Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

RFC: Is Israel, Hamas, or the Western World isolated on the world stage?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this RfC editors discussed whether wording that Israel, Hamas, and several other countries are "isolated on the world's stage" should be added to the article lead. Ten options were put forward for editors to chose from.

By the numbers, editors overwhelmingly preferred version 1, with 15 editors !voting for it. Version 2, 6, and "no to all" received a single !vote apiece. None of the other versions received any support. However consensus is determined not by the numbers, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

With respect to the editor supporting version 2, they based their arguments as an application of due weight. However this was disputed by another editor, by reference to reliable sources.

For version 1, arguments based on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE were put forward and seemed to gather significant support amongst contributors. These arguments were not disputed by the contributors supporting other versions.

Multiple contributors also put forth arguments that the RfC should be WP:SNOW closed, and a request was made at WP:CR for an early close. As this seems well supported by many editors, and there is a clear consensus, I've agreed to close this RfC early.

Accordingly, upon reviewing the discussion I find that there is a clear consensus for version 1. As always, consensus can change, and if events do change further discussion is always possible and recommended. (non-admin closure) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the lead state that Israel, Hamas, and/or the Western World is "isolated" on the world's stage?

If not, [#1]

Version #1: No mention of any of these being isolated in the lead.

If so, what statement should be given: [#2-10]

Version #2: State "that Israel is isolated on the world stage."

Version #3: State "that Hamas/Palestinian militants are isolated on the world stage."

Version #4: State "that Israel and Hamas/Palestinian militants are both isolated on the world stage."

Version #5: State "that the Western World and Israel is isolated on the world stage".

Version #6: State "that the United States and Israel is isolated on the world stage."

Version #7: State the "United States, United Kingdom, and Israel are isolated on the world stage."

Version #8: State the "United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Israel are isolated on the world stage."

Version #9: State "that Israel, Hamas, and the Western World are all isolated on the world stage."

Version #10: State "that Israel, Hamas, and the United States are all isolated on the world stage."

This wording has been debated on the talk page since late December and early January — without consensus. Thank you for contributing to the discussion! KlayCax (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, relevant RFC re currently disputed material is in the relevant section together with its RFCbefore at #RFC above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Selfstuder, your RfC was commenced after this one and was placed in the middle of the page. RfCs typically are commenced with a separate section begun at the bottom of the page. I'm not saying one RfC is better than the other, as yours has the virtue of simplicity but this one is more precise. However we cannot have two RfCs on one topic. and when an RfC is indeed started it must be at the bottom of the page. This needs to be rectified to avoid confusion. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't need to be at the bottom and it is not about the same issue. This RFC has no RFCbefore because there is no current dispute about all the things in it, only about the position in the RFC I opened. Therefore this is a bad RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RFCOPEN says that RfCs must be at the bottom of a page and in a separate section. You just indicated that this was a "bad RfC" even though you created yours after this one. I don't much care which one is nuked, but we can't have two and the survivor must be a separate section at the bottom of the page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  There can be two because this one is about different subject matter, so not a duplicate, it is bad for the reason I gave. If my not at the bottom RFC causes a glitch somewhere I will move it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC and yours are both on the question of "isolation" with this one giving more choices. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Include. It provides an important perspective on one of the conflict participants, and is further elaborated on in the article body, so it's certainly WP:DUE. Much like we describe – at length! – the international condemnation of Russia in the lead section of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here, too, exact wording should follow sources. For now, I'd be leaning towards #2 as least controversial, however #6 is also well sourced; #3 and similar are pointless, the isolation of Hamas etc. has not changed substantially in the last years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what the discussion was about. The discussion was about whether Israel and US are isolated per RS or whether western countries have supported Israel. This RFC, especially the 10 versions, is a complete distortion of the discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we're discussing whether Israel and/or others are isolated. My impression is that we're discussing what reliable sources say about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No to all Without there being quite strong support in sources, a characterization like that should never be bandied about any international actor. The fact that all sorts of options are being offered as to who exactly is isolated underscores the lack of such a comsensus in sources and kinda lets the cat out of the bag about the validity of any such assertions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Version 1 as isolated on the world stage is probably only applicable to Pariah States of which none of the countries are. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: [Note: RFC Submitter] Multiple reliable sources — including those who say that Israel is presently committing genocide — contradict the notion that they're isolated (or "increasingly isolated" - which is a vague and amorphous term) on the world stage.

• Jeremy Scahill, no friend of Israel, says in The Intercept: "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions. Canada, they’re all-in. Britain, all-in. France, all-in. Germany, enthusiastically all-in."

• Donald Earl Collins says in Al-Jazeera: For more than four months now, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have been staunchly supporting Israel's war on Gaza.

• Hugh Lovatt in CNN disputes that Israel is isolated: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”

• Foreign Affairs says: The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel, providing military assistance, opposing calls for a cease-fire at the United Nations, stopping funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency serving Palestinian refugees, and rejecting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even as the carnage continued to unfold.

De jure, the United States supports a two-state solution. Symbolic calls for a "ceasefire" at the UN General Assembly (while many of these countries also give Israel billions of dollars in advanced weapons) have about the same meaning.

It would be ridiculous to imply to readers that Israel is "isolated" while the world's only superpower (United States) and at least two great powers (Germany/United Kingdom) send them large-scale military assistance. If reliable sources contradict (and at best they do on this; if not, they've merely narrowly talking about a general assembly "ceasefire" resolution at the UN, and what exactly a "ceasefire" means is up to heavy interpretation) on whether there is any isolation: then it shouldn't be added in.

I personally believe that what Israel is doing is morally wrong. But Wikipedia isn't the place to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS and they're not "isolated" in any meaningful sense. KlayCax (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Version #1: No mention of any of these being isolated in the lead. - Undue for the lead. If anything, the wordings we should be considering are, something like, "Israel is becoming increasingly isolated" or even "Israel has been losing (international) support". Not that I necessarily support those wordings either but they would be better phrases for consideration as far I'm aware. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Version #1. Isolation can be understood to mean many different things and it's easy to find a definition that each of the entities in the list would satisfy. I would prefer stating facts: X countries consider Hamas a terrorist organisation, Y countries voted for a ceasefire, etc. Alaexis_¿question? 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Version #1 The term is vague, POV, and UNDUE for inclusion in the lead section. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Per KlayCax as above, and definitely not for inclusion in lede. Drsruli (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Option #1' The notion of the United States being isolated on the world's stage, even if you can find sources, defies common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Version 1 per others above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Version #1: "No mention of any of these being isolated in the lead." There is clearly no consensus in IS RS for any of the others and there are problems with weight and this being included in the lede.  // Timothy :: talk  21:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Version 1 I'm not sure I've ever seen a RFC with 10 options, but this is common sense and perhaps a candidate for WP:SNOW. Nemov (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Version 1 Seems like overwhelming consensus, I also agree with the WP:SNOW assessment.

  MaximusEditor (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Version 1: They aren't completely isolated, but they are becoming increasingly isolated. Maybe include that? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Version 1. Absolutely not. The lede is not the place to be pushing POV nor fighting culture wars. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Version 1. Way too subjective. I think this is SNOWy. Zanahary (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  please someone snow close LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since there was no RFCbefore and the material "Israel, Hamas, and/or the Western World is "isolated" on the world's stage?" has never been the subject of any dispute, the opener might as well close the RFC themselves and save everyone a lot of time. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Version 1 has consensus and many have participated; your suggested OP close would be inappropriate.

  It would be proper to request a neutral experienced closer assess the discussion and implement the consensus at Wikipedia:Closure requests.  // Timothy :: talk  23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it better to have a third party do it in a case where literally everybody gave the same vote? Zanahary (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree and support Version 1, but this is not a normal article, and three editors have voiced alternative choices. OP cannot close it and no one involved in the discussion should.  // Timothy :: talk  02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  where? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  What alternatives? Zanahary (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Version 1 here's another shovelful of WP:SNOW. JM (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• This was a bogus RFC, and you can tell by the number of options presented that nobody had ever suggested. nableezy - 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  yup. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think it was done in bad faith? I don’t understand why it would be advantageous for someone to do. Zanahary (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  See this edit and the discussion #Talk:Israel–Hamas war#"Increasingly isolated" for the real dispute as opposed to this invented one. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  But what is the point of inventing a dispute? Zanahary (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  In order to force through a desired edit. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2024 (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.

Background section

Shouldn’t the background section go into more detail about the early context of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it pertains to Gaza? I think an unfamiliar reader looking to this page to understand why the war is happening would be left with questions about its roots. I think just a paragraph blurbing the earlier modern history of the region and the respective claims Jews and Arabs make on the land, and giving context to the 1967 occupation, is pretty essential to the article. Does anyone disagree or have thoughts? Zanahary (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because this article's background section is long enough as is, and there are main articles for this: Gaza-Israel conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-occupied territories, and Arab–Israeli conflict. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Northern Gaza

Israel has claimed numerous times that it has cleared out Northern Gaza. Why are there still pockets of Hamas in Northern Gaza, and has the source being used been updated? BasedGigachad (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for propogandists to declare things before its a reality, similar to how Russia declared victory in Mariupol and wouldn't clear the city for another month.

The map shows things as they are, not as they are claimed. ArthropodLover (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The RM discussion

When will it finally be closed? Two months have pased lol GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's absurdly long, and the topic is controversial. You can't blame prospective closers for passing up a close. But you're right, the most recent relist was more than a week ago. There needs to be a close ASAP. I see someone has made a request at CR, but I think a post at AN would also be beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus Isn't there a time limit for how long a RM discussion could last? Because if there isn't such, this one could theoritically still be active well into the next year lol. Also, most comments in it are made by a few certain users which is a problem in itself. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 21:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't, because it depends on how many comments an RM has received and what direction it's heading toward. In this case, there have been more than a hundred comments, and it's unlikely new comments will have a substantial impact on determining consensus. One month is nmore than sufficient, especially since this is an RM and not an RfC (where 30 days is the normal timeframe, but again, the level of input varies). InfiniteNexus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally crazy at this point that it's still open. I haven't looked through it too much but I'm sure it's a lot of the same arguments over, and over, and over again. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a type of article that is a hot potato for reviewers. Not a lot of people are going to want to touch it, @Esolo5002:. KlayCax (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletions by User:KlayCax

@KlayCax: in this edit you removed that The United States has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions proposing a ceasefire. Can you explain why it should not be in the lede?Ghazaalch (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored the US vetoes, that has been a widely covered aspect of the overall war, and explaining why the war continues is obviously appropriate for the summary of the article on the war. nableezy - 18:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already covered by: Support to Israel militarily and diplomatically in the lead. Germany and the United Kingdom have offered similar diplomatic and military support.

Because the majority of Wikipedia users are likely American, I think many are writing it from the perspective of someone from the country, rather than taking an internationalist viewpoint. KlayCax (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that does not cover the vetoes, and the vetoes have been widely covered internationally. nableezy - 12:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of things about this have been widely covered internationally. Unless it goes into effect, it's a WP: WEIGHT issue to repeat essentially the same thing 2-3 times in a single paragraph.

The United States vetoing a resolution about Israel at the Security Council is the geopolitical equivalent of water being wet. KlayCax (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The effect is the denial of the imposition of a ceasefire. And the UNSC vetoes is not the same thing as providing support, because as you note the UK has provided support but they have not vetoed ceasefire resolutions. The weight of coverage of the vetoes is the weight we need to worry about, so claiming that it is both widely covered and it does not have weight makes zero sense. You are also edit-warring, and if you do not stop I will be asking that you be made to stop. Kindly self-revert your repeated removal of this material. nableezy - 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Other editors have similarly removed the material for reasons similar to my own. If you want to reinstate it, then this needs to be a RFC, as there was never a consensus for the additions. (Per WP: ONUS). I've only made one reversion over the past day. I want to let you know (on a personal level) that I agree with you that what Israel is doing is atrocious. Yet I don't believe that it merits inclusion in the lead. It's not our place to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

For the UK vote, see below. KlayCax (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1RR isn't an allowance, and your next block for edit warring will be indefinite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Doing it three times and being described as isolated in their support of Israel isn't though. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept, Al-Jazeera, and other news agencies have disputed the notion that the United States is isolated, for the reasons I expressed above.

In terms of the U.S. votes, due to the nature of the Security Council: it's much easier for the U.K. and France to vote "neutral" — while using the U.S. to take votes that they consider "hard". KlayCax (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am just looking at your latest edits, seems that all your editing is designed to dilute any and all criticism of the US. Quite wrongly in my view. I will be correcting that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous ad hominem. The personal attacks are completely uncalled for. I certainly don't support every policy decision of the United States.

Ironically, I've also been accused of having an anti-American bias on other pages. KlayCax (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about this article. Here's the US doing some more blocking Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish you have repeatedly dealt with edit-warring and this article, is this sequence by KlayCax acceptable? They removed stable material multiple times and are now demanding an RFC to restore it, is that how this works now? nableezy - 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The two sentences I removed from the lead (not article) are:

1.) the United States has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire

2.) International rights groups have condemned US military and diplomatic support for Israel, which risks complicity in alleged war crimes

Neither of which were "stable" within the article. Multiple editors objected to it. Of which I was but one. The sentences violate WP: WEIGHT and are unduly Americentric. (As a disproportionate amount of editors on English Wikipedia likely come from the United States.) The United Kingdom, Germany, and other Western nations have faced similar criticism, so it wrongly implies that criticism of support is exclusively limited to the U.S. Additionally, the lead is already abundantly overstuffed.

I'm not demanding a RFC. (Which is a last resort.) But per WP: ONUS, this is something that needs discussed first before adding, as the two sentences have repeatedly been added/removed into the article by multiple editors (including myself) over the past month. POV differences between editors is normative. The only times I've reverted the sentences was (incidentally) when it was being lumped together with the "America is (increasingly) isolated wording" on Feb 5th and Feb 9th. And when you recently reinstated the sentence back into the article on the 27th and today. My whole edit history on this article can be seen here. You can see that I haven't been predominantly active on this article at all since November.

I'm willing to revert it back if there's consensus. KlayCax (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead has included US vetoes since the first one. Here is a random diff from a month ago showing it included. nableezy - 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For as much as these articles change and move and how quick editors are to challenge material a month+ is a pretty strong argument for WP:STATUSQUO and clear WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. That you disagree with the inclusion isn't WP:RFCBEFORE, and your removal doesn't carry the force of consensus against inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll reinstate the two sentences for the time being, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, although I think this is definitely something that needs more discussion. It doesn't make sense to exclude Germany and the UK if we're going to mention it.

I wasn't the only editor to object to the wording, either, or to delete the two sentences. Apologies if there's any misunderstanding. KlayCax (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

But theres more, 1000 edits ago (Jan 4) includes, 1500 edits ago (Dec 18) includes, 2000 edits ago (Dec 4) includes, 2500 edits ago (Nov 22) includes. nableezy - 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a much stronger objection to #2 instead of #1, which was added relatively recently, @Nableezy:. Would you object to adding Germany and the UK?

If that works as a compromise. KlayCax (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The US position regards Israel is unique in many respects, and its not just about arms shipments. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is unique. But arm shipments are arm shipments. Does it matter if it's from a German, Brit, or American? KlayCax (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither of them vetoed a UNSC resolution, which is what I think is relevant. nableezy - 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the UNSC resolution being included. But Germany and the UK has also received substantial criticism. (Not just from Human Rights Watch). KlayCax (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, it isn't just about arms shipments. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)\

I understand that. But German and British support is notable. (Particularly considering the British control of Mandatory Palestine) KlayCax (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That was already edit warred in previously by yourself (the para commencing "Geopolitical divisions emerged...." at the same time as removing information about the US position. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im fine removing the second part, I dont think that has enough weight to include in the summary, thats for the lead of United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. But the UNSC resolutions absolutely are a part of the overall summary of the war article. nableezy - 17:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. That works. Could you reinstate it? Assuming there's no objections, @Nableezy:. Glad we got it figured out. KlayCax (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I cant because it would be a 1RR violation for me to do so. Suggest you ping the person who added it. nableezy - 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation of civilian massacre articles

In the arabic wiki, there is a category that has 168 very well cited articles about massacres during the ongoing war. It would be very helpful if anyone helps in the translation to english of these articles

The category

A google translate version of it Abo Yemen✉ 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like there's some good material in there. I'm only fluent in French (from the days I lived in Québec) and English, unfortunately.

We need to have someone who is fluent in Arabic, simply using Google Translate won't do. KlayCax (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could start by translating ~2 articles per day but that would take a very long time. I'd really need help with all of that Abo Yemen✉ 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The level of detail on the pages is good, but many of them seem to be a rehash of the same background, with the victims header and the lede being the only individuality for each family massacre. With some fixes, I think we can make some articles though. Jebiguess (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be obvious, but still worth saying that the notability rules of ar-wiki and en-wiki might be different so the existence of an article there does not mean that there should be an article here. Judging by the main article about the war in arwiki, which mentions neither civilian casualties of the October not hostages in the lead, there might be NPOV problems too. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

most of those articles also use non-arabic sources btw Abo Yemen✉ 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Last requested move

I counted the number of people supporting or not supporting the name change (Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024), and the result was: 52 opposed the change, while 56 supported it. The numbers are almost equal. The margin of error varies between ±1 and ±2, but I believe I counted everything correctly.
These values ​​are here for reference only, as this discussion has been already closed as "no consensus". InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation of civilian massacre articles

In the arabic wiki, there is a category that has 168 very well cited articles about massacres during the ongoing war. It would be very helpful if anyone helps in the translation to english of these articles

The category

A google translate version of it Abo Yemen✉ 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like there's some good material in there. I'm only fluent in French (from the days I lived in Québec) and English, unfortunately.

We need to have someone who is fluent in Arabic, simply using Google Translate won't do. KlayCax (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could start by translating ~2 articles per day but that would take a very long time. I'd really need help with all of that Abo Yemen✉ 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The level of detail on the pages is good, but many of them seem to be a rehash of the same background, with the victims header and the lede being the only individuality for each family massacre. With some fixes, I think we can make some articles though. Jebiguess (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be obvious, but still worth saying that the notability rules of ar-wiki and en-wiki might be different so the existence of an article there does not mean that there should be an article here. Judging by the main article about the war in arwiki, which mentions neither civilian casualties of the October not hostages in the lead, there might be NPOV problems too. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

most of those articles also use non-arabic sources btw Abo Yemen✉ 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Last requested move

I counted the number of people supporting or not supporting the name change (Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024), and the result was: 52 opposed the change, while 56 supported it. The numbers are almost equal. The margin of error varies between ±1 and ±2, but I believe I counted everything correctly.
These values ​​are here for reference only, as this discussion has been already closed as "no consensus". InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarity about "Starvation" and "The Flour massacre"

Food aid convoy bound for northern Gaza looted after being stopped at Israeli checkpoint (Guardian)

Newborns die of hunger and mothers struggle to feed their children as Israel’s siege condemns Gazans to starvation (CNN)

16 children have died of malnutrition in aid-starved Gaza, health officials say (WAPO)

Article needs to coherently reflect Israeli blocking and restrictions on aid flows and the effects of this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly the explanation for the new filing on 6 March by South Africa at the ICJ

"compelled to return to the Court in light of the new facts and changes in the situation in Gaza — particularly the situation of widespread starvation — brought about by the continuing egregious breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide . . . by the State of Israel . . . and its ongoing manifest violations of the provisional measures indicated by this Court on 26 January 2024”. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Starvation" subject (1 million of children left), as well as what has been renamed "The Flour massacre", are the two top priorities/angles to treat, as many sources available are about that. Deblinis (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

US involvement

Interesting article from WAPO about the arms supply to Israel from the US, "more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began", "the latest indication of Washington’s extensive involvement in the polarizing five-month conflict". I would be inclined to show the US in the infobox now, as a participant of some description, if not precisely a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we including other countries that provide weapons to belligerents? Should Iran, China, Russia and North Korea also be included? Wafflefrites (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-guns-weapons-missiles-smuggling-adae9dae4c48059d2a3c8e5d565daa30

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-says-hamas-using-chinese-weapons-gaza-strip-1858559

https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-has-a-chinese-weapons-arsenal-in-gaza-says-the-idf?op=1

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/15/hamas-fights-with-patchwork-of-weapons-built-by-iran-china-russia-and-north-korea-00135641 Wafflefrites (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No, because the scale of their supplies is not significant compared to that of the US. As Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior Biden administration official, states in the WAPO article:

Have they supplied anything during the war? It would be unreasonable to say they are involved otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not during the war. The sources say some of the countries have a history of training or supplying weaponry, but nothing about supplying during the war. These seem to be stockpiled weapons. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time, which really strongly suggests that the Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support". Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Against that we've got to balance the 76,000 meals they dropped into Gaza in the last week. I'm sure that's a great relief to the two million people there. NadVolum (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

SO now we are apparently going to get a US sponsored temporary port to ship aid in via sea. Pretty sure it would have been much easier to have let UNRWA just get on with it instead of creating all this unnecessary trouble. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on genocide accusation in lead

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 allegations of genocide be mentioned in the lead? There are four options in my mind.

1. Mention that Israel is accused of genocide.
2. Mention that Hamas is accused of genocide.
3. Mention that Israel and Hamas are both accused of genocide.
4. Make no mention of genocide at all.

JDiala (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (genocide accusation in lead)

• Option D - Wiki is supposed to be low key and not a propaganda tool. The claims about genocide are important, but definitely not in the lead of the article. It is about the war, not about political claims. Agmonsnir (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C In the case of Israel, accusations of genocide have been serious enough for south Africa to formally accuse Israel of committing genocide by taking the claim to the International Court of Justice.
  1. https://www.reuters.com/world/south-africa-seeks-international-court-justice-genocide-order-against-israel-2023-12-29/
  2. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-01/ty-article/.premium/state-officials-fear-hauge-could-charge-israel-with-genocide-in-gaza/0000018c-c1a9-d3e0-abac-d9a9acd80000

  At the same time, only talking about Israel could spark talks of neutrality. But since there have been just as many people ready to accuse Hamas of genocide, there are rs that talk about this too. One eample is: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-actions-are-war-crimes-could-constitute-genocide-international-law-experts/ Genabab (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Times of Israel is not a neutral source in this matter (especially that the paper, and its owner, have an overtly right-wing agenda – see the article). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C A significant number of legal scholars and professionals have indicated that what is taking place is genocidal in nature (both for Israel and Hamas). Further, there is an ICJ case brought forth by South Africa against Israel. Lastly, as a point of comparison, note that the term "genocide" is used in the lead to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine article as well. The Israel-Hamas war is significantly worse with respect to genocidal rhetoric used by leaders and the magnitude of the civilian suffering. JDiala (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A C: As well as being shown by their actions reliable sources clearly document enough statements of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government and call it that. Hamas has shown genocidal intent so it can be included as a counter even if there's no way for it to carry any such intention out, certainly not in the current war. The issue has become widespread and important enough for inclusion in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) changed NadVolum (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. Whether or not genocide occurs is a salient feature of war. Parham wiki (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. The most sensible option at this stage. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - As above; this is not the place for it. Drsruli (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - It's standard for partisans in a totalizing ethnic conflict to hurl the term "genocide" at each other. Doesn't automatically merit inclusion in the lede without e.g. actual criminal prosecutions.

PrimaPrime (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This is incorrect. There is an ongoing case in the ICJ, as the article itself states (in the body). In general, I recommend doing the most basic amount of research on the topic before hurling accusations at others, especially for topics as sensitive as this. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Far from significant enough at this stage to include these dueling charges in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C people undoubtedly come to Wikipedia looking for clarity/information, and we're well equipped/trusted to provide an accurate summary of the political discussions happening with detailed wikilinks where necessary. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D I don't think the accusations have been sufficiently noteworthy to justify inclusion in the lede. The accusations would need to feature far more prominently in the reliable sources for me to support adding it to the lede. Especially since we're not including things like the accusations of sexual violence by Hamas against Israeli civilians, which has been discussed far more in the reliable sources than these genocide accusations have (my point being that if that doesn't meet the prominence threshold for inclusion in the lede, then the genocide accusations shouldn't if we're applying the same threshold). Chuckstablers (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment This comparison is not quite accurate in my view. The Hamas sexual assault allegation is to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article what the genocide allegation is to the 2023 Israel-Hamas War article. The sexual assault allegations pertain to only a single day in the conflict (October 7th), and indeed they are mentioned in the lead to the article for that single day in the conflict. The relevance of the sexual assault allegation to the war in general (which has lasted for 3 months now) is less clear. However, the genocide allegation does in fact pertain to the entire war. JDiala (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Extremely well sourced, including legal positions of South Africa and a number of respected international organisations. On the other hand, genocide accusations against Hamas are not widely circulated outside of Israeli government mouthpieces – unlike with regard to Israeli policies, no expert international sources describe Hamas as carrying out a genocide of Jews. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Not only is there the recent legal application by South Africa, but so have UN experts, legal experts, Palestinian human rights organizations, prominent Israelis, scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, and genocide scholars, to name a few. I'd say that's enough for inclusion. In fact, some information could be copied over from the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into this page and placed in the lead. It would be relatively easy to do.Historyday01 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D is my personal preference. There are accusations against both Israel and Hamas [1]. My personal preference is not to mention it in the lede. Hamas might have had a genocidal intent but killing one thousand people out of several million is not a genocide. Likewise, Israel might have considered an ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, but it doesn't seem to be likely to happen atm and it's not the same as genocide anyway. I suggest waiting at least a few months until we have something more definite. Alaexis_¿question? 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option Wikipedia is not a democracy: Lede serves as a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies, per guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. A vote, or survey, or any other phrasing will not get around this guideline; what is mentioned in body must be mentioned in lede. However, the 7 October genocide section suffers from extreme examples of synth and sources closely related to the subject, in which information is combined to make an argument not necessarily related to the war. While the Israeli campaign genocide section is well-sourced and has an ongoing ICJ court case. The latter claim clearly has more merit and it should not be made equivalent with the former one when these sections are summarized in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C or D. A and B are obvious non-starters - read the articles Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Both articles have good sources, and both accusations need to be treated the same (although Hamas has explicitly announced their intended genocide beforehand many times and Israel has done no such thing). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree in strongest terms. Israel has been accused of carrying out genocide. Per the linked article, Hamas has been accused of having "genocidal intentions" (John Kirby), "genocidal ideology" (Israeli diplomat), and similar, however no serious source has stated that the 7th October attack was tantamount to genocide. No, the two sides cannot and should not be treated on a par. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reality check: They have not been accused of having "genocidal intentions", they actually said themselves that they have those intentions. You know, like that Hitler guy of whom people said he did not actually intend to do it? Hamas has little attacking power, of course they cannot actually achieve it - at the moment. But there should be a consensus among non-denialists that the intention is there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Read the linked articles first. The survey is about genocide, not about Palestinian politicians chanting "Death to Israel", etc. You'll need extremely strong sourcing to claim that Hamas's policy was to kill every single Israeli. Unlike in case of Israel, which has been accused of indiscriminate killings of Palestinians over years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  kill every single Israeli - somebody just recommended I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide. Maybe you should apply definitions consistently to both sides. But actually, you are going on the path to extinction [2] , even with context, is not very different from dann würde das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa. But all this is off-topic. The point is that both genocide accusations are important enough for the lede. So one of them has a bigger megaphone than the other? So what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't speak German nor do I intend to learn it. However, politicians can say whatever they want (Israeli politicians have also sometimes called for the extermination of Palestinians). What matters is whether policies leading to this have been developed/enacted. We need evidence of intent beyond political speeches. As far as we know, there have been no policies enacted by Hamas that would aim at the extermination of the Jews; while there's ample evidence that the Israeli policies, over years, have been made with an intention to destroy the Palestinian nation. You will find ample sources in the two articles you linked above. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I !voted, and you disagreed. I said that Hamas actually has genocidal intentions instead of just being accused of them, you disagreed at first, but then, when it became clear that you were wrong, moved the goalposts from intentions to actions. I could point out that "destroying a nation" is what defines anti-Zionism, but this leads nowhere, and I suggest we stop. This is moving towards WP:FORUM, so EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Israel has been accused of genocide in a damning 84-page filing at the UN's highest court; these types of ICJ proceedings have been instituted quite rarely since the 1948 Convention. This is an extremely notable development in the context of the larger war. In contrast, the October 7 genocide claims have been trotted out by Israel and its ally, the US, as a form of mirror politics which should not be lent any further credence. The disparity in coverage, the disparity in legitimacy, and the WP:FALSEBALANCE issues of this approach should be obvious. WillowCity^(talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• it is genocide - I think it would be wrong to say "accusation" because that implies a lack of credibility, but I cannot think of a better word. Possibly just "credible accusation". Irtapil (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that you have sources saying that every Palestinian in the Northern part of Gaza, which is controlled by Israel, is either dead or in extermination camps? Or are you saying that the article should be based on your opinion, in violation of WP:OR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide before posting such dumb comments. Obviously, Irtapil did not say so, it's just you using a straw man argument, which amounts to manipulation in a discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Be civil Zanahary (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly against this proposal. Whether or not an accusation is credible is wholly subjective, and it is not Wikipedia’s place to make that judgment. And if that judgment had been uncontroversially made (lol) by secondary sources, we would have to report that the accusation has been interpreted [by …] to be credible, or something similar: Zanahary (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is what I meant with my Are you saying comment above - "it is genocide" is classic POV pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think said or stated should be used instead of "accused". So "x, y, and z stated that ..." FunLater (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Israel is being taken to the International Court of Justice over this and there is the Palestinian genocide accusation documenting these accusations over time (as opposed to the half baked accusations against Hamas which have only appeared as a result of recent events). Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not half-baked at all. We have whole articles on Wikipedia documenting the indiscriminate slaughter and torture-murder of Israeli civilians including children, as well as the numerous statements of genocidal intent, advocacy, and celebration from Hamas. People seem to have forgotten Oct 7 already. JM (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C or D. I agree with Hob Gadling that A and B obviously against the body of the article. A and B would violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Notable accusations against both sides. --Andreas JN466 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, with Option C as second choice: Given the ICJ court case, not mentioning the accusation levelled at Israel in the lead seems unsupportable. This should be fixed as soon as possible. The accusation levelled at Hamas is factual and supported by good sources as well, but given the far smaller numbers of victims involved – the ratio is in excess of 20 to 1 – it seems to me that the need for a mention in the lead is less strong than in the other case. --Andreas JN466 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• option D preferred as these accusations are secondary to the conflict and come from others. I would compromise on option C. Any other options (A or B) are showing serious bias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D, per Chuckstablers, Hob Gadling, and Graeme Bartlett. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D for now Too early at the current time. Option C might be worth later, but for now best to wait.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But the accusations themselves, credible or not, both already have an impact on the war.

• Option A. With South Africa garnering sufficient support from various countries to file a genocide claim at the ICJ, specifically targeting Israel's conduct during this war, there is simply no reason not to mention the genocide accusation against Israel in the article lead. I also want to address some users here for supporting the rape accusations against Hamas while avoiding the genocide claim against Israel. The latter is evidently more relevant than the former for this article, which focuses on a war spanning more than three months, not the single-day incident which sparked this war. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C but if is essential to have some sense of scale - a neutrally worded clear comparison - such as total number of deaths in the same sentence, or a prominent mention that only one case was brought to the ICJ. If that doesn't work, then A. Irtapil (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A Mention that Israel is accused of genocide. Abo Yemen✉ 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A, with attribution. As in the organizations "X, Y, and Z stated that Israel is commiting a genocide against the Palestinian people. FunLater (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Seems to me that A and B are non-starters for Wikipedia, especially given the content of the article. D would be an alternative. Nigej (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• C or D for now. Things can change and evolve. Maybe Israel will take Hamas to the ICJ. CurryCity (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• A. Though there are accusations in both directions, the encyclopedic weight is not even close to being equivalent. The extent and quality of sources for the one, particularly surrounding the ICJ case, rises to the level of the lead. The other does not. False balance is not NPOV. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C, but my opinion weighs myself closer to Option A. Both accusations are highly-discussed and contentious. South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ. I do also agree with Irtapil about the scales of the genocide accusations (i.e. 25,000 dead vs 1,500 may both be a result of genocide, but they have different magnitudes). It won't be like this forever: Israel's claim of genocide may or may not be rejected in sources later on, and South Africa's claim of genocide may or may not be ruled as correct. SWinxy (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or, failing that, D. Strongly oppose B and C. There has clearly been significant coverage of genocide accusations made against Israel; accusations made against Hamas simply don't have the same degree of coverage outside Israel itself. A quick search for 'israel hamas genocide', for instance, overwhelmingly shows sources discussing genocide accusations against Israel. Option C would therefore be inappropriate WP:FALSEBALANCE; if they are currently balanced in the body, then that is a problem that should also be corrected - just looking at the sourcing for the two sections makes it obvious that the one for accusations made by Israel is lower-quality, relying on a far more sparse scattering of sources and in particular relying heavily on sources that are obviously WP:BIASED on this topic. By comparison the other paragraph cites 800 scholars across the world and an ICoJ case that has received massive coverage. Obviously B isn't worth considering, though I think it's noteworthy that everyone seems to recognize this and nobody has actually argued for it, which isn't really what I'd expect if the coverage was evenly-matched. That said, this doesn't mean we must include the accusations against Israel in the lead; whether they are leadworthy is another question and comes down to complicated questions about the relative weight of sources vs. other details of the conflict. I think there is enough coverage to put it in the lead, but leadworthy is a high bar for a topic that has this much coverage, and coverage of this particular aspect is probably at the level where it's a reasonable editorial choice to either include or omit them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer C, Happy with Option D: Both sides are accusing each other of genocide, same goes for most sources from my understanding. Omission of either side would not be providing the whole picture of the situation. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer A, could understand C. Gaza is more close to getting wiped out and many more have died on that side. That's not to deny Hamas' genocidal aspirations. Jikybebna (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D. These are just accusations, clearly politicised. Until resolved, they shouldn't be mentioned at all. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A — As described in the article, genocide accusations against Israel are significant in that they come from not just Palestinians and by extension Hamas, but also several non-Palestinian foreign and international organisations with corroborating evidence. The genocide accusations against Hamas are made primarily by the Israeli government, are at a significantly smaller scale, and are used as a label rather than an actual accusation based on corroborating evidence. Yue🌙 06:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D for now, Option A or C once the ICJ makes a final ruling It seems best to wait until the ICJ makes a final ruling so that the accusations against Israel & the judgement can be summarized. However, I’m not sure if there are enough accusations of genocide against Hamas to include them in the intro (there may be enough accusations of genocidal intent against Hamas to include them in the intro). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Blaylockjam10 Are you aware that the ICJ ruling is not expected for years? The "for now" would be a very long time. Andreas JN466 00:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I’m hoping that passions would die down by the time of the final ruling (though I don’t necessarily expect that to happen). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option C The lead should reflect the article body, and in the body, accusations of genocide against Hamas and Israel are mentioned to a degree that warrants inclusions in the lead. Cortador (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A is best in my opinion, seeing as only the accusations against Israel have had large media coverage. Option C might be okay, but it must be mentioned in the lead, because it is very significant to the war. — RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, on second thought, I note that mainspace articles exist for genocide allegations on both sides. In light of this fact, a good compromise solution might be to mention that both sides have been accused of committing genocide, but that Israel's allegations have been heard at the ICJ where they were deemed plausible. — RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per the strong arguments of Kashmiri, Historyday01, WillowCity and others. When there is a judgement from the International Court of Justice telling a state to not engage in genocide that is pretty clear evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. While the case won't be resolved for a while, they've already made their preliminary ruling, and they voted in favor of South Africa (and their detailed 84-page argument accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza). Historyday01 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a mischaracterization. They warned both sides, and refused to fulfil SA's requests for a ceasefire. JM (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is mischaracterization. They said both sides are bound by international law, and they said the charge that Israel is committing genocide is plausible and ordered "Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach Palestinians under siege in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza." (see here). They made no such finding against Hamas, nor did they warn them about anything regarding genocide. The sole finding about Hamas was "The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release." There are several provisional measures it ordered on Israel, despite your framing of it as refused to fulfil SA's requests for a ceasefire. nableezy - 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You said I mischaracterized but then nothing you said after that conflicted with anything I said. JM (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  They did not "warn both sides", and you claimed that "voted in favor of South Africa" is mischaracterization. That they did not grant all of the requests SA made does not make it so this was something other than it was. nableezy - 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You say they did not warn both sides at the same time as you say they warned Israel about the invasion and Hamas about hostages. You say that "voting in favour of SA" is not a mischaracterization at the same time you admit it did not vote entirely in favour of SA and indeed refused to side with it on the ceasefire. So what gives? JM (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt a warning and it is certainly not a warning related to genocide. Vote entirely in favor is not the same as vote in favor. You gave the impression that this was a both sides thing when it was not. nableezy - 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is definitely a both sides thing, even going off of your own comment should lead someone to that conclusion. And not sure how telling Hamas to follow international law and release the hostages is a warning any different from telling Israel to follow international law and avoid genocide. "Voting in favour", said unqualified as it was, implies no qualifications i.e., entirely. I really don't see how you're getting a different conclusion from your own information. Also, I said nothing about genocide warnings toward Hamas, so not sure where you got that idea. JM (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is definitely a both sides thing In Narnia, maybe. Israeli legal analysts confirmed that the court largely adopted the South African argument. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  largely JM (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uh this is a discussion about including the charge of genocide. All parties to an armed conflict are always bound by international law, there isnt a warning there. The call to free to the hostages is just that. There are six instances of "Israel must" in the decision. 0 for "Hamas must". That is there are six orders that the ICJ imposed on Israel, and 0 on Hamas. nableezy - 19:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  My specific issue was what I saw as a small mischaracterization of the decision in a comment that used the decision to support including the charge of genocide. Re-reading the comment, I could have misinterpreted its scope. There was 0 reason for you to pick on that unless it was to say I was mistaken about the comment's meaning.

  Just to be clear, you're saying that the words both sides are bound by international law and that It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release is not a warning to Hamas because it doesn't include the exact words "Hamas must"? Well, I acknowledge that you disagree with me and will never agree with me, nothing more can be done, time to move on. JM (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  both sides are bound by international law is a tautology, not a warning, it is a reminder. Being gravely concerned and calling for the release of hostages is also not a warning or an order. Also because Hamas is not a member state and the ICJ doesnt have the ability to order it to do anything. nableezy - 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, if not, then Option D per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per extensive media coverage on the topic and of course the ICJ case.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Accusations of genocide against Hamas lack widespread acknowledgment beyond Israeli government sources. Furthermore, the significance of genocide accusations against Israel, as they come from various international organizations and non-Palestinian sources, with corroborating evidence. It is what it is and its WP:DUE nature is incontrovertible.--StarkReport (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A It seems implausible and almost a whitewash to not mention the allegations of genocide in the context of the substantial media coverage of South Africa's case at the ICJ and the preliminary ruling from the ICJ. With regards to the actions by Hamas, undoubtedly many in Hamas would aspire to commit a genocide against Israelis but the reality is what happened on 7 October was a terrorist attack. No one would suggest the September 11 attacks were a genocide of Americans. The difference is in the scale of the violence, the military capabilities and death toll from Hamas's actions and Israel's actions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Does genocide have a minimum body count? Hamas' goal was to torture-murder as many Jews as possible. Body count should not be used to argue about what constitutes a genocide. JM (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Does genocide have a minimum body count? It is possible for an entity to commit the crime of genocide without killing anyone, so long as they had the intent to commit genocide and took actions towards doing so. We shouldn't be dismissing the possibility that Hamas committed genocide on October 7 on the basis of the scale of the attack and WP:OR related to that. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  You're misrepresenting my point. It's a false equivalence between Hamas, a terrorist organisation with the enormous military power of the Israeli state aided with military equipment from countries such as the United States and Germany. Again, is there a suggestion that a terrorist attack is a genocide? Were the September 11 attacks a genocide? AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not misrepresenting anything. You said "death toll". You argued based on your own views, not on the views of RS, and one of your arguments was death toll, explicitly. Military capabilities are not recognized as a measure of what constitutes genocide as far as I know.

  There are suggestions from various sources that the Oct 7 massacre constituted a genocide or genocidal massacre, and had genocidal intent, or has valid comparisons to the Holocaust. Here are 10:

  1. Genocide Watch
  2. Two Holocaust scholars in the Times of Israel
  3. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council
  4. Engelsberg Ideas
  5. A Holocaust and genocide specialist writing in the Hill
  6. Qanta A Ahmed, a Muslim doctor and author, writing in the Washington Post
  7. Legal scholar and human rights specialist interviewed by the Times of Israel
  8. Chris Cuomo, political commentator
  9. Jewish Voice for Peace
  10. Government of Israel

  JM (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - the weight of coverage here is what counts. And the weight of coverage for the accusation that Israel is committing genocide is orders of magnitude higher than the claim that Hamas did so, and also orders of magnitude higher than other things that people have argued should be in the lead. Accusations against Hamas have largely been made in a handful of opinion pieces. Accusations against Israel have however seen incredibly wide coverage. Just the coverage of the ICJ hearing and its ruling is wider than the coverage on accusations of rape for example, and when you add in all the coverage that is not about the ICJ case it isnt even close. Option C is a straightforward BALASP violation, and option D is a straightforward LEAD and DUE violation. nableezy - 18:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per @Nableezy. We should not give undue weight to accusations of genocide that are largely made in op-eds by pro-Israeli sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment An additional head of state of a major regional power, Brazil, has accused Israel of genocide. Given how widespread these accusations are, I will reiterate my strong stance in favour of inclusion. Frankly, not using that word in the lead gives a misleading impression on how this conflict is perceived internationally. It's not another flare-up in the Middle East forever wars; it's qualitatively distinct. JDiala (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think consensus has moved towards Option A and it's frankly embarassing Wikipedia is so behind on this. Hoping this discussion can be concluded soon. AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  there is a very good majority choosing option A. This RfC should be concluded Abo Yemen✉ 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a majority vote (stated right at the top of this survey). It's for the uninvolved closer to decide when to close according to the rules. JM (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it's not a vote. The fact it's not a vote is arguably unhelpful to those

  opponents of even mentioning the genocide accusation. They have been completely unable to clarify why Wikipedia should turn a blind eye and whitewash the matter and literally pretend the ICJ case and preliminary ruling doesn't exist. Much of the Option D argument has been "I don't agree/I don't like it /I support Israel" without convincing policy rationale. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, almost if not all of them do not mention a wikipedia policy Abo Yemen✉ 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Any examples of that happening? JM (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, Option C as second choice. There's nothing new I can add to the conversation. A lead is a summary, and this seems like an important topic.
  — Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D Politicized accusations should not appear on lede. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The whole article is about politics, since wars are politics, and lead must reflect body. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool. Article should be restricted to facts, nothing else. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you think Wikipedia covering accusations of genocide including a preliminary ruling from the ICJ is propaganda, I'd suggest you either don't understand what Wikipedia is or don't know what propaganda is. AusLondonder (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that accusations are not facts, and an encyclopedia should cover facts. If you don't agree, then all the best to you, but please don't personalize the debate. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  It’s a fact that Israel has been accused of committing genocide. nableezy - 10:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If an accusation was equivalent to a fact, then it would be referred to as a "fact" and not merely as an "accusation". Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  If the proposal were to include that Israel has committed or is committing genocide you’d have a point. It isn’t though and so you don’t. nableezy - 11:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  see South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) Abo Yemen✉ 12:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Whether there is an act of genocide here, by either side, is for an uninvolved, neutral and reliable body to decide. In war there will always be accusations being thrown around, and as it is there is already a lot of bias in this topic. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  this is no accusation Israel lost this case and it was confirmed that they were doing genocide by even the UN themselves Abo Yemen✉ 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is false. JM (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JM2023 ??? Abo Yemen✉ 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D. Unfortunately this term is now applied to nearly every conflict. While we can't stop it as we need to follow the sources, we shouldn't run ahead them either. For now it's an accusation, and Hamas has been credibly accused of genocidal intent, with their atrocities and charter. I suppose that once the ICJ rules on this it will receive widespread coverage and we'll add it then. Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's an accusation, and that's much more meat than there exists for Transgender genocide – and that article doesn't even use the term "accusation". Removing the mention of Gaza genocide from lead would feel like censorship. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Not the job of Wikipedia to decide on this. With so much bias one way or the other, this is best left out at least for now.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D I don't have much to add to the mountains of claims that were written above. If needed, I'll add the main arguements that convinced me. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 21:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - The hyperbolic accusation is undue for lead, although if the ICJ rules that the war constitutes genocide, then it's a different story. But I doubt South Africa will be able to prove that Israel's intention is to exterminate the Gazan population rather than destroy a terrorist group and get their hostages back. We'll see, but it's too soon to add this to lead. –BanyanClimber(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — BanyanClimber (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs).

  If you're destroying a terrorist group, why would you kill more than 12,000 children? More than 1% of the children in Gaza. How is that part of destroying a terrorist group? AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - per Historyday01 and Aquillion, the former provided sources justifiying significant and widespread accusations against Israel, while the latter convincingly argues that it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to list both accusations when the sources do not give both equal weight. starship.paint (RUN) 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment to closer: Please be on the lookout for double votes. This RfC has been open for so long ... I noticed the other day I myself had double-voted, and I see now I am not the only one. --Andreas JN466 21:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Six no votes within a 4-hour period on 22 February after the discussion has been largely quiet for a month seems rather odd. JDiala (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Very odd. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  And one of those votes is from a sock of the user who orchestrated this canvassing campaign. nableezy - 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• C or D. If we're including it, and given the particularly specific focus on genocide in this particular instance of hostilities (compared to every other conflict on the planet in the past several decades) I lean towards believing we should, then it needs to include both sets of claims. Otherwise, it should include neither. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A - To not mention the accusations of genocide in this case would be reprehensible. Option C is a false equivalence, and I oppose that as written, but a nuanced version of option C would be possible. Too late to workshop that in this RfC though. It should be option A, and then a new discussion can be opened, if necessary, regarding the extent to which we can neutrally report the genocidal intent of Hamas. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. I see no reason not to include what is covered by a raft of reliable sources. The other options are just there to create a false balance. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. The genocide accusations against Israel are in an international court and are being taken very seriously both by other countries and the sources, so it needs to be included, so Options B and D are out. Option C would be WP:FALSEBALANCE because the genocide accusations against Hamas primarily are being made by the Israeli government and frankly don't seem to be taken seriously by independent sources. I would prefer Option D over Option C if it comes down to it because I would prefer to exclude good information than include bad information. Loki (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Option A. Palestinian genocide has become a defining phrase of the war, whether people believe it or not. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - Many subject-matter experts, academic scholars and world-class researchers have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Furthermore, Option C is a clear case of WP:MINORASPECT i.e. a violation of NPOV - accusations of genocide against Hamas are not discussed extensively in RS, unlike the vast number of in-depth, rigorously-researched accusations of genocide against Israel. Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. The claim that Israel is committing genocide is a central part of the discussions about this war. That it is not part of the lead goes against WP:NPOV, as it minimizes serious and impactful accusations.🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, with Option D as second choice. Israel being accused of committing genocide is widely covered by reliable sources, including South Africa filing a lawsuit. Option B is clearly biased towards Israel and should be completely ruled out, and Option C also gives undue weight to the pro-Israeli point of view. NasssaNser 12:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, Going into this, I would have !voted C, but looking at arguments, I agree that adding the hamas bit would be a false equivalence, and israel has been accused of genocide by the ICC and other multiple countries.DarmaniLink (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I found no information online about the ICC accusing Israel of genocide. If you mean the ICJ, they didn't either, they merely assented to hearing SA's case and issued some warnings to Israel. JM (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  ICJ, yeah. My bad. "It's plausible they committed genocide" does sound like a soft accusation, but I'll reword to be more explicit :). DarmaniLink (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Option A, Going into this, I would have !voted C, but looking at arguments, I agree that adding the hamas bit would be a false equivalence, and the ICJ said that "it's plausible" that israel committed genocide, and has been directly accused of genocide by multiple countries DarmaniLink (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per MOS:LEADREL (and, by extension, WP:WEIGHT). The allegations of genocide levelled at Israel are an important aspect of the conflict and widely discussed in reliable sources. This is reflected in 45 mentions of genocide in our article prose. The MOS guidance for lead sections says that they should reflect the relative emphasis of information in the article, so it's appropriate to include a sentence mentioning the allegations of genocide by Israel. Allegations of genocide by Hamas do not have equal weight in the sources or our article, so including them in the lead would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, as noted by nableezy, Starship.paint and others. Per LEADREL, I think the lead mention of genocide should be kept brief – for example, to a single sentence. (Summoned by bot) Jr8825 • Talk 00:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. It is a WP:FALSEBALANCE to mention both or not to mention both.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• C or D per Cortador and Swatjester. As reflected in the body of the article, such accusations have been made against both sides in the conflict. Include both or none at all. Including only the accusations against Israel would not be neutral, and the absence of neutrality of that proposal is a dealbreaker. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Not only is it WP:FALSEBALANCE to mention both, it completely misrepresents the situation on the ground. Only one party in this conflict has nearly its entire population displaced and/or under constant threat of being the victim of military action. It should not be controversial that Israel has been accused, as there is a current ICJ case in which they found the allegations to be plausible. While I understand this conflict is not at the same scale as WWII or WWI, both of those articles mention genocide in their lede, and I think inclusion is also appropriate here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Several world leaders have made this accusation, including bringing it before the highest court we have to decide this stuff. It'd be irresponsible not to mention it. As for accusations of genocide by Hamas, these are extremely hard to find outside of Israel and organizations dedicated to upholding it, it's not a mainstream view held by neutral observers. BSMRD (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A in the context of South Africa v. Israel. Per what others have stated. KlayCax (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A No case against Hamas for genocide has occured yet, while one has occured for Israel in international law. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  The assumption that this !vote (and the subsequent votes are based on) is that no case exists because Hamas hasn't committed genocide. That isn't correct; there isn't - and cannot be - a case against Hamas because Hamas isn't a recognized state entity, and the ICJ only deals with cases between state entities. BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option A No international case against Hamas for committing any genocide exists, while there is one for Israel. It's really that simple. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A No international case against Hamas for committing any genocide exists waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2024 (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.

"Increasingly isolated"

I recently reverted a controversial section of the lead. (See here for previous discussion on this..)

My first objection relates to this sentence:

Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire

"Internationally isolated" is a very amorphous term. Considering that several of the world's great powers, including the United Kingdom (which is also a UN Security Council member) and Germany, have provided military aid to Israel during the course of the ongoing war, this would have to be reworded in a much narrower sense if it is to remain in the lead at all. It would be better if we simply state that the "UN Security Council" has passed a ceasefire resolution and leave it at that.

My second to this one:

US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by [sometimes "various" is included here] human rights groups

Why is the United Kingdom, Germany, or Hamas/other Palestinian militant groups being left out of this? The first two also provided substantive military aid and diplomatic support to Israel. All sides during the war have been accused of war crimes.

Tagging involved editors: @BilledMammal:, @Makeandtoss:, @PrimaPrime:, @Homerethegreat:, @JDiala:, @Borgenland:, and @Drsmoo:. (Amid others, not including all to avoid spam.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 18:28:38, 05 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though some more precisely worded summary of the diplomatic environment would be warranted. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Please revert yourself first, as this has been there in the article for months and has consensus for its inclusion. Your objections to "internationally isolated" based on what Germany and the UK have done is original research and goes against what numerous reliable sources have reported. Please provide opposing reliable sources and not your personal observations and opinions. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted as there is/was consensus for the material. Can discuss further but not simply remove. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: So not only are you repeatedly reverting other users but also refusing to adhere by the talk page consensus or engage in the discussions. Please revert yourself or this will be taken to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There was never talk page consensus for this. @Drsruli:, @PrimaPrime:, @BilledMammal:, @Borgenland:, and me have all objected to the wording, and it appears that the only reason it wasn't reverted was because of the 1RR rule on this page, so I decided to remove it as well using mine. I am engaged in the conversation, and it's not my intention to edit war, but claiming that the United States and Israel is "internationally isolated" is simply false. @Makeandtoss:. @Selfstudier:. I think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. But that doesn't change the fact that they're not presently isolated on the world stage. (Germany and the UK, also great powers, are still providing them an immense amount of weapons.)

The source invoked isn't claiming that the United States and Israel is "internationally isolated". It says increasingly internationally isolated. Even worse, multiple sources, including a CNN source two months after the citations used to justify it, says that: CNN says: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”. How is Israel internationally isolated if 4 great powers are sending them weapons? KlayCax (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: This claim has been on the article for more than three months now and has been discussed multiple times on the talk page. It has remained largely stable so that definitely shows consensus. Meanwhile, your version was unilaterally inserted by yourself despite having ignored the ping to engage in the talk page and avoid edit warring. The claim was crystal clear in saying the US and Israel were "internationally isolated" in rejecting the calls for a ceasefire. Not that they were just internationally isolated. I think this is a clear case where an editor thinks their personal analyses trumps the majority of high quality RS. Please revert yourself because the version you inserted has never been even discussed once. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It shows that editors who wish to avoid the sort of slow-motion edit warring you have been asked to refrain from are limited to addressing one thing per day. A "consensus" based on sheer attrition is no consensus at all. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The source says "increasingly isolated" (in the context of the Global South). The wording in the article says "internationally isolated".

Those are two different things. It also comes across as WP: CRYSTAL. The Time Magazine and Reuters articles are essentially saying what CNN is. In that:

• The West is predominantly supporting Israel, with the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany providing significant military support. (Which are three great powers.)
• The Muslim/Arabic World and most of the Global South strongly opposes the actions of Israel.

I'm not sure where the objection is. This seems neutral, indisputable, and an accurate summary of the current geopolitics.

Claiming that there was a consensus on the matter — when a minority of editors supported the wording — seems wrong. Particularly since, as you said, it was done out of a fear of 1RR instead of agreement. This seems to me a case of WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. People are (rightfully in my view) criticizing the conduct of Israel and are thus trying to make it seem that they're internationally isolated. The same thing happened during the Russia-Ukraine war. Editors wanted Russia to seem internationally isolated in the conduct, until it became non-contestable that India, China, and other countries from the Global South were either indifferent to the invasion or actively supporting it.

Geopolitics often doesn't involve moral considerations of right or wrong. It's absolutely laughable to claim that the United States is "internationally isolated" on the world stage.

Reliable sources don't agree with the claim, either. KlayCax (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In relation to the calls for a ceasefire...a situation which is still the case. Sending weapons is something different and material about that can be added, what can't be done is remove material that had consensus, without getting a new consensus to remove it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not clear from the wording. It implies that the United States and Israel is presently isolated. That's far from the case.

Germany, the United Kingdom, and others have also faced criticism from human rights groups, so why would the lead only mention the U.S.? KlayCax (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The UK and Germany have also been criticized. Essentially all sides have been. KlayCax (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we're looking for statements about increasing isolation (diplomatic, etc.) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• The only "increasing isolation" I've seen relates to symbolic calls for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council or General Assembly. If at least three great powers (United States, United Kingdom, and Germany) are providing significant military aid to Israel right now, then in what sense are they meaningfully isolated? The Reuters and Associated Press sources are being used in a way different from their meaning.
• The United States hasn't been sanctioned, no countries have cut off diplomatic contact with them, and other Western military allies are also providing military funding to Israel. Has anything meaningful been done?
• Increasing isolation is also different from isolated. The sentence presently says that they are "internationally isolated" on the world stage. What citation says this? This is a remarkable claim that is entirely unsourced.
• Human rights organizations have criticized all major sides of the conflict (Israel, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Hamas, and other Palestinian militants) in various ways. Why is the U.S. only mentioned?
• If we decide to add something like: "All in the war have been criticized by human rights groups" that would be alright with me. But it's strange to focus only on the United States here.

The wording seems to be trying to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS by convincing the reader that Israel should be/is internationally isolated. The sources don't claim this. KlayCax (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it was good removal because it is not clear what exactly the "international isolation" means. Did they break diplomatic relations? Apparently not. Did they sanction each other? No. Did they just vote differently in UN or did not provide weapons to each other? This is something very much common and does not mean isolation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. As mentioned above: it's a highly amorphous term.

The current version implies that the United States is a pariah state. To anyone who knows anything about politics, this is absolutely ridiculous. KlayCax (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it again; while I don't have strong opinions on this passage, editors here have claimed that it It has remained largely stable so that definitely shows consensus and this is false, with it having been subject to slow moving edit warring and the editor responsible being warned at AE.

It should obtain formal consensus to be re-added before any editor does so again boldly. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think this version [3] is better. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups" should be removed as well.

Or changed to include Germany, the UK, Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups as well. It comes across as POV-pushing and isn't reflective of WP: RS. KlayCax (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because nobody has yet added bits about Germany and UK is no reason to remove sourced text about the US. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about removing sourced text. It's about expanding it to the other combatants/polities giving military aid. KlayCax (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Where are you reading about Germany being increasingly isolated? — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the war crimes allegations/criticism from human rights organizations. It would be WP: UNDUE to just list the U.S. here. My very best wishes also provided a good reason against inclusion. For the isolation quote, the source says increasingly isolated, not isolated. Those are two different things - and even then - it's too amorphous to fit within. If it just means a vote at the UN, we need to specify what this means. KlayCax (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I'm only going to echo your rationale and the first response, I agree with you; you shouldn't be forced to revert your change; it was correct. Drsruli (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is in the article body and I assume noone is disputing it.

By 13 December 2023, Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire.

And we can add NYT "It is one reason, with the year drawing to a close, that the United States finds itself diplomatically isolated and in a defensive crouch. That isolation is a dramatic turnaround in international perceptions for the Biden administration:" and

USA Today "The U.S. has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel as the Palestinian death toll rises past 27,000, with two-thirds of the victims women and children." brings us right up to date.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Again editors' personal opinions should not trump what RS have said. If RS have said that Israel and US are becoming increasingly internationally isolated in relation to calls for a ceasefire, then it is Wikipedia's job to reflect that. Replacing this with geopolitical divisions is irrelevant to the body and disproportionate. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Way the lead reads right now is like the opposite situation, gross distortion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Increasing is different to isolated. (It appears that this is talking about the Global South. Of course, there's an agreement on that point.) The other wording is semi-WP: CRYSTAL. KlayCax (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: This it the second time you edit war disputed content into the article despite clear objections to it on the talk page and in edit summaries. [4] Waiting for yourself revert before taking this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"increasingly isolated" (Time, AP Guardian and NBC and USNews), then "diplomatically isolated" (NYT) and you write Increasing is different to isolated as an excuse for complete removal? And then opine without evidence that It appears that this is talking about the Global South as an excuse for reinserting disputed material?Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also separate from the important point you mentioned, the removal of "increasingly isolated" is one thing, and the addition of "global south.." is another. He is edit warring and re-adding the latter against consensus despite clear objections being made. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am looking back at the archives and when this was discussed previously and I see these two archives:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 35#"Increasing isolation" 4 January ->

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 37#International isolation 22 January ->

I saw that you added on 16 December and 30 December (Billed mammal said three times but only gave diffs for two), can you save me the effort and tell me who reverted the material on each occasion and for how long was the material stable in the article prior to 5 February? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, the article's history is a mess. Are there any tools? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Pinging you for the third and last time, asking you to remove the content you edit warred into the lede twice, despite objections from everyone on the talk page; before I take this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative is an RFC, however I agree that AE is an alternative in this case, given the behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

1.) I didn't revert it back into the article. BanyanClimber (partially) and several other editors did. I can't control what other editors do per 1RR. The phrasing of the lead has been consistently unstable for months and has been consistently changed.

What is the "objections from everyone on the talk page" in reference to?

• KlayCax, PrimaPrime, My Very Best Wishes, Billed Mammal, Drsuli, Homerethegreat, Drsmoo, and Bobisland favor "Israel/many Western countries v. Arabic/Muslim World and parts of the Global South" wording. (8 in favor)
• Makeandtoss, Selfstudier, JDiala, Aszx5000, and kashmīrī favor the "internationally isolated/increasingly isolated" wording. (5 in favor)
• BanyanClimber favors both. (1 in favor)

That's why we're discussing this matter: to get consensus. (Which is presently lacking.) I'm fine with starting a RFC, however.

2.) Why is it objectionable to state that much of the Global South is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? I wasn't aware that there was an objection to this. Why do you believe that this would be problematic?

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The objection on my part is not 2), it is the unjustified removal of well sourced info re isolation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

See below. Jeremy Scahill, Donald Collins, Hugh Lovatt, and Agnès Callamard have explicitly rejected the idea that Israel is isolated.

There's no consensus among reliable sources on this. Of the ones that make the class, it appears that they're talking about de jure wishes of a ceasefire. (Meaningless.) KlayCax (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: What are you talking about? You did revert it back into the article despite being the objections in the edit summaries that removed them and the objections here on the talk page, and here you are continuing to refuse to revert yourself despite multiple editors telling you that they don't agree, thus there is no consensus. The way forward for this dispute is through a RFC. I would like to remind you that edit warring does not need to break 1RR. Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I did. But that's because editors kept trying to insert one or a synthesized version of both into the article. It was reverted back twice. I explicitly stated in the edit summary that both should be removed. Yet editors kept reinstating one version over the other. Multiple reliable sources — including those who say that Israel is presently committing genocide — dispute that they're isolated on the world stage.

• Jeremy Scahill, no friend of Israel, says in The Intercept: "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions. Canada, they’re all-in. Britain, all-in. France, all-in. Germany, enthusiastically all-in."
• Donald Earl Collins says in Al-Jazeera: For more than four months now, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have been staunchly supporting Israel's war on Gaza.
• Hugh Lovatt in CNN disputes that Israel is isolated: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”
• Foreign Affairs says: The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel, providing military assistance, opposing calls for a cease-fire at the United Nations, stopping funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency serving Palestinian refugees, and rejecting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even as the carnage continued to unfold.

De jure, the United States supports a two-state solution. Symbolic calls for a "ceasefire" at the UN General Assembly (while they give Israel billions of dollars in advanced weapons) have about the same meaning.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to imply to readers that Israel is "isolated" while the world's only superpower (United States) and at least two great powers (Germany/United Kingdom) send them large-scale military funding. If reliable sources contradict (and at best they do on this; if not, they've merely narrowly talking about a ceasefire at the UN, and it's unclear how much of this was a PR move) on this: then it shouldn't be added in.

I'm aware there is no consensus for either edit. That's why I wanted to discuss it on here. A RFC can be made, but it's something that should be avoided if possible in order to save editor's time.

If reliable sources contradict: then it would be unwise to add it to the article. (For isolation.)

If reliable sources agree - such as the fact that the U.S., U.K., Germany, and others have given a substantial amount of military support to Israel - then it of course should be included.

We already had a similar case of this during the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine. Editors said that Russia was "isolated" or "growing increasingly isolated". Then, it was found out that great powers like India - and much of the Global South - were either actively indifferent to it or supported it. It's way too early to make broad, sweeping claims. I strongly doubt that Germany, the United Kingdom, or the United States will be isolated in the long run from this. Most reliable sources indicate the same. A few votes at the UN General Assembly is nearly meaningless. KlayCax (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources are clear about the US isolation (along with Israel) and that situation continues to date. The removal is not justified no matter how many walls of text you write about it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if he had written a ten-page wall of text about it, there would still be no consensus and he would still be edit warring. Taking this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't an AE situation. Threatening editors — particularly when they want to develop a consensus on the talk page with you, have been entirely civil throughout it, and are in active conversation — is uncalled for.

If reliable sources contradict: then it's best to leave it out. (And AP/Reuters are clearly using it, within context, in a much more narrow sense.) I created a RFC below. KlayCax (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC in relation to this matter is immediately below. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Edit warring, reinserting material twice despite being asked not to and wait for consensus to develop on the talk page through RFC, is definitely AE situation. I am not threatening you, on the contrary, I am warning you to remove the disputed content so that no actions are taken against you in AE. I will be filing this tomorrow. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And the material in question was? I have no clue what you're talking about. The only thing I added was #1.): Geopolitical divisions emerged by region, with much of the Western World providing "strong" support to Israel militarily or diplomatically, including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Germany, while the Islamic world and much of the Global South denounced its actions.

The only thing I removed was #2.) Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire.

Per WP: RS's (CNN, Foreign Affairs, and Al-Jazeera #1 is true. If you dispute it: then I'll start another RFC. Is that what you're referring to?

Per WP: ONUS, #2 should be removed until consensus was established. A majority of editors (see above) opposed it being in the lead since it was proposed. KlayCax (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I explicitly said reinsertion of dispute material, aka the material about geopolitical divisions. ONUS applies to 1 and 2 that is why no one has reinserted 1 back; but you have reinserted 2 back twice despite being asked not to, aka edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Rewinding back to KlayCax's original post, I agree with his comments concerning the text in question. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC

Should the bolded phrase and relevant sources be added in "US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups and the US left increasingly isolated in its support for Israel" Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Support The wording Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire was reverted here on 9 February and the wording US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups and left the US diplomatically isolated was reverted here on 12 February without good reason. There appear to be no good reasons for exclusion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add: Multiple reliable sources — including those who say that Israel is presently committing genocide — contradict the notion that they're isolated (or "increasingly isolated" - which is a vague and amorphous term) on the world stage.

• Jeremy Scahill, no friend of Israel, says in The Intercept: "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions. Canada, they’re all-in. Britain, all-in. France, all-in. Germany, enthusiastically all-in."

• Donald Earl Collins says in Al-Jazeera: For more than four months now, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have been staunchly supporting Israel's war on Gaza.

• Hugh Lovatt in CNN disputes that Israel is isolated: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”

• Foreign Affairs says: The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel, providing military assistance, opposing calls for a cease-fire at the United Nations, stopping funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency serving Palestinian refugees, and rejecting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even as the carnage continued to unfold.

De jure, the United States supports a two-state solution.

Symbolic calls for a "ceasefire" at the UN General Assembly (while many of these countries also give Israel billions of dollars in advanced weapons) have about the same meaning.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to imply to readers that Israel is "isolated" while the world's only superpower (United States) and at least two great powers (Germany/United Kingdom) send them large-scale military funding. If reliable sources contradict (and at best they do on this; if not, they've merely narrowly talking about a general assembly "ceasefire" resolution at the UN, and what exactly a "ceasefire" means is up to heavy interpretation) on this: then it shouldn't be added in.

The proposed wording also says that the United States and Israel are isolated [in general]. The actual wording says increasingly isolated — which seems like a clear reference to the Global South. The West is still predominantly supporting Israel. (Outside of Ireland) It would actively mislead readers about current geopolitical realities. I understand why many want Israel or the United States to be internationally isolated. (But WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS) There's not good evidence for this. The articles are taken out of context and cherrypicked. This is a question of WP: WEIGHT. Neither Israel, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, or Germany, or any other side is meaningfully isolated enough. KlayCax (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add: Per KlayCax as above, and definitely not for inclusion in the lede. Drsruli (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Increasingly isolated does not imply that the U.S. is now alone. So this is slightly different from the RFC below. That said, it may be too recent to summarize condemnation and isolation in the lead. Many parties have been criticized. Who is isolated can also change over time. Senorangel (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNP applies here, in my opinion, @Senorangel:. Let's wait for the conflict to end. International reception of Israel (and German, British, and American support) has definitely trended negative, but it's still too soon to see what the long term effects of any of this is going to be, in terms of how countries interact with one another + the long term reputational impact it will have. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add per above. JM (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Do not add also per above. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support At this point not adding the US to the infobox is just us denying a very obvious fact that is supported by multiple sources Abo Yemen✉ 18:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

My reading of the sources is that they are saying the US is increasingly isolated in its support for Israel, not isolated in general. Meaning the US is standing alone (or increasingly alone) in supporting Israel, but it's not like the US is isolated on the world stage, subject to sanctions or boycotts, a pariah country. It's not isolated like North Korea, Iran, or Russia are isolated. It's just that more and more countries are supporting Israel less and less, whereas the US has been one of the few to really continue supporting Israel (which is also changing this last month or so). But I think "left the US diplomatically isolated" implies countries are cutting diplomatic ties with the US which isn't happening. I'd rework it to say "left the US increasingly isolated in its support for Israel" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Amended as noone has yet replied, I'm fine with that wording as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: thanks. A couple more nitpicks: source #2 isn't USNews, it's AP. That one is from two weeks ago, and says in AP's voice, "The U.S. has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel...". I see it as one of the strongest sources in favor of saying in this article that the US has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel.

All of the other sources are from December 13, and (unless I misread them, I admit to only skimming) are specific to the a particular UN ceasefire veto (not the only US veto of a UN ceasefire resolution).

In Klay's alt-RFC, there are a number of sources that say essentially the opposite: that the US is not isolated, and not alone in its support for Israel, that (at least some) Western countries are supporting Israel similarly to the US (UK, France, Germany being called out). However, those sources seem to be opinion, or least a lot of them, are op-eds, podcast, etc.

So how do we filter that? I'd say look at sources that aren't just from one time period (Dec 12-13 or thereabouts), but more current (January, February), if they're avialable. I'd also say filter out the op-eds and look at statements in a publication's own voice, not just the opinion of a commentator. The Feb 2 AP (via USNews) article linked above, I'd say, is an example of a source that hits both criteria. But AFAICS it's the only one on either list of sources? Personally I'm not convinced that RS say either that the US is isolated, or that it is not isolated, in its support for Israel. It was isolated in its ceasefire veto, but then other Western countries are still providing support for Israel. So I honestly don't know what a good summary of the RS would be, based on these sources.

Sorry this was so long. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I updated the US News to AP.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I used the sources that were initially in the article that were originally the basis for "isolated" before all the reverting and added the other two after. I haven't really looked that hard for sources tbh because it just strikes me as being blindingly obvious. Note that NYT is happy to repeat themselves as of 25 January."The United States finds itself diplomatically isolated and at odds with staunch allies like France, Canada, Australia and Japan, all of which voted last month for a resolution calling for a cease-fire (the resolution failed to pass on account of a U.S. veto)." Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A quick look turned up LeMonde today "To redress the US's current diplomatic isolation, Joe Biden has signed an executive order punishing Jewish settlers responsible for violence in the West Bank.·" and Tme 18 January "The U.S. has to consider whether it can achieve its broader agenda while being so regularly isolated from the rest of the world on such an important issue." [Israel] and Haaretz yesterday "Globally, the United States is isolated in its support for Israel.." Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(disclosure: I think Time is crap and just raised it at WT:RSP) The Time article, though, doesn't say that the US is increasingly isolated, it says something quite different: Going it alone, or close to alone, is an expected and accepted reality, one roughly a half century old ... The U.S. has to consider whether it can achieve its broader agenda while being so regularly isolated from the rest of the world on such an important issue. So "regularly isolated" for 50 years. Le Monde says Its diplomatic isolation is striking (and the second half of the article is behind a paywall so I'm not sure what it says entirely). But "striking" implies to me more isolation than before.

Which begs the questions: Was the US always isolated and continues to be isolated? Was it always isolated and is now more isolated than before? Was it not previously isolated and is now isolated? Levivich (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is about the difference between "isolated in the moment" and "isolated in general." For example, I just searched Reuters.com, and found:

• Reuters Dec 14, 2023 article saying the US is diplomatically isolated at UN for supporting Israel (same exact line as the other sources)
• BUT... Here's Reuters saying, in 2021, that the US is isolated at the UN over its Middle East policy
• Here's Reuters saying in 2019 that the US is isolated over another UN decision over the Golan Heights
• And again in 2017, isolated over the Jerusalem thing.
• In 2015, it's Israel that's isolated

So here's my question: Was the US always isolated, from 2017 to the present? Was it isolated in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023, but not isolated in between? Is the current isolation anything new? I don't know the answers, but I am hesitant to say "the US is increasingly isolated" by it's support for Israel in 2023, if that's what the RSes have been saying for years. In which case we should say that: that the US has become increasingly isolated over the last 10 years or so for its support of Israel.... if that's what the RSes are saying.

But I wonder does "isolated" just mean the US voted in a different way from most other countries? In which case... is that really isolated in any sense? Or just that they support Israel more than everyone else?

Are we really saying something different than, "The US was the only country to veto the cease fire resolution"? Maybe we should just say that? Has there been any actual isolation or harm of the US or US interests as a result of its support for Israel? Levivich (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the current Gaza induced isolation is qualitatively distinct from any prior isolation (at the UN principally). Whether or not there is harm is a different question and anyway too early to analyse that, I think. I also think the sourcing is clear that it is a current thing not a continuation of some prior isolation. Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Haaretz article you linked above says harm: Biden's unwavering support for Israel – in general and since Oct. 7 in particular – is genuine, visceral, heavily sentimental and almost nostalgic in tone. He sees Israel as a dependable U.S. ally, though he is by now convinced that Netanyahu is not only no ally but actively working against American interests. But this policy stance also inflicted tangible political damage and has had an adverse strategic effect in the United States.

And The United States has also been losing political capital in the Middle East, with many Arab states reluctant to even indirectly assist American attacks on Iranian-backed militias in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Globally, the United States is isolated in its support for Israel, but more importantly is perceived as lacking the leverage it supposedly had to affect behavioral change on Israel's conduct in the war and Netanyahu's intransigence regarding postwar Gaza and the broader Middle East.

Now, this Haaretz analysis by Alon Pinkas seems to me to be saying like the direct opposite of the analysis by Jeremy Scahill at the Intercept [5], quoted below, "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions." Foreign Affairs, also quoted below, says a similar thing, "The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel" [6].

Do you agree or disagree that, essentially, there are RS analyses saying both that the US is alone in its support for Israel, and that the US is not alone in its support for Israel? Or do you see the state of RS differently? Levivich (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it differently but I will think a bit about how to explain that, just to say that the two things are not mutually exclusive, the usual diplomatic both things are possible baloney, just because UK has historically supported Israel and the US does not mean they are diplomatically supporting the US support of Israel in every respect today, in fact its pretty obvious that they are not on board currently, while the US appears to be shifting its position as a result of the pressure, new "Biden doctrine in the ME" refers. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is a spinoff article United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war where the sentence "Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire" was added by Makeandtoss on 7 January and remains there. The Intercept context was a roundtable discussion around the idea that certain countries are wholly on board with Israel's war on Gaza although I think that what that means is that they are on board with the idea that Hamas cannot be in charge of Gaza (or a Palestinian state) anymore rather than that they support all the killing, thus the calls for ceasefire/humanitarian pauses/aid shipments etcetera. It is these latter areas where the "isolation" comes in, whether at the UN or outside of it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so I have added the recent sources supporting the proposed statement (and there are others). Two of them speak about how the US is apparently reacting to the situation (Biden doctrine, yada yada). As I said below, I have no objections to apparently (but not really) contradictory material being added, what I object to is that material wrongly replacing the isolated material. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be stuffy about this, but this RfC should be at the bottom of the page, in a separate section, and it needs to not duplicate the RfC on the identical subject that already is at the bottom of the page. This needs to be rectified one way or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not a duplicate, the RFC at the bottom has no RFCbefore because the things in it are not subject of any current dispute, so it is a bad RFC and should be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  RFC's are also supposed to neutrally worded. But this clearly slants the discussion in one way, @Coretheapple:. KlayCax (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  How so? Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with neutrality, but as I mentioned before I have a big problem with there being two gol dang RfCs on the same subject! Dagnabit! Seriously. In deciding how to comment I flipped between the two RfCs and then I just gave up. I think that the world would be done a great service if you could combine the two RfCs into one organic, neat whole. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am quite OK with there being two RFC about different things other than the fact that the other one has no RFCbefore but I have said that already. I'm sure people will be able to figure things out. Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor ClayCax writes The proposed wording also says that the United States and Israel are isolated [in general] That is not the proposed wording. It only speaks about the isolation of the US in its support of Israel and 3 of 4 sources provided by ClayCax are about Israel and not about the US. The only source discussing the US position specifically is the Intercept.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) If we examine the two reverts removing the "isolated" material, it is replaced with contentious material purporting to show the opposite. But these things are not opposites, they are distinct, I do not object to other material being added, I object to the other material replacing what was removed.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweis should be removed

Since my edit was reverted, bringing it here. Mondoweis is listed in WP:RSPSS as "heavily biased", and in a discussion in January, all but one out of 35 editors in question identified Mondoweis as a source that is, at minimum, heavily biased; 14 of those editors involved favored either "generally unreliable" or outright deprecation. Currently, Mondoweiss is cited along with The Intercept (another source listed in RSPSS as having a bias) to refute a New York Times article on alleged sexual assault. While The Intercept piece is more arguable as actual news, the Mondoweiss piece is a straight-up opinion piece, and the site is question is far less credible. I don't see any reason to use such a clearly contentious source here, especially when virtually no editors in such a large discussion were uncomfortable with deeming it as generally reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a 2, that means that it can be used with attribution. RSP does not say "heavily biased", it says "Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." The January discussion is pending a close and I am guessing that it will be a 2 once more. All sources are biased, does not mean they cannot be used, in this case the NYT story has a bunch of well documented problems.

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation.

New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair.

The unravelling of the New York Times’ ‘Hamas rape’ story AJ Listening Post video.

have all commented. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are all credible news outlets. So why not use them instead of Wondoweiss? I'm not asking to remove the content, I'm asking to remove a subpar source. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure but you made it about Mondoweiss (and dissed the Intercept en passant) and not the story. Add the sources (assuming they support the text) and then people are less likely to object to removing one of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I made it about Mondoweiss because that's my objection. Why not add the sources yourself, and remove Wondoweiss (literally what I'm asking for)? Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with making it about Mondo and therefore I do not agree with your edit on that basis either. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What value does an opinion piece from a biased source bring here? Toa Nidhiki05 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A significant viewpoint. Should check WP:NPOV for why we include those. The piece by Mondoweiss has also been reported on by others, including The Intercept. nableezy - 17:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a significant viewpoint. Is the author a recognized expert in the subject? Does the source actually back up the listed claim? Is a source unreliable for news reliable for news when published as an opinion piece? Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you checked those things when removing it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's significant because The Intercept cited it. nableezy - 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

So according to Media Bias/Fact Check https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/, Mondoweiss is a “questionable source” and the reasoning for this is “ Propaganda, Hate Group, Misinformation”. I think it is reasonable to remove Mondoweiss and keep the content that is supported by other reliable sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

MBFC is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And most editors in the discussion above didn't see Mondoweiss as a reliable source for news, either. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Most people in the most recent discussion said it was fine for attributed use, but even if we did not cite Mondoweiss directly it would be perfectly appropriate to include that they first questioned Schwartz's reporting via the Intercept source. nableezy - 18:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends upon how Mondoweiss is used. It tends to be used too much in I/P when better sources are available. IMO it should not be used ever to source negative information in BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If the author is a subject matter expert, that might be possible as well. But this article is not a BLP so it doesn't matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That discussion about Mondoweiss was in January with 14 users.

Since then, a team of high profile journalists of The Intercept did an in-depth inverstigation and gave credit to the fact checking done by Mondoweiss.

The seriousness of Mondoweiss's work debunking NYTimess claims which none of mainstream corporate media did; was analysed and re-used by The intercept and Democracy Now.

Mondoweiss can be used as a source, it has not been depreciated. Deblinis (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A pro-israeli narrative called Hasbara

A pro-israeli narrative called Hasbara aimed for western media, as they say to tone down important or annoying facts perceived as thorns in the israeli presentation, to project a favorable story telling, is teached and orchestrated to israeli wikipedia users who are pro-israeli settlers: as the Guardian had reported it as soon as 2010.the Guardian - "Wikipedia editing courseslaunched by Zionist groups" Attempts to silence independent sources like Mondoweiss and Counterpunch which do a valable and necessary fact-checking of content advanced by mainstream corporate media, has been on but as these sources are not depreciated, these sources can be included and credited. They find facts that are backed up by The intercept and Democracy Now - Deblinis (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Both sides have done that sort of thing, but yes the Israeli side is better organized and been favored in the West. Though things like 'The Hamas run health ministry' are starting to get toned down now. NadVolum (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, you'll see that it explicitly prohibits the following (my highlighting)

Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content, or hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content. This includes but is not limited to:

• The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation
• Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources and altering the correct way of composing editorial content)
• Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs
• The use of symbols, images, categories, tags or other kinds of content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize.

So, apparently it is not possible for editors to engineer content to favor their preferred narrative without violating the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. Oddly, this behavior has become somewhat normalized in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Any instances in mind, would you point some diffs that have been problematic ? @Sean.hoyland:. - Deblinis (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Countless instances in mind going back over a decade, but citing individual instances is not useful in my view because my point was about broad patterns, our biases affecting our editing becoming normalized rather than individual instances of problematic policy non-compliance. In principal, it should be difficult to make reliable statements about an editor's personal opinions on the Israeli-Palestine conflict by looking at their edits. In practice, it's easy. That's what I meant by editing behaviors that 'favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view' becoming normalized. It seems to be seen as inevitable and acceptable, an inherent and perhaps beneficial part of the system, despite the possibility that it is the root of a lot of problems and does not appear to be consistent with the code of conduct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Fifth war

@AirshipJungleman29: Per WP:LEDE: lede is a summary of body. It is notable to mention that this war is the fifth war since 2008. Can you explain why you removed this important piece of information from the opening paragraph? [7] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I restored a version of it, since it is clearly relevant info. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss and Selfstudier: if it is "clearly relevant info"/"notable to mention", why is it not mentioned in the body? If it has not been given significant prominence in WP:RS to be mentioned in the body, why are you mentioning it in the first paragraph? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: It is mentioned in the body: "Israel has been involved in numerous military confrontations with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza" and "The most significant prior escalations occurred in 2008-2009 and 2014, which respectively resulted in thousands of deaths (mostly Palestinian) and incurred Israeli ground invasions".

It is also mentioned by RS: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] to cite a few.

Guideline relating to opening paragraph is MOS:OPEN: "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."

Of course, we don't want readers to think that history started on 7 October.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say in the body "the fifth war since 2008" Makeandtoss? In what world do you get the number five (5) from "Israel has been involved in numerous military confrontations with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza" and "The most significant prior escalations occurred in 2008-2009 and 2014, which respectively resulted in thousands of deaths (mostly Palestinian) and incurred Israeli ground invasions"? Why not seventy-eight? Why not two? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility to be honest. Lede obviously follows the body, but this could have been solved by an explicit addition to the body, and not its removal from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added it to the body together with a couple of refs, more if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

But now that has been removed with excuse "redundant; background is chronological. Prior Israel-Hamas wars are discussed later." So why not move it to there instead of reverting? Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: Please keep.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Yeah I think it's fine to keep. There was a pattern and history of wars between Hamas and Israel of which October 7th was ultimately the climax. Seems relevant to lead. JDiala (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Militant deaths

Twice now editors have changed An estimated 6,000-12,000 Palestinian militants have been killed during the conflict to An estimated 6,000 Palestinian militants have been killed during the conflict, though Israel claims to have killed up to 12,000. This doesn't reflect the source, which says A Hamas official based in Qatar told Reuters that the group estimated it had lost 6,000 fighters during the four-month-old conflict, half the 12,000 Israel says it has killed. - there is no basis to present the Hamas figure as more reliable than the Israeli one.

Instead, we should present them both neutrally, with Hamas' claim as the lower bound and Israel's as the upper bound. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the change proposed assuming the same is done for the IDF casualty figures. In other words, the Hamas claim that 1,600 IDF soldiers have been killed should be in the lede too. JDiala (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How do sources present the Israeli claims of soldier casualties vs Hamas' claims? Do they mention both? Do they present them both with the same level of credulity? BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can ask you the same thing. How do sources present the Hamas claims of Hamas casualties vs Israeli claims of Hamas casualties? Do they mention both? Do they present them both with the same level of credulity? JDiala (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already answered that, with the quote I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I think contentious casualty statistics should be excluded altogether in the lede. These include IDF soldiers dead and Hamas militants dead. This is also done for the Russian invasion of Ukraine article where disputed numbers are not in lede. Non-contentious numbers like 30,000 dead in Gaza overall, or ~1,200 killed on October 7th, should stay. JDiala (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the IDF soldier dead is not actually contentious, although I welcome sources proving otherwise - and while the number of Hamas militants dead is unclear, it is worth including the range to give the full image to readers. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hamas gave a separate estimate which our own infobox acknowledges. See this. In my view, if one belligerent to the conflict significantly disputes a figure, and there are no independent sources for that figure except the other belligerent, it's best to err towards not including the figure in the lead. If we have sentences like "Israel claims X people died; Hamas claims Y people died" the lead gets clunky. Follow norm established in Russian invasion of Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about Hamas’s figures? I’ve struggled to find any that even mention them. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-toll-thus-far-falls-short-of-israels-war-aims-u-s-says-d1c43164 Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Then 12/6 here https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-12000-hamas-fighters-killed-in-gaza-war-double-the-terror-groups-claim/ Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking what reliable sources say about Hamas's figures about Israeli soldier casualties. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to move a sentence to improve clarity

In the 'Background' section, the last sentence of the first paragraph feels out of place. Hamas is discussed, but Hamas is not introduced until the next paragraph. I suggest we move this sentence so that it's the new second sentence of the third paragraph for that section. Specifically, in the section 'Background', it currently reads:

"...Following the failure of the subsequent peace talks at the Camp David Summits in 2000, violence once again escalated during the Second Intifada, which ended with the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit and Israel's military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and subsequent blockade. There have been five wars between Israel and Hamas in 2008-9, 2012, 2014, 2021 as well as in 2023.

Hamas, an Islamist militant group, won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election and a subsequent battle in the Gaza Strip between it and Fatah, which led to Hamas taking over governance of Gaza, and further escalating tensions with Israel..."

I suggest we move the bold sentence to be in this part of the same section:

"...The Palestinian Authority has not held national elections since 2006.

Since the imposition of the blockade, Israel has been involved in numerous military confrontations with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza. There have been five wars between Israel and Hamas in 2008-9, 2012, 2014, 2021 as well as in 2023. Hamas's tactics included tunnel warfare and firing rockets into Israeli territory, whereas Israel generally conducted targeted airstrikes in Gaza aiming to minimize the militant threat...."

Please let me know what you think. Brom20110101 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Or, hmmm, maybe I'll just make the change. It seems straightforward, and nothing is added to or deleted from the article. Brom20110101 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Israel generally conducted targeted airstrikes in Gaza aiming to minimize the militant threat" why was this apologia included? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Irregularities in Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry death tallies

Recent article provides statistical analysis that calls into question the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry death tallies. This is something to flag for now. I would suggest to take a wait and see approach if there are responses that appear in the coming days. If there are additional sources, I suppose it might be useful to abbreviate the findings and add as a note in the various linked articles. See https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Taken together, Hamas is reporting not only that 70% of casualties are women and children but also that 20% are fighters. This is not possible unless Israel is somehow not killing noncombatant men, or else Hamas is claiming that almost all the men in Gaza are Hamas fighters. That's a surprisingly compelling argument. BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Long debunked by The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical scientific journal, one of the oldest in the world and the world's highest-impact academic journals [13]. The Tablet, a largely unknown conservative magazine, is as irrelevant as it can be on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

1) I think the two articles are dealing with two different questions. The Lancet article wants to judge death toll inflation while the Tablet article points out internal irregularities that raise questions (the author offers different ways to explain it, and does not definitively argue inflation).

2) You say it is "long debunked" when the Lancet article was published in Dec 2023, the Tablet article in March 2024. It would appear that the Tablet article author is aware of the various arguments that seek to rely on Hamas or UNWRA data and they still propose a challenge that should be considered.

3) In any event, I'm flagging this for now but I argue to wait and see if other researchers chime in before adding anything concrete. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death here several times before and at noticeboard, conclusion by sources that GHM has been reliable in the past and still is, if anything their counts are understated. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no one is going to take this unknown conservative magazine any seriously. All RS are reporting the same numbers from the health ministry. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The simple explanation for most of it is that the figures fromthe health ministry are reecorded deaths - not total actual deaths. That's why the Hamas militant deaths don't fit into the totals properly. And I'm pretty certain that the estimate of 10,000 unrecorded deaths under the rubble and elsewhere is a big underestimate. The graph of reported deaths is for the very short period 26 October to 10th November and would reflect more the people being reported and then their identity details being entered into the system. Any anomalies could easily be explained by data entry and checking working through different lists each day. If they'd wanted to make up deaths they'd have kept up the rate but if you look over a longer period the death rate has gone down a little. Don't you think that something put out on March 7th could have covered a longer period?

An even simpler explanation is that it is Israeli propaganda trying to downplay the rate of death of civilians. No you don't drop unguided bombs in the middle of cities and magically get a near 1:1 of militants versus civilians killed. NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way in their 'extremely regular' graph at the top they say the range per day is 270 plus or minus 15%, i.e. 229 to 310 The actual range is 196 to 341. I believe they meant the standard deviation which is 42. If deaths were Poisson distributed we'd expect a standard deviation of about 17, so the rate is by no means uniform. They simply are wrong and made up the graph to minimise the difference by comparing the numbers to the thousands already dead. NadVolum (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That was written by a professor of statistics! He can't have written it without knowing how very badly wrong it all was. Paraphrasing him, the evidence is in his own poorly fabricated figures. NadVolum (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. What makes you say that the graph is incorrect?

The trend indeed looks suspicious (consider graphs for other conflicts here and here, though they are not shown cumulatively).

When we have different opinions we should mention them according to their prominence. For now it deserves a brief mention, if in future it gets traction or is debunked, we will adjust the text accordingly. Alaexis_¿question? 17:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a minority view of one, doesn't deserve a mention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In that 2014 graph as you say it is not cumulative. Also the figures do vary widely as I show above. Also one should expect much greater differences with smaller figures. But probably more important than all that is if you look at Israeli deaths it looks like there is a big retaliation after them. In the current conflict they are just dumping massive numbers of bombs every day, there are not lulls and retaliations like in 2014. NadVolum (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This is unacademic bunk. If the author had wanted to do a proper statistical review, they would have done so in peer-reviewed fashion in a scholarly outlet, like the Lancet. Instead, we have what is essentially an opinion piece doing the un-scholarly act of dressing up data to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Iskandar323’s point here. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed academic journal, and the Tablet is not. I am not saying that the Tablet publication is wrong, but a peer-reviewed scientific journal publication usually goes through several rounds of scrutiny by academic reviewers who give feedback based on what is known in a current body of research (of course, new findings could always change conclusions or challenge precursory research). If these findings get published in a scientific journal, I think the findings could be used. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can find a different reliable source that is counting deaths this argument is moot. This is the source that is used by media when citing death figures. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The piece is of little relevance. We have had multiple discussions where we discussed a myriad of sources in order to establish consensus on the reliability of Hamas numbers. I do not believe this single source, which is a non-peer-reviewed statistical analysis in a partisan source TabletMag, is sufficient to shift our consensus. The conclusions reached by the piece are also specious to say the least. The author writes that "the total civilian casualty count is likely to be extremely overstated" when none of the evidence he has provided is indicative of this fact. An equally plausible explanation is that the destruction of health infrastructure, the pace of the war, and possibly the difficulty of the Hamas government collecting dead Palestinian bodies in Israeli-controlled areas, has impeded the ability of the Health Ministry to count the number of dead correctly. This would actually an indicate in underestimate in the number of dead. This explanation would also be consistent with the fact that Hamas numbers have historically been accurate, which the author of the article concedes. Finally, it is important to note that Israel and the US have given roughly similar estimates for the Gazan casualties and the ratio of civilians in the current war. In early December, an Israeli official stated 5,000 dead militants with a 2:1 ratio of civilians-militants, which wasn't too far off from the Hamas estimate at the time. Lloyd Austin has admitted 25,000 women and children dead recently, also in line with Hamas' numbers. JDiala (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We reflect what is in the reliable sources. We don't establish a "party line" and stick to it like glue regardless of whatever counterbalancing evidence comes in. This is an article by a statistical expert and it deserves a mention., Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have some basic misunderstandings about how the site works. I would suggest reading WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. JDiala (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not carved in granite. We have to take into consideration evidence to the contrary of whatever the consensus may be. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and my assessment is that the "evidence to the contrary" is not adequate to shift consensus. Feel free to engage with the arguments made instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING. JDiala (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh please. This is not complicated. An expert opinion questions the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry's numbers. There is no valid reason to exclude it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, you don't understand how this site works at a basic level. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. This is embarrassing. You really need to read the basic policies before getting all snarky on talk pages. JDiala (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the opinion is masquerading as a qualified statistical analysis, when it is anything but – it is unqualified by want of a scholarly publishing platform. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The only ongoing debate is about how big the undercount is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Wyner is hardly a dispassionate statistician, see [14]. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

His opinion on an antisemitism definition discredits his expert statistical analysis? Come on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

like the rag he wrote it in Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How about his saying the hockey stick in climate change was caused by cherrypicking the data? [15] NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, he's on the side of climate change denial? Sounds like a great statistician. Consistently WP:FRINGE then. Glad we sorted that one out. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This is no consensus to ignore expert opinions contrary to what are produced by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, and your hatred of the publication in which it is published is neither here nor there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Off to RSN, ask whether Tablet is reliable for some statement you would like added to this article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:RELIABLE, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Tablet is a right-wing pro-Israel source. The claims made in the article are provocative, fringe, not peer-reviewed and not shared by any other reliable sources. The conclusions reached by the article are also dubious as I've discussed. This is adequate to exclude. JDiala (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

His record on climate change doesn't inspire confidence in his statistics either. NadVolum (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel has now talked about these statistics:

"Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says at least 30,878 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7, when thousands of Hamas-led terrorists launched a murderous rampage across southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and seizing 253 hostages. Hamas’s figures cannot be verified, do not differentiate between combatants and civilians, and include some 13,000 Hamas terrorists Israel says it has killed in battle since October. Israel also says it killed some 1,000 gunmen inside Israel on October 7."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-hamas-toughening-demands-for-hostage-deal-seeks-ramadan-escalation/

Times of Israel falls under reliable source on wikipedia and is cited numerous times in this article. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That statement is making different points. It is also nonsensical. The figures (health ministry's, not Hamas') do not differentiate between combatants and non-combatants because it's ... err ... a health body, so it just records patient information. If I go to a hospital, I don't get asked about my profession. This is abysmal journalism. Who says the figures include 13,000 fighters? Does the article say? What's the source? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I am confused by your questions. The article clearly states that Hamas-run Health Ministry does not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, a very important note. Further, Israel says they have killed 13k fighters. This is also important to consider. This 13k can be part of the 30k Hamas-run Health Ministry claims. TOI is a reliable source by all measure, and this article ought to be included, regardless of your personal feelings. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Also having recently a hospital visit, I was asked about my profession. I am not sure if being part of an antisemitic designated terror organization is a profession, though. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the 13k Israel number is part of the 30k Gaza Ministry figure. The first comes from a regime currently pumping out propaganda; the later comes from a health body that the Lancet testifies as reliable, and which the Israeli military itself references as a benchmark for its modelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Hamas not a regime currently pushing out propaganda? It is still important to note two things in this article 1) The death toll does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas & co terrorists who were killed trying to murder Israelis (Jews and Palestinian/Arab Israelis) and 2) the 13k+ number could be a part of this 30k, par the reliable source of TOI, which, again, is numerously cited as reliable in this article already. Finally, the Lancet article is talking about no evidence of INFLATED numbers (aka the Hamas run health ministry's death toll); it does not talk about distinguishing between armed terrorists and civilians, and how many of the 30k include the 13k dead terrorists. Very important. Consequently, I suggest: 1) Including the Lancet report there is no evidence of inflation 2) TOI's important note that the death toll does not distinguish between civilians and armed terrorists 3) TOI's suggestion that Israel's claimed 13k kills of armed terrorists may be part of the 30k death toll. For improving and balancing this article. I also took a look at The Lancet's wikipedia page and saw they have published from doctors who "are apparently sympathetic to the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard." Along with them publishing fabricated stories they were forced to retract after intense pressure - one they did not fully retract, it seems, was pushing the horrible US lab origin conspiracy theory nonsense.

SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason for these numbers are still not clearly attributed, other that nobody cares. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? I don't undersand. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead, including the infobox, contain GHM casualty numbers, unattributed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They are reliable figures. The main problem with them is that they are recorded deaths rather than actual deaths. The unrecorded deaths include those under the rubble or which can't be retrieved because of sniper fire or buried without informing the authorities. Plus those whose bodies have been taken back to Israel and stuck in freezers or a cemetery of numbers which would cut the number of recorded male deaths down by some unknown but possibly quite large amount. It really should be noted that they are recorded numbers rather than actual numbers, that article completely ignores that and it can lead to silly reasoning like in the article. Except the person who wrote it should know about that and did it anyway. NadVolum (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that these figures need to be attributed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They are cited. They are in Wikivoice because they are not disputed by reliable sources. Even the IDF has admitted that they use them internally. Exactly why do they need to be attributed? NadVolum (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is an important step of any investigation. Obviously other evidence confirms mass daath in Gaza. The U.N. report on the mass rape committed by Hamas terrorists (which we all knew anyway) noted that fuller atttribution in a full fledged investigation will be needed. Attribution will be the next step for the Gaza figures. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation is what is used in Wikipedia for saying where something came from. Attribution would be to state a fact as opinion, see WP:WIKIVOICE "Avoid stating facts as opinions". NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. My head went somewhere else ("attribution" in criminal investigations.) SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There was one thing the article pointed out that was a little interesting and that was the variation between women men and children on different days. He seemed to be making the assumption deaths would be entered into the database as they came in. My reading is that the health ministry was probably analysing classifying and checking the deaths before entering them, and part of that involved separating them as women children and men - and then entering the separate groups. And the whole process took a couple of days before someone added the group figures to the totals. Subtracting a number of men would then mean they added a group by mistake twice somehow. That would mean someone is totting up figures in a separate speadsheet probably rather than querying a database. Or perhaps they don't even have a central database! I guess it wouldn't have lasted long in the war. A journalist asking how they actually do the job would make things clearer. Some idea of how they actually do the tallies is what's needed before attempting to make any analysis like in that article. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

After Biden falsely claimed that the figures were in doubt, they produced a list, including an ID number. The casualties were ~7000 then and they were releasing updates every few hours. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

See RSN Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The article far worse than I thought from other evidence there. By the way I was just reading [16] where it said about October last year that of the deaths Airwar had found only 62% had been recorded by the health ministry! It'll be far worse than that now with the breakdown, that means that at a minimum about 31,000/0.62 = 50,000 people are dead by now and my estimate of as much as 20,000 missing may actually be a lower rather than an upper estimate! That's just awful! NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty solid consensus that this isn’t usable for the claim made, as an exceptional claim made, using cherry picked data that misrepresents the actual complete dataset, and not an exceptional source. nableezy - 01:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Count me in on the view of cherry-picking that renders this unusable. starship.paint (RUN) 12:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede 2

@KlayCax: Please self-revert, not only due to the disingenuous edit summaries. [17] If WP has determined the Flour massacre is a common name, why have you readded quotes? Definition of a massacre is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people", so why have you replaced "killed" with "deaths"? Why did you remove protests from the international reactions paragraph, and reordered it to seem as if Israel had garnered more support than backlash? And why did you add an irrelevant statement by Biden? All of this just seems to be objectively inappropriate. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people were editing at once, @Makeandtoss:. That got reverted through an edit conflict. I temporarily reverted it for now.

• I started editing before your edit on 13:49, 12 March 2024. Because of an edit conflict, when I submitted the edit, the second paragraph of the lead was taken from the the version by Tobby72.
• Netanyahu's opposition to a two-state solution (without "Israeli sovereignty") is notable enough for inclusion in the lead.
• The "red line" comment from President Biden of the United States has received immense, worldwide attention. I wouldn't say that it's merely an off-the-cuff statement.
• In terms of military capacity, Israel has received significantly more support than opposition, as it has the present de facto support of the world's only superpower and several great powers. (Whatever their criticisms of Israeli policies.)
• I moved the protests section to the above paragraph as a stylistic decision. It seems to me to follow more naturally after A United Nations resolution calling for a humanitarian pause passed on 15 November than significant international repercussions. I think either position is fine. I don't think any of that means that "Israel has garnered more support than backlash".
• Germany's and the United Kingdom's diplomatic and military support of Israel is notable enough to merit inclusion. Their positions have also received outrage in the Arabic and Islamic world. They've also played key roles in cases such as South Africa v. Israel. I can understand the arguments for and against including just the U.S. vs. including the U.K. and Germany as well, however. I think the latter is probably a bit more informative. KlayCax (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not this again. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to AJ, US supplied 68 percent of Israel’s weapons imports between 2013 and 2022 (likely higher currently with all the recent US approvals). Then 28% Germany (*10, 2023 over 22), doesn't leave much room for anybody else, UK would be next but only $600mm since 2015. Evidence for current Germany/UK diplomatic support for Israeli policies in general is weak.

Bibi opposition to Pal state is not new, the public arguing with Biden over this and other things (referred to collectively as "the day after") is more of a story but is more after the war not about the war, cover at Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war. We will perhaps find out how much of a red line Rafah is if Bibi carries out his threat or not. Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/12/israels-war-on-gaza-live-2000-medical-staff-starving-in-north-ministry Israel should not ‘smash’ into Rafah without plan: White House

White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters that US President Joe Biden would not support an Israeli invasion of Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city, without a clear plan to protect the more than one million displaced Palestinians currently sheltering there

That doesn't sound like a red line, it sounds like OK if you have a plan. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

White House Denies Biden Has Set ‘Red Lines’ for Israel-Hamas War in Gaza Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The initial phrasing was fine. The current sentence you have is awkwardly phrased, and it doesn't flow well with the rest of the paragraph. The usage of quotes in this context doesn't lessen the implication that it was actually a massacre, and many pro-Palestinians sources (e.g., Mondoweiss) also use quotes. It's more a general thing that when you have a particular idiosyncratic name given to a particular event (in this case "Flour massacre") that's not yet well-established or idiomatic in the English language, and you're introducing that for the first time in a particular body of writing, you're sort of just supposed to use quotes to signal to the reader that this is a given name to a particular event. I'm not really sure how else to explain it; this is kind of obvious to native English speakers. JDiala (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a common name per WP so no need for quotations. But there's another problem, I am not sure how talking about the Flour massacre would be appropriate in the lede without mentioning one of the atrocities on 7 October, namely the Supernova massacre. It should be both or neither, in my opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we should just remove this. In another thread I actually argued for keeping it but I've changed my mind now. It's a bit out of place and the paragraph doesn't flow well. And yes, it is probably insufficiently important to include in the lead. It's one of many alleged war crimes throughout the war. I've made a BOLD decision to remove myself. If anyone has thoughts, feel free to discuss below. JDiala (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

JDiala's changes

@JDiala: Opening a discussion here so that you can discuss your proposed changes away from the status quo (1, 2) rather than directly re-implementing them.

For the first edit, my opinion is that it is WP:RECENTISM to focus on one massacre, given that we don't directly mention the dozen that were committed at the start of the war by Hamas - coverage of this one, like all the others, should be left to the body.

For the second edit, the change in procedure causing the failure appears relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I see that I misunderstood JDiala's first edit. My objection isn't to the terminology chosen but the inclusion at all, for the reason I gave above. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding: "we don't directly mention the dozen [massacres] that were committed at the start of the war by Hamas", we do mention these massacres when the second paragraph says: "During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 253 Israelis and foreigners were taken captive to the Gaza Strip."

Though maybe this could be better phrased as "During this attack, 1,139 people were killed, including 373 [soldiers and] security personnel as well as 766 civilians who were targeted in a series of massacres, and 253 Israelis and foreign nationals, mostly civilians, were taken captive to the Gaza Strip."

Not sure if there's a relevant article that "a series of massacres" could link to but that would be ideal it seems to me. I'm not that familiar with the details here but this is a suggestion. I think it's due to give more emphasize to the massacres/atrocities committed on Oct 7th as in done in my proposed version.

Regarding the second edit I'm inclined to agree with JDiala though I'm not familiar with the details. If the idea about why the UN vote failed is worth mentioning, then we can mention it in wikivoice or attribute it to a more reliable source, such as a respected independent observer, rather than simply presenting the opinion of an Israeli government official.

I'm a little over my head here though so please take this all with a grain of salt. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

For the first one, I would call that an indirect reference - the same way we indirectly reference the Flour Massacre when we say More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza during the conflict, including over 12,300 children and 8,400 women.

For the second one, how about we reword it to say A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed to achieve the two-thirds majority requirement set in place for the vote, with 87 votes in favor, 58 votes against, 32 abstentions and 16 non-votes? Allows us to include that the requirement normally isn't in place, but doesn't draw conclusion about why. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Second edit seems much improved. No further comment regarding first edit for now. Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

For the first edit, we do mention the October 7th attack. We don't call it a massacre because it wasn't a massacre. It was a military operation, as reflected by article name 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (attack not massacre). Individual events during October 7th (like the Be'eri massacre) are called massacres but this is undue for this article which is pertaining to the war broadly (we don't need to go into detail for October 7th). In the main article for October 7th, the word "massacre" is used plenty including in the lead. The focus of this article should be on Gaza and rightly so since the war has been inside Gaza for nearly the entire time. It seems to me broadly unbalanced that charged language ("massacre") is used in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel to slander Hamas, but not in this article to criticize Israel. The flour massacre was the most notable individual event in Gaza since the war began, and it was a clear-cut war crime, so it should be in the lead. For the second edit, the change in procedure is an allegation made by the Israeli ambassador who is using loaded language like "hijacked" so he clearly seems biased. We're giving this ambassador's opinion undue weight given he's clearly non-neutral. There's no proof that changes in procedure like this are somehow unusual as is being implied. Furthermore given that this article is about the current war, going in-depth about the procedural specifics of a particular UN vote talking about labelling Hamas a terrorist organization six years ago seems strange. JDiala (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

For the first edit: Individual events during October 7th (like the Be'eri massacre) are called massacres but this is undue for this article which is pertaining to the war broadly (we don't need to go into detail for October 7th). I agree - and the same is true for individual events during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present).

For the second edit: the change in procedure is an allegation made by the Israeli ambassador who is using loaded language like "hijacked" so he clearly seems biased That for the readers to determine, and not relevant to whether or not it should be included. In addition, I believe the reasons why Hamas is not termed a terrorist organization by the UN is relevant to this article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that. The symmetry isn't there. This war taken as a whole focuses chiefly on Gaza. This article taken as a whole focuses chiefly on Gaza. It thus makes sense to focus on events in Gaza. There is nothing unreasonable in this. There is already extraordinarily undue emphasis in general in the article on Hamas' alleged crimes on October 7th. JDiala (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it is for us to determine. We can make judgements that inclusion or focus on certain viewpoints unduly biases the article. This is literally the entire point of WP:NPOV. This is our job. In this case, the Israeli ambassador is presenting a clearly biased, one-sided perspective on the operational procedures for a particular UN vote. He is alleging a "hijacking" without presenting any substantiation for this strong claim. We cannot take him at face value. It is unencyclopedic. To your second point, "the reasons why Hamas is not termed a terrorist organization by the UN" is (i) in fact not relevant to the article, and (ii) has nothing to do with the UN vote, which was a non-binding vote and didn't pertain to formally designating Hamas as a terrorist organization. JDiala (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with JDiala. Information about why Hamas is not considered a terrorist organisation by the UN is irrelevant to this article. Similarly, we don't debate why Kurdistan Workers Party is not considered a terrorist organisation by the UN in articles about Turkey-KWP relations; in fact, we don't speculate about it even in the main article Kurdistan Workers Party. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Update to this --- I've changed my mind on one of the issues and now believe that the flour massacre (and any massacre) should be removed from the lead. There are many war crimes throughout the war and I do not think any individual one deserves to be in the lead. I have done this per a BOLD move since most editors I've interacted with this about seem to agree. JDiala (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of entire subsection

I propose the entire section "Events->Reported 7 October atrocities" be deleted. Most of these allegations are debunked (as the section itself explains). They're more appropriate for the main article on 7 October. Alleged atrocities are also already discussed in the "war crimes" section.

Most importantly, I think the article length needs to be reduced, and this is a good candidate section to go first. JDiala (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Houthi

@Ghazaalch: Why did you restore the Houthi quote to the lede? It is most certainly excessive there. [18] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Readers need to know why the Houthis attack merchant ships and what this has to do with the Gaza war.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: @Ghazaalch: I think it is not a good idea to include a full quote, or to fully remove it. Can we find a middle ground solution where this information is present in a very concise way? Ex: "Houthis have stated they will not stop until Israel ceases its war in Gaza and allows aid in." Reminder: lede is a summary of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Except that Houthis state that Israel's "crimes" or "horrific massacres" must stop.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I summarizied the Houthi quote as proposed by Makeandtoss, but you deleted it in this edit. Can you explain why? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I overlooked the Houthi aspect; I was objecting to the rest of that edit. BilledMammal (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"crimes" thing is just an awkward way of saying Israel stop its [genocidal] war. Let's drop the quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The new version is unclear whether we are saying in wikivoice that the war is genocidal or saying that the Houthi’s say it is - we need "genocidal" to be in quotes. BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime:, can you explain why you silently deleted the sentence "Houthis have stated they will not stop until Israel ends its operations in Gaza and aid is allowed in."?Ghazaalch (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This page isn't principally about the Houthis so such a sentence belongs not in the lede, but either in the appropriate section of the body or at Red Sea crisis. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede 3

"the alleged "Judaization" of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners."

The word Judaization doesn't appear in the body of the article, neither in the in-line citations, namely Al-Jazeera, which reported "desecration" not "Judaization". As for the only in-line citation where this claim appears is in the "Cresecent International" source, which is a text of a speech; i.e. a primary source. In addition to replacing "Judaization" with "desecration", the word "alleged" should be removed, since the sentence clearly states that this is what Hamas said and is also used in quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, truthfully I feel we should probably avoid both and go for less emotive paraphrasing in the lead. I suspect we could easily find additional sourcing for "Judaization" or the like but to quote something like that in the lead would require that it be used in a lot of sources; and right now there's plenty that describe it in different ways, eg. [19] says Police raids on the mosque in 2022 and 2023 were cited by Hamas as a reason for the 7 October attack, which it named “operation al-Aqsa flood”, [20] says Hamas regularly cites protecting al-Aqsa as a justification for its attacks, including the Oct. 7 raid.... Possibly it could be attributed further with what it said were threats to..., though, which doesn't carry the problems of WP:ALLEGED, though it is a bit more wordy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of justifications by Hamas regarding Aqsa: rejection of Israeli sovereignty over it since it is in occupied East Jerusalem; rejection of Israeli attempts to limit number of worshippers or their visiting times; rejection of Israel allowing Jewish prayer there in violation of the status quo; rejection of Israeli police's brutal raids on the mosque in recent years; rejection of Jewish extremists rhetoric about building the third temple there; etc.. How to summarize all of this is up to RS. WP has phrased it: "Hamas regularly cites protecting al-Aqsa as a justification for its attacks". [21]. We can just simply say protecting in quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but any brief one or two-word quotes could be seen as scare quotes - whether it's "Judaization" "desecration", the appearance of a word like that in quotes gives the impression that it's being handled with tongs, casting overt doubt on it. And, at the same time, as WP:QUOTEFARM advises, quotes can be dangerous because they can slip non-neutral stuff into the article (particularly a problem in the lead, where it's hard to give them full context.) I think for the lead a paraphrase is best, since the purpose of the lead is to provide a summary. If it's necessary to quote Hamas' stated reasons in their own words, that can be done in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And how can that be done in the minimal amount of words (ideally max three) given that this is a very minor issue in the article of a war. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I am satisfied with the current wording. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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. [22] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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". is an Israeli thing, this doesn't have its place on the article.

Deblinis (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Actually as only 1RR is allowed per 24H, there wasn't any mistake this time. Deblinis (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Self revert. Done. Deblinis (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

References

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.

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  It is not in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question

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

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)

Since there were no objections, I made the change: [23]. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Per Israel & Per Hamas Casualties

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)

Survey (Infobox “Per”)

• Option 1 – Yes, this is standard practice in war articles, when one side directly involved in the conflict state a casualty number or estimate. Examples of this include Siege of Mariupol ("Per Russia" / "Per Ukraine"), Battle of Kherson ("Per Ukraine"), United States invasion of Panama ("Per" with list), 2021 Taliban offensive ("Afghan government claim" / "Afghan official figure"). Even this conflict has an article with the standard layout, Siege of Khan Yunis ("Per Israel" / "Per Hamas") (perm link in case it is removed mid-discussion). With that, I have to say the standard layout and idea should be continued for this article. Either way, it either needs to be said to keep/add them for the articles OR it needs to be standard that no Israel-Hamas war articles have it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Don't we have templates for this already? Template:Israel–Hamas war casualties and Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox

  This article has it (i.e. the parent) and one other child article does. Majority of child articles do not, and I was told there this topic had been "discussed extensively", which seemed odd, given the inconsistency in the parent/child articles. By "child articles" I mean like Bombing of the Gaza Strip, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Battle of Beit Hanoun, ect... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  If I was told mistakenly that this was either not discussed extensively previously or if this is already the perm standard, I'll cancel the RfC. Just let me know about that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Always attribute But not necessarily Hamas or Israel. It may come from a newspaper or the US or thew Palestinian Authority, and there's been arguments conflating Hamas with the Gaza Health Ministry and trying to subtract figures of one from the other. NadVolum (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I cancelled the RfC. Leaving discussion here, but it can be closed, archived, or whatever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:27, 16 March 2024 (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.

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)

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)

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

see [24]. 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)

I think people know what starvation is. NadVolum (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:UNDUE, but it is MOS:OVERLINK. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Inacurrate as "starvation" hasn't been wikilinked in the lead. Deblinis (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyday words understood by most readers in context are usually not linked BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If the term is ambiguous, that's actually a good reason to link it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)