAKING (guideline) does warn about the dangers of breaking news:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia

One way to deal with that is to use a custom time search to build in specific dates and avoid the "breaking" syndrome, so I redid the query restricting results to articles from 14 December or earlier; you can find the results of that search here. (These results shouldn't change too much, even if you click again a few days or a week or two later.) I didn't see a single reference to apartheid in the titles or abstracts of the first 100 web results (not just news results) prior to 14 December. The guideline section WP:AGEMATTERS says:

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

so that needs to be kept in mind, as well. There may be a recentism issue, but if there is, it hasn't been demonstrated.

The point about other wording such as Israel-Gaza War is a valid one, and that (and other phrasing) should definitely be looked at, to try to get a fuller picture of what the majority and minority views are. The pre-14 December web search results for Israel-Gaza War are here, and there are no occurrences of apartheid in the top 100 results. The top ten are: NYT, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Nation, CNN, CNBC, WSJ, CNN, RAND, AP, and checking the full text of those ten, apartheid is found in The Nation, and the BBC article. I looked at #11-20 (Brookings–CPJ) and it didn't occur in any of those. (#18 was a video, I only checked the text and did not listen to the audio.) I did not check the full text of the remaining 80 results, only the title/abstract, where it did not appear.

As far as geographic influence on results, you can mitigate that somewhat by stripping query params "search location" (&gl=) or the "search region" (&uule=) if it appears in the url in your address bar and my query urls are stripped to the bone. (WP:Search engine test is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far; in particular, it fails to mention any of Google's proprietary url query params, including either the search location or the search region; that's a pretty big gap for an article supposedly about searching Google.) Avoiding those params doesn't stop Google from using your IP to surmise your location, but there are web sites or browser extensions you can use that that alter your apparent location. I tried the same query from Doha, Qatar and just eyeballing the results, I didn't notice any major difference; I got the same mix of websites as I did without specifying a location, although I did not try to match them up one-to-one down the whole list of results, and if you felt like trying that to see if there are some subtle differences I didn't notice, I'd be interested to hear what you find out.

It's fine to challenge results and I appreciate your comments which inspired a new set of refined queries that appear to reinforce the same result as the earlier query, but if you merely criticize without offering your own data that support your vote, it all just seems very theoretical. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the crux of the matter is not the adjustment of search parameters to refine Google search results but the use of the "top 100 results" as a justification to exclude a point of view readily found in reliable sources within the subject's time frame. With all due respect, it appears you are introducing a new rule. The burden of proof lies on your side to persuade the greater community (beyond participants of this article) to accept such an evidently flawed method for determining what is due and what is not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no wish to exclude anything, and I am perfectly indifferent to how this Rfc turns out, either with, or without apartheid in it, as long as whichever way it goes follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've presented evidence that the term appears to be sufficiently rare to meet the use of the phrase "tiny minority" at WP:DUE (policy), which says that

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,

and your conception of who has the onus of providing evidence is backwards: in fact, the WP:ONUS (policy) is on the person who wishes to include information, not the reverse. Nobody cares what you or I believe, our opinions are unimportant; it's about Wikipedia policy, and supporting evidence. I've presented the governing policy links and quotes, and shown to the best of my ability how the unbiased results of several queries pertain to them, especially WP:DUEWEIGHT. I have no wish to recycle previous comments or to comment further unless some actual evidence is brought to bear. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, calling the apartheid argument as "undue" (or "minorities view") seems to be more of a personal opinion, supported only by a poorly formulated method. If you maintain that the sources presented by Vice Regent are inadequate, it's fine, and you're entitled to your own perspective. However, relying on search engine results is not a suitable method for determining due weight. If you find it repetitive, we can pause and await the judgment of a reputable, uninvolved editor to conclude this RFC. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In lead, Middle East Eye citation (59) appears unreliable

The lead mentions "The total includes an unknown, but significant number of deaths from friendly fire". I believe two of the three citations listed aren't sufficient and should probably be removed.

Citation 57 does not mention friendly fire once. The only mention I could find of anything resembling that is "The Bituah Leumi data does not distinguish between those killed by Hamas and civilians killed by Israeli forces in the fighting to retake control of southern Israel, an operation in which the army used shells and rockets on inhabited areas, according to testimonies collected by AFP and Israeli media". But this doesn't make any claim at all - at least not a claim that a *significant* number of people died to friendly fire in the initial attack in Israel proper.

Citation 59, meanwhile, doesn't appear to be fit for Wikipedia. Putting aside the fact that this is an opinion piece, not news, the author by his own admission constructs an alternative to the "official story" (common phrasing for conspiracy theorists) and spends much of the article postulating a conspiracy theory that the Re'im music festival massacre was caused by Israeli troops because there is no possible way Hamas could want to kill civilians. It's worth noting this author has a track record of denying or shifting the blame for other atrocities; he has used Russian propaganda to justify the invasion of Ukraine, describing the initial invasion as being as "light a touch as possible". I don't think this citation is of much value here, and it should probably be removed in favor of the more reliable Ynetnews source. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your concern re the sourcing is well-taken, and in fact all the footnoted sources should be checked for whether they correctly represent what is in the sources, as I have found at least two instances in which the article text seriously misrepresents sources. The overarching issue is whether it belongs in the lead at all. I would say it most definitely does not. Every war has friendly fire incidents. Inclusion of this in the lead skews the POV of the lead, as well as breaching WP:LEAD by failing to summarize the text within the body of the article in proportion to its significance within the article. Friendly fire incidents receive only scattered attention within the article and clearly are not significant enough in the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

To your point, Coretheapple, here's another issue I've found - the claim that this is the "deadliest war for children in modern times" is not backed up by either source listed. Neither source listed mentions this claim at all or lists actual numbers. This claim is not only vague, it seems inaccurate on the fact of it. I'm guessing the original source came from this article, but the statistics don't back it up - the wars in Syria and Afghanistan both appear to be deadlier at minimum. Pretty much every other war listed in the piece notes the actual totals are likely "far higher" due to uncertainty. This claim should probably be removed or heavily reworked Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's right. This article is shot through with POV, over-emphasis, under-emphasis, the whole "nine yards." Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: In which direction? Or do you mean there's a mix? I'd say it has a moderate pro-Israel skew. Starting with it being framed as Israel vs Hamas. I've seen Al Jazeera call it "Israel Hamas war" at least once in English, but I think clicking the link that said that went straight to "Israel Gaza War". Irtapil (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

These are all quite ghastly calculations, to be honest. AJ is probably right that if we measure children killed per day this conflict would be worse than the other major conflicts in the last 10 years. However this begs the question why we use this particular definition. In Yemen, according to the same organization (Save the Children) 85,000 children under the age of five starved to death in 2015-2018 which is one order of magnitude more that the current Gaza war. Alaexis_¿question? 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Its also 3 years to 9 weeks. nableezy - 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's right. I hope it ends much sooner...

My point was that it's always possible to craft a definition according to which a given conflict would be the worst - one can choose the time frame, the subgroup of victims, geographical area, etc. The casualty numbers are already displayed very prominently in the lede and in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 07:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The point on the 10x more killed in a conflict that is a. widely acknowledged to among the most brutal targeting of a civilian population in modern times, while b. being 17x times longer is not the point I think youre making. That Israel has killed kids at nearly 2x the rate that Syria did is not really proving your point here. nableezy - 21:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, people keep saying "but you ignored Yemen" as if ignoring Yemen was fine. I'm not sure why that got so ignored? Saudi absolute monarchy seems like a lost cause on human rights? Palestine does get more attention than a lot of others, but the problem is the others we ignore, not Palestine getting too much outcry. Irtapil (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Yemen was going for about 8 years, the thing about Gaza is the SPEED of Death (a search "speed of death" might get some sources). People take 3 months to starve to death Yoav Gallant cut off Gaza's for supply about and a half months ago, that bit hasn't started yet, it's looming. In terms of kids killed it's been 200 October 7s in under 100 days. Irtapil (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Its worth noting that that sentence was removed per this edit request but had to be self-reverted due to an AE report. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this sentence should be removed, per the rationale in that request and these comments. Andre🚐 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel indiscriminately shooting civilians

Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza.[38]. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? Crampcomes (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt any country would deliberately massacre their own kidnapped civilians - even more so while under an international microscope. Given that they say that Hamas uses their own civilians as "meat shields" and that they were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, and the fact they blatantly operate within their own civilian population, who is to say Hamas didn't make them wave the flags as deception and they thought they were Hamas? Doubt it was "indiscriminate".--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hannibal Directive --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence is OK enough, although it has been mentioned in the events. The second needs further discussion. Borgenland (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Some additional sources for this:

• As Israel Reckons With Killing of Hostages, Critics Worry About Routine Excessive Force Against Civilians, Times

"..three hostages held by Hamas were killed by Israeli forces in the middle of an active war zone after they waved a white flag and screamed out in Hebrew to show they did not pose a threat."

• Israel Says Its Soldiers Killed Israeli Hostages as They Held Up White Flag, Wall Street Journal:

"The three Israeli hostages killed by Israeli forces Friday night were shot after they emerged shirtless from a building in northern Gaza, holding up a stick with a white cloth on it, Israeli military officials said Saturday."

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't it accidental? If the source says accidental, that can be added. Cwater1 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, lol, they accidentally thought the shirtless people waving a white flag and begging in Hebrew were Hamas fighters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources still seem to say accidental; and it's easier to make mistakes like that in a war zone - all it takes is one person with an itchy trigger finger who assumes everything that happens is a Hamas trick or something. As I think the sources imply, it still doesn't make Israel look good (if the have accidents like that with their own civilians, who they value so highly, you can only imagine what they're like when dealing with anyone else - see this AP coverage in particular, which goes into depth on that) but that's not really the same as them deliberately killing people "indiscriminately." --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is currently in the article: On 15 December, the IDF released a statement announcing that they had killed three of their own hostages by friendly fire. According to the Israeli military, they "mistakenly identified three Israeli hostages as a threat" during operations in Shuja'iyya and subsequently fired at them, killing them.[367][368][369] According to an Israeli military official on 16 December, the three hostages were shirtless and were carrying "a stick with a white cloth on it” when an Israeli soldier, who declared them to be “terrorists” after feeling “threatened”, opened fire, killing two hostages and injuring the third, who was killed by Israeli reinforcements. That is probably sufficient (it has a lot of coverage, so it deserves that much, but ultimately it's one small event in a massive conflict, so unless there's a ton of sustained coverage it doesn't need more than it has now.) We also do mention the larger concerns related to civilian deaths in the lead (widespread civilian deaths have led to both Israel and Hamas being accused of war crimes.) We can't really frame it as them killing people indiscriminately in the article voice unless there's a lot of coverage that does the same thing, which doesn't really reflect the sources you listed here (they plainly describe it as an accident.) Maybe we could add a cautiously-worded sentence to that paragraph about the longer-term implications of the incident specifically, if there's a lot of sources discussing that. See eg. [39] and [40]; the first one in particular is probably better for what you're going for than the sources you presented. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, it has it's own wiki page by now. Also the two Christian women shot outside the Catholic Church on 17 December. Irtapil (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Checking structure

I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to produce an outline

outline

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]". Bot: I. Introduction A. Definition and background of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Overview of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war C. Importance and significance of the war II. Background A. Historical context of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Previous conflicts and ceasefires C. Factors leading up to the 2023 war 1. Political tensions 2. Socio-economic factors 3. Regional dynamics III. Causes and Triggers A. Immediate causes of the war B. Key incidents leading to escalation C. Role of external factors and international relations 1. Influence of neighboring countries 2. Role of international organizations and superpowers IV. Course of the War A. Timeline of major events and battles B. Strategies and tactics employed by Israel and Hamas C. Humanitarian impact and civilian casualties D. Role of media and propaganda V. International Response A. Reactions from regional and international actors B. Mediation efforts and peace initiatives C. Role of the United Nations and other international organizations D. Arms trade and military support to the conflicting parties VI. Aftermath A. Ceasefire agreements and negotiations B. Impact on the Israeli and Palestinian societies C. Political consequences and power dynamics in the region D. Rebuilding efforts and humanitarian aid VII. Controversies and Criticisms A. Allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses B. Debate on proportionality and self-defense C. Criticisms of international community's response D. Challenges to achieving a lasting peace VIII. Analysis and Perspectives A. Evaluation of the war's outcomes and achievements B. Examination of long-term implications for the region C. Perspectives on the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict D. Potential for reconciliation and peace-building IX. Notable Individuals and Organizations A. Key political figures and military leaders involved B. Humanitarian organizations and activists working in the region C. Analysts and experts providing insights on the conflict X. See Also A. Related conflicts and wars in the Middle East B. Notable peace agreements and negotiations C. Other articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict XI. References A. Credible sources and citations for the article's content B. Books, academic papers, and official reports C. News articles and interviews with experts XII. External Links A. Links to relevant websites, official statements, and reports B. Organizations working towards peace and conflict resolution

Bot structure:

• Background
• Causes and Triggers
• Course of the War
• International Response
• Aftermath
• Controversies and Criticisms
• Analysis and Perspectives
• Notable Individuals and Organizations

Current structure:

• Background
• Historical context
• Events
• Other confrontations
• Casualties
• Humanitarian situation
• Destruction of cultural heritage
• War crimes
• Negotiations and diplomacy
• Reactions
• Regional effects
• Media coverage

There are issues with the bot's suggested structure, but it's right that the current structure is bloated. I.e currently there is background and historical context, these should be amalgamated. Other consolidation is achievable, Tom B (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Tom, I am very wary of relying on an LLM bot (with experience, it's not hard to pose questions that have demonstrably false or irrelevant results; in fact, if you call them on it, they'll even apologize very politely for getting it wrong in their next response!), nevertheless, here's a tip you may enjoy if you decide to try again. If you word it carefully enough, an LLM chatbot can learn in one question how to emit properly formatted nested Wikipedia section headers instead of the default Harvard outline, if you just say "outline". On a different tack, if you ask for specific sources, it will generally emit a plain-text format with minimal data, and you can coax it to expand it somewhat, but it only goes so far; however beware, because there is a higher level of hallucinations when generating sources, and they all look very persuasive, and some might be real, and some might be pure invention, and some might be half and half. Once you've got your list of refs, you can teach it in one or two comments to reformat it into Wikipedia cite book or cite journal format.

Coming back to your question, I asked it your question, and explained Wikipedia section headers, and it came up with a decent format. But our expectations play tricks on us, because it "looks good". After that query, I asked it this question, and you can view the results:

Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict".

Prior to this question, I had explained Wikipedia section header structure in a previous query. User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict". Chatbot: 2023 New Zealand–Tasmania Conflict == Background == === Historical Relations === Overview of the historical diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties between New Zealand and Tasmania Past conflicts or collaborations that shaped the relationship === Pre-Conflict Tensions === Examination of pre-existing issues and disputes that contributed to the strained relations Analysis of political, social, and economic factors leading up to the conflict == Causes == === Immediate Triggers === Detailed exploration of the specific events or incidents that sparked the conflict Analysis of how these triggers escalated into open hostilities === Root Causes === Examination of deeper political, economic, and social factors contributing to the conflict Historical grievances or systemic issues that played a role == Participants == === New Zealand's Involvement === Overview of New Zealand's political stance, military contributions, and diplomatic actions Key figures and decision-makers in New Zealand during the conflict === Tasmania's Role === Overview of Tasmania's position, military strategies, and diplomatic engagements Key figures and decision-makers in Tasmania during the conflict === International Actors === Roles and contributions of other regional and international actors Involvement of neighboring countries, international organizations, and peacekeeping efforts == Timeline == === Early Events === Chronological account of events leading up to the outbreak of the conflict Political developments, diplomatic tensions, and military buildups === Key Battles === Detailed chronology of significant military engagements and operations Naval, air, and ground battles with strategic importance === Diplomatic Developments === Overview of diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and peace talks throughout the conflict Key milestones in diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Tasmania == Impact == === Humanitarian Consequences === Examination of the impact on civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons Assessment of humanitarian aid and response efforts during and after the conflict === Economic and Environmental Impact === Analysis of the economic toll and environmental consequences of the conflict Long-term effects on industries, infrastructure, and ecosystems === Post-Conflict Challenges === Assessment of the challenges faced by both New Zealand and Tasmania in the aftermath Reconstruction, reconciliation, and efforts to rebuild trust == International Response == === Diplomatic Reactions === Overview of how the international community responded diplomatically to the conflict Sanctions, condemnations, or endorsements from other nations and organizations === Peacekeeping Efforts === Roles played by international peacekeeping forces, if any, during and after the conflict Successes and challenges in maintaining peace and stability == Media Coverage == === Media Narratives === Analysis of how the conflict was portrayed in the media of New Zealand, Tasmania, and internationally Impact of media narratives on public perception and international opinion === Propaganda and Misinformation === Examination of any instances of propaganda or misinformation during the conflict Impact on public understanding and international relations == Controversies and Criticisms == === War Crimes Allegations === Overview of any allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses during the conflict International responses and investigations into these allegations === Criticisms of International Actors === Examination of criticisms directed at regional and international actors involved in the conflict Evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives == Reconciliation Efforts == === Post-Conflict Diplomacy === Overview of diplomatic initiatives aimed at rebuilding relations between New Zealand and Tasmania Bilateral talks, agreements, and joint efforts for regional stability === Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction === Examination of international aid efforts and reconstruction projects in the affected regions Collaborative initiatives for recovery and development == See Also == === Related Conflicts === Links to articles on conflicts with similar themes, causes, or outcomes === Diplomatic Initiatives === Links to articles on diplomatic efforts and negotiations involving New Zealand and Tasmania == References == === Citations === Citations and sources for information used in the article === Further Reading === Additional resources for readers interested in more in-depth exploration of the topic

Looks great, doesn't it? Except for one, wee little problem. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you, yes if you put rubbish in, you'll get rubbish out e.g. a fictitious conflict. My mine takeaway is the current structure of this real article is bloated, so it's been helpful: it suggest where you might rationalise and neutralise. i might even have a go at putting that into the article. simplifying some of the headers. 'Generating sources' sounds wrong! so i don't do that. i only use it for summarising and reformulating existing content. the worst case scenario is that it recopies existing mistakes if you don't manually check, but the risk is massively reduced when you're reprocessing existing content. generating anything new creates some risk. there's a link on my userpage to a user who's developed the tool i was using. in testing they were asked to remove the more risky elements. it sounds like you might have suggestions on how to reword the questions to the bot, you could give him? thanks again, Tom B (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe you give LLM too much credit. You can get garbage out regardless, and just because you start off with a legitimate query doesn't insulate you from that. Beyond that, the response your got to your query is no different in kind than the response to my query, because your query is also based on a fictitious conflict as far as the chatbot is concerned. Their training data does not include anything since the conflict started, so it basically invented all those headings you got in response, just like it invented all the ones I got. It does well enough at a surface level that it looks pretty convincing at first blush, until you start examining it a bit, and realize there's nothing there; it's all invention. Your response was the same as mine, essentially. Smoke and mirrors; nothing real. Mathglot (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not all invention. There are issues with Chat GPT 3.5's structure, but it's correctly less bloated e.g. background, not background and historical context, which can be consolidated. At third blush, Tom B (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

that was very confusing… Irtapil (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked ChatBot v4 (trained to Apr 2023):

outline

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]". Introduction Brief overview of the conflict. Key dates and locations. Primary parties involved (Israel and Hamas). Background Historical context leading up to the 2023 conflict. Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas. Political and social conditions in the region prior to 2023. Prelude to the War Specific events that triggered the conflict in 2023. Diplomatic efforts, if any, before the outbreak of hostilities. Statements and positions of the involved parties. Timeline of the War A chronological account of major events, battles, and military operations. Notable incidents and turning points in the conflict. International Response Reactions from key international players (e.g., United Nations, United States, European Union). Economic and military aid or sanctions by other countries. Efforts at mediation or peace talks. Humanitarian Impact Casualty figures and demographic breakdown. Impact on civilian populations, including displacement and refugee crisis. Reports from humanitarian organizations. Media Coverage and Propaganda How the war was reported in local and international media. Use of propaganda and information warfare tactics by the involved parties. Analysis Military strategies and tactics used by Israel and Hamas. Political and strategic objectives of each side. Assessments by military and political analysts. Aftermath and Consequences Immediate outcomes of the conflict. Long-term implications for the region and the involved parties. Post-war reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.

Chat GPT 4.0 structure:

• Background
• Prelude
• Timeline
• International response
• Humanitarian impact
• Media coverage & propaganda
• Analysis
• Aftermath and Consequences

Current structure

• Background
• Events
• Other confrontations
• Casualties
• Humanitarian situation
• War crimes
• Negotiations and diplomacy
• Reactions
• Regional effects
• Media coverage

• I feel like the question of whether we can or should use ChatGPT for stuff like this should be discussed elsewhere (there was some effort to create a policy for WP:LLMs, but discussions broke down, so all we really have is an essay, with little formal guidance.) But it's important to point out that ChatGPT won't know about the war at all because its training set only goes up to early 2022. It also doesn't seem to have Wikipedia policy itself in its training set - it knows about the really big ones, like BLP and UNDUE, presumably because they're covered elsewhere, but it doesn't know about more obscure ones. The structure of Wikipedia articles is something it is likely relatively good at (since Wikipedia was part of its training set), but I'm skeptical about, you know... relying on it as an argument for a large-scale change like this, because ultimately there's a bunch of context-specific details that it can't handle. If we were writing an article from scratch, maybe relying on it for the basic shape of an initial outline would make sense, but using it to argue for a change to the structure of an existing article is basically saying you think ChatGPT has better judgment than the editors who put together the existing article, which is at least on the face of it a bit risible. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

i agree with chatgpt v3, that background and historical context shoudn't duplicate each other. and i agree with v4 that casualties aren't separate from the humanitarian situation, Tom B (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on sexual violence in lead section

Should the lead section contain a few sentences concerning the sexual violence during the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023? ' If so, should the Hamas denial be included? Option A would be to include a few sentences with no denial. Option B include with a denial. Option C do not include. Coretheapple (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give example sources for "the Hamas denial"? I saw one interview, but I am not sure if what I saw is what you have in mind. Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree including it as it has been a contentious topic that has received notability. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey 2

• Option A, Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate WP:LEADl and WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOTCENSORED.There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced"[41] It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:FALSEBALANCE While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'

One point re the denial that needs to be stressed. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, is not followed by a response or denial from Israel, even though Israel has indeed responded to or denied every single element of the lead. Putting in the perfunctory Hamas response to the rapes, and only that response out of everything else in the lead, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) second paragraph added. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you list a couple of these 'everything' please. NadVolum (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 540,000,000 results for "flat earth" with no quotes. The claims are more credible than that, I'm just saying I don't think those figures prove much by themselves. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A, will accept B. I do not think the denial is helpful, per WP:MANDY, but if it will help this pass I will accept that compromise. Andre🚐 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C would accept B as well, but A is a non-starter to me. The 45 million general google hits are completely irrelevant, as we arent going to start counting random blogs and twitter accounts as reliable sources all of a sudden. The USA Today article is relevant in that it reports The Israeli military official said that, just as authorities know that many women were sexually assaulted during the Supernova music festival and at their homes on Oct. 7, "we know they were raped in Hamas captivity.", somehow presented as though the USA Today is undersigning that claim from an Israeli military official in the opening comment here, but it does not. The USA Today article also includes Despite this evidence, Hamas has consistently denied accusations it used sexual violence on Oct. 7. It has claimed the allegations are part of an attempt by Israel to distract from its mass killings of civilians in Gaza. International human rights groups waited two months before finally condemning the sexual violence. Nearly all the sources that include any accusation of rape includes the denial by Hamas as well, if it is to be included it has to include the denial per NPOV. But why should it not be included? Because the rape charges are almost entirely focused on the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and the sourcing here in relation to the overall war does not show that it is a prominent controversy for this subject and not the child article on the attack. There are 16,400 news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", 14,800 for "rape" "hamas" (many overlapping), nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes (114k news results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023"). Or to "starvation" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" with 78,400 news results. "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" gets 25,900 news results. For the overall topic, this just does not have the weight in coverage to merit inclusion in the lead. For the 7 October attacks? Yes, of course it does. But for the war that is entering its 11th week and not limited to one day in October, this is not a prominent controversy to be included in the lead. nableezy - 05:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. The initial reports, endlessly recycled since, were extremely confused, internally contradictory, and endlessly touted despite numerous corrections, or dropping off the radar of serious reportage, over time. We still don't appear to know if the rape incidents reported reflect a Hamas strategy, are attributable to other militant groups, or the general flux of indiscriminate groups ranging over the landscape and wreaking violence. A large number of similar, specific reports about burning, decapitating, ovening babies etc., are now viewed sceptically, and until we have specific forensic evidence of the scale or scope of these reported crimes, any statement formulated to assert, as was done from the outset in Israeli news reports, that this was a systematic aspect of the 4 hour Hamas onslaught on the border communities, will reflect a partisan claim, not an ascertained fact. Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This dismissive rejection of overwhelming evidence and testimony comes disappointingly close to the kind of sexual violence denialism that has been deprecated and rejected worldwide over the past few decades. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This skepticism is warranted. Israelis have already been caught lying about the details of October 7th. The most notable example is the 40 beheaded babies story. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C: this war inside Gaza has been going on for 2 and a half months, the 7/10 attack last several hours. Iennes (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC

  The duration of these events is irrelevant to our content policy. It's also false that the sexual violence occurred only on the first day.

  The nature of the initial attack and the ongoing treatment of the hostages has received ongoing coverage in RS, and the coverage is increasing as new investigations reveal the extent of the conduct. It also has been cited as enabling Netanyahu's refusal to moderate the intensity of Israel's counterattack.

  Pearl Harbor/WW2, Archduke assassinationi/WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Tea Party, etc. were all discrete events the significance of which is not diminished by their brevity. We are continuing to see daily coverage, testimony and forensic evidence, and no credible information to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  You dont need to badger people and make this an unreadable mess; if you want to discuss somebody's vote do it in the discussion section where they may ignore you at their leisure. nableezy - 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Pearl Harbour and Archduke were precipitators of a large conflict; the sparks which ignited a fire. They are not really comparable to a handful of alleged excesses that occurred in a military invasion, but which otherwise had no further reaching consequences. JDiala (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. This is a WP:BALASP issue and a matter of WP:DUE. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war; Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel; 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about the entire war. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. WillowCity^(talk) 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is not a newspaper and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  For Israeli atrocities, we generally mention Israeli denials even when they are not credible, eg lead of Shireen Abu Akleh.VR _talk 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is factually incorrect that the press currently less frequently mentions Hamas' denials. The recent NYT investigation regarding this explicitly noted Hamas' denials in the article. Furthermore, it is not unusual to include denials of crimes in the lead even when those crimes are generally accepted to be true, especially when said crimes are done by state or quasi-state actors like Hamas. The Armenian Genocide is an example of this. We explicitly discuss Turkish denial in the lead. JDiala (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.Crampcomes (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. A just doesn't make sense from a WP:DUE standpoint. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly (Option B). Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to note that while Hamas denies allegations of sexual assault or mutilation committed by members of its armed wing, it does not deny such acts performed by others who participated in the attack. Therefore, this is not an actual denial of the fact that sexual violence has indeed taken place during the attack. Marokwitz (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of Option C as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. Ergzay (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A per Hawkeye7. The war began with Hamas atrocities that shocked the world and traumatized Israel, and the Hamas denials lack credibility and inclusion would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't include Israeli denials in the lead as also observed above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This has clearly received significant coverage in Western media. Recent articles in American, British and Australian reliable news outlets, for example. Sources tend to mention the Hamas denial briefly and only after the allegations have been made in full over several paragraphs, so I think we should keep the denial out of the lead. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C. The October 7 attack and kidnapping are the events that triggered the current invasion in Gaza. However, the rape accusations have no bearing on Israel's decision for this specific military operation. Including them is more likely to serve Israel's propaganda purposes (false consciousness) than an encyclopedic one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C as information that is currently both poorly verified and largely tangential to the narrative of the war as a whole, which is the topic. These claims are merely one subset of atrocity claim under investigation and do not require detailing in the lead. Much emphasis was placed by Israel on this material after the renewal of violence in Gaza, but this POV emphasis does not make it of overall due weight emphasis as lead detail: on the contrary, it might violate NPOV to do so. Option B would likewise be preferable to Option A in asserting a modicum of balance, but both are less preferable overall as undue in terms of overall weight considerations. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true. Given the coverage, it also belongs in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fortunately, your personal analysis is entirely irrelevant here. Zero^talk 07:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A. Exceedingly well covered topic. And including Hamas's denial would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. As per Marokwitz below, we should try to use language similar to that of the Guardian. Dovidroth (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Widely covered by WP:RS, Major controversies must be prominently featured in the lead section as per Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:LEDE). I oppose option B for the following reason: The denial of sexual violence in this context has become a fringe view, especially in light of substantial and reliable accounts that have surfaced. For example, according to The Guardian:

  Several incidents of sexual assault and rape from 7 October have been documented by Hamas body camera footage, CCTV, material uploaded to social media, and photographs and videos taken by civilians and first responders, according to several people involved in analysing the footage. Survivor and witness testimonies, many from the Supernova rave, describe seeing women being raped before they were shot.

The language used in the lead could be similar to the one used by the Guardian, that is, attributing the evidence to survivors, witness testimonies and forensic staff.

This evidence has resulted in UN Women's explicit condemnation of the sexual violence that occurred. Hamas may deny that its fighters carried out sexual violence, but it is a fact that not only Hamas fighters participated in the attack, therefore this denial is meaningless and misleading.

Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that denying or downplaying these heinous acts is not only factually incorrect but also morally reprehensible. Such denial would be a profound insult to the female victims, akin to silencing their voices and negating their traumatic experiences. Applying a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the victims and perpetrators in this context not only undermines the veracity of the reported events but also perpetuates a harmful narrative that could further victimize the victims. Marokwitz (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C - Per Nableezy and Willowcity. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C Without commenting on the sourcing: we have a separate article for the October 7th attacks. Details about the October 7th attacks go in the lead of that article, not this one. Loki (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C as these are WP:UNDUE for the lead of this article, but option B for 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as they are WP:DUE there. Many Israeli actions have received more RS coverage, as nableezy points out, but can't be given the space they deserve because of concerns surrounding length. For example, I find that gaza starvation has 95,000 results, or 8x more than hamas rape which is 12,000 results for me. Will we give 8x more sentences to the starvation of Gazans in the lead as we give to the sexual assault claims? Various other topics not mentioned in the lead all get more news hits than the rape allegations: shifa = 17,000, "indonesian hospital" gaza = 16,000, cancer gaza = 119,000 (the plight of cancer patients amidst the war) etc.VR _talk 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've got only 13,000 results for Gaza starvation, which would be about the same. Not sure why the discrepancy. If you switch over to plain google results, hamas rape has about 10m more results than Gaza starvation. [00:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)] I also have different results for your other links. Same number for Shifa, but for Indonesian hospital Gaza, only 6800. For cancer Gaza I have the same high number, but I suspect that not all of those results are about this. Andre🚐 00:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A sexual violence by Hamas has been condemned by dozens of leaders, senators, figures etc. A bunch of international media outlets have reported on it, and gotten testimonies. Prosecution already has collected a substantial amount of evidence over the past several months. There is footage, some of it spread by Hamas itself of women bloodied in between their legs and other things. It would be a complete wp:falsebalance to give equal weight to Hamas denial of the actions.
  I do think the body should include a denial. However the lead should be option A. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Mentioning the topic is especially important because the very extreme violence (not just sexual) of October 7 is what later on shaped the goals, length and the extent of the campaign in Gaza. It is also important in order to understand why the 2023 Gaza War was so different than the ones in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Option B might have sufficed but due to the sheer amount of WP:RS, I think this is just WP:FALSEBALANCE. FoodforLLMs (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, "mentioning the topic is especially important because we need the atrocity propaganda to justify an ongoing genocide." Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not the propaganda arm of the Israeli government. JDiala (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:AGF please argue policy rather than making personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please tone down your sarcasm and accusations, I think it's highly uncalled for. To address the substance, We are supposed to present the facts to the reader and let them formulate a narrative. For example, just as you need to see the Palestinian casualty figure to understand condemnations of Israeli actions, you need to see details of the Oct 7 attack to understand support for Israeli actions. And I think our job is to show these facts. --FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A absolutely. It would be such a gross violation of WP:NPOV to not include it in the lead. EytanMelech (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C as UNDUE and unreliably sourced. I would accept Option B. The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war, despite that many of their wild claims have been found to be fabrications. All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF. It would be a violation of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to include this likely false claim in wikivoice in the lead of this article, let alone without the denial from Palestinians. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  “All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF.”

  What does attributing it to Zionist mean? Are you referring to Israeli first responders? Could you rephrase?

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

  ”The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks.”

  https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20231213-evidence-mounts-of-sexual-crimes-perpetrated-by-hamas-during-oct-7-attack-in-israel

  “Two months after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day. Prosecutors have little doubt that women were raped, tortured and some of their dead bodies mutilated. Israeli police, who opened a probe in mid-November, say they have gathered more than 1,500 testimonies from witnesses and first responders.” Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC is at this stage the government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power running reconnaissance missions over Gaza from Cyprus. As in all cases, we should be seeking reliable, secondary sources that are as independent as possible. As for the France 24 piece, that says "prosecutors" (presumably Israeli prosecutors) are confident of X - now prosecutors are specifically in the business of making a strong case rather than neutrally and impartially reflecting the facts. Their counterpart would be the defense, which isn't reflected here (if this is in reference to the ICC filing, then we may be waiting some while). In the same breath, the same source notes that the UN investigation is evidently ongoing - so we are still awaiting impartial voices on proceedings. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Those are both reliable secondary independent sources, that’s why we use them. Please don’t misrepresent sources, France24 wrote “evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day”. Along with the myriad of others that also report Hamas’ murderous rape spree.

  The argument by some editors that we should ignore reliable sources is ridiculous. The argument that we should ignore Israeli civilians and human rights organizations because they are Israeli is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, the way a reliable source like the BBC turns into a government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power because it does not toe a pro-Hamas party line is clearly motivated reasoning. No difference to Trump calling those outlets that contradict him "fake news". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  They’re not misrepresenting anything. BBC (British state media) is saying it’s “seen evidence” which is not the same as saying that something occurred. If a source said they’d “seen evidence” that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians, would you want it included in the lead that Israel is targeting civilians? And would you agree that the statement of every Palestinian civilian or human rights organization is lead-worthy?

  I don’t think people are suggesting they be ignored outright, they belong in the body with appropriate attribution and context. But these accounts are generally filtered through Israeli government sources (prosecutors, police, the military) who have a vested interest in spin-doctoring evidence to fit the narrative of a belligerent to the conflict (one who famously lacks credibility). For example, who knows what kind of editing the video shown to BBC was subject to? How reliable was the witnesses’ perception, how much do they even remember, are they sincere? These are not issues the BBC opines on. The question is not “are Israeli civilians telling the truth”, the question is “are the reports sufficiently notable, credible and unequivocal to justify including in the lead?” The even more important question is, “do these allegations tell readers anything about the ongoing 12-week war, or would focusing extensively on a single day skew the narrative towards one POV?”

  (also, can we all try to keep the discussion to the discussion section) WillowCity^(talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  The repeated assertion by some that Israeli witnesses, first responders, and human rights organizations are not trustworthy due to their nationality is unacceptable.

Currently on the home page of The NY Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel” “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7”Drsmoo (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A, per SPECIFICO, Hawkeye7 and Marokwitz. The cruelty of the 7.10 attack, including the sexual violence, resulted the wide support in Israel to a harsh response. The credibility (or more accurately, the lack of credibility) of the denial should also be considered, as we describe the reality. The denial is indeed a fringe view. I think that option B, if it includes a clarification that the denials are not taken seriously and widely condemned, can also be good, and even give a better perspective, but it will be too long for the lead, so it's better not to write about the denials in the lead at all. פעמי-עליון (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we should include this information (the weight in the media does give it proper DUE weight) and leave out the denial as I do also believe it is "fringe". MaximusEditor (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A as per Hawkeye7 and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A per Andre. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 02:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C Such details and denials about what happened on the first day of the attack belong to the lede of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C I've been convinced by the argument brought up below by User:WillowCity and User:Sameboat would make Option B give undue weight to sexual violence in contrast to other conflicts. Option A is for me a nonstarter. To include it we would have to adjudicate that Israel's claims are valid, that any rebuttal is invalid, AND that including it is so factual and important that it doesn't even warrant including usual context. I think it would be a flagrant violation of NPOV. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  After reading a few rather convincing arguments above from User:Marokwitz, the denial from Hamas referring only to their members, any form of option B would have to be very carefully worded. I'm not sure that option B would make much sense in that light. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A' or Option B per Associated Press. “Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took more than 240 hostages that day.” Drsmoo (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: From The NY Times today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.” Drsmoo (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C It should absolutely not be discussed in the lead. The Zionist state has demonstrably produced false atrocity propaganda regarding the October 7th resistance operation, like the 40 beheaded babies lie, which incidentally the uncritical Western media has parroted. We thus have reasonable suspicion that these sexual assault allegations are likewise fabricated. The lack of forensic evidence (e.g., semen) or pregnant Israeli women is also eyebrow-raising. I understand that Wikipedia does regard Western media as WP:RS, which I accept and do not contest, so it is reasonable to include the sexual violence claims somewhere in the article. However, I think it is fair for us to exclude it from the lead, given the very real reservations regarding this. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could you articulate a policy-based reason why we should ignore widespread attestation in the most reliable sources, and why we should ignore eyewitness testimony from Israelis. Your allegation that the evidence of sexual assault is fabricated because it comes from Israelis is not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) and 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I never stated we should "ignore" it. I simply asserted it shouldn't be in the lead. Something being reported by a widespread number of sources is a necessary but insufficient reason to be included in a lead. It is also important to note that this legalistic focus on "policies" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia see e.g., WP:5P5. It is completely sensible for us, as an encyclopedia, to have a greater degree of scrutiny for an entity known for regularly producing bald-faced lies regarding the events of this war. This doesn't mean eschewing such claims altogether, but merely relegating them to the body of the article rather than the lead. JDiala (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-08/ty-article/israeli-police-collect-eyewitness-testimony-of-gang-rape-during-hamas-attack/0000018b-b025-d3c1-a39b-bee5ef400000 Which entity are you referring to, the testimony of eyewitnesses? I don't like putting words into peoples mouths, but your argument seems to be that not only should we ignore the wide array of highly reliable sources, but we should also ignore all Israeli eyewitness accounts, and first-responder accounts, because you think they're untrustworthy. That position would not be valid. Drsmoo (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit 16 May 2024

• Option C. Came to that decision having read the arguments of those who have already answered. A is out of the question as it's a breach of NPOV in showing bias towards one side when neither side has any credibility as regards truth. B is a "he said she said" option, which in an article based on a broader issue (where a multitude of more widely covered events that have transpired throughout the war do not make the lede) seems excessive/undue to mention. Therefore C seems the most appropriate option as it keeps to substantiated facts without giving undue weight/balance. It's the most dispassionate option. As a side issue (given it has been used as an argument), media outlets (otherwise reputable on other issues) without verified, independent information can't be used to validate claims either, as western ones have historically had a bias one way, while middle eastern ones have had an opposing slant; what's been new about this current episode of the conflict is more of the masses are not being taken in either way, thus have a more independent/unhindered view of what is happening. Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B I think it is pretty clear that sexual assault and rape occurred during the initial attack, which is unsurprising since that's how most wars seem to go. What is unclear is the extent of the assaults, which is why most RS still include the Hamas denial; until this is clearer, the Hamas denial of its armed forces not being responsible should also be mentioned.
• Option A. A denial is undue weight for the lede; reliable sources, such as thus extensive NYT report only mention the denials in passing and afford no credulity to them or detailed coverage. Similarly, it would be undue to exclude the tapes from the lede; they are very widely covered and the extent of said coverage is only increasing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A Yes as the October 7 attack was the core event starting the war, and the brutality of it has been very widely reported so we should report what reliable sources state. The Hamas denial isn't relevant per the aforementioned WP:MANDY. It's also very important to state the course of events as a fact in wiki-voice- often in these articles editors have been adding wording such as "Israel reports that Hamas carried out sexual assaults occurred on October 7" rather than the direct factual wording of "Hamas carried out sexual assaults on October 7". Reliable sources are very clear that the mass sexual assaults did unfortunately happen and the wording needs to reflect this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. The lead is overdetailed in many places. The article does not explain whether or how the scale of the sexual violence during the October 7 attack factors into Israel's decision-making. Senorangel (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C or B, I wholly endorse arguments of Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC and WillowCity. Sexual violence - and particularly organised, weaponised, sexual violence - was a notable feature of the Bosnian war, particularly against Bosniak women, but it isn't mentioned in the lead, nor was the scale of its occurence reliably established at the time. At the present moment, the scale and extent of sexual violence on October 7th is unknown - and largely unknowable - and information about it has been highly weaponised, despite little coming from competent forensic authorities. Editors here are tending to argue that because some 'horror stories' are probably true, then all must be true. Two sad facts are that sexual violence is a normal feature of most wars and that weaponising of atrocity stories is nearly as common. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A So many words here for the obvious thing: the evidence is very precise. Legitimizing the denial of the claims of sexual violence of women in this context is against any liberal and feminist thought. The only way to include claims of denial can be in the context of bashing those who deny - similar to mentioning Holocaust denial. Agmonsnir (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A this best represents the current reliable sources about the brutal attacks. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A per Marokwitz. The topic is widely covered by mainstream media, including the thorough examination of The New York Times published lately. It is one of the major controversies related to the attack, and as such it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEDE. Hamas denial, as suggested in Option B, is not helpful here, and may be considered fringe view regarding the vast coverage of the sexual violence by so many reliable sources. Noon (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Regarding the completely made up claim that the denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned and the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials, sources to this day include that Hamas denies the accusations of rape, the overwhelming majority of sources that refer to any claims of rape or sexual assault include the denial. The most recent one I am aware of is USA Today writing about the Israeli military saying they know hostages were raped includes the denial. Such a series of unsubstantiated assertions as made in that comment should have evidence provided for it or it should not be taken seriously at all. nableezy - 16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and the denial is in the body of the article. No one is arguing that the denial should not be in the body of the article, only not in the lead. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, has drawn a response from Israel or a denial. But such denials are not mentioned. Putting in the Hamas denial, and only the Hamas denial, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What accusation by Hamas against Israel is included without a response? nableezy - 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, you keep acting like Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated as 50 50 equal players on every question, and what we do for one hand we must do equally for others. It's not a good model for NPOV or life or justice. Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. Hamas is a small group with a small quasi-territory that launched an attack against significant odds, alone, with no support, and is basically an international pariah due to the atrocities during that attack, and we don't need to act like it's possible that they didn't happen or that they weren't terrible, or that whatever denials issued by Hamas are credible, unless some credible academic or journalistic source does so. We also shouldn't act like those events didn't precipitate this entire war.

Israel is a large, well-armed, wealthy and powerful state backed by the US, UK, France, Australia, and basically every Western and English speaking powerful country, under quite a bit of scrutiny and being accused of all manner of things from apartheid to genocide, and we should absolutely treat those as complex both-sides type issues inasmuch as there are people debating them who are reliable (though, in my view, the genocide allegation goes too far and is inaccurate). On some issues yes, there's a complex narrative and we must balance the views of Palestinians versus Israelis, each group has separate factions, such as Fatah, or the different Israeli groups that range from Meretz and Labour to Likud to Blue&White to Shas and Yisrael Beteinu. And no, there are not credible allegations that Israelis are raping Palestinians, not like there are of Hamas. So we don't need to act like these things are the same. The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists. So not every atrocity needs a response. We should simply cover them as the majority of sources do, and not try to both-sides every issue.

The point is to describe in the lead what the majority of yes, Western, yes, English-speaking, sources think are the most pertinent issues. Yes, there have been widespread calls for a ceasefire and widespread reports of indiscriminate civilian deaths in Gaza. We do not try to include Israeli denials of that or whatever weak PR Israeli spokespeople put out about it trying to spin or downplay those massive civilian deaths. Because that wouldn't be credible, and it's not edifying. Andre🚐 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As much Hamas is a small group with limited international support, Israel is also a small country with international pariah status by some metrics. What else would one call UN general assembly votes where all but three other countries agree with their position? Both entities have credibility that is in the dirt on the global stage due to the unacceptable aspects of their conduct, and the relative weight and/or credibility of either in any conflict scenario is of equally little weight relative to impartial and independent secondary, reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You're mostly right except for matters of perspective and a few important aspects that are distorting. Israel is a small country geographically, worldwide. But relative to Gaza, it's quite large. About 60 times as large by land area, a little under 5x as large by population. More importantly, their relative power dynamics. And the 3 other countries are pretty large in terms of that. As far as the UN votes, you're right. Most vote for a ceasefire or to condemn Israeli settlements. My point was about the relative power dynamics at play. Israel is a state and it has to abide by things that states have. Hamas, not so much. Andre🚐 02:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we feature all significant views; scaling said significance is a trickier matter. My point was that within the context of their globally parochial conflict, the relative weight of Israel/Hamas pales alongside their equal partiality as combatants, and the primary views of either are little more than POV commentary short of validation by independent, secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

'The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists.' Sure, so Hamas went and raped peace activists all along the border.

To repeat, we are caught up in the furor of reports from 7-8 Oct of rape, mutilation, beheadings, burning babies. rare later reports tell us forensic doctors and police are sifting through these reports meticulously and exhaustively, but that so far we have no statistical evidence other than an indication from interviews with hostages who have been returned that slightly under 10% reported experiencing some form of sexual molestation.

This is what Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for Physicians for Human Rights–Israel stated 10 days ago, guardedly>-

“What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times. . .What we don’t know and what the police are investigating is whether it was ordered to be done and whether it was systematic.” Sam Mednick New signs emerge of ‘widespread’ sexual crimes by Hamas, as Netanyahu alleges global indifference Associated Press 15 December 2023

That means that we have some sparse facts of sexual violence befalling a number of the several hundred civilians, and extensive allegations that this was systematic and specific to Hamas policy. Not enough for the lead, as yet.Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. you mean like displace 2 million people, kill 20,000 in 10 weeks, starve a civilian population? And when you think something goes to far and is innaccurate that means we shouldn’t include it? Genocide accusations have a ton more coverage than rape accusations, but you think one of those should be included unanswered and the other just brushed aside? Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then. nableezy - 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. That's happened before, and worse things have happened before. In fact actual genocide has happened before, with 6 million Jews exterminated by Nazis, many LGBT and Romani, etc., or other documented genocides such as the Armenians. As far as the genocide accusations they certainly don't have more coverage or at least not by much, and I haven't seen that source survey. There's also a legal definition of genocide not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. So, no, it's not the same, it's a false equivalency. The rapes have documentary and photographic evidence. Andre🚐 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That happened in Gaza? Was it Hamas? As far as source survey: 25k results for "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" vs 14,800 for "rape" "hamas". Do you hear yourself on not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. You are saying we cannot accuse Israel of a crime (genocide) because of living people and special rules, but we can accuse Hamas of a crime (rape) because reasons? nableezy - 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Because that event has been proven shown more likely true than not"[added as "proven" was inexact/incorrect legallyAndre🚐] by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. So to act like it's still in doubt or deny it happened or downplay it is problematic. Whereas genocide has a number of legal elements that haven't been shown. Apartheid, as I said, is defensible, and arguable, and I might agree that it exists in Israel. The West Bank settlers are also violating international law and have been guilty of several illegal and atrocious things. We don't need to dance around them. If there's clear evidence and nobody can really dispute it except for a basic denial, it should be treated as more likely than not if that's what the sources support. Of course, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV demand balance, but balance isn't, "include the denial of everything that someone/group is accused of." Balance means reading all the sources, balance them out, and distill the mainstream positions in a proportionately accurate way. If 75% or 95% of sources agree and you discount the remaining 5 or 25% for some reason (such as WP:MANDY or a contradiction or the fact that the claimant is a terrorist group with poor credibility on that particular point), that's how I balance it out. WP:FRINGE and WP:BALASP exist to avoid giving too much platforming to ideas that are not mainstream. The idea that the rapes didn't occur is exactly that kind of flat-eartherism in my view. Whether genocide is occurring is debatable at best, but I'd say that the elements aren't there. We don't need to debate that though, because it's a larger topic and doesn't belong on this page. Andre🚐 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but youre just making things upexaggerating the evidence and the certainty of the sources. There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials. You can believe the same organizations that made up a baby in the oven or 40 beheaded babies if you want, but please dont misrepresent what the evidence is here. There are no videos, that is not true. And 75-95% of sources do not agree that this happened. Because they dont say it in their own words that it happened, they say who has said it happened and what evidence they have presented for it. They also say who has said it did not happen. You can and others can misrepresent what the sources actually say, but Ive read them and I dont need to just pretend that this misrepresentation is accurate at all. You can say Hamas is a terrorist group with poor credibility, and my response is Israel as a state is an established liar, over decades and in this conflict, and if you want to believe everything they say you can do that, but I dont think that is appropriate for a serious source to accept as fact the claims of a party engaged in active armed conflict and who has provably lied over and over again. And neither do the sources who relay Israeli accusations as Israeli accusations. nableezy - 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've not misrepresented sources. In one photo, a burned body appears to project anguish. In another, a woman lies naked from the waist down, her underwear hanging from her leg. In interviews, first responders haltingly describe finding naked female corpses tied to beds and survivors recount witnessing a gang rape at the music festival...Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre.[42] Andre🚐 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ZAKA, an organization that has been repeatedly found to have manufactured acts of barbarism like burning a baby to death in an oven, has made these reports. Yes, there are eyewitnesses saying they saw rapes. There are no videos of sexual assault or rape, and no photographs of sexual assault or rape. Your own source repeatedly attributes the accusations to Israeli military and government sources. nableezy - 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They're photos which are evidence of rape. They're videos of young women being kidnapped, and videos showing the aftermath of rape. Arabic documents telling Hamas how to say "take off my pants." You can argue whether this evidence was "made up" or "manufactured" but the fact remains that you claimed the evidence didn't exist, and that I made it up, which is incivil. No, I read it in NBC News, an apparently reliable source that is not reliable enough for you. Andre🚐 23:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Im going to believe the military that presented a calendar as a terrorist schedule on what they found. Yes you absolutely made up that there has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. and despite your asking an admin to chastise me for it I have no problem repeating that. There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim. They have said that there is a body of evidence that increasingly suggests that it did happen. You are the one claiming that this has been proven by video, and that is false. nableezy - 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine, substitute the word proven with "substantiated to show it is more likely than not," it's still incivil to say I made it up. You can quibble on the semantics but that's not going to take away the civility violation. You can believe it was all made up. That's your prerogative. But you can't tell me that I am making it up. Andre🚐 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have to substitute something that completely transforms your statement to resemble the truth then your original statement was not true. If you feel I’ve been uncivil you can discuss that on my talk page or report it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the article so why don’t we focus on the article here? nableezy - 23:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim" - Nableezy

Andre provided you a reliable source saying that they directly saw and reviewed photographic evidence that rape occurred. NBC News is on the reliable source list, so it's a reliable source. They said they saw photographs of naked bodies strongly implying sexual violence happened. They did in fact make such a claim. Unless you're going to try to say that NBC is not a reliable source then what you've said here is obviously false.

"Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre." - NBC news.

I'd just like to hear some type of policy based justification as to why we should ignore this. Do you have an argument from WP:RS or WP:NPOV? If you're going to say that 75-90% of sources conclude that rape did not occur (or more weakly, that they don't conclude that it did occur), then where is your list of sources that you looked at to come to that conclusion? I'm just kind of hesitant to take that at face value given the quote I started this post with. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What they say is that this suggests rapes occured, not that it proved it. And there is no video. And no, I have not said sources conclude rapes did not occur, I say they have not yet concluded rapes did occur. And the sources are those like NBC who are still reporting it as an accusation, not a proven fact. nableezy - 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is video evidence; to be clear there is not video evidence of an in-action rape. There is video of young women being kidnapped, such as kidnapping of Noa Argamani. There is video of the interviews as well. See the BBC[43] Video testimony of an eyewitness at the Nova music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim. Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers. Videos filmed by Hamas include footage of one woman, handcuffed and taken hostage with cuts to her arms and a large patch of blood staining the seat of her trousers. In others, women carried away by the fighters appear to be naked or semi-clothed. Multiple photographs from the sites after the attack show the bodies of women naked from the waist down, or with their underwear ripped to one side, legs splayed, with signs of trauma to their genitals and legs. Andre🚐 00:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there are videos of violence against women, and there are videos of testimonies. That is not video proving rape. This is getting in to the weeds a bit, suffice it to say I do not think there is no evidence, I objected to the claim that the sources say the evidence proves anything, or that there are videos proving it. As far as the interrogations, what NBC says is NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations. nableezy - 00:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured" is what you said, not "There is no video evidence that has proven rape occured". Do you consider photos of naked bodies of Israeli's killed by Hamas militants proof that they were raped? I'm not sure why Hamas would be undressing women them after killing them without sexually assaulting them, but if you have some theory on that I'd be happy to hear it.

If you could, just let me know what your standard of proof for inclusion here would be. What exactly would you need to see, specifically, from a reliable source before you'd be fine including a brief mention in the lede of what seems to be a prominent topic in the reliable sources about this war? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia. nableezy - 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries, we can mention it in the lead. Of course Hamas's denial should be mentioned in the body of the article, but it is undue in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources concluding something occurred is the bare minimum requirement for saying something occurred. If you think that it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries removes that requirement then you should re-read WP:V. nableezy - 14:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports of videos existing. The one report that I personally somewhat trust (wouldn't count for wiki, just someone who claims they saw the early videos) describes "a German woman" at the music event. It described something disrespectful, but not a rape. A lot of videos have been described but never surfaced, and the stories have been distorted in repeated retellings, because most people do not want to watch that stuff. If Israel know of any video evidence they need to give it to an expert third party who investigates war crimes, not just describe it in the media. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, there are reliable sources stating that these rapes occurred. 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give them as specific citations please, ping me? Like is being being said below I've mostly heard it as "Israel says". The day became a violent mess, so all types of violence seem possible, but all the specific evidence I've seen is weak or biased. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they report that Israel has said this and that eyewitness accounts have said this. They have not concluded that they have occurred. Attributing accusations and denials is not concluding the veracity of either. nableezy - 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And to add to the above, weighing the evidence for yourself and then engaging in independent fact-finding is WP:SYNTH. WillowCity^(talk) 15:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@WillowCity: That is not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. Please review the policy detail at that link. Also, as stated on WP:TPG, There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation P.S. I love your user name. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the policy on several occasions, and I would refer to the second sentence: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In this case, combining summaries of Israel's evidence from The Guardian (and/or other sources) to reach the definitive conclusion, and state in wikivoice, that sexual violence occurred. According to Dovidroth, RS are stating that these rapes occurred; but the sources, to my knowledge, have not said so definitively; they attribute the evidence to sources within Israel and note that the claim is denied by Hamas.

As well, I certainly do not dispute that users are allowed to state their belief regarding what occurred, but our individual beliefs (as legitimately expressed on a talk page) do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS such that they should be included in a given article. (Also: thank you for the compliment!!) WillowCity^(talk) 16:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what SYNTH is. First of all, it doesn't apply to talk page arguments. Secondly, see WP:SYNTHNOT. Synth is not any synthesis, it's only an original novel synthesis that doesn't appear explicitly. Andre🚐 22:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

(1) SYNTHNOT is an essay, not a core policy; (2) I’m saying that it would be SYNTH if it appeared in the article, which is the issue here and why it’s being discussed on a talk page at all; (3) see above, using an article’s discussion of the evidence to state, in wikivoice, that sexual assault did occur is absolutely synth, because it’s an original novel synthesis that doesn’t appear explicitly. It would be like if I cited a source that said “experts allege that Israel’s prosecution of the war satisfies the legal definition of genocide” based on XYZ evidence, to state, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide. That would be taking the source’s content a step further than the source itself is willing to go, i.e., original research/synthesis. WillowCity^(talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not the topic of the RFC. The RFC is should there be a few sentences, with or without denial, explaining the sexual violence. The exact language should hew closely to the sources, not synthetically, but exactly as framed in the reliable sources, with attribution as attribute. Andre🚐 23:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If we're hewing closely to RS, and discussing the issue exactly as framed by them, then Option A should be written off, because RS overwhelmingly if not exclusively refer to the denial. It is also unclear from the wording of the RfC whether Option A would mean stating the allegations as fact; some !voters seem to be suggesting we should, and I am explaining why that would be synthesis. WillowCity^(talk) 23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The RFC doesn't prescribe a specific wording. No RFC can obviate the need to abide by V, RS, SYNTH, etc., so regardless of what comes out, we'll need to make sure that the wording in the article is properly couched and qualified to be accurate to the sources - the RFC doesn't touch on that. If Option A succeeds, the statements will be included without denials, but they will still need to hew closely to the original source. Option B will include the denial, Option C will exclude altogether. Sounds like you might be leaning Option B, which to me isn't a bad outcome, but I can't make your !votes for you. Andre🚐 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my !vote remains Option C, as a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. WillowCity^(talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia" - @Nableezy

I get where you're coming from, and I can understand where some your frustration here after fully reading a lot of the talk page.

I might be misreading the room here (chime in if you think I am), but I don't think anybody is arguing for including a "statement of fact"? I'm reading the options as adding something the allegations of rape by Hamas militants, as it is a prominently discussed topic in the sources currently. If we're going to make a statement of fact that "sexual violence was committed by members of Hamas", then we'd need reliable sources saying definitively that sexual violence was committed, on that I 100% agree with you.

If you'd argue that we need sources definitively saying that rape occurred to include something like "evidence/allegations of sexual violence by hamas militants, which hamas denies" (except not so poorly worded), then you'd also have to argue that we need RS's definitively saying that "Israel committed X war crime" everytime we say "Israel has been accused of *INSERT WAR CRIME HERE*". I don't think you'd argue for that right?

Just one final thing; I also don't think that to make a statement of fact we would require video evidence, or any evidence in particular from the sources. If a plurality of major reliable sources say that rape occurred definitively, then we could say that as a statement of fact. That seems to be the position clearly endorsed by WP:NPOV; we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". If an overwhelming majority of sources said that rape occurred, then it'd be fine per NPOV to just say that rape occurred as a factual statement. We wouldn't start analyzing the validity of their conclusions; given how divided editors are here on their views doing that would kind of just invite us to throw out each other's sources everytime and just start nitpicking them. Those are basically my thoughts here; I think I've said all that I really have to say and am going to step back from this conversation. It's getting unreadable as is. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests. And yes, the same is true for war crimes. I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either. nableezy - 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either."

I think you missed my point there. I'm referring to this in the lede: "leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water." We don't require the majority of sources saying that "We've proved that Israel used starvation as a weapon" to include that. We just need sources discussing the accusations. Similarily, we wouldn't need a source saying "We've proved that Hamas militants raped Israeli women during the attack" to say "There have been accusations of rape by Israel, denied by Hamas" or something to that effect.

"Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests."

My final paragraph was more just trying to make my position clear that we wouldn't need the sources to provide or discuss any evidence in particular, as long as they say it occurred we can say it occurred. If an RS said it occurred solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony that they reviewed, then we could say it occurred. I took issue with your statement that you'd need a source saying there was video that proved it, as that isn't really needed per NPOV. Just explaining what my last paragraph was actually a response to. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with most of that, the issues I have here are twofold. A, I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article. But here, I dont think it has the weight. Second, I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. Your beef with my comment was about my responding to a claim that video has proven rapes occurred. I was challenging that here, because that is not true. I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it. Because that is what was being offered as justification for including it without a denial. And that remains untrue. nableezy - 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article."

I get where you're coming from there Nableezy, I'm kind of leaning towards the side of it being a prominent enough controversy in the war in general for it to merit a very brief inclusion (with the denial) not exceeding a sentence in the second paragraph? The one that starts with "The war began"? I certainly don't think it deserves several sentences on it, that would be undue.

The main reason that I currently think it deserves a sentence is that we mention the water topic in the third paragraph ("leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water."), and that controversy has been discussed less in the RS's than the rape allegations (just doing a google search I see far less RS's discussing it than I do the rape allegations).

So if the articles "prominence of a controversy" threshold allows that controversy (about accusations of Israel using hunger/water as a weapon) in the lede (per the MOS, lede should summarize prominent controversies), then shouldn't it also allow a more prominent (in terms of how often it comes up in the RS's) controversy in the lede?

That's kinda where my heads at right now.

"I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. "

Strongly agree.

"I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it."

Thanks for the clarification, glad we can agree on that. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, someone has tried to insert those statements about the summary executions into the article several times. Andre🚐 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they inserted that Israel was said to have done such things and eyewitness accounts said such things, and even that was removed despite the OHCHR also documenting the killings. They did not include that it happened as a fact in our narrative voice. nableezy - 23:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, you are correct, and my prior message should have explained it uses the word "allegedly," (MOS:ALLEGED), and "reportedly," and ascribes it to both a confirmation on an official Twitter account, and to witness accounts circulated by media. It was removed with a rationale stated of NOTNEWS, as it's quite thinly sourced to a recent AJ piece and a Democracy Now piece, aside from the SELFPUB/PRIMARY tweet. So, I personally agree with the removal, and you are correct it was not as a fact in wikivoice, and I wasn't trying to lazily imply that it was. But does it have WEIGHT - I say no. Andre🚐 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, since we’re not a court of law, we don’t have to weigh circumstantial evidence and determine whether it definitively supports the inference Israel wants us to draw. I’ve said above, the opinions of individual editors do not matter, it matters what sources are reporting, which is that (1) Israel and Israeli sources have made allegations (2) Hamas denies the allegations and (3) Israel has produced evidence that they view as supportive of their position. I’m not aware of any independent, external investigation confirming Israel’s view of events as fact. More importantly, I'm not aware of a preponderance of independent RS treating them as fact or omitting the denials. And whether or not it happened (which is not the subject of this RfC) none of this addresses what is really the core question: whether the sexual violence claims are necessary to understand (and specifically, to summarize) the entire war. This issue didn’t come to international attention until earlier this month, and RS prevailingly discuss it in relation to the October 7 attacks, not in relation to the war as a whole. WillowCity^(talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• To address the argument that we should include these claims because the October 7 invasion was “ferocious” or “shocking” or “traumatic”: our purpose here is not to validate trauma. We’re here to discuss a war. The argument that sexual violence is necessary to understand Israel’s response is, frankly, bizarre, because (1) Israel was absolutely pummeling Gaza weeks before they investigated these allegations; and (2) sexual violence does not justify unlawful collective punishment. This story is not necessary to understand the war as a whole, it may be necessary to understand October 7 and the ex post facto justifications of Israeli atrocities, but this article is about neither of those things. If we devote a few sentences of the lead to events that have not yet been verified by independent, external sources, we are effectively saying that Israeli allegations are as or more important than the deaths of 8,000 Palestinian children. Child mortality has received vastly more coverage (i.e., 180,000 search results on Google News, if that's a worthwhile metric, compared to the numbers identified by nableezy above for sexual violence), but it receives only a single clause in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead. This is the very definition of a BALASP issue and the reason BALASP is part of the NPOV policy. WillowCity^(talk) 17:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• "B or C (but)" - If included in the lead (undecided on that) we should probably include the denial, it is a "they said", not a fact, but that's sufficiently communicated by describing it as a "denial". (Out of interest, but I doubt are sources? 3 other groups also claimed the attacks as a whole, did they deny the sexual violence? Were they asked?) The overall level of evidence should also be discussed - I have avoided reading too much graphic detail, but there does seem to be debate - but that belongs in the body. Alternatively, instead of the denial, we could put a general these claims were disputed in the lead with refs citing Hamas and any notable third parties. The body should also contain a fairly strong statement about how (depressingly) this is ubiquitous in war because that points to the plausibility of the claims (verges on synth, but very important context for someone who might be unfamiliar with how horrible war is). Irtapil (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) edited Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  If anything, the tragic ubiquity of wartime sexual violence weighs against inclusion in the lead of this article. I would note, to the extent this matters, that including sexual violence so prominently in the lead would depart markedly from most other wiki articles on wars. Sexual violence is not mentioned in the leads of the articles on World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the First and Second Chechen Wars, the Iraq War, the Libyan civil war (2011), the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Myanmar civil war (2021–present). Wartime sexual violence is either notably alleged or extensively documented in all of these conflicts. It is tragic in every case, not just when the victims are Israeli or the alleged perpetrators are Palestinian. WillowCity^(talk) 16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  To reinforce your argument, Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) doesn't mention comfort woman (aka "forced female sex slaves for foreign army", a hotly discussed topic in China and Korea even in 2023) in the lede either. Searching its talk page and archives, no one debated over its inclusion in the lede at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Bombing and shooting are ubiquitous, we don't leave those out of the lead? And the comment about ubiquitous hours in the body. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Because bombing and shooting are fundamental aspects of any military operation. Rape is not. Excesses unfortunately occur in wartime, and rape is one such excess. This does not mean it's significant enough to include in the lead. I also feel that the highly charged, emotive nature of a rape allegation in the lead will undermine WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• B but specify who denied it - Reflecting on my previous answer. Specify which individual(s) denied it, not just "Hamas". The guy who denied it (if we are thinking of the same denial?) was in Qatar when it happened. We shouldn't be talking about Hamas as if it is a single individual or a hive-mind. If more than one person denied it then specify as succinctly as possible "Hamas leaders" or "spokespersons outside Gaza", etc. The denial is relevant to whether it was part of the plan, but says very little about whether it happened. (For the sake of declaring my bias, my personal opinion is that it was not part of any faction's plan, there's negligible evidence of anything systematic, but they created a chaotic situation where some sexual violence, and other horrible things, were almost inevitable. If there's a last minute open-invite for "let's invade Israel" a city of 2 million will have at least one Ted Bundy / Richard Ramirez / Ivan Milat who will join in.) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• As I sort of said before, to me there is a lot of ambiguity in WHO did it. There were 4 factions who claimed the attacks, and one of the small secular factions is arguably more violent than Hamas, but no reliable sources say which faction ended up where. There are also controversial reports that some non-militant criminals showed up opportunistically. (Which obscenely are being spun as "it was civilians, so kill all civilians!" would you bomb Milwaukee just because Jeffrey Dahmer was there?) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

We get it, you don't agree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It'd be like writing a story about the Iraq and Afghanistan war without mentioning 9/11 or bin Laden. Andre🚐 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) It would be like writing an article about the war in Afghanistan and not including box cutters on one of the planes in the lead of the article on the war. nableezy - 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) That comment, unconstructive for this page, is also deeply offensive to every volunteer editor on this site who cares about gender issues of denial and entitlement. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What is going on above? I used the reply button but my comment has appeared in a boy that is dated for the day before yesterday??? Irtapil (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an admin's hat for offtopicking comments. I'll move it. Andre🚐 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

New investigation and independent confirmation from The NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.”

On the other hand, much of the initial reportage, unioveresally circulated for weeks, came from ZAKA. For which see The Short String, ZAKA is not a trustworthy source for allegations of sexual violence on October 7 Mondoweiss 30 December 2023Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

2023 Israel–Hamas war → ? –

• A: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) or
• B: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war or
• C: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Gaza war (2023–present) or
• D: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Gaza war or
• E: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Israel–Hamas war (no change) or
• F: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Gaza genocide or
• G: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Palestine war (2023–present) or
• H: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023-2024 Israel–Palestine war or
• I: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023-2024 Israel–Hamas war or
• J: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Israel–Palestine war or
• K: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Palestine war or
• L: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023–24 Israel–Hamas war or
• M: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023–24 Israel–Palestine war

(You can add other name suggestions if you think that it is appropriate)
With almost a week left for this year to end, I think it is about time we start the discussion for renaming this article (Admins please don't move the article before 1/1/2024)
Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• B. Not "–present" because of WP:RELTIME, and also because it adds nothing. There is no other "YYYY Israel–Hamas war" or "Israel–Hamas war of YYYY", so per WP:PRECISE Israel–Hamas war is sufficient, and per WP:CONCISE it is best (and it's already a redirect). If there's another one at some point, the title can be taken up again at that time. (Note: in this edit, I added the 'A' and 'B' prefixes to the choices above. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  thanks for adding the prefixes! Abo Yemen✉ 08:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mathglot wouldn't WP:PRECISE not apply here given that there have been multiple recent conflicts between Israel and Hamas? Ergzay (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, based on WP:DUE and WP:COMMONNAME. A search of the top 100 results for "Israel–Hams War" shows almost nothing for other conflicts. The examples Bothell, Washington, Leeds North West, and M-185 (Michigan highway) are some examples where WP:OVERPRECISION makes sense, by dint of existing naming conventions for each of those cases; but that doesn't apply to 2023 Israel–Hamas war because there is no such convention that applies in this case afaik. If you can show that other conflicts come up significantly for an unbiased search, I'd have to reevaluate my conclusion. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• B: Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:CONCISE, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. not only is there still no other article titled Israel–Hamas war, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Parham wiki (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B for the same reason as those commenting above. Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• 'Premature' and also fails to give sufficient options, such as "leave alone for now." After Jan. 1 we can determine how or if to rename this, perhaps to 2023-2024 Hamas war, which is the option I would favor after Jan 1, consistent with 2014 Gaza war on the previous major conflict. I certainly see the point of this nomination and we do want to think about renaming going forward. But right now the name is correct. Option B' is no good because there were indeed wars in 2014 etc. and it is too broad. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Changing to E. This option was not available when I posted the comment above. Title should be left alone for the time being. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Option B' is no good because there were indeed wars in 2014 etc. and it is too broad. Read my comment. Parham wiki (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• D. I'm also fine with C, though I'm not sure if the date is necessary. I was opposed to the war being titled anything after Hamas from the start and I reaffirm my opposition, even after mainstream news outlets have adopted this name. I fundamentally believe that at no point of the conflict would it be accurate for the name "Hamas" to be in the title- Hamas was not the only group to participate in the October 7 invasion, and the overwhelming majority of people killed in the conflict are not Hamas. My suggestion has always been Israel–Gaza war as it makes it clear the war is between the inhabitants of Gaza as a whole versus Israel, even if this is not the name most sources use- it is the most neutral and accurate name one can give the conflict. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your reasoning, and if I had created the article I would have called it that. My first thought was that we are bound by WP:COMMONNAME but a Google search indicates that both are in use, with Israel-Hamas war being about 20% more popular. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I acknowledge that the name "Israel-Hamas" war is more widely used in sources. However, I believe that despite WP:COMMONNAME, going with the name "Israel-Gaza" would avoid a WP:NPOV violation.

  I argue that these names are not interchangeable or equivalent as it doesn't fully comprehend the scope of the war. Imagine if the conflict was titled "IDF-Hamas War"- of course, this would be inaccurate, as many Israelis who were not in the IDF and were mere civilians were massacred in October 7. The same applies for this situation- Hamas militants are only a fraction of the 20,000 Gazans dead, which includes thousands of very young children who obviously can not be a part of Hamas. The name "Israel-Hamas" violates neutral point of view in that it ignores the large proportion of the war with no affiliation with Hamas, even if it is what reputable news outlets use.

  (Getting into why most news outlets use the name "Israel-Hamas" probably goes beyond the scope of this talk page discussion.)

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly concur with this reasoning. AJ uses Israel-Gaza War and all the hip kids you want using Wikipedia in the future key very keenly on phrasing. Right now, we're a hummus joke. Everyone knows that's just a cherry-picked bogeyman being used to perpetuate a genocide. It doesn't say NPOV, it doesn't say global perspective, it says we are old and drink kool-aid. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi has been changed page to "Israel–Hamas war" before 1 January 2024 ok Thanks. Andre Farfan (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• D - not specifying a date seems best as I don't think there are any wars this would be confused with and it isn't ending before the year does, and Hamas is far from the only group involved with the current fighting. Remagoxer (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• E or if it must be changed A or B - I don't have a strong opinion other than I think the existing name is fine and doesn't have any issues with it, but if it needs to be changed it should be A or B, as C/D change the meaning of the conflict. The war is against Hamas and related groups, not against the existence of Gaza. Ergzay (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Hamas-Israel War (2023 - present) :^) Metallurgist (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• E - the war is known by the date that it began. B is too broad and could refer to the 2014 conflict, among others. I am also open to changing it to "2023-2024 Hamas war" after January 1. Dovidroth (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• E. I agree that the war is known by the date it began, and there have been multiple Israel-Hamas wars. It is also, as mentioned above, premature and quite possible that a common name for the war will emerge next year. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• E (or if needed A or B), I believe that it is still early, and the conflict started in 2023 so the current isn't entirely incorrect from next year. However, this proposal combines three issues, what is the best format for the year, whether the year is needed, or whether Hamas or Gaza is more common. The controversial issue of whether to use "Hamas" or "Gaza" must be separate considering past discussions. Article title policy states the most common name is to be prioritised over the need for a NPOV name per WP:NPOVNAME. Ofc, if common use changes, I would fully support it. When 2024 comes hopefully sources can settle on a new name. DankJae 18:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• F I'd call it the Gaza genocide. Why not just leave the question and decide a proper name later because I don't think it'll survive as a 'war'. That is what it is shaping up to be with Netenyahu talking about the job only beginning and I estimate it would require killing a tenth of the population of Gaza to eliminate Hamas at the current rate. And they are planning to occupy it afterwards which would mean Israeli settlements pushing out the inhabitants like on the West Bank I don't know if the UN will survive this after people in the west wake up to what they are supporting. NadVolum (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  F is a terrible choice. There is already a page for the 2023 Israeli bombing of Gaza and renaming the 2023 Israel-Hamas War article to "Gaza genocide" discounts the October 7th attack and other IDF fighting in West Bank/Lebanon just to express a political opinion. EytanMelech (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• E. The name should stay the same, as 1. Any extra clarification of the date is not needed, and would just look bad. There is only one Israel-Hamas war in 2023. For option B, although there has only really been one direct Israel-Hamas War (this one), it still can be confused with various wars and battles in the past, like the 2014 Gaza War. C and D not only make it more confusing, but are also inaccurate, because this is a war between Israel and Hamas, not Gaza. According to their statements, Israel is not attempting to eliminate Gaza, they are attempting to eliminate Hamas. Antny08 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• E for now. I hope it will be over well before 2025, but if it isn't, then we could talk about it again in December 2024. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

E I would also point out that I think for now its best. I think the move is a bit premature. Either way, I must mention that alphabetically it should be Hamas-Israel since H comes before I... Homerethegreat (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: but absolutely nowhere is calling it "Hamas-Israel"? I've even seen at least one instance of "Israel-Hamas" on Al-Jazeera (not normally on team Israel), but none the other way. Irtapil (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. A, C and E Votes do not address the prevailing policy but largely make a simple statement that other wars exist. While things can change, this does not mean that they will change. For the present (and the foreseeable future), the B option is supported by policy. Also Israel–Hamas war redirects to this article. Parham wiki (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• E; the date when the war began is clear enough for now until a common name for it emerges. Oppose B for now - I'm not convinced that it qualifies as a WP:COMMONNAME at the moment. Of course the current search results for that particular term are going to be dominated by a currently active war over past conflicts - that's how search engines work. But a quick Google Scholar search says that about 40% of the hits for the term are from 2022 or earlier; clearly it is not a precise term. Without a clear common name, we have to follow WP:CRITERIA, which requires unambiguous precision. The simple statement that other wars exist is a valid policy-based argument and, given the weak arguments otherwise presented for renaming to B, is sufficient to take that option out of the running. As an aside, the only other argument presented for B (that no other article currently exists with that title) is also spurious and not grounded in policy - WP:PRECISION does not care whether we have other articles under that name (indeed, if a name is unacceptably vague, it would be expected that we wouldn't.) What matters is whether it unambiguously identifies the article subject, which it plainly does not. --Aquillion (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Was it before October 7 or not? Parham wiki (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even if true, 60% (plus other sources) indicate that this article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Parham wiki (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• E' per Aquillion. Andre🚐 11:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• C or D. I got the ball rolling on the COMMONNAME move to "Israel-Hamas" very early on (10 October), but I regret that. Subsequent developments have made the title non-compliant with WP:NPOV, as reliable sources keep noting the extent to which this war is affecting all Gazans, all areas of Gaza, and destroying huge pans of Gazan civil society, not just Hamas members. I doubt the majority of the Gaza-related contents in this article is about Hamas itself (vs. other Gazans), so the title no longer even matches the content. I also agree with HadesTTW's reasoning. I see more WP:AND-related arguments above; here's my previous argument against them. DFlhb (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not necessarily an NPOV violation to omit the harm accruing to civilians/infrastructure in one polity. To my knowledge, that's never been a major consideration in naming conflicts, cf belligerents. Riposte97 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support B as most reported, most accurate, and the war isn't going to end in 5 days, unfortunately. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 14:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  B, additionally that is what the ITN puts it as. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• A, as the war will no longer be isolated to just 2023 once the year ends. B if WP:COMMONNAME shows that "Israel-Hamas war" needs no date specified. A move from E is necessary once the year ends though. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• D or C per Wikipedia:Article titles. It is important to note that there are 5 CRITERIA for deciding on an article title: (1) Recognizability, (2) Naturalness, (3) Precision, (4) Concision and (5) Consistency. Despite the fact that everyone keeps citing it like it is the full expression of our policy on article titles, WP:COMMONNAME is only a small aspect of the above 5 criteria. COMMONNAME only captures recognizability and perhaps naturalness. In considering the title for this article, COMMONNAME doesn't account for precision and consistency.

It is imprecise to describe this war as between Israel and Hamas. Despite the false claims by the Zionist entity, the death toll is indiputable evidence that the war is against all of Gaza. If this was just a war with Hamas, 20,000 deaths would mean the entire strength of Hamas would have been destroyed.

It is also inconsistent with the many articles with "Gaza–Israel" in the title. Per WP:AT, A good Wikipedia article title... is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This article and its children are the only titles that include an organization Hamas hyphenated with a country Israel. The current title is inconsistent with May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes, 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes, November 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes, May 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes, March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, and 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict ...

Even if we inappropriately only considered COMMONNAME, there is no clear evidence that Hamas is part of the common name used for the war. There is just as much evidence that Gaza is used as the common name in reliable sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• C per C&C, but D is also acceptable per WP:NCE. I would emphasize as well that WP:COMMONNAME is specifically subject to the requirement of NPOV (like everything else on Wikipedia). The policy states: Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. WP:NPOVNAME allows for a POV title only where the subject is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources (emphasis added). Here, "Israel–Hamas war" may be used by a preponderance of sources, but it is not the single common name, nor is it demonstrably used by a significant majority of sources, and many of the sources that do use it do so alongside other names. The fact that it is the preferred name of one party to the conflict should give us pause.

Some RS that use Israel–Gaza war (whether exclusively or in addition to I-H war): the BBC, ABC, Al Jazeera, WaPo, The Guardian. Israel–Gaza war is more internally consistent with our other article titles, and there are other armed groups involved, making the current title inaccurate and simultaneously imprecise and overprecise (frankly, even F would be more accurate than the current title.) WillowCity^(talk) 00:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• B. Opposed to using 'present' as already explained above and oppose 'gaza' per CommonName in RS. Yeoutie (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support B according to WP:COMMONNAME, and having in mind that this war will not be finished before the onset of 2024. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• B. Per WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:COMMONNAME. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. I agree completely with WillowCity above, WP:COMMONNAME (a policy about using recognisable names as opposed to overly formal ones) is being misapplied here as per usual. The problem with D is that there have been several other "Israel–Gaza wars" such as those 2008–9, 2012, 2014 etc. Oppose all the others on grounds of NPOV. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• C. I concur with the points raised by WillowCity and filelakeshoe. The title “Israel–Gaza war (2023–present)” seems to be a more accurate and recognisable representation of the situation as it encapsulates the broader impact of the war on the entire region of Gaza, not just Hamas. This is in line with WP:NPOV, which emphasizes neutrality and fairness in representation. Furthermore, the addition of the year and “present” provides a clear timeline of the ongoing conflict. This is crucial for historical accuracy and context, especially considering the previous “Israel–Gaza wars”. – Ainty Painty (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• E. There have been man wars and battles following the Battle of Gaza in 2007. Overthrow-dictator (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• B or D. As others have noted, I agree that "Israel-Hamas War" would be the clearest, most concise, and precise new name for the page that would likely not need to be changed again for the foreseeable future. I still believe that this is the most commonly used name for the war in news media at present. "Israel-Gaza War" is an acceptable alternate, however I believe it may be too similar in name to "Gaza-Israel conflict" and may cause confusion when searching. Option E is out of the question to me, article name needs to change. At a later date if historical consensus is reached, Option F may be considered. I also suggest capitalization of the word War as in Iraq War and Six-Day War. forerunner45 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• B or A, the war is likely to continue in 2024, so the current name should be changed. Alaexis_¿question? 07:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• B — Israel–Hamas war, because it is a concise and common name that is unlikely to be confused with other conflicts. The "about" template which is already at the top of the page also directs those who were looking for different articles.

If a variant of "Israel–Gaza war" is used for this article, a name which I find more neutral but less common, I believe "2023" should be added to the start (2023 Israel–Gaza war). FunLater (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• B: As predicted, this will drag on into at least 2024, so it is time to drop the year.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C: per the same reasons as this similar previous move discussion in that the current title is both inaccurate or imprecise since the conflict has metastasized to embroil all of Gaza; that "Hamas" is not a place and so does not produce a coherent WP:NCWWW title; that the title remains inconsistent with the broader "Israel-Gaza conflict" series of pages on Wikipedia; and due to the lack of a clean-cut commonname case for the use of the current title - given the widespread use of the "Israel-Gaza" alternative by reliable sources, including the BBC, Guardian, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. I wouldn't mind Option B despite being a little bit confusing, but Option E wouldn't fit properly since the war will definitely still happen next year. I choose option C because the conflict has been going on for decades, only for it to significantly escalate in 2023. Quake1234 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• B if we are abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, namely common name. I am open to adding to it "2023-present" but I think that it would make it just sound awkward.
• E The war began this year, and it is the only Hamas-Israel war in 2023. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• G or H or J - The least-worst option is "Israel-Palestine war" with some sort of date designation, but I have no strong opinions about how we do the dates. I added K to the list as well, because I only care about how we describe the adversaries, but I think leaving it undated would be too confusing? Irtapil (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• L 2023–24 Israel–Hamas war. "Israel-Hamas war" was chosen thanks to being the name used by RS, and it still is the name used by RS. Removing the date is too vague because Israel and Hamas have been engaged in a longer-term conflict for decades which could be described as a "war". The current title will become blatantly incorrect in two days' time, and there is no consensus for a replacement, so the best option is the least change possible to the current title whilst recognizing that the war has extended into 2024. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• B, but would also support any other form of "Israel-Hamas war".
  In this move request we consider three different names; Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Gaza war, and Israel-Palestine war. Of these three, in the past day news sources have used:

1. Israel-Hamas war approximately 140 times (and approximately another 40 using Hamas-Israel war)
2. Israel-Palestine war approximately 30 times (and another 3 using Palestine-Israel war)
3. Israel-Gaza war approximately 60 times (and approximately another 10 using Gaza-Israel war)

This usage shows that a significant majority of sources use Israel-Hamas war and thus WP:COMMONNAME is met.

For us to ignore this evidence there would need to be a strong argument of other issues with the title, but only two arguments have been presented; that the name is not neutral, and that the name is inconsistent.

The first argument has generally been asserted without evidence, and in many cases without argument - the closest we have to an argument for it is that the current name ignores the large proportion of the war with no affiliation with Hamas. I don't agree with that; Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip and thus all inhabitants are affiliated with it. In addition, the name is consistent with titles such as War against the Islamic State.

The second argument is also weak; looking at Template:Campaignbox Gaza–Israel conflict there is no consistency in article titles and thus consistency is not an argument to move this one.

As such, we are obliged to follow the reliable sources, and that means using B or some variant on it; my personal preference is for B, as it is the most concise while still abiding by the rest of WP:CRITERIA. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I would respectfully request that you strike it recuse yourself from the statement that "Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip and thus all inhabitants are affiliated with it." - this is the same inaccurate generalization that involved politicians have made in recent statements of genocidal intent, and I sincerely hope that this was just a poorly wrought wording. On the substance, it has been a long while since Israel's war has been prosecuted solely against Hamas, if it ever was, and there remains, yes, a glaring issue in the unnatural and inconsistent mismatch between "Israel" and "Hamas" as comparable nouns, not least in the basic failing per WP:NCWWW by way of "Hamas" not being a geography, but a government actor within a political system akin to "Likud" on the opposing side. You make a comparison with a title involving Islamic State, but that is not a good comparison. This is not a "war against" title, but a hyphenated "like for like", geography "X–Y" title (or should be). At the most basic level, the allusion to ISIS is a POV one, having come straight from the lips of the likes of Netanyahu, but the similitude stops there. There is no less similitude between "Israel" and "Hamas" in the sense that both have been accused of terroristic behaviour. Moving to a broader point about geographical naturalness in the title, it is frankly absurd not to have the actual geography involved in the war, "Gaza", in the title at this point given that this is where almost all of it has taken place. This was never a conflict of precision strikes against Hamas (it would likely not have devolved into a "war" had it been so); it has always been a highly indiscriminate campaign of bombardment and more personal acts of violence – one which has resulted in the total devastation of the Gaza Strip alongside the murder and starvation of a grossly disproportionate count of the inhabitants of Gaza ... Now to the extent that the Genocide Convention has been invoked. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As a general point; NPOV isn't what we think is neutral, it's what reflects reliable sources on a topic. If reliable sources on a topic describe this as a war between Hamas (and other militant groups) and Israel, declining to describe it as a war between Gaza and Israel, then to comply with NPOV we must describe this as a war between Hamas and Israel, including in our titles; to describe it as a war between Gaza and Israel would be an NPOV violation.

Regarding a government actor within a political system akin to "Likud" on the opposing side: That isn't an accurate comparison. With Hamas and the de-facto Gazan State, the lines between Party and State are blurred, but with Likud and Israel are not.

This blurring is particularly strong when we consider the composition of the armed forces. In Israel, Israel has an army, Likud does not. In Gaza, Hamas has an army, Gaza does not, and as such Israel isn't fighting Gaza. Instead, Israel is fighting Hamas in Gaza, making the current title accurate and your preferred title inaccurate - which explains why reliable sources prefer the current title.

Regarding the comparison with a title involving Islamic State it demonstrates that it can be appropriate to refer to the party that controls the territory. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV requires we respect all significant views; it doesn't mean that majoritarian headline language makes for the best page title. Of the available options in currency, this page currently sits at the only one that fails to outline the basic geography of the conflict, per WP:NCWWW. And geography is emphasized for good reason. Many events in Gaza do not involve Hamas. A source about the bombing of the church of St. Porphyrios need make no mention of Hamas, but it would be highly unlikely to exclude "Gaza" as a location. Beyond headlines, and we indeed ignore headlines, per WP:HEADLINE, the stories about this war that mention Gaza will significantly outnumber those that mention Hamas. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question; you're asking where reliable sources say the war is taking place. What you need to ask is who reliable sources say the war is taking place between.

In response to that question, most reliable sources say Israel and Hamas, sometimes with the addition of other militant groups - and this isn't, I note, something limited to headlines. Reliable sources consistently call it the "Israel-Hamas war" in prose, and they consistently characterize it as a war between Israel and Hamas in prose. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources obliviously don't refer to it as a war between Israel and Hamas in all of the litany of instances where Israel bombs something and there isn't any evidence to back up its claims that it is attacking something military. 60% of Gaza's houses were never anything but civilian property. Which RS routinely refer to it as the "Israel-Hamas war" in prose? More than anything this appears to be more of a story tag or shorthand headline prefix than a prose term. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources obliviously don't refer to it as a war between Israel and Hamas in all of the litany of instances where Israel bombs something and there isn't any evidence to back up its claims that it is attacking something military. Can you clarify the point you are trying to make here?

Which RS routinely refer to it as the "Israel-Hamas war" in prose? To start, most of these hundreds of scholarly sources; I think there are enough sources there to satisfy your request? BilledMammal (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You said consistently; I said routinely - a raw search is nothing but a scattershot and shows neither. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In regards to WP:NCWWW, you have overlooked the first sentence in that section, which says If there is an established, common name for an event, use that name. There is an established common name for this event, Israel-Hamas war.

You’ve also overlooked the last section of that guideline, WP:NCENPOV, which tells us if there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view. I disagree that there is a POV issue with the current title, but even if there was the guideline you have been referencing tells us to use it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:NCE guideline has to be read in light of the overarching policy, WP:NC, which takes precedence over the guideline in the event of a contradiction. I've explained above why the WP:COMMONNAME argument is a red herring; here, there are multiple names in common use, and accordingly, we have to err on the side of NPOV. Iskandar323 has thoroughly explained why the current title is POV. As well, you seem to be conflating the policy on WP:RS with WP:NPOV; these are two different policies (albeit with some overlap). WillowCity^(talk) 17:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t the editor who raised NCE; that was Iskander. I was merely demonstrating why their arguments that it supported their preferred title were incorrect. However, which aspect of NC contradict NCE?

I’ll add that your assertion that there are multiple common names is incorrect; Israel-Hamas war sees about twice the use as the other options combined.

Can you clarify why you believe I’ve conflated WP:RS with WP:NPOV? BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(1) The guideline itself does not contradict the policy itself, but applying the guideline in the manner you suggest would contradict the policy. Under NCE, POV titles are allowed if there is a particular common name for the event; under WP:NPOVNAME, a POV name is only permitted where the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources. I've explained above why "Israel-Hamas war" does not meet the latter standard; the guideline standard ("a particular common name") is somewhat more ambiguous so it is superseded by the more specific requirements of the NC policy. Without putting words in Iskandar's mouth, I assume they are suggesting we should accordingly apply the other criteria of WP:NCE, namely, WP:NCWWW.

(2) the fact that Israel-Hamas war may be more commonly used does not make it the single common name; your own source review demonstrates a significant number of sources using either Israel-Gaza war or Israel-Palestine war.

(3) above you write that we "must" describe this as a war between Hamas and Israel because reliable sources do so. This is not sufficient to satisfy NPOV. Some reliable sources describe it this way, others do not. In such circumstances, we should opt for an NPOV title. By way of illustration, Amnesty International, an RSPSS green source, describes Israel as being guilty of apartheid; is this sufficient for us to state in wikivoice that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid? NPOV, in fact, requires that we give effect to competing viewpoints; it does not require that we ignore perspectives that are "outnumbered", so to speak. Hence the purpose of this discussion. WillowCity^(talk) 17:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(1) and (2) I would say that approximately twice as many as the other options combined is a significant majority of English-language sources, wouldn't you?

(3) In such circumstances, we should opt for an NPOV title. The NPOV title is the one that reflects the position of the majority of reliable sources (Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources). The majority holds that it is a war between Israel and Hamas, not between Israel and Gaza. Many editors have presented evidence for this, and as far as I can tell no editor has presented evidence against it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOVNAME allows for a POV name only where there is only a single common name. Here we have multiple competing names, with "Israel-Gaza war" used consistently across sources like the BBC, Guardian, etc., i.e. GREL sources and clear proof that there is no single common name across English language reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I haven't missed any of that. I disagree that there is one name that significantly outweighs all others. There are competing names, but short of an overwhelming divide in prevalence there is no common name and other criteria must be referenced. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• E or A. Israel and Hamas have been in various states of military conflict before, so the distinction of the date is important. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine compared to Russo-Ukrainian War for example; one describes a particular phase of the military conflict while the other does not. This article seems to follow the be the former. I'm not in favor of any of the new (bot proposed?) titles suggesting Israel is in a state of war with Gaza or Palestine, if no other reason than the fact the Palestine Authority - which is decidedly not at war with Israel right now - exists as a major political contender with Hamas and still claims authority over Palestine/Gaza. --Katangais (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is now Russian invasion of Ukraine. See RM. Options that contradict the policy, such as the arguments of opponents of Russian invasion of Ukraine, should be ignored. Parham wiki (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: To call it "war against Hamas" is misleading (some would say, propaganda). Wars in the primary sense take place between states, not between governments or leaders. As an example, it would be wrong to call, say, the Iraq War, a "Republican–Ba'ath war"; or the Russia–Ukraine war, a "Russia–Zelensky war". I will argue that the term "Hamas" must be removed from title altogether. It's patently obvious by now that it's not Hamas-owned properties that are being bombed by Israel but the entirety of Gaza Strip, i.e., the entire state is at war. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And one might note that South Africa's ICJ filing is not over genocidal acts against "Hamas", which is not a people, but the inhabitants of Gaza as a whole. The correct frame of reference is now affirmed in legal documents. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

C as probably the most accurate among these imperfect options, even if aspects of the war take place on the Lebanese border, in the West Bank, etc. The main part of the war is against the whole territory of Gaza not specifically Hamas, so using that terminology is preferable. --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You can select a new option. Also read my comments above. Parham wiki (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• B per WP:COMMONNAME as BilledMammal demonstrated above. No need to deviate from what the media is writing, Wikipedia policy is policy for a reason. I don't see the need for a year considering the previous Gaza conflicts went under different names. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Adding to what I said, WP:NOYEAR supports the above point. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

On that part inlead that says, "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip,.." can it be changed to "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip during a music festival,..." I want to be safer than sorry by suggesting adding something in the lead even though I meet qualifications to edit this article. Cwater1 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

How would that improve the article? Riposte97 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Just thought about where the war started at. It was just a thought. I better maybe look at more details. Cwater1 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: What is your point? Who are you saying was surprised? Or what is the significance of the music?

I have reax that the militants were surprised by the music festival. But I've not managed to find those sources again yet to include.

The original target was probably the neighbouring military base, I am not sure if any reliable source has stated that explicitly, but they did attack a nearby base. Then the music festival seems to have been opportunistic.

On the day they first targeted military bases, took soldiers hostage, and massacred remaining troops. This is a big part of why help took so long to arrived, because all the military outposts got massacred first.

But because the attacks on civilians were so horrible, they got a lot more media coverage. The only base attack I have seen much about was the all female lookout base. That was particularly tragic because those are the very women who had been trying to warn about seeing the militants training, and been ignored. So that got a whole article in either Times Of Israel or Haaretz (or maybe both, but I only read one).

Irtapil (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of displaced Israelis

Can anyone confirm the number of IDPs in Israel is still 500k? We have that cited both in the infobox and in the lede based on a 16 October Barron's article, but by 22 October, Times of Israel reported 200k [44] and by 21 November, The Guardian reported 126k [45]. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that even matter at this point? Initially it was 500k that had to leave home. The template box just says "number of people who had to leave home", not "number of people actively still having left home and not having returned". Chuckstablers (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The article might want to have more details. The lead currently says that "1.9 million Palestinians...and around 500,000 Israelis have been internally displaced". It might be more accurate to say, e.g., 1.9M Palestinians are displaced and 500K Israelis were displaced, and that a majority of Israelis have been able to return to their homes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they were able to return the their homes (see my below comment). We could write "1.9 million Palestinians have been internally displaced. 250,000 Israelis have been internally displaced and 470,000 Israelis have left Israel since the start of the war". Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't say "that a majority of Israelis have been able to return to their homes", as you have no reliable source saying that. If you're concluding that based off of the lower 200k number from the recent Times of Israel source compared to the source of 500k when the war began, then that's WP:SYNTH and not allowed; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". You'd need a reliable source explicitly stating "that a majority of Israeli's have been able to return to their homes". In fact the times of israel source doesn't say that anybody evacuated by the military has been allowed to return; it explicitly says "The state will be responsible for these Israelis until the military allows them to return to what is now a closed military zone near the Gaza border and a restricted area near Lebanon". So unless we have an RS supporting that explicitly we can't include it per SYNTH.

You'd also be opening up a can of worms that we don't need to open up in my opinion. You're going to see people start arguing "why not include Israeli's who felt afraid enough to flee the country entirely" (there's been a few hundred thousand who are still gone as far as I'm aware). When/if Palestinians start returning to their homes, the debate would then be about whether to change the infobox to include a similar statement that a "majority of Palestinians have since been able to return to their homes", and then debates about that (have they? Have the homes been destroyed? How many homes were destroyed?). I just don't think it's a can of worms we need to open right now.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, I'm going to leave it to other editors now. @ me if you'd like to bring my attention to something/want a response from me. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The latest number from 12/22/23 was 250,000 from AP News: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-death-toll-numbers-de06ce2c5711ce17a4704276f5c1a5c4

Also this report from 12/7/23 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231207-report-nearly-0-5m-israelis-left-israel-after-7-october/ says that "470,000 Israelis have emigrated from Israel and it is not known if they will return at a later point." Maybe some of the original 500,000 internally displaced decided they wanted to emigrate instead. If they leave the country, they are no longer considered internally displaced. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure we should use the word emigrate. What if its people who went for a long vacation waiting for the war to end and then return home? Also source makes it unclear. We should use: left the country. I think. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

[46]0.5 internally displaced. And I agree with @Chuckstablers that it doesn't seem to matter much. I mean in war people are displaced. After the war concludes maybe there can be a category of permanently or temporarily. For now 0.5 million internally displaced works. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of casualties

I noticed that the Palestinian and Israeli casualties are based on claims by Hamas government and Israel respectively. However media reports have called out both as unreliable. Hamas is known for not distinguishing between civilians and fighters, as well as conflating numbers. Israel has also been accused of conflating its civilian death toll.

In addition, the casualties section does not include claims by the opposing side, example Israel's tally of Palestinians or Hamas' claims of number of IDF killed. Since both Hamas and Israel are unreliable, it's not wise to prefer one over the other in casualties section for Palestinians and Israel respectively. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think people are agreed they are reliable for their own sides. As you say they have both ignored the distinction between fighters and civilians where it suits them. The figures for IDF can be ferreted out okay though so the main problem is the number of Hamas militants killed. The Israeli figures for this are quite obviously quite widely exaggerated presumably to cover up the extremely high proportion of civilians killed. There would be problems even if Hamas did report on militants killed, the main unknown being the number kiled but their bodies not yet found under all the rubble or in tunnels. My estimate using the figures for the overall distribution of death is about 2000 to 4000 killed including 1000 from the original October 7 atrocity. Definitely not anywhere like the seven thousand implied by Israel talking about one for every two civilians. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why only Hamas should be taken as a reliable source for Gazan casualties when they are known to inflate the death toll too and hide the number of fighters killed. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See the message @Selfstudier sent on December 6. This has been discussed many times on this talk page and the consensus among RS and humanitarian groups is that the death tolls are reliable (If not undercounted due to the collapse of healthcare system). ArthropodLover (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no such consensus and that's why we attribute the figures in the article and the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous and the figures for Israel are attributed to Israel. NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be unanimous, but consensus doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Why is Hamas reliable for the Palestinian death toll, why is Israel reliable for IDF toll? Both Israel and Hamas have been known to lie. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned just a little back please have a look at the message by SelfStudier on December 6th [47] on this talk page about the figures from Gaza and nobody has had any strong objections to Israeli figures for their own dead. There's been lots of wars and bombings before and it isn't too difficult for an expert to see the figures are about right or even an underestimate in Gaza, the people have well documented id numbers as required by Israel and even the unknown ones have been photographed and blood samples taken in the hope of identifying them later. The Israelis have also been let check unidentified ones in case there's some hostages amongst them. There's no good reason for Israel to dispute the figures. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The MSF and journalists have cast doubt on Hamas' casualty numbers [48], [49], [50]. I don't see why there is a reason to trust any one side. We should include death toll claims by both sides. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We could use the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor numbers. The system the Gaza Health Ministry uses is constrained by individual record-keeping. Only those that have been identified or claimed by relatives can go for burial and be included in the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll for the war. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not share the same restraints, and no other tallies reveal their processes. Israel is similar in that some families do not choose to release the names of the deceased. From where I'm sitting, there are a lot more little red triangles. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding this organisation below, I think we should take their numbers with a grain of salt. Alaexis_¿question? 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Spillover casualties implying a side being taken

In the casualties part infobox, the spillover casualties from non-belligerents have been added to the Hamas side of the infobox, except for some of the Egyptians. This implies a connection between Hamas and casualties.

On the Hamas side, the Lebanon listing mixes fighters from declared belligerents and civilians into the same number. The Syrian listing isn't correct according to the source used, includes declared combatants, Syrian officials and civilians under the same listing. The Egypt listing is entirely one incident in which Israel mistakenly targeted Egyptian border guards. Egypt is also listed under the Israel side of the section.

Were these added before the belligerents were clearly identified?

As a separate issue, the entire section mixes civilians and soldiers. I understand that it's a bit difficult to separate on both sides here, but the numbers and/or the presentation of those numbers should at least reflect that the vast majority of casualties on either side were civilians.

Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

About 55% of the casualties on the Israeli side are civilian nearly all from the October 7 atrocity. There's no very reliable figures for the Hamas side, including the militants killed in the October 7 atrocity I can only estimate something like 85% plus or minus 5% are civilian. We don't have any halfway reliable figures. We'd need good sources to put anything in - the enemy are not good sources in this sort of thing! NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Spillover in Lebanon, Syria and the Egyptian border guards are on the Palestinian side because they were killed/injured by the IDF and the 6 Egyptian civilians are on the Israeli side because they were injured by the Houthis.

It's less about a connection between the casualties and Hamas but because they were killed by the Israelis. ArthropodLover (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties per Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

I have moved the casualty figures of Gaza Strip from Gaza Health Ministry to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor per WP:BRD. My rationale for the move is that the data of Gaza Health Ministry was interrupted for several days during the conflict and was not updated for certain periods. Also, E-MHRM appears to be a more neutral, reliable source which is being cited by UN OCHA. Ecrusized (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid their total figure is altogether possible though I think their number for women killed is probably much too low and their number for children is probably a bit high. The real problem though is the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are well documented though much too low now, whereas these figures don't have anywhere such a solid basis. Perhaps we could give both figures? NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe E-MHRM is including the missing as killed, the GHM had said that 70% of the missing were women or children, so the figures are fairly close to one another. Ecrusized (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Then I would list Gaza MOH, and give it as a minium? Specify it includes only identified dead and there are periods where reporting was interrupted.

Also including both the Lancet articles that show the data is not an over estimate "No evidence of inflation…" and the identification details being provided appear to be real data "No evidence of fabrication…" I think I've already linked them? But I misspoke and said they were October when at least one was more recent. Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble following the conversations on a small screen.

The UN is sort of authoritative, but I think they just pass on national stats? (e.g. The WHO is still reporting so covid deaths in DPRK and Turkmenistan.)

Irtapil (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would highly dispute the characterization of Euromed Monitor as more reliable than the Gazan health authorities. How has it arrived at a supposedly exact number of civilians killed when Hamas and its health ministry have been almost totally silent on the issue?

The press release doesn't say, and reliable media sources don't seem to be quoting the group - which given its liberal use of the word "genocide", is very clearly a Palestinian activist NGO and thus hardly more neutral than the health ministry, which at least has the benefit of being actually in charge of whatever is left of the hospital and morgue system.

Certainly for an infobox, whenever such an "official" figure is available we should probably tilt toward that over the claims of an NGO which can be included in the article text if appropriate.

Nevertheless if you presume the 7,000 "missing" announced by the health ministry are dead, maybe add in the 1,000 Israel says it killed on Oct. 7, then the topline figure of around 29,000 is plausible. Thus the main problem I see at the moment is the lack of reliable sources to support the exact civilian/militant breakdown, which could arguably violate NPOV. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If EMHRM is indeed a Palestinian NGO, I had assumed that it would be more neutral than the Hamas run Gaza health ministry. A problem with the GHM tolls is that there were certain periods in the war, where they stopped updating their tally, and explained in their reports that due to the deteriorating health situation in Gaza, the toll could not be counted. Another positive the EMHRM has is that it gives an official account on the number of civilians killed, which allows the article the separate the civilian and combatant death toll. Ecrusized (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Their claimed number of civilians killed is of course anything but "official". Have you found any reliable news sources citing the claim? PrimaPrime (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is, when you compare it to Hamas figures, it is probably more reliable. I don't know how reliable that monitor is, but I saw it being cited by UN OCHA. What I would like to do in the infobox is separate civilian and military tolls, because it is really unusual to count them together. Perhaps the figure of killed militants from the EMHRM could be cited as pro-Palestinian, and then we could place a the Israeli claim about the number of militants killed. Similar to the infobox of 2006 Lebanon War. Ecrusized (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would indeed be vastly preferable to go by civilians and combatants as opposed to age, gender and especially occupation as at present. I'm sure butchers, bakers and candlestick makers have also been killed - on both sides - but that has no bearing on whether they were, at time of death, a combatant or a civilian.

There's a reason we don't list the number of Israeli women killed, and it's not just because the IDF helpfully claims all its female casualties. It's because we need to follow NPOV. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that EMHRM is much more reliable than Gaza Health Ministry. The head of EMHRM Ramy Abdo used to lead an organisation described as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. Another senior member Muhammed Shehada seems to know some Hamas leaders quite well. Alaexis_¿question? 22:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized also, there are two separate Lancet articles saying Gaza MOH is a reliable minimum. One shows "no sign of inflation" the other "no sign of fabrication". I'll find them when I turn on my PC. Irtapil (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
2,418 militants killed (Palestinian estimate) 8,000 militants killed (Israeli estimate)	571 servicemen killed

Don't you mean verifiability instead of NPOV? There shouldn't be a neutrality issue here. Also, I would support adding Israeli casualty details in the in line note, whether they are women or elders etc.

Would you support an infobox, similar to this? Ecrusized (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Still not sure how I feel about moving all the civilian casualties on both sides down into casualties3 at this point but this is a start. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

One way to deal with it is by adding two separate accounts divided by a long dash, with the in line note stating which account is reported by which source. I have added this on my sandbox, User:Ecrusized/sandbox. If you like it you can copy paste the entire code into the template and save. Ecrusized (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The main problems I see there are OR/SYNTH - for example we can't list the undifferentiated Gaza health ministry total as a low "civilian" estimate. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It does raise certain synth issues. I suppose it's best to group civilian and military tolls together for the time being then. Ecrusized (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Although, I remember the GHM tolls being cited as only including civilians, I cannot find the said source right now. This should be accurate since GHM says the 70% of all casualties are women and children. One way to deal with it would be to add the GHM toll as civilian casualties, without listing EM monitor. But then again, all of this combined creates a mess of verifiability and synthesis. Ecrusized (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We should group them in one topline figure (from GHM) and then put the Euro-Med and IDF estimates of militant casualties in the hatnote, clearly attributed.

The focus on women, journalists etc. is problematic from a POV standpoint as it heavily implies these are civilian casualties without actually verifiable sourcing. The family of any IDF reservist with a blog could call her an independent journalist, but of course neither that fact nor her gender would make her death a civilian casualty. PrimaPrime (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no verifiability dispute in writing what the Palestinian side reports as its civilians since the Israeli self reporting is also included. (And trickled down to minors, etc.) Ecrusized (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian side hasn't reported any count of civilians - if they did we would obviously be using it. Instead we have counts of other categories people presume to be civilians but which can include some amount of combatants, and unofficial civilian/militant casualty estimates from one of their NGOs on the high end (naturally) and the IDF on the lower end (naturally).

Providing a range with the latter two counts, as you first suggested, is most in line with WP policies and practice. It is very problematic to imply that possible non-civilians are civilians and vice versa. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we are having some miscommunication here. When I said earlier that I would support adding the breakdown of Israeli civilians into children, paramedics, journalists etc. I did not mean to remove the children/women toll from the inline note of Palestinian casualties. As doing so would not be neutral (since Israeli civilian/servicemembers are separated in the inline note --- but also, the abducted Israeli children are listed in the note under captured Israeli's).

So to sum it up, and make it clear, I would support the current version. I would also support separating the military and civilian casualties for both sides, I have added an example that could be applied into to the template in my sandbox User:Ecrusized/sandbox. However, I was under the notion earlier that you did not support this because of synthesis and verifiability issues. Ecrusized (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I must say I agree with PrimaPrime. Citing the figures given to us by the 'officals' in the war is better than citing numbers from an NGO that as far as I'm aware isn't on the ground in Gaza or Israel. Furthermore, the NGO stats leave out the 'missing' toll.

I don't think it's up to us if the number cited is 'high enough' or 'low enough', it's just to cite the number given to the public until enough reliable sources can counter or support that information.

I think it'd be best if we were to leave the infobox as it was showing just the Gaza Health Ministry toll (as it's 'official') or both and leave specifying the casualties until we have more sources when the war has ended. It's way to early to be citing NGOs and differentiating overall deaths, especially since the recording organisation is currently under siege and being carpet bombed.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact Euromed itself says on its website that its count includes those classified as missing by the health ministry. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Note The E-MHRM has given a figure of total number of Gazan civilians killed, which is 26,706. With that figure, it might be better to stick with the common infobox format, where casualties1 and 2 are reserved for combatants, and casualties3 lists civilians. Only thing is, both Israeli and Palestinian injuries are including military and civilians. I'm not sure how that could be applied if civilian and military casualties are to be separated. Ecrusized (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Have added both Gaza Health Ministry toll and Euro-Med toll. Feel free to change the format of how they're laid out I admit it doesn't look the best. However I think we should have both in the infobox, especially until we can differentiate between military and civilian casualties, which will probably take a while.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (Nevermind someone edited the infobox before publishing). I still think both tolls should be in the infobox.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did the value of 2418 for Palestinian militants killed in that box above come from? That's not too far off the number I calculated. NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Calculated based on what?

The number is from Euro-Med Monitor, subtracting their civilian count from their total count. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Based primarily on the number of men compared to women killed and the statistics of men killed in bombing compared to women. The composition of the population of Gaza is about 30% men, 30% women 37% children 14 or under, and 3% 60 or over and a total population of 2.2 million. The number of militants is perhaps 40 thousand including those not in Hamas, nearly all men.The first 8000 deaths when the health ministry was still operating properly were 35.3% men, 24.1% women, 33.8% children and 6.8% elderley [51]. The percentage of men who are militants would be 40/(22000*0.30) or 6%. The extra men killed to women is 11.2%, adding 6% of 30% for militants killed purely by chance this gives an absolute maximum of 13% of the casualties are militants or in 29000 that gives 3770 killed. However this does not account for women being protected better than men and in bombing type attacks civilian men are killed at least 1.3 times more often than women so we should really expect a base rate of 31.3% deaths amongst men which leads to 3% militants, perhaps with another 1.8% for pure luck that gives 1392. With and extra 1000 for the raid on 7th October that gives about 2400 total. The only way to really bump the figure up higher is to assume that a large proportion of the dead under the rubble are militants but basically I can see no way of approaching the Israeli figures. NadVolum (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: I have a new idea on how to separate civilian/military casualties in the infobox, I have saved this on my sandbox: User:Ecrusized/sandbox. Basically, the infobox will list Palestinian and Israeli claims on the number of militants killed, and the casualties3 section will list how many Palestinians have been killed in total. Should we apply this? Ecrusized (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The only ones doing that are the Israelis. Their figures aren't just bad estimates, they're propaganda with little relation to reality. The Palestinian figureis not in the reference cited and they don't even give what they say i the figure for civilians. I guess they can go in the text but please keep them out of an infobox. NadVolum (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having problems with the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor figures. Are they taking children as 18 and below rather than 14 and below like the Gaza Health Ministry does? In which case they're assuming only 25% of the population are men and 25% are women and all the 7 thousand missing would have to be men whereas others have said they're mostly women and children. It's a horrible mess and they just don't say how they arrived at them. NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Euro-Med's figures really strain credulity. Today they increased their estimated death toll by 910 and yet somehow the number of non-civilians went down 65.

I think the current infobox with attributed claims is as good as we're going to get for a while - attempting to totally sever civilian/military casualties on the Palestinian side is a minefield of POV, verifiability and OR/SYNTH issues. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: Where do you find their updated figures and deaths of non-civilians please? The rate of deaths for children should only be a bit higher than that for women. If by children they mean 14 and below like the Gaza Health figures then they're being killed at the rate of 1.6 to 1 compared to women according to the EMHRM figures which just can't be right. I can only make sense of them if they are counting children as 18 and below which would make them 47% of the population and women 25% of the population - which would require them to be doing some major massaging of the Gaza Health Ministry figures. NadVolum (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

[52] PrimaPrime (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War in Sudan (2023) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@RMCD bot

• 2023-2024 Israel-Palestinian war.

Irtapil (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

hamas militants /displaced Israelis

(1)The 40,000 has been bandied about for three months. The Reuters source used for it is extremely dated and reflects a guess that clearly overstated the figures for militants (the figure nowhere clarifies whether by militant we are to understand (a) someone on Hamas's payroll in the service sectors or people who are party members for any number of reasons, from (b) soldiers (they are soldiers, like it or not) whose primary function is within Hamas's military structures. Daniel Byman gives us a figure for (b) of approximately 25,000, and this comes from a major analyst of the area after extensive consultations with senior Israeli security experts as part of an investigation undertaken by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Israel seeks to destroy Hamas, killing its leaders and much of its military rank and file. Of the roughly 25,000-strong Hamas force that existed before Israel invaded Gaza, Israel claims to have killed around 7,000 cadres as of mid-December, including many key operational leaders.Daniel Byman, A Future Look Back at Israel’s War on Hamas Foreign Policy 26 December 2023

Those who prefer the exaggerated upper figure because second-rate mainstream sources endlessly repeat it should at least add 25,000 as the lower in deference to what informed scholarship and detached experts in Israel consider to be the more realistic figure. I'd do it myself but, strangely, the infobox appears locked in and untouchable Nishidani (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A shame. I don't share consensus for it. There's no tactical basis for it. There's no accounting. Nameless numbers. Even the Gaza Health Ministry can do better. Psychologically we can't process more than about 10 meaningful deaths so there's at least one reason we shouldn't have one beyond no consensus. It is better, more user-accessible and succinct to describe it visually. Let's demonstrate we know how stuff works. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(2)The displaced Israelis figure goes back to just after the first week in October. The number of Israelis displaced as of mid-late December is around 250,000 (based on Israeli statistics) as Byman again notes.

A total of 250,000 Israelis are now living away from home, either in hotels paid for by the government or with family.

Statistics should not be historical relics but uptodate.Nishidani (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani I think the Kibbutzim moved back. There was a video of Nir Oz getting shelled on times of Israel website. Unless that was years old? But the north seems to have cleared out? If that including Haifa? Irtapil (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Kibbutzim don't move, kibbutzniks do. Nishidani (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether we should include the maximum number of evacuees or the latest number. Both approaches are legitimate. Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I already answered that. An estimated 500,000 moved in the first week. Thereafter the figure is stabilized at 250,000. There were no evacuees in Gaza at the outset, and the number has skyrocketed to almost 90% of the population. 65,000 Gazan homes have been obliterated, that is about 13,000 more in three months than Israel demolished after it began the occupation (1967-2023), on the grounds that Palestinian homes don't have an Israeli building permit (which are almost never given, on application), some 4,000 have been scheduled for bulldozing at the owners' expense in the West Bank since October. How many Israeli homes have been razed, in these 3 months or in the last 56 years? A handful. Nishidani (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest the maximal; it wouldn’t give readers a useful long-term view of this war if once everything is over an people have rebuilt we say 0 people were displaced on either side.

As a side note, should we include the Israel’s who have fled overseas as externally displaced? BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Some questions which are going to continue to come up

Genocide

Is the current consensus that it's not worth mentioning why certain sources believe it is a genocide? The constituent case for such has other attaching sources with regard to domicide, cultural genocide, material necessities for life, access of the international community, rate of loss of civilian life, dehumanization, confiscation, and noted expressions of intent? I think that's worth discussing how we explore this. My personal view is that if we err, we err on the side of UNDUE for those most marginalized. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This document https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf is noted in several RS worldwide.

It notes such violations as:

intentionally directing attacks against

• the civilian population
• civilian objects and buildings dedicated to religion,

education, art, science

• historic monuments
• hospitals
• places where the sick and wounded are

collected; torture

• the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
• other war crimes and crimes against humanity
• failure to prevent genocide and failure

to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide.

• • it notes such incitements as being committed by
    • The Israeli President
    • The Israeli Prime Minister
    • The Israeli Minister of Defense
  • it notes inferred intent from
    • failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance
    • the severity of the nature, scope, and extent of Israel's military attacks on Gaza
  • it asserts this is calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group
    • • I further assert that I find there are sources of much or all of these which I personally find to be credible and reliable.
    • It claims that is the shared view of numerous other States parties to the Geneva Convention.
      • I also assert, as this document suggests, it is possible to document the extent to which the peoples of the world agree with these assertions as mentioned within sources reliable to express this noted viewpoint.
    • It cites Mahmoud Abbas' 18 Nov 2023 speech “President Abbas urges Biden to stop Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians” as evidence the observer State itself shares this view.
    • Beyond the Abbas speech, it also cites The Emir of Qatari as published in Al Jazeera, the condemnation by Mauritania, Raphael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", "Algeria, Turkiye discuss need for accountability over Gaza 'genocide'" by Middle East Monitor, a tweet by Luis Alberto Arce Catacora as President of Bolivia, "President Lula says war in the Middle East is genocide" by AgnciaBrazil, a tweet by Gustavo Petro as President of Columbia, "Diaz-Canel says Cuba will no accept ignoring genocide against Palestinians" by Ed Newman for Radio Havana Cuba, "Iranian president condemns Gaza 'genocide' in meeting with Putin" NBC News, a tweet by Recep Tayyip Erdogan as President of Turkiye, a tweet by Nicolas Maduro as President of Venezuela, "Israel subjects Palestinians 'to genocide,' says Sudani" by Rudaw, "Jordan's foreign minister says Israel aiming 'to empty Gaza of its people" by Al Jazeera, "Pakistan terms Gaza seige genocide of Palestinians" by Naveed Butt for Business Recorder among its 574 citations. All of these sources and more have encyclopedic value to document this international viewpoint with the extra weight given by this document or alone as reliably expressing the viewpoints of the various governments and peoples they represent.

ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The Chilling Effect on Speech

Is the current consensus that we disfavor Gaza sources as WP:NotRs in spite of the control of access and loss of life in civilian journalism? I should think it is our duty to broaden it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns

I don't think that is the consensus? Or at least I hope it isn't?

Personally I'd rate Gaza vs Israeli sources comparably, depending on exactly what kind of source. I mostly trust the medical doctors on both sides, and I take anything said by the IDF or Al-Qassam as pretty much fiction until proven otherwise. e.g.

• Israeli Hospitals and the IDF disagree about the number of wounded soldiers = I trust the hospitals.
• The IDF and the Gaza MOH disagree about the number of dead Gazans = I trust the Gaza MOH.
• The IDF and Al-Qassam disagree about the number of dead Israeli soldiers = I regard this as having no information and see if there's a reliable alternative source.

I think we might need to reach out to Arabic Wikipedia for help, to see if we can find some more bilingual editors. The vast majority of us here can only read half the story. I only know a tiny bit of Arabic, but I've been frantically trying to learn. And from what I've seen so far (frantic learning, machine translation, and looking at the pictures), the world is watching two comletely different wars. Wikipedia is perfectly positioned to try and bridge this divide, but we're not doing it as well as we could.

The article on martyrdom in Palestinian culture would benefit from more Palestinian sources. It really shouldn't be written from USA newspapers.

Irtapil (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly someone decided that article was beyond redemption and killed it? Or possibly i misspelled it? It's an article that probably needs to exist, but needs to be better. Irtapil (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RS bleed implications on the Project

Is the current consensus that we have no intersection between loss of life in civilian journalism in Gaza and our ability to provide WP:RS as a volunteer community? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If we do have that commonality, is the current consensus that we should not mention that here or elsewhere? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal questions

And I'm not quite sure where the consensus here stands on WP:NOT CENSORED and any editor should be crystal clear when they come in. If not WELCOMING then at least it's honest. Since an abundance of orienting material exists, I should like to know exactly where I ought draw the line. I wonder this as is as anyone might wonder, because there are plenty of social spaces now where the lines are unclear. At least humor us, pretend that some of our readership exists who sees and cares enough to share in this horror, boot me squarely if you differ, should like to think their perceptions are legal and a part of the marketplace of ideas. FRINGE or not, there is an elephant in the room. Can I cite belligerent primary sources in conversation without committing it unnoted to article space? Can I link experiences of published photojournalists? Is there a limit to the violence I can link and of any sure provenance? Should severity or instances be limited? To twee? Also, too twee? Can you handle tender and mild sweet baby Jesus on a heart monitor? At what point does the community object to field intelligence? Do these need trigger warnings? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Gravity and duty

I want to be really clear that there is a well reasoned and commonly accepted preponderance of evidence and consensus of thought that all of Gazan civilian life is subject to death or displacement and that it matters. I also acknowledge there are other views. My opinion is that this is the most serious and life-changing article you or I have ever written together. We are owed reasons which demonstrate a nuts-and-bolts understanding of what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong, not, as I am accused of, rhetoric. There are few topics on which I would care to risk such boldnesses. Yet I recognize the divergence of narratives. Stating things in a neutral voice is one thing, but we should not fail as editors to demonstrate abductive reasoning above all, from any side. Can we agree on this as project partners? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What went wrong in sweet Al-Quds? Or on Wikipedia? Irtapil (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns

I wrote a very long, and far too literal, response to "what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong" (a huge number of the events leading up to 7 October happened in Jerusalem / Al-Quds) but my phone kinda ate it when I tried to post it, which it's probably for the best really? I was missing the point?

Can you give a concrete example or two of where people are failing at abductive reasoning so I can better idea of what you mean?

Irtapil (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Coverage on the distinctive "scale of destruction" of the conflict

One of the most notable aspects of this topic is the relative "scale of the destruction", which now seems to rank alongside some of the most destructive encounters in the last hundred years of warfare. This is now being reported by all major quality RS, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and CBC, to name a few. They quote some interesting analysis and facts. However, this article does not yet have a section on the unique "scale of destruction", and is silent about it in the lede. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)