Talk:Israel–Hamas war

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia, Germany?

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

Discussion

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• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamas exaggeration in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede

I'm fine with fact that Hamas has been accused of rape in the initial attack on Israel being included in lede, but why should it be there without the appropriate denial by Hamas? Hamas has not admitted themselves that they committed such attacks (even if individual fighters have, the organization as a whole on Telegram denied it), and it is certainly not a fair POV to include allegations and not a single response by the alleged party themselves. If the international press and journalists dispute such denials then their refutations can be included after. Was going to re-insert the denial to the article with this source but I decided to bring it to talk first: [21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusation in the mirror is a precursor to genocide, and we have a whole lot more actual evidence of Israel's intent to commit gender violence than any Palestinian group. Right now there's a young girl in a hospital in the West Bank having some pretty gory bottom surgery for what IOF has done. Big fat preceding section. Pictures. It's gonna be beautiful. I love Wikipedia. One flaw though, in a genocide, all the RS runs dry--leaving everyone with their favorite flavor of delulu fuel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What is with this comment fantasizing about people being exposed to medical gore? "It's gonna be beautiful"? What the hell? Salmoonlight (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. They reverted me in spite of me explaining the reason in the edit summary[22]. Crampcomes (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't want to turn this into more of a forum, but just commenting that one of those links is a post by a Medium user called "Proleterian Feminist" made exactly two days after the Oct 7 attacks. In one of their recent posts they say “For all these reasons and more, I cannot look at the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and come to any other conclusion other than it being a just response…” & “It’s also worth noting that Hamas and the other resistance factions have continuously stated that they are not targeting civilians or children, and have released video proof of their treatment of civilians.”(hamas, the famously reliable and neutral source) among many other things which if I were to fully quote would make this far too long. Not exactly a neutral or reliable source. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not proposing that that op-ed be used in this article in any way, shape, or form. My point was that many people understand that these claims are not coming from a place of authentic feminism, but as a justification for the atrocities committed against Gaza (including Palestinian women). The author writes: [Israel] will often try to pull on the sympathies of left-leaning people by alleging violence against marginalized groups, such as women. My point was that the mounting coverage and feverish tenor of these allegations is conveniently timed, given Israel's increasing international isolation and growing pressure for a ceasefire. But again, not a forum. The real issue is whether or not to attribute the allegations and include the denials (see below). WillowCity^(talk) 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use these Medium links again, even on a talk page. They're inappropriate and offensive. Andre🚐 05:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

That is not true, y4ou dont describe what sources attribute as a fact, and you dont not include what sources include for a denial because "it's just Hamas". That is straightforwardly asking that we distort the cited sources. Independent sources are saying there are Israeli reports of rape and sexual violence, and that Hamas has denied these claims. nableezy - 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli rape accusation which was fact-checked by Thomson Reuters turned out to be false propaganda.[23] Crampcomes (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt inserted by WillowCity, and I agree that shouldnt be in the lead. What are you implying with that quote as a reply to me? nableezy - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just bringing this to your attention. BTW, I totally agree with WillowCity that this whole rape accusation, which already has a separate article on it, should not be in the lede of this article. Crampcomes (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not belong in the lead, it is a single report on a single instance. nableezy - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all" is knowingly twisting someone's word. If you insist on such bad faith behavior, I may bring the issue to administrator noticeboard and ask for possible disciplinary actions. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the denials are mentioned, but not prominently (two sentences in the Times [24], one sentence in the CNN, NBC and AP reports. These sources do not mention anyone else denying that this happened. In view of all this, we should mention the denials too in the body of the article, and in the article about the sexual violence, but definitely not in the lede, per WP:DUE.

Basically every claim in this war has been contested by one side or the other. Including denials after each sentence is clearly not the right way to write encyclopedic articles. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Andre🚐 21:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, that they include it means we need to, and including charges without responses is a straightforward NPOV violation. nableezy - 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is particularly true since the lead may be the only portion of the article a reader actually looks at. We also can't pick-and-choose what parts of NPOV we want to rely on (e.g. emphasizing a particular interpretation of DUE, without considering potential BALASP issues that arise from discussing the claim in the lead at all). WillowCity^(talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV Andre🚐 22:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

When sources relay accusations as accusations and include denials they are not endorsing a view, they are relaying the charges made and the responses to it. That is what we do as well, as the sources do. nableezy - 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not two sides of a coin, 5050 on every issue. WP:YESPOV, If most sources, even "WESTERN" sources, say something, we have to give more weight to that side. Andre🚐 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The same sources include the accusation and the denial. What don’t you get about that? nableezy - 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• The lead now includes "and Hamas videos showed naked and bloodied women on the day of the assault." and does not include the Hamas denial of the rape accusations. That level of detail is not being included for accusations about Israeli actions, we are not including that they left premature babies in a hospital they demanded to be abandoned to decompose, we are not including that they have killed generations of families which Amnesty International has called apparent war crimes with "damning evidence", we are not including that they have executed unarmed civilians sheltering in UN facilities, we are not including that video shows them killing unarmed civilians at close range in the West Bank, we are not including any details on the war crimes committed by Israel. But we are including details on contested allegations of crimes by Hamas. This is non-neutral. Either include details on charges or dont, but you cant turn the lead in to "this is why Israel is justified in leveling Gaza" without any other POV. nableezy - 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  a total blockade of the Gaza Strip was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water. This long-standing part was sneakily and cunning removed too from under our noses. You know whole population of 2 million drinking contaminated water can kill a lot more than 18000 in both long and short term. But it's what it is. Crampcomes (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Couldn't agree more, this has created massive BALASP issues. The lead could be filled with horror stories, with the torture of Palestinian detainees arbitrarily arrested en masse, or their deaths in custody, or the forcible disappearance of doctors, or the "exponential" increase in settler violence in the West Bank, or the assassination of journalists. But it's not. This allegation is given more attention in the lead than anything I've listed, none of which is even mentioned. The result is an outrageous POV violation; as editors, we should be embarrassed. WillowCity^(talk) 23:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to see the source survey for the relative prominence as aspects of each of those for this topic, stacked against the other things you think are less prominent. Has such a survey been done yet? If not, maybe that would be a constructive, productive way forward rather than soapboxing about how embarassed or ashamed we should be about this, which isn't exactly incivil, but I don't like the tone. Andre🚐 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well I apologize for the tone, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just exasperated by this conversation going in circles for days. But you don't need a source survey to know that this level of specificity, for something that has yet to be independently, impartially investigated and verified, is not in keeping with the rest of this article's lead, which is the real crux of the issue.

  As for a constructive, productive way forward, I'm on board with just stating the allegation and the denial, without getting into the specifics. That is a compromise from my original position, which is that the sexual assault issue is WP:UNDUE for the lead (and I note that no editor has produced a source survey showing that this is a prominent aspect of coverage of the war as a whole, despite the onus). EDIT: When I say just stating the allegation and the denial, I mean with attribution for who is alleging and denying. WillowCity^(talk) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

a total blockade of the Gaza Strip was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water.

References

Why letting the pro Israeli wp users impose their will of relating unbalanced stories when you can use edit summary naming the User who did this, re including this content while re-adding the denials of Hamas. Don't wait for their approval, cite wp:neutrality, it is what matters. Iennes (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the less detailed rape charge, along with the Hamas denial. There is no consensus for the inclusion of these details, and if you refuse to include the denial then the charge should not be included either. We can take this to an RFC if you want, but there has never been consensus for what has been repeatedly pushed in to the lead. nableezy - 03:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to think there is a better way to write it than, srael has reported rapes and sexual assault by Hamas fighters; Hamas has denied this.rape as a weapon of war. Andre🚐 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed that, was a mistake from two different thoughts being combined. nableezy - 03:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I also included the charge they used rape as a weapon of war. I think that addresses the problem that some had with supposed equal treatment here. nableezy - 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat, but haven't others aside from Israel confirmed the Israeli reports? While nobody has confirmed the Hamas denials, because you can't really confirm a denial. Andre🚐 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see an independent third-party source stating that it is confirmed, using that specific word. Some sources find the witness/forensic evidence credible, but that is a very different proposition from outright 'confirmation'. WillowCity^(talk) 03:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least the US state department. [26] Andre🚐 03:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I should say an independent, reliable third-party source. I thought that went without saying, though. And when I say "independent", I mean RS from outside of Israel or Palestine. In a previous edit, I said that the reports emanated from "Israeli sources", so that would encompass ToI, YNET, and other Israeli outlets that post corroborations/confirmations. I'm not opposed to that type of attribution. WillowCity^(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, yes, that too. but what about like the US state department and US officials.[27] Andre🚐 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a reliable source for what the US government believes to have happened, but not for what actually happened. US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller is not (to my knowledge) a forensic scientist, international expert, specialist in the laws of war, or otherwise qualified to interpret evidence and determine its legal effect. He can convey what the US government believes to be true, and we can convey that. But the Hill article even says that Miller "had not made an independent assessment." WillowCity^(talk) 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, but you wrote it as Israeli reports alone. I think it's a bit relevant that the president has said governments and international organizations should "forcefully condemn the sexual violence of Hamas terrorists without equivocation." Not that we need to quote that, but maybe "Israel, supported by the US," would be appropriate. Andre🚐 04:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why in the lead? Why is that part of the summary? nableezy - 04:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Because otherwise it sounds like it's a 50-50 false balance whether the sexual assaults happened or not, not that they did happen, Hamas denied it, as they would, and Israel's story is corroborated by extensive evidence and international support. Andre🚐 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It is supported by their political and military allies. Who also supported claims that have later turned out to be patently false, eg babies beheaded. And there arent sources for "they did happen", the sources say that Israel says they happened and have provided testimonies from witnesses who say it happened. The source you offered has a US State Department spokesman saying "The fact that it seems one of the reasons they don’t want to turn women over, that they’ve been holding hostage, and the reason this pause fell apart, is they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody". That is a political office of an ally of Israel making what is an unsupported and uncorroborated claim, and you are taking that as evidence that this is true and we must follow that source. Sorry, but I disagree. I see an attempt to push a thumb on the scales here and include contested views as facts when the sources describe the views as views that are contested. And I do not think any reading of Israel has reported Hamas fighters committed rapes and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon of war; Hamas has denied this can be construed to be "50-50 false balance". We include that Israel has "reported", not "accused" or "claimed", that Hamas fighters committed acts of rape and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon. And we include four words on Hamas denying it, with one of them being a preposition. If you want to start an RFC on this feel free. nableezy - 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. Andre🚐 05:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The beheading of babies isn't "patently false"- it's something which several survivors and eyewitnesses have reported, and almost certainly happened (just as many other eyewitness accounts from 10/7 ended up confirmed by journalists)- but it is something that the evidence for has not been reported with sufficiently stringent journalistic certainty as to be presented as a fact in Wikipedia. Lack of sufficiently strong evidence that something happened is not equal to evidence that it did not happen.

Regarding the sexual assaults on the other hand, there is widespread journalistic confirmation of that happening in reliable sources, so it would be undue bias to refer to the denial of them. There is a very good reason why the lede to the article on The Holocaust does not contain the wording "Journalists claim that Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, but Nazis deny this". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Equating the level of certainty surrounding the Holocaust to the level of certainty surrounding sexual violence on October 7 (to the extent and in the manner alleged by Israel) is frankly offensive. Please refrain from making these sorts of comparisons, it does a disservice to the memory of the Holocaust and the millions who died. WillowCity^(talk) 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The better comparison, if any is appropriate, would be between current events and denial of the Holocaust during WW2 when it was ongoing. There was lots of that. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly happened lol? One baby was killed on October 7. So no, definitely did not happen. Completely debunked and yet repeated here as though it were true. nableezy - 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know that this should be in the lead of this article at all tbh. This isn’t the article on the 7 October attacks, and accusations of sexual assault have not been a major component in coverage of the war as a whole as opposed to coverage of the initial attacks. Definitely a major topic for that article, but here it seems like it’s just being shoved in the lead without regard to its weight to this topic. nableezy - 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been exactly my position from the get-go. It's a WP:BALASP issue. The war has been ongoing for months and a ton of events have transpired/are transpiring. If this claim is important to the war as a whole, then those who want it included in the lead should be able to establish its importance with reference to RS (and not just RS talking about the war's outbreak). WillowCity^(talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree and think it shouldn’t be repeatedly forced in either. If you support material being included and you need to resort to edit warring to include it then you don’t have consensus and need to establish that first. nableezy - 19:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, many other users disagree. Nothing is being forced in. There's no consensus to remove it. Andre🚐 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If there was never consensus to include it then the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include it. And I think you know that, despite your attempt to shift that onus. And it has been added/removed no less than 5 times^1,2,3,4,5 so I dont know how you can pretend like it is not being forced in. But, to the point, can you show that this story features prominently in coverage of the war and not just coverage of the 7 October attacks? Because we have an article on those attacks. If it is not a prominent feature of coverage of this overall conflict then it should not be in the lead of this article. nableezy - 20:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's by far, one of the most prominent aspects of the war and the attacks. There are something like 37 million results for "sexual assault hamas" Andre🚐 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But which of those are not in the context of coverage of the October 7th attack? And there are 16,400 news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", 14,800 for "rape" "hamas", nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks. Which, again, we have an article for. nableezy - 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty significant amount of news coverage for an event that's only a few months old. There will be even more coverage as books and journal articles and other kinds of secondary and tertiary analysis are added. And there's clearly a consensus to include this material or at best a stalemate of status quo which as you know, defaults to the status quo. I think it's a gray area in terms of ONUS, one that gets discussed there, so I may leave a comment pointing to this. "I don't like that and it never had a consensus" isn't a valid argument here. It's been sitting in the article and the status quo should remain given that there's a critical mass of users who support it. If you disagree, I suggest an RFC is the way. Andre🚐 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you know a critical mass of users support it? How are you defining status quo? The extent of edit-warring completely undermines the idea that inclusion is the status quo, the last stable version of the lead before the edit war actually excluded the claim. Respectfully, this is not a grey area; the onus to include disputed content is on advocates for inclusion. “I don’t like that” is a strawman, various editors have explained (patiently, repeatedly, at great length) the policy basis for our position. WillowCity^(talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Start an RFC to solicit opinions. I do not know why advocates on this topic don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, part of those rules is contested edits stay out absent a consensus. But you up above, and now, act like the burden to establish that consensus is on those seeking the removal of what has not had any consensus to begin with. And what you also have restored, without that consensus. Whats that about don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Wikipedia? nableezy - 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As you know, The rules are principles and ONUS must be weighed against every other policy, which should not be wikilawyered. ONUS is not a weapon to remove anything you find objectionable. In a situation like this with an active discussion, the status quo will remain. Andre🚐 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There was never a status quo for this, it has been edit-warred in from the start. If that continues well we can see what happens. Im removing it as lacking weight in coverage of the war and consensus for its inclusion. nableezy - 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The decision as to what will or will not remain is not yours to make alone. WillowCity^(talk) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Andre, youre ignoring my point. Its a significant part of the October 7 story. I dont think it is a significant part of the coverage of the war as a whole. There are 65,700 results for "ceasefire" "hamas". nableezy - 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I google "hamas rape" (no quotes) and I get 45 million results. 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced" It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:VALID While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. Include the sexual assault, and exclude the denial. Andre🚐 21:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the Israeli military official says that. There has been some coverage of hostages being sexually abused, but I would not say that much. The coverage that does exist is about October 7, which we have a dedicated article on. There has been no indication that the coverage of the assaults in the context of the war as a whole, which is what this article is about, and not those attacks specifically, merits inclusion in the lead. Since there was never a consensus for its inclusion, Im going to remove it. And users should read WP:ONUS before continuing to edit war. nableezy - 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• @ScottishFinnishRadish would you consider reverting to include contested material due to no consensus when WP:ONUS requires consensus for inclusion to be tendentious editing? I was told to engage an administrator prior to escalating things to formal reports. This material has been subject of dispute since it was first included in the lead 11 December, been removed and restored more than a half dozen times in the 11 days since then. Does this meet any definition of consensus, either in this section or as WP:SILENCE? nableezy - 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it's not, as you know, during a discussion, the status quo remains. I have not violated 1RR Andre🚐 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say you violated 1RR, I am saying you are editing tendentiously which is prohibited independently of edit-warring. This has never been stable material, and users are edit-warring to maintain it. Hell, it's the second time today it is being pushed in to the lead, without consensus. nableezy - 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's stable material in that it's been in the article for a long time and people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus, and it is restored. That is a form of stability. Start an RFC. Bandying around empty accusations of tendentious editing is incivil. Andre🚐 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  No part of that is true. It was added 11 days ago and has been removed repeatedly only to be restored without it having consensus. It is just not true that it has been in the article for a long time, and you are adding it without consensus, despite twisting the policy to say people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus. Sorry, but the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content, and distorting our policies to pretend like they say the opposite of what they do is likewise tendentious. nableezy - 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're wikilawyering to keep out content that you don't like despite obvious lack of consensus or at best, a stalemate that defaults to the status quo. 11 days is a significant percentage of time that this article has even existed given that it's a <3 month old event. The bottom line is that while the article is under active and robust discussion you shouldn't be unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion. Andre🚐 21:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  But you're not engaging with the core points:

  1) There has been repeated edit-warring for the past 11 days, reflecting a lack of consensus

  2) in these circumstances, the actual status quo is the last stable version of the article, which excluded the contested sentence

  3) if there is an "obvious lack of consensus" as you acknowledge, onus requires the inclusionist camp to establish consensus

  Moreover you reverted nableezy's edit within a minute of it being made, is that not unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion?

  I do not see these arguments as wikilawyering I see them as a mundane and obvious application of policy. The novel interpretation of ONUS and consensus that you're advancing, however... WillowCity^(talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bullshit, I am providing Wikipedia policy-based reasons for not including material in the lead of the article. Wikilawyering is when an editor claims that the rules, like WP:ONUS, do not say what they clearly say, and attempt to force through material through manipulating those policies to support what they do not. 11 days would be significant if it had stayed in the article. It did not, it was challenged and edit-warred back in. So your blustering is a. completely false, and b. completely unsupported by the rules. Ill await clarification from the admin on if that merits raising a case of tendentious editing or not, but I have no interest in engaging in a discussion with such a bad faith and plainly false portrayal of our policies, especially when it comes with a claim of wikilawyering by somebody who, ironically, is wikilawyering. Somebody should revert your edit as it is plainly not acceptable under WP:ONUS. nableezy - 21:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is also WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, and I see that the inclusion of the denial was already tagged by another editor for NPOV. Without any mention of the sexual assaults in the lead, I think we have a serious NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, my removal is based on WP:DUE, which is part of WP:NPOV. Can you please address the question on if coverage of the war as a whole, and not just the 7 October attacks, features accusations of rape prominently? Because where I say the overwhelming majority of coverage of that is in coverage of those attacks. But this is not the article on the attacks. nableezy - 21:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I RV'd to omit the sentence; hopefully this stabilizes the lead pending some resolution but I'm not holding my breath. WillowCity^(talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  ONUS is not a blank check and no wikipedia policy works the way that nableezy and WillowCity seem to think. Each policy must be interpreted in light of all other policies and context. See a similar discussion here Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Homework. This is very similar to the hypothetical scenario I proposed. Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining. Removing it is obviously anti-consensus if it's under active discussion. Again, start an RFC or a noticeboard discussion. Andre🚐 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  You need consensus for inclusion, and that applies to all of us. You dont get to claim a special exemption to the rules. Edit-warring in material that has been disputed from the start and then claiming consensus is needed to remove it is one of the POV-pushers main arrows. They think they can just shift the burden through slight of hand. Sorry, but I know the policies here, and your editing is in direct contravention of them. I'll see if an administrator agrees and take it from there. nableezy - 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Andre, and I also wanted to mention that I agreed to include the Hamas denial despite my feeling it was not warranted in order to get the matter resolved, as consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS "is not an all or nothing proposition." Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Except you also kept restoring it without, eg two days ago. Anyway, I dont think it belongs as I dont think it is a prominent feature of coverage of the war, as opposed to a prominent feature of the coverage of the 7 October attacks, but this article is not about the 7 October attacks. A point made and completely ignored for some reason. I wonder if its ideological? nableezy - 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's not a valid argument as the attacks were the opening salvos of the war, are very much part of the war, and as I said now and previously), it remains in the forefront of the coverage. Yes the atrocities were gruesome, but Wikipedia is not censored. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they were the opening salvo, but if you open up the universe of sources that are related to the war as a whole, and not just the ones that are related to 7 October, then the coverage of sexual assault is not that high. It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes (114k news results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023" compared to the 16k on "sexual assault" and the 14k on "rape"). But you would have us cover that more prominently with more detail than we do the various UN resolution attempts? Why? nableezy - 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary, coverage is increasing due to evidence and testimony of the freed hostages. These is ainvestigative report by NBC News today. An RfC will resolve this. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see that there is, or has ever been consensus for inclusion, but what I do see is long term edit warring from both sides of the issue.
  Yesterday I had the edit notices and AE log open, ready to apply consensus required. The only thing that stopped me was knowing that I was going to be too busy to meet admincond for the next few days. I was hoping I would come back to see an RFC or other productive discussion, and this ain't that.
  I don't think anyone really wants to deal with consensus required on an article as active as this. To avoid this, I suggest we respect ONUS, and start an RFC. Andrevan your statement above Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining is an argument for inclusion, but it doesn't make disagreement anti-consensus, and as you said it's under active discussion which demonstrates there is no consensus for inclusion. We have procedures for exactly this situation. Leave out contested content, discuss, if consensus isn't clear or is challenged open an RFC. The kicker is that even if this isn't how things proceed now it's how it will have to proceed if consensus required is applied because the content has never enjoyed consensus.
  I think an RFC with three options, include, include with Hamas denial, and don't include is probably sufficient. If the RFC starts soon we'll have an answer in a little over 30 days. There is no deadline, and a month with this one detail in limbo isn't going to make it break the article. We're all experienced editors who've worked on disputed content in contentious areas before, so let's steady on and solve this like a group that includes some of the more experienced editors involved with the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and that there have been 227 comments with only 16 editors (including myself) in this section demonstrates that this should have been an RFC well before now. When discussions turn to a small group of editors going in circles it's time to take a step up the ladder of figuring shit out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  While you are here, the most costructive thing would be if you'd review this talk page for civility lapses. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think it’s fair or necessary to ask SFR to devote their time to that. If you have a particular concern I’m sure you could take it to the talk page of the relevant editor. We’ve all been duly chastened by the “adult in the room”, let’s all just take the above comments to heart and try to deal more productively moving forward. WillowCity^(talk) 02:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you would like to share some of the one and a third tomats of text you object to? I see recently in this thread there were two accusations of idealistically based arguments, one of which was retracted and the other was pointing out the accusation, which is kind of a wash. I reviewed a great deal a few days ago and issued some warnings.

  There are 37,000 words on this talk page, so even a hint would help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the RFC is the best path forward, but per the advisory essay WP:QUO which has some community support, Avoid reverting during discussion. While both sides were reverting, to be sure, the ONUS argument is a non-argument. As of 6 days ago, the compromise solution was including the statement in the lead along with the denial. I never removed the denial, I attempted to restore the status quo which had 6 days of stability, Further, continued personalization of the dispute is disruptive. So while I agree this discussion has been going nowhere fast, I don't agree that the status quo wasn't including the material. Andre🚐 02:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's never been in the article long enough where removing it isn't considered a revert, so it's not the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  How long is that? because this is not a type of Wiki rules account rule-of-thumbing that I'm familiar with, but may be a custom or practice specific to this topic area. Given that the entire event is about 3 months long, if we agreed to a compromise 6 days ago, which was abandoned today for some reason (probably for the same reason that some people unilaterally redirected a number of articles on the conflict and put them up for AFD, for the 2nd time in a month in one case?), how much longer before these types of things would be considered a status quo ante? It seems to be we said, 'll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. Andre🚐 12:17 am, 17 December 2023, last Sunday (6 days ago) (UTC−5 at which time nableezy's edits stood in the article. I was reverting back to that version. The goalposts have moved, though. Andre🚐 03:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your timeline is incorrect as laid out below. nableezy - 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  From what I've seen in numerous discussions although there's no hard cutoff I've seen anywhere between 2 weeks to a month to upwards of six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, if that is the modern consensus I will abide by that. Andre🚐 03:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  It was not stable for 6 days however. You re-added it on the 16th, was removed on the 18th, re-added on the 20th (without the denial), I returned the denial and less detailed material that day, it was removed the 20th, and returned on the 22nd, twice. nableezy - 03:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't object to the chronology, which shows that it was not entirely stable, so I will grant that, but it does show that a compromise version containing the material and the denial was readded by me as well as you. I will admit I did not notice that the denial got lost in the restoration on the 20th. Andre🚐 03:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I was focused on maintaining the neutrality in that compromise, a compromise that was repeatedly rejected I'd add (including by you above), but I still dont think that is merits weight for inclusion in the lead, because I dont think it is a prominent controversy about the war as opposed to being a prominent controversy on a sub-topic of the war, the 7 October attacks. And Im surprised that the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel does not include rape in its lead for that matter. But as a a proportion of coverage of the war as a whole, and not just coverage limited to the initial attack, it just doesn't have the amount of coverage that other controversies do. Like al-Shifa, or other claims of human shielding, or the humanitarian crisis and the effect of the siege, or the stalemate in the UN(SC), or any number of other topics that have coverage 10x+ than this does. nableezy - 03:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, Nableezy, I oppose including the denial as my position, but I did not reject the compromise. I stated my opinion. I did not make any edit. It was under discussion. As far as why it's not on that other article, I can rectify that right now. In general, going forward, I thought we had had a compromise and that we were waiting for more info to come since it's still recent. Obviously we don't agree on the weight question, but that's a question we can put to an RFC soon. Maybe we could wait a couple weeks and draft some more proposals or evidence. Andre🚐 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your edit there. And yes, an RFC should settle all parts of this. nableezy - 04:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  But also, if that compromise did not keep getting rejected, both here and in the editing, I dont think we would be here. If it would actually end things Id support that compromise, but it doesnt seem like that it is what is happening. Agree to include the denial, then edit not to does not a compromise make. nableezy - 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've started an RfC as suggested. See bottom of page. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Reconsideration to include the US on Israel's side

As the war progressed, the United States' involvement in the war on Israel' side against Hamas has become more and more glaring. The US just recently skipped congressional review to approve emergency supply of tank shells to Israel[28], while simultaneously threatening Iran and others not to arm or replenish Hamas. The US has been shooting down Yemen's missiles and drones that were fired toward Israel.[29][30]. Hezbollah and Houthis are already included on Hamas's side in the infobox. I believe it's about time we included the US on Israel's side for the sake of keeping Wikipedia' neutrality. Crampcomes (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The US Navy has battled pirates since (nearly) the nation's founding; this isn't remarkable. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

"Hamas-controlled" attribution

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

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

It's easy to find recent articles which do append "Hamas-controlled." [31] [32]. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

France24 AFAIK is reliable[33], and this narrative that Western sources are pro-colonial or pro-liberal is problematic for me. We don't exclude sources for being mainstream. Quite the opposite, we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight. This isn't Wikipedia the free anti-war anti-colonial encyclopedia. We have to attribute groups with a strong declared POV that are advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch or Greenpeace, and attribute their statements if they need to be attributed. Andre🚐 00:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, CBS just last week, wrote in present tense "They are among the more than 18,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza",[34] they did not cast doubt on the number. France24 is reliable, but neutrality is not only used with pro neo liberalism / pro israeli sources; This isn't Wikipedia the pro israeli pro-colonial encyclopedia either. The bad music that UN/ Greenpeace/ Red Cross... is antisemitic, has been going on and unsurprisingly, innuendos can pop up. Iennes (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of apartheid RfC

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

• No per Davidroth, and I note that the references to apartheid in the article (such as the one with footnotes 181 and 182) fail to reflect that the sources concern denial of the apartheid claim. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• No per Dovidorth, I think it was rather unfitting and rather disconnected per the time. Furthermore, there is a truth to Dovidorth's statement that most mainstream sources do not mention Apartheid in the context of the war.Homerethegreat (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources do mention the apartheid in the context of reporting on the war(The Guardian[35], Times of Israel[36], Human Rights Watch[37], Vox, Professor John Mearsheimer[38], The Jakarta Post[39], MSNBC[40], Amnesty International[41], BBC News[42] etc). Even pro-Israeli news reporting mentioned (and argued against) the apartheid analogy([43][44]).The question is not whether it should be mentioned, but how we can mention it in a neutral way, giving WP:DUE weight to all opinions. VR _talk 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: This RfC is similar to a previous discussion on this talk page here [45]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, VR provided many sources referencing apartheid as relevant to the background of the current war in Gaza. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• YesI seems perfectly valid to include at least a reference to this. In my brief search I have turned up several RS that support this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• unrelevant RFC. What matters is what the sources say. The criterias for naming apartheid rely on several strict points established by International Court of Justice; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be wp:censorship. Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions. Iennes (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (apartheid)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel buried Palestinians alive by using bulldozers in Gaza hospital?

There have been some reports that Israel used bulldozers to bury Palestinians alive in Gaza hospital.[46] Could someone please look into it, and if enough reliable sources are available then add it to the relevant article. Thank you. Crampcomes (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Only thing I could find that was somewhat reliable [47]. Unless international sources pick up on it we should probably wait. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you! Crampcomes (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel indiscriminately shooting civilians

Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza.[48]. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? Crampcomes (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some additional sources for this:

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

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

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

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

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

Checking structure

I asked chatbot to produce an outline

outline

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

Bot structure extract:

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

Current structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics in infobox

There are other, wider indications of the IDF’s problems. Official casualty figures have shown more than 460 military personnel killed in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and about 1,900 wounded. But other sources suggest far greater numbers of wounded. Ten days ago, Israel’s leading daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, published information obtained from the ministry of defence’s rehabilitation department. This put casualty numbers at more than 5,000, with 58% of them classed as serious and more than 2,000 officially recognised as disabled. There have also been a number of friendly fire casualties, with the Times of Israel reporting 20 out of 105 deaths due to such fire or accidents during fighting. Paul Rogers, 'Israel is losing the war against Hamas – but Netanyahu and his government will never admit it,' The Guardian 22 December 2023

Nishidani (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd add it to the casualties section. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on sexual violence in lead section

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

Survey 2

• Option A, Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate WP:LEADl and WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOTCENSORED.There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced"[49] It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:FALSEBALANCE While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option C. This is a WP:BALASP issue and a matter of WP:DUE. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war; Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel; 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about the entire war. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. WillowCity^(talk) 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is not a newspaper and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.Crampcomes (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. A just doesn't make sense from a WP:DUE standpoint. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly (Option B). Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of Option C as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. Ergzay (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A per Hawkeye7. The war began with Hamas atrocities that shocked the world and traumatized Israel, and the Hamas denials lack credibility and inclusion would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't include Israeli denials in the lead as also observed above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This has clearly received significant coverage in Western media. Recent articles in American, British and Australian reliable news outlets, for example. Sources tend to mention the Hamas denial briefly and only after the allegations have been made in full over several paragraphs, so I think we should keep the denial out of the lead. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To address the argument that we should include these claims because the October 7 invasion was “ferocious” or “shocking” or “traumatic”: our purpose here is not to validate trauma. We’re here to discuss a war. The argument that sexual violence is necessary to understand Israel’s response is, frankly, bizarre, because (1) Israel was absolutely pummeling Gaza weeks before they investigated these allegations; and (2) sexual violence does not justify unlawful collective punishment. This story is not necessary to understand the war as a whole, it may be necessary to understand October 7 and the ex post facto justifications of Israeli atrocities, but this article is about neither of those things. If we devote a few sentences of the lead to events that have not yet been verified by independent, external sources, we are effectively saying that Israeli allegations are as or more important than the deaths of 8,000 Palestinian children. Child mortality has received vastly more coverage (i.e., 180,000 search results on Google News, if that's a worthwhile metric, compared to the numbers identified by nableezy above for sexual violence), but it receives only a single clause in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead. This is the very definition of a BALASP issue and the reason BALASP is part of the NPOV policy. WillowCity^(talk) 17:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  It'd be like writing a story about the Iraq and Afghanistan war without mentioning 9/11 or bin Laden. Andre🚐 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

2023 Israel–Hamas war → ? –

• A: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) or
• B: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war (as per WP:COMMONNAME) or
• C: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel-Gaza war (2023–present) or
• D: 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel-Gaza war

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

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

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

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

• B: Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:CONCISE, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. not only is there still no other article titled Israel–Hamas war, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Parham wiki (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Option B for the same reason as those commenting above. Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Premature and also fails to give sufficient options, such as "leave alone for now." After Jan. 1 we can determine how or if to rename this, perhaps to 2023-2024 Hamas war, which is the option I would favor after Jan 1, consistent with 2014 Gaza war on the previous major conflict. I certainly see the point of this nomination and we do want to think about renaming going forward. But right now the name is correct. Option B' is no good because there were indeed wars in 2014 etc. and it is too broad. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi has been changed page to "Israel–Hamas war" before 1 January 2024 ok Thanks. Andre Farfan (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• D - not specifying a date seems best as I don't think there are any wars this would be confused with and it isn't ending before the year does, and Hamas is far from the only group involved with the current fighting. Remagoxer (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)