Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Inclusion of mention of friendly fire

In the lede, after the first casualty mentions, should we mention that some of the Israeli and Palestinian casualties were caused by friendly fire? If so, should we include this as a footnote or as direct text?

Specific wording would be determined through normal editing, but may be along the lines of:

• For Israeli Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by friendly fire or as a result of the Hannibal Directive
• For Palestinian Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by the approximately ten to twenty percent of militant rockets that fall short

04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (friendly fire)

• Support both as direct text. Friendly fire casualties are widely reported in reliable sources (For Palestine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 etc, as well as major incidents such as Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. I understand that a similar number of sources can be provided for Israel), and it is important to inform readers that contrary to their expectations Israeli casualties are not all caused by Palestinians, and Palestinian casualties are not all caused by Israeli's. I prefer direct text to footnotes as research has shown that most readers do not view footnotes, but I would prefer footnotes over excluding it entirely. I would also oppose including just one, as casualties on both sides include those from friendly fire, and it would violate WP:BALASP to only inform readers about one side of this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues with your position. Several of the sources you have cited are not WP:RS. Of those that are RS, many fail to establish the claim. For instance, 16 merely states that "the portion that were killed by misfired rockets aimed at Israel, is not known". With the exception of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, no source establishes that any individual casualties were the result of friendly fire. Even that Al-Ahli case is somewhat disputed. For instance in our article we clearly state that claim that it was the result of a rocket misfire "is not a conclusive finding". JDiala (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are all reliable sources - none are listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. I also believe they all support this information; that an unknown number of the casualties (unknown in part due to Hamas impeding investigations) were killed by friendly fire. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is non-exhaustive. My understanding is that editors can in general exercise their own judgement as to a reliability of a given source, especially when considering the context of the topic at hand see e.g., WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It is my judgement that an American evangelical website like christianpost.com or a Sheldon Adelson-backed right-wing project like jns.org should not be given significant weight with respect to assessing rocket misfires in the Israel-Hamas war. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to start discussions at WP:RSN, but I note that regardless of what you think of those two sources there are seven on the list that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP; the presence of some that you disagree with isn't reason to dismiss all of them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support including October 7th IDF friendly fire as footnote but Strong Oppose for including alleged Palestinian friendly fire in Gaza. It should be a footnote in any case. The lead is far too long for these minor points to be non-footnotes. I oppose the inclusion of alleged Palestinian friendly fire. With the possible exception of the Ah-Ahli case, there is no clear evidence of Palestinian casualties due to rocket misfires (and even the Ah-Ahli is "not conclusive" according to our own article). This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is highly misleading as it suggests to the reader that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF. It's also a WP:SYNTH case e.g., many of the sources cited by the user above just speculate on the point rather than offer concrete evidence or make definitive statements of fact. War and large battles almost always have some amount of friendly fire. It's only notable if there's exceptional circumstances e.g., the friendly fire is particularly frequent, the ratio of casualties caused by friendly fire is high or the friendly fire is of a systematic nature. No evidence of this in the Palestinian case, but for the Israelis there's more compelling evidence considering the admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive. JDiala (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  No evidence of this in the Palestinian case There is evidence of this in the Palestinian case; reliable sources say that between 10 and 20 percent of rockets fall short - that's between 1500 and 3000 rockets in this war. According to the BBC and many other sources these kill Palestinians in Gaza, while Human Rights Watch notes Documenting damage caused by misfired rockets is difficult because the authorities in Gaza have impeded investigations of such incidents. For example, authorities in Gaza detained two Palestinian journalists investigating rocket misfires during the August 2022 escalation.

  We know that these rockets fall short, we know that they kill people - we shouldn't exclude this information because Hamas have covered up the specifics.

  I am also confused by your point that this addition will suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF; if that is true, then wouldn't including the text about Israel suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Israel were not caused by Hamas? Why would it only apply to one side and not both? BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is textbook WP:SYNTH. A large number of rockets frequently falling short, and one documented case of a plausible rocket misfire which resulted in fatalities, does not allow one to conclude that rocket misfires frequently resulted in casualties. That Hamas does not allow proper journalism in Gaza is irrelevant and does not give us a free hand to engage in WP:OR. For that matter, Israelis also do not allow independent journalism in areas of Gaza that they control or areas in Israel attacked on October 7th. It is all a highly curated show by the IDF. But in any case, that gives us no authority to just make things up. As for your subsequent point as to why we cover the Israel case but not Hamas, I've already discussed this. The admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive makes the Israeli case qualitatively exceptional. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't synth because reliable sources explicitly connect the two; for example, the New York Times says Between 10 and 20 percent of Hamas’s rockets fail and fall into Gaza, Human Rights Watch said in a recent report, citing Israeli military data. Sometimes those misfires fall into Gaza, killing Palestinians. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the article, that quote is specifically in reference to the Al-Ahli explosion, which is the only case where there's compelling evidence for this. I have already discussed this. It is a single case, not indicative of a pattern, and even then our own article about it concedes it's "not conclusive" that it was friendly fire. Also, most of your other sources are clearly synth. None of this is remotely comparable to an admission by Israeli personnel that "immense and complex quantities" of friendly fire took place on October 7th indicating a systematic pattern. JDiala (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention Al-Ahli at any point; the statement is general, and the fact that it links to an article about a specific incident doesn't make the statement less general. Further, many of the sources I provided neither mention Al-Ahli nor link to articles mentioning it - the BBC points out An ongoing criticism of the existing figures is that they do not give a sense of how Palestinians were killed - whether this was as a result of Israeli air strikes, artillery shelling or other means such as misfired Palestinian rockets. All casualties are currently counted as victims of "Israeli aggression". I think we're about to start going in circles, so I will just say that I stand by the sources I've presented and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The specific quote that you cited links directly to an NYT piece on Al-Ahli. That is clearly what they are referring to. The BBC quote you cited again just proves my point that you're engaged in synth. They're basically saying that "maybe some casualties were by friendly fire, we don't know how many" it's purely speculative. JDiala (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support including Israeli friendly fire, as that is a subject that has actually been covered in depth in a huge number of sources, and oppose the SYNTH laden proposal to attempt to balance that out with Palestinian friendly fire. BilledMammal is taking sources that say rockets fall short and then making the leap that there is some significant number of Palestinian deaths attributable to that. But sources do not do that by themselves. For Israeli friendly fire and the significant impact on those casualties, we have reliable sources that actually give considerable amount of attention to it. We have Reuters reporting the Israeli military opening an investigation into the reports of friendly fire on October 7, same for Haaretz, we have Haaretz reporting on Israeli helicopters opening fire on a music festival and hitting its own citizens. We have the Israeli army killing three of the Israeli hostages in Gaza, we have an estimate that one fifth of the Israeli casualties in Gaza were the result of friendly fire. There simply is not the same level of coverage of Palestinian casualties resulting from friendly fire. And the presentation of this RFC in which the attempt is made to supposedly balance the two pieces of information fails both NPOV and SYNTH. So yes, Israeli friendly fire should be included in a footnote, Palestinian friendly fire should not be unless and until sources actually discuss that topic in any sort of depth at all. A solitary line from a BBC article saying "rockets fall short and some may cause injuries" is not that. It is a straightforward misapplication of BALASP to demand what is not balanced in the sources be balanced in our article. This is not a "both sides" issue, similar to the claim that we can only include the very widely covered accusations of genocide against Israel if we cover the comparatively minuscule amount of coverage that claims of genocide against Hamas has generated. nableezy - 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support both. Including only friendly fire by Israelis on Oct. 7, and not including Hamas friendly fire falling short in Gaza, would be overt POV-pushing and a serious NPOV violation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Adding that the mention of friendly fire should be in the body of the article, not the lead. But it should be in the infobox. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV does not mean treating two things with completely different levels of coverage the same. That is actually the opposite of NPOV. nableezy - 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Odd you say that to me for my second comment in this RFC but not to BilledMammal who has 6 comments here? But sure thing pal. Just want future respondents to be aware that NPOV actually says the exact opposite of what you are saying, that NPOV is determined by the weight in reliable sources, and where here that weight is very much on one side of this topic. nableezy - 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  If he bludgeoned me, I'd make the same request to him. I'm not going to meddle! Perish the thought. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Responding to a single vote is not bludgeoning, and making unfounded claims of bludgeoning is uncivil. Toodles. nableezy - 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Don't include in lead, but do include in body. I imagine friendly fire is a common occurrence during any type of military conflict. It bears mentioning but I don't believe it is unique enough to this situation to be included in the lede. Slacker13 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2024
• Oppose including in lead; this obsession with stuffing the lead/infobox as much information/notes as humanly possible is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines and needs to stop. Yes, of course there is friendly fire; yes, of course there is a huge amount of coverage on it; no, it is not part of the "most important content" of this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Include Israeli, as Friendly fire during the Israel–Hamas war makes clear, with Palestinian side as a note only, since there is no comparison, and making one would be false balance. Note NPR "Nearly a fifth of Israeli fatalities since the invasion of Gaza in late October were caused by friendly fire or accidents, accounting for 36 of the 188 soldiers killed at the time of the report. Experts say it's one of the highest such percentages in recent military history." Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Only Israeli friendly fire seems to be notable. The percentage of deaths in Palestinian friendly fire seems to have been nothing out of ordinary for such a conflict, and so it's only superficially mentioned in sources. We don't mention friendly fire incidents in other war-related articles when they are typical; Israeli was not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support both. While we don't mention friendly fire casualties prominently for other conflicts, here we have a lot of coverage for friendly fire on both sides (in case of Israel related mostly to the infamous Hannibal directive and in case of Hamas due to inaccurate rocket fire, see sources provided by u:BilledMammal). Alaexis_¿question? 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support adding info about misfired rockets (the info about Israeli friendly fire is already there). The editors of multiple news platforms considered it significant enough to mention misfired rockets as causing an unknown number of casualties. The Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, in particular, was an example where Human Rights Watch questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures and said that evidence pointed to misfired rockets. I have no strong opinion on adding the info to the lead or to a body paragraph. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support only Israeli fires that can't even be called friendly because a significant number of it has been the result of Hannibal Directive, meaning that it was deliberate, and that make it notable to be mentioned in the lede. Since the lede should be a summary of what we have in the body:

In January 2024, an investigation by Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth concluded that the IDF had in practice applied the Hannibal Directive, ordering all combat units to stop "at all costs" any attempt by Hamas terrorists to return to Gaza, even if there were hostages with them. It is unclear how many hostages were killed by friendly fire as a result of the order.

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Friendly fire occurs on the margins of all wars and isn't generally lede-worthy. Especially given the current proposed weaselly wording and weak sourcing, inclusion would violate not only SYNTH but arguably also NPOV, by giving UNDUE weight to the implicit victim-blaming narrative peddled by partisans of both sides. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would also agree with this, to not include either sides’ friendly fires. I would support including friendly fires for both, or for neither. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any specific mention about the Hannibal Directive or rockets falling short, which reads as editorializing in context - it doesn't really belong here, is wildly WP:UNDUE for the lead, and feels WP:SYNTHy in that it implies that these specific things make up meaningful amounts of casualty figures and are highly relevant, which isn't really supported. I would not be opposed to a includes friendly fire note is used to encompass both, with no other details; but the bare minimum to me is that there one note, encompassing both identically. Trying to get into elaborate contortions about how and why each side causes friendly fire absolutely does not belong in the lead for the entire war; and trying to cram it in here feels inappropriate and forced. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both oppose any one-sided inclusion, and an inclusion in the lead is only desirable if it can be done equitably and in a balanced (and short) manner, but support including BOTH if possible. Per Aquillion and others, it needs to be balanced and non-synth, and avoid inclusion of common incidents on either side. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support mention of Israeli friendly fire, neutral leaning oppose for mention of Palestinian friendly fire (if there is such a mention, it should be very brief). Israeli friendly fire has attracted more coverage and seems to account for a larger proportion of victims overall than its Palestinian counterpart. --Andreas JN466 18:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both, since there is news coverage for both. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for both it isn't important enough for the lead which is already quite long and will undoubtedly continue to grow. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both, the lead is already filled as it is and we shouldn't continue to add even more in-the-weeds information. Of course include in the body the well-sourced and important information as found by above editors. Yeoutie (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both as per FortunateSons. Vegan416 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support including Israeli friendly fire, oppose including Palestinian friendly fire. There are three policy reasons for this:

1. The language proposed viz Palestinian friendly fire is synthetic, and not well-sourced (see this discussion from a couple of months ago for my prior lengthy discussion regarding numerous issues with most of the same sources recycled above).
2. Including both in the lead perpetuates false balance; if indeed Palestinian friendly fire was widespread enough to merit this level of attention, we could expect frequent and repeated discussion in blue-chip RS; the claim that the proportion of Palestinians killed by alleged friendly fire even approaches the proportion of Israelis killed by the IDF is simply without adequate foundation.
3. Perhaps most significantly, the lead must follow the body, and Palestinian friendly fire simply does not have a level of coverage in the body that would justify discussion in the lead (as is appropriate, given points 1 and 2 above). The term “friendly fire” itself is only used in the article in relation to Israeli casualties. WillowCity^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (friendly fire)

References

Lead - 15 March : a new sentence added

between 07:52, 14 March 2024 and 19:07, 15 March 2024 "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history and has been described as a major intelligence failure."

the 1st part of the sentence doesn't really have anything to do with the 2nd part; the 2nd part deserves a sentence on its own and would need to be extended.

This "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is a Israeli narrative; this had been discussed before and there isn't any consensus to add this here. Note: there isn't any similar sentence for the other people like "deadliest moment in their history". Deblinis (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Now the lead reads "The attack has been described as a major Israeli intelligence failure." I'm not sure why this sentence should be in the lead at all; it is clunky, uninformative without going into the weeds, and breaks up the paragraph while also potentially being WP:UNDUE. Also a side-note, "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is well sourced and should remain included in the body of the article and is well sourced and included already in the October 7 article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We have an entire section named "Israeli intelligence failure". The lede is a summary of the body. This sentence simply summarizes the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I must point out that there are plenty of sections not included in the lead (examples include almost everything else under the "Background" and "Media coverage" main headings) and I would further say that info relating to the "background" should probably be afforded less weight than to the actual content of the war, especially when there is such a cramped lead/article already. Yeoutie (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The major intelligence and military failures are the explanation for the war – it is the how and why of what has happened. No intelligence and military failures, no humiliation on the part of the Israelis, no unchecked response among genocidal lines. The entire conflict stems from Israel's intelligence and military failure in response to the surprise attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For the interested

The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia by World Jewish Congress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Shock horror! Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

And in case someone here didn't know, Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Adds to watchlist.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

wow that's crazy Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me! NadVolum (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Shakespeare? No, not Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The usual hackwork, only publishable because it is sponsored by a lobby. Looking at the spilt ink of this pathetic screed, one is reminded of what Claudius says at Hamlet Act 3, Sc.3 98:"Words without thoughts never to heaven go." The author is 'particularly interested in how underprivileged social groups represent themselves and are depicted in cultural and digital spheres'. I guess Palestinians, in Gaza and elsewhere, are not an 'underprivileged social group' since there is no evidence of the paper's interest in them: to the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is stupid. The paper is mad Israelis aren't able to edit extended-confirmed articles even though they have good knowledge. Whatever. If you have something to write, get a source. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not even going to read that document. Brutally crushing dissent in a heartless robotic manner to enforce the EC restrictions is a pretty effective way to limit temperature fluctuations in the topic area in my opinion. There's nothing stopping people from simply following the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

To plagiarise a certain satirical news program, I read it so that you don't have to. How could that article possibly be biased when it is based on "interviews with Israeli Wikipedians"? Zero^talk 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In other news, locks on doors said to negatively impact the home invasion market. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They might want to factor in that it could easily get a lot more restrictive. Here's something from my ongoing voyages to map the mysterious borderless land of the so-called 'topic area'. There are plenty of things (article=circle, category=square) that are not blue (extendedconfirmed protected), and that's only a small subset, just a 2 level descent from the Arab-Israeli conflict category. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Include number of women killed in lead?

I removed the reference to the number of women killed in the lead and @Unbandito reverted it with "the number of women killed seems like relevant info to me", so moving this to the talk page. In my opinion, calling out specifically women tends to be an attempt to emphasize women as non-combatants/innocent/somehow worse to kill than men. This effect is stronger in the lead, since having it in the summary really emphasizes it. IMO this is both somewhat sexist and simply incorrect. Rusalkii (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See protected persons for the special provisions for women and children in the Geneva conventions and Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. Special note should be taken of the killing of womn and children in war. You might think calling them out as a special category compared to men is wrong but that's what the various international agreements say should be done. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it has any dependency on whether it is right, wrong, sexist etc. It depends on how reliable sources handle this information and how much they emphasize it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

They are pretty emphasized in RS as far as I have seen. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The number of women and children killed is mentioned all the time in RS and in venues such as this am UNSC meeting. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Do the RS say "according to the Gaza Health Ministry"? If so, at a minimum the attribution in the original story needs to be included in this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not anyone (besides Israel) is seriously disputing this, I don't think anyone is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If Israel is disputing it, then it is disputed, and the attribution from the RS would be included in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am quite happy with what is in the lead and idk why just women would be reverted to begin with. If anything the numbers are an undercount according to serious sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think women should be included in the lead because the number of women killed in the article doesn't seem to put too much emphasis on it. I think that it should either be removed, or there needs to be more emphasis throughout the entire article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not WP style to put it in the lead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Women and children, not just women. The only place you would emphasize that is in the casualties section, where else would you emphasize it?

There is more than enough sourcing to give it a section of its own. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not WP style to put one of the major reported facts in the lead? NadVolum (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning for keeping the number of women killed in the lead hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll weigh in. I think that the number of women killed is a highly relevant fact for the reader to consider when making a determination on how to evaluate the competing claims about the nature of this conflict. The maximalist pro-Israel framing is that this is a war against Hamas only and that Israel has taken every reasonable precaution to prevent civilian deaths while killing as many combatants as possible. The maximalist pro-Palestinian framing is that this is a war against Hamas in name only which is in reality a war against, or even an ethnic cleansing or genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Facts about the number of women killed in the conflict in proportion to the overall number of Palestinian casualties help the reader make a determination about these competing claims, because women (and children) are significantly less likely than men to be combatants in the Gazan context.

As for whether or not the figure is reliable on its own or should be attributed, I do not believe that any party to the conflict has directly questioned the number of women killed. Israel has questioned the overall reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry, but they have a clear conflict of interest in doing so and have done so by impugning the Gaza HM's motivations, not based on any factual claims that are backed up with evidence of past or present inaccuracies. I therefore do not weight this contestation very heavily. It is true that the Gaza HM has its own conflicts of interest as a party to the conflict, but I do not believe their interests are as straightforward as Israel claims, since parties to conflicts often try to minimize their own casualties rather than exaggerate them for the sake of their government's legitimacy. In any case, past casualty counts from the Gaza HM have been reliable. Unbandito (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

UN special rapporteur's report

On March 25, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine, released her report on the war on Gaza, concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that genocide has been taking place. It contains a lot of useful information and sources in a small compass, and has gained news coverage already. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The presentation in Geneva on March 26 GeoffreyA (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

e.g.

Media reports challenged Israel’s allegations that Hamas were using hospitals as shields, asserting that there was no evidence to suggest that the rooms connected to the hospital had been used by Hamas; the hospital buildings(contrary to Israeli military 3D images) were found not to be connected to the tunnel network; and there was no evidence that the tunnels were accessible from the hospital wards.In addition, Israeli army reportedly rearranged weaponry at the Al Shifa before news crews visits303, raising further suspicions of fabrication after the Israeli army had claimed that a “list of terrorists” it had found in another Gaza hospital–the Al Rantisi–turned out to be a calendar of the days of the week in Arabic.p.23Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead - how much detail?

Pinging @Makeandtoss: as the edits here pertain to him. The lead previously contained mentions of things like Gaza's healthcare collapse, lack of medicine, lack of communication etc. among other things. I removed this detail and replaced it with

>Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

My main concern here is that a too detailed lead is undesirable and contrary to WP:LEAD. It is most simplest to describe everything with the standalone term "humanitarian crisis" rather than going into details. The details would naturally be in the body. Makeandtoss has objected to this edit and I'd like to discuss the matter with him here further, possibly with input from other editors. JDiala (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As discussed, collapse of healthcare has its own standalone article and deserves at least a mention in the lede. As for Israel's blockade, this waters down the severity of the siege which cut off basic life necessities, unlike the previous longterm "blockade"; the least we could do is elaborate in a footnote, to maintain both concision and accuracy. As for the famine, it must be attributed to Israeli attacks on food infrastructure, as RS have notably reported. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

On further consideration, I've re-added the healthcare collapse. That the blockade is more severe is already indicated in the lead (it is mentioned that Israel "tightened" it). The famine thing is already referred to as "Israel using starvation as a weapon of war" which clearly indicates Israel is responsible. The exact ways it does this (attacks on food infrastructure) is too specific for the lead. I'm also not sure about the utility of footnotes here. The lead is already very large, and again this detail ought to be in the body. JDiala (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: People are accusing everyone on everything, so if anything the accusation is too detailed rather than the attacks on the infrastructure. As a middle ground (where attacks on infra is combined on both healthcare and food; and the focus is reduced) we can go from:

"Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries. The developing famine in Gaza has led to accusations that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war."

To "Israel's tightened blockade and attacks on infrastructure has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system and a developing famine in Gaza. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your phrasing is grammatically incorrect but I agree with it in principle. I'll edit it in. JDiala (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done but I changed developing famine -> ongoing famine since I think "developing" is too weak at this point. The famine has already arrived per sources. JDiala (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ecocide

The claim that Israel has engaged in ecocide has been widely reported, and a good deal of the data supporting that claim is summed up now in Kaamil Ahmed, Damien Gayle and Aseel Mousa, ‘Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? The Guardian 27 March 2024 Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This obviously requires a new section to document the details.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite so. Also, if it's not already on the page, the horrendous impact on the climate of Israel's indiscriminate and unchecked carpet bombing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the wacky, debunked October 7th stories

The article mentions "necrophilia" and "playing with body parts" by Hamas members on October 7th. This evidence is based on specious eyewitness testimony by lying Israelis (e.g., Yossi Landau, Raz Cohen) or obtained from "interrogated" (read: tortured) Hamas militants. This should be removed altogether or highly qualified. The most lurid allegations have been debunked at this point.

In general, the entire section on sexual violence is far too charitable to the pro-Israel side. JDiala (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All the gossipy, debunked, nonsensical stuff that literally has no bearing on the war need not be in this article, some of it might fit in some other articles. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I also support the removal of any debunked or highly dubious 10/7 claims Unbandito (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Any debunked claim should be removed. That means it has been debunked by reliable sources, not by any WP user (see WP:OR). Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only debunked claims should be removed, but also claims which have no corroborating evidence. The necrophilia claim was one such example - the only evidence for it was a testimony that one could not be sure was reliable, with little to no coverage in reliable sources and no corroborating forensic evidence like photos or other media for either the testimony or the claim itself. As editors, we can't insert our original research into the process but we also can't let the sources do all the thinking for us. A basic level of skepticism towards highly charged and extraordinary claims allows us to eliminate obvious atrocity propaganda from the encyclopedia, and should be employed in any articles about this conflict. Unbandito (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Lies belong in the bin, not an encyclopedia. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you removed the definition of the reference "BBC News-2023" from this article. Because it is used in two or three more places, I replaced it. It's not clear to me how you've proven that article as "testimony by lying Israelis", or even if you intended to delete the reference completely from the article or not. It doesn't mention the two names you give above, so maybe it's unrelated. Who knows -- but articles shouldn't have referencing errors, so I've replaced the reference. If you want (and there is consensus that) the reference should be completely expunged, please do so -- but please make sure you're not re-introducing referencing problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of propaganda in this conflict has been quite out of the ordinary and easily merits an artcle by its notability. I think it should be covered in a separate article and this article just have a small section referring to the article on the propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth introducing a misinformation section at some point, though this will surely prove contentious. However, the Nigerien crisis (2023–present) article does a good job with such a section Unbandito (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)