Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Table of foreign deaths

The article had a table with all of the foreign deaths. But it's removed now. Why? Aminabzz (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I was actually the one who initially removed it in an effort to trim the article length down. This table is already present in the linked article Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war so including it on this page is a redundancy, and adding it back would increase the length considerably. I would also suggest that listing every single nation that has had a death in the main article is WP:UNDUE. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ECP talk page notice

I propose adding the following notice at the top of this page

Feel free to copyedit. Any objections? NotAGenious (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, the talkpage blue-lock is not that obvious. Does it have an end-date, btw? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's indefinite. NotAGenious (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say indefinite, just indeterminate; if consensus is formed to do so, the protection will be removed. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I am just not sure if this is needed. Given the EC protection notice lists Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, as long as you read it properly (Which anyone who wants to make an edit request should be doing anyway). There are already enough notices on this page and adding more isn't the best thing to do. Terasail^[✉️] 13:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Terasail likewise, it also says to discuss changes on the talk page. This new ribbon will make it explicitly clear to request changed at that link. — Karnataka ^talk 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The page has already been indefinitely protected per this. Also there is a big box at top headed "Warning: active arbitration remedies" including the 500 edits, etc.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is about the article. It's not that common for the talkpage to be bluelocked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's about the talk page (the indefinite protection). Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not per my reading:

"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:"

And the box below states:

"...come here to the talk page to discuss..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I will copy the link out in full, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_25#Talk_page_indefinitely_EC_protected. OK? Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that thread is not easily visible to editors who arrive on this talkpage wishing to comment. NotAGenious' suggested banner would provide a visible (though not necessarily actually seen) explanation on why such editors can't edit this talkpage.

When I replied "that is about the article" to you, I meant the big box at top, not the link, sorry if that was unclear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

They are talking about a possible template for non EC users here that might end up solving the problem (although I have my doubts about people reading any of these different templates). Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully some do notice them. At least they can give regulars something easy to point to when asked (won't apply in this case, since the people who may want to ask here can't ask here). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

One idea could be to make a bigger version of the bluelocks etc with some explanatory text for talkpage use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible synth

The article currently says,

Iranian role and the Israel–Saudi normalization talks

According to US intelligence reports, approximately 500 militants from Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, received specialized combat training in Iran. The training was conducted by officers from the Quds Force, the foreign-operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Senior Palestinian officials and Iranian Brig. Gen. Esmail Qaani, the head of Quds Force, were also in attendance.[1]

At the time of the attack, Israel and Saudi Arabia were conducting negotiations to normalize relations. Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman said normalization was "for the first time real"...

Is there any established connection between the (alleged) Iranian training of 500 militants and the (widely reported) Israeli-Saudi deal? If not, the two should not be connected together as if they are related.VR _talk 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not directly related. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article actually allges that the Iranian training and Isaeli-Saudi deal are related, based on what I can read from your quoted paragraphs in green. All the article did was to discuss the Iranian training in one paragraph, and then discuss the Israeli-Saudi in the next paragraph. Not sure if you can read an allegation of connection between two events, simply because they are expressed in different paragraphs that are next to each other. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources other than WSJ that (1) also believe Iran trained Hamas militants in Sep and (2) tie this training to the Oct 7 Hamas attacks? We wouldn't consider US-Israeli military drills in Aug 2023[2] to be relevant in the background.VR _talk 03:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Total Casualties

Should we sum up the casualties in a total casualties section so that all the palestinian in west bank and gaza plus casualties in lebanon and syria are all totalled together in the battle box at the bottom? Mercenary2k (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No, if anything the Casualties section should be split up further. Civilian and Military Casualties should be noted as distinct from one another. Scu ba (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Duration of invasion

This article and 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should say how long that invasion lasted. They both say it began at 6:30am, but neither say when Israel completed repelling all the militants. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Good question. PBS reported on Tuesday 10 October that the IDF said it had "regained effective control over its south and the border with the Gaza Strip". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-as-the-war-between-israel-and-hamas-continues However, Sky News reported a lone attack in Kibbutz Re'im as late as Tuesday evening: https://news.sky.com/story/there-are-fears-hamas-fighters-could-still-be-hiding-in-israel-as-gaza-ground-offensive-considered-stuart-ramsay-12982696 The attack on Kibbutz Be'eri continued until Monday 9 October: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/israel-palestinians-kibbutz-attack/ Fighting was still happening in several places on Monday: "More than two days after Hamas launched its unprecedented incursion out of Gaza, Israeli forces were still battling militants holed up in several locations. As Monday began, the military said it was fighting Hamas in “seven to eight” places in southern Israel." https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/israel-intensifies-gaza-battles-to-repel-hamas-with-more-than-1100-dead-so-far-1536665.html Fences&Windows 13:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Info on Mohammed Deif

The paragraph of info on Deif with the section about hamas insufficiently sourced. Not all the details mentioned there are found explicitly in the linked Financial Times article, seems there's some SYNTH going on. Regardless, I don't think a single article by a business newspaper is enough to source that kind of overview of a subject. (as opposed to facts, which we can use any reliable source for). Can we just copy in part of the lede from the page on deif? Hydromania (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is in the background. Each of the leaders of Hamas and Israel have long histories and we can't just include all into the background.VR _talk 03:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded and removed. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

clearing?

@Vice regent: Given this edit by you, can you say how the stated source supports "clearing"? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but this source says "The Israeli army took more time than expected to clear the area that Hamas took in its surprise dawn raid." Would you propose a different phrasing? VR _talk 20:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned sentence is now in the first paragraph (the page is evolving so fast) and I see the cited source also uses "clear" in the title. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions to compress the article

The article is rather on the long side. I recommend reducing the size of the "Reactions" section, and creating a new article called "Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war" (possibly merged with 2023 Israel-Hamas war protests), as was done with the 2014 war. Something similar could be done for the "casualties" section. That would be easier since there is already an article for that. JDiala (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't compress that sort of thing but farm out the day-to-day, blow-by-blow account to separate articles, following the model of Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --Andreas JN466 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is already International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war from the last farmout. Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I feel like we can split the article in two, one for the initial Hamas infiltration and another for the IDF operation in Gaza which would make things more manageable. Scu ba (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 in the United States collage submission for split-out article

The article 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests, which is a split-out article from this parent article, was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename to 2023 Gaza massacre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No renaming proposals to be considered till 1 December 2023

---

Overwhelming majority of victims were civilians. Proof of violations of international law by Israel. This is not a war; this is a massacre and genocide. If Bucha and Be'eri can be classified as massacre, then this should too. Bijak riyandi (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There's an WP:Article titles policy that sets out the criteria for article titles, which is why those articles are called "massacres" and this one isn't. (It's because we follow what the sources say.) Go to any news website and see for yourself: do they call it "Israel-Hamas war" or "Gaza war"? Or "2023 Gaza massacre"? I haven't seen that one anywhere. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison or description. Bucha & Be'eri were massacres that were parts of wars. This article is clearly about a war. No-one's suggesting renaming Russo-Ukrainian War to Ukraine massacre. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

When the moratorium on rename proposals ends, nominate the article for renaming to that and see what happens. Though I suspect you won't be pleased with the results. -- Veggies (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While it is correct that this is indeed a genocide, Wikipedia by its nature must go by what the mainstream sources say, and the mainstream sources describe this as a war. Still, I believe this article does a fair job at conveying what is happening on the ground; a reader who reads this article will go away understanding that this is (in effect) a genocide, even if that word is not explicitly used by us. JDiala (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is Genocide, strangely nobody has added mention in the Genocide article?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incoherence in structure

We have stuff in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war § Invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 October–present) section which we don't cover in the child article because it's unrelated to the ground invasion (rather, it's related to air attacks etc.). We should have a child article on the overall Israeli counterattack, the same way we have one on the Hamas attack, so that details can continue to be added without hitting technical limits; since Oct 27 we've been dispersing info across a bunch of stubs and it's stunting our coverage of more recent events. DFlhb (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest commentary by figures be removed and retain events ON THE GROUND itself. Borgenland (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that merits a separate discussion. This proposal is intended to give us more space, in another article, to go into more depth, not really intended as a trim. Many repeat visitors to this page are probably looking exclusively at the subsection we're discussing, to know "what's up", so I'd say this is the lowest-priority thing to trim, and the one where we can be the most lenient with proseline and so on. DFlhb (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm also worried about the warnings on breaking the KB limit. Borgenland (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is behavioral, not related to article improvement. Please follow WP:TALK#NOMETA.

I think the following edit summary by Dovidroth Never mind all the pictures of Gazans crying. I have no objection to the photo of a blood-caked floor in Israel.Indeed no reader should remain unaware of the grief, and the atrocities that stirred it, in Israel. But an editor who adds it, while unable to restrain an expression of dismissive contempt for distraught civilians on the opposing side lacks the equanimity required to edit in this area. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC) It is outrageous honestly, but par for the course. And what picture of Gazans "crying" is in this article? nableezy - 17:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC) I’d say it is bordering on a hate crime. This may have to be raised to Incidents Noticeboard. Borgenland (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC) I'd say that's bordering on a legal threat. -- Veggies (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Awful edit summary. But not a hate crime or legal threat in the response. "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target Wikipedia or other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia." WP:LEGAL O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Italics suggest Veggies was replying to Borgenland's view. Borgenland said DR's implicit sneering at the grief over 11,000 dead if they happen to be just Palestinians borders on hate, and that this might well merit a report at ANI. If so, it would mean Veggies was suggesting DR's callousness was not the problem, but B's reaction to it is. I hope I'm wrong, and to ease this grammarian's unease perhaps V could clarify? Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC) I meant it can be reported to Administrators Noticeboard for making malicious group-based slurs (the closest to a hate crime in Wiki) given that some editors have been sanctioned for doing so. I’d like to clarify that I’m not suggesting for any action to be taken outside Wiki beyond the ANI. Borgenland (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iranian Propaganda Poster

File:14020810000774638344554359651470 64810 fear of collapse.jpg

Non-English Iranian propaganda poster

We need to discuss this Iranian poster. It's been taken down and re-restored multiple times ([3], [4], [5]) in violation of the 1RR policy by User:Baratiiman—who has outright refused to discuss the inclusion image on the talk page. It's not in English and the "translation" on the caption as of 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) is unsourced. Personally, I think it should be removed. Thoughts? -- Veggies (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Parham wiki (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aside from what I just wrote above (did you read it?), the image is of dubious copyright status (where are these crudely photoshopped images from?), and it fails to "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" per the image use content guidelines. -- Veggies (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read it. If it is a copyright violation, it should be removed. Parham wiki (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been another poster inserted showing only a translation. Borgenland (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting, I just removed the new poster as a potential copyright violation. It was uploaded originally with a twitter URL on November 1 and was later changed to a 4.0 agreement URL which said it was published November 2. Given the date discrepancy, I nominated it for deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Baratiiman, I recommend you come to this discussion. In your recent restoration of the poster, you classified my removal as "vandalism". Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Since there is a potential copyright violation, we, as Wikipedia editors, have to remove it and ensure that all potential violations are investigated and double checked. If it is a violation, it would be removed immediately from the edit history, if not, then it would be restored. Since there is a risk though, it needs to remain off the article until it is determined that it isn't a copyright violation. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of addressing the concerns, said user has decided to "whatever is the equivalent of sue" on Wiki Veggies on bad faith assumptions on an improper forum. Given how unprofessional this action appears to be, should this be raised to the Incidents Noticeboard? Borgenland (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that. Either way, I did some digging. Chances are, the poster is safe for Wikipedia. However, an email verification is probably needed to clear up one minor thing. Basically, the media outlet (CC license says their website is 4.0) published the poster image on Twitter on November 1 (No author). The media outlet then released the poster image on Nov 2, saying it was created on Nov 1 by a person. (1) the person who created it needs to be verified that they work for the media outlet or gave it to them & (2 - piggy backing on #1) determine if the image (posted on Twitter before the media outlet) is truly under a 4.0 license. The Commons license tag says "This is a file from the Ali Khamenei website...4.0..." (key: not all products, only website, mentioned in the CC lisense) and so forth. However, since the image was posted originally on Twitter, not the website, and was uploaded to the Commons using the Twitter source as the URL, the details need clarified. That's the whole issue. I do think it is safe, but until we are confirmed it is safe, it was best to remove it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional: I think it is probably similar to the NOAA/US Gov license where it truly is all products, but since the CC license currently states only the website is 4.0, the risk is still present. And, with copyright, technicalities mean all the difference. Hope that clears up the copyright concern for everyone. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My concern with said user is that they make incoherent, grammatically erroneous edits and bare url links and have to be prodded to fix their act. If the poster is to be uploaded again, we will probably need another fluent user to provide an accurate caption and description. Borgenland (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is still their assumption of bad faith on Veggies and on you. Borgenland (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I just got my answer ([6]). The user got warned by a Commons admin for uploading copyrighted content repeatedly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My concerns (apart from the copyright question) is that—at least for the "fear of collapse" poster—I don't see a plainly clear encyclopedic purpose for the image. It looks like the cheapest Juche state propaganda. At least the "power of faith determines the battle" poster was less overt and had English-language text. Apart from any copyright issues, I didn't (necessarily) oppose its inclusion. My central issue in this mess is Baratiiman's outright refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page and his edit-warring (of which I'm guilty as well), but primarily his violation of the BRD process. I'm certainly open to including an encyclopedic-quality propaganda poster for use on the article, but not if I'm going to be strong-armed by someone who won't discuss the problems. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:I agree that the translation shouldn't be included, but I see no reason the poster itself can't be. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon looking at the file some more, I agree that the file appears of dubious legality. The file claims to be from a source that is in the creative commons, but the link to the file directly contradicts this. I propose we keep it off until it can be verified. I've started a discussion on the Commons. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Important source on status of health system: "Why an American nurse who got out of Gaza says she would go back" (CNN)

• Here ICYMI. 8-minute Anderson Cooper video. American Doctors Without Borders nurse who's just returned from Gaza gives first-hand account of conditions in Gazan hospitals and refugee camps. --Andreas JN466 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

this would count as WP:UNDUE, a minor detail as an opinion of one person, so probably not for this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

History will remember you

Please don't use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information.
The following discussion has been closed by AquilaFasciata. Please do not modify it.
When this event becomes known as the "Gazan Genocide" or "Palestinian Genocide" or whatever name we end up going with, I'm sure you'll all change the name of this page to fit, but I will never forget the collaborators who called it the biased propaganda name of "Israel-Hamas War". This isn't a war, it's a genocide. And those people aren't "Hamas", they are literal infants. What part of telling people to evacuate to the south, then bombing the south, willfully luring them into a trap just to kill them, is a "war" against "Hamas"? What part of bombing schools and hospitals and shooting fleeing civilians dead is a "war" against "Hamas"? No. When the time comes, the former name of this page will be a black mark against this entire website. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests which have not been actioned

Hello folks, I will leave that here to process; these two requests have been sitting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit for more than a week:

2023 Israel–Hamas war

• 2023 Israel–Hamas war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please add line about Britain withdrawing embassy staff from Lebanon due to this war, in the Reactions > International section. https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-temporarily-withdraws-some-embassy-staff-lebanon-2023-11-06/ BritishSpaniard (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

• 2023 Israel–Hamas war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Add the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (JAMI) as a non-Palestinian group on the infobox. JAMI has launched missile attacks against Israel from Iraq. It is even mentioned in the article Hind242 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Lectonar (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding Hamas claims of Israeli vehicle casualties

should we add Hamas claims of how many APCs and Tanks they have destroyed. Would say 'per Hamas' to clarify it comes from them. Genabab (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This info is already included in the infobox of the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article. Not sure if we need to include it in this article too, but I guess we could. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First para including number of Palestinian children killed

The number of Palestinian children killed has been repeatedly added to the first paragraph of the lead, but the number of Israeli & foreign children killed isn't, making it biased. Most of our articles about conflicts don't include the number of children killed in their leads, let alone in their first paras. Examples are: Somali Civil War (2009–present), Syrian civil war, Tigray War, War in Sudan (2023) & Yemeni civil war (2014–present). Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

the number of Israeli & foreign children killed isn't Then add it. Meanwhile the number of Palestinian children killed is highly notable, just google "graveyard for children". Just because (some other article) does/doesn't do (some thing), has no relevance for the specific circumstances here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There really is only one right way to resolve these sorts of WP:DUE issues, and it's not by looking at other articles or asserting widespread coverage. It's by looking at 5 or 10 top quality RSes -- the good ol' alphabet soup MSM like AP, BBC, etc. etc. -- and look at their latest article that gives casualty counts -- all those MSM put these out daily if not more often -- and see what subcategories of casualties are reported by the majority of them. If most of them say ### casualties, including ### X, ### Y, and ### Z, then we should also include X, Y, and Z. It's the same exact logic and method by which we determine whether anything is WP:DUE for inclusion: look at the sources. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And just to get it started, BBC right now, their little infobox summary thing says In Israel, people across the country are marking one month since the Hamas attacks on 7 October, which saw 1,400 people, mostly civilians, killed, and more than 200 people taken hostage. and More than 10,300 people have been killed in Gaza according to the Hamas-run health ministry, including more than 4,100 children. So it's "mostly civilians" when talking about Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 (but no mention of "children" or other subgroups), and it's "10,300 people ... including more than 4,100 children" when talking about Gaza casualties (and notice they are doing the "Hamas-run health ministry" thing). Now is that what most of the RSes are doing? I don't know. But it's easy enough to find out, for anyone who wants to make the WP:DUE case, one way or another. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

None of that makes it important enough for the first para. Millions of people march against this war, but not against the Hamas invasion or against any of the other current/recent wars I list. This war has a disproportionate number of people/orgs who are pro-Palestinian, who choose to emphasise child casualties. A major reason for a much higher proportion of casualties being children in Gaza compared to in Ukraine is that Gaza has a very high birthrate & Ukraine a very low birthrate. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course none of that makes it important enough for the first para... did you read what I wrote? I said you have to look at 5-10 sources, and I only quoted from one. If you're not quoting from sources, you're wasting your time and everyone else's. General arguments about importance and casualties and wars are just a waste of time.

If you look at that BBC page, the summary I quote from is directly analogous to a Wikipedia article lead/infobox. If RSes put a fact in their bullet-point summary at the top of their article, then that fact is WP:DUE for the lead of a Wikipedia article (and infobox). Indeed, it's the best evidence of WP:DUE. The only question is whether the BBC is an outlier or typical of RSes in highlighting child casualties in Gaza right at the top of the story immediately after giving overall casualty counts. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Here, I'll save you some time and pull a second one, AP News, the first place they give casualty counts is in the fourth paragraph, which says: The Palestinian death toll in the war surpassed 10,300, including more than 4,200 children, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza. Hmm, same as BBC -- gives children when giving Palestinian casualties (and, btw, note it's doing the "Hamas-run Health Ministry" thing). When it gives Israeli casualty counts in the 5th paragraph: More than 1,400 people in Israel have been killed, most of them in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that started the fighting, and 242 hostages were taken from Israel into Gaza by the militant group. Unlike BBC, doesn't say "mostly civilians," doesn't give any sub-categories at all. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reuters doesn't give casualty counts until the 12th and 13th paragraphs of its latest article, which are The war - the bloodiest episode in the generations-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict - broke out on Oct. 7 when Hamas fighters burst across the fence enclosing Gaza and killed 1,400 Israelis, mostly civilians, and abducted more than 200, according to Israeli tallies. and Since then, Israel has bombarded the coastal territory relentlessly, killing more than 10,000 people, around 40 percent of them children, according to counts by health officials there., so "mostly civilians" for the Oct. 7 Israeli casualties, "40 percent of them children" for Gazan casualties, and no "Hamas-run." Look at a few more RSes like this, and a pattern will emerge. Levivich (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes this notable is that such a large percentage of total deaths are Palestinian children. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's because Gazans choose to have a very high birthrate & much of the media love to be emotive in their coverage. If a new war breaks out in Korea, the proportion of child casualties will be far lower because Koreans (especially S Koreans) have a low birthrate. The media wouldn't often remark that a very small minority of casualties of the Second/Third Korean War are children. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Selfstudier. The children toll is highly significant in this conflict with a wide spectrum of reliable sources covering the details. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Saying this is a “graveyard for children" and focusing on the highly unreliable number of children killed in the beginning of the lead makes this page sound as a rabid anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  The UNSG and UNICEF are the ones saying it. so RS report it, makes sense to me. I don't think those sources are the source of rabid anti-Israel propaganda personally. That sort of comment sounds more like Israeli propaganda to my ears. Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's very biased, especially in the first para. No-one would add to the lead of a future article about airstrikes in the Far East that they've killed many old people, turning the affected country into a graveyard of the elderly. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You can keep saying that but NPOV is about reflecting sources and this is very well sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Many media orgs, NGOs, politicians etc. are emotive in what they say/write. We're an encyclopedia & shouldn't be. Including such things in the first para, which we don't normally do in war articles, isn't proportional or NPOV. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that we achieve WP:NPOV by not giving information the same prominence that it is given by the sources, because we're an encyclopedia and they're media orgs? So instead of striving to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, we should give weight based on what editors think is proportional? And that is NPOV?? Levivich (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Most media orgs aren't routinely including number of children killed in the first paras of their articles. If Gaza were multicultural, we wouldn't include in the first para how many of those killed were Hindus, Buddhists, atheists etc. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Strange obfuscation. Deaths are often divided into men, women, children ... especially when it is notable, just as the 1,400 figure is followed with "mostly civilians". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

In armed conflict articles, we typically specify in iboxes & often in leads how many casualties were combatants on each side, as well as how many were civilians. We don't usually specify child casualties. Imagine Gaza were culturally enriched through very high, diverse immigration. If 20% of its residents were Indian Hindus, 15% Thai Buddhists, 10% Polish Catholics, 10% Chinese atheists & 10% German agnostics, would anyone want to specify casualties of each in the lead? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree w/ Jim 2 Michael that "Many media orgs, NGOs, politicians etc. are emotive in what they say/write. We're an encyclopedia & shouldn't be." Really emotive metaphors like "graveyard for children" is more appropriate for creative writing, not encyclopedic writing. That being said, 4000 children out of 10,000 deaths is a very high statistic and statistically significant. Can we maybe compromise and include that not in the first paragraph of the lead, but maybe in one of the later paragraphs. There is a weight issue because the 4000 non-militant children are victims of the war, as well as all the Israeli civilians who were barbarically, inhumanely massacred. For equal weight, the 4000 children would probably need to be in the same paragraph as the barbaric massacres, or maybe in the last paragraph of the lead since the massacres happened in the beginning and the 4000+ children deaths are happening later. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So you want to stop using words like "massacred" as being "emotive" too? nableezy - 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The word massacre is used in history textbooks to describe events that were particularly violent (Native Americans scalping and beheading settler). “Graveyard for children” is a metaphor. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a metaphor; it's a literal description. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Really? It’s been so long since high school English. Maybe you’re right. I’m not really a fan of “Graveyard for Children”… couldn’t one say that world is a graveyard for everyone because we’re all gonna die? Yeah, but if you all think it’s an appropriate description, you can keep it in the article. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Native Americans scalping and beheading settler Native Americans learned scalping from the settlers. Never heard of Amerinds beheading people. Graveyard is not a word that we selected. We are using reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think they put settlers heads on spikes. A did a quick google search and it looked like settlers did this too? Gosh, I didn’t learn this at school at all! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You say "highly unreliable number". World Health Organization spokespeople (and other experts) have said they consider the numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry reliable. See quotes above at #World Health Organisation comments on Palestinian casualty figures. Andreas JN466 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The high child death count is an extraordinarily notable aspect of this conflict that is being reported on almost continuously by numerous RS, and it seems like an obviously due thing to include in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that statistic should be in the lead. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not extraordinary; it's expected under the circumstances. a) Gaza has a very high birthrate; b) Hamas is deeply imbedded in civilian areas, using civilian buildings as bases & launching sites; c) A high proportion of the residents of northern Gaza having not moved south as Israel instructed. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well, that's OK then. Duh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the seventh time you have said this. Please read WP:BLUDGEON. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You are just repeating your personal opinions. I could do the same (a. Israel has targeted homes, apartments, schools ie places where children are known to congregate, b. Israel has in violation of international law used weapons that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets, by for example using more explosive firepower on a tiny strip of land in a couple of weeks than the US led coalition did in an entire vast country in a year, c. Israel's attempts at forcing the displacement of civilians do not relieve it of the obligation to not use indiscriminate force against targets where civilians, including children, are known to be, which they continue to do). See how personal opinions dont help the conversation here? Maybe stop doing that? nableezy - 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont have a strong opinion on number of children, but this edit where an editor removes that most of the Palestinian casualties are civilians while keeping that most of the Israeli casualties are civilians is not one of the options. Ive added a source specifying that most of the 10k are women and children and included that bit. nableezy - 14:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

removes that most of the Palestinian casualties That edit doesn't remove the claim that most Palestinian casualties are civilians, it removes the claim that all Palestinian casualties are civilians. I don't think we have a source for the former, but we definitely don't have a source for the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest conflict for children in modern times?

I think sources like Is Israel’s Gaza war the deadliest conflict for children in modern times? make the number notable enough to be mentioned in the lead.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that "the high [Palestinian] child death count" would be "an extraordinarily notable aspect" of the conflict, as one participant said above. But only if it were a reliable number. It is not. If it were a claim by any other terrorist organization, no one would trust it. But since it comes from Hamas (or organizations under the control of Hamas), some UN officials and media consider these numbers reliable. That's the thing. BTW, the currently claimed number is 4,104. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seems the only unreliable numbers are Israeli, having reduced from 1400 to 1200. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, looking at the UN source cited by Aljazeera above [7], it says (at the bottom of the pdf file):

Disclaimer: The UN has so far not been able to produce independent, comprehensive, and verified casualty figures; the current numbers have been provided by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza and the Israeli authorities and await further verification.

Hence this is yet another misrepresentation by Aljazeera (when they say this is a UN number: "Israel’s attacks have killed 4,104 children in Gaza during the current war, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports."). My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That isnt a misrepresentation, OCHA relies on both the GMH and the Israeli figures for their own reports. And your nonsense about But only if it were a reliable number. It is not. If it were a claim by any other terrorist organization, no one would trust it. But since it comes from Hamas (or organizations under the control of Hamas), some UN officials and media consider these numbers reliable. is just that, as more than the UN considers it reliable. Your dislike of the fact that the GMH figures are treated as reliable is a personal problem, one that I for one would like to stop reading about. This isnt My very best wishes' personal blog. nableezy - 23:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

OCHA did report it and the disclaimer speaks well of AJ. This was all discussed at the boards and refs provided about the past reliability of MoH Gaza. And it seems Barbara Leaf has come round to this way of thinking and believes the numbers may be higher than are being reported. I think this horse is toast from overflogging. Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Separate article of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Is there any reason that 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and 2023 Israel–Hamas war are two separate articles? NM 00:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly not much, see above. The split, which was designed to let us cover things in more detail, is too restrictive to be useful for now, since it only covers the ground offensive, not any other event since Oct 27 like bombings, pauses from those bombings, etc. The split should have been to 2023 Israeli counterattack on Gaza, and its contents shouldn't be taken from here but from previous splits that scattered the material around and made it hard to find. DFlhb (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The overall war article starts for the Hamas attack on Israel (October 7). Israeli forces did not invade Gaza Strip until October 27. The articles are find. Imagine trying to merge Northern Ukraine campaign into Russian invasion of Ukraine. That wouldn’t be really possible at all. In this case, the split articles are necessary, given the war article size is already too large by tens of thousands of characters. 2023 Hamas attack on Israel & 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip are different operations/events during the overall 2023 Israel–Hamas war. But, like I said, the split is required as no way in heck can the articles be merged together given the war article is too large as is. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice I'm not proposing a merge here, but a change in scope of one child article (2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip), with other scattered child articles merged into it, so that the material is easier to find, expand, and maintain. DFlhb (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas use of Human Shields

Hamas’ use of human shields is stated plainly in this article from the New Youth Times. “Hamas has used civilians as human shields and positioned underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals.”

As does Haaretz “Hamas is also making it harder for civilians to leave so it can continue using them as human shields. Its members have already intentionally fired at convoys moving south through the humanitarian corridor created by the Israel Defense Forces.”

This reliably sourced information was just removed from the article under the rationale that the lead should summarize the article. There is certainly enough information to necessitate a section on Hamas use of human shields in both the body and the lead. Drsmoo (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As the removing editor, I'll weigh in. The sentence in question was supported by a single source and placed in the first paragraph of the entire article. My revision referred to the policy that the lead follows the body, which the revision didn't comply with. Sure, if there's consensus for inclusion, add that sentence somewhere else in the body. But unless and until it's given greater coverage in the body, it doesn't need to be in the lead (which is already longer than recommended).

To your second point, the article is already overlong, an entire section (or subsection, or sub-subsection) would be overkill in my view. There are other articles for that sort of thing. But as I said, the sentence in question could potentially go elsewhere. WillowCity^(talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Just dropping back in to echo various commenters below and clarify my view that I specifically do not support including the sentence in the body of the article, at least as it's currently phrased. I was saying that that's an option, if and only if consensus is reached, but clearly there is strong and reasoned opposition to including this Israeli claim, laundered through the NYT without attribution, and stating it in wikivoice. WillowCity^(talk) 13:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add to 2023 Israel–Hamas war#War crimes; there are BALASP issues that including the use of human shields by Hamas would partially address. Once done we can consider it for inclusion in the lede; we put a lot of weight on the number of casualties caused, and I think it would be due to include information on why those casualties are being caused. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats POV, not fact. And there isnt a BALASP issue in the War crimes section. Beyond that, the times doesnt say anything about a war crime, making that proposed usage SYNTH. nableezy - 04:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, Mr. Platypus: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city

We have to use wiki-voice and be careful of original research and not create false balance. So we can only write that human shields is what Israel or other nations military commanders allege, if that is what it says in the article. I am still learning about wiki voice too. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Balasp baloney. Weight on casualties because weight in sources. Whether or not Hamas are using human shields does not relieve Israel from indiscriminate attacks so that should be included as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Indiscriminate attacks is an allegation. When Hamas fires rockets from inside a school or mosque, and then Israel strikes it, the response is not indiscriminate. Drsmoo (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That Israel has been indiscriminately attacking Gaza is far less of an allegation than the human shields malarkey. Establishing that human shields were used requires evidence and deliberation by legal experts. For the indiscriminate nature of Israel's bombardment, one only needs to look at the UN statistics that a third of all buildings and 45% of all homes being destroyed in Gaza. It's pretty obvious. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure has been Israel's stated policy, so... WillowCity^(talk) 02:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as Haaretz, thats analysis by Amos Harel, and thats useful for attributed opinion, not fact in the first paragraph of an article. Most sources attribute the "human shield" piece to Israel, eg CBS:

Israel has accused the Palestinian militant group Hamas of committing "double war crimes" by not only firing rockets at civilians, but firing them from and near United Nations-run facilities in the Gaza Strip that should be "out of bounds" — and at least one senior U.N. official who spoke with CBS News agrees.

Hamas' use of civilians as human shields in Gaza was confirmed during the last major conflict in 2014, but its use of U.N. facilities to house and launch weapons has increased over the last eight years, putting U.N. staff and other civilians at greater risk, Israeli officials say.

USA Today:

Israeli strikes pounded Gaza City on Thursday while ground forces clashed with Hamas militants near a hospital where the Israelis say Palestinian civilians are being used as "human shields." The Israeli military, facing global backlash for its unrelenting destruction of Gaza, accused Hamas of exploiting hospitals, ambulances, clinics, mosques and schools to stash militants and weapons. Israeli forces were closing in on Gaza’s largest hospital, al-Shifa, where tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians reportedly are sheltering alongside patients.

Seeking to include Israeli claims as fact on the basis that a minority of sources repeat their claims without attribution when most sources do attribute them and then attempting to place it in the first paragraph is UNDUE weight and a violation of NPOV where we describe disputed viewpoints, not adopt them. nableezy - 05:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The human shields mantra is a well understood means of justification, distraction and dehumanization. Experts in international law aren't misled by it, and we shouldn't mislead our readers either. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The outcome of whether or not Hamas is using its own people as human shields hasn’t been decided it. The outcome will be decided in court once all sides have prevented their evidence. We can’t rule out that Hamas is actually using its own people as human shields; they are the ones who called on their own people to stay in their homes and supposedly set up roadblocks preventing Palestinians from evacuating a war zone Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• decided yet Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"We can’t rule out that Hamas is actually using its own people as human shields; they are the ones who called on their own people to stay in their homes and supposedly set up roadblocks preventing Palestinians from evacuating a war zone" - I believe all of these are unsubstantiated IDF claims. Such statements require proof and verification, and it is international law experts who rule on such things, not militaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It's substantiated that Hamas called upon civilians not to evacuate; as far as I know the roadblocks are still unsubstantiated. In general, though, the claim that Hamas is using human shields isn't an WP:EXTRAORDINARY one; they have been proven to use them in the past, and there is a growing body of evidence that they have continued to do so - and no evidence that they have changed their policies on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that Palestinians were immediately bombed on the road upon attempting to evacuate, any initial calls not to evacuate, if substantiated, would be sage advice. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There are reports from reliable sources of Hamas gunning down civilians attempting to evacuate https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ryjyna7qa Drsmoo (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"reports from reliable sources" = YNET ... ? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes Yediot Ahronot is a reliable source. Dohanews, not so much. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"But in wartime, Israeli media, like other components of Israeli society, set differences aside and rally behind the military leadership. Some critics who don’t are dubbed traitors. Coverage of the other side’s plight is kept to a bare minimum." Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel "move South" -> "Oops, we bombed there as well". Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the IDF has aerial photographic evidence of roadblocks. Saw it somewhere, but yes, this will be decided by international law experts in court once all evidence has been provided. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Photos like those of a "tunnel entrance" at the Qatari hospital that was just the water tank? If a sentence starts with "the IDF says", proceed with caution. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an opinion piece and should not be presented as one. Drsmoo (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I would add it to the Location of Hamas military facilities subsection. I think that there is a broad consensus on the use of civilian facilities by Hamas, there is less of a consensus about the label of human shields, so the text should reflect that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Since Israel has been condemned by the Supreme Court for using Palestinians as human shields, and the practice continued, according to B’tselem long after that, and since it has in several wars, esp. since 2008 constantly defended the disproportionate numbers of civilians killed by the IDF as a result of Hamas’s use of their citizens, we are dealing with a reflex propaganda meme. At the same time, Hamas does locate much of its military infrastructure within the urban landscape.

The reference comes from a scholar who has written a major book on this, referring now directly to the ongoing war, hence superior to newspapers. Since the text is long, I'll excerpt just one small part to illustrate the point.

The only way to neutrally refer to this is something like the following:-

Much of Hamas’s military infrastructure is built underground, within densely populated areas. Israel claims that this constitutes the use of civilians as human shields, and assigns blame to Hamas for the high/disproportionate toll its campaigns in Gaza have caused among the civilian population. Neve Gordon has argued that this human shield argument lends itself to justifications of indiscriminate killing.

Neve Gordon, Marya Hannun Israel and the Laws of War—A Conversation with Neve Gordon,' Merip 6 November 2023

Nicola Perugini and I have shown how hundreds of thousands of people have been framed as human shields in recent asymmetric wars between state and non-state actors in places like Mosul, Sri Lanka and Gaza. In these instances the human shield argument can be used to justify an elimination project. It’s not being used to justify the killing of 20 civilians but to legitimize a Nakba-esque logic. These are instances in which the laws of war are mobilized to facilitate the use of lethal violence against civilian populations. Perugini and I have studied the “hospital shield” argument quite extensively in several contexts. It is still not entirely clear who is responsible for the bombing of Al Ahli hospital on October 17, but hospital and health care facilities have been systematically bombed since October 7 and the attacks have increased to an unprecedented level in this round of fighting. As of October 30, the World Health Organization documented 82 attacks against medical units in the Gaza Strip. The attacks have so far affected 36 health care facilities (including 21 hospitals damaged) and 28 ambulances. 71 percent (51 of 72) of primary care facilities no longer function, while 12 out of 35 hospitals are not functioning due to damage from the bombing and/or lack of fuel, electricity or basic medicines, and these numbers continue to rise.[4] This in itself has a clear eliminationist drive to it because hospitals are not only “protected sites,” they are a fundamental part of the infrastructure of existence, responsible for saving and sustaining the lives of Gaza’s inhabitants, including the sick and the wounded to legitimize attacks on life-sustaining and saving infrastructures by shifting the blame for these attacks onto the Palestinians themselves.How do human shields serve as justification for the attacks against medical units? The laws of armed conflict state that medical units “must be protected and respected in all circumstances.”[5] But the law immediately qualifies this categorical injunction and introduces two exceptions in which a medical unit may lose its protections: if it shields combatants or harbors weapons and if it is located near a military target. Israel has exploited these exceptions and made them the rule. So, returning to Al Ahli, we saw an immediate—and one might even say reflexive—reaction sent on X (formerly Twitter) by Hananya Naftali, a social media influencer who has worked as a media adviser for Netanyahu, which reveals Israel’s playbook: Shortly after the news broke (in a since-deleted tweet), Naftali claimed Israel had “struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital.”[6] This is meant as a legal defense and is part of what Perugini and I call medical lawfare. We coined this phrase to describe a strategy repeatedly deployed by the Israeli military and government to legitimize attacks on life-sustaining and saving infrastructures by shifting the blame for these attacks onto the Palestinians themselves. All of the ingredients making up the medical lawfare argument are crystalized in Naftali’s tweet: lie about what actually happened; immediately blame the victim for the casualties and destruction by claiming the hospital was used as a shield; produce a civilizational divide by intimating the other side does not adhere to the principle of distinction; and emphasize this divide with terms like “heartbreaking” to suggest that Israel’s military cares about protecting Palestinian civilians. This kind of justification is by no means new and can be traced back to the way Israel justified the Nakba by shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. As Edward Said observed, one of the main mechanisms through which Israel has concealed the human costs of its successes is through the dissemination of a series of myths that have cast the Palestinians as guilty for their own misfortunes. There is a whole trove of infographics that Israel has used in the past to blame Palestinians for Israel’s bombing of medical facilities. Israel’s military has a social media unit, who I assume are working with lawyers who tell them how to frame acts of violence in order to render them legal.)Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, it is certainly true that Hamas's infrastructure is built underground in a densely populated area because, as well attested, Gaza is a densely populated area. It is an Israeli accusation that this means Hamas uses the population as a human shield (which implies you wouldnt shoot them?). Portraying the Israeli accusation as an uncontested fact is not NPOV. Israel has made the same general accusation repeatedly, and human rights organizations have said there has not been evidence for it. (Amnesty in 2014 for example). nableezy - 00:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

136 Israeli armored vehicles destroyed (per Hamas)

This claim is extremely unreliable to be included inside the infobox. I suggest it should be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? If we specify that it is the claim made by Hamas, then there is no issue. We do after all include also unreliable claims made by Israel on casualties inflicted on Hamas, by specifying that it is 'per Israel'.

Furthermore, the claim is also included on the invasion of Gaza wikipage too. Genabab (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas's military comuniques, unlike the Gaza Health authority's reports, are not reliable and look rubbery. 37 Israeli soldiers have been killed in action, while 136 vehicles were destroyed? Who was in the vehicles?Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Importantly, it says destroyed/damaged. Additionally, rendering an APC or armoured vehicle unusable does not necessarily mean everyone in it died. Genabab (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

37 is the official death toll released by Israel, definitely higher by this point. 136 appears to be the official claim by hamas since October 7 instead of the invasion 3 weeks later The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It says on the cited source that the announcement was made on Wednesday. Not oct.7th Genabab (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Would “damaged” be a better descriptor than “destroyed” in this case? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure why it would. Genabab (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Damaged would mean it was hit but doesn’t exclude even if the vehicle still functioning. Destroy implies the vehicle no longer functions The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ecrusized, to draw attention to an important point. Regardless of how reliable Hamas' claim may be, at the end of the day, it is true that that is the claim they are making. What is the issue with keeping it, while emphasising that it is a claim that comes from Hamas? Genabab (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No one besides you wants this included. Hamas claims are unreliable. Ecrusized (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas and IDF claims are both unreliable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is the case then why was it added to the invasion page, before I even raised it here?

> Hamas claims are unreliable

I understand that, I am asking what does it matter if we specify that it is a claim made by Hamas and not objective fact. Genabab (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli death toll

FarSouthNavy can you explain this edit? The Israeli revision has been widely reported (Reuters, Times of Israel, WSJ), why should we continue having a now outdated estimate in the article? nableezy - 00:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It should read. Israel:(Israel government)

• 1,458 killed{{efn|Including:
• 1,033 civilians

The restored sources are utterly outdated, and the text original research that simply doesn't add up, now we have the estimate of 1,200, not 1,400 for October 7 (the 00 figure from the beginning made that original estimate suspect in any case). Someone needs to seriously look into Israeli sources to ascertain the precise updated figures for all of those we now document.Nishidani (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No one of the sources you mention was cited for the revision; feel free to restore but use an RS, please. Darius (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. In the revert I objected to the sources restored (Barrons/ToL) were reintroduced creating the mess I referred to. Since reason has prevailed now, the point is historical.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The NYT also reported this; and they include a new count for civilians (845) and hostages (239). DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Already reverted. Darius (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

How did we go from "around 1200" to "1,248"? DFlhb (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The "around 1200" is referring to the casualties of the initial Hamas attack on October 7 alone. There have been plenty of casualties on Israel's side in the 5 weeks since that day and so the number of fallen IDF soldiers and police officers etc is up to date while the number of civilians murdered is not. Vicente2782 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - DFlhb (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The most recent death toll from the military had 318 service members killed during the attack itself (37 more have been killed since the IDF launched its ground offensive in Gaza), with police citing another 59 dead, Times of Israel 11 November 2023

If so, on 7 October, excluding as yet to be identified remains, roughly 900 civilians were murdered. Unlike Israel's procedure in previous wars, where masses of Hamas-employed police were redefined as militant terrorists, the police here (59) must be defined as civilian according to the statutes of international law.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel considered any employee of Hamas to be a terrorist organization, whereas international community wouldn't, so that's another challenge altogether. All that said, I created 2023 Israel–Hamas war/casualty to facilitate consistent numbering. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Police aren't civilians, so they shouldn't be categorised as such. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:31, 11 November 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 01:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Transcluded 2023 Israel–Hamas war/casualty

I was frustrated with the good faith but constantly outdated information across multiple articles including this one, so I created 2023 Israel–Hamas war/casualty which is already transcluded here, and elsewhere. It should be kept very short with latest sourced information. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

title is formatted a bit strangely. Could you make it so it says 'Casualties of the Israel-Hamas War' Genabab (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Genabab It is on a technical level, a "subpage" of this very article (note the /casualty part), and I opted for the shortest name possible. There does exist a full article titled Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war where I have transcluded the above template as well, because even there, information was woefully out of date. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah, there are no subpages in mainspace. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

there are, but are you saying there shouldn't be? thanks ~ Johnfreez (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnfreez, the very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Subpages: Except in the main namespace (article namespace), where the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia, subpages are pages separated with a "/" (a slash) from their 'parent' page. (my emphasis). — Qwerfjkltalk 22:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

yes exactly dear Qwerfjkl thanks. when i saw a casualties subpage i though hmmm that seems kinda unusual. and when you said subpages are disabled, i wondered, "then how is it possible that this subpage came-to-be? are they technically disabled or are they just disallowed?" 🧐🤷‍♀️ 🙏 ~ Johnfreez (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong and moved it to Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Saleh Aljafarawi

I just created a draft for Saleh Aljafarawi, a Palestinian social media influencer who has been accused of being a crisis actor. Any help with finding sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it’s better to mention him on the “misinformation in the 2023 war” at how Israeli media tries to smear him and falsely attribute him to an unrelated man injured in the hospital The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? They are very clearly not notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Graveyard for children

The fact that "Gaza was described by UNICEF as a “graveyard” for children."[8] was removed here with the edit summary stating the UN comment is a loaded word. While, the UNICEF reaction is properly attributed making it in-line with WP:LOADED. I am re-adding the this significant, well-sourced and properly attributed description to the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's implying that the IDF are targeting children, when they're actually targeting Hamas as well as its tunnels & bases, which they choose to locate in densely-populated residential areas. The high rate of child casualties is due to Gazans' very high birthrate. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We cannot trust the IDF or Hamas in their claims about targeting. As for choosing their location, I think the Gaza Strip was the third most densely populated place in the world before the IDF told everyone in the North to move to the South and closed the borders increasing the density. And sorry, but frankly The high rate of child casualties is due to Gazans' very high birthrate sounds mighty cold. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any serious doubt (among those not drinking the cool aid) that Israel's strikes are blatantly disproportionate and involve an entirely unacceptable degree of damage to civilian infrasructure. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with readding this. Note that Guterres used the same expression. Andreas JN466 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this is relevant and appropriate for inclusion. The quote is from UNICEF and the UNSG. (I would also strenuously caution against comments about Gaza's quote-unquote birthrate—that sort of rhetoric has very unfortunate implications. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out how those comments can be perceived) WillowCity^(talk) 23:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with eugenics; it's explaining why the child casualty rate is high. Obviously, the demographics of the residents will be reflected in the demographics of the victims. How does that make it worthy of being in the first para of the lead? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, your personal views are out of place here, this is very notable and I suspect is going to become even more notable in the near future (2,260 missing includes 1,270 children, under the rubble probably) and meanwhile the number just keeps rising. Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I was not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that rhetoric about the "birthrate" of specific racial and ethnic groups is often invoked in harmful ways (e.g., dismissing the human suffering of Gazan children and their families). This is especially the case in the context of Palestine/Israel.

And to the relevant point, its notability is what makes it worthy of inclusion—it's a comment by one of the most internationally-notable child welfare organizations, and the head of the most significant intergovernmental organization. WillowCity^(talk) 23:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a dog whistle for very racist ideologues, [saying that] people from black and brown countries should stop having so many babies [9], for anyone who may not be aware. Blaming anything on "very high birthrate" should be avoided as it has a very strong chance of being misunderstood. Levivich (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It can't be misunderstood that way because I've explained its relevance. It's not blaming either. It's explaining why child casualty rates are high in Gaza, just like explaining why elderly casualty rates would be high if there were airstrikes in Italy, which wouldn't be criticising Italians for their long lives or very low birthrate. The article gives the impression that the high child casualty rate is surprising, as well as implying (without any evidence) that the IDF often target children. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It might have sounded better if you'd said, "It's due to Gaza demographics. Nearly half of all Gazans are below 18 years of age."

Also, it seems to me you're forgetting that a key reason why the child casualty rate is so high is that so many victims are civilians, families, killed in their homes, or while going about their ordinary business (Reuters video, worth watching).

The children are not soldiers, though this callous conduct of war may well turn children into soldiers before long. What other dream could they possibly have than to punish those who did this to them? There has to be a better way. Andreas JN466 00:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Stating the percentage of people under 18 doesn't explain why that's the case. An acquaintance asked me if Gaza has extremely high immigration; he couldn't understand how it became extremely densely populated & why Hamas allowed hundreds of thousands of people to move there. He understandably thought the vast majority of the residents of the refugee camps there were newcomers. When I corrected him that the vast majority of people in Gaza were born there, he was even more baffled, so I explained that it has the highest birthrate in the Middle East. He still couldn't understand Gazans' choice to make Gaza so densely populated.

The number of civilian casualties is very relevant, which is why it's typically stated in iboxes. However, iboxes don't usually say how many casualties were children. Civilian casualties are very high because Hamas is deeply imbedded with them.

Gazans, along with a high proportion of demonstrators, journalists etc. are blaming Israel rather than Hamas, the latter of whom chose to start the war on 7 Oct. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion quite a number of times. We have heard it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jim 2 Michael: Determining who to blame is not our problem. All we do is summarize information from reliable sources. If they put emphasis on something, so should we. We are not a place to right great wrongs. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're presupposing the reasons (which we shouldn't), couldn't we just as well argue that the reason that so many civilians are dying is because Hamas militants set up their bases, bunkers, supply stores, and other valid military targets deliberately in or around sensitive civilian infrastructures (schools, hospitals, homes, etc.)? -- Veggies (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the UN, 45 percent of all homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed. (Actually, that was two weeks ago. It's well over half by now, I reckon.) Andreas JN466 09:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this conflict is the definition of disproportionality. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Quite. In Ukraine (population 44 million), 554 children have been killed since February 24, 2022 (about one per day). In Gaza (population 2.3 million), over 4,000 children have been killed in the past four weeks (about one every ten minutes). By my calculation, the daily number of children killed per capita in Gaza is about 2,750 times greater than in the Ukraine conflict. The ongoing level of killing is staggering. Andreas JN466 13:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Major reasons for that include a) Gazans have a very high birthrate while Ukrainians have a very low birthrate; b) A high proportion of Ukrainian children were moved out of Ukraine by their mothers; Gazans don't have such an option. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How about an RS making those arguments? Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Other major reasons include: indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, including schools, with little clear effort to target adults. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everything said here about incorporating this source, and echoes everyone's sentiment - just not sure if the UN Secretary General was being quoted correctly in the edit in question.

According to the Guardian Source, the Secretary General said that the Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children, where the edit states that Gaza is a graveyard for children.

Call me pedantic but I think the difference between "is" and "is becoming" is material. It's a quote, so it's either quoted correctly or wrongly, and nowhere in between. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It was said first by the UNICEF chief and repeated by the secretary general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Other way around? UNSG said on Monday "becoming a graveyard for children" and UNICEF chief on Tuesday "has become a graveyard for thousands of children" Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. My mistake. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not usual to include commentary in the leads of articles about armed conflicts. We shouldn't make an exception here. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Normally, armed conflicts are documented in encyclopedias long after the conflicts from a historical perspective. If we must document during the conflict, we should include such material. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not an exception to any rule that I know of. Sources dictate the course of action here. Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Many comments are exchanged but few are focused on this topic, i.e. if Gaza is "becoming graveyard for children" merits inclusion in the lead in an attributed manner. I don't know how Ukraine developments or Gaza birth rate ended up being discussed here! As far as I see, there is no substantiated objection backed by the guidelines against the inclusion of the comment by UN chief that Gaza is "becoming graveyard for children". This commentary is prominent, as echoed by multiple editors here. A similar comment is also made by UNICEF adding weight to the prominence of this statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comments related to this article

There is an ongoing Request for Comments related to this article. If you wish to watch participate in the discussion, you can hear: Talk:List of wars involving the United States#Request for comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV , specifically War Crimes Bias problem

There seems to be a problem of NPOV and bias in the article. In particular, it seems to perhaps legitimize in a sense action done by Hamas, as well as not present the full picture and Western Intelligence presented in various occasions. Not enough on Hamas War Crimes in illegal use of hospitals. Not enough on Hamas intentional killing and evidence collected that show intentions to destroy civilian population. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This material has already been discussed, several times I think, better to edit War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues in casualty breakdown

The introductory infobox currently provides casualty figures for both Gazans and Israelis, and when you hover over the figures, a pop-up box appears detailing the demographics of the casualties. We have some NPOV issues here:

1. The demographic categories are inconsistent. While the Gazan numbers classify casualties as "women," "children," and "elderly," the Israeli numbers simply identify "civilians." Furthermore, the only other categories the Gazan figures describes are UN and Medical staff, while the rest of the Israelis are members of the police or military.

2. The demographic breakdowns do not consistently classify all casualties reported. As of November 13, the infobox states that 1277 Israelis have been killed, and 11,180 Gazans. But when you add up the figures from the demographic breakdown, you get 1282 Israelis and 8,677 Gazans: 2,503 Gazan casualties are uncategorized.

You can see how these numbers are telling a skewed narrative. A reader quickly scanning these figures will be told that Gazan casualties consist of women, children, eldery, UN staff, and medical staff; Israeli casualties consist of civilians, soldiers, and police officers. Thousands of Gazan deaths are simply ignored.

If we are going to provide a breakdown of Israeli and Gazan casualties, they need to be consistent.

1. If one listing lists the identities of all casualties, then the other one must too.

2. If one listing lists military deaths, then the other one must too.

3. If one distinguishes the gender and age of civilian deaths, then the other one must too.

If we are unable to represent this information in a consistent and neutral way, then it should not be in the infobox. I recognize that we depend on possibly biased sources to get these figures, both Israeli and Gazan, and these sources have their own narrative they want to push. If we cannot untangle these biases, then these categories should only appear in a dedicated "casualties" section of the article where these difficulties can be explained to readers. theBOBbobato (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fix it then. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes have been made. Casualty breakdowns have been removed; if anybody wishes to restore them they need to make sure they report Israeli and Gazan casualties according to the same standard.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just curious, do we have any sources on how many of the deaths in Gaza have been fighters with Hamas, PIJ, or other combatant groups? I know the Gaza Health Ministry puts out raw numbers and numbers of women, etc., but do they identify combatant deaths as well? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I have seen a report that says all the figures cited by PHM are civilians. Suggesting the death toll is significantly higher. Israel has said that deaths in Gaza were over 20,000,[10] half of whom were Hamas fighters. According to the U.S. DoD,[11] the death toll in Gaza is much higher than what is reported by the PHM. Ecrusized (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bob bobato: There is no connection between how Gaza Health Ministery and Israel are reporting their own losses. Trying to make a connection between the two is WP:SYNTH. Gaza health ministry only reports the number of women and children without reporting about how many adult males or combatants were killed. I don't know how Israel reports its civilian or military losses, and I won't get into it here. I am restoring the Gaza note which specifies the number of children and women casualties since there is no correlation between the two separate accounts in the statement you've made. Ecrusized (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Gaza and Israel do not report casualties according to the same standard. I don't question the numbers they provide, but the lack of consistency gives Wikipedia a challenge.

Here's the problem - the Gaza data cherrypicks sympathetic casualties - vulnerable groups (women, children, elderly) and benevolent workers (health workers, UN staff) - and ignores non-sympathetic casualties (military fighters).

This is a serious NPOV issue because it magnifies the impression that Gazans victims are more sympathetic than Israelis, simply because the Gazan data emphasizes sympathetic victims while the Israeli data does not.

If the situation were flipped, I would have the same concerns. If the Israeli numbers, for example, also listed all the Holocaust survivors, teachers, and daycare workers who had been killed, I would question the inclusion of this data in the infobox.

There's no problem with using these records in the article, with discussion, but just placing them in the infobox with no comment amplifies the narratives that these parties are trying to promote. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda.theBOBbobato (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means following the sources, so an NPOV breakdown of casualties means following that the sources have said about casualties. The UN has reported its dead, and this has been reported widely, so it is is mentioned. Ditto child fatalities. If you think this is sympathetic data, well that could be a matter of systemic bias, but that does not mean it is not NPOV information. NPOV doesn't mean being consistent; it means being neutral to sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means we may use a source even if it is biased, but Wikipedia is never expected to parrot a source with no editorial assessment. The source cited by the infobox, for example, refers to all Gazan casualties as "martyrs" - but the article itself doesn't use this term.

I've reviewed the history of the edits of the casualties of this infobox, and it's been a bit of a mess. For long periods of time, the figures haven't actually attempted to breakdown the demographics of the casualties, they've only highlighted the number of Gazan children who've been killed and the number of Israeli soldiers killed. This is Undue Weight. This bias doesn't come from the sources - it comes from the editors who selected certain demographics groups to spotlight. As the casualties keep getting updated, this part of the article will continue to be a weak point which attracts these distortions.

The demographics of the war's casualties need be discussed in the article, but given the issues with the bias of the sources and editors, and the need to maintain a NPOV, they shouldn't be in the infobox.theBOBbobato (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a vehicle for propaganda, as long as it's mainstream Western propaganda, because we summarize what English language sources say. Just compare the lead of War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war to the lead of War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. See which one has statements in Wikivoice that say "have committed", and which one has attributed statements about "may have committed." That's Wikipedia being a vehicle for mainstream Western propaganda, it's a mirror reflecting back the words of English-language media. It is what it is. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

because we summarize what English language sources say This isn't entirely the case. Non-english sources are allowed, it's more the fact that most who contribute to the English Wikipedia only speak English. If you have Reliable Sources that aren't in English, add them. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is what it is not what it could be. So long as the English-language media generally mentions children casualty counts when it mentions Palestinian casualty counts, without doing the same for Israeli casualty counts, Wikipedia will also mention children casualty counts when it mentions Palestinian casualty counts without doing the same for Israeli casualty counts. If this is propaganda, then it is what it is. It could be different--we can incorporate Arabic, Hebrew, and other sources--but we don't, and so it is what it is. Wikipedia doesn't correct for bias in the mainstream sources; it's not designed to correct for them, it's designed to incorporate them, and so suggestions that we should correct for mainstream bias because Wikipedia isn't propaganda are wide of the mark. Wikipedia summarizes RS; if the RS are biased, then Wikipedia is biased. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

we can incorporate Arabic, Hebrew, and other sources--but we don't

Do you have better sources from non-English articles? I would much rather have a more accurate source.

Wikipedia doesn't correct for bias in the mainstream sources; it's not designed to correct for them

Sources don't need to be mainstream, only reliable. I'm also interested in how we would "correct for bias" without making original research that is unable to be verified by a third party. This is also pointed out as a point of contention in WP:TRUTH. It's similar to what Churchill has said about democracy: "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yemeni flag for Houthi

Expressing deep reservations about Houthis using the Yemeni national flag in the infobox. As far as I'm concerned they're not the de jure internationally recognized government of Yemen. And its usage of the flag would likely lead to erroneous conclusions that the Yemeni state has joined the war, which happened when it was first mentioned here a few weeks ago. Borgenland (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS, I deleted it. Parham wiki (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Responses in Israel section

Yaniv Cogan and Jamie Stern-Weiner, 'Fighting Amalek in Gaza: What Israelis Say and Western Media Ignore,' Norman Finkelstein.com 12 November, 2023

That is a compilation of the most authoritative voices in Israel on Norman Finkelstein's blog, written by scholars. As such it cannot be used, but each criminal statement is sourced to RS than can be accessed. Too long for extensive use, but just to ensure editors here are aware of the state of discourse among decision makers, as opposed to the views of the mainstream commentariat. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes coverage. DFlhb (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead abuse

Hamas has been repeatedly condemned for its use of hospitals and civilians as human shields by various countries and international organizations. as human shields]] by various countries and international organizations.

• (a)This should not stand in the lead, which summarizes sections. It mixes a fact (condemnation by organizations) with two traditional political claims.
• (b) It is ineptly phrased to spin a recently condemnation of what is believed to be occasions in this war when Hamas used human shields, as something characteristic of Hamas over time ('Hamas has been repeatedly condemned'), not only in this war.
• (c) Both Israel and Hamas in the last four wars have been 'repeatedly condemned' either for indiscriminate bombing of civilians or, as Israel claims of Hamas, using other Palestinians as human shields. In the prior wars (see the wiki articles) The Israeli claims could not be verified.
• (d) thus Hamas was condemned recently, and by various countries and institutions.
• (e) Ergo, the neutral phrasing must be along the lines:'A number of countries and international organizations condemned what they called Hamas's use of hospitals and civilians as human shields (specifying the date).
• (f) The point is absurdly overreferenced, mixing correct references to the UN and EU countries, with several assertions or claims made by interested parties like the US and Israel, who historically have repeatedly made this claim regardless of evidence. Netanyahu and Biden are not objective sources, but make claims.
• If used in the main text it should be balanced per NPOV by reference to similar condamnations/claims made regarding Israel's use of bombings of hospital infrastructure. I.e. 'both Israel and Hamas . . '

Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources stating this? Chuckstablers (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Stating what? Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

My response to your post after going through it and reviewing the RS's on this.

"(a)This should not stand in the lead, which summarizes sections. It mixes a fact (condemnation by organizations) with two traditional political claims."

Please see MOS:LEAD. It's false to say that the lede exists to summarize sections. That is one of many purposes. According to the MOS, it "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This does that. It's an important point. 27 of the worlds democratic western nations of the EU just condemned Hamas for it's use of Human Shields. Reliable sources are writing about it.. As per MOS, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". We have a lot of RS's on this as of late.

"b.) It is ineptly phrased to spin a recently condemnation of what is believed to be occasions in this war when Hamas used human shields, as something characteristic of Hamas over time ('Hamas has been repeatedly condemned'), not only in this war."

Do the reliable sources we have talk about Hamas's repeated use of human shields? If you follow the link to the wiki article on Hamas's use of human shields, it definitely seems like we do? Just a cursory search of the internet yields results. I don't think it's controversial, otherwise we wouldn't have an entire article about the topic?

"c.) Both Israel and Hamas in the last four wars have been 'repeatedly condemned' either for indiscriminate bombing of civilians or, as Israel claims of Hamas, using other Palestinians as human shields. In the prior wars (see the wiki articles) The Israeli claims could not be verified."

We are not discussing Palestinian claims of indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, so I don't see it's relevance. Please provide sources for your claim that we cannot verify Hamas's use of human shields.

"d.) thus Hamas was condemned recently, and by various countries and institutions."

I'm not sure what point you're making. They have been condemned recently, and have been condemned in the past.

"e.) Ergo, the neutral phrasing must be along the lines:'A number of countries and international organizations condemned what they called Hamas's use of hospitals and civilians as human shields (specifying the date)."

This is very clearly not neutral phrasing or at all consistent with NPOV. See MOS:ALLEGED. We don't want to start putting "what they call" or "what they claim" or "what they allege to be" in front of everything that we don't like on ideological grounds. Is your argument that because the reliable sources are mainly talking about condemning them now, it's not okay to point out that they've been condemned before for the same actions? The sources all seem to pretty clearly state that they have a history of doing this from what I've seen.

"(f) The point is absurdly overreferenced, mixing correct references to the UN and EU countries, with several assertions or claims made by interested parties like the US and Israel, who historically have repeatedly made this claim regardless of evidence. Netanyahu and Biden are not objective sources, but make claims."

They have 3 references. Multiple other statements in the lede have more than that. There is no self consistent argument to be made here. The part about biden and netanyahu is irrelevant; I see no connection here between that and the argument you're trying to make.

"If used in the main text it should be balanced per NPOV by reference to similar condamnations/claims made regarding Israel's use of bombings of hospital infrastructure. I.e. 'both Israel and Hamas . . '"

That's not how NPOV works. Nobody is accusing Israel of using human shields. NPOV does not mean tit for tat (well we said something about about Hamas so we must say something about about Israel). That's not NPOV. If you want to include that in the lead, then it needs to be done in a manner consistent with the manual of style and be backed by reliable sources. We have an entire article on Hamas doing this for a reason. It's noteworthy. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The use of human shields and the consequences of it is one of the reasons this conflict has so much coverage. It is essential to include this in the lead. Dazzling4 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As for (4) - the fact that Hamas has used human shields in the past does not affect the relevancy of including this instance in the lead if an article discussing a conflict that is shaped around the civilians in Gaza. Dazzling4 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

An overarching point is that no mention of human shields appears anywhere in the body of the page, so any material regarding this needs to be first substantiated in the body before we can even begin to get around to summarizing it in the lead, per MOS:LEAD. At the moment, it is not a summary, but an insertion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't lead abuse, its a constant element of media coverage, its an element in academic coverage and even former President Bill Clinton has acknowledged it. In other words its widely covered in WP:RS and should be included in the article. WCM_email 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I note also its prominently covered in the linked war crimes article, its absence here appears to be due to over pruning of the relevant section. The fix, if one is needed, would be to add this aspect of the conflict to that section. WCM_email 13:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that should not be covered in the article. Leads summarize. One cannot just plunk a poorly phrased POV spin on some element in the conflict into the lead, and hope someone will then build a section below to justify the lead sentence(s). I mean this is a basic WP rule. Secondly, we all know wars are 'spun' to gain support from various constituencies, here, -pro-Israel / pro-Palestine. This is all over the place in reportage. The first day list of ISIS like descriptions gained massive coverage, and then quietly collapsed. Hamas murdered and kidnapped Israelis. The evidence for Hamas members systematically dismembering victims, beheading babies, cooking one in an oven, and roasting people in their homes is extremely flimsy (so far). So particularly with a known meme promoted by the IDF and Israel's Social Media unit must be handled with caution. (Yes, Hamas undoubtedly built under places like hospitals, and hid arms caches in mosques, just as in Mandatory Palestine Jews stashed weapons in synagogues, and used civilian kibbutzim for disguised military purposes - stashing armaments under the dining floor etc. We can note that, as the evidence is forthcoming, but not spin it out as if it were something bizarrely typical, uniquely, of Hamas).Meme dominance is part of the warfare, and we must strive to keep coldly above this atrocious fray, and describe it per RS succinctly and accurately.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. Well said. Andreas JN466 14:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We are in this situation because it was in the war crimes section, which has been excessively pruned. This is not a poorly phrased POV spin but a common commentary and it has nothing to do with the IDF engineering social media. Removing it now would violate a core policy of wikipedia, which is a WP:NPOV. The fact that other groups have done it is whataboutery, hiding behind civilians and then using the civilian casualty figures to put pressure on Israel for a ceasefire has been a constant feature of Hamas strategy. This is what RS describe succinctly and accurately. So again this is not lead abuse. WCM_email 16:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply to the substance. On wikipedia one cannot enter new information to lead that lacks a section in the article itself. Leads summarize. (b) the sentence was inept because, grammatically it suggested that Hamas has been chronically condemned by many countries and organizations for using human shields. This is untrue. As such, on those grounds alone, it was a distortion of the facts and an abuse of the lead.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The use of human shields isn't a trivial element of the conflict. Dazzling4 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly non-trivial in the sense that it makes up a disproportionate component of Israel's tiresomely repetitive campaign of distortive messaging — the fig leaf for their disproportionate actions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If that is what you believe then even you should be arguing that it warrants inclusion in the lead. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think a critical mass of sources call it out as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed your argument that "lede's summarize". Please see the MOS. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Not in the body, so shouldn't be in the lead" is not sufficient reason to remove material that is well-sourced (see here and here), verifiable and due. If you dislike how it's phrased, just edit it! François Robere (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is? Not in the body -> Not in the lead. Someone needs to do that first. If the problem is that because it was in the war crimes section, which has been excessively pruned., then unprune it and bring it back, BUT

One cannot speak of human shields without in the same breath, referring to Israel just ignoring that and shooting/bombing them disproportionately, an equivalent crime.

So for instance the EU condemnation for human shields also urges Israel to show "maximum restraint" to protect civilians, which Israel is patently not doing. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That is whataboutery and it seems that personal opinion is suggesting content rather than what reliable sources say. This is not an exclusively "Israeli" narrative, nor it is a fig leaf, its a feature of mainstream coverage and a major element of the strategy of Hamas. Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties, it knows that a disproportionate pressure will be put on Israel to ceasefire, whilst it has already said it has no intention of ceasing its attacks upon Israel. It should be included because it is a predominant view in the literature and that is what guides wikipedia coverage. WCM_email 08:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties" - also opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to do that first. So do it. If the solution to a problem is a simple copy-paste, then deletion is unwarranted.

One cannot speak of... without... One can do whatever the sources allow one to do. What one cannot do, is assert equivalence without them. François Robere (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for good article

I am not a contributor to this article, and so am not in position to nominate. But I think editors here have done an excellent job on a highly contentious topic and I hope you will consider a nomination for a good article.

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You should consider participating! Research different sources and think for yourself. The more editors with heterogeneous viewpoints, the less Ideological bias on Wikipedia. :) Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the main criteria for GA are stability, and that is certainly not the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This article is more of a running news story than an encyclopedia article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's going to take the dust settling and this tit for tat "say something bad about X side, say something bad about Y side" and vice versa crap that's been going on now for a month ending. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Well there's always Wikinews if we need it :) - Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 21:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment is much appreciated! That being said, this article is still kind of a mess. We would love if you would join us though - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The numbers come from the Palestinian Information Center. Are they really a neutral source? Synotia (moan) 17:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the best source we have. Current practice for most articles is to use the officially reported numbers; it's the same reason we use Israel as the source for Israeli deaths. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Then it has to be mentioned. They appear to be linked to Hamas, as their site is blocked in the West Bank. Synotia (moan) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the current consensus is to say "Hamas-run" or something to that effect when we talk about them in the text? That's what I've seen and have been doing. This isn't necessarily Hamas-run though. Problem obviously is that we can only really rely on Hamas's figures for now until the war ends and actual scholars look into how many people have died here. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Friendly fire 7 October

Why is there no mention that some hours after the Hamas assault got underway, Apache helicopters and tanks began to counterattack firing missiles, strafing the affected areas, included kibbutzim infrastructure. The Israeli newspapers have quite a lot of articles on Israeli victims of 'friendly fire'. Many of those articles are translated or summarized in sources not considered RS on wikipedia, but they link to the mainstream Hebrew originals. Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There are reports rising, but I’d rather we wait for the dust to settle and for these instances which seem quite convincing to be covered by reliable sources before we add them The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The dust-settling approach has never been applied to this and many other articles where coverage of extraordinary claims, still unconfirmed, has left numerous traces in the narrative. Yoav Zitun's documentation of the numbers of strikes and quantities of aircraft employed to shoot at everything that moved along the border, without any clear initial perception of who was being hit, is not controversial and absence of a mention of this constitutes a glaring lacunae or decidedly pointy sin of omission.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What I’m basically saying is “let’s wait until reliable sources cover it” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. But what you say walks round the point made. I.e. reliable sources already cover aspects of this:

• Yoav Zitun, Hamas tricked Israeli helicopters, and pilots over WhatsApp | The Air Force on Day 1 Ynet 15 October 2023

• Amos Harel, 'Failures Leading Up to the Hamas Attack That Changed Israel Forever,' Haaretz 20 October.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that it was already being covered by reliable sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani and The Great Mule of Eupotoria: Please indicate what text in each of those two sources supports your proposed article content. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Fixing ping:@The Great Mule of Eupatoria:16:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, Specifico. I only look into wikipedia, or indeed the internet, for 10-15 minutes a day, and only now noted you belled me. If I get time off from intense RL work, I'll try to answer. But I gave sufficient links for editors to read and work out two sentences on the immediate Israeli reaction. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No rush about any of this. But the reason I asked for text from the sources is that I have the bad habit of actually reading the references on various pages, and I was unable to verify the mooted content about friendly fire from those links. Further, for that kind of content, which apparently is contentious, I think we would need sources that are about friendly fire deaths and not sources on broader topics that might mention or imply them in passing. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking we need to better differentiate casualties caused by friendly fire and casualties caused by hostile fire, although we need figures for that first. BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a when-the-dust-settles issue, several months down the track, when the forensic evidence is all in for the Israeli victims. We shall never know the civilian/Hamas Islamic breakdown for the 1,000 plus Palestinians killed in the first two days since their remains were apparently buried in mass graves that are unlikely to be reopened.

The point remains. The article‘s narrative neatly sidesteps 2 days of the war when Israeli responses within Israeli territory to the invasion dominated the news, and only opens the account with the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip from the 9th onward. Why the silence?Why the reluctance of editors to do their job by explaining in ‘Israel’s Response’, that Israeli forces spent two days of intensive campaigning on Israeli territory before undertaking the counterattack on Gaza itself?Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this info is very notable and should be included. You clearly know a lot about this topic, so why not be bold and add it yourself? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm retired, but do drop suggestions now and then for editors who have a prepossessing interest in a topic like this and seem to read everything (I certainly don't). I've done the homework (providing two of several links), so the resident page editors need do little more than fill in the gap, consensually, as they have done for every other issue raised.Nishidani (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to prove it and bring up accurate numbers. As said below if you have accurate numbers from reliable sources on a specific number of Israelis killed in friendly fire then raise it to the forum. Otherwise it's speculation. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The absolute vast majority of Israeli casualties were the result of the Hamas attack. If you have accurate numbers from reliable sources on a specific number of Israelis killed in friendly fire then raise it to the forum. Otherwise it's speculation. The absolute overwhelming majority of sources etc attribute the absolute vast majority of Israeli civilians killed to Hamas. You must prove it. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"The absolute vast majority of Israeli casualties were the result of the Hamas attack." - as a result of the attack? Yes. As a result of Hamas fire? TBC. It's currently speculation either way. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere: you made this revert. Since it is still unclear whether the massacres were mainly carried out by Hamas or the Israelis themselves, don't you think we should move the allegations to the main body of the article for further discussion?Ghazaalch (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is unclear and discussion is needed as to whether it's included, we don't leave the content on the article page. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no room to doubt that many Hamas militants massacred, in various kibbutzim, towns and at the open air dance, a very large number of Israelis. Thast is not the point. It is clear that in the panic, and with the given order to shoot everything that moves, the 20 aircraft flying over the scene, the 8 Apache helicopters, and subsequently tanks firing at houses, used fire-power that did not distinguish between Hamas militants and their hostages. This is what the RS are stating, and what some Israeli survivors attest in claiming at least some of the victims died from friendly fire. I doubt the exact figure will ever emerge, since it will be impossible to ascertain. What should be stated is what Harel and Zitun (and perhaps the Mondoweiss article on my page) state: Israel responded on October 7 with strafing and missile overflights under an order to shoot everything that moved (and that some Israeli casualties may have resulted).Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: As you may not have seen, I asked you, above, to cite the text from the two RS you referenced there that will verify these assertions. That would be constructive. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

See above. By the way, the dominant narrative of programmatic beheadings, dismemberments and burning alive hostages seems a pointy construction placed on what happened 7-8. The shelter near Re'im described in the following article produced all of these effects on many of those seeking refuge there, by a combination of grenades and machine-gunning from the doorway. Isabel Kershner,They Ran Into a Bomb Shelter for Safety. Instead, They Were Slaughtered. New York Times 12 October 2023. From the beginning, that was my suspicion, since precisely these three effects have been attested very frequently as a consequence of multiple mass bombings of Gaza since 2006. That doesn't exclude the possibility that psychotics among the militants were directly responsible in some cases for acts of that kind. But the inferences are speculative.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say it warrants inclusion, however I wouldn't give it more than a couple of sentences on account of WP:WEIGHT; the vast majority of coverage was about the Hamas operation, not the friendly fire. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Except for the implication in 'the vast majority of coverage was about the Hamas operation'. True, but we must not fall victim to the informational war that coincides with the actual war. The informational war studiously ignored the core issue of how Israel took back control of its territory in two days of desperate counterattacks 7-8th., while presenting a large volume of images attributing the massive infrastructural damage to the kibbutzum esp. as caused only by Hamas incendiaries.

Ignoring the evidence on my page, most of which comes from sources we regard as unreliable (though I think two are acceptable witnesses as background), this article captures some of the debate.

• 'A growing number of reports indicate Israeli forces responsible for Israeli civilian and military deaths following October 7 attack,'Mondoweiss 22 October 2023

which among other links linked to an Haaretz article by Nir Hasson providing testimony re Be'eri that tanks fired directly into homes where militants and hostages were both hiding. We simply do not know of all of the terrible images of blackened homes, which were burnt by Hamas militants trying to smoke out people to take them hostage or kill them, and which were devastated by Israeli fire.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I pinged François Robere above and as there was no answer, I omitted the contested content from the lede, but you restored it again. As you could see here there is no consensus that we should use the word "massacre" only for Israeli casualties.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing in that discussion that would justify removing the comment that you did, neither do I see anything that would prevent me from restoring it. WCM_email 09:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The casus belli must be mentioned in a prominent place in the lead, or it violates any number of content policies; otherwise I'm with Specifico - I did not see any source that gives a specific evaluation of the number of casualties from friendly fire, let alone one that passes WP:DUE for the lead. François Robere (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The casus belli is subjective. Israel says it is the Oct 7 attacks, the Palestinians say it is the ongoing blockade and occupation. Both views must be noted by WP:NPOV.VR _talk 21:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely get what you're saying; and I agree personally. That being said, until we have some more coverage about this and/or time passes and they hold the same weight from perspective or increased sources. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)