Talk:Israel–Hamas war

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah)

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• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October.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)
• 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)

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

Reaction statement in the lead

The following sentence, currently in the lead, is quite objectionable:

"As of 11 October, at least 44 countries have condemned the attack as a terrorist attack, while other countries have placed the responsibility on Israel and criticized it for occupying Palestinian lands."

The sources used to support this claim are a Thinktank and the Reuters, with the Reuters does not seem to be supporting the sentence in the lead. The think Tank source is not really a suitable source for this purpose. Aside from the sourcing issues, why should this reaction be stated in the lead? How about adding that thousands of protest are taking place against Israel against the world? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That text has problems. Better sources are needed, and the WEIGHT of a substantial sample of RS needs to be used to provide suitable and suitably-framed article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

More thoughts? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the 44 should be removed unless better sources can be found. But it's cler that some countries have called the attack terrorist. Though I'm not sure if that's lead worthy.

Second, Israel's occupation of Palestinians is a fact and should not be presented as an opinion of some countries. Even the US and EU (and even Israeli courts) treat the West Bank as Israeli-occupied territory. VR _talk 05:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

While it is true that the thinktank is pretty heavily biased, I'm not sure that alone warrants removal entirely. According to a Non-Profit Think-Tank rating group sponsored by UPenn, among about 4,000 nominees, The Washington Institute was voted to be among the best in Transdisciplinary Research and Policy Oriented Research Programs, earning number 43 and 51 respectively. A source that is biased doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be removed. Perhaps we could insert an attribution or a {{better source needed}} tag?

As a side note, a country's borders is literally an opinion of most countries; all borders are made up after all - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Then we should discuss if it can be included in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I can help here friends. There are other reliable sources, for example: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Guardian and Al Jazeera Media Network. Let me add them to the article to help. You may see them in Bearing Witness (2023 film). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  After that, the same Winep (not a great source) is now cited three times. (Strike, it has been reverted) Seems that is the only source for the 44 countries thing, so I agree this sentence would appear to be undue for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Which source is not great? All three? Why so you believe so? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above and again when you raised this issue below, WINEP, a pro Israel think tank, so should be attributed anyway. Seems the only source for the 44 countries thing, undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Copy from below section

Hi Duvasee. Let's discuss why do you want to remove this content. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is already included in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Duvasee (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason to remove the addition in another article. Please read prior discussion where it was mentioned regarding this current article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see in the prior discussion, your edit effectively added winep (a poor source) three times, and it is the only source for "44...etc", so I think undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There are other sources such as the Economist etc. that also support that statement that it is the bloodiest day in Israeli history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. This has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not undue. This is due. The deadliest day for the Jewish people since 1945 is not due? The deadliest day in Israeli history is not due? Homerethegreat (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about this sentence - "As of 11 October, at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack,..." sourced to WINEP. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we are talking on the title: the bloodiest in Israel's history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. Look at the edit @Oleg Yunakov is referring to. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You removed it with the justification Per talk, WINEP is a biased source that should be attributed and therefore undue for the lead as the only source for "44 countries...", Reuters source does not support it.

First, I would suggest that the statement in general is due for the lede; a summary of international opinion is highly relevant.

Second, their bias or lack thereof doesn't come into play; they are making a clear statement of fact (at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack) and unless they are unreliable - and this statement could be used to prove they are, if it is false - we can and should echo it.

As such, I've restored the content. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

WINEP is a biased source and requires attribution, therefore it is unsuitable for the lead which is presenting the statement as fact. Independent RS is required to support this, it is telling that there no other sources for the statement (the Reuters source does not support the material, either).

This discussion is actually an improperly titled continuation of the section above #Reaction statement in the lead where this issue was originally raised by another editor so I am going to copy this section there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the UNDUE aspect. There are lots of factoids about this conflict. For example, ALJazeera, a reliable source, points out[12] that Israel has killed 136 children per day in the first 30 days, compared to 0.6-3 children killed per day in much larger conflicts like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. But if it is only a single source making this (indisputably true) claim it would be undue for the lead. VR _talk 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

End copy

I have tagged the disputed material undue inline. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Aside for the reliability of the cited source, some users have raised objections against the inclusion of the sentence in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli rejection of ceasefire

Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Andreas JN466 06:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am only concerned that the article is consistent. This article literally has a section entitled 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Duration of the ceasefire (24 November–1 December). So any statement that either party has rejected calls for a ceasefire is so obviously incorrect that it looks like a glaring error. "Permanent" ceasefire is a very different matter, but the sources referenced all predate the 24 November–1 December, ceasefire the discussed later, so, if the statement is to remain, it should be supported by recent sources that make the differentiation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged the references in the article and given the reasons the statement cannot be verified in each. I think the statement is likely correct, but it needs to be properly referenced with reliable sources. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were tagged, until User:Ecrusized removed them here, accusing me of disruptive editing. Generally, when one accuses another of disruptive editing, one explains it on that user's talk page. Perhaps you could do me that courtesy? As you should be able to see, we are trying to discuss those sources productively and in good faith, but you just removed my notes about them. --Bsherr (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of disruptive editing, although that is what the essay I linked in my edit summary describes tag bombing as. I think one tag in lede is enough to bring the issue to editors attention, 3 long tags next to each other seemed unnecessary to me. Ecrusized (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Ecrusized, if the work to address the sourcing of that sentence offended your sense of aesthetics, why not consolidate the notes I left in the reason parameter into a single tag, or cut and paste those notes here to the talk page? Instead you just deleted them without a word here on the talk page, and left an edit comment linking to an essay about disruptive editing, of which you say you are not making an accusation. May I revert your edit with an with a comment consisting of a link to WP:VAND, which I am similarly not accusing you of? Do you understand? --Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can restore the notes. Like I said, I just removed 2 of the 3 same tags next to each other because it seemed excessive to me. Ecrusized (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We can remove the note now. Reuters, today: The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza." I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb (talk) 13:42, 7 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.[13] 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)

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.[14] 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)

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)

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)

BBC clearly says "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" [15] as do many other reliable sources[16][17] Crampcomes (talk) 21:23, 5 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) [18] 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)

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 [19] 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)

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)

IDF casualties

I think that the infobox should break out the casualty numbers suffered by the Israel Defense Forces during their invasion of Gaza. The 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article seems to be saying 88 KIA, 260 wounded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Kfar Aza atrocities

Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Subject on moving first paragraph lead sentence to second paragraph

I think it would be better for organization and smoother reading if the sentence “After clearing Hamas militants, the Israeli military responded by conducting an extensive aerial bombardment campaign in which 6,000 bombs were dropped on Gazan targets” and after of the first paragraph were moved to the second paragraph on the top as it combines the Israeli response Bobisland (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

just do it, if somebody has a problem it will be reverted and then a discussion can take place. But you can be bold. nableezy - 16:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I already did but it got reverted Bobisland (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

well in that case the person who reverted you should explain why here. Ping them and ask for an explanation. nableezy - 17:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is responding, going to separate Israeli response if someone opposes it come back to this talk page Bobisland (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind the lead is restructured again Bobisland (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

suspected Hamas militants surrendered

Could someone kindly explain to readers what this is supposed to mean?

• A militant can surrender
• Someone who is suspected of being a militant hasn't by definition surrendered. Civilians don't surrender. If among a body of people presenting themselves as civilians, some are suspected of being Hamas militants in mufti, they are not surrendering but trying, if the suspicion proves to be correct, to slip away. Please adjust and try avoiding the inane syntax of Israeli war reportage on this page.

Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Persons suspected of being affiliated with Hamas performed an act of surrender to Israeli forces. What needs explanation? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not an answer, but a recapitulation of the error. 'Persons suspected of being affiliated with Hamas performed an act of surrender to Israeli forces'. Image floating before the reader's eyes: people under rubble check their iphones as Israeli forces close in. They dial up the IDF register of Gazans listed as Hamas affiliated suspects. Noticing that their names are listed there,they deduce they are on the suspects' list and thereby they duly surrender as 'suspected Hamas militants.' The phrasing is farcical.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the story that you added and how it's relevant about "Image floating before the reader's eyes..." . We act according to sources and add information accordingly. People suspected of being affiliated with Hamas surrendered, meaning they laid down their weapons, handed them over to Israelis etc. You can add of course that Israel was criticized for having arrested a journalist or other persons not affiliated with Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t true according to the international press. nableezy - 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

[20] Homerethegreat (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel says. Further reporting has cast doubt on the claims. Like Haaretz and BBC. This is not a platform for Israeli propaganda in which we repeat the claims of a combatant as though they are accurate and objective fact. nableezy - 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it's more war crime than "surrender" - the 10-15 have also been labelled "Hamas-affiliated", which could equally mean Hamas local politician, bureaucrat, butcher, baker or candlestick maker as anything else - it's not clear or evidenced (and seems improbable at this point) that any of the detainees were active combatants in the sense of being capable of "surrender". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The word "suspected" is not used by i24 which simply says that 150 terrorists surrendered. Ynet calls them "חשודים בטרור", that is, "terror suspects," which is ambiguous, but most Israeli sources call them militants/terrorists without caveats (example). I would suggest replacing the word "suspected" with the attribution, along the lines of 150 Hamas militants surrendered on 7 December and dozens more three days later according to Israeli sources. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree "suspected" with attribution. "Suspects" routinely surrender in various contexts and for various reasons. In this case, plausibly, to avoid being summarily executed. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that is acceptable, we can simply call them militants/terrorists (though best use militants since otherwise it will require attribution). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

per Haaretz "Of the hundreds of Palestinian detainees photographed handcuffed in the Gaza Strip in recent days, about 10 to 15 percent are Hamas operatives or are identified with the organization" and "....this is not a massive surrender of entire units of Hamas disbanding and handing over their weapons to IDF fighters. Despite this, the security officials claim that the published photos of those detainees have a strong effect on the motivation of the organization's operatives who are still fighting in Gaza." Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The international press has attributed these claims to Israel, i24 has repeatedly published discredited propaganda and shouldnt be treated as though it is giving an unbiased account here, or even an accurate one. Ive added what the NYT and the Guardian has to say on these supposed terrorist surrenderings. nableezy - 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

BBC "There are still some questions raised by the footage. Notably, the man is being held at gunpoint and issued directions from off-screen, so it's unclear whether he is "surrendering" the weapons or just moving them as instructed. Given he is already in his underwear and he cannot have been concealing them on his person, it's unlikely Israeli troops did not know about these weapons, suggesting this may be performed for the camera, rather than as an act of authentic surrender. We also don't know if he, or any of the other individuals in the video, have any involvement with Hamas or the 7 October attack." caveat emptor. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Add that plz, or I can too. nableezy - 19:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What does the past state of the article (or this passage) have to do with its current state? Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Once upon a time, we had a professionally written, concise, and easy to read lede [21]. Now we have utter chaos instead. This needs to be fixed asap. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The issues need to be resolved pointwise. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is ungainly and requires clarity and condensation. I also think that the article needs a good going-over and checked for neutrality and proper use of sources. I found one passage, right in the lead, in which a quote did not accurately reflect the underlying source and was phrased in a POV manner. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE

@AquilaFasciata: How is that even applicable here 'for the statement about footage of Israelis taken captive'? نعم البدل (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Re [22] I agree with "displayed," as "appeared to show" is POV and weaselly. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, that specific shortcut may not have been the most appropriate, maybe WP:OBV would've conveyed what I meant better. That being said, I cited that as what I figured your response to the removal of "appeared to show" would be (It's not cited as Israeli capturees etc.). The other part is that saying "appeared to show Israelis being captured" is equivalent to saying "the sky appears to be blue." - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I think WP:SKYISBLUE is correct. I think that in general the article needs to be checked for neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede

I'm fine with fact that Hamas has been accused of rape in the initial attack on Israel being included in lede, but why should it be there without the appropriate denial by Hamas? Hamas has not admitted themselves that they committed such attacks (even if individual fighters have, the organization as a whole on Telegram denied it), and it is certainly not a fair POV to include allegations and not a single response by the alleged party themselves. If the international press and journalists dispute such denials then their refutations can be included after. Was going to re-insert the denial to the article with this source but I decided to bring it to talk first: [23]

Tagging @Nableezy who added the denial and @SPECIFICO who removed it. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is an absurd abuse of NPOV to not include the denials. I await a reason to be offered before reverting the removal. nableezy - 19:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary gives a few of the reasons. Please present your rebuttal, not another edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The rebuttal is that numerous sources include Hamas has denied the claims. nableezy - 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Who other than Hamas has denied the claims? Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does that matter? What matters is the weight sources give that denial, and by including it when they discuss the accusation then it has the weight to include with the accusation. nableezy - 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And RS that report the denial give it no weight. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Journalists are in the habit of reporting knee-jerk denials. Mainstream discussion of the denials consistently deprecates and rejects them. While we could assemble a section on the denials and the overwhelming condemnations of the denials, I think that all gets a bit far afield of the topic here. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: What is your basis for "the appropriate denial" when non-Israeli RS have not treated those denials as credible and have instead continued to report extensive, diverse, and independently gathered and verified evidence of these actions? NPOV does not say that we publish what amounts to the FRINGE allegation that such attacks did not occur. If you have substantial, recent, top-tier RS that take such denials seriously then please present them. Also per my edit summary, the denial bit is not in the article text and we don't initiate such content from the lead down. But the same NPOV principles demonstrate that any text within the article body would be far different from what was inserted in the lead and would need to report on the denials not having been seriously considered by the WEIGHT of RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Something covered by reliable sources is not FRINGE, and editing in a way that removes significant POVs is tendentious. nableezy - 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

POV editing. On the theory given in edit summary, all the "Israel disputes this" trot we have on hundreds of articles should be removed as well. Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good to point out now to the manual of style, MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Based on this I will be boldly editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph should simply define the war and why is significant. The Hamas attack and Israeli bombings should be in the second paragraph onwards. VR _talk 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If the response is not presented then per NPOV the charge should not be either. I removed the sentence from the lead entirely. I also dont think it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead either. nableezy - 19:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and more has to be done to keep the opening paragraph general and neutral. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well it has been returned, with a politician now quoted but Hamas denying it absent. Coretheapple why should Blinken be quoted in the lead? Why should Hamas denying the claims not be? You also violated the 1RR for the record. nableezy - 20:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong on all three counts. I returned to the version of that paragraph that included the Hamas denial. So I didn't remove the Hamas denial. It wasn't a reversion as I added the Blinken quote in addition to reinstating the Hamas denial. (It is false to say Blinken is a "politician" but rather Secretary of State of the United States.) I added the Blinken quote because there is a large quantity of sourcing substantiating that there was sexual violence, and therefore I think that a "he said, she said" approach would be a grave NPOV issue. Why did you say that I removed the Hamas denial? I clearly did not remove that denial and indeed I added it back in. Why did you call this a reversion when I did not simply revert, but added additional text to what I added back in? Indeed, why do you say I am in violation of 1RR when I have not made ANY reverts in this article? Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the Hamas denial inclusion. But also, I dont see why Blinked would be quoted, and there is a large body of sources saying that Israel has reported such evidence. A reversion is any edit that reverses another, you reversed my removal by restoring. And SPECIFICO's removal of the Hamas denial for that matter. Your other partial revert was this. And yes, the US Secretary of State is a political office and its holder a politician, and a politician representing the views of the Israel's main backer internationally, so no that is not false. nableezy - 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a bold edit to the opening paragraph, it now certainly looks neater and more structured. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, neither edit was a revert and I already responded re Blinken. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The restoration is undoubtedly a revert. You restored what I removed. How do you figure that isnt a revert? nableezy - 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that a revert is only pushing the "undo" or equivalent. (I've certainly failed to get 3RRs sanctioned that are not clear undos.) That said, I have not dealt with reverts for some years and that is not something I'm prepared to quibble over. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect, The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. nableezy - 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but despite your expertise on the subject of reverting I am not interested in discussing the subject with you at this time and in this location. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool, Ill just report it next time. nableezy - 16:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

By all means. But if you are going to be suggesting in the future that this kind of edit is a "revert," you may want to consider WP:BOOMERANG. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN are something else to keep in mind. You can have the last word, as I am done with this idiscussion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked this question at WP:EW talk and while the policy is indeed phrased this way, it appears that in practice such edits are not considered reverts. Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And after all that, restoring it without the denial. Huh. nableezy - 05:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring (the repeated re-addition of the allegation without the denial) appears to be ongoing. I recommend the parties who persist in re-adding this allegation without the denial familiarize themselves with WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV. WillowCity^(talk) 02:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. They reverted me in spite of me explaining the reason in the edit summary[24]. Crampcomes (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this still happening. Lmao. WillowCity^(talk) 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats an absurd rewrite and it should be reverted. nableezy - 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is irrelevant. The sexual assaults, which have received an avalanche of attention in the world media, are in the article albeit underplayed, and removing them from the lead, as I some editors are doing, is contrary to WP:LEAD. I think editors need to ponder WP:OWN here. I am seeing editors saying "well, Hamas's reaction should be included" and then not adding Hamas's reaction but just taking it out entirely. There is no need for Hamas reaction in the lead; we do not have Israeli reaction to every single negative thing in the lead. That is false balance and I think it is also an NPOV issue, reflecting a larger problem with the article, as reflected by the fact that eight words in the lead on sexual violence should inspire such passionate opposition. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Because when the reaction was added it was removed. The idea that contested claims should be left uncontested is absurd. Beyond that, ONUS is always relevant. The sexual assault accusations have indeed received attention, but so have the denials, which nearly every serious source includes in its coverage. Your edit makes it more difficult to claim that we are a serious source. nableezy - 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Armenian genocide denial is a common belief does not mean that the Armenian genocide article should prioritize that viewpoint. Don't see how this is any different. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ill let that comment stand on its own, and note that sources attribute the claims of sexual assault and include the Hamas denials in their articles, and any serious editor would do the same here. nableezy - 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If Hamas denying the assaults took place, despite all the overwhelming evidence including their own videos, is an issue, then it should be introduced in the subsection of the article where the sexual assaults are discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Sexual_and_gender_based_violence It is totally unnecessary in the lead and in my opinion including that ridiculous denial in the lead creates a POV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no video of sexual assault, there are witness accounts. And Ill fix the missing denial in that section, thanks for bringing it to my attention. nableezy - 15:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it belongs there not in the lead. We have an entire paragraph in the lead on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We do not have in the paragraph Israel's assertion that Hamas is responsible for that crisis. We do not have a "he said" "she said" anywhere else in the lead. But some editors here want either no reference to the sexual assaults at all in the lead (as evidenced by the fact that they keep taking it out) or, if there, with Hamas's denials in the lead. I think the overall impact of the edits I'm describing is to skew the lead in favor of Hamas. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Belongs in both. And I agree that claims of sexual assault should be in the lead. But they belong with the denial. If the denial is being consistently removed then the claim should be as well. That is what NPOV demands. You may think that going from blatantly pushing Israeli positions as fact towards NPOV is "in favor of Hamas", but it is in favor of NPOV. nableezy - 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.” That is fairly typical of the coverage. Now, when I attempted to add a link to this you called the US Secretary of State (Bliinken) a "politician." So I don't want to reinvent the wheel here or get in a rather degrading and nonsensical discussion with you concerning the sourcing re the widespread sexucal assaults. I'll just leave it at that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a political ally of Israel has backed up Israel's account. That is not a reliable source for facts. Biden also said he saw scores of beheaded babies, something that was later proven to be complete bullshit. So yes, leave it at that, where you drop a quote from Israel's staunchest ally and pretend like you proved a fact. We use reliable sources, not partisan political actors, for facts here. nableezy - 17:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly. You are saying that according to some sources, there were no rapes? The eyewitness testimony, the forensic evidence, etc., may all be just made up and Blinken is lying to support an ally? I just want to clarify what you say the is in doubt here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please dont put words in my mouth. I am saying that sources that are reliable for facts are largely attributing the rapes to Israel and Israeli accounts. They are not stating that it happened as a fact, they are saying X, Y, and Z have made these accusations. They are providing A, B, and C as evidence. You are taking that and saying, in the lead no less, that the accusations happened as a fact without attribution to X, Y and Z. That is like saying, in what you call a blatantly POV edit below, that calling Israel's war genocidal is acceptable because that accusation has been made by politicians. You think it acceptable to relay as fact what reliable sources report as accusations when it involves accusations that you want to include, but think it highly POV to do the same when it is about accusations you do not want to include. Ill leave it to you to determine the level of hypocrisy of such actions. nableezy - 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the other side of the story is. You say there are two sides to this story. Rape and mutilation "accusations" and another side. Is the other side "there were no rapes and mutilations"? I'm just trying to figure out what the reliable sources are rporting so we can reflect that fairly in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Um, where did I say there were two sides of this story? The story is Israel has accused Hamas of using rape as a weapon, and has cited such and such, Hamas has denied it. That is what the reliable sources have reported. Have you read the ones Ive posted here? nableezy - 17:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

ONUS has nothing to do with the lead unless it introduces new text not already in the article, and that is not the case here. There are other neutrality issues. For instance this edit by you removes text concerning opposition to Hamas within Gaza. You say you "neutralize section" but I think the opposite took place. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about dissent in Gaza it's about the war writ large. We need to keep this article t a manageable length. That edit is good and supportable.

If you actually read WP:ONUS you'll notice the hatnote directing readersto WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, which is a clear indication that the onus for inclusion in the lead is on the party seeking inclusion. WillowCity^(talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, when I say "at a manageable length" I mean that if we start quoting random people on the street for every proposition in this article, the length of the article will balloon completely out of control. WillowCity^(talk) 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It does not remove text concerning opposition to Hamas, it very clearly includes The Associated Press reported that rare instances of public dissent against Hamas were taking place, with reports of angry chants against Hamas by hundreds of people taking refuge in a UN shelter. and that characterization is a lie. It does remove random anecdotes about individuals, and keeps the content more in line with the sourcing. The change I made went from an attempt at framing Israel bringing Gaza to and past the brink of starvation and the resulting breakdown in social order in to the Israeli propaganda line about Gazans need to rise up against Hamas. Now you can support pushing that propaganda line, thats up to you I guess, but yes that edit neutralized a nakedly partisan section supposedly on malnourishment. And yes, WP:ONUS, as literally any person who clicks the link will see, will see applies to all content, and says the burden on achieving consensus for challenged material is on those seeking to include it. nableezy - 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question completely changed the focus of the section. Blatant POV edit. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it corrected the blatant POV of framing starving people and the resulting loss of social order in to the people of Gaza are rising up against Hamas. Your edit includes accusations that have been denied without the denial. Which is a blatant POV edit. That will also be corrected. nableezy - 16:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

They are not "accusations." There is overwhelming evidence for them. They were an essential feature of the 10/7 attacks, but this article deals with them only in passing, and the lead, as edited by several editors, either doesn't mention them at all or gives equal weight to denials by Hamas. The net effect, in the lead, if the Hamas denial is included, is to pretend that they are just mere, unproven accusations. After all, Hamas has denied them "repeatedly." Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That is POV, sources are attributing accusations and saying there is mounting evidence for them, but they are not saying that these things occurred as a fact. And they are including that Hamas has denied them. For example Reuters reports on Israeli accounts of sexual violence, and also includes that Hamas has denied the accusation. They do not say that this occurred as a fact. Unlike the lead. You can pretend like because you feel there is overwhelming evidence and that they were an essential feature of the attack that you are free to disregard the sources, but you are not. nableezy - 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"They do not say that this occurred as a fact"? Well as you may recall (see discussion above), I sought to add a few words from this link at one point to the lead, alongside the Hamas denial, as a compromise. The article begins:

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday forcefully condemned sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas during the October 7 attack and blasted those who have not forcefully condemned it or were slow to do so.

“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.”''

My reference to Blinken's comments was removed by another editor. You supported removal on the rounds that Blinken is a mere "politician." Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, a political ally of Israel backing Israel's account does not make it so this is a fact. You either get this or you dont, but we dont source statements of fact to political actors, and asking that we do is straightforward POV pushing. Here is an actual reliable source: The evidence of sexual violence on Oct. 7, Israel says, is overwhelming: Witness accounts of militants raping women; bodies of women discovered with their clothes removed; others shot through the head and the breast. You see how it attributes the accusation to Israel? I also support including that Physicians for Human Rights Israel saying this occured to be included in the article, attributed to them. But you want to include things that third-party sources attribute unattributed. That is what is POV pushing. You also want to not include the denial that third-party sources include. That is what is POV pushing. You are the one slanting the article and lead in a very specific direction, away from NPOV. nableezy - 17:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See my question above. I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the other side of these "accusations" is that it is all a lot of nonsense, there were no rapes, all the eyewitness testimony was made up, all the forensic evidence is garbage, etc. Therefore Blinken is just lying to support an ally. Is that what you are suggesting reliable sources are saying to counter these "accusations"? I am just trying to clarify the issues here. Please help me out on this. Because what I have read is overwhelming support of the position that yes, Hamas personnel committed rapes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying what I said, not what you are imagining I said. What I am saying is sources attribute the claim to Israeli accounts, so we have to do the same. They also include Hamas denials. So we have to do the same. You want to include as fact what sources as attribute. This is a very basic issue, what is attributed in the sources cannot be unattributed here. nableezy - 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And the edit youre faulting me for includes as well that the PA Foreign Minister blamed Israel for using starvation as a weapon. It also includes an Israeli denial, despite the fact it has been well established by third party sources, and by statements by Israeli government officials themselves, that starvation is being used as a weapon. We dont just include the accusation without the denial. Because even if including Israeli denials that are on their face ludicrous is "skew[ing] in favor of Israel", NPOV demands that their views also be included. nableezy - 16:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm tallking about the total absence of Israeli counterpoint in the lead. Right now we have nine words on the widely, exhaustively reported sexual assaults and no, God forbid, we can't have that without a Hamas denial right there, in the lead. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli counterpoint that Hamas has forced Israel to carpet bomb Gaza? What source includes that in its coverage of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Youre asking for unequal treatment, denials that are not covered by reliable sources should be covered by us, but denials that are covered by reliable sources should not. nableezy - 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should address the elephant in the room and talk about why these allegations are so widely, exhaustively reported? That is, Israel instrumentalizing violence against women to wage propaganda war for cynical motives far-removed from feminism. Not accusing anyone here, but people can clearly see the motive behind these types of allegations 1 2. Not trying to forum, or suggest that these sources be included in this article, just saying that this entire narrative is bound up in Israel's well-worn bait-and-switch. If we're going to compound systemic bias on wikipedia, let's at least do it in line with reliable sources, which report on the denials. WillowCity^(talk) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, see my question above. I may have missed reliable sources covering the position that there were no rapes by Hamas personnel. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that reliable sources cover it as an Israeli accusation that Hamas has denied, and our article now covers it as an undisputed fact. nableezy - 17:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well you see that is my question. They are saying there were no rapes and other forms of sexual violence? If Hamas is saying "Israel is making it all up," we should say so. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking. The sources attribute to Israeli reports that Hamas has engaged in rape and sexual assault. They also report Hamas has denied it. Do you get that? nableezy - 17:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to figure out how detailed and substantive the denials are, Clearly they are perfunctory, whereas the "accusations," as you call them, are anything but. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is presenting what sources attribute unattributed and not including denials that sources include. Your view on how perfunctory those denials are is something that is personal opinion unrelated to our editing policies. nableezy - 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're drifting into WP:OR territory here. Our purpose is not to opine on the relative merit of legal claims and defences, we're here to convey what sources say. If sources say, "According to Israel, XYZ, although this is denied by Hamas", then that's what we should be conveying. Anything more or less runs the risk of synthesizing and pushing POV. WillowCity^(talk) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect example of WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats an essay. NPOV is core policy. Guess which one matters more? nableezy - 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Essays guide us in our application of policy. In this case: "If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that 'X denies the accusations' then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" We have the denial in the body of the article and I think we can dispense with it in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they guide us that one person thinks something about our policies. And that one particularly goes against other policies, such as WP:BLPPUBLIC for living people who are public figures. If the denial is not in the lead the accusation should not be either. I intend to restore the prior lead, adding the accusation with attribution and the denial. You may not present what sources attribute as Israeli accusations as though they are fact. That is a basic NPOV and V issue. nableezy - 19:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued against the denial being in the article at all, but simply not in the lead. The brevity of mention of the allegations in the lead (just nine words at present) would require the Hamas denial to be given equal weight in the lead. But that would not be neutral. It would be POV, as there is a massive weight of evidence of the sexual atrocities and a perfunctory denial. Per WP:Neutral and proportionate point of view: "When there are competing points of view, Wikipedia does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources." Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the issue is portraying as fact what the sources attribute to Israeli accounts, while also not including the denial that they also include in their reporting. nableezy - 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're framing the issue accurately, Remember, we're talking about the lead now, and only the lead. The danger is false balance in the lead and the NPOV policy specifically warns against that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is where you are relaying as fact what reliable sources attribute. And you dont include the denial that they also attribute. One cannot go in without the other, and if you demand that the denial be removed then so to will the accusation. nableezy - 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is absolutely not a case of one editor claiming ownership, this is a case of approximately five separate editors disputing an edit, through the proper forum, while other editors persistently make contested/tendentious edits. You can't just allege WP:OWN to circumvent the WP:CONSENSUS/WP:BRD process. WillowCity^(talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Some editors here are making blatant POV edits this one. That was swiftly removed by an administrator but it does raise serious questions in my view. I also have on two instances corrected some serious mischaracterization of sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't know the elaboration of POV, it means Point of View. The article from the official UN website https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against is titled "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people." And the first paragraph literally says and I quote "Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today." It was only reverted because it's still incompatible with Wikivoice. Crampcomes (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But apparently grave violations committed by Hamas on 7 October that Israel has accused it of are totally compatible with Wikivoice. I leave finding the word to describe holding these conflicting positions an exercise for the reader. nableezy - 21:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The word that comes to mind is "contrary to Wikipedia policy." If you feel differently, please go back to the edit history, ascertain the identity of the administrator who removed it, and take it up with him or her. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont disagree that inclusion of genocidal in our voice is not in alignment with our policies. I dont hold hypocritical opposing viewpoints on other accusations that sources attribute however. Thats the difference between us. nableezy - 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to there? I'm afraid you've lost me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That you believe one set of accusations, rape by Hamas, should be placed in our voice, despite sources attributing the accusations, while another set, genocide, made by independent observers no less, should not be. nableezy - 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that editor that's why I didn't pursue it further. But don't try to deflect from the topic at hand, which is you trying to include rape/mutilation of women allegations against Hamas without including Hamas's outright vehement denial. Crampcomes (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Throwing in this phrasing as middle ground: "including reports of sexual violence." Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying in the article on the Hiroshima bombing "reports of nausea." Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Lousy analogy, the rubble of Hiroshima was there for all to see. Meanwhile, here the sources cited in the article speak of "allegation" (abcnews) and "investigations" (Reuters). There is nothing proven, as far as the sources are concerned. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and the evidence of rape is substantial according to all of the reliable sources. Referring to them as "accusations," as if it's a couple of women filing lawsuits, is simply not an accurate way of describing the sourcing. But anyway, I think this discussion is starting to get repetive. I should add that I have added further text quoting Hamas's position on the subject, as what we had from Hamas is bare bones and perfunctory. What I ahve added remedies that. I also corrected a misrepresentation of the underlying source. Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources attribute it as accusations from Israel. You cant distort that into proven fact in the lead. nableezy - 22:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dispute that these claims should even be included in the lead at all, with or without the denial; the lead should summarize the body of the article and this is not one of the most significant features of the war as a whole. We have numerous articles covering the events of October 7, an entire article on sexual violence on October 7, and another article on the experience of women during the war. This website is already flooded with this latest Israeli talking point.

But if it absolutely must be included, Makeandtoss makes (and tosses) a good proposed compromise. WillowCity^(talk) 22:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the prior lead, but with the rape/sexual abuse claims and the denial. nableezy - 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that works too. Certainly far better than the prior. WillowCity^(talk) 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It did, but in a 1RR violation Chessrat returned the unattributed claim saying the bbc supports it. However the BBC says that it heard testimony and saw evidence, it does not independently claim that rapes occurred. That, once again, distorts the source to make statements of fact that are attributed by the source. nableezy - 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My reversion of your unexplained removal of the BBC source was my only revert in the last 24 hours, so I would appreciate you refraining from baseless 1RR accusations. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

not sure what this is then, do my eyes deceive? WillowCity^(talk) 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No your earlier reinsertion in to the lead of the unattributed claim was a revert. Please self revert. nableezy - 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way was it a revert? It was a re-wording and restructuring of the lede for clarity, moving parts of it around, adding bits/citations and trimming other bits. It wasn't based on any prior revisions of the article in any way so I'm genuinely not at all sure what you believe that edit to have been "reverting". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You restored material that previously had been removed. You can call it a bold edit but it was also a revert, a revert about this specific material in fact. nableezy - 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Which specific material in that edit had been previously removed from the article? I made the edit made entirely independently of the article history (and in fact hadn't even looked at this article for weeks prior to the edit) so certainly am not aware of anything amounting to a revert, but if there is specific material in the edit in question which happens to have been removed from the article in a similar form prior to the edit, thus making parts of the edit in question a revert in practice (if not in intent), do please tell. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

carrying out mass rape and killing of Israeli women, which reverted Special:Diff/1189799035 which removed and Hamas militants reportedly raped, assaulted, and mutilated Israeli women and girls. You returned the very thing that has been argued about in this section twice today, the unattributed claim that Hamas raped Israeli women as part of their attack. nableezy - 01:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so not the BBC source then. Your unexplained removal of the BBC source was the primary reason for my latest revert, so I have partially reverted my most recent edit to your wording, but retained the BBC source. Is this acceptable? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine. Thank you. nableezy - 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Chessrat, for future reference, this "1RR accusation" stuff was disposed of above in the comment and linked WP:EW discussion cited by Alaexis above at 20:09, 13 December 2023. Such edits as you carried out are not in fact viewed as reverts. Coretheapple (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. The policy is pretty clear on this point. A revert is An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. The edit described above “manually reverse[d]” my action (the removal of an unattributed, POV claim) entirely, or at the very least in part. It was definitionally a revert. If your interpretation was correct the edit warring policy would be basically meaningless; minor semantic tweaks would be enough to skirt the rules and there would be virtually no restrictions on edit warring. WillowCity^(talk) 04:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

See link to the October 2023 noticeboard discussion in my reply. which indicated that such edits as Chessrat made are not considered reverts. Editors should be mindful of WP:OWN in their conduct on this page, and that bad-faith 1RR warnings are subject to sanction. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you can test that belief if you like, but you probably shouldnt recommend somebody else risk their own editing privileges based on your misconceptions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Coretheapple, that is a mischaracterization of the noticeboard discussion linked above, which related to the removal of "certain information that had been in the article for a while". It did not address restoring information that had been very recently removed. The discussion also specifically emphasized WP:QUO which has been persistently disregarded during this discussion. Again, no one is asserting ownership, as I've pointed out, this is a case of a significant number of editors disputing non-consensus POV edits.

In the event that I'm wrong, it's based on my good faith understanding of policy and the noticeboard discussion linked above. Baseless accusations of bad faith are themselves uncivil. WillowCity^(talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And I see this is still happening. Wow. WillowCity^(talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be reverted, we are not including that Israeli bombs have wiped out entire families, that they have decapitated countless babies, that snipers have shot at civilians during the supposed ceasefire in the lead. That level of detail does not belong in the lead, unless your aim here is to attempt to skew the article to support a narrative. nableezy - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ive included an equivalent level of detail for Israeli atrocities. If you want to turn the lead in to a detailed accounting of the worst stories you can find, I promise you I can find worse ones. nableezy - 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should include the premature babies that were found decomposing after Israel demanded the hospital be abandoned and promised to evacuate the babies, and then didnt. nableezy - 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The previous wording in the lead presents an NPOV issue. It presents a false balance between amply documented allegations of rape and a perfunctory Hamas denial. I retained the denial, though I do not believe it is necessary as I have previously indicated, but to prevent false balance in the lead I think NPOV requires more substance in describing the assaults. Various excuses and rationalizations are being presented to either omit entirely the mention of the sexual assaults or to falsely balance them with the result being to underweight and skew the neutrality of the lead. Neutrality does not require that equal weight be given to all points of view. That is well established. And in the section that this summarizes, in fact equal weight is not given to the perfunctory and brief Hamas denial. In fact, it was so brief, I actually had to add to it. But it remains in sharp contrast to the extensive documentation of teh sexual assaults, the horrified reaction of people overseas, including US president Biden and Secretary of State Blinken as well as European and EU officials. The false balance language therefore does not reflect either the article or reality. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, politicians are not reliable sources, no matter how many times you pretend like they are. If you want this level of detail for charges against Hamas then fine, we will have that level of detail for the exceedingly well documented crimes of Israel. Biden was also horrified at the beheaded babies. That was later found to be bullshit, but you would have had us include "Hamas beheaded countless babies" because some ultra-Zionist politician said so. nableezy - 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No one has to "assert" ownership for WP:OWN to apply. No one ever says "I own this article." I would just suggest that people be mindful of that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and neither do you. nableezy - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that you just called upon my lateast edit to be reverted, that is quite a statement. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be, you keep trying to push things in to the lead without anything resembling consensus. You dont own this article, consensus does. nableezy - 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to your added wording to the lead. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I would respectfully suggest that you not treat it as such. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool, will be adding a bunch more. Not looking for a battle, just equal treatment and NPOV. nableezy - 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You say "cool," but there are a lot of other editors here. I can be reverted or edited and so can you. This is not a peace conference with delegates from both sides making handshake deals. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

One other point I wanted to make. The coverage indicates that this is an extremely brutal war. It reminds me of the Pacific Campaign during World War II. To sugarcoat or downplay the actions of one party in a high-visibility article like this is very corrosive to the project as a whole, and I fear that that has been the case in this article with regard to the sexual assaults and its treatment in the lead. If the sexual assaults are not given proper weight, or if there is false balance, that is damaging to the project. This should not be a tit for tat situation. "Oh you addedd negative details so I will too." I see that an editor added some badly needed text re friendly fire incidents. Again, that rsolves is an important omission. There is no need to add countervailing detail from "the other side." Each detail needs to be added independently with an eye toward weight. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that we should only include details on supposed atrocities by one side, when the coverage of atrocities by the other side has been exceedingly wide, is absurd. If some editors insist on turning the lead in to a detailed account of the most extreme accusations against one side then of course the lead will need a similar level of detail for the actions of the other side that have been much more widely reported and verified. nableezy - 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I said quite the opposite of "including details on supposed atrocities by one siide," but... eh... never mind. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO can you explain why you are both including details on charges against Hamas and removing as unencyclopedic material that is widely covered? For sources on the wiping out of entire generations of Gazans, see France 24, Associated Press, Financial Times, Time, and al Jazeera. What is unencyclopedic or not in keeping with the balance of sources in that material? That you did so while adding detail to charges against Hamas is a curiosity that I would like an explanation for. nableezy - 20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In what world is this an acceptable edit Andrevan? Why did you remove the material on multiple generations of Gazans being killed? How is it non-neutral? Why is it removed from the body? nableezy - 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this in a section below, under the heading, "wiped out multiple generations of families" Andre🚐 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've lost track of the discussion, maybe it will help to re-frame the issue. There are two viewpoints: there was sexual violence and there wasn't sexual violence. Many Israeli sources and some international ones say the former, Hamas says the latter. According to WP:DUE the viewpoints have to be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Other than Hamas, who else is saying that there was no sexual violence? If it's just Hamas, we should mention it in the article but not in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 22:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not true, you dont describe what sources attribute as a fact, and you dont not include what sources include for a denial because "it's just Hamas". That is straightforwardly asking that we distort the cited sources. Independent sources are saying there are Israeli reports of rape and sexual violence, and that Hamas has denied these claims. nableezy - 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not just Israeli sources, there are also international ones like NBC and the Times that interviewed survivors and watched the footage.

You're right that if the denial itself is widely covered, then it would also satisfy DUE. However then the onus is on you to show that RS indeed mention it prominently. I didn't see it in the discussion above but I may have missed it. Alaexis_¿question? 22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

NBC says The evidence, primarily from the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. According to first responders, one was mutilated with a pair of scissors and another stabbed with a knife. The genitals of some men who had been killed were mutilated as well. and then later 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. And, by the way, the NBC story also includes Hamas's denial. They report on the testimonies of first responders and of witnesses, but do not say that they have established the veracity of those claims. I dont know which The Times you are referring to. You are welcome to provide such sources, but the sources have been attributing the accusation to Israeli accounts. Not saying that they have established that they are accurate. nableezy - 22:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Your “reframing” also ignores the fundamental question of whether this story is essential to a summary of the war as a whole (i.e., WP:DUE). Not a summary of October 7, not a summary of how wicked and cartoonishly villainous Hamas supposedly is, a summary of the entire war. Regardless of whether you accept Israel’s evidence, one of our tasks here is to distill out the essential features of the whole war, in proportion to the coverage of RS. The fact that the Israeli propaganda machine has latched onto these stories (after the “40 beheaded babies” schtick didn’t catch on) doesn’t make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. So, no, it may help a certain POV to re-frame the issue along these lines, but I doubt it helps our readers or other editors looking to establish consensus. WillowCity^(talk) 22:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So you suggest to remove any mention of sexual violence from the lede? I don't agree with this, lots of RS have mentioned it very prominently when describing the conflict.

The 40 beheaded babies have nothing to do with it. Some claims turn out to be false, on both sides (e.g., the first reports of the number casualties of the Al-Ahli explosion were hugely exaggerated). In case of beheaded babies, the RS have investigated this claim and found it to be untrue. In case of sexual violence, on the other hand, we get more and more evidence that it happened, unfortunately. Alaexis_¿question? 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

From your CNN source: CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims. AP comes closer to saying that it happened in their own voice, but still attributes it to accounts provided by Israeli witnesses or first responders. Both also include the denial. I am fine including that these accusations have been made, in the lead too, but not with the level of detail given here if we are eliding detail of Israeli crimes from the lead. And yes, with the denial. nableezy - 22:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position, but I’m not opposed to compromise. I’m glad you brought out those sources though. From the first:

• CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims … Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence during the attack — despite the evidence. so, some editorializing (which we don’t do here), but still noting the denial.

from the second:

• accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of [the Oct 7 attack] … investigators are still trying to determine the scope of the sexual assaults … Hamas has rejected allegations that its gunmen committed sexual assault … Rights experts say the United Nations is best placed to conduct a fair, credible and impartial investigation.

attributions, denials. WillowCity^(talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Willow, you misunderstand our NPOV and Verification policies. When the source says the denials are false, then WP must do the same. We are agnostic and just summarize the RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say the denials are false so your premise fails under its own weight. nableezy - 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Alice says she saw Bob eating a steak. Charlie says he saw Bob eating a burger. But Bob says he's a vegetarian—despite the evidence. CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims." In this hypothetical, is CNN saying that Bob's denials are false? WillowCity^(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It would advance your position more effectively if you would not post straw men and other deflections. I did not say that the quoted source called the denial false. I was trying to address the principle by which WP treats statements by RS. I was giving you the example that even in the polar case, where the denial was outright false, we would still represent whatever the source says. In the case of Hamas' denial of these assaults, the source makes a point of telling its readers that the denial is "despite the evidence". The NPOV way to reflect that in the article is to include that assessment. Numerous editors have been explaining that quite clearly for many days now, so if it's not acceptable to you, you could mount an RfC or solicit feedback at NPOVN, but I think you will find that our policies have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is one source, and numerous editors have been explaining quite clearly the issue with your edits, and you may solicit that same feedback. Since you have declined to answer my question on your removal of very well sources material up above, I am reverting it. nableezy - 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that something is denied "despite the evidence" is not the same as saying that the denial is false. That was the point of my analogy. I understood you as saying that the quoted source called the denial false. If I misunderstood, that was my mistake. But, as nableezy notes, even if CNN did dismiss the denials, other RS report the denials without editorializing on their relative merit.

My position remains that a clinical, detached tone is preferable. Even in articles like Rwandan genocide and Atrocities in the Congo Free State, the extreme language that's being pushed here isn't used in the lead. Make of that what you will. WillowCity^(talk) 01:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all, or are somehow in doubt, is a position that does not help matters much at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say that they didn’t happen? I said that they were denied by the alleged perpetrators, I said that Israel has a history of misrepresenting or outright fabricating evidence, but I never specifically opined on whether or not it happened. Rape has (always and tragically) been a weapon of war and it will continue to be as long as imperialism and colonialism (the real root of wartime violence against women) persist. But are we here to discuss what WP user WillowCity thinks, or what RS say? I’m vain, but I think the latter. WillowCity^(talk) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking sources to give a false impression of the overwhelming evidence supporting the immensity and gravity of the sexual assaults. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, he is accurately showing that sources are attributing these accusations. Your accusation is baseless and outrageous. Please stop yourself. nableezy - 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with the points made aboveby Alaexis re the denials, and I think the NPOV issue created by failure to mention the sexual atrocities is self-evident. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• per wp:neutrality, all the views must be quoted when a subject is mentioned 1) Hamas denies using rape as a weapon - it is a fact, they released a statement, 2) individual Hamas soldiers did commit, it was reported. Iennes (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what neutrality is. Andre🚐 23:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". two sides of a coin and not censorship like it was done here.[25] Iennes (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Reconsideration to include the US on Israel's side

As the war progressed, the United States' involvement in the war on Israel' side against Hamas has become more and more glaring. The US just recently skipped congressional review to approve emergency supply of tank shells to Israel[26], while simultaneously threatening Iran and others not to arm or replenish Hamas. The US has been shooting down Yemen's missiles and drones that were fired toward Israel.[27][28]. Hezbollah and Houthis are already included on Hamas's side in the infobox. I believe it's about time we included the US on Israel's side for the sake of keeping Wikipedia' neutrality. Crampcomes (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's money and material. Not boots on the ground. Alexysun (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Shooting down drones and missiles are not just money and materials, and by your logic Israel's aerial bombardment of Gaza wouldn't count as part of this war because that's not boots on the ground. Also, Hezbollah and Houthis don't have boots on the ground either yet they are included on Hamas's side in the infobox Crampcomes (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We need RS that say the US is part of the combat EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The US is not only shooting down Houthis' missiles and drones fired toward Israel, but now also battling the Houthis at sea on behalf of Israel [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67542550] Crampcomes (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but you cannot be the one to make that connection. Reliable sources must make it for us. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

See RfC above Parham wiki (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The US is not described as a belligerent in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the neutrality template regarding?

@Nableezy:, you appear to have added a neutrality template to the lede without linking it to a talk page discussion. Please address what the dispute is regarding. Ecrusized (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

#Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede nableezy - 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Would one of the regulars here please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#2023 Israel–Hamas war? There's a rather detailed and thoughtful request there that an uninvolved person like me is not equipped to answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And another has appeared, same link. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"wiped out multiple generations of families"

I don't doubt that this statement is true, but it's not encyclopedic and it's not NPOV. One assumes that anytime a family is killed, it had multiple generations, unless it was a couple/thruple with no children or some siblings without parents, but ... why is this a good and clear and neutral way to describe it? Further, I'm not sure why the the lead discussion was summarily ignored to remove the sexual allegations under active discussion above, so I reverted that. Andre🚐 06:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not encyclopedic and why is not NPOV? You just saying something doesnt make it true, and removing what a number of sources have remarked on is what is blatantly non-neutral. Utter bs to remove this material without any basis at all. nableezy - 09:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Wiped out" is not the way an encyclopedia would describe it. I consider the encyclopedic tone to be a very dispassionate one. And you have to explain what it means better in the prose. And I like I said, why does this a high level aspect of the war? Doesn't any war, where a house blows up, there's an assumption that if the grandma and the mom and the child lives in the house, wouldn't that be multiple generations? I mean, I just don't understand this addition, and it looks like it was just added, and the articles used for the source were also just published. And anyway, the Financial Times article, while reliable, does not even contain the fact that "mutliple generations were wiped out," that information only appears in the WP:HEADLINE. Andre🚐 09:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is how the sources describe it, and if you felt that you could have edited it. And FT says "The tradition of extended families living together in multistorey buildings, compounded by relatives moving in together for safety in wartime, has meant that hundreds of multigenerational families have suffered the same fate as the Aghas, all but wiped out in single or multiple strikes." and later says "About 1,550 families have lost multiple members, according to health officials in the Hamas-controlled territory. At least 312 families had each lost more than 10 people by November 23, the officials said. Aid agencies speak of the all too common use of the acronym “WCNSF” — short for “wounded child, no surviving family”." and later says "Further strikes hit members of the wider family following the attack that killed Iyyam’s parents on November 3. No generation has been left untouched." You are just making up does not even contain the fact that "mutliple generations were wiped out," that information only appears in the WP:HEADLINE. You either did not read the story or are just straight up bsing about its contents here. Why? nableezy - 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead wp:neutrality

At the end of this sentence in the lead, << The UN has warned of the "immediate possibility" of starvation and spread of disease in the region, due to the cuotoff of water, fuel, food and electricity. by Israel >>, the following appendix was added today which Israel states would benefit Hamas..[29]. This is a case of "talking point" said by a press agent, and adding it goes against the wp:neutrality rule on an encyclopedia. Even if it is based on a quote (I didn't see it mentioned in any source) it was used as a rhetoric to minimize the UN statement. So, this appendix if accepted as relevant should be included in another sentence and certainly not in the one about the UN statement. Iennes (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You've made several comments about neutrality on this page but none of them really seem to understand what it is. I'm not sure I like that "which Israel states would benefit Hamas" language either, so go ahead and take it out. But, we should also remove the Hamas denials of sexual violence per WP:MANDY and the overwhelming evidence that it occurred. Andre🚐 06:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Hamas has no credibility is your own point of view; they released hostages and respected the deal. Iennes (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You lost me, I'm sorry. I didn't say anything about Hamas' credibility or whether they released the hostages. They did, you're right, but what does that have to do with this? I said I don't mind removing the language in underline and italics. But, I do not think that "Hamas has denied the allegations" makes sense, since we have documentary proof of things that Hamas has denied occurring. It's not typical to print a denial, we aren't journalists, we are an encyclopedia, and people don't have a right to have their voice heard everytime an allegation is or isn't substantiated by RS. Andre🚐 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Letting you know that you violated 1RR here and here and should self-revert. To address that, I thought adding Israel’s reasoning regarding the cutting off supply is a needed detail and attributed that statement to Israel per npov and wikivoice. Its stated in various sources such as https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/30/gazas-blocked-relief, https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-11-17-2023-1811384fac6394329dd71e3aaf461eb5 Would “;Israel stated that fuel would be diverted by Hamas for military means.”(as said in the AP article) work? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)