Talk:Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Use of children by Hamas"
editThis paragraph relies entirely on IDF claims and allegations. There is not a single additional source used to verify even one of the claims listed there. At the absolute minimum the subheading should clarify that these are IDF claims. טבעת-זרם reverted an edit to add this title adjustment here [1] with the edit summary so are claims from Gaza “health” ministry, and still they sre not on the header level
, which I believe is an inaccurate comparison? The Gaza Health Ministry is quoted twice in the article: 1) Along with UNOCHA and UNICEF on childhood vaccines. 2) Regarding the premature baby crisis which was covered extensively and cited by numerous aid organizations and RS investigations. Would be curious to hear others' thoughts. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Feelings on simply changing the section title to "Allegations of child use by Hamas" or "IDF allegations of child use by Hamas"?
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)- I'd support "IDF allegations of child use by Hamas". Again, if there were credible sources backing up any of these claims — Amnesty, B'Tselem, etc. — I'd have absolutely no issue with their inclusion. But with only IDF sourcing for the entire section, it almost reads like military propaganda. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I definitely understand that point of view and might agree but am unsure. I wonder if this is WP:UNDUE?
- I've changed the title of the section, for now, for clarity. Hopefully more people contribute to the discussion soon...
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 12:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- The new title is wrong because in addition to the IDF, the section include sources such as: COGAT, First responders unit, and officials. They are all not part of the IDF. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Do you suggest a better title?
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 23:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- "Use of children by Hamas and PIJ". TaBaZzz (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- COGAT operates under the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
- IDF operates under civilian oversight under the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
- Officials cited are either MoD or IDF.
- Reads like a press briefing. I saw a WaPo WP:RSEDITORIAL was added, as well as an article from Christian Broadcasting Network (a site with the tagline "Help bring the Gospel of Jesus to every person on the planet" on its homepage) as "additional sources" to verify these claims. Aren't there any academic articles on this topic? Agree with Urro about the possibility of WP:UNDUE and reminder of WP:ONUS. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can we do the same to various UN organizations? TaBaZzz (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed the section title to "Allegations of child use by Hamas and PIJ" for now. I've kept "allegations" to hopefully comply with WP:NPOV, while removing "IDF" to help compensate for the somewhat-varied sources. I do this just for the time being, so as not to be misleading, until the section is discussed more.
- I do think the lack of diversity amongst the sources could be of issue regarding WP:UNDUE but am unsure. I think WP:ONUS is a good mention and we should consense whether or not the information should be included and with what wording in the affirmative case. I'll definitely be considering what my vote would be. Right now I'm leaning toward indifference, but this is because I'm particularly unfamiliar with the weight of due and undue content, so I'll be looking into it myself.
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 12:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- I support Carmen's positions here. David A (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Use of children by Hamas and PIJ". TaBaZzz (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Do you suggest a better title?
- The new title is wrong because in addition to the IDF, the section include sources such as: COGAT, First responders unit, and officials. They are all not part of the IDF. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support "IDF allegations of child use by Hamas". Again, if there were credible sources backing up any of these claims — Amnesty, B'Tselem, etc. — I'd have absolutely no issue with their inclusion. But with only IDF sourcing for the entire section, it almost reads like military propaganda. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sinwars children
editטבעת-זרם when you make an edit and it is reverted you should seek consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS, so I ask that you self-revert. Second, nothing about that is related to the effect of the war on children in Gaza. This is blatant SYNTH, you take an article that talks about something else, Sinwar traveling with his children, and then put it in the framing as an effect of the war. Please self-revert and seek consensus for your inclusion. nableezy - 17:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sinwar and family were not travelling for fun. They were there because of the war. Please explain how multiple sources are wrong about the war's relation to the journey of the 3 kids? TaBaZzz (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the sourcing is not about the effect of the war on children, and this incredibly pointless section has nothing to do with the topic. And, again, ONUS requires consensus for challenged material. And the WP:NYPOST is not a reliable source. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Disappointingly the text was quickly removed, before I had the time to reply and bring the sources. TaBaZzz (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the sourcing is not about the effect of the war on children, and this incredibly pointless section has nothing to do with the topic. And, again, ONUS requires consensus for challenged material. And the WP:NYPOST is not a reliable source. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from New Page Review process
editI left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This FA-rated article has had concerted improvement by many authors over the next month. It's an important and challenging topic; I'm impressed that the community has been able to manage this without article protection.