Talk:Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war

Strong POV and OR in article

I know this article is new, but the POV on it is just through the roof. To take an obvious example: to the best of my knowledge, we still don't know the truth of the "40 beheaded babies". According to the article, it's misinformation. It might very well be, but how do we know? And how come the article focuses so much on that particular point, but no mention of the misinformation campaign claiming there were no beheadings, and that no children were killed, though both are well documented. If the aim of this page is that anyone just adds whatever they think is misinformation, I can foretell a lot of edit warring and POV pushing. If we are to keep it, a much more balanced approach would be needed, with roughly equal sections on misinformation from both sides (unless there is evidence one side produces more misinformation). Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, but ultimately this will require sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is your source: youtu.be/FhUWJrj1Wvk?si=bLHeXyx63oS9PcBf. Journalists were showed real footage of beheading and etc done by Hamas in Israel to fight with the disinformation done by Hamas and other islamists. 89.79.15.76 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to put a section from the main article Decapitations by Hamas here. I dont kn ow why someone put it there 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In the section Allegations of beheadings, there is enough evidence to cast doubt on some of the more wild and outrageous claims of human rights abuses. For while the US President said he had seen the pictures, was not the Whitehouse later forced to backtrack on the claim? Given how dodgy these claims have proven to be, should not people stop banging on about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.210 (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The 40 dead baby allegations where debunked long ago - please see https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/04/03/40-beheaded-babies-the-itinerary-of-a-rumor-at-the-heart-of-the-information-battle-between-israel-and-hamas_6667274_8.html Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Zaka

You have to mention: "יש להדגיש כי בזק"א אחראים רק על פינוי הגופות ולא על זיהויין, עליו אמונים המשטרה והמכון לרפואה משפטית שבאחריות משרד הבריאות."

"It should be emphasized that the ZAKA is only responsible for removing the bodies and not for their identification, which is entrusted to the police and the Institute of Forensic Medicine under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health."

At the past you mentioned something like that ( about the possibility of mistakes ) But it was deleted 2.55.14.11 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/yokra13912477#autoplay 2.55.14.11 (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove the IDF misinformation section

It's so obviously biased and and lacks any neutral POV. And if you're going to mention "IDF misinformation," you need to mention "Hamas misinformation," too. Why doesn't the article mention anything about Hamas literally making up on the spot that the hospital explosion which was from an Islamic Jihad missile was an Israeli bombing, and decided to go with "500 deaths?" Nobody here is questioning how Hamas figures in this war are greatly exaggerated and published literally minutes after an incident, with no way of possibly getting accurate figures beforehand?

Shame on everyone involved in this propaganda article 72.78.76.172 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about removing the whole section but there are certainly a bunch of issues throughout the whole "IDF reliability as a source" section.

For starters, a lot of it has nothing to do with the IDF. Eylon Levy, ZARA volunteers, "Israeli government officials and media outlets" - none of these are IDF representatives. We could broaden the title to something like "Reliability of Israeli sources", but that doesn't seem particularly meaningful.

I think there are other issues as well, but I can start by deleting bits that clearly aren't even topical and go from there. XDanielx (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

:I'd like to emphasize the point that it is totally unfair and obviously prejudicial to include a section on IDF misinformation while omitting a section on Hamas misinformation. Even if everything noted in this article is factual, it is intellectually dishonest and grossly unethical to thoroughly canvas every example of Israeli misinformation and skirt over the countless examples of Hamas misinformation. This is not okay. The section should be removed until an equally exhaustive section covering Hamas misinformation is added. :By portraying a grotesquely lopsided account of misinformation in this war, you reveal a clear bias. More importantly, you give the impression that Israel systematically falsifies reports whereas Hamas propaganda is accidental, if it exists at all. There's literally no mention of Israel taking pains to neither dispute nor substantiate Hamas's slander that Israel bombed Al-Ahli Hospital. Of course, it turned out that an errant (and recklessly fired) Islamic Jihad missile was shown to be the real culprit. While the article mentions the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion, all it can muster on the topic is a minor point about Al Jazeera's contested authorship of a Twitter account that posted a video about it. This is unfair and glaringly incomplete. The Hamas propaganda regarding the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion is just one example of the numerous inaccuracies and outright lies propagated by Hamas, all of which are overlooked in this article. :I propose that at least one of these steps is taken to rectify this article’s unfair treatment of misinformation in the Israeli-Hamas war. :1. Add some kind of caveat to the article acknowledging that it is incomplete and that misinformation by Hamas is not covered. :2. Add an equally exhaustive section on Hamas misinformation. (Preferred) :3. Remove the section on Israeli misinformation. (This should be done if step 2 is not taken) Joshuakoloski (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Non EC editor.

I do agree there's a serious WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT problem here.

(1) seems like an easy short term remedy. It's not a proper solution, but better than leaving major NPOV violations with no remedy. I can add something now.

(2) could make sense, though I wouldn't personally want to commit to the work involved, and we might need a shorter term remedy.

(3) seems like a reasonable solution to me - we don't really need a dedicated IDF section - though it would be a pretty bold change, so perhaps we should at least allow more time for other input. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You are basically having a conversation with two non EC editors that are only permitted to make edit requests (not speeches) on article talk pages. There is nothing to do here unless EC editors want to do something themselves. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is not protected, and there's no rule against non-confirmed users engaging in discussions on a talk page of a protected page, see WP:ATPROT. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is the rule, non EC editors are restricted to making edit requests only. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I stand corrected, didn't realize there were stricter rules here than the usual ECR policies on WP:PP. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Peleio Aquiles: please don't revert this without seeking consensus, engaging the relevant discussion, or even leaving an edit message. This seems like a pretty clear WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT issue, even setting aside any NPOV concerns with some of the content itself. Template:Unbalanced serves to draw attention to this so we can build consensus toward a resolution. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Then seek consensus yourself before imposing the label on article. As is, it was a clear ideological move to invalidate the section, which is against Wikipolicy. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Its purpose isn't to invalidate but to draw attention, so a consensus can be reached about the best resolution. I've been seeking consensus, hence my engagement here.

Do you not agree that there's a balance issue? It's a war with two sides, with plenty of dubious claims from both, such as Hamas' outright denial of the Re'im music festival massacre ("the Palestinian fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers"). Is it balanced to dedicate a length and evergrowing section one side, and none to the other? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Your engagement here has only been with non EC editors and therefore lacks a proper consensus. If there is a balance problem, then add material. There is no rule that says two sides have to "balance" only that we respect NPOV by reflecting sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There is such a rule, it's just WP:BALANCE. A section can be perfectly sourced and still fail NPOV based on weight, balance and structure.

Tagging doesn't require preemptively establishing consensus, although of course if there was a consensus that the section is balanced, then the tag should be removed. Is anyone actually taking the position that the section is balanced, though?

I can try to add some material, but I can't really fix the problem single-handedly. A proper fix should probably involve removing some content too, which I wouldn't want to boldly do without more input from non-involved editors. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE seems to me is what you are aiming for here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation from Hamas isn't a "minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim". Let's take their statement that "fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers" as an example. The most mainstream coverage I can find is Haaretz, which calls it "blatant lies". Even Middle East Eye follows the quote with some contradictory facts. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION is a probably useful guide here too - editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" with the caveat to avoid excessively sampling of isolated incidents, news reports etc. Weight is proportional to the amount of reliably sourced information external to Wikipedia. It's not dependent on current article size or the incompleteness of coverage of other topics in the article. The comment '3. Remove the section on Israeli misinformation. (This should be done if step 2 is not taken)' by the non-EC editor is a good example of how inexperienced editors can get things completely wrong. What is a bit weird about this is that there's no dependency between information about the IDF and information about Hamas. They're independent things that happen to both fit into the article topic. It's not a zero-sum game between A and B for article real estate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree WP:PROPORTION should be the main guiding principle here, and we shouldn't be aiming for some artificial 50-50 proportion; a different ratio may be fine.

Still, I think there's a serious lack of proportionality at the moment. The issue, in my view, isn't just that Hamas misinformation isn't covered, but that that the IDF section is an evergrowing laundry list of related comments or controversies, many with questionable relevance or significance.

For example, the section currently includes four separate quotes (3 in the intro + the Qatari PM) which aren't making any specific misinformation claims, but just vague accusations of Israel not being truthful. Isn't that excessive? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Misinformation_from_Israeli_officials Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Why should we pretend that untruthfulness, untrustworthiness, and the malicious production of fake videos and audio as as propaganda tools are necessarily equally distributed between the parties in this war? One could be much more guilty of all that, and all evidence points to Israel. There's no section on Palestinian militant misinformation even though, as far as I know, nobody ever objected to one being created here. What are all the Palestinian misinformation that is being prevented from being inserted here? If there's none, then I guess I can see why someone with a pro-Israel POV or obsessed with the idea of proportional balance would try to delete whatever content exposes the IDF. Which is however against policy on Wikipedia.

Articles on election campaigns in the West often make sections on right-wing misinformation bigger than left-wing misinformation in recognition that the former is simply a more common phenomenon. The article on disinformation in the Ukraine war likewise makes the Russian section much larger. Why should a false balance be pursued exclusvely here, then? Work on a Hamas section instead of exploiting tags to invalidate properly sourced work by other editors or try to get it removed under false pretenses like you've been doing lately, Daniel. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Again I'm not suggesting some artificial target like a 50-50 proportion. Sometimes the proper balance is different. That doesn't mean we should throw WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE out the window though.

Even ignoring balance, it's just not a good idea to let this section grow as an exhaustive laundry list, with no regard to the strength or significance of each allegation. There needs to be some kind of curation here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Go point by point instead of generalizing. You would have needed to do that anyway if a tag were added. What is it specifically you object to? One by one. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be a lengthy discussion and I'm not sure it's the right thing to focus on right now. Even if each paragraph was perfect in isolation, the overall section would still have a WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE issue. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We are dealing with it below and by editing, don't trouble yourself any further. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm copy-pasting my response at the NPOV noticeboard. I agree that we should look at individual items.

---

The section contains several pretty clear-cut examples of statements made by Israeli officials that turned out to be not true (Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City and the white phosphorus incident), so the section should be kept. Including information in a section called Misinformation is pretty much equivalent to stating it in wikivoice. We should not do it unless we have multiple RS calling something "misinformation" or at least explicitly contradicting the words of Israeli officials. Much of the current content should be removed as it's not described as misinformation by RS, for example:

1. analysis by the BBC found that video released by the Israeli military following the Al-Shifa Hospital siege had been edited [1] - no mention of misinformation so including it here is WP:OR
2. In March 2024, the Israeli army said it had "fired precisely" at individuals who posed a threat to soldiers during the Flour massacre; however, a United Nations team investigating the massacre's aftermath stated there was evidence of heavy shooting of civilians by the IDF. [2] - no mention of misinformation, "heavy shooting" and "precise fire" are not mutually exclusive

etc. etc. Alaexis_¿question? 21:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? You want to hang your hat on the specific use of the word "misinformation", one definition of which is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." Our lead says it is "the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information" so if it fits that description, we're good.

1.Editing video for the media is exactly misinformation/propaganda/misleading etcetera. In fact the whole al-Shifa thing, not just the video editing, was misinformation and propaganda from the getgo and that is all sourced in the relevant articles. See Al-Shifa Hospital siege#Israeli media campaign "France 24 found the video to likely be staged.", "The irony is they might find something and nobody is going to believe them, at this point their credibility is shot." etcetera.

2.Precisely, duh. We have, from the relevant article "A CNN investigation reported that Israel's claims that the incident had begun after 4:30 a.m. local time cast doubt on its version of events, as it had collected and analyzed footage from survivors, including one video showing that gunfire started seven minutes prior. It also reported that the Israeli military's publicized drone footage misses the moment capturing what caused the crowds to disperse, and that Israel had rejected its requests for the full unedited footage." and "Human Rights Watch stated the attack was part of a "decades-long pattern" of Israel using "unlawful, excessive force against Palestinians." Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We should use common sense obviously. If a RS calls a video staged then we can consider it misinformation and include it. However please note that the France24 article is about a different video (the one with the nurse). The BBC article discusses the video of the tunnels and says that it's edited because it wasn't shot in a single take.

Re my second example, at the very least we need to follow the source and clearly state what information was incorrect (e.g., "A CNN investigation cast doubt on the Israeli claims regarding the time when the shooting during the Flour massacre"). Alaexis_¿question? 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information seems questionable, particularly the "unsubstantiated" part. Definitions of misinformation vary (e.g. some say intentional, others not), but I can't find any other definition that says "unsubstantiated" or similar. Should we change it? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change the scope, open a new section to discuss that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

A disclaimer should be added to the start of this article acknowledging that Hamas misinformation is not covered and Israeli misinformation is disproportionately canvassed. Joshuakoloski (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As a non-extendedconfirmed user, Joshuakoloski cannot participate in consensus forming processes. They are limited to making edit requests and providing clarifications if asked to do so. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Layla Moran?

@Peleio Aquiles: you added: "Catholic officials and Member of British Parliament Layla Moran, who maintained contact with refugees in the church, stated, on the contrary, that no Palestinian belligerants were in the area and that the two women had been killed by the Israeli army, who were the ones preventing the refugees from leaving."

I don't see such a statement by Moran mentioned in the sources, only a brief statement that her relatives were in the church. Am I missing something? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You certainly are, which is par for the course with how you've been criticizing my contributions. I will only be able to respond in more depth tomorrow. But notice that the statements are attributed not only to Moran but also to Catholic officials. I do, however, vividly recall from the sources I added after rereading them today that Moran makes clear the people in the church were being tormented by the IDF and not Hamas, and that Hamas was not present in the area. She even accuses the IDF, based on her relatives' testimony, of attacking the church with white phosphorus!

Absolutely baffling that you missed all that and all you got from the sources was that she said nothing other than her relatives were in the church. It's astonishing. It's not clear to me if you're truly this oblivious as a reader or if you're intentionally trying to intimidate other editors into not contributing here by contesting everything they write all the time. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's really no need for personal attacks, just asking for a simple clarification. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is everything Layla Moran said on the siege of the church which directly implicates the IDF just in the Sky News article, which is one of the sources in my most recent contribution here:

After contacting her family today, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesperson said that they have been sheltering at the Catholic church for more than 60 days and that Israeli forces will not allow them to leave.

She also said those sheltering at the church told her that the IDF have used white phosphorus in the compound, and a sniper killed two women who went into the courtyard.

Ms Moran said: "We do not understand why this happening.

"We do not understand why they couldn't have given warning if they were doing it. We do not know what the endgame here is.

"And my ask of the Israeli government is please leave my family alone, but I would also say it makes a mockery of the suggestion that the Israeli army is protecting civilians. They're not.

"From what I'm hearing from these eyewitness accounts, they are targeting them. That is deeply concerning. (...)"

Ms Moran's extended family - a grandmother, her son, his wife and their 11-year-old twins - are Christian Palestinians who she says fled to the Holy Family Church after their home was destroyed in an IDF bombing.

The MP also said "we haven't got a clue" how long her family will be in the complex, and added: "They've been there 60 days, so if there were Hamas fighters there I don't understand why it's taken this long to say anything.

"But there has been no warning, there has been no leaflet drop, there has been no phone call to the father or the priest.

"We know they have his number, because today, they did manage to contact the priest and say that between the hours of 2pm and 4pm this afternoon, they wouldn't shoot at people."

You just missed 99% of everything Moran said, could happen to anyone! Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Where does that state that "no Palestinian belligerants [sic] were in the area"? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said that in a statement "They were shot in cold blood inside the premises of the parish, where there are no belligerents." Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Pope is right, these are only civilians inside this church," she told LBC.

Doing great, Daniel. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation definition

The article seems to present its own unique definition of misinformation: the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information. Definitions vary (especially with regard to intentionality), but the "unsubstantiated" part in particular doesn't seem supported by any other definition I've seen. Any objection to replacing it with a more standard definition? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - minor edit and coverage on internet misinformation campaign by israeli government

In the On Gaza - impersonations section remove the comma after Halala, and add an "and" after "who has reported ties to the Israeli government,"

Also, at the end of the disinformation campaigns section, add:

"Continuing it's history of disinformation campaigns from previous conflicts, the israeli government launched extensive internet misinformation campaigns, often discussed in terms of hasbara. israels ministry of diaspora affairs launched an internet misinformation campaign targeting 128 American congresspersons, predominately Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also focusing on African American congresspersons. The israeli government held discussions with domestic tech leaders to discuss how they could participate in the conflict as "digital soldiers", these discussions generated a $2 million contract with the public relations firm Stoic to launch a disinformation campaign targeting the US. The israeli government historically has funded and generated a wide variety of covert disinformation campaigns under it's ministry of foreign affairs, israel focuses more on it's largest sources of donations, the US and EU, but targets other audiences as well. Themes of the misinformation campaign are targeted at specific audiences. The major theme targeting US audiences was "Your 9/11 is our 9/11", and in the west generally emphasizes the threat of anti-semitism to Jewish people, and the "trope of Arab terrorists", while when targeting Gulf countries the major theme is to focus on local problems, to focus on their own financial problems, conflicts, and wars. One site in the israel-hamas war disinformation campaign focused on the Muslim participation in the slave trade, as well as pushing a fiction that Canadian Muslim citizens were pushing for government adoption of Sharia law. This is believed to have been designed to attempt to undermine empathy and support for Palestinians among Native Americans."

Using these as references, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/israel-targeted-lawmakers-in-disinformation-campaign-00161906 https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4994027/israel-us-online-influence-campaign-gaza

Fanccr (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, more or less. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverts

@Peleio Aquiles: please don't revert without assuming good faith, engaging with the concerns that have been raised, and observing WP:ONUS.

To reiterate the concerns:

• The Al Jazeera quote makes no mention of misinformation. It also appears to have zero secondary coverage, so it seems WP:UNDUE.
• As User:Alaexis pointed out, "fired precisely" does not contradict "large number of gunshot wounds". There's also no mention of misinformation; Al Jazeera's use of "however" expresses some kind of doubt but that doesn't seem concrete enough.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted this too, I don't accept the above arguments. The entire business reeks of IDF deception, including the edited footage, a standard trick, and refusal to supply the full. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you address the specific concerns raised beyond stating that you don't accept them? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's due, because it is clearly misinformation by the IDF and AJ IS secondary coverage. "fired precisely" does not contradict "large number of gunshot wounds" - I think it does, when taken in the overall context, being blithely ignored. In fact I may edit to make this abundantly clear in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be mixing up the two concerns? Al Jazeera is a primary source specifically for the content about the Al Jazeera statement ("Given Israel's unprecedented campaign against journalists ...").

Is there a source that says that says "fired precisely" was false or misleading, or refers to it as misinformation? It seems the closest thing we have is Al Jazeera following it with "however", which doesn't seem sufficient partly since it's just a vague expression of doubt. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have answered you sufficiently. You may not like the answer but it is all I have to say ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

The reports that PM Benjamin Netanyahu did not know about the events on October 7th are not cited, and there is ample evidence that the Israeli government, specifically PM Benjamin Netanyahu, knew of preparations for the rebellion ahead of time. There are ample and diverse sources that debunk these claims:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806634 https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/israeli-military-knew-hamas-planned-211718674.html https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/israel-hamas-attack-knew-over-year-1234906803/ https://www.salon.com/2023/12/05/israeli-officials-knew-of-october-7-a-year-ago--but-didnt-act-new-york-times_partner/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-netanyahu-has-rightfully-been-criticized-for-october-7-failure/ https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4657663-benjamin-netanyahu-failures-by-israel-oct-7-dr-phil-interview/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/06/israel-knew-hamas-attack-oct-7/ Jeszie L (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ER, could you propose a more specific (and uncontroversial) change? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to do this ER or not? If not, mark it not done and set answered to yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Rafah strike content

@Peleio Aquiles: re your edit,

1. Is there a source for Israel shifting explanations?
2. stating that the killing was the result of a secondary explosion resulting from an alleged Hamas weapons stockpile seems imprecise, when the spokesperson mentioned that as "one possibility" being investigated.
3. no evidence of a secondary explosion exists also seems imprecise, the NYT only says that they weren't able to independently find evidence of significant secondary explosions. Not finding evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, especially since they don't appear to have asked the IDF to clarify where the purported evidence was.
4. Is any source calling this misinformation, or stating that there was false or misleading information here? If not, I don't see how we can justify including it.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws to have sourced content removed. We can add "significant" before "secondary", but I doubt that's going to get you satisfied. The NY Times was clear there was no significant secondary explosion in the "DOZENS" of videos it analyzed. The usage of "independently" is meaningless here and adds nothing to what's being conveyed. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you address the particular concerns? The last being most important, if that can't be addressed then the content doesn't belong and the other concerns don't matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources are saying something that that contradicts Israel's story -- there's no evidence of a secondary explosion, and that's what's being claimed in the entry. At the risk of being banned, I will say this: the fact that you blank-deleted the information instead of trying to "improve" it, shows that you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda in your edits. You're removing information you think is embarrassing for Israel. And it's time administration take some action against this. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, it's very interesting that you asked whether there's a source for Israel shifting explanations, instead of asking whether there's proof, since it is clear, from our discussion in the other Talk Page, that you do know Israel shifted explanations, as the other entry documented. Readers who want more in-depth information about the Rafah tent massacre can click on the other entry to get it there. For the purposes of this entry, I think the few lines written are enough. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're referring to. Is there a reliable source that characterizes some Israeli statements as "shifting" or similar language? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If that's true, then you were trying to admit Tel al-Sultan massacre without even reading what was in the entry: On May 27, Israeli officials initially told their American counterparts that shrapnel from their airstrike ignited a nearby fuel tank, creating a large fire. The same day, an Israeli reporter said the explosion was caused by a "Hamas jeep loaded with weapons". Later, the IDF suggested that a militant warehouse containing ammunition or "some other material" in the area caused the fire. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the source attributing "Hamas jeep loaded with weapons" to "the Gazan narrator", not to Israel? I also think that even if Israel was shifting explanations, we would still need a reliable source to say that, per WP:SYNTH. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the additions are problematic, primarily from WP:OR point of view. For example, the whole Flour massacre paragraph was added without any sources that call it misinformation (unless I'm missing something). Alaexis_¿question? 08:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added back a restructured version of the Flour massacre material, clearly belongs. Will probably add back the Rafah strike as well, since it is clear that there were indeed shifting explanations as well the final explanation not holding water. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia?

Get this could be quite meta and on the nose, but should there be a section on the article about Wikipedia? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entries-show-anti-israel-bias-says-wjc

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/383752

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-792808

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-06-25/ty-article/.premium/leading-jewish-groups-rebuke-wikipedias-attack-on-adls-credibility-on-antisemitism/00000190-4f10-da42-a1ba-7f7a12ad0000 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Attacking ADL credibility is not misinfo, that's WP usual procedure for classifying sources. Nor is alleged bias misinfo. Which sources allege that Wikipedia has spread incorrect or misleading info? Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all i have for now. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a little meta, as well as a little misinformed. Bias is not misinformation, and Wikipedia, when edited correctly, only reflects other sources ... so the only misinformation it should contain is the misinformation in other sources, which would be the fault of the other sources not Wikipedia, so the blame game is misdirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What if misinformation is due to bias? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Says who, tho? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps some day in the future, some of the content of those sources will be used by someone as examples of misinformation and disinformation about Wikipedia, due to bias. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

When all you bigshot, superstar editors comment on my threads, I get imposter syndrome. Y'all legends round here and I can't think of a bigger nobody than me! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So the World Jewish Congress says Wikipedia is not neutral and advocates ways to make it neutral. And it starts with the call "We must act now, together, with our unwavering support for Israel". I think I can see a wee problem with taking what they say about Wikipedia at face value? I've no problem all that being included with a straight face and readers can laugh at it if they feel that way inclined! NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As to the ADL, I fully agree with the results of the RfC and am very sorry the ADL has weaponized labelling as antisemitism the way it has. NadVolum (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay I agree a section can be added about Wikipedia. Can't think of anything particular to say about the contents - probably best just to stick in the two topics and summarize what they say. NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If something were to be added, how would it relate to "the distribution of false, inaccurate or otherwise misleading information" per the article scope? Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

They have alleged that Wikipedia is disseminating misleading information and we go by the sources. I know, it is hard to figure out a decent angle that relates to actual misinformation that's why I suggest just a heading and a summary of what they say. Perhaps we can alo in general cover allegations of spreading misinformation even when the information is correct - after all that is also misinformation. Sorry if that is starting to sound like There are unknown unknowns! :-) NadVolum (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

They should also probably be put into Criticism of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry

@MaskedSinger: Just to give you a chance to explain: What makes the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank, a reliable source/worthy of inclusion for casting doubt on the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll figures. More importantly, being doubted by a think tank does not mean the ministry is spreading misinformation when it is approved by other far more neutral organizations like the UN; thus it is frivolous to include this study in this article at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the majority opinion of reliable sources (which WINEP is not) is that GHM is reliable and they are certainly not spreading misinformation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Was this in the GHM section? I have to ask why this section exists at all. Apart from being WP:NOTNEWS content, I don't see a clear assertion of misinformation, or mention of the word misinformation in the sources. They just speak of the Congress ban and the Israeli claim that it's not accurate. Inaccuracy, even if it's accepted, ≠ misinformation, but could be caused by all sorts of things. So the sources don't say there's misinformation, and it can't be deduced, so why is the material here? Seems distinctly WP:COATRACK-ish. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed that section, the only sources alleging wrong info are the US and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Two countries that ironically used to use the same information for their reference: the US state department internally and Israel to verify the collateral damage models of its own military. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. But the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to prohibit the State Department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll in the Israel-Hamas war.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/06/28/House-votes-State-Department-Gaza-death-toll/9491719560088/

This absolutely belongs on this article. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. But the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to prohibit the State Department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll in the Israel-Hamas war So what? The Senate hasn't even approved it, just another silly resolution from US congress. it doesn't even say the numbers are unreliable, duh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the UPI article you cite doesn't call MoH spreading misinformation. You are making an original research here. And I am really concerned that you only restored the part about the US house vote, but left out the reliability approval by the UN part. I wonder why. Also I don't appreciate UPI as a reliable source which is currently under the control of the Unification Church just like the Washington Times, and better source should always be sought after. Anyway this whole section about the Gaza MoH "spreading misinfo" should be removed completely. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Ill remove them. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about misinformation and disinformation, I have no objections to it having the stuff from the Washington Institute though it is fairly low grade trashing of the Gaza Health Ministry data. A much better example I think is the stuff from Professor Wyner alleging the data is faked which has been called "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" by another professor of statistics. NadVolum (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to remove the US House bill from this article? (I have already copied it to the actual Gaza Health Ministry article.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, fits better there, here it just looks WP:POINTy. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sexual assault by Hamas militants on Oct 7

In the Israel credibility section, in the paragraph about Israeli misinformation regarding sexual assaults by Hamas militants, there is no mention of that same UN report confirming that Hamas militants did indeed sexually assault Israeli women in the attack, only mention of the claims discredited by the report, which seems suggestive towards the false claim that all accusations are unfounded. 213.233.104.48 (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The page is specifically about misinformation, and that section specifically about misinformation from Israel. Hence its content.

Also the UN report explicitly did not "confirm" that Hamas militants sexually assaulted or raped Israeli women in the attack. Patten's report, as noted in the Times of London source, was not a full and legal investigation, did not establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not attribute anything to Hamas. The later mandated and legal UN CoR report also was unable to verify allegations of Hamas rape, sexualized torture and genital mutilation, citing obstruction by Israeli authorities. All of this is noted in the relevant page devoted to this topic, unlike this one, which is focused on misinformation.

Note that we also do not include the extensive documentation of Israeli sexual violence, rape, mutilation and sexualized torture of Palestinians on the page, like after the mention of the Al Jazeera report that was misinformation. And we shouldn't, because again the page isn't about that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"False flag" section, and recent pieces in papers of record

The article in its present state claims that "[an] unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that emerged following the October 7 Hamas attack suggests that the Israeli government, specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had prior knowledge of the attack." This is attributed to an October 16, 2023 Forbes article and appears to be true in reference to the claims of Israeli foreknowledge that were being advanced at the time the piece was published (nine days after the attack).

In an apparent "stopped clock" phenomenon, however, there seems to have since emerged a mainstream journalistic consensus that the Israeli military/government did in fact have some intelligence of the planned attack; see The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, etc.

The only reason I wouldn't bring this up in an edit outright (aside from lacking the permission) is that I think it requires extraordinarily careful attention to the difference between what is now known and reported in reliable secondary sources and what has been claimed without evidence by bad actors. Nonetheless I think it's important, for WP:POV reasons, that this section be updated Moonjail (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

(Technically the rule for this topic area is that editors aren't meant to participate in discussions until becoming extended confirmed, but this seems good-faith and roughly like an edit request in spirit. Please be aware of those rules going forward though.)

Somewhat agree - we should probably tweak the last paragraph, and reword or somehow qualify had prior knowledge of the attack. There was some prior knowledge, but it wasn't acted on for whatever reason. JPost mentions negligence (the Hanlon's razor explanation) as a reason; I (vaguely) recall other sources have posited other reasons more related to the quality of intelligence. It's possible that the reasons were more intentional (like a false flag or stand-down order), but I think those are still considered conspiracy theories, at least I'm not aware of reliable sources lending credence to them. A more recent source would indeed be a good addition. I'll try to follow up later when I have time to examine relevant sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the right avenue for these requests. Moonjail (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Very possibly they had some information pointing that way, but there's always a lot of rumour going around so it is very difficult to push something like tht to the alarm stage. For instance practically any famous person gets threats to their lives every so often and identifying a credible one can sometimes be a bit difficult. NadVolum (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

should the deaths caused by Israel's own response be added to the false flag section?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-07/israel-hannibal-directive-kidnap-hamas-gaza-hostages-idf/104224430 Mrloggy (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

probably not Mrloggy (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

UN 'halve' Gaza death toll

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-un-halve-gaza-death-toll-1900325

I have seen people misinterpreting the difference between 'identified deaths' and 'overall deaths' to doubt the death toll. We should add it in the page Cherry567 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation

Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people.

Even if something turns out to be false we should only add it if it's characterised as disinformation in the source or if it makes it clear that there was intent to deceive. Alaexis_¿question? 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

True, but it's not even false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falshimura (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Falshimura: please note that only extended confirmed users are supposed to edit in this topic area. That includes discussions like this one, with an exception for edit requests.

That said I think they have a point. As far as I know, Israel never said anything about gold in the hospital, only in a separate bunker under it. I'm not sure if Israeli even claimed there was an entrance from the hospital; at least the graphic showed entrances only from two separate buildings. Israel's claims could be false, but getting a tour of the hospital doesn't seem like a serious investigation of those claims. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)