Talk:Israel–Hamas war

"Unconfirmed reports"

Considering the two following statements in the article :

1.

Yossi Landau, regional head of the first responder organisation ZAKA, claimed that both babies and minors had been beheaded alongside corpses of dismembered adults.

2.

Jewish burial rites may complicate the search for answers, given the emphasis on the dignity of the dead and the requirement for burials to take place within 24 hours if possible. Viewing and exposing the body is also considered objectionable and disrespectful

Someone should write in the body of the article that these two facts along with the fact that the beheadings are "unconfirmed by outside sources" actually add up because Israel never invites people to see atrocities of enemies to use it as propaganda (Unlike Palestinians). 2A02:14F:170:3559:0:0:B796:528F (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a source for that assertion, that would be a start. Riposte97 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This assertion about "unconfirmed reports" makes absolutely no sense because Israel invited Western media to view the bodies and carnage of the massacre conducted by Hamas and subsequently verified the reports. Also, there are tons of articles with reports from ZAKA, so I do not understand where you are coming from. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add these:

• The UN's aid agency told the BBC that Gaza is "being pushed into an abyss"
• The US has sent a second aircraft carrier to the region to "deter hostile actions against Israel". Meanwhile, Iran has warned of "far-reaching consequences" if Israel continues attacking

Scientelensia (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran Israel proxy conflict?

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

I don't think anyone denies that Iran provides substantial support to Hamas with a view to weakening Israel, direct involvement in the current war notwithstanding. Riposte97 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas forcefully prevents Palestinians from evacuating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you go, CNN:

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

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

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

Separate civilians from soldiers in Israeli casualties

"1400 killed" paints the wrong picture when 90% were murdered civilians.

Only 286 were soldiers. Source: https://www.idf.il/59780?q=&page=1 Raymond Saint (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, say most Wikipedians, a footnote is enough!

This was brought up a week ago. They added a footnote. I agree it's not enough. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

If there's adequate citations then yes the number of civilian deaths on both sides needs to be mentioned. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2023

Template:RM protected

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza–Israel war – This page should move back to a descriptive title both consistent with the WP:NCE guidelines and consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's huge existing body of content on the Gaza–Israel conflict. In the rapidly evolving news, both "Gaza–Israel" (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) and "Israel–Hamas" are clearly extant variants. In this context it is reasonable for Wikipedia to refer back to its own naming policies, such as WP:NCE and WP:CONSISTENT, in making a choice. Speaking to WP:NCE, the guidelines call for the title to be composed of "when, where, what", and, in line with this, "Gaza–Israel" is a "where", while, by contrast, "Israel–Hamas" is not a "where" at all, but a hybridized "place–participant", and so lacks internal consistency, let alone functional adherence to WP:NCE. In terms of the naming discussion that brought us here, it is worth noting that in that discussion there was a considerable voting preference for "Gaza–Israel", but the RM went in a different direction that was less consistent with WP:NCE or consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's existing content on the topic - unlike the prior title of "October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict", which was consistent. There was also a second, snow-closed RM that presented no new arguments and was snow-closed for the obvious reason that it was one-sided in its proposed "where"/geography. See my vote below for further considerations excluded here for brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Beyond the consistency points raised above, another point that was inadequately incorporated into the closure of the previous successful RM is that the use of "Hamas" alone in the title is, from an encyclopedic perspective, simply inaccurate and imprecise. Whatever the news headlines state, the actual description of events in the news makes plain that the incursion into Israel was undertaken by multiple militant groups, including the PIJ (another major group), and possibly others, so "Hamas" alone is simply not accurate, let alone precise. Another problem with the reference to just "Hamas" in the title is the way in which it lends credence to the simplistic and mildly propagandistic characterization of all Gaza as "Hamas". This is an issue that has only grown as the conflict has progressed and clearly all of Gaza has become embroiled in it; it is now clearly not just Hamas that is feeling the brunt of this conflict on the Palestinian side, but all of Gaza, by virtue of the transparent and roundly acknowledged collective punishment that is currently at work in Gaza. To continue to use only "Hamas" in the title of this page is to pander to the Israeli-US-Western narrative that this is still some sort of targeted and rational military operation that has not drawn 2 million people into its crosshairs. Note that the child article October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip does not refer to a "blockade of Hamas", or the "Hamas Strip", because this is not the scope, and these are not the terms. The notion that this war is limited to "Hamas" and has not broadened to all of Gaza at this point seems frankly silly, and again, headlines aside, simple unencyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  is it allowed for the person who suggested to support his own nomination? i mean nominating it counts as a support vote and you don't have to write it again Abo Yemen✉ 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RMCOMMENT says not to do this for RM's. It is customary in other types of discussion where nominations are required to be neutral. SilverLocust 💬 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Israel is bombarding Gaza, it is preparing to launch a ground invasion of Gaza, Israel has cut off the electricity and water supply to Gaza, half of the population of Gaza has been displaced, over 2,000 non-Hamas civilians of Gaza have been killed. This framing of Israel is only at war with Hamas is as POV as you can get, it is pushing the Israeli propaganda line that they are only targeting Hamas. Nearly every descriptive title for a war has the territories. eg Russo-Ukrainian War, or 2006 Lebanon War, or ... . nableezy - 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. WP:NPOV phrasing. Israel is a political entity. Hamas is the political entity governing the Gaza Strip. Loksmythe (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, the Israeli government is a political entity, Israel is a country. Hamas is the government of territory known as Gaza. You dont have IDF-Hamas war either, your argument here is nonsensical. nableezy - 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  I almost brought up that IDF–Hamas would be the like-for-like equivalent, but dropped it, again for brevity. But yes, Israel is a territory, like Gaza, the IDF, like Hamas, is doing the fighting. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support It is high time. Hamas is just one of the groups fighting. It is true that it rules Gaza. But Israel's problem is originally with the Palestinians as a whole because of the political impasse. Most Palestinians killed are not affiliated with Hamas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It was completely wrong for the article to be called the "Israel-Hamas war" in the first place. It's not just Hamas fighting Israel and that is abundantly clear, especially now that Israel is making incursions into Gaza, a place in which not every single man, woman, and child is a fighter for Hamas. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support — Per what nableezy and Iskandar323 said. FunLater (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Israel is the country, not the government in charge of the country that is fighting the war. The Russia-Ukraine war for example is not Putin-Zelensky war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reliable sources are overwhelming that this is a war between Israel and Hamas. I would favor "Hamas-Israel War" (reversing the order), due to the nature of how it began, however for the purposes of this discussion I support leaving the title alone. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Searching for news articles from the past hour I find 19 articles using "Israel-Hamas war" or similar, including the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. For "Israel-Gaza war" or similar I find just four, and none from any sources worth noting.

At the moment, this descriptive title is also the WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm not seeing any sufficiently strong justifications for ignoring the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Normally we put 2023 Israel–Palestine war, but the title 2023 Israel–Hamas war is not appropriate compared to 2023 Israel–Gaza war. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the common name argument listed above. KD0710 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. —Stewpot 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per BilledMammal - The term "Israel-Hamas war" is more frequently used in recent news articles, as evidenced by 19 articles from top tier, reputable sources like the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. In contrast, the term "Israel-Gaza war" appears in only four articles from less notable sources. Given this, the term "Israel-Hamas war" not only serves as a descriptive title but also aligns with our policy and I see no compelling reasons to deviate from using the common name at this time. Marokwitz (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support I find the "geographical argument" persuasive and it is in line with our previous namings. It is a bit rich to imply by article title that the war is solely with Hamas at the same time as killing thousands of Palestinian Gazans along with the extensive destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments on the aforementioned snow-closed RM, which for reference I quote below:

[Oppose] on two accounts: that (1) throughout the course of events Hamas is the primary actor in the majority of attacks, with other militant groups playing a supportive role, and (2) Hamas being the only belligerent named as the enemy belligerent in most sources' descriptions of the Israeli declaration of war, e.g. [4] [5]. This would not be the first military conflict on Wikipedia after only the two major parties of several involved (e.g. Russo-Georgian War not including unrecognised states South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or the Iran-Iraq War not including the variety of militant groups of various nationalities), and it would not be unreasonable to follow that convention rather than incorrectly imply that, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad had anywhere near as much authority or influence over the attacks as Hamas.

The argument applies in the exact same way for the exact same reasons now, among which are arguments for its consistency with other wars named in a similar manner. A "geographical" descriptor identifying Gaza has its own issues: a Lebanese and Syrian front is also active and there are ongoing events in the West Bank. And above all that, there is BilledMammal's WP:COMMONNAME argument above, which serves as an ideal tiebreaker for all of the descriptive titles on offer which, by necessity, all fail to completely describe the war. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per BilledMammal. Pg 6475 ^TM 18:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as supporters' comments are more convincing.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. A new move request every day? The three cherry-picked sources cited by the proposer not withstanding, the majority of reliable sources use "Israel-Hamas", i.e., WP:COMMONNAME applies. In addition to the sources mentioned by BilledMammal, there's also AlJazeera, CNN, CNBC, Reuters, NBC, NPR, WSJ, Foreign Policy. WP:CRITERIA for article titles says that the five characteristics are goals, not rules. Consistency with other article titles takes a back seat to common name (recognizability), naturalness, precision, and concision. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as Hamas gets less and less focus on the war, with the attacks primarily targeting Gaza. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Aside from it being a weird mix of actor and place, the original title may have made sense initially, but Israel is now bombing and preparing to invade Gaza- not Hamas.. Zellfire999 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment, this might not be very helpful, but i do not think either one is necessarily an better or worse. the status quo appears to me to be just as good as this suggested move.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Israel and Hamas are at war. Israel is not at war with Gaza. Major English language newspapers call it the "Israel-Hamas" war.—Finell 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as the vast majority of sources are referring to it as the Israel Gaza war in order to distinguish this separate, declared, war from the conflict at large. This is far simpler for both editors and users. Also, there is the technical matter of Gaza as an entity; I do not support any change but if there was one I would think it should be some form of 2023 Israel War in Gaza. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support For same reasons as other supporters above. VSatire (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's follow reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. Infinity Knight (talk)
• Oppose Israel is at war with the terrorist organization, not the strip of land the terrorist organization is de facto in charge of. Reliable sources seem to characterize it as Israel-Hamas, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Zaathras (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources also refer to it as Israel-Gaza War. Example Washington Post, BBC, ABC (Australia), The Times (UK), The Times of Israel (!) nableezy - 00:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support. As said earlier, the war is mainly centered in and around Gaza, and “hamas” is not the only war party, all palestinian resistance factions and paramilitaries are in this war. The current title neither specify where the war is exactly and ignores all other major palestinian paramilitary groups in this war. I don’t see why it should be any different or exceptional from 2014 Gaza War Stephan rostie (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Israel–Hamas war, which already redirects here, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, "Israel-Gaza" would be misleading because the war is already happening in a number of other areas, such as North of Israel, West Bank, etc. - see 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Outside_Israel_and_the_Gaza_Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you mean the exchanges with Hezbollah in the north then yes, that is another reason why "Hamas" is ridiculous in the title, since again, it's scope is far broader. But it is centred on Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The involvement of other Palestinian factions is trivial and opportunistic, and the war is taking place now because Hamas chose to launch an aggressive campaign of genocidal antisemitic butchery. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I would suggest that the involvement of Palestinian Islamic Jihad is not trivial at all. This is a group that Israel is almost as equally fixated on as Hamas - all of the incursions into Jenin in the past year or so have been to root out the PIJ. It's grossly simplistic to ignore all of this in a descriptive title, in addition to being patently imprecise. As one editor quizzed earlier, how is this different from an other Gaza war in terms of its actors? The answer is, it's not. Hamas is always a large component of any engagement between Israel and militant groups in Gaza, but not a single one of the previous Gaza war titles go down this pigeonholing route. It's inconsistent. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. The war has been called by various media outlets such as CNN, Reuters, Axios, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, etc. as the "Israel-Hamas war". --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 03:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Andre🚐 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name might change in the future, as the role of other Palestinian groups becomes clearer. I'd also note that the word 'Israel' in the title does not refer to the place in which the fighting is occurring, but to one of the polities engaged in hostilities. Riposte97 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per common name, which was evaluated in the last discussion and hasn't changed (see my comment in the last move request). I'll just bring up another source which was never brought up before in this discussion or the last: Le Monde, a major newspaper of record, which uses "Israel-Hamas" too. Also, we want people to see this article, and recognizability and naturalness are WP:CRITERIA too (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for); look at which search term is most-used to refer to this conflict: Google Trends; people search for "Israel-Hamas" 10-times more than they search for "Gaza-Israel". I also disagree with the consistency argument; that's a high priority for articles that are part of a series (e.g. "Accession of Turkey to the EU", "Accession of Serbia to the EU"), but is a lower priority for articles that are merely about topics of the same nature; WP:NCE, brought up above, also says to priorise the common name. DFlhb (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The war as stated is not against Gaza but against Hamas. In similar context, when the US fought ISIS in Syria, it fought ISIS not Syria. Furthermore Hamas operates in other locations, not just Gaza. Israel is fighting Hamas mostly in Gaza but also in other locations. Therefore it seems that the name Israel-Hamas war is most fitting. It also appears to be the name used most in the media, by the Guardian, New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN and more. I'll include a few links for proof.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-conflict

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-16-23/index.html Homerethegreat (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

  The comment in question. I completely agree with it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support title change to: "2023 Gaza-Israel war"

The war is not exclusively limited to fighting between Israel and Hamas. Israeli state is fighting multiple Palestinian factions. There are also skirmishes with Hezbollah in the Lebanese border.

Also see the article Hamas government of October 2016: "The Hamas government of October 2016 is a faction of the Palestinian government based in Gaza and is effectively the third Hamas dominated government in the Gaza Strip.."

The Israeli state is waging a war against the government of Gaza. Multiple Palestinian armed groups are fighting alongside Hamas. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support per Stephan rostie. Salvabl (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Iskandar323, nableezy, Selfstudier, Zellfire999, Stephan rostie and Shadowwarrior8. Daask (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only is Gaza an inaccurate description of the area. The conflict is extends to other areas, including the cyber domain and information warfare. The title is more accurate to say Israel-Hamas as it does currently. ~

.

Aeonx (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: Obviously DFLP and PFLP are not Hamas. They're communist parties. It is completely unacceptable to confuse the communist with islamic. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 04:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It seems that both "Israel-Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" are both common names for the conflict. Sources that use "Israel-Gaza" include BBC News[6], Washington Post[7], The Hindu[8], ABC News[9], Foreign Policy (magazine)[10], NDTV[11], reuters[12], Medicines Sans Frontiers[13], CP24[14], France24[15], United Nations[16]. Source that use "Gaza war" include Reuters[17], CNN[18], Council on Foreign Relations[19], Financial Times[20], Vox[21], Le Monde Diplomatique[22]. So clearly, having "Gaza" (as opposed to "Hamas") in the title is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. The additional benefit of the proposed title is that it is WP:CONSISTENT with Israel-Gaza conflict etc, which is something that "Israel-Hamas war" is not.VR _talk 07:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  WaPo did switch, but several outlets you mention are still using "Israel-Hamas": Foreign Policy magazine[23], Financial Times[24], and Vox[25]

  However, I found another site that uses "Israel-Gaza", Stratfor[26] DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources that use the term "Israel-Hamas War" include CNN, AP News, CNBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Vox, Euro News, NBC News, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The New York Times, Reuters, The Times of India, Time Magazine, The Hindu, BBC News, and others. This is clearly a common name used for this conflict, and it should stay unless someone can demonstrate that "Israel-Gaza War" is significantly more common. Cortador (talk)

Cortador: FYI, Al Jazeera has switched and is calling it "Israel-Gaza war" on its banner and front page, while the BBC has been using it for a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A few outlets referring to it differently are insufficient to overrule the majority. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The war is blatantly between Israel and Hamas. Gaza is only involved because that's Hamas's base of operations. Gaza is not a state which is at war with Israel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: Neither is Hamas a state. Nor is it alone in this fight. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and also a bit of WP:NPOV. I believe the current title is most descriptive and neutral. Flalf^Talk 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

References

Extremely violent execution video in the body section

There is an extremely violent execution .webm file from the body section. During the video, a civilian is shot in the head by Hamas. Subsequently a large blood pool is seen emerging from the victims body. Such extreme content should not be included. Ecrusized (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I already reverted your edit per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." FunLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there is WP:OM, and that says that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. Awesome Aasim 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just not born out in standard Wikipedia practice. The article for 9/11, for instance, has footage of the plane crashing. I beleive showing readers the actual event that happened does a much better job of imparting information than words do, particularly in a case like this where there will be strong efforts from both sides to selectivly edit and word things in a way favorable to thier own point of view. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks It is ridiculous to compare footage of planes crashing into a building (or, as in this article, a building blowing up) to someone being executed and bleeding out in the street and another person being bayoneted. Your belief that "showing the real event" is beneficial to the reader does not overcome Wikipedia's image content policy. Moreover, the video in question is taken from an unsourced reddit post, so it is not clear that this is Hamas, that this actually happened where it is claimed to have happened, or that this actually happened when it is claimed to have happened. This is not a NOTCENSORED issue. It is a WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:GRATUITOUS, and MOS:OMIMG issue.

From MOS:OMIMG: Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. A dubiously sourced snuff film is not encyclopedic. lethargilistic (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If the argument is about authenticity and sourcing, that is another matter. Of course if it cannot be verified it should not be included (offensive or not). My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value, particularly in a conflict which is complicated and confusing for many. Trying to create levels of offensiveness (i.e. Bombing, plane into building, murder with a gun) is not really relovant. If the video has encyclopedic value, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter if it is "5" offensive or "10" offensive. The verifiability of the content is an entirely separate issue. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks We'll deal with verifiability separately, then. What, exactly, does CCTV footage of a murder inform a reader about how the (overall) attack was carried out? You say it is obvious, but what does it clarify about this, in your words, confusing situation? lethargilistic (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic So I think you made a few assumtions there. The first is that the image has to show to how the "overall" attack occurred. There is nothing to say that it can't serve to provide the specific details of how an attack was carried out. Additionally, you seem to assume that media must clarify something ambiguous to be used. WP:IMGCONTENT states clearly:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article
— wp:IMGCONTENT

So the video can be encyclopedic simply by illustrating a fuller picture of the article content. By your own acknowledgment this article contains many media depicting airstrikes. I presume that you do not wish for these to be removed as well? I believe that those videos are encyclopedic for the same reason, as they provide the reader with a fuller picture/understanding of the events described. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLA is also applicable, specifically that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain (from wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). I think whether the video should be on Wikipedia is better suited for an FFD discussion or Commons Deletion Request, rather than here. Wait there already is one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm. But I don't see how the media being described can't accurately be described in words alone without crossing WP:SYNTH. Awesome Aasim 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - Wikipedia:Image use policy

This is a video which purports to DIRECTLY depict people (hamas militants) doing things (killing israeli civilians) as described in the article. It's relevant.

"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." - Wikipedia:Image use policy

Are we claiming here that this is being used to bring attention to an article? I don't see how you can make that argument. What is the argument for removing it exactly? If the argument is "but these actions are already described in the text", then why have pictures at all on wikipedia? Why have videos? This is literally the purpose of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks: [Reply edit-conflicted with above comment front Chuckstablers] I would theoretically be in favor of removing the airstrike footage, frankly. However, airstrike footage is normalized by the media. Therefore, I don't think it's disqualified by the part of WP:IMGCONTENT about reader expectations.

Yours is a good argument based on that guideline. To articulate where I think we are actually disagreeing, I reviewed WP:NOTCENSORED again and I think this recenters to why I think this article should be removed: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. If we turn to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, we see the picture captioned This image of a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House shows neither adequately. My problem with the image is not that it depicts a military action, really.

My first problem, with regard to appropriateness, is that it does not clearly show the activity of the fighters. The person is shot from offscreen and bleeds out in the foreground, fighters come across the field in the background, and then the other person is attacked with the bayonet almost out of frame. Im not sure if we would disagree here, necessarily. Even if, as a general matter, footage of Hamas fighting is relevant and encyclopedic, unclear or sufficiently inappropriate depictions would still be kept out.

Second, I think that what this picture does show adequately is not suitable for Wikipedia even under WP:NOTCENSORED. In my view, at least part of the video is WP:GRATUITOUS:

Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The man being stabbed does not appear especially clearly, so I'm more concerned about the man bleeding out in the foreground. We disagree as to whether depiction of death is encyclopedically valuable in principle, but I think we should be asking whether depicting this man bleeding out is unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. Regarding the broad conflict, it is unnecessary to show someone bleeding out like this. Regarding the desire to depict Hamas fighters in action as an activity under the war's umbrella, it is irrelevant and draws the focus away from the Hamas fighters' depiction. And showing a dead person's blood slowly seep into the stones is gratuitous. It is far in excess of what a reader would expect to find on Wikipedia, even under an article about a war. Moreover, I think it's extremely disrespectful to the dead person to immortalize their death so clearly on Wikipedia, however besides the point that may be regarding policy.

I contend that this video is sufficiently out of bounds that it should overcome WP:NOTCENSORED on its own, but the alternative suggested by that policy and WP:GRATUITOUS is to find a video that is a more suitable alternative if we want to show Hamas's (or Israel's) ground fighting. Another option would be an image of fighters. (And if the purpose of the image does happen to be depicting death specifically, perhaps there is a CC-licensed image of ZAKA handling bodybags available.)

I think we could find consensus on an alternative image that shows a military action by Hamas and does not show someone bleeding out like that. That compromise would satisfy your belief that showing a military action by Hamas is beneficial to the article and my belief that these specific deaths are not appropriate depictions of the action and are beyond what should be tolerated under WP:NOTCENSORED. Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic Well I'm glad we now (mostly) agree on the policy :) While I understand and appreciate your point of view, to some extent I think that this just comes down to a simple difference of opinion which may be irreconcilable. I think that the footage is both relevant and uniquely so. That is to say, I don't think replacing it with general footage of "Hamas ground fighting" would be as informative unless it is also of one of the similar Kibbutz attacks. I think that there is an element of the type of attack that was carried out that was unique to this round of fighting and is relevant to the article and to the developments.

As an aside, I think I disagree with your take on the Sydney Opera house picture in that I think the policy there is designed to guard against images that do not properly depict the thing that makes them relevant (in that picture, a helicopter or the building). In our case, I think that the video shows unambiguously the attack that occurred and also the broader type of attack that was carried out in the opening phase and is described in the article. I do not think that that is diminished by a knife that is partially out of frame or an unideal camera angle, but I suppose I would be open to some of the CCTV footage from the other Kibbutz attacks, as they might also accomplish this goal. Yet I digress as this is really usurped by our more fundamental disagreement. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic I just wanted to follow up two parts of our previous discussion. Your (correct me if I'm wrong) main objection was that you thought part of the video was GRATUITOUS enough to overcome NOTCENSORED. I have since researched the practice in a lot of other articles and found there to be a general trend to include such material such as at Abu Ghraib abuse and Einsatzgruppen. Does this alter your perspective at all, or do you feel that a)This video is different or b)They got it wrong?

Also, have you made any progress in identifying a possible less graphic replacement? I think that that would honestly be the least contentious way to resole this?

Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks I think it's pretty easy to distinguish them for the purposes of WP:GRATUITOUS, but you'll forgive me if this is not based in policy quoting because (not directing this frustration at you) I have a life outside of this video and I did not anticipate this dispute blowing up like this.

Firstly, they're images, not videos. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the video from 9/11. Readers can watch footage of people dying elsewhere. And the flowing of the blood in particular makes it disturbing, as I talked about before. Secondly, the point of documenting those topics is at least in part that those events are so excessively violent that people regularly do not believe occurred. People die in wars all the time, and I do not align with the view expressed in this thread that that this death's brutality was educational because of its excessive brutality. There's nothing notable about any one person dying in a war. If they had gone further and defiled the corpse, it would not be more notable or educational. Third, I understand the reasoning behind looking to mass murder events for a comparison, but I think the person's death here is more comparable to an assassination or (perhaps counter-intuitively) a suicide. I know you don't think the camera angle here is a particular issue, but I do, and the killing is center-stage in this video and arguably its subject. There is no footage of the deaths in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Suicide of Ronnie McNutt, or Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém despite the footage of those events literally being the complete subject of the article. (And in McNutt's and Lem's cases, the footage is the reason it's notable at all.) Nor should there be.

No matter the textual interpretations we get into, the fact is that your position is an aberrant one as far as Wikipedia norms go. If you take this beyond this thread, the policy is more likely to change than this sort of video becoming more accepted/common.

No, I have not yet begun looking through footage to find a suitable alternative. I am a law student and booked solid. I'll point out that I did not remove the video when I joined this, so this isn't me trying to worm out of our compromise. I'm busy. (If the resolution of this is to remove it, I'm not going to replace it myself, tho.) lethargilistic (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I think I've clarified my position well enough in my last reply to Lenny, so check that out. Remember that WP:NOTCENSORED is, by its own text, not categorical and the various other guidelines we've been discussing have things to say about its limits. lethargilistic (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I get more where you're coming from, and I appreciate the concern. It is a bit over the top. My issue is that it displays, in a short video format, the type of thing that happened in so many of these massacres against civilians. Civilians running away from militants who chased them down and killed them. This was not combat, this was not an engagement, it was a massacre. The brutality, which is unprecedented, helps explain the way the conflict has evolved (to a degree). Portraying that adds value to the article.

With that out of way, I can agree that it's over the top. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." What equally suitable alternative would you have in mind to replace it with that achieves that purpose? Displaying the nature of the thing that actually happened here, which I think is kind of important here. Just like it's important to display the blood stained kitchen in the image below (that is a very effective way to show that militants entered their homes and murdered civilians). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the photo should go too (though it is a much less problematic and pressing issue); both pieces of media are indecorous to our purely educational purposes here. To frame the policy considerations here in the terms you raise above, we don't need the video to illustrate that militants went around killing people in the streets, just as we don't need the photo to demonstrate that they went into homes to kill civilians: both facts are easily, efficiently, cogently, and completely imparted to the reader by simple textual descriptions.

And the key word there is "facts"; the media in question do not add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone. They add emotive emphasis and subtext, which makes the content potentially powerful and possessed of significant social value if presented in the right forum (news media, editorial media, social media), but such emotional and visceral emphasis does not tonally serve a significant enough encyclopedic priority to even begin to offset the immense potential (or indeed, certainty) of harm that will result from keeping the video in the article, where it is likely to be stumbled upon by countless people merely looking for an encyclopedic summary of events.

And all that is putting aside the numerous other policies this content violates. By my tally, the video (at least) clearly violates WP:OM, WP:BLP, WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:DUE, and at the moment WP:ONUS as well, insofar as it was re-added before there was consensus to do so, in violation of WP:BRD. That's a pretty impressive list of core policies we'd have to turn a blind eye to here to keep the video, for essentially no factual/encyclopedic context added that prose cannot satisfy. This is just not the place for this content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that they have to "add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone" is not in the image policy, and if applied equally would essentially result in 90% of the images on this wiki being removed. I have to strongly disagree with you on that one. See the image policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". That does not read "the purpose of an image is to add factual information that cannot be described by text alone". Those are very different things. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important nuance of that language, though you are by no means the first person, and it is largely down to an issue with the ambiguity in the phrasing in the policy itself: just because an image exists and "directly depicts" a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it "increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" as a per se matter. Those are conjunctive predicates, not a predicate and a result.

An example to clarify the distinction: this image of a carcinoma is the lead image of our skin cancer article. It both depicts an aspect of the subject matter of the article and can be reasonably expected to increase the reader's understanding of that aspect, since a) the average reader will not be aware of what such a mass looks like and b) purely textual descriptions are unlikely to impart all of the features of such a growth with substantial clarity in the reader's mental imagery. By stark contrast, the video here does not enhance any description in the article, because pretty much any reader can intuitively conceptualize what is involved when we describe that the militants roamed these communities shooting people. The reader is going to know what guns are, what it means to be shot, and what death is. Factually, no empirical information is added by the video as an illustrative feature. In terms of anything other than an emotional element, events can be perfectly competently captured by words here, with pretty much zero lose of accuracy and detail in terms of information imparted.

Now, mind you, that description matches a great number of images on this project; not every image has such specific educational value as that of a clinical photo of a medical phenomena, of course, and we tolerate large numbers of these images with very indirect and minimal informative/educational value. This is in part because the "cost" of including such images is generally very minor, so even trivial demonstrative benefits are enough to justify many such images.

Such is not the case here though: there are massive policy problems with this video and significant real world harms (again, not potential, but pretty much certain) that will arise from including it, and on top of all of that, it really does nothing that a couple of well-crafted sentences can't accomplish. The cost-benefit is all wrong here, which is part of how this video fails community expectations on such content. And that includes IUP: it is by no means the only policy which leverages for removal here, nor indeed even in the top four major policies that require this content to be removed. But it is yet another guideline that converges on the same conclusion all the same, if all of its requirements are applied in full. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects WP:IMGCONTENT. You are right to say that "just because an image exists and 'directly depicts' a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it 'increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter'". Where I think you are making a jump is concluding that since it does not impart new factual information that is not in the text (which, by the way, it does) that it also does not increase the reader's understanding. This project and this article itself are full of media that are there not strictly to give new information but to enhance the picture of the information contained in the text and there is certainly not consensus for your interpretation of that policy to suggest that that is not good enough. Would you suggest that we should also remove all off the images here of airstrikes (which is a huge percentage)?

I think that the airstrike images are valuable and I think this footage is valuable as well. Not only does it shows the readers this particular attack, but it also provides understanding of the kind of attacks that were carried out throughout Israel and are emblematic of start of this particular war. It is an example of a type of action that was unprecedented until this round of fighting and helps explain how the war has developed. I certainly think that this is sufficient to "increase[s] the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" per wp:IMGCONTENT.

Once the media has encyclopedic value, it does not matter if it is graphic.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:CENSOR

Lenny Marks (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers I agree with strongly your position above. I think that if we could find a less graphic video to show one of/the various kibbutz massacres it would be more appropriate, but in lieu of that I think there is good reason to include this video. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a more typical video (which this one might be, for all I know), instead of one deliberately selected for making killing people seem as non-violent as possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

why include a less violent video?that reasoning is flawed. wikipedia is a not a censored encyclopedia. its absolutely educational video.it teaches readers about the extent of what humans can do to other humans in cold blood.it teaches the difference between a professional moral army and a millitant group with no code of conduct. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

FYI, there is a parallel discussion on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. lethargilistic (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This CCTV footage was verified by multiple WP:RS as authentic. and also WP:NOTCENSORED."Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

i agree the exact footage which is used in the body is not included that link.my bad for prematurely posting it. if no concensus to keep the video is reached maybe another video can be used in its place(altough the current clip used in body looks genuine enough) for eg https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/caught-on-cam-how-hamas-ruthless-terrorism-spares-no-innocents-in-its-wake/videoshow/104349952.cms Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply traumatic for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.

The mere fact that we do not censor ideas in our content in no way means that we check all respect, decorum, social responsibility, or concern for the possible impacts on our readers at the door, in exchange for some robotic moneky-see, monkey-share mentality for such media. What would you say to the family of one of these people if they saw that this content was up here for the entire world to see? "Oh, sorry, we needed to see exactly how your husband's body crumpled as everything he was or ever would be was stolen from him in an instant. Oh gee, terribly sorry that five million people watched your daughter's head beaten to a pulp with a cudgel. We needed to see it in order to understand that real people died here!" We are WP:NOTNEWS: we provide high-level, abstract summaries of our subject matter. We don't have a mandate to create a compelling representation of the real human costs of these events; that's what primary and secondary sources are for. This kind of imagery is not necessary to our educational purposes and it deeply violates principles of least astonishment that could easily cause significant real world harm to a non-trivial portion of our readers, while simultaneously shredding our protections of the privacy of non-notable persons.

Those (mostly relatively newer, I think) editors reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED might want to stop to ask themselves why they don't see more such content elsewhere on en.wikipedia, despite no shortage of articles on massacres that have footage out there. It's because we have other policies which expressly and specifically limit that principle, including WP:OM and our image use policies. Which actually allow for the restriction of media with much lower concerns than those involved here. Further, this is hardly the first time the community has had to face such an issue, and the general consensus is that media needs to have more than shock value in terms of informative quality. There's also the fact that this almost certainly violates our non free content policy. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said @Snow Rise! Not censored means that an image being offensive or having shock value is rarely a good reason to be included or removed. BTW I already put a request to blacklist the media for now on the bad image list due to its potential for vandalism and disruptive additions. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good call: I also left a notice of this discussion at WP:VPN to help speed along discussion and action here, since I think there are concerns for harm that justify a rapid response. I almost took the matter to AN to see if an admin was willing to revdel on some of the grounds discussed above, but ultimately decided that was not the ideal route, as I didn't want to unintentionally give the impression that there are behavioural issues here: everyone here is clearly contributing in good faith, regardless of the fact that some of the arguments are emphatically not sustainable under policy or (imo) good sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. I never even noticed the second part with the beating to death, only the first with the man being shot on mobile (was under the impression there was some blurring there, but no, there's not, and it's in HD, so yeah, no). Apologies for arguing for it's inclusion in light of that; That's brutal, horrific and goes well above any lines that would warrant it's inclusion.

That being said; I'd still say there should be some replacement in image form for it regarding the killings at "Kibbutzum" (Mefalsim, which is what the link in kibbutzim in "as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip" should be changed to), given that we have an image displaying the blood stained kitchen of a family in another kibbutz described in the text of the article. We're describing militants driving around in SUV's gunning down civilians, while you don't have to show the graphic part as discussed there's nothing wrong showing the whole "militants driving around in pickup trucks in fatigues" thing.

I'd also have to push back against the BLP violation claim? That's a bit of a stretch. By that logic you basically can't show any photos of any human being, and that's not what that policy is about (I just re-read it)? There's plenty of valid reasons to object to it's inclusion. I bring this up because I don't want a BLP objection from you to replacing it with images of militants as previously discussed. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be content out there that would satisfy the value of presenting the brazenness and brutality of the attacks that is still well short of depicting the actual massacre of random civilians--although it may take some time to find a free-license option (as noted above, that's another issue with this media). In other words, there must be a satisfactory medium here.

As to the BLP issue, I don't think it's a stretch. I'm the first person to push back against that policy being talismanatically invoked, believe me, but the entire purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy and dignity of inherently non-notable individuals, and I can't see how it is not imputed in the context of a decision which puts a depiction of their brutal, dehumanizing ends directly into the article for all the world to see. Other institutions (journalistic in particular) might make a value judgment that the social benefit of animating reactions in their audience outweigh that intrusion, but I don't think we can make that same argument here, since the factual depth (our own focus) added to the article is so minimal, compared against the likely harms. It's not the single biggest policy reason for removing the video, but it's a pretty compelling reason in and of itself, imo. But for the record, you won't hear objections of the BLP variety from me with regard to representing the militants generally (or even all their acts of violence). It's just that this particular video raises particularly strong concerns in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This is potentially, slightly traumatizing material that adds nearly no benefit to the article, along with violating several community expectations and Wikipedia guidelines. I think this video should be replaced by something less graphic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jon.yb093 Which Wikipedia guideline does it violate? Can you be specific? I appreciate that the material is graphic but that on it's own does not disqualify it per wp:CENSOR. I agree that if we found less graphic footage that also depicted a kibbutz massacre then that footage would be preferable, until we do I think that there is strong reason to keep the footage we have as it clearly depits a tupe of attack that was unprecedented and carried out en mass at the start of the war, and it enhances reader's understanding of the conflict. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I appreciate your concern, but I'd like to say that people won't develop PTSD from this video. When it's not you or your own (close) loved ones under threat, the DSM-5 requires "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others". A video of a stranger being murdered may be "deeply upsetting" and or "extremely distressing", but it isn't traumatizing. (See also Therapy speak, which I recently wrote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey WAID, it's nice to see you. I appreciate your perspective as well, but if I can be blunt without giving offense, a short quote from the DSM does not much alleviate concerns in this area. The concern is not for PTSD in particular; "trauma" is an idiomatic catch-all term for a much broader spectrum of biopsychological phenomena that impute a variety of harms. Here my major concern is for readers who have recently had their lives touched upon by the violence, as well as those who may not have observed it first hand, but may have suffered personal loss connected to it.

And then there's another another major vulnerable category: children generally. Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content (you'll have to trust me on this, but my work and field of inquiry puts me in a position to be well informed on childhood traumas). And indeed, this concern is one reason why violent content has been an ongoing contentious issue on the project whenever it has come up. I've avoided completely avoided broaching this big wrinkle of the situation here thus far because I was concerned about triggering certain voices to double down on reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED, as there's a few editors here under the mistaken belief that CENSOR is a much more absolute principle on this project than it actually is--the reality is that it's anything but. And with so many other compelling policy violations, risks of harm, and other practical reasons to not allow this media to be added to this article, I didn't see the point in raising an issue that might draw an outsized reaction.

But yes, children read our articles. Lots of children. And the way we structure our content should always take that into account. Now it goes without saying that we have major, major constraints that sometimes mean we cannot accommodate protecting children in every context. But when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose, the possibility of children seeing their first murder absolutely becomes a situation where the huge potential for traumatic exposure massively outweighs the countervailing considerations. That has in fact been a major concern anytime the subject of especially violent content has been discussed on the project, and I don't doubt that it was also a major factor in the WMF's adoption of the principle of least astonishment standard.

To the maximum extent possible without substantially compromising our educational purposes with regard to the rest of our readers, we want children to benefit from this site. That's less likely to happen if parents can't be confident that their child won't see their first death/murder/someone's face bashed in, simply because they were reading a high traffic article on a current event that they wanted to know more about. Likewise, juvenile educational institutions would be very likely to reconsider open access to this project if such content were to start to proliferate on the encyclopedia. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. This law concerns itself, among various other subject matter, with violent content and child welfare on large online platforms, and the DSA administrators have already designated Wikipedia as one of the 18 sites that it per se applies to. And there have been indicators in the last few days that they are looking to aggressively enforce these rules (which were promulgated last year but just went into effect) with regard to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict.

But we shouldn't need that extra threat of headache / inviting state oversight of the project in order to decide that the cost-benefit calculus is off the charts in the red if we include this video. The mere fact that we would inevitably be sharing a "faces of death" equivalent video with a non-trivial number of children, just to add something that doesn't demonstrate a single act (or any detail identified by any editor in this discussion) that couldn't be easily, fully, and accurately described in prose really ought to be enough.

Our outrage and desire to expose the savagery of men who would murder innocents is an understandable impulse stretching out from our humanity. But here it has to take a backseat to the numerous and compelling considerations arguing against adding content that adds only emotive subtext, violates the privacy and dignity of the depicted in their final horrific, agonized, and dehumanizing moments, and shoves that imagery in front of many readers who aren't seeking it and can reasonably be expected to be harmed by it. Especially considering that such motivations to expose such evil to the light of day, natural as they are, are not particularly well-aligned with the purposes of this particular project (said purpose being to provide a high-level, relatively dispassionate summary of the events in question). There are other places to accomplish the goal of sharing the brutality of these attacks with the world.

Nor do you have to be especially young or sensitive to be negatively impacted by that video, especially if you had a loved one killed in the attacks or one held captive at this very moment. Or, you know, you just happen to be Jewish. All of which includes people who might reasonably take an interest in this article. So, I'm standing by my assessment of the potential for traumatizing significant portions of our readers, some of whom may not have the capacity to appreciate the consequences of hitting that play button. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content Then parents shouldn't allow their children on Wikipedia (much less the Internet as a whole) unsupervised. That's why editors have written advice for parents on how to manage Wikipedia for children. This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be "traumatized". when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose Here's another reductive argument. There's a reason that we use and rely on images on Wikipedia. People are visual learners and images of pogroms and executions of Jews are far more impactful at an immediate glance than 10,000 words of text going into the Holocaust. I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere. I don't doubt that such an image would be distressing for a very young child. That's why as a parent/guardian you should guide your children when exposing them to the bad parts of history. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me. Plenty of countries outright censor and block access to Wikipedia already. You sound like you're either not aware of that or are trying to get editors to self-censor down to the lowest common denominator—again: a shutting down of the project. You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia. -- Veggies (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be 'traumatized'.

No...not "something": the violent, sadistic murder of two people and the frenzied mutilation of a corpse. We're not talking about some speculative span of possible content here. This is not a philosophical debate about possibilities or a slippery slope scenario. We're debating the appropriateness of a very specific, concrete piece of content, and it's pretty much as absolutely bad is anything could be in respect to the potential for harm to our readers and invasion of the privacy and dignity of the subject,

"Here's another reductive argument."

I don't find it particularly reductive. Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video that is not already perfectly well imparted in the prose already (or easily could be). For the most part, the few responses to this inquiry have a decidedly begging the question quality to them, with vague "well it illustrates how the attacks unfolded" language repeated ad nauseum, but without any indication that there is so much as a single fact (I mean one small thing, even) that the video is necessary to communicate that isn't ably done with prose.

In fact, the closest anyone has gotten to an actual, meaningful answer to that question was an editor who (and I think this is the honest and understandable answer at the heart of the support for this video) that the video demonstrates the barbarity and cold-bloodedness of the attackers....and then they immediately went on to opine about how it illustrates the difference between a restrained, honourable "professional army", versus the irredeemably malignant and animalistic "militants"; i.e. a not-at-all subtle comparison of the IDF and Hamas. They said the quiet (if somewhat understandable) part out loud: this is seemingly at least partly about showing how evil Hamas are, for at least some of the minority of editors who want to include this grossly gratuitous video.

And even for those of us who might be inclined to agree, on a personal level, to this reading of the video as an unambiguous demonstration of sociopathy, that's still just too subjective and emotional a subtext to use to justify this image, considering its potential harm to our readers, and its profound BLP implications. To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified and isn't available under an established free-use license, and so can't be used on en.Wikipedia regardless...

"I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere."

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with other matters off-project when you both commented. I happen to be a very busy person in my professional, home, and volunteer lived who, apropos of nothing, has a member of the household just out of the hospital and has had about seven hours of sleep in the last three days... I don't contribute on your schedule and I'm not compelled to answer every comment you think I should. And b) I've said as much as anyone in this thread, if not more, and there comes a point at which you need to stop responding to every comment, especially if you perceive the discussion to be going in circles. And the fact of the matter is, you haven't given me the impression of someone who is open to having their mind changed on any of this, so I did not feel highly motivated to respond to you in particular. I actually have several paragraphs of a response to Lenny's post, which I found polite and cogent, if not terribly compelling, but by the time I found the time to finish it, WAID had pinged me on another aspect of the discussion which I felt was more fruitful ground for discussion, so I made a choice. I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

That said, if it's that important to you to have a response, here's just a partial list of the reasons that comparing The Last Jew in Vinnitsa to this video constitutes a non-sequitor and a false analogy:

1) One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

2) the video depicts the deaths of people who were until very recently alive, meaning they are covered by our BLP guidelines. The image does not.

3) The image is WP:verified, as all disputed content on this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

4) The image is free-use content, as all media used in this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. The video is not.

6) I'm quite sure from your previous comments that you won't find this compelling, but it actually pulls some weight with me as someone who comes from a cognitive science/biopsych background: the image, horrific though it undeniably is, does not actually depict the completion of the act of murder. The human brain processes a high-fidelity, real-time representation of a violent act in motion differently from an illustration implying that act. It just does.

Now you and I might actually agree that as an abstract, rational matter, the difference is arbitrary and the result of a cognitive bias, not a logical analysis of any substantial difference in the levels of brutality between the two acts. But for a vulnerable person stumbling upon that image (say a child for example, or someone whose loved one was murdered in one of these attacks), it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of the harm done. You may not agree with that, but good news: you can still take your pick from numbers 1-5.

"That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me."

I clearly am not or anything that even remotely looks like it. I didn't threaten to take legal action. I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles, which is perfectly valid and appropriate subject matter for a policy discussion. That is neither a bad faith action nor anywhere in the same universe as [[WP:NLT]--and if you can't tell the difference, you really, really, really' need to re-read that policy.

And if I'm blunt, at this point your behaviour here towards all your rhetorical opposition is getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND, acid-toned, inclined towards unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS, and verging on WP:DISRUPTIVE . We all managed to get through this very loaded discussion perfectly politely until you joined the discourse, with your sarcasm and no-holds-barred mentality. Ever since consensus shifted strongly away from support for your perspective, you keep trying to chill, curtail, or define the focus and manner of other users' !votes and responses, in ways you just are not permitted to on this project--all of it wrapped it in hostile, derogatory tone. It appears you haven't been a super heavy contributor in recent years, but if you've been on the project since 2007, you should really know better--and regardless, you should drop this course of action immediately: it isn't doing the appeal of your arguments any favours and if you keep it up, your conduct is likely to end up scrutinized at ANI or AE. Which won't help consensus here in any way. You don't have to like the outcome or the arguments of the majority / emerging consensus, but the snideness is patently unhelpful to your position and to the rest of us.

"You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia."

Well, you're both very right and very wrong about that. You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it. Please don't expect further direct engagement from me here. Beyond that fact that I don't think engaging with you would be particularly productive, I think I've more than said my piece in this discussion in general. I nevertheless hope you have a pleasant rest of your day, however. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I see you didn't even attempt to address the very valid point that parents should not let their kids have unmonitored access to Wikipedia, much less the internet as a whole. In fact, you pretty much dropped the "think-of-the-children!" argument in this last reply. There's a reason Wikipedia has and has had for a long time a content disclaimer which reads Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts. and Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

"Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video"

The same "information" that, say, The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that images of the casualties of war bombings add to their articles. War and violence produce harrowing images. Harrowing images are, often, graphic, but necessary to include in articles in order to further the reader's understanding of what occurred—especially if we recognize that most readers are not going to do a detailed poring through from title to citations of all the text. They will skim, jump to sections that interest them, and pause to look at images. Humans are very much vision-oriented. A perfectly cited text-only Wikipedia article on the Holocaust would not be as moving as one with images, harrowing that they may be.

it's profound BLP implications

There are no serious BLP implications. Nowhere in this video are any of the victims named. Hell, the video blurs the face of the most prominent victim, making recognition extremely difficult by anyone. Also, even if this victim was recognizable, they aren't portrayed "in a false or disparaging light".

To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified

Verified how, exactly? Are you claiming that it isn't Kibbutz Mefalsim or that this didn't actually take place as it shows? It's likely that the IDF released this video, which then filtered down to Reddit, and finally to here. Someone with a better understanding of Israeli freedom of information or beaurocracy could probably find the original press release for the video.

and isn't available under an established free-use license

Who says it isn't? It's on Commons under a PD-CCTV license. I'm a little unfamiliar with that license, but it's false to say it isn't actually available under that license.

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with ...... I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

If your time is so short and your sleep deprivation is so bad, you should probably spend less time writing paragraphs about it and more time responding substantively (after a full night's rest). The fact of the matter is: Lenny made a counterargument at ~08:00 on 16 October which you didn't respond to (despite having "many paragraphs" at the ready) even though you replied to others. Again, you should probably go sleep if you're that admittedly short on time rather than making long, drawn-out "think-of-the-children!" pleadings that I find quite unconvincing.

One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

The former is an argument of time, not whether or not the content is encyclopedic or too graphic. The latter is more special pleading about how somebody might find this video and consider it offensive. Again, I find it quite unconvincing. I've covered 1 through 4 of your list already.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. This video is not.

Again, that's rather the point of this discussion, isn't it? If things that haven't been discussed about whether they are notable in their own right, then new images to Wikipedia can never be notable in their own right because they haven't been discussed yet.

I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles

Legal ramifications to Wikipedia over our edits are not something to discuss or bring up in article-space. If you really feel like including the video in Wikipedia or Commons is a violation of some law, you should contact the Wikipedia legal team or start a discussion at an admin noticeboard. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.

You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it.

You sure about that? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the verifiability part alone because I've said my piece on the rest (and images like your Vinnitsaexample) elsewhere: WP:VERIFY's opening sentence defines verifiability: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. That is, the issue of verifiability is not an abstract "did this factually happen?" question that can be answered by "someone could theoretically go through IDF releases and find it." The limited question is whether this is cited to a reliable source, and it simply isn't. It's from reddit. Moreover, it could even (theoretically) be footage of Hamas attacking a kibbutz last year with the current date superimposed and it would not belong in the article as it was not part of this conflict. I have seen video debunkings in the last several days where IDF violence with no timestamp has been attributed to Hamas. (Again, this is applying policy, not an argument that it didn't take place or wasn't Hamas or whatever.) We don't know what this is because the video has not been connected to a WP:RS. The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the footage to provide that RS. Until one has been provided, it is not verified.

Believe me, that policy does not particularly bring me joy. It means that Wikipedia is not about the literal truth. It occasionally reproduces information that I know to factually be untrue, but it is "verified" because it was reported in the New York Times. How does a person get the literal truth into a reliable source to correct the record and Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not (perhaps cannot) provide a great answer.

In any case, Verifiability means giving a Reliable Source for the video, not "it probably filtered down to reddit and we might be able to find it." WP:V, unlike NOTCENSORED, is categorical and absolute. If someone who wants the image in cannot provide an RS, the video is out of the article and the rest of this discussion is merely theoretical. lethargilistic (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, does "idiomatic" mean "the definition some people use on social media"? A modern linguist wouldn't call that (or any understandable use of any word) wrong, but I'm looking at the DSM-5, under the heading of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Children 6 Years and Younger", pages 272–273, where I find the words "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others, especially primary caregivers.  Note:  Witnessing does not include events that are witnessed only in electronic media, television, movies, or pictures" (emphasis added).

IMO children can "absolutely" be terrified, upset, and distressed, and they can absolutely have a biopsychological Stress response, but it appears that the DSM does not call watching a distressing video trauma, no matter how horrified the viewer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Last Jew in Vinnitsa

Can anyone explain to me the content difference between The Last Jew in Vinnitsa and this CCTV footage, because I can't see it. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For starters that is a still image clearly showing the victim still alive and no insides spewing out and is a publicly available artefact in its own right. And as much as corpses are never eye candy, the circumstances in which they were captured (esp. Black and White) make them slightly more stomachable for users. In the context of the Holocaust (which is generally agreed to be a genocidal operation) that photo also serves its purpose to educate.

as for the video, yes that blood is way too WP:GRATUITOUS and the way editors have been reacting to this has indicated that it has not been as educative as it was expected to in an encyclopedic article now that some editors seem to be using this as none other than political football to call editors they hate as either anti-Semites or Western lackeys. (See every discussion we had relating to NPOV) Borgenland (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland This is, I believe a total misreading of WP:GRATUITOUS, which's simple point in that the graphic nature of content should not be a reason to include or not include any material. It is not a comment on subjective levels of graphicness.

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive"
— wp:GRATUITOUS

I'm sorry, but nothing in there states that becuse you think pictures are more offensive in color than in black in white that they should not be excluded. The policy goes on to state:

"Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"."
— wp:GRATUITOUS

In conclusion: Editors have made strong arguments as to why this image enhancies the understanind of the article topic. You are free to dispute that, but you are not supported by GRATUITOUS in saying it should be removed because other massacres are shown in black and white. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

What "insides spewing out"? You mean blood? There's plenty of images of blood and wounds on Wikipedia. If you mean the person being bayonetted at the very end, it's obvious what's happening, but there's no graphic "insides spewing out" like you're asserting. I guarantee that if this video was desaturated to black and white, you would still oppose its inclusion, so let's throw that argument out as frivolous. Images of the Holocaust are "stomachable" for you only because the images have become part of the historical canon and have been widely shared and discussed and you live in the era of HD video where an older photograph isn't as shocking to you as motion video. That's simply an argument of medium, not content. Why wouldn't this video serve an educational purpose? It's CCTV, so it certainly wasn't framed to capture this specific event, unlike the Vinnitsa photo. And this is a major event in regional, if not world history—much like all the wars in the Middle East. You need to cite what part of WP:GRATUITOUS you think this falls under. I've read the guideline and can't find where this meets any Wikipedia definition of gratuitousness. As for "the way editors have been reacting to this", that's irrelevant to a rational discussion about policies and image use. It's certainly educational, regardless of a few editors' emotional reactions. I haven't called anyone any names and I'm fully in favor of including this video (as I would be a copyright-free video of Israeli settlers running down, killing, and bayonetting Palestinians). As for Jihadi John, his videos are edited to be blatant ISIS propaganda so would obviously be less neutral than CCTV footage, but, yes, if they were copyright-free, I'd be fine including them in an ISIS or Jihadi John article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Veggies Since you don't want discussion down there, I'll answer you up here. Regarding the police brutality video, I think the main distinction is that the subject matter of that article is whether the police officers' conduct constitutes murder, and hence a video showing their precise actions (apparently cited by the prosecutor as grounds for bringing charges) is highly relevant. In the case under discussion here, it would seem incontrovertible that the civilians were brutally murdered. Regarding the copyright issue, I would say that if the blood-gushing and head-dropping motions are relevant to an enhanced understanding of the incident, we could theoretically create a model animation depicting Daniel Pearl's beheading. Would you support inclusion of such an animation in the article, since it would show what the copyrighted videos show, without violating copyright? I am trying to test your logic here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article?

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose removal - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet another section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- Veggies (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I have carefully read and considered the reasons for an against. Ultimately I do not think it should be removed because words do not convey the savage casual violence against unarmed and innocent civilians shown in the clip. WCM_email 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I have been carefully following the discussion and beleive there is definitely encyclopedic value to satisfy wp:IMGCONTENT. The arguments against inclusion would also apply to a huge swath of material on this article and other well regarded articles on this project. No better alternative has been proposed. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Veggies. While the video is indeed graphic, there is precedent for using graphic media, and I have a better understanding of the atrocities committed by Hamas having watched this video. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove I have seen multiple videos of the conflict that show dead and wounded people on both sides. This particular video is one of the most gruesome ones out there. If I were someone who had not seen any gore or murder footage before, watching this execution video on Wikipedia would deeply disturb me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• SNOW support. Look, let's just for the moment put aside the WP:OM issues, the BLP concerns, the substantial potential for causing traumatic responses in our readers, the WMFs principle of reader expectation rule, the likely knock on effects of Wikipedia hosting such content that could lead to the article as a whole reaching less eyes, and any other perennial issues that come up with such material. And by the way, this is a good place to say that I'm very impressed with everyone for keeping the tone polite and even-keeled all through the discussion so far, despite clearly strong feelings on the editorial considerations and the highly contentious nature of the article: it's very nice to see and speaks well to priorities, good faith, and level-headedness of those commenting.

Now, all that said, even putting those substantial editorial and harm concerns aside, this content just isn't going to stay, longterm: if nothing else, it violates WP:V and none free content policies. Both of which are pretty much never abrogated in circumstances like these, ultimately. We can't confirm the provenance of the video and we don't have an appropriate license for it. For those reasons alone, it has to go. The other concerns represent important and heavy editorial issues and I think it's a valuable thing to have that discussion in parallel--and indeed I think we should continue to have that discussion simply on the principle that we might be looking at other similar media in the future, that is licensed properly. But those are simply additional reasons to consider removing the video, whereas verifiability and NFC are buck-stops-here concerns that there aren't any viable arguments to get around. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - There is now a video of a trench in Gaza where Palestinian bodies are being buried in a mass grave because the morgues are full and the population forced to leave. Will we end up with competing videos? We are here to dispassionately document, not to push for one side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it shouldn't be a question; material should not be included solely because it is offensive, nor should it be removed solely because it is offensive. But grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia; especially when less offensive alternatives exist. WP:BLP also applies, specifically "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This might also be a good application of WP:IAR, but consensus gets muddied in discussions like this. The straw !poll will help a bit with assessing consensus. Awesome Aasim 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I know there is no auto-play on Wikipedia, so every reader can make their own decision whether to watch it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal per Snow Rise. This has clearly been chosen specifically because it is WP:GRATUITOUS. It is possible to present comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of an armed attack without showing videos of people being killed. Even so, BLP issues (which applies to both the living and recently deceased) should make it overwhelmingly clear that removal is the correct answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal I have refrained from watching the video based solely on what has been said about it here. I saw the Daniel Pearl beheading video, many years ago, and it disturbed me for a long time. Same thing goes for some of the Islamic State beheading incidents and James Foley (journalist) videos circa 2014. It's worth noting, by the way, that the Daniel Pearl, beheading video, Islamic State beheading incidents, and James Foley (journalist) articles all lack beheading videos. Images (especially videos) are very powerful in conveying things that words cannot, and the grotesque character of the attacks help explain the forceful reaction and unprecedented unity of the Israelis. It is not the same to say, "Innocent civilians were chased down and shot at close range" as to show a video of an innocent civilian being chased down and shot at close range. But my opinions is that we should leave it to the Wikipedia reader to google that for themselves if that's what they want to experience.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Orgullomoore: This isn't the place for a discussion, but since you didn't contribute in the greater discussion above, I'll have to retort here. Daniel Pearl et al. videos are copyrighted and wouldn't fall within fair-use. This one is evidently not and doesn't have to meet that strict requirement. The article Killing of Kelly Thomas contains CCTV footage of his killing by police officers (with audio). The video is copyright-free, graphic, and was included in the article. Shocking, right? -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per SnowRise. Andre🚐 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  •Remove: Don't see the justification on including something that goes to THAT level of violence. I can see a justification somewhat for some violent or graphic videos/images, but someone literally gets their brains blown out in HD and someone gets stabbed to death and beaten to death (after being shot I believe). All in one video. It's brutal, and on balance I can't justify including it for all the reasons discussed above. It doesn't add enough to justify it's inclusion (given it WILL reduce viewership, and probably traumatize several people, it's pretty damn bad). Text with images that don't involve depictions of murder suffice. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose most of the pro-removal arguments as Wikipedia is not censored and the video serves to illustrate some of the violence of the events for the reader. This article is about inherently violent events, so the inclusion of violent/distressing images is certainly due. However, we do not seem to have a good source verifying this particular video at present and the video should be removed unless/until we do. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - WIkipedia is NOT censored, period. This is by far not the most graphic video out of the conflict, and the suggestions by some that less violent videos be used as a replacement are egregious and against policy. Our goal is to depict incidents as they occurred, not depict what we think might be pleasing to the eye of the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (killing video)

Is there now enough of a consensus to remove the video? 10 votes to 5 looks pretty strong to me. The footage has not been in the article for very long (only maybe a day or two), so I don't think that "implicit consensus" counts for anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, nobody is voting here. This isn't a democracy. Second, the discussion has only been active for less than thirty-ish hours. A bit quick to be making snap (ahem, "executive") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, consensus is not about mathematical ratios of poll results. If if you were at the right time to close a discussion (much less knowledgeable about how to do so), your rationale needs to be more than "10 > 5". You should probably read what closing a discussion requires. I suppose I should be gobsmacked that an editor with almost 45K edits isn't aware of these fundamental guidelines and procedures, but very little surprises me anymore. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? You've been here since 2005, long enough to understand the concept of consensus and WP:ONUS. It's incredibly rare in AFD discussions for instance, for a 2:1 vote to be overturned, and you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based. The results of this discussion show that so far there is no consensus to include the video and therefore it should be removed, per ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You also apparently know that the copyright status of this video is unclear, but voted keep on Commons anyway [27], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? As long as necessary. We might even choose to go to WP:RFD if arguments become intractable to get a broader opinion. A far less graphic but far more heated discussion took years (and many archived pages) to resolve. There was a template long ago called Linkimage (also dealing with graphic or "offensive" images on Wikipedia) which was nominated for deletion three separate times over the course of over a year before it was finally (and rightly) deleted. So, what's the rush? I'm fully aware of ONUS. you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based I can't quote the entire discussion in a reply. The arguments are in the main discussion section above. Those who oppose removal (myself included) have made counterarguments to the pro-removal editors which are strongly policy-based and at least two of us have yet to read a response. You, again, are relying on mathematical ratios to further your points. maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you As for the deletion discussion on Commons, I didn't come up with PD-CCTV and I don't have a strong legal understanding of the inherent basis behind that public domain justification, so I'm fully in favor of keeping the video if it's truly copyright-free, but I'm unsure whether it is. But, again, I didn't come up with that template on Commons. I have to defer to the more knowledgeable people who did. It's perfectly "coherent" to say 'I think this is fine content-wise, but I'm unsure about the copyright status.' -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of the !votes are to make it easier to assess consensus especially when discussions gets muddied like this. Because the original question was about what to do with the media the straw !polls serve to make assessing consensus easier. Awesome Aasim 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Except two things: 1) Many people who cast a !vote didn't contribute to the larger discussion and/or didn't cite applicable policies, either making incendiary statements "snuff film" "gore site" etc. or just saying "per [another user]" and 2) not everyone who contributed to the discussion contributed to the poll. -- Veggies (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I havent voted and dont intend to, but ONUS applies to inclusion of content, and with the straw poll as it is now I think it is fair to say that at the very least there is no consensus for inclusion so it should be out. You, Veggies, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- Veggies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @Veggies. Images and video media are included in articles to help illustrate a point to the reader. The video in question unequivocally helps to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.

Most of the arguments against inclusion implicitly rely on a moral assertion that people should not see certain things, due to vaguely-invoked and unquantifiable harm. Despite claims to the contrary, these arguments are motivated by the same censorious impulse as most moves to restrict content on Wikipedia, and can be dismissed for similar reasons.

We have a policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and we should apply it. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. nableezy - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an important point. The guidelines on closure state clearly that consensus is to be found through the arguments (consistent with policy) made by responsible Wikipedians. Not just a head count of people who were not involved in the discussion at all, polling with an argument that flatly contradicts policy. I would suggest that when the time comes that we seek an outside party at Requests for closure. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Context” sections: not limited to occupation

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have multiple reliable sources discussing the importance of the context of the ongoing MILITARY occupation of Palestine/the west bank and what has been condemned as settler colonialism. This didn't arise in a vacuum, and we have reliable sources that point it out.

What you're describing is unsourced at this point. If you have reliable sources discussing the context, of say, Islamic fundamentalism, then provide them. If you have reliable sources discussing any of what you're talking about, then please provide them. We can use them to add a section like you're describing if you have them. If not, then it's a moot point. We don't do original research here, we report what reliable sources say. And a lot of reliable sources are discussing the context of the Israeli occupation (as defined by international law, the west bank is currently occupied).

Comparing this to Russia-Ukraine is kind of silly. We do have a background section there and summarizes what the reliable sources say about the background/context of the war. Which largely comes down to Vladimir Putin's denial of Ukranian statehood, revanchism, and Ukraine's turn away from Russian geopolitical alignment and the subsequent invasion that followed. Because that's what the reliable sources say. There's nothing done differently here from a policy standpoint than we're doing in that article. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Background

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

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

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

Israel identifies Gazans as animals

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

---

Israel made it very clear multiple times that they identify Gazans as Human–animal hybrid [28][29][30] and that's why they are "treating them as such". Although it sounds ridiculous, I believe it must be noted in the article. Because a country cannot commit war crimes against animals, and it's probably one of the reasons why Israel believes it's not committing any war crime. Crampcomes (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Desist from making otiose remarks like that, for anyone googling in sequence any of the words listed above + 'Palestinians' can see that animal metaphors abound in Israeli political comments about that people, starting from Prime Ministers to IDF leaders to rabbis and eminent historians like Benny Morris. My own collection runs to 11 pages.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Israeli politics in the Background Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

"This is blatantly pro-israel"

"This is blatantly anti-israel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White phosphorous use does not violate protocol III

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's Crisis Evidence Lab have reported that Israeli military units striking in Gaza and Lebanon have employed white phosphorus artillery rounds; Israel denied the report. White phosphorus burns carry an increased risk of mortality, and international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."

The issue, as I outlined in another response but will repaste here, is that this is false and not supported by the sources cited. Article II of protocol III states "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.". It specifically leaves out ground delivered weaponry, which is what the human rights watch source concludes and admits was used here. See this document, which specifically calls for the closing of this "loophole" and "Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles." (source), meaning they're not air delivered and therefore not a violation of protocol III or international law (at least not under protocol III).So we really shouldn't be saying that "using these weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of protocol III" because it factually is not unless those weapons are air delivered, which these aren't.

They also said in that cited source that "Human Rights Watch also reviewed two videos from October 10 from two locations near the Israel-Lebanon border. Each shows 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles being used, apparently as smokescreens, marking, or signaling." - also not a violation of protocol III (source) which states that "b.) Incendiary weapons do not include:(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems", so neither of these are violations of protocol III as well.

Therefore the statement made in the article about the violation of article III is disproven by it's own sources and should be removed.

Chuckstablers (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Without that violation of protocol III, I see no reason to include it in the war crimes section as well as it's inclusion there seems to rest solely on it violating protocol III Chuckstablers (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). While the protocol contains weaker restrictions for ground-launched incendiary weapons..." admission from the source cited in support of that statement ([31]) Chuckstablers (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All that above is very interesting but all we need is reliable sources saying that the Israeli usage (which they deny) is all legal. Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the point; the problem is with international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether it violates protocol III, Time magazine's HRW interviewee says it "should" be illegal, not that it is, and HRW themselves say it's unsettled and the legal loophole should be closed. The legality of Israel's use of white phosphorus is a separate question, and HRW uses international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk as the basis for it being a crime, not Protocol III. Chuckstablers, please stick to analyzing sources we cite and not primary sources, it helps keep discussions productive. DFlhb (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers, DFlhb, Selfstudier: The law, for reference, can be viewed at [32] and [33]. It says:

• 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. (my emphasis).
• "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

I think the key point here is air-delivered. I'll add that. Andreas JN466 16:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

@Selfstudier WaPo says, Aerial incendiary weapon attacks primarily designed to set fires and burn people in civilian areas are prohibited under the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III, but Israel has not joined, and it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by this agreement.

Note however that the UN clearly classifies white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon: "Incendiary weapons are weapons or munitions designed to set fire to objects or cause burn or respiratory injury to people through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, resulting from a chemical reaction of a flammable substance such as napalm or white phosphorus. ... In 1980, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects was adopted with the aim to ban or restrict the use of certain types of weapons considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to indiscriminately affects civilians. Protocol III of the Convention restricts the use of incendiary weapons. The Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III) aims at protecting civilians and civilian objects from the use of this type of weapons. It prohibits targeting civilians and restricts targeting military objects located within populated areas. The Protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on forest or other plants unless the vegetation is used to conceal military objects.”" Andreas JN466 16:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Andreas: no, that's WP:OR. Check all three citations we currently use: HRW gives us a legal analysis, and says it's illegal for reasons other than Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether white phosphorus falls under Protocol III. My comment stands.

The fix is simply to replace and international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (a misreading of the HRW source) with and "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life", according to Human Rights Watch. Protocol III is about regulations specifically on incendiary weapons, that's not the rationale HRW is using there. DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed in this diff. WaPo appears to be the only citation we use that addresses the question of whether it's a war crime; HRW focuses on the violation of humanitarian law. DFlhb (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable with that being there as it is currently, thanks for the change. I can understand why we'd put it under the war crimes section, but I still have reservations on why a "potential" war crime is included in the same section as the mass murder of civilians for which we have thousands of pieces of direct evidence (and which nobody denies). Kind of gives a false balance, but ultimately if we're fine with it I'm fine with it at this point. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, I read the law. There's no claim the civilians were the TARGET of the attack here, it was an attack on the port (I saw the video) so Article 2-1 of Protocol III does not apply ("It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons", the part you put in bold).

You posted the summary of Protocol III but ignored what the human rights watch source actually said; which is that Protocol III doesn't prohibit ground launched incidenary munitions, which is what human rights watch says was used (they call it a loophole and advocate for closing it) (see my original comment where I point this out). It only covers air launched munitions; in this case these were not air launched munitions.

Finally; it's OR. We don't need to even analyze what Protocol III says. We only need to analyze what the HRW source says. Which is that it doesn't actually violate Protocol III. That's why the change was made, and the text as it currently reads accurately represents what our sources say. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers @DFlhb Several points.

1. The part I put in bold was not what you quote, Chuck, but It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
2. HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions. Please have a look at the HRW article we cite. The lead image of that article shows a white phosphorus airbust. It is followed by multiple references to airbursts. (Airbursting of white phosphorus projectiles spreads 116 burning felt wedges impregnated within the substance over an area between 125 and 250 meters in diameter, depending on the altitude of the burst, thereby exposing more civilians and civilian structures to potential harm than a localized ground burst.)
3. HRW also says in that same article: Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording as it stood after my edit. For reference, that wording was: international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

It wasn't me by the way who introduced the reference to Protocol III originally, but many sources covering this do mention Protocol III, including Reuters, so I think a mention of Protocol III is due. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions Correct

I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording It's not indistinguishable because HRW don't say that "international law forbids its aerial use [...]", they say there's a loophole, and WaPo says: it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by [Protocol III]. DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

But Protocol III is international law ...? The loophole is about this, according to HRW: Protocol III applies only to weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires or cause burns, and thus some countries believe it excludes certain multipurpose munitions with incendiary effects, notably those containing white phosphorus. There is more about white phosphorus and Protocol III from HRW here, and from the UN here. I confess I am quite baffled, reading those two pages: the UN – or at least the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs – flatly states white phosphorus is covered by its Protocol III (as does Reuters: "White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."), and HRW states it isn't (or that there are loopholes). --Andreas JN466 08:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a useful Q&A on reliefweb.int, a site administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), that goes into the details:

• Questions and Answers on Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and Lebanon

Andreas JN466 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the UN republishing a HRW article, and it says the same thing, analysing legality in terms of: violates the requirement under international humanitarian law that parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life, and concurring with the Amnesty Int. guy we quote that White phosphorus can also be used as an incendiary weapon and When used as a weapon, munitions with white phosphorus are considered incendiary weapons in other words that whether it's an incendiary weapon (= against Protocol III) depends on how and why it was used.

The UNODA link you give is a primary source, requiring WP:OR. Now what we should be on the lookout for is new publications by experts that analyse what the intent was, how it was used, and whether it was a war crime in more detail; not trying to analyse primary documents. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. (Note that I was wrong in equating airburst and air-delivered. Air-delivered means delivered by plane. So while an airburst from a WP projectile fired from a mortar is different from a groundburst it is not classified as air-delivered. So mortar-fired munitions would not fall under Article 2.2. but under 2.3. of Protocol III.) Regards, Andreas JN466 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

More stabbings

A 6-year-old boy was stabbed 26 times and his mother more than a dozen times. Their landlord was charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of a hate crime. The location was Chicago and the victims were Palestinian.[34] Do we include this, or remove the text about hate crimes against Jews? This article is about a particular war. Hate crimes have existed throughout recorded history and this will likely continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust"

A number of media observers have made this claim in one form of the other. Here's the latest: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-played-israel-hamas-heres-why-putin-picked-side-terrorists . I propose adding a line to the intro/lede saying "The Hamas attack has been described in media accounts as the largest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust." 152.130.15.107 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fox is not a reliable source for this and we should also avoid opinion columns, making this a doubly poor source. Looking through RS, I'm finding related statements in several places. But, I don't see it in the voice of RS. All that I was able to find were quotes from politicians and organizations. Perhaps find better sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of this going around (Biden included), the idea appears to be to conflate Jews everywhere with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a possibility that even excluding non-Jews from each event, the statement may still be correct. Unless you are saying there has been a bigger massacre of Jews (or partly) elsewhere that has been overlooked by the statement? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

It's in the lead in the German and Hebrew articles. It should be here, as well. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

How about "300 killed on Saturday, the largest number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks in a single day since 2008" per Reuters, shall we add that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not as relevant imo, but I'm not opposed to it. The holocaust comment is more relevant due to the length of time involved; we're talking about roughly 80 years vs 15. Reuters is behind a paywall for me; does it specifically bring attention to the significance of the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in 15 years? Can you provide a quote or something? The fact that this is the largest number of jews killed in one day since the Holocaust has significance that the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in one day since 2008 doesn't, but ultimately if we have a reliable source calling attention to this fact to a similar degree that the source called attention to the holocaust thing, then I'm not opposed to it's inclusion necessarily. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of factoids relating to this conflict and we can't make the lead a list of trivia. Al-Arabiya (and others) say that the attack was the worst security situation since the 1973 war[35]. The Atlantic says that it was the most brutal act since "Israeli-controlled Christian militias massacred unarmed Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila"[36]. And what about the Israeli retaliation? The Hindu points out[37] that the current Israeli attack on Gaza is the "deadliest" of the 5 wars unleashed on Gaza.VR _talk 09:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you that every single Jewish source, whether political or non-political, are calling this the biggest massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust. If someone can find me a singular day or event with more Jews being killed since 1945, please share it. This can be disproven easily if someone actually has evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely valid claim. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"independent experts"

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

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

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

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

 Done Mikelr (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Map needs an update

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-evacuating-28-communities-lebanon-border

Needs to be expanded to all of israel, not just gaza and the surrounding areas Lukt64 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lukt64: I had planned to create a separate zoomed-in map of the northern front, which includes the Israeli-Lebanon border and the Golan Heights frontier, in case Hezbollah joins the war. However, as of now, 99% of the conflict is still limited to the Gaza Strip and its surrounding areas. Nonetheless, I can still create a map that shows the evacuated settlements on the northern border if users are interested. Ecrusized (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Add more details about HAMAS war crimes in the war crimes section

I do not think that this page is biased or anything, but I just think that there should be more detailing of HAMAS war crimes in the according section. More than half of the section is about Israeli war crimes, and I do not think that that should be removed, but it just seems disproportionate. It would be nice and would provide a less biased view to the reader if there was more info on the Palestinian war crimes. RealNuclearFish (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess part of the issue is that there's not much else to say about them. I'd agree that maybe we could expand on it a bit. The issue is that the TYPE of war crimes committed were fairly limited, and the depth of analysis by reliable sources on it was less than Israeli war crimes (which require more legal analysis and application of international law).

For example, chasing down civilians in pick-up trucks, shooting them in the head, and stabbing/beating them to death is obviously a war crime. I don't really know what else should be said there; maybe cite specifically what international laws are being broken? But even that would be kind of unnecessary; it's OBVIOUSLY bad to chase down civilians and kill them. The issue at this point is really that these war crimes occurred in a couple of days, whereas the Israeli ones have been happening for longer at this point. The SCALE or number of people killed in war crimes might be comparable, but there's just more to talk about when it comes to Israeli ones.

I do agree it presents a bit of a false balance, though. I don't know what the solution really would be. We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We also can't just arbitrarily pad out the section for Hamas's war crimes. Suggestions? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There isnt much more to say is the point, Hamas's violations of international law in targeting civilians and taking civilian hostages are documented, as are accusations against it for the use of rockets that cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. But thats the end of the story there, and while rockets continue and that can be noted the coverage of the ongoing Israeli strikes and siege and the war crimes involved have become more and more widely covered and discussed. If Israel is accused of even more war crimes that section will grow. If Hamas is accused of more war crimes, then that too will be covered. nableezy - 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue at hand stems from contrasting accusations of war crimes. In one case, there are allegations of war crimes, such as the controversial 'white phosphorus' incident, where sources were misrepresented (see the earlier discussion about this where it was shown that the reliable source cited was misrepresented, resulting in a change in the section). Just now, for instance, it was claimed that Israel used 'white phosphorus on a children's hospital' based on an unreliable source, the Egyptian Times, quoting the Gaza government. However, despite this allegedly occurring on October 13th, reliable sources on white phosphorus use make no mention of this potentially severe war crime, even when published two days later. Despite this, we're stating that this happened in wiki voice?

This inconsistency is the crux of the issue. While reliable sources reporting IDF statements on decapitated babies were insufficient to make a claim in 'wiki voice' regarding Israel, in the case of Palestine, it seems acceptable to assert in 'wiki voice' that Israel bombed a children's hospital with white phosphorus. This assertion is made despite the absence of reliable sources supporting it, with the only reliable sources available (from human rights watch for example) not saying a word about this despite being published 2 days after the alleged use of white phosphorous on a childrens hospital. The unreliable source reporting on this in any case is just citing the statements of the palestinian health authority in gaza, part of the government that is a belligerent in this conflict. But when a reliable source reports the statements of the IDF, also a belligerent in this conflict, that's not enough to say in wiki voice that babies were decapitated. Which I agree with. It's this double standard that is why we have an NPOV tag, and why it's probably not going away anytime soon unless this changes. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If a source is misrepresented it should be fixed. If a source is attributing something to the Ministry of Health in Gaza then so to should we. I dont see how that is the case with the war crime section though. Everything there is from third party sources. nableezy - 22:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It specifically said, in wiki voice, that a childrens hospital was evacuated following an attack by a white phosphorous projectile. It didn't attribute it at all to who actually said it; part of the government of Gaza. We would've needed a reliable source stating it, and it's pretty obvious propaganda. Israel is striking childrens hospitals with white phosphorous now? The source cited claimed 70 people, mainly children were killed. And nobody reported on that apart from a paper owned by the government of Egypt (with spelling mistakes and clear alignment with the egyptian governments take)? That's the issue. That this kind of stuff is being added and would stay unless someone fights it is why we have an NPOV tag. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That was in a subsection that I did not notice, I fixed it. And put the CNN source that reports on it. nableezy - 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All we have is a claim by the palestinian government in Gaza about it's use. The cartoon villian levels of evil are mirrored in the decapitated babies claim. We also had reliable sources REPORTING on what the IDF had said about that. We are not including that in the Palestinian war crimes section. My issue is that we are reporting on things that are only sourced from the government of gaza. There's a double standard there, that's the issue. If the decapitated babies thing doesn't go in palestinian war crimes, why do claims sourced solely from a belligerent in the conflict belong in the Israeli war crimes section? When there's no evidence it happened other than they said it did. Because again; that's all the CNN source says. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Especially when we have reliable sources that would've confirmed it had it happened given that they reported on it's use when nobody was alleged to have died, and didn't report on it's use when 70 people allegedly children died. Because we have three reliable sources earlier on in the section that notably don't mention it despite being published after it was initially reported. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Um the article says Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. That is based on Israeli government reports. nableezy - 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem with the Kfar Aza part. Israel kinda did a PR offensive, Bucha massacre style there. Loads of independent reporters went there, checking things out and talking to the rescue workers. So we can tell in wiki voice what these reporters reckon they saw and attributing what the rescue folks are saying since those are associated with the Israeli government, right? Going into all the gory details of how those brave folks caused these little ones to pass on might not be super necessary, I reckon." Infinity Knight (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What independent reporter said that they found babies beheaded? Because all the sources say that is from an IDF soldier telling an i24 reporter that. nableezy - 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You know, I'm not entirely sure. I'd kinda expect to hear that info from the rescue workers, but you know what, there were tons of TV crews out there, check it out. This might be a good kick-off point; you'll find some solid sources there. It's just a thought on how we might handle the Kfar Aza stuff, delving into the nitty-gritty of how those brave souls caused those little ones to meet their maker ain't all that necessary, I'd say. Infinity Knight (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Im not going to watch hours of video to look for a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist. If you find one youre welcome to bring it. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to assist, but when you say "a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist" does that mean you want to get rid of all the Kfar Aza content? Infinity Knight (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable for a claim, new sources must be found or it must go. That is policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We can, however, be more concise; there are a lot of quotes in the section that merely restate what has already been said - we can and should remove those, as they don't add anything to the article but do cause it to violate WP:BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You have, once again, merely asserted the balance of sources is not followed, and you have, once again, provided no evidence for that assertion. Repeating the same false statement does not make it more true. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And you've asserted that they are being followed. But lets try to get some evidence. I searched Google news for Israel Hamas war "war crimes" and opened the first 20 articles:

1. Wall Street Journal: The Siege of Hamas Is No War Crime
2. The Conversation: How the ‘laws of war’ apply to the conflict between Israel and Hamas
3. Time: Atrocities Seeks Extreme Reaction. Don’t Give Hamas What It Wants
4. Reuters: What war crimes laws apply to the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
5. Sydney Morning Herald: A war crime is still a war crime, even in retaliation
6. Al Jazeera: Israel-Hamas war updates: Iran tells Israel to stop before ‘it’s too late’
7. Times of Israel: Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts
8. Washington Post: Have war crimes been committed in Israel and Gaza?
9. The Guardian: Israel-Hamas war live: latest news and live updates
10. Asia Times: No winners so far in Hamas-Israel PR war
11. SBS: Which war crime laws apply to the Israel-Hamas conflict?
12. Financial Times: Rules of war: international law and the Israel-Hamas conflict
13. The Guardian: Progressive Democrats bring resolution calling for ceasefire in Israel-Hamas war
14. Atlantic Council: Hamas’s actions are war crimes. Israel should not respond with further war crimes.
15. Associated Press: Experts say Hamas and Israel are committing war crimes in their fight
16. Amnesty International: Israel: Palestinian armed groups must be held accountable for deliberate civilian killings, abductions and indiscriminate attacks
17. The Strategist: The spiral of violence that led to Hamas
18. The Nation: We Must Not Let the Truth Become a Casualty of This War
19. DW: Are war crimes being committed in Israel-Hamas conflict?
20. NDTV: Explained: What Are War Crimes And Are Israel And Hamas Committing Them?

These results are biased, as most of the war crimes against Israel were committed over a week ago and Google News preferences recent results, but they're still a reasonable estimate. Reviewing them I find that the coverage given to the actions of Hamas and the actions of Israel is roughly equal, although the wording is different - sources are consistently unequivocal that Hamas has committed war crimes, but they are not consistently so about Israel.

As such, to comply with WP:BALASP we should provide roughly equal prominence; at the moment we have 510 words for the actions of Hamas, compared to 1024 for the actions of Israel. Either we need to expand the former, or shrink the latter; I suspect the best option is to do both, by adding quotes to the former and removing quotes from the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no planet in which you counting 20 google news results makes it so your estimate of sources is accurate. For example, HRW or the WHO or any UN agency for that matter is not in your list. Google news is not the only reliable source repository. Hell your first result is an op ed. And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal. You can ignore what you want to, but I don’t need to, and I’ll make sure coverage of Israeli actions is consistent with the sources and push back on any attempt to wave over them because a user doesn’t like the amount of coverage given to them. nableezy - 05:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for evidence, and I provided it; A random sampling of sources is the best way that we will be able to get an estimate of the depth of coverage we need to provide to comply with WP:BALASP, and I can't currently think of a better way to obtain that random sampling than something along the lines of "first 20 google news results from a fair search query".

And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal What I said is that they aren't consistently unequivocal. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy perhaps provide an analysis of your own if you wish to dispute these findings? I, for one, consider the cold blooded murder of civilians in broad daylight, happily celebrated, to be a far more important event than a unconfirmed report that someone used white phosphorous artillery (which is legal, by the way). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that this initially started out straightforwardly and then both sides have taken to competitive editing so as to make the other side look bad and their side look less bad. The high point is that both sides are likely guilty of war crimes, there is no dispute about that and that is what is in the lead.

Now the body, we can go for more detail and then it is just a question of reporting what sources say, quotes ought not be necessary (usually). I dislike this split between the sides, instead of making what amounts to lists of war crimes, better would be prose combining both in a sensible way, articles like the WSJ/ToI/time above are unlikely to be helpful in that whereas the FT, Amnesty, AP, WAPO articles covering both, probably would be (judging by the headlines). Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Gazans drinking salty sea water equals genocide

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

---

Gazans are being forced to drink salty sea water due to Israel's total blockade[38]. Drinking salty sea water causes death due to dehydration[39] Israel is committing genocide and it should be clearly stated in the article intro and body.Crampcomes (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Photo series

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's because most of the images on Commons are rubble photos. There's also a bunch of politician photos, but those aren't really needed here. Besides, it's much easier and safer to photograph an already collapsed building. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Uneven war

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

"Israel struck a childrens hospital with white phosphorous"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose it should be written that way However, it is NOPV to report this because it did happen. And if we did not state that this happened we would be break NPOV. Thank you for reading-Nesser. NesserWiki (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• breaking

NesserWiki (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

See my post below to nableezy where I clarified my position on this, I just didn't want to take up more space by essentially reposting my thoughts. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed this I think. nableezy - 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here (thanks for the edit by the way, it is better); does this belong in the warcrime section? Do we just report pretty clear propaganda sourced by a belligerent in the war crimes section? Why isn't the "decapitating babies" thing in the Hamas war crime section then? Same situation with obvious propaganda, both are cartoon villian levels of evil, and both are sourced to elements of the government belonging to a belligerent and not supported by reliable sources. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I didnt even notice it was in a subsection of war crime, i just searched children's hospital in the article to find what you were talking about. I moved it to the timeline section. Better? But we cite Israeli ministries uncritically, see for number of dead or captured or wounded. I think this is fine attributed. The babies thing was questioned by other sources so I dont quite think it is apples to apples here. nableezy - 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"I didnt even notice it was in a subsection of war crime, i just searched children's hospital in the article to find what you were talking about. I moved it to the timeline section. Better? "

Yes, thank you. I don't have an issue with it being cited. I just have an issue with it being in the warcrimes section, given that we're not including the cited israeli sources that are unverified in the warcrimes section.

"But we cite Israeli ministries uncritically, see for number of dead or captured or wounded."

Correct, and I think that's fine as long as we're also citing the number of dead or captured or wounded for the Palestinian side based off of their numbers. Which from what I can see we are, so I think that's fine. It's just about giving each side the same treatment given the NPOV tag.

" I think this is fine attributed."

Agreed. We have sources based solely on the statements of the Israeli side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.

"The babies thing was questioned by other sources so I dont quite think it is apples to apples here"

Agreed that it shouldn't be in the warcrimes section. Just to clarify; I wasn't trying to argue that that should be included in the warcrimes section. I think it's pretty obviously propaganda. I just think we need to treat both sides the same, but since we're removing the childrens hospital thing from the war crimes section treating them the same would mean keeping the unverified (propagandistic) israeli claims out of the war crimes section as well. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update article to reflect evidence of rape by Palestinian militant groups and move from unverified "claims" under disinformation section to War Crimes section

• What I think should be changed: The entire section called "Claims of sexual violence by Hamas" needs to be rewritten and moved to the section of "War crimes by Palestinian militant groups":

- Replace header with "Sexual violence and rape".
- Remove all lines starting with and following "As of October 11..." with "On October 14, evidence of multiple cases rape were reported by the Israeli military forensics."

• Why it should be changed: Because it is not accurate, and is written citing information available as of October 11. New information has come out that requires changing the "claims" section, as it is no longer relevant in essence.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

eyal (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All that says is Israel has said this, it also says no evidence was presented. It is attributing this to "a reserve warrant officer". We can update with the information sure, but saying the narrative voice this as fact is still not supported by independent sources. nableezy - 01:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this reasoning seems to be inconsistent with the way facts are established using other references in the article. For example, the article uses references that cite various Palestinian government bodies to report the number of dead, e.g.:

- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/16/854881/ cites the "government media office"

- https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/14/Israeli-strikes-on-Gaza-kill-324-including-126-children-in-past-24-hours-Ministry cites the Palestinian Health Ministry

- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/13/854160/ cites Palestinian Health Ministry

Even directly under the corresponding section of "War crimes by the Israel Government, Medical neutrality", the claims that Israel deliberately targeted medical vehicles use e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/war-crime-gaza-medics-say-israel-targeting-ambulances-health-facilities, which cites the medics themselves and again the Palestinian Health Ministry. No "independent" source was required to add these accusations of deliberate targeted attack directly under the Israeli war crime section and not under a separate "Claims" section as is done for the rape accusations.

I think in all of these cases, we understandably won't wait until a more "independent" body actively verifies the reports. For consistency, we should apply the same standard everywhere, including in the cases related to this edit request. eyal (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We use the equivalent Israeli sources for dead and missing as well. But for claims that arent being accepted as fact by third party sources we attribute it as they do. See for example the material on al-Durrah Children's Hospital being hit by white phosphorous, we attribute that to the MoH of Gaza. The hitting of ambulances and hospitals has been reported by independent sources like the WHO and news agencies. And it does not say deliberately targeted. What it says is there are reports of that, not saying as a fact it happened. nableezy - 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All of this makes sense to me, and I'm saying that we should apply the same standard for the rape accusations relevant to this edit request as described above, i.e. move them from the "Claims of..." section directly into the war crimes by Palestinian militant group section. In addition, we should make clear that this evidence was reported by the Israeli military forensics. I'll update the edit request to add this wording. eyal (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire current contention seems to hinge on the fact we don't know the name(s) of any of the victims. There are multiple eyewitness accounts, an Israeli military-forensic attestation, a video from a hostage-taking that may have indicated it, and of course that war rape is practically a general fact of war. Almost all of the reports skeptical of the claims were published before the forensic report. I have to wonder where the line on moving it to the war crimes section is. I've mainly been focused on keeping it from being labeled "disinformation", that is, emphasizing the difference between unconfirmed reports and disinformation. But I have to wonder just how unconfirmed it really is by this point. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request was made in part because we already concretely know where the line is: it's been set by the writing of the current war crimes section (as discussed above). I only argued above that we should apply that line everywhere. eyal (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

An RfC related to this article is ongoing

You can participate in the Request for Comment (RfC) in the Request for Comment (RfC) in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Map Original Research Potential violation

Nableezy & Serialjoepsycho have expressed concern than the File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict (7– 8 October).svg image contains original research, with Nableezy said, "you cant say Hamas captured these villages and held them for up to three days and because they did this it was occupied territory." and Serialjoepsycho stated, "there's nothing saying that Hamas held Israel Territory as an occupying power". Should the map be removed on OR violation grounds? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned this map at all is what I find interesting. Don't ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, did you in the discussion as when I mentioned the map sources, you considered it WP:OR in this edit saying "Not only is it original research, as you are the sole source of the position that Hamas held Israel Territory". LOL. In this edit, you even said "Other than WeatherWriter's personal view there's nothing saying that Hamas held Israel Territory". LOL! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Other than your personally held views you haven't provided a source including this map that shows Hamas held Israel Territory in any state of military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The map says those regions had "Palestinian militant's presence", not that the area was occupied; my understanding is that for such a claim the maps are accurate, and align with maps from reliable sources like Reuters. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Um no I have not said the map is original research, I said that your novel interpretation that because Hamas held any of this territory for any amount of time it means that they military occupied it is original research. You still have not provided a single source saying any of this territory was held under military occupation. nableezy - 03:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The map does not indicate that Hamas occupied Israeli territory. According to the legend, the map shows that militants were present in those regions during the first two days of the conflict. This information is supported by reliable news reports from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Ecrusized (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Building in the Gaza Strip being levelled by Israeli missiles"

That's the description of a video being used in the article. Should read something to the effect of "Building's in the Gaza strip being bombed by Israeli forces" or something to that effect. We don't know what type of munitions were used to target the buildings. Unlikely to be an actual cruise missile though. In some of these videos I'm seeing the warhead seems to be too large for that, though I might be wrong. Levelled by Israeli missiles just strikes me as unencyclopedic (even something like destroyed would be better if we can confirm missiles and not precision guided bombs, likely JDAMS were used). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/17/Iran-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-preemptive-action-against-Israel-in-Gaza

Iranian Minister of Foreign relations says they want in

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/17/Iran-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-preemptive-action-against-Israel-in-Gaza Baratiiman (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that a pre-emptive strike by a non-nuclear power against a nuclear power with strategic level nuclear warheads is being seriously considered given the game theory of it just... doesn't make sense from an escalation POV. It makes sense as boilerplate rhetoric. Talk is cheap; this is why Russia threatens to nuke the world everytime Ukraine gets a new toy. If we put every single instance of Sergei Lavrov going on about "hellfire" and "massive consequences the likes of which blah blah blah" everytime Ukraine get's another thousand himars rounds the article over there would literally be half dedicated to that kind of stuff. They threaten to end the world every tuesday. It's their thing at this point. Same can be said for Iran threatening Israel. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Popular Mobilization Forces

@HuntersHistory: I have removed the Iraqi PMF from the infobox, as per the cited source. The PMF has reportedly been deployed to Lebanon, but there are no reports of them actively taking part in hostilities. Ecrusized (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki and EkoGraf: There are two new belligerents in the infobox, Syria and the Iraqi militant group Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. With regards to Syria, I think it should be removed since the regime has not taken offensive action against Israel. Israeli airstrikes targeted the Hezbollah assets inside the country, which is what's cited for Syria's inclusion. When it comes to Iraqi Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, it is cited from ISW,[40] which is citing Al Araby[41], which in turn is citing a Twitter video posted by a blogger,[42] during which the militants are recorded saying they are "joining the fight against Jerusalem". However, Al Araby notes that there has not been an official announcement regarding this. I think both should be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, but the Syrian Air Defense Force activated when the missiles were fired, so Syria remains in the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYN, sources do not say that Syria has joined the fight against Israel. Israeli airstrikes targeted Syria bi-weekly for the past 5 years. This does not make Syria an active belligerent in every single conflict Israel has been involved with during that time, see Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, having been bombed doesn't make Syria party to the conflict, nor does the smattering of air defense responses that it mounted in reply. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Syria was removed. Parham wiki (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing related to the political preferences of those who were killed or taken hostage.

I'm a bit uncertain about this edit. The reasoning for deletion is "This article says "some" Kibbutznikim "tend" to support more pro-Palestinian initiatives. Not "Many are peace activists", the source's title actually is "Peace Activists Are Among the Israelis Missing and Killed". Thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is noted that the attacks on civilians were indiscriminate. Naturally, this means their political beliefs weren't considered... of course they weren't. I question the value in Wikipedia specifying such. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It might not be due. The victims of the attack likely had a wide range of different political views, just like other civilians killed in the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 10:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas claim that hostages were killed

Hamas has claimed that 9 hostages were killed due to Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.[43] Should this information also be reflected in the infobox, but of course with attribution of it to Hamas.VR _talk 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The figure now appears to be up to 13, see [44] - not particularly surprising in the context of the indiscriminate bombing, though very much surprising in the level of collateral damage being tolerated. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Context to the deaths:

1. Israeli hostages will undoubtedly be used as human shields in brutal Hamas-Israel war
2. The Choices of War: Hamas Using Kidnapped Israelis as Human Shields, What Should Israel Do?
3. ‘Human shields’: Israel grapples with complexity of rescuing Hamas’ hostages
4. Hamas hostages effectively ‘human shields’ against Israel military
5. Relatives of hostages held as human shields in Gaza beg Israel not to bomb Strip

BilledMammal (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

update of Casualties

in the west bank 61 are killed not 54 source and in lebanon the idf today announce that they killed 4 suspects trying to blow up the fence the times of israel أحمد توفيق (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@أحمد توفيق: Done, thanks. Ecrusized (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So many discussions that weren't concluded were archived

Giving a single day for a discussion to be concluded before being archived seems excessive Bobisland (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar concern. I was addressing one in particular that was still an open concern (though it didn't seem to warrant an article change), and it was archived as I was writing the reply. The discussion was only a few days old. I get that the talk page was getting pretty heavy, and in some places chaotic, but the archiving at least in that case seemed too hasty. entropyandvodka | talk 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar; a question was asked of me at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 17#war crime section and before I had time to respond the discussion was manually archived. I think the one day auto-archive is fine, but given how short the archive period is I don't think editors should be manually archiving discussions unless they have obviously concluded. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the talk page has been autoconfirmed-level protected for a week, I don't think it should be too much of a problem to raise the time-to-archive bar a little. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Third sentence of background section

This sentence has gone back and forth a bit, so I'm starting a discussion to get it at least slightly set in stone. It currently states:

International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel has defended it as necessary to protect Israeli citizens from "terrorism, rocket attacks and any other hostile activity", and to prevent weapons and dual use goods from entering Gaza.

My issue with this sentence is that I find the long second half of it unnecessarily long (particularly, I find the use of a quote unnecessary), in a way that doesn't reflect the way sources weight this issue. See how various reliable sources phrase this:

• NYTimes: Israel says the blockade is necessary to stop the flow of arms into the territory, but Palestinians and aid groups say it is collective punishment and exacerbates dire economic and social conditions.
• BBC News: Israel and Egypt maintain a blockade around Gaza aimed at preventing attacks by militants there, though the measure has been condemned by rights groups as a form of collective punishment.
• Foreign Policy Israel, with Egyptian support, immediately responded with a land, air, and sea blockade that has been decried by human rights organizations as a form of “collective punishment.” Sixteen years later, Gaza is regularly referred to as an “open-air prison.”
• AP News Israel says the restrictions are needed to keep Hamas from building up its military capabilities. The bitter enemies have fought three wars and numerous skirmishes over the years. But critics say the blockade has amounted to collective punishment, hurting the living conditions of Gaza’s 2 million inhabitants while failing to oust Hamas or moderate its behavior. Gaza has almost no clean drinking water, it suffers from frequent power outages and people cannot freely travel abroad.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A valid point about WP:WEIGHT. The quote is also pretty needless. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant, given that calling it "collective punishment" implies a war crime, which a blockade isnt. It is not the length of the accusation, but the severity of it that determines the length of the response permitted. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your second sentence would go directly against the guidelines of due and undue weight, a Wikipedia policy. My proposal is to have a sentence reading something like this:

International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel has defended it as necessary to prevent weapons and dual-use goods from entering the territory.

A minor point about your first sentence: a blockade isn't necessarily a war crime, but it can be one, depending on the circumstances. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Background info on Hamas in lead section (continued discussion)

We have previously discussed the presence of background info: [45] including with @Vice_regent @DFlhb @My very best wishes @KlayCax

I removed the following: The operation was named the "Al-Aqsa Storm" by Hamas. It was claimed by Hamas that the Al-Aqsa Storm responded to the Egyptian-Israel blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (possibly in April 2023), Israel's attacks on women, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza.

But it was restored by this edit: [46]

@Corriebertus I removed this text because:

• We are giving too much weight to the justifications of this conflict of one side.
• This wording will invite edit warring. If say "Hamas blames A, B, C", then some editors will think that's not enough and add more "A B C D E", some editors will want to remove, and others will want to do the same for Israel: "Israel blames X, Y, Z", giving us a very bloated lead section.
• Hamas says a lot of things. Generally, sides in conflicts say a lot of things about the other side. But is it notable? If so, we could fill paragraphs upon paragraphs about what Israelis and Palestinians say about each other. Rather, let's examine the true actions and cause and effect like how War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) we simply state that Bush demanded Al-Qaeda, how the Taliban responded with a denial, and then what Bush did in response - start the war.
• In this case, Hamas appeared to be preparing for attacks for around two years (even lessening their activity to lull Israel into a false sense of security). In that case, how can 2023 events be the cause for the attack that they prepared two years ago?

Merlin^sorca 11:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2023

“War” means warfare, combat, between two or more peoples/nations (in my dictionary). The whole point here, is, that in the Palestinian (and Hamas’) point of view, this war (between ‘Palestinians’ including Gazans+Hamas and ‘Israelis’) is going on since 1948. Even last weekend, a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands for a mainstream (left wing) party has given up her place on the party list for the upcoming parl. elections (November) for the reason that generally in the West, but even in her own party, the “context” is being obfuscated that “this ‘war’ is going on since 75 years”. Therefore, regardless the (eventual) outcome of the above 15 Oct 2023 requested move (2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza–Israel war), I now request a move (change) to a title without that word ‘war’ in it.

Wikipedia has an article, correctly titled Israeli–Palestinian conflict (starting in 1948), with subarticle Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with a section “2005–present: Post-Intifada, Gaza conflict”, further divided into subsections for nearly every year. So, a logical naming for our article about the 7 October 2023 events et cetera, would (sort-of) be: 2023 escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (with perhaps a neat summary of it in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict).

I don’t know how our article entitling with the word ‘war’ in it came about here, and whether it was extensively discussed then or just a (hurried) choice by one of our (good faith) editors; but I think it unnecessarily supports an Israeli point of view and thereby obscures the above-mentioned Palestinian point of view; therefore, I now challenge that (unnecessary) Wikipedia choice and labelling (“…war…”) and plead for the (more neutral) naming, consistent with previous Wikipedia choices: 2023 escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an RM above, you can !vote/comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)