Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 22 March 2024 (→‎Include number of women killed in lead?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Responding to a single vote is not bludgeoning, and making unfounded claims of bludgeoning is uncivil. Toodles. nableezy - 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.[1][2] It is unclear how many hostages were killed by friendly fire as a result of the order.[1][2]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Discussion (friendly fire)

Lede

"More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza during the conflict". No. More than 30k Palestinians in Gaza have been killed since the start of the Israeli operation. Why was this changed again? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP: "More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 70,000 wounded in the Gaza Strip since Israel’s war on Hamas began nearly five months ago, health officials in the territory said." [1]
Reuters: "Over 30,000 Palestinians killed in Israel's military offensive in Gaza since Oct. 7" [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the difference? They both seem to reflect the sources - and generally the first seems slightly more accurate to me, because the Israeli operation could be interpreted as just the invasion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: The difference is obvious and everyone can see it: that Palestinian murders are done mysteriously in the conflict; the perpetrator is unknown; implications of collateral damage; instead of it being the result of using starvation as a weapon of war and an indiscriminate bombing campaign. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Seeing no further objections from yourself or any other user, I will take that as you agreeing with the wording by RS as demonstrated above? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don’t see the difference, except for the first being slightly more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree I don't see a difference either. The people in Gaza were killed either directly or indirectly by Israel 'during the conflict' is correct. That being said, I don't necessarily have a problem with the current 'Since the start of the Israeli operation' either so it seems like a simple battle over semantics. Yeoutie (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey wp:lead: Is wikilinking the word "starvation" in the lead "wp:undue"?

see [3]. Thanks for giving your opinion.

  • "No": there isn't any right explanation to veto the possibily to wiki this word in the lead.

Deblinis (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think people know what starvation is. NadVolum (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:UNDUE, but it is MOS:OVERLINK. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inacurrate as "starvation" hasn't been wikilinked in the lead. Deblinis (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyday words understood by most readers in context are usually not linked BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starvation (crime) means something specific in the International humanitarian law. (This is why Israel is reluctant to International humanitarian law). Words attached to International humanitarian law - that have in-depth articles on wikipedia, are to be wikilinked in the lead of a history article. Deblinis (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should link to Starvation (crime) then rather than Starvation, and |I think that is due in the context of it being an accusation. If you're using quotes in a discussion please refer to where they come from. NadVolum (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, should link to starvation (crime). Seems to be DUE, I don't think it would be OVERLINKING. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is ambiguous, that's actually a good reason to link it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey wp:lead: Is the sentence about the 29 February 2024 Flour massacre which is more than 100 Palestinians killed by soldiers who opened fire near aid convoy, "wp:undue"?

In the 29 February 2024 Flour massacre, more than 100 Palestinians were killed after Israeli troops opened fire when crowds raced to pull goods off an aid convoy.[3][4]

This sentence was first introduced in the lead on 08:58, 3 March 2024.

In the last 11 days, it has been reverted three times 07:52, 14 March 2024, 02:04, 14 March 2024, 05:44, 7 March 2024

So, is this sentence wp:undue in the lead ? Deblinis (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. This event was documented a lot and many articles were specifically written about it in all the high profile newspapers in the US, UK and Europe. As such, this valuable fact has to be mentioned in the lead along with the sentence about starvation used as a war weapon.
Deblinis (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:UNDUE; I don't think we should be directly mentioning it or the other massacres in the lede, as the lede is supposed to be a summary of the most important points and while the October 7 massacres might be sufficiently important in aggregate, no single one is - and currently we don't even mention the October 7 massacres in aggregate. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are two unrelevant tags in this case. The event was several weeks ago.
    We should let it included, as there are only three different users who reverted it in the 11 last days. And each time, the sentence has been put back in the article for several days in a row without any complain. Deblinis (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This as well as some other events are a consequence of using starvation as a weapon of war, so I would be inclined to leave the specific case out of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BilledMammal. I believe it to be undue and not a defining point of this war. We've mentioned the controversies around the war including the genocide accusations, which would cover this already. Further depth is what for the body of the article is for. — Czello (music) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opening fire on a food convoy aid is not a controversy, this was plain fact: only Israeli pro (far) right wing media were in denial, all bar Haaretz. Every single serious media reported several days in a row. That sequence is a significant instance of some claims that have been accused Israel in the Netherlands last January.
The length given to the 7 October attack in the lead is longer than the ongoing genocide in aza and that is outrageous for an encyclopedia. Deblinis (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "controversy", I'm not debating whether it happened. I'm saying it was a controversial act. I think it's also appropriate that the Oct 7 attack is given a fair amount of detail, as it's what sparked this war. — Czello (music) 09:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of March it should be dropped out of the lead, as just a recent event, no more important than many other activities. Also factual errors in the statement should be corrected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Bergman, Ronen; Zitun, Yoav (10 January 2024). "ההוראה: למנוע ממחבלים לחזור לעזה 'בכל מחיר', גם אם יש איתם חטופים" [The instructions: prevent terrorists from returning to Gaza "at all costs" even if there are hostages with them]. Ynet (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on 11 January 2024. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  2. ^ a b Bergman, Ronen; Zitun, Yoav (12 January 2024). "השעות הראשונות של השבת השחורה" [The first hours of Black Saturday]. Yedioth Ahronoth (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on 18 January 2024. Retrieved 19 January 2024.
  3. ^ "A Gaza doctor says gunfire accounted for 80% of the wounds at his hospital after aid convoy bloodshed". Chicago Tribune. 1 March 2024. Archived from the original on 2 March 2024. Retrieved 1 March 2024.
  4. ^ Samuels, Ben (7 March 2024). "Israel-Gaza war set to feature in Biden's State of the Union address". Archived from the original on 7 March 2024. Retrieved 7 March 2024 – via Haaretz.

Section name: Reported 7 October atrocities

The section Reported 7 October atrocities is almost entirely about unsubstantiated reports, referring to them as: "untrue or unverified" (paragraph 1); " later found to be untrue", "unverified allegations", "found no evidence" (para 2); "claims were not substantiated" (para 3); and "false or unverified" (para 5).

I thus suggest that the section name be changed to "Unsubstantiated reports of certain 7 October atrocities", to better reflect the contents of the section. Any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I made the change: [4]. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial title of that section was the right one. Back then, in the following 48 hours after the October 7 War Crime, there was a campaign generated by media and a governement from an involved country which invented atrocities that never occured: there was plenty of media coverage abroad, including front covers of newspapers and headlines, including The Times UK's. Deblinis (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

@Deblinis: Please explain why you have mass reverted my edits without even a word on the edit summary, showing complete disregard and disrespect for other editors' efforts and time. [5] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These new added texts are problematic, in this Difference between 07:52, 14 March 2024 and 19:07, 15 March 2024:
1)*This was erased "The United Nations, European Union, Human Rights Watch and aid groups have accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war"
This new text "Israeli forces killed an estimated 6,000–13,000 Palestinian militants during the conflict" is based on Israeli jpost.com which is pro settlers. Haaretz would be the fair Israeli source to use.
2)*This was erased "Protests that primarily call for a ceasefire have occurred across the world".
This new text "Large protests have occurred across the world, primarily pro-Palestinian ones calling for a ceasefire and an end to the Israeli occupation."
untrue, massive Jewish protests asking for a cease fire took place. "pro-Palestinian ones" is annoying as it is a short cut: when the Genocide word was pronounced, a lot of people from all types of political parties said no as humanists.
3)*This was erased "attacked commercial ships they alleged were linked to Israel, incurring Red Sea crisis|a military response from a number of countries led by the United States. Houthis have stated they will not stop until Israel ends its operations in Gaza and aid is allowed in"
This new text "while the Yemeni Houthi movement attacked commercial ships they alleged were linked to Israel in a purported effort to end the war, incurring Red Sea crisis
The 1st version is better and closer to the facts.
4)*This new text "In March 2024, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer criticised Netanyahu and called for fresh elections".[1] is an Israeli thing, this doesn't have its place on the article.
Deblinis (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deblinis: I have nothing to do with #4. If you would like to have changes on some edits, please implement them, not mass revert them. Also please self-revert to bring yourself to compliance with 1RR, it seems this is one of numerous 1RR violations in past few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as only 1RR is allowed per 24H, there wasn't any mistake this time. Deblinis (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deblinis: You were half an hour away from 24 hours, not half an hour away after 24 hours, so it is indeed a 1RR violation. Either way 1RR/24 hours is not an allowance and you could be heavily sanctioned for this, especially considering the other recent violations. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self revert. Done. Deblinis (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 1RR is not an allowance. If you use 1RR as an allowance you will still be sanctioned for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Top Democrat Chuck Schumer calls for new Israel election". BBC News. 2024-03-14. Retrieved 2024-03-14.

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)[reply]

Ok, removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Both details would be more appropriate at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which they're specific to. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Israel & Per Hamas Casualties

RFC WITHDRAWN
The request for comment was withdrawn. Yue🌙 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is extremely inconsistent infoboxes for the casualties in the war and subsequent articles. So, let's have the discussion to solve this here to prevent further edit wars and disagreements.

Should this article and all subsequent articles (child articles) of the Israel–Hamas war include "Per Israel" and/or "Per Hamas" in an infobox casualty statistic when it comes from Israel or Hamas?

  • Option 1 – Yes
  • Option 2 – No

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Infobox “Per”)

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

Hypothetical reader

If I were someone unfamiliar with the history of the conflict and I read this article, stared at the infobox for a while, one question I might have in my mind is something like "That's weird. How come on one side there is a national military and on the other there's this ragtag collection of armed groups aligned with various political and/or militant organizations? Why isn't there a well armed professional national military like in Ukraine and elsewhere?" Where would the reader go to find the answer to that question and should a brief explanation be included in the background? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most RS I have read do not formulate a context for this. It might be considered self-evident given the nature of the conflict; an occupation that has prevented the other side from a viable and contiguous state of their own, as Netanyahu had famously boasted doing for the past two decades. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I find that a bit odd because for a hypothetical reader unfamiliar with the history of the conflict, which might be a significant proportion of readers, I don't think it is self-evident at all. Even taking occupation into account they might wonder why there is a national police force but no national army. It seems weird. If their curiosity led them to a large language model for answers they might see things like 'Here are some key reasons - Restrictions under Peace Accords...' etc. It just seems like such a fundamental property of the conflict, only one state party to the conflict having a national army, that I wonder whether it is a mistake to assume readers can reliably fill in the gaps themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, readers do have to do a little work for themselves, if they follow the links, they should be able to figure things out, no? Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that might only be true for many readers if Wikipedia articles were presented like murder mysteries or things like whether someone famous photoshopped a family photo. It seems the tiniest amount of friction in a process can have a large effect on people's willingness to spend time on something nowadays, or so it seems. Anyway, it was just a thought. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Has this recent news been added yet? Nirva20 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated reports section

I've trimmed this section down and wanted to explain my reasoning here. First and foremost, while this is a notable topic, it has to do with a handful of accounts, of which the most notable ones were those about beheaded babies and forty babies. We should only give a summary here and describe the details in the main article.

My version describes what the claims were (beheaded babies), who made these claims (ZAKA and IDF), who repeated them (Biden) and that they were found to be untrue, and why (the only two dead babies were killed differently).

On the other hand the old version said the same thing several times (However, these stories were later found to be untrue or unverified, NBC News called reports of "40 beheaded babies" unverified allegations, Haaretz reported that many of the stories about beheaded babies and hung babies disseminated by Israeli groups and officials were false or unverified) and had unrelated content about beheaded soldiers, which was probably included as a sort of refutation but in any case doesn't belong here because the sources don't say they were unsubstantiated. Alaexis¿question? 08:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

How can we further elaborate on Hezbollah's involvement in lede other than the brief mention in the opening paragraph? Maybe something near the sentence on the Houthis. Namely three important things: real risk of Israel-Lebanon war; Hezbollah's motives; and also Israeli airstrikes on Syria, allegedly targeting Hezbollah. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested

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

Shock horror! Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Adds to watchlist.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They are pretty emphasized in RS as far as I have seen. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1215026341"