Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

All info on living conditions in Gaza before the war has been removed

See diff. The removal of the "Historical context" section was based on a very short discussion between 3 editors. Removing the work of many editors. The overall premise of shortening the article was, and is, a good idea. Return the Context section. At least the parts having to do with Gaza itself and the people who live there.

I suggest moving the huge section called "Regional and global effects" elsewhere. The idiocy of world politics (in my opinion) is much less important than the facts on the ground before, during, and after this war.

Here is the Historical context section (collapsed) just before it was removed:

Extended content

Main article: Israeli–Palestinian conflict Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli-occupied territories, and Blockade of the Gaza Strip Israeli and Palestinian deaths preceding the war. Most were civilians. Rocket attacks fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, 2001-2021 In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops and citizens from the Gaza Strip, aiming to lessen its direct control over the area. However, in 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza by force, escalating tensions. Israel imposed a blockade, while Hamas tunneled under the border wall to launch cross-border attacks and fired rockets into Israeli territory. This led to multiple conflicts, escalating into multiple outright wars, wreaking havoc on civilians from both sides, and a preponderance of Palestinian deaths. Despite the violence, Israeli leadership found this arrangement manageable, relying on the Iron Dome rocket defense system for defense and utilizing targeted strikes, euphemistically dubbed "mowing the grass," to keep Hamas in check, aiming to minimize the militant threat to a tolerable extent. American political scientist Stephen M. Walt said Palestinians feel they have no choice but to resist in response to Israel's decades long oppressive treatment of Palestinians, even though they acknowledge attacking civilians is wrong and the methods Hamas has chosen are illegitimate. The Hindu wrote that the Israeli occupation was "the longest in modern history" and created a "fuming volcano". The Associated Press wrote that Palestinians are "in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza". ABC News reported the August 2023 UNRWA figures for Gaza of 81% of people living below the poverty level, and 63% being food insecure and dependent on international assistance. ABC News also reported the UN OCHAoPt numbers of roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis killed in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 2008 through September 2023, before this war. Roger Cohen wrote that the increasing Israeli control over millions of Palestinians "incubated bloodshed". Prior to the attack, Saudi Arabia had warned Israel of an "explosion" as a result of the continued occupation, Egypt had warned of a catastrophe unless there was political progress, and similar warnings were given by Palestinian Authority officials. Less than two months before the attacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan lamented that Palestinians have "no civil rights; no freedom of mobility". Cohen wrote that many Israelis assumed the Palestinian question had become a nonissue, and it had disappeared from the global agenda. Simon Tisdall pointed to the uptick in Israeli–Palestinian violence in 2023 as portending war, and claimed that Benjamin Netanyahu refused to negotiate the peace process, adding fuel to the fire, and that the rights of Palestinians were ignored. Yousef Munayyer wrote that the Biden administration had ignored the Palestinian issue. As late as 29 September, Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor, proclaimed that "the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades." Iranian officials publicly boasted for years about their role in arming militants in Gaza, and a 2020 U.S. State Department report said Iran funnels roughly $100 million a year to Hamas. At a White House news conference on 12 October, Sullivan said Iran was "complicit" in the attacks, but the U.S. could not confirm whether Iran knew about the attack in advance or helped coordinate it. According to an analysis in The Independent, the blockade on Gaza created hopelessness among Palestinians, which was exploited by Hamas, convincing young Palestinian men that violence was the only solution. Daoud Kuttab writes that Palestinian attempts to solve the conflict via negotiations or non-violent boycotts have been fruitless. For The Times of Israel, Tal Schneider wrote: "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. The idea was to prevent Abbas—or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority's West Bank government—from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state." Hamas said its attack was in response to the blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza. Following the attack, American counterterrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman pointed to the 1988 Hamas Charter, alleging that Hamas had always had "genocidal" intentions and that it had no intentions for "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace". Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, argued that the attacks were "part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel" and that "Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad". Many of the Israeli kibbutz residents among the dead or missing were peace activists. References

There are many more authoritative articles on the terrible living conditions in Gaza before the war. Many from the UN. For example:

• https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1125712

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support restoration, essential background info. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe focus it more clearly to a section titled: "Prewar conditions in Gaza". The huge section called "Regional and global effects" can be moved (most of it) to make room. Move it, and add link here:

Template: 2023 Israel–Hamas war

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, should be restored. Andreas JN466 21:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Could it be made more concise then added to the Background Section? Because background is essentially what we're talking about here. Also what would be great would be getting rid of all the quotes and putting a trimmed down version in to Wiki voice. If you look at the Background Section of a comparable article such as 2006 Lebanon War it gives a good example of what I think we should be aiming for. I mean Hamas took over in 2007 which should be when the blockade began, so there's no need to use newspapers. And what's to say? "The Palestine Israel issues dates back to the end of British occupation, but the particular difficulties in Gaza date to the election of Hamas, a group whose founding charter declared the need for a global jihad to destroy Israel. Since then Israel and Egypt have imposed a partial blockade on the Gaza strip which has created wide spread poverty, destitution and salaries that are a quarter of what they are in the west bank." It would also be worth going through the Background Section as it currently stands and identifying what you feel is present in Historical Context that is missing because when I read the current Background Section, I feel it does a pretty good job covering the bases. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Slightly naughty to make such changes after such a brief exchange. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. See: 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Humanitarian situation and its first subsection for Gaza. One would think its many subsections would be covering the terrible living conditions in Gaza before the war. But it barely mentions it. If the terrible living conditions after the war merits this large of a section, then "Prewar conditions in Gaza" merits the measly 5 paragraphs allotted to it. As I said, other sections in the article are far less important, and need to be shortened and spun off into more articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"Historical context" section returned, but as the first section of 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Humanitarian situation.

See diff of my 2 edits.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Timeshifter There's a lot of stuff that should be branched or deleted. But beyond that I would make one point about the presentation of the antebellum living situation. Obviously Gaza would be a pretty miserable place to live in. But Hamas predates the blockade by two decades. Ie Hamas was not created by the blockade. But it goes beyond that, Hamas was and is categorically against a two state solution, when Fatah and the PLO were doing the Oslo accords Hamas did a series of bombings in Israel to sap the Israeli pro-peace movement. So it wasn't the blockade or any of the living situation in the run up that created Hamas. I'm also not saying that Israel is blameless, but what I am saying is that Hamas has its own agency, which it has routinely used against peace, against Israel and against the Palestinians and has been a major driving force in the creation of the antebellum Gaza strip and the current situation and that agency has created been one of the driving forces in forging the current situation, it is not a product of it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• If this is about current section "Historical context", then I think it should be removed as partly a duplicate content and partly just a collection of personal opinions by various commenters. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions: Arab world

The source for this section is an article by the economist. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/10/18/the-arab-world-thinks-differently-about-this-war

Why not mention the protests in Cairo, Morocco and Jordan? This section seems to imply that the Arab world isn't on the ground protesting for Gaza

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeast/gaza-hospital-blast-middle-east-protests-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/gaza-hospital-al-ahli-al-arabi-blast-explosion-protests-demonstrations-middle-east

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-biden/card/watch-protests-spread-across-middle-east-after-gaza-hospital-blast-dvOOAmOKxJhh50zRy4dI Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There are actually a several sources for the section, majority yes are from the Economist. It does currently state that there are protests for the Palestinians: "There have been numerous rallies in support of the Palestinians...", but it also says that feelings are complicated in places like Egypt and Lebanon where they don't want a spill over from the war, they don't want more refugees and they don't want more instability particularly after the Arab spring. What I'd like to avoid is how the section was written before where it was simply a list of: country x said y, and country p said q but country u said q as well and there were protests in countries j, h and k. Because prose like that add little of real substance. We should be writing this article for how these events will be viewed as relevant in 10 years time. I'm not sure if in 10 years anyone will care about whether or not there was a protest in Tunis or Dhaka. Rather, what truly is significant about the current events? Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your last question, well certainly the remark by Knesset member Meirav Ben-Ari on Monday in Parliament that “the children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves.” Jonathan Ofir, Israeli politician: “The children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves” Mondoweiss 18 October 2023Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring more to the significance through the lens of the Arab World reaction. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Arab world" meaning governments and talk show hosts or the Arab people who constantly stand with the Palestinians? Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Leans in* Mr.President, the Egyptians are in Tahrir

These protests are important to document from a historical point of view. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

See comments below in updated "Reaction: Arab world" Talk section. JJMM (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias image caption

The satellite image that shows fires in and around Gaza has the following caption: "Satellite view of widespread fires in Israel on 7 October 2023 when militants set fires, massacred civilians and took hostages at areas neighboring the Gaza Strip"

The bolded part seems unnecessary. While true, it's irrelevant to the picture shown and is not neutral wording. It needs to be removed Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page

According to reports, the United States Navy shot down some missiles allegedly fired by Houthis in Yemen. Apparently, it is believed that Israel was the primary target. Should this incident be mentioned in this page?

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/gma/us-navy-destroyer-red-sea-185700181.html Randomuser335S (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I added information about the USS Carney incident, but did not add the US or Houthis to the belligerents list. What is the threshold for inclusion? Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been a number of reports of Iraqi PMU units deploying themselves to Lebanon and sable rattling about intervening in Gaza. However, any attempts at including them in the infoboxes get removed, as the accounts don't seem to have been fully authenticated yet.

I can't fully answer your question about inclusions about belligerents, but I'm guessing that they will be added if American troops or Houthis militiamen are directly engaged in combat. With that out of the way, it seems like this page should be renamed "Axis of Resistance-Israel War" soon. Every couple of days or so now, there appears to be a new report of an Iranian aligned militia like the Lebanese Hezbollah, several PMUs in Iraq, and now the Houthis of Yemen, interfering or threatening to intervene in this current war. Randomuser335S (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. To the best of my knowledge neither Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, Syria, or Iran have even used the term Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah and Israel are just trading shots, and Iran is just mouthing off, not having (to date!) gotten directly involved. There shall be new nomenclature if and when. kencf0618 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You made many good points in your response. Something that I should clarify is that my "request" for this page to be renamed "Axis of Resistance-Israel War" was actually me trying to use a half joke to make an attempt at a commentary, which I apologize for doing an abysmal job of choreographing.

It seems like every other day, another Iranian backed militia throws its hat in the ring. Like there was the skirmishes on the Lebanese border and the Golan Heights with Hezbollah, the Iraqi PMUs saber rattling about intervening in Gaza and attacking American bases, and now the Yemeni Houthis allegedly launching missiles at Israel. If this pattern keeps escalating, how will it affect the nomenclature of this page? Randomuser335S (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't know yet–which is the whole point. "The Vietnam War", "WWII", "WWI", and "The Civil War" have sundry other names, after all. And too, we're basically dealing with the Star Wars cantina scene here. Consider this analysis of the state of play: https://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-preparing-combat-ops-164255427.html kencf0618 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

I think it would be easier if we put the timeline of events, for example [1] and move it to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, since this would make the article easier to read and other similar wars like Russian invasion of Ukraine and World War II did something similar like what I am requesting.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The entire Timeline section can be just removed and moved to that page. It doesn't seem like this page's timeline section isn't even updated anymore from the last two days of events (October 18 19) Hovsepig (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is this still not done? The entire "Events" and "Outside main conflict zone" sections should be directly moved to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article where it belongs. There's no reason to have these duplicate sections at all. And why would they even be in separate sections, if they're both lists of "events"? The "Outside main conflict zone" should have been a sub-section of "Events". GMRE (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Femi Fani-Kayode

The source provided in respect of Femi Fani-Kayode's comments seem suspicious due to the references to the New World Order conspiracy theory. Please check if the source is appropriate. --Minoa (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That whole paragraph seems like fear-mongering garbage. I really wonder about the value in including every statement by some notable person who decided to give their uninformed opinion about how the latest war is totally going to escalate into World War 3. Anyway I've removed the part that was cited to Firstpost and the other source you mentioned. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@VintageVernacular: Thanks, in my opinion I would consider removing the WWIII speculation due to WP:CRYSTAL amongst other things. Something doesn't seem solid there. --Minoa (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. The Trump statement is something he's been saying since the Ukraine war began. The others were just random pundits... one was a hedge fund manager. Very due for inclusion... not.

The speculation on a regional spillover was more widely reported on, not to mention so plausible that it practically feels imminent, given the events of the last weeks. So I see no reason to remove that part. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "Massacres" should probably be removed

I believe that the word massacre, while accurate in my opinion, violates WP:NPOV. Massacre has certain connotations and implies brutality, which is not neutral. I think this word should only be used if it is the most common name of an event, IE in the case of the Boston Massacre. If we are to be neutral about the events of this war, the phrase "Mass casualty incident" should probably be used instead. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The term is used massively in reliable sources. WP:NOTCENSORED. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not relevant to NPOV violations. NOTCENSORED refers to the censorship of potentially offensive information, it doesn't give Wikipedia free reign to take a certain viewpoint and use biased terminology. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct that NOTCENSORED is not valid here, but your reading of NPOV itself is incorrect. NPOV doesnt mean we should use "absolutely neutral" type words - It means that our article should accurately reflect the weight in sources. Since most call it massacre, its not wrong to call it a massacre.

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." is the exact wordage if you want. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede the NOTCENSORED point as long as it is clear that "massacre" is an appropriate term to use due to the prevalence of that term in reliable soruces. Not to use would be a POV issue, very much like calling the Boston Massacre the Boston Incident. Interestingly I see that the latter may indeed by called the "Boston Incident" by some (note the redirect) but "Boston Massacre" is the most common usage. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is accurate to describe a series of mass killings against noncombatant civilians during a military operation as a series of massacres. What you're engaging in is euphemism, not too unlike weasel words. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Its definitely not going to be changed to mass casualty incident. It would be a euphemism of our own innovation if we were to use it (but that is not going to happen). Ben Azura (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The mass murders of civilians at kibbutzim & a music festival easily fit the description of massacres & are described as such in many mainstream reliable sources. The Boston massacre had a death toll of five; Palestinian terrorists killed over a thousand civilians when they invaded Israel on 7 Oct. Mass casualty incident would be ridiculously vague & euphemistic. Would you describe 9/11, the 2008 Christmas massacres & the 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings as MCI? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "mass casualty incident" is absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN note

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Hamas_and_Gaza_ministry_numbers_reliable? Andre🚐 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing Ein HaShlosha banner

However that merge request is resolved, it will clearly not be merged into this article for reasons noted on the talk page there. It's disproportionate and unhelpful to readers to have that banner on top of this much more prominent article. – SJ + 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We've Reached the WP:Post‐expand include size limit

2 097 116/2 097 152 bytes

There are only 40 characters of wikitext left until templates start getting cut off. This article needs a split desperately. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Reactions" section does not reference the main article, but there's already an article titled International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war so some renaming and a clarification of the scope are necessary. I plan to split "Regional and global effects" which seems like a straightforward improvement. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done with Regional and global effects Infinity Knight (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Uhm, Infinity Knight, you volunteered to provide the summary, right? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The section was extracted, and the content related to the section's title was condensed, while attending to the quality improvement tags. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I significantly trimmed the "Emergency unity government" section as an immediate measure, hope that's fine. Movement of content to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page might be wise too. I don't know what else. Anyway, what is the actual effect of hitting this limit? I just assumed "nothing good". VintageVernacular (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes might be due for its own article soon? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the article, actually, there are other areas that should probably be edited down first. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ca, Infinity Knight, Space4Time3Continuum2x, VintageVernacular, and CarmenEsparzaAmoux: I've boldly split the war crimes section off into War crimes in the Israel-Hamas War (2023). Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove Lions' Den from belligerents

Remove the Lions' Den from the belligerents section in the infobox.

References fail verification that this organization is a belligerent in this war. References only claim that the group announced a mobilization and publicly called for its supporters to attack, particularly "lone wolves."

If attacks in the West Bank have been attributed by reliable sources to the group, or if reliable sources report the group has claimed responsibility for attacks, please add these references to the article or make an extended-confirmed-edit request to do so. Assuming that the group is responsible for unclaimed attacks in the West Bank simply by virtue of its call for attacks is WP:SYNTH

Also, remove the group from the note that is currently labeled [l], which begins "The list of groups included..."

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Afaik, Lions' Den is a WB grouping and not involved, at least not directly. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't Lion's Den openly and officially declare war on Israel -- that is, according to Lion's Den, Lion's Den is a belligerent in this war. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they are WP:DUE for inclusion; I'm finding very little RS about Lion's Den's declaration/statement/whatever, but there's MEMO, ISW, and Roya News (don't know much about their reliability). IMO, issuing a formal call to arms makes you a belligerent, doesn't it? Levivich (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But is it this war? It's not Gaza and not Hamas although the group may contain some Hamas supporters/members. The call to arms is a likely response to all the recent arrests, raids and settler violence. There are other similar groups in the WB, Jenin Brigade springs to mind. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Barring any source saying that Lions' Den partisans have actually fought Israel in this conflict, I agree with others here that they should not be included as cobelligerent. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I'm marking the edit request template as answered as purely a procedural matter and to remove it from the queue. Ongoing discussion as to whether to implement the edit, and how, disqualifies it. —Sirdog (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed, there is no reliable source info for this. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the removal. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, @Levivich, @Compassionate727: thank you for your comments helping to reach a consensus to have the group removed as a belligerent. Now that this change has been made, would somebody mind removing the name of the Lions' Den from note [L], which reads: The list of groups included Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Lions' Den.

Thank you again! SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Outside main conflict zone" section

Is this turning into another Timeline of the war in Donbas (2014)? What is "outside main conflict zone"? Lesser conflict zones, other conflicts, or anything that happens anywhere and is tangentially related to the Israel-Hamas war, like demonstrations in London, stabbings in China and France? I removed the most obvious candidates for tangentially related/not germane but IMO much of that section should be deleted — no day-by-day collection of they/he/she said, a tank missile landing in Metulla (a what?) ... If and when the conflict widens we'll revisit in any case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, but with one clarification. Some related (per cited RS) warfare/violence in West Bank or at the Israel–Lebanon border would be relevant and arguably a part of this war. But such incidents should be included to the main section, i.e. the "Events". But something in London or China should be placed to "Reactions" or elsewere. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated displacement numbers

As per this United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) article from the 21st, https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-14 a total of 1.4 million Palestinians have been displaced, rather than the 1,000,000 sited in the article, from a source from the 15th. Hexifi (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

updating, ty. nableezy - 00:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Important note for editing "Casualties and losses"

When changing the numbers to more recent values, make sure to also change the notes that state things such as "Including 1,756 children and 967 women." If these numbers come from different times, it can give the reader a false perception of the percentages of these groups of the total deaths or injuries. Hexifi (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Title should be Arab-Israeli war

In light of the initial assault involving multiple Palestinian factions, and recent engagements involving actors in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, this cannot be referred to as the current title. The term "Arab-Israeli conflict" is familiar to the English speaking reader, and is the proper term here. عبد المؤمن (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this can be argued to be the WP:COMMONNAME — Czello ^(music) 10:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would go further, and say that I don't think the claim that this is an "Arab-Israeli conflict" is currently supported by the sources. However, it may be worth having a preliminary discussion on what to name the article if Hezbollah joins, so that we have a title ready to go and thus aren't lagging behind events. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with WP:COMMONNAME, and this situation is still some way short of the 1967 and 1973 wars, which involved a range of nation states going to war with Israel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the proposed name is inappropriate. In the event of Hezbollah joining in earnest (which frankly I see has far from likely), I expect RSs will be finally forced to agree on a proper name pretty swiftly. Riposte97 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated injury numbers for the West Bank

As per this United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) article from the 21st, https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-15 (specifically an attached PDF) a total of 1,653 Palestinians have been injured in the West Bank, rather than the 300 sited in the article, from a source from the 13th. (The same article has different numbers for many of the things, but no other ones the fall outside of a reasonable margin for error, as far as I'm aware) Hexifi (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Source content dispute

There is an ongoing content dispute between myself and Haskko about whether or not [this article] from CNN states Israel won the Battle of Sderot. I believe yes, as the article states, even in the small text below the video, “cleanup has begun after the Israel Defense Forces battled Hamas militants to regain control of the city and its police station.” Haskko believes no, as the article does not specifically state “victory”. Can other editors chime in on their opinions about it? This content dispute affects List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Battle of Sderot, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which are all sub-articles of this one and technically affects this article for content related to the town of Sderot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I recently edited about the October 2023 Tulkarm incursion in the List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page. After you provided the source in the page of the Battle of Sderot, I have no need to revert you. I just want to ask about where it says that it was an Israeli victory in the Tulkarm incursion. Thank you! 🙂 Haskko (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No Israeli victory for that one. Thank you for pointing that out. The source only states Israeli withdrew from Tulkarm, not a true victory, so I updated the engagement list accordingly. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy editing! 🙂 Haskko (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

1 kidnapped foreign

https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/mae-un-cetatean-roman-a-fost-rapit-de-hamas-si-luat-ostatic-in-gaza-2551015 romanian ManiLLa (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Babies beheaded?

Looking through some of the archives, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the accusations of baby beheadings. I have, however, seen several mentions of making sure all such atrocities are very well sourced. The baby beheading is also a section in the "Unconfirmed Reports" section, should we remove the beheading mentions in the "Timeline" and "War Crimes" sections? Porg656 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli military has not confirmed that this happened. There are several cites in the article. But it appears they have all originated with one I24 reporter's claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary resources. We have one poor source. This requires removal O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

How accurate is this statement? (currently in the war crimes section, under the massacres by Palestinian militant groups:

"The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded."

It is stating it in wiki voice. If the consensus is that it's not adequately sourced, it may need to be modified. entropyandvodka | talk 06:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I noted in the sections "10 October" and "Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide" that the reports of beheaded babies have not been independently confirmed. A later third sections already stated that, and the second section already had a source stating that the reports have not been independently verified. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point in time, the IDF and their forensic teams do maintain that beheadings of children and infants took place. The "40 beheaded babies" claim though, in particular, was the distortion of what seems to have been the overall amount of people who were at that time claimed to have been decapitated. A distortion which seems to have originated among journalists, especially the October 10th i24 report, and a French television correspondent. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion at the specific Kfar Aza massacre talkpage. I think there's more to it than just I24 account, but the origins of the claims should be clearly attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the primary reliable source for bodies condition, independent of the Israeli government, would be Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, which according to their page ZAKA prefer to call the organization and their work Chesed shel Emet (חסד של אמת‎ – lit. 'Kindness of truth'), because they are dedicated to ensuring that the bodies of Jewish victims are buried according to Halakha, Jewish law. After acts of terrorism, ZAKA volunteers also collect the bodies and body parts of non-Jews, including suicide bombers, for return to their families. The phrase Chesed shel Emet refers to doing "kindness" for the benefit of the deceased, which is considered to be "true kindness", because the (deceased) beneficiaries of the kindness cannot return the kindness. he's talking about what's happening in other villages too, and because of his position, he probably has the answer to your question. There's that i24 source, which seems pretty reliable to me, and also a Reuters source that doesn't dive into as much detail. I wouldn't be shocked if he's given more interviews to reliable sources. copied from another section Infinity Knight (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find that self-serving quote useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if he has, were are those interviews? Cortador (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There are two interviews provided above. There are a bunch of Yossi Landau's (ZAKA) interviews in written form here. The top one in the search results is from France 24, where Landau recalled, after entering the first home and finding a dead woman, "Her stomach was ripped open, a baby was there, still connected with the cord, and stabbed." The Zaka volunteer said he saw multiple civilians, including around 20 children, who had their hands tied behind their backs before being shot and torched. "We saw some victims positioned that they were sexually abused," he added. It is interesting to see if the beheading claim could be connected to Landau. My understanding is that the IDF says "Hamas decapitated babies", but they are not going to provide photographic evidence, because it is "disrespectful for the dead". Due to the right to privacy of the victims and their surviving relatives, I reckon. The condition of the bodies is outside of my field of interest. I am just talking about approaches on how to report about it in a reliable way. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The ZAKA interviews have already been shown to be open to abuse and misinformation propagation - what we really need here are some Coroner's reports, but I understand that this rather crucial evidential step might have been avoided for the sake of privacy and other reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I listened to the IDF spokesperson you linked to. The lengthy discussion was about the hospital bombing. It was interesting in that he kept saying you cannot take the word of either side in a war, but complained that the media was believing Hamas. He made one reference to beheadings relevant to this complaint. But I didn't hear him claim there were beheadings. I didn't hear the beheading question asked or answered. When the reporter explained it was difficult for the media to report from the field, he admitted that journalists have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated the IDF link to more relevant one. ZAKA should be credited for their work. If you have sources suggesting that ZAKA might be susceptible to abuse or spreading misinformation, please share those sources. I'm just pointing out that Landau and his team meticulously handled all of the human remains, whether Israeli or Palestinian, inside Israel, as part of their religious mission, and they have the complete picture. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

They're a primary source, they aren't coroners, they're certainly traumatized, and, as it stands, no one seems willing to provide evidence to corroborate. We can quote quotes, weighted for their prevalence in sources, but beyond that, we're still far from the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the BBC, "Zaka's responsibility is to gather all the remains of the deceased, including their blood." When secondary reliable sources quote ZAKA, it indicates their trustworthiness. Per Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources should be credited appropriately, so we should handle ZAKA in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It indicates that reliable sources think the quotes are of interest to their readers, and it grants weight here; it does not convey 'trustworthiness'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So we agree on the issue of relevance. Given that these individuals regularly handle human remains as part of their work, calling them "certainly traumatized" might be stretching it. Do we have any sources that indicate ZAKA could be at risk of being misused or spreading false information in the aftermath of the Hamas attack? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Lots of false claims were initially spread by less than stellar sources, some using excerpts of ZAKA testimonies, probably out of context - that's what I mean. It's a moot point now, since there are reliable sources covering this conflict, and concerns regarding reliability have given way to those of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally get your point about all the false claims flying around. Thanks for diving into this topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC quotes Yacoub Zechariah, a ZAKA volunteer and deputy mayor of Bnei Brak. Zechariah reported seeing bodies of children with severe injuries and burns. Some of the deceased children appeared to have been decapitated, although the exact circumstances were not clear. I reckon we could use this source to clear things up, attributing it to Zechariah. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The man you're naming can't be trusted for his neutrality as you yourself mentioned that he is also a political figure what we need is an independent neutral source, only sources such as 'UN', 'Red Cross', 'hospital officials' or known neutral NGO can be trusted. Balaj Khan (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on the existing sources within the article, there is a substantial amount of evidence, including photographs that have been shared with the international pressUS State Secretary. Additionally, several individuals in Israel, who are not affiliated with the government and include public figures, have been engaged in the processing of the bodies, providing further confirmation of these claims. Moreover, a number of international figures have attested to witnessing evidence of decapitations.

While it's undeniable that the evidence may appear somewhat exaggerated, I am uncertain as to why, after a thorough review of the available sources, these references are still categorized as "Unconfirmed" within the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

From WP:RS "Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy." O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire attack seemed cartoonish. We should be diligent in assigning the information. For example, EFE mentions "first-hand witnesses" and the word "unconfirmed" is not what I encountered in the sources I've examined. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I read that three times. Where does it say babies were beheaded? Unless there were soldiers who were babies. There still is no evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

See "First-hand witnesses" section

Reserve Col. Golan Vach discovered decapitated children in Kibbutz Beeri near Gaza, suspecting non-rocket causes. A ZAKA team member reported numerous child casualties, including decapitated and burned infants and severe violence cases. Plentiful excellent sources exist, so there's no concern regarding the reliability policy, but caution is vital. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The reservist, who I would not accept as a source anyhow, said he found one baby with its head cut off, not multiple. Babies bones are made partially or entirely of soft, flexible cartilage. You would expect damage to a baby to be more severe to even a young child. And children are not babies. These are very poor sources for a dramatic claim that babies were decapitated by Hamas. Perhaps they were. If there is eventually actual evidence, it belongs. Not now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion still ongoing? Thought we established ages ago that there is nothing credible backing this up, at best unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

EFE or BBC did not use "unconfirmed" word. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

How many times do I have to reread the same articles over and over just to discover they do not claim that babies were decapitated? I just responded to the EFE article. I don't see this in the BBC article. Isn't it enough that they are dead without this unsupported claim? Enough. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

According to this report by ABC, "a senior Israeli officer said to a small group of journalists, saying such images existed but would not be shown" before "screening of an hour-long reel cobbled together from Hamas helmet cam, mobile phone video, surveillance video, dashboard camera video and victims' livestreams". I had heard about the decapitation by garden hoe elsewhere and, when googling for it, found the ABC report. We say killed civilians. That doesn't cover the alleged atrocities committed by the attackers (including against children and old people), alleged because the Israeli military hasn't released the footage from the captured Hamas Go-Pros. Reuters: "Blinken, who flew into Tel Aviv earlier on Thursday, told reporters he was shown photographs and videos of a baby riddled with bullets, soldiers beheaded and young people burned alive in their cars or hideaways." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with inclusion of attributed atrocities. I just don't think we should include facts not in evidence, like beheaded babies. I think there are plenty of atrocities in this war that are documented. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think it matters if the babies were decapitated or not, what does really matter, and what does not appear to disputed, is that children were deliberately killed in the kibbutz attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Two things are important: 1.) Minors were killed. 2.) Wikipedia follows its WP:V policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, Israelis have reported more than just "Minors killed." I was mistaken in thinking that Israelis shared photographic evidence with the international press; it seems they shared it exclusively with the US administration through Blinken. The importance of verifiability is clear, and we should rely on credible sources to avoid the spread of misinformation. Upon reviewing the available sources in the Media -> Decapitated section, it's evident that CNN did not receive photographic evidence from the Israeli or US administration, and they couldn't find such evidence online, despite their efforts. While NBC mentioned "Unverified reports of ‘40 babies beheaded" and viral posts, we haven't discussed those, so using NBC' denial in the context of this section is inappropriate. The government of Israel later posted photos of dead babies that they said were killed in the attack. The Jerusalem Post stated that these images confirmed that babies were decapitated,[687] while NBC News stated that no photographic evidence that babies were decapitated was provided.[194] for instance should be revised to align more accurately with the sources. All our sources discuss what the IDF and ZAKA have stated, citing specific individuals and public figures, rather than relying on viral internet rumors. Additionally, there is a disjointed section titled "Evaluations since 14 October", where more "forensic" eyewitnesses are identified. So we have a substantial list of named individuals who seem to be primary witnesses, as reported by credible sources like BBC and EFE in terms of policies related to reliability and verifiability. The bottom line is that Israelis maintain their claims, see Jerusalem mayor deputy interview to Hindustan Times, even after the publications by CNN and NBC, although they do not provide photographic evidence. JP, if considered a reliables source, verified the photos. Therefore, I propose that we review the scattered sources related to this event, remove outdated information, fix NBC/CNN misuse and consolidate them to provide a coherent picture. It also appears that the "Media reports" section in the article might not be the most suitable place to discuss this topic. We should remain impartial and quote the relevant sources in a clear and coherent manner. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief and not too 'grisly', but I have difficulty imagining what photographic evidence could exist. Is it obvious in a photo how a small body damaged/dismembered/decapitated by explosive force or flying shrapnel resulting from explosion has had a body part so damaged? Especially with an interval of hours or days before recovery. Is it really obvious, even to an expert looking at a photo that the damage was caused by a hand held sharp instrument rather than red-hot flying metal or glass? Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd rather be beheaded than burned to death. The problems with using beheaded in this article is that it fails WP:V and that it has become an ISIS trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Comparing Hamas and ISIS is not a new topic of discussion. In places like Indonesia, scholars research subjects like: Islamist Ideology and Its Effect on the Global Conflict: Comparative Study between Hamas and ISIS. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That source says: However, from the aspect of rigidity doctrine and strategy of the movement, both groups are much different. ISIS is an ultra-radical group hostile to all other communities and brutally attacked the community of which he considered infidels. While Hamas has a more soft ideology and commit acts of violence in the context of resistance against Israeli colonialism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another recent scholar source comparing Hamas, ISIS and other names we all know Reflecting on International Terrorism after the Hamas Attacks on Israel Further, the designation of Hamas as a terrorist entity and its legitimacy will likely be reconsidered internationally. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Update article to reflect evidence of rape by Palestinian militant groups and move from unverified "claims" under disinformation section to War Crimes section

• What I think should be changed: The entire section called "Claims of sexual violence by Hamas" needs to be rewritten and moved to the section of "War crimes by Palestinian militant groups":

- Replace header with "Sexual violence and rape".
- Remove all lines starting with and following "As of October 11..." with "On October 14, evidence of multiple cases rape were reported by the Israeli military forensics."

• Why it should be changed: Because it is not accurate, and is written citing information available as of October 11. New information has come out that requires changing the "claims" section, as it is no longer relevant in essence.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

eyal (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All that says is Israel has said this, it also says no evidence was presented. It is attributing this to "a reserve warrant officer". We can update with the information sure, but saying the narrative voice this as fact is still not supported by independent sources. nableezy - 01:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this reasoning seems to be inconsistent with the way facts are established using other references in the article. For example, the article uses references that cite various Palestinian government bodies to report the number of dead, e.g.:

- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/16/854881/ cites the "government media office"

- https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/14/Israeli-strikes-on-Gaza-kill-324-including-126-children-in-past-24-hours-Ministry cites the Palestinian Health Ministry

- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/13/854160/ cites Palestinian Health Ministry

Even directly under the corresponding section of "War crimes by the Israel Government, Medical neutrality", the claims that Israel deliberately targeted medical vehicles use e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/war-crime-gaza-medics-say-israel-targeting-ambulances-health-facilities, which cites the medics themselves and again the Palestinian Health Ministry. No "independent" source was required to add these accusations of deliberate targeted attack directly under the Israeli war crime section and not under a separate "Claims" section as is done for the rape accusations.

I think in all of these cases, we understandably won't wait until a more "independent" body actively verifies the reports. For consistency, we should apply the same standard everywhere, including in the cases related to this edit request. eyal (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We use the equivalent Israeli sources for dead and missing as well. But for claims that arent being accepted as fact by third party sources we attribute it as they do. See for example the material on al-Durrah Children's Hospital being hit by white phosphorous, we attribute that to the MoH of Gaza. The hitting of ambulances and hospitals has been reported by independent sources like the WHO and news agencies. And it does not say deliberately targeted. What it says is there are reports of that, not saying as a fact it happened. nableezy - 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All of this makes sense to me, and I'm saying that we should apply the same standard for the rape accusations relevant to this edit request as described above, i.e. move them from the "Claims of..." section directly into the war crimes by Palestinian militant group section. In addition, we should make clear that this evidence was reported by the Israeli military forensics. I'll update the edit request to add this wording. eyal (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire current contention seems to hinge on the fact we don't know the name(s) of any of the victims. There are multiple eyewitness accounts, an Israeli military-forensic attestation, a video from a hostage-taking that may have indicated it, and of course that war rape is practically a general fact of war. Almost all of the reports skeptical of the claims were published before the forensic report. I have to wonder where the line on moving it to the war crimes section is. I've mainly been focused on keeping it from being labeled "disinformation", that is, emphasizing the difference between unconfirmed reports and disinformation. But I have to wonder just how unconfirmed it really is by this point. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request was made in part because we already concretely know where the line is: it's been set by the writing of the current war crimes section (as discussed above). I only argued above that we should apply that line everywhere. eyal (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly a double standard in the war crimes section. We're relying on what a belligerent is reporting in one side, and the other when it comes to rape/other awful things, we're NOT including them because it was "only" reported by a belligerent? Chuckstablers (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There may be some problems with the war crime section due to competitive editing but this is only going to make that situation worse. There is another discussion about the war crime section which may eventually resolve this issue as well.Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I just saw it, for reference it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Add_more_details_about_HAMAS_war_crimes_in_the_war_crimes_section. Disagree that it would make the situation worse. At most, it would make the situation more balanced, which is not worse. eyal (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion, in mine it is just trying to make one side look less bad compared with the other. If it were just down to me, I would do away with the separate "lists" and only include external independent reliable sourcing covering both sides that calls or attributes an expert calling something a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that your proposal could be a better outcome overall, but until that edit is complete (it's a re-write of multiple sections) I think we should at least move the contents of the "Military forensic report" (odd heading) section away from "unconfirmed reports" and to the war crimes section. There are plenty of equally "unconfirmed reports" in the war crimes section as well, so this move would just concentrate everything under the same heading, which improves WP:STRUCTURE. I don't believe it makes sense to delay making this incremental improvement until a "grand rewrite" is completed. eyal (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• As written right now, we can not title this section "Disinformation" because none of that is disinformation, but rather just unverified and controversial claims. Some of that may be true, a lot maybe not true, but that might be clear only after independent investigations. And even after that, it might be not ultimately clear, but remain a controversy with claims and counterclaims by all sides. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Note: I'm marking the edit request template as answered as purely a procedural matter and to remove it from the queue. The requested edit meets more than 1 exclusionary criteria. —Sirdog (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, where can I find the list of exclusionary criteria?

  My understanding is that this edit request hasn't been addressed so far purely because those with edit privilege aren't willing to make these changes. The discussion so far clearly shows that this edit request aligns with wikipedia's editing policies to make the article stronger, so I'm forced to assume that this edit request hasn't been addressed for a different reason. This seems like a bizarre yet systematic problem in controversial articles. Curious what is the procedure in this situation? eyal (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for reaching out. Per WP:EDITXY, edit requests must either be for uncontroversial improvements to an article or adjustments which possess clear and present consensus prior to it being requested. Based on my cursory reading of the discussion above, it's my present understanding there isn't a clear consensus for what exactly to implement at this time (another requirement is the request must present the exact prose desired to be inserted, where, and with the relevant sources to support it). So, I marked it as answered as a procedural matter so those browsing the queue of requested edits will only see edits which are immediately actionable.

  If there is a clear and present consensus to do something as of now, the request can be re-opened with an explanation of what the consensus is, the desired changes in the form of change X to Y or similar, and the relevant sources to accompany the edit (if applicable). Alternatively, once the consensus develops, anyone with sufficient permissions can simply enact it without bothering to use the edit request process for it. —Sirdog (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see, thank you for sharing this information. eyal (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Lebanese & Syrian civilian casualties

Should Lebanese & Syrian civilian casualties, regardless of whether or not they occur in Lebanon or Syria or elsewhere, be included under "Foreign and dual-national casualties"?

I know Hezbollah, a Lebanese organization, is skirmishing with Israeli forces and they're even included under the Belligerents section, but Lebanon itself is not involved in the war though continued attacks across the Lebanese-Israeli border will likely continue throughout the conflict, and it has resulted in civilian casualties on both sides of the border.

Likewise, attacks from militants in Syria will likely continue despite the Syrian government itself not being involved in the conflict.

Currently I've found mention of two civilians and Lebanese journalist being killed in Lebanon by Israeli shelling, as well as two Syrian airport workers being killed, and I've gone ahead and included them in the table, but I don't know if this is the right call or not. Raskuly (talk) Raskuly (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems logical to include them if we are counting the border skirmishes and Israeli bombings of Syrian airports as being part of this conflict. It may make sense to spin off a separate "Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war", which would enable a more detailed discussion of how people from various nationalities died in the conflict. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ground invasion

Ground invasion of Gaza has already started [2] Crampcomes (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This article says the IDF conducted a raid—not that a large-scale ground offensive has begun. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ISIS calls for worldwide attacks against Jews in response to the war

An article about it, citing an infographic in the group's paper titled "Practical ways to support Muslims in Palestine". This appeared in issue #413 of Al-Naba, the official newspaper of the Islamic State, on October 20. Seems like they may intend to involve themselves as a belligerent? VintageVernacular (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless it actually results in anything, I don't think it should be given much, if any weight. ISIS is a shadow of a what it was in 2014/2015. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

They've still got some 10,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria alone. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but given this article's already enormous length "reactions" of various tangenitally related parties to the conflict should be kept to a minimum in the text itself. I wouldn't oppose a mention at International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was now a section for Islamist groups on that page. I'll go ahead and take it there. VintageVernacular (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Second source. Mentions Al-Qaeda releasing similar statements. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel Frey

The "reactions in Israel" section should include a section on violence against anti-war Israelis like Israel Frey

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/far-right-israelis-threaten-attack-journalist-who-dedicated-a-prayer-to-gaza-victims/0000018b-3434-d450-a3af-7d3ccb9d0000 Hovsepig (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it has a place here, since the story has evolved, he was assaulted, and is now in hiding. However, this is most pertinent at Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I can understand moving it there too. But this article seems to lack any mention of anti-war activism by Israelis within Israel. I think that creates a false narrative that the Israeli population is united in being pro-war Hovsepig (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently not widespread reporting on anti-war Israelis from reliable sources. That will probably change in the near future. JJMM (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In the context here, Haaretz is already a WP:RSP source ... Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Iskandar323. Haaretz is already reliable so why not cite it here? Hovsepig (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties infobox

@Meeepmep: Why did you remove all casualties from the infobox? There hasn't been a dispute regarding them. The argument regarding Russia-Ukraine war is WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is actually a dispute regarding the casualties in that conflict, unlike here. Ecrusized (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There was, Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Gaza_death_toll. Either way, I don't think it's helpful state dodgy casualty figures by Hamas and Israel as fact like that, especially when it's been so heavily weaponized. It's all in the lead anyways. Meeepmep (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That is just a discussion between an user with 15 edits and yourself. One user already appears to have voiced his opposition. Hamas figures were used in the past conflicts. They are also cited by reliable sources such as Reuters. Ecrusized (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, not their fault that no one else bothered to participate in that discussion apart from a new account. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In certain ECP articles in the past, non-ECP accounts were prevented from participating in RfC's and move discussions. I don't know if that's the case here but given the controversial nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be. Ecrusized (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK that is still true, but this wasnt an RFC nor a move discussion. This is a very trivial process compared to those, so just have a discussion about why it should be included. The onus lies on those asking for inclusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Reuters article you linked is a report on the release of the death toll by the Hamas-run ministry, it doesn't say anything about the veracity of the number. The parroting of Hamas figures by media has been criticized by the US State Department, and of course, it's been disputed by Israel. Figures released by the Health Ministry has already been directly challenged by US intelligence agencies Meeepmep (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

During the 2014 war, Hamas casualty figures were cited by the UN HRC[3]. The figures by Hamas are likely to be inflated, but should be around the true number more or less. As with all large conflict casualties, there can never be a perfect figure. Ecrusized (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In the same conflict, Hamas claimed 70%[4] of the casualties were civilians, according to the UN investigation 65%[5] were. So the figures should be mostly accurate. Ecrusized (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed there's a little disclaimer tucked away in the footnotes, but it was kind of hard to spot, even though I was on the lookout for it. In this whole mess, there's a huge gap between the numbers Hamas is putting out and what independent sources are saying.

For instance, according to Hamas, there were zero civilian casualties during their attack, which is clearly way off. And when it comes to that hospital explosion, the independent reports are all over the place.

Seems like the smart move would be to tag the numbers in the infobox clearly as "unconfirmed." Maybe we should even think about ditching the constantly changing scorecard in the infobox and instead talk about the numbers in the article body. We could do that until we've got some solid, independently verified sources for those figures. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs further third party statements to back it up. Users in this discussion are saying they don't want Hamas figures in the article because.... "just because". However as stated above they have been considered reliable by UN up until now and there hasn't been anything to prove that this has changed in this conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the removal of Hamas numbers from the article. However, it's a good idea to discuss them in the article body with careful attribution, considering independent sources like U.S. intelligence agencies mentioned above. The U.S. State Department criticized the media for accepting Hamas claims on the hospital blast without verification, and we're continuing to include those unconfirmed numbers in the infobox with a tiny "c" superscript. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be putting too much stake in the U.S. State Department either at this present juncture and in this specific context. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree; the hospital blast shows that Hamas numbers might not be reliable. Andre🚐 05:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of quoting of US government sources going on here. The US is now very firmly party to this conflict: it is re-arming one side. We need independent sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider U.S. intelligence agencies independent sources in the context of this conflict, even though they are probably right about the hospital explosion casualties being inflated. When compared to UN figures in the past, Hamas figures were roughly the same, with a 5% margin of error. Ecrusized (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent AP: More than 4,100 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

US isnt exactly a party per se, the have been providing aid to the Palestinians as well. Granted, they have picked a view supportive of Israel, but their reports are still the more neutral amongst sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

They are providing direct military aid to Israel amid an active conflict. That is support. Has the US given Hamas any military aid? I think not. This is nonsensical equivocation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We should be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE here. All figures released by belligerents are suspect, but the degree of distortion can be completely different, going to the reality denial territory in case of Hamas. The Economist interviewed one of Hamas's senior members, here is a quote

“ As for the 260 partygoers gunned down at a music festival, he says that was a “coincidence”; that they might have looked to their attackers like soldiers “resting” ”

Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that basically all claims by Hamas should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree -- that all claims from all military organizations and politicians be taken with a grain of salt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that depends on specific military organization, specific politician (consider Donald Trump), and in general, on specific author and source. Are they known for fact checking and accuracy or promoting big lies? My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we cite Hamas for Israeli civilian casualties? If not I fail to see the relevance of your quote besides an attempt at poisoning the well. nableezy - 00:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

? They are just pointing out how unreasonably unreliable Hamas is regarding their version of events. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Hamas seems like it should be considered unreliable. Andre🚐 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the attack as a "coincidence". Strangely reminiscent to the argument I'm having with certain other editors at this page. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo of kidnapped persons posters posted in public locations in LA

I uploaded this photo to WikiCommons that I took and released all rights to. Please feel free to add it to the article if it would help with the visuals, potentially with the similar image in 2023_Israel-Hamas_war#Hostages or elsewhere https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Posters_of_hostages_taken_by_Hamas_during_the_2023_Israel-Hamas_war,_taken_in_Los_Angeles.jpg Ashvio (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Iranian IRGC's Tasnim is a reliable source?

Our article includes what's described as a still photo from a video, purportedly of a Palestinian ambulance hit by an Israeli missile. But it's sourced to Tasnim News Agency, Iran's state-funded propaganda outlet of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Is there any reason to think—let alone consensus—that Tasnim is credible or a WP:RS for imagery or video? After all, this is an outlet that spews anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including that Henry Kissinger is behind a Jewish plot that created and released COVID-19.

Similar imagery has been inserted into our War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Flags

I added the flags of the Palestinian leaders in accordance with their countries in the infobox as is the case for the Israeli leaders, my contribution was canceled twice. Why should we classify Palestinian leaders and politicians according to their political party or movement ? Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Putting the Lebanese flag for Hezbollah is incorrect. The government of Lebanon is not the same as Hezbollah. Neither is PA/Fatah same as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Ecrusized (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at my second contribution, I changed only flags of leaders. That's about what I ask in the talk page. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gazans detained in Israel

Has this come up before? Apparently there are "thousands of missing Palestinians after the Israeli government cancelled work permits for Gazans" that have been "rounded up, arrested and blindfolded before being taken to military camps" per the Independent. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

+ Jewish currents ref Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

+ WAPO Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making identical headings in this article

Per MOS:HEAD, section headings must be unique. Several users have repeatedly made identical headings in this article. Please stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed some if it was the paragraph you were referring to Bobisland (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)