Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Add Kazakhstan casualtie

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: inform, adyrna, kt Нурасылл (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here Chafique (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chafique: Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, he reverted his own edit from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. SilverLocust 💬 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Npov tags

James James Morrison Morrison, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? nableezy - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? nableezy - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

“CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments”

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ Chafique (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here Chafique (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chafique: Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, he reverted his own edit from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. SilverLocust 💬 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict

A new report by Axios[1] states that U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza." Additionally, it was reported on Friday that a U.S. Navy destroyer had intercepted a Houthi cruise missile over the Red Sea[2] which was potentially headed towards Israel. In light of these developments, notably the first one, it might be time to place U.S. in the belligerents section of the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[3] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope. US advisors are in Ukraine, too but US is not a belligerent as such. I would think, without looking at sources, one would need to see actual combat with an existing belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ukraine is a conflict where U.S. is seeking to avoid appearing as a direct belligerent in order to avoid confrontation with Russia. That is not the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The only way that the US is a "belligerent" is in the Red Sea naval action a few days ago when it shot down Houthi cruise missiles and drones. If you include that in the theater of war, then, yes, the US is technically a belligerent—but, so are the Houthis, now. -- Veggies (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
We could roll out the ever-popular "Supported by" subheading for the US but to list it as a belligerent on par with Israel is simply incorrect. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." BBC Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. Ecrusized (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Then I have to put "Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training except during this conflict (according to a WP editor)" Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? WCMemail 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox

CLOSING BY REQUEST
Closing this at the request of the RfC creator WeatherWriter at Special:Diff/1181698226. – Fuzheado | Talk 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Should the United States be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

  • Option 1 — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
  • Option 2 — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
  • Option 3 — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
  • Option 4 — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
  • Option 5 — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
  • Option 6 — No

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussions: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14

  • Comment Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the WP:RFCBEFORE. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Since you are requesting more research on my end…here: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page & Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down Yemeni Houthi missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[4] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of Eilat and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
There are additional factors that might count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[5] U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza. Additionally, U.S. is reported[6] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say Option 1 would be the most appropriate option. Ecrusized (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belligerents & Units involved

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. Alikersantti (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Alikersantti, please see [1] and [2] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! Alikersantti (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is this one. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. WCMemail 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza

Withdrawn by OP. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic concluded just two days ago, with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

Please add a map to the article

World map with countries that have declared Hamas a terrorist organization

91.210.248.223 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war.

Asked and answered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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.


The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 46.121.27.170 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 46.121.27.170 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
  • since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
46.121.27.170 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
  • also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
46.121.27.170 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"2,500 infiltrated Israel"

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed Hexifi (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). SSR07 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. SSR07 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel casualties

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates RickyBlair668 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacres

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. Classicalguss (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).

Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? Chuckstablers (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
They also killed before on 16th of October
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html Classicalguss (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. Hamas doesn't see them as civilians. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. we know that hamas lied All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How to handle the Battle of Zikim

There has been several minor content disputes surrounding this battle's topic, so a discussion is needed to once and for all clear up it. In a previous (now archived) talk page discussion, the situation was described previously: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel/Archive 1#Ongoing?. In short, sources state Bahad 4, an Israeli military base was captured by Hamas during the Battle of Zikim. No source that I am aware of claims Bahad 4 was directly recaptured by Israel, and sources (all the way to October 16) indicated fighting was still ongoing - See battle article for further details on the various clashes.

Here is the main issues at hand: (1) Does the Battle of Zikim count as a battle of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood? (2.1) If yes, is the operation still ongoing? (2.2) If no, did Hamas "win" the battle? Right now, to not violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH territory, we need a source directly stating the battle ended to say the battle ended and who won. Just a few minutes ago, two editors The Great Mule of Eupatoria and BilledMammal disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their disagreement was on whether or not Israel recaptured all (key word) territory. Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured and sources (post the supposed 9 October recapture of all territory) indicate fighting was at least ongoing there until 16 October - See battle Wiki article for info & sources.

So, can we either have a discussion about how to handle the situation or can someone locate a source specifically stating whether or not the Battle of Zikim ended? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve looked through, the only evidence supporting that all, and I mean all of the territory with militant presence from Gaza was retaken is a claim by the idf on October 9th, if it is to be mentioned then it should only be “Israel claims”, not written as if the case is 100% proven. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Are there any claims that the IDF has not retaken all territory - that Hamas remains in control of any territory outside of Gaza? For this to be true would be extraordinary; that despite the mobilization of 360,000 soldiers the most powerful military in the Middle East has not been able to regain control of all of its territory sixteen days after the war began. As such, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, such a claim would need strong sourcing, and as far as I can tell no sourcing for the claim exists. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
You may have to wait years until an extremely comprehensive analysis of the military operations is published to get the precise answer you want. However, here and elsewhere it states that Israel retook all of its territory two days after the initial attack: October 9th. I don't think it's a violation of SYNTH when citing the sources I mentioned to reasonably conclude that the "battle" for that base was over, at the latest, by the 9th. Israeli territory means territory in Israel. -- Veggies (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Key phrase: “Israel said” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Do you have any sources that state (or even hint) that any part of Zikim is still under Hamas control?... No? Ah, I didn't think so. -- Veggies (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The battle occurred on 7 October, what we are looking for is a source that properly states Israel retook all (stressing on all) territories on 9 October, aside from “Israel said”. The burden is on them, not us The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I guess you'll have an ongoing battle with an undefeatable Hamas force in the Israeli rear going on forever since you seem devoid of common sense. It doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel by sea; the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- Veggies (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured If sources say that all Israeli territory was recaptured, and sources say that Bahad 4 is Israeli territory, then I don't believe it is WP:OR to say that Bahad 4 was recaptured. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Then how do we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October? Those are cited in the battle article. Is it ongoing during that time? Did Israel win? That’s the problem. Capturing “all” territory doesn’t really work when there is 6 more days worth of battles cited in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Zikim is on the coast and can potentially be infiltrated by land and sea. It's possible that those clashes (I'd need citations to examine them) were due to isolated groups of Hamas militants still roaming the countryside or secondary infiltration attempts after Oct 7th. This is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- Veggies (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A new article from Haaretz disputes the initial claims from October 7th that Bahad 4 fell.
...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.
Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the Battle of Zikim article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Veggies You can bypass the paywall by reading an archived version here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter, a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at Bahad 4 up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the Bahad 4 base since 7 October. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement and Casualties sustained

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/


The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”


Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an extraordinary claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
A.H.T Videomapping please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Small stylistic suggestion

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." 2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

@RamHez: SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to Syrian civil war. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. Ecrusized (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

infobox attribution inline

BilledMammal, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? nableezy - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing every figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per WP:ONUS, is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. nableezy - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.VR talk 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of October 25th, the NYTimes is throwing in a disclaimer, saying a number that if verified At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:POINT. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. nableezy - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
Editor @Hovsepig: made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per WP:ONUS, is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. nableezy - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
One editor does not get to decide, end of. WP:ONUS doesn't work that way either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked Infinity Knight. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Well given it has had numbers since basically the beginning of this article and throughout the now 7519 edits it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again WP:POINT (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. nableezy - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting WP:DE when I see it. nableezy - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a better idea, since we have WAPO OC 24 saying "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza, according to the MoH in Gaza, according to Israeli official sources. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. nableezy - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I started an RFC below. nableezy - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Supported by

@Tamjeed Ahmed, concerning 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualty count

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it YEEETER0 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. YEEETER0 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
Mistamystery (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Joe Biden is not a reliable source that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. WillowCity(talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Not just Biden:
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).Mistamystery (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source independently corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the policy on "claimed").
As well, FYI, this article from WaPo: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. WillowCity(talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. YEEETER0 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. Mistamystery (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Does the block also apply for the talk page? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding a new subsection

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? Iminyourwalls72 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a page about the war crimes. War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Is it mentioned in the current page? Hovsepig (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional Relevant Information

Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations: . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

'2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7' Massacre:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg

The practice of "initial military training" is also used in Russia in secondary comprehensive schools in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
see whataboutery. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. Mindhack diva (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) Mindhack diva (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find a reliable secondary source for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. Mindhack diva (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Please correct the table:

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Country Deaths Kidnapped Missing Ref.
 Ukraine 24 [a] Unknown 1 [1]

91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with multiple citizenships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. Animal lover |666| 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel". Ukrainska Pravda. 26 October 2023. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

Countries ready to take Gaza refugees

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people. i only came accross scotland: Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals. 

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 Mindhack diva (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived talks about photos and Reactions section

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:

[7] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
[8] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
[9] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world

JJMM (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the international reactions page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol Hovsepig (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! JJMM (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. JJMM (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Censor

censors

Baratiiman (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible Houthi drones falling on Egypt

The Egyptian towns of Taba and Nuweiba near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[10] Last week, U.S. Navy[11] and Saudi Arabia[12] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of Eilat.[[13]] Ecrusized (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Towns of Taba and Nuweiba are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the Gaza Strip. Does Hamas have such long-range weapons? The Houthi are based even further, in Yemen, 1,600 km from the city of Eilat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Bakeries? Barber shops?

Tareq S. Haijaj, They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve. Mondoweiss 26 October 2023 Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, like L'Orient Today? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging ARandomName123 and Timeshifter since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. DFlhb (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a simple chart. It can be used under c:Template:PD-chart. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths DFlhb (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites
There is also the freeware LibreOffice and LibreOffice Calc, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli POWs omitted from lead

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on this revision adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

Al Jazeera: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in the discussion of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

The Guardian: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? WillowCity (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2): This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. WillowCity (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@WillowCity: I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. WillowCity(talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Quantling: In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. WillowCity(talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. WillowCity(talk) 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry.

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. Oshaboy2 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas infiltrators

The article states :

  • "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

  • "2500 militants and civilians"

RadXman (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the source, "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --91.210.248.223 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Fixed it. Alaexis¿question? 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties?

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? Imagemafia (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. Randomuser335S (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. Imagemafia (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.
In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. Randomuser335S (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! Imagemafia (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 102.45.250.20 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

added. nableezy - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population (16-17 years old). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. 91.210.248.223 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: While I understand the motivation behind this, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some WP:Reliable Sources for it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide Elsliquor (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2)

Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. Sirswiss1 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense

According to Kyiv Post In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule. "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be too early to add it to this article. You could certainly add it to the Iron Beam article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jprg1966: "Iron Sting" now. WSJ The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, Elbit Systems. I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? Infinity Knight (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Infinity Knight: I'm not sure there really is a good place for it. I don't see a comparable section in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. It doesn't seem like RS are paying a huge amount of attention these systems compared to, for example, the focus on Iron Dome during the 2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip. My advice is to either stick to editing the articles of the weapons systems themselves, or be WP:BOLD and stick it somewhere that seems logical here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_23&oldid=1197332266"