Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Extremely violent execution video in the body section

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

---

There is an extremely violent execution .webm file from the body section. During the video, a civilian is shot in the head by Hamas. Subsequently a large blood pool is seen emerging from the victims body. Such extreme content should not be included. Ecrusized (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I already reverted your edit per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." FunLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there is WP:OM, and that says that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. Awesome Aasim 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just not born out in standard Wikipedia practice. The article for 9/11, for instance, has footage of the plane crashing. I beleive showing readers the actual event that happened does a much better job of imparting information than words do, particularly in a case like this where there will be strong efforts from both sides to selectivly edit and word things in a way favorable to thier own point of view. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks It is ridiculous to compare footage of planes crashing into a building (or, as in this article, a building blowing up) to someone being executed and bleeding out in the street and another person being bayoneted. Your belief that "showing the real event" is beneficial to the reader does not overcome Wikipedia's image content policy. Moreover, the video in question is taken from an unsourced reddit post, so it is not clear that this is Hamas, that this actually happened where it is claimed to have happened, or that this actually happened when it is claimed to have happened. This is not a NOTCENSORED issue. It is a WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:GRATUITOUS, and MOS:OMIMG issue.

From MOS:OMIMG: Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. A dubiously sourced snuff film is not encyclopedic. lethargilistic (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If the argument is about authenticity and sourcing, that is another matter. Of course if it cannot be verified it should not be included (offensive or not). My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value, particularly in a conflict which is complicated and confusing for many. Trying to create levels of offensiveness (i.e. Bombing, plane into building, murder with a gun) is not really relovant. If the video has encyclopedic value, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter if it is "5" offensive or "10" offensive. The verifiability of the content is an entirely separate issue. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value" - No it doesn't. The most obvious example is illustrating an anatomy article where censoring would compromise the informative purpose of an encyclopedia. Uncensored doesn't mean an image can't be removed: The article already has too many shellshock images. More maps and informative images you would see in an encylopedia would be an overall improovement. Ben Azura (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks We'll deal with verifiability separately, then. What, exactly, does CCTV footage of a murder inform a reader about how the (overall) attack was carried out? You say it is obvious, but what does it clarify about this, in your words, confusing situation? lethargilistic (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic So I think you made a few assumtions there. The first is that the image has to show to how the "overall" attack occurred. There is nothing to say that it can't serve to provide the specific details of how an attack was carried out. Additionally, you seem to assume that media must clarify something ambiguous to be used. WP:IMGCONTENT states clearly:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article
— wp:IMGCONTENT

So the video can be encyclopedic simply by illustrating a fuller picture of the article content. By your own acknowledgment this article contains many media depicting airstrikes. I presume that you do not wish for these to be removed as well? I believe that those videos are encyclopedic for the same reason, as they provide the reader with a fuller picture/understanding of the events described. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLA is also applicable, specifically that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain (from wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). I think whether the video should be on Wikipedia is better suited for an FFD discussion or Commons Deletion Request, rather than here. Wait there already is one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm. But I don't see how the media being described can't accurately be described in words alone without crossing WP:SYNTH. Awesome Aasim 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - Wikipedia:Image use policy

This is a video which purports to DIRECTLY depict people (hamas militants) doing things (killing israeli civilians) as described in the article. It's relevant.

"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." - Wikipedia:Image use policy

Are we claiming here that this is being used to bring attention to an article? I don't see how you can make that argument. What is the argument for removing it exactly? If the argument is "but these actions are already described in the text", then why have pictures at all on wikipedia? Why have videos? This is literally the purpose of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks: [Reply edit-conflicted with above comment front Chuckstablers] I would theoretically be in favor of removing the airstrike footage, frankly. However, airstrike footage is normalized by the media. Therefore, I don't think it's disqualified by the part of WP:IMGCONTENT about reader expectations.

Yours is a good argument based on that guideline. To articulate where I think we are actually disagreeing, I reviewed WP:NOTCENSORED again and I think this recenters to why I think this article should be removed: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. If we turn to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, we see the picture captioned This image of a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House shows neither adequately. My problem with the image is not that it depicts a military action, really.

My first problem, with regard to appropriateness, is that it does not clearly show the activity of the fighters. The person is shot from offscreen and bleeds out in the foreground, fighters come across the field in the background, and then the other person is attacked with the bayonet almost out of frame. Im not sure if we would disagree here, necessarily. Even if, as a general matter, footage of Hamas fighting is relevant and encyclopedic, unclear or sufficiently inappropriate depictions would still be kept out.

Second, I think that what this picture does show adequately is not suitable for Wikipedia even under WP:NOTCENSORED. In my view, at least part of the video is WP:GRATUITOUS:

Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The man being stabbed does not appear especially clearly, so I'm more concerned about the man bleeding out in the foreground. We disagree as to whether depiction of death is encyclopedically valuable in principle, but I think we should be asking whether depicting this man bleeding out is unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. Regarding the broad conflict, it is unnecessary to show someone bleeding out like this. Regarding the desire to depict Hamas fighters in action as an activity under the war's umbrella, it is irrelevant and draws the focus away from the Hamas fighters' depiction. And showing a dead person's blood slowly seep into the stones is gratuitous. It is far in excess of what a reader would expect to find on Wikipedia, even under an article about a war. Moreover, I think it's extremely disrespectful to the dead person to immortalize their death so clearly on Wikipedia, however besides the point that may be regarding policy.

I contend that this video is sufficiently out of bounds that it should overcome WP:NOTCENSORED on its own, but the alternative suggested by that policy and WP:GRATUITOUS is to find a video that is a more suitable alternative if we want to show Hamas's (or Israel's) ground fighting. Another option would be an image of fighters. (And if the purpose of the image does happen to be depicting death specifically, perhaps there is a CC-licensed image of ZAKA handling bodybags available.)

I think we could find consensus on an alternative image that shows a military action by Hamas and does not show someone bleeding out like that. That compromise would satisfy your belief that showing a military action by Hamas is beneficial to the article and my belief that these specific deaths are not appropriate depictions of the action and are beyond what should be tolerated under WP:NOTCENSORED. Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic Well I'm glad we now (mostly) agree on the policy :) While I understand and appreciate your point of view, to some extent I think that this just comes down to a simple difference of opinion which may be irreconcilable. I think that the footage is both relevant and uniquely so. That is to say, I don't think replacing it with general footage of "Hamas ground fighting" would be as informative unless it is also of one of the similar Kibbutz attacks. I think that there is an element of the type of attack that was carried out that was unique to this round of fighting and is relevant to the article and to the developments.

As an aside, I think I disagree with your take on the Sydney Opera house picture in that I think the policy there is designed to guard against images that do not properly depict the thing that makes them relevant (in that picture, a helicopter or the building). In our case, I think that the video shows unambiguously the attack that occurred and also the broader type of attack that was carried out in the opening phase and is described in the article. I do not think that that is diminished by a knife that is partially out of frame or an unideal camera angle, but I suppose I would be open to some of the CCTV footage from the other Kibbutz attacks, as they might also accomplish this goal. Yet I digress as this is really usurped by our more fundamental disagreement. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic I just wanted to follow up two parts of our previous discussion. Your (correct me if I'm wrong) main objection was that you thought part of the video was GRATUITOUS enough to overcome NOTCENSORED. I have since researched the practice in a lot of other articles and found there to be a general trend to include such material such as at Abu Ghraib abuse and Einsatzgruppen. Does this alter your perspective at all, or do you feel that a)This video is different or b)They got it wrong?

Also, have you made any progress in identifying a possible less graphic replacement? I think that that would honestly be the least contentious way to resole this?

Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks I think it's pretty easy to distinguish them for the purposes of WP:GRATUITOUS, but you'll forgive me if this is not based in policy quoting because (not directing this frustration at you) I have a life outside of this video and I did not anticipate this dispute blowing up like this.

Firstly, they're images, not videos. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the video from 9/11. Readers can watch footage of people dying elsewhere. And the flowing of the blood in particular makes it disturbing, as I talked about before. Secondly, the point of documenting those topics is at least in part that those events are so excessively violent that people regularly do not believe occurred. People die in wars all the time, and I do not align with the view expressed in this thread that that this death's brutality was educational because of its excessive brutality. There's nothing notable about any one person dying in a war. If they had gone further and defiled the corpse, it would not be more notable or educational. Third, I understand the reasoning behind looking to mass murder events for a comparison, but I think the person's death here is more comparable to an assassination or (perhaps counter-intuitively) a suicide. I know you don't think the camera angle here is a particular issue, but I do, and the killing is center-stage in this video and arguably its subject. There is no footage of the deaths in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Suicide of Ronnie McNutt, or Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém despite the footage of those events literally being the complete subject of the article. (And in McNutt's and Lem's cases, the footage is the reason it's notable at all.) Nor should there be.

No matter the textual interpretations we get into, the fact is that your position is an aberrant one as far as Wikipedia norms go. If you take this beyond this thread, the policy is more likely to change than this sort of video becoming more accepted/common.

No, I have not yet begun looking through footage to find a suitable alternative. I am a law student and booked solid. I'll point out that I did not remove the video when I joined this, so this isn't me trying to worm out of our compromise. I'm busy. (If the resolution of this is to remove it, I'm not going to replace it myself, tho.) lethargilistic (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I think I've clarified my position well enough in my last reply to Lenny, so check that out. Remember that WP:NOTCENSORED is, by its own text, not categorical and the various other guidelines we've been discussing have things to say about its limits. lethargilistic (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I get more where you're coming from, and I appreciate the concern. It is a bit over the top. My issue is that it displays, in a short video format, the type of thing that happened in so many of these massacres against civilians. Civilians running away from militants who chased them down and killed them. This was not combat, this was not an engagement, it was a massacre. The brutality, which is unprecedented, helps explain the way the conflict has evolved (to a degree). Portraying that adds value to the article.

With that out of way, I can agree that it's over the top. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." What equally suitable alternative would you have in mind to replace it with that achieves that purpose? Displaying the nature of the thing that actually happened here, which I think is kind of important here. Just like it's important to display the blood stained kitchen in the image below (that is a very effective way to show that militants entered their homes and murdered civilians). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the photo should go too (though it is a much less problematic and pressing issue); both pieces of media are indecorous to our purely educational purposes here. To frame the policy considerations here in the terms you raise above, we don't need the video to illustrate that militants went around killing people in the streets, just as we don't need the photo to demonstrate that they went into homes to kill civilians: both facts are easily, efficiently, cogently, and completely imparted to the reader by simple textual descriptions.

And the key word there is "facts"; the media in question do not add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone. They add emotive emphasis and subtext, which makes the content potentially powerful and possessed of significant social value if presented in the right forum (news media, editorial media, social media), but such emotional and visceral emphasis does not tonally serve a significant enough encyclopedic priority to even begin to offset the immense potential (or indeed, certainty) of harm that will result from keeping the video in the article, where it is likely to be stumbled upon by countless people merely looking for an encyclopedic summary of events.

And all that is putting aside the numerous other policies this content violates. By my tally, the video (at least) clearly violates WP:OM, WP:BLP, WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:DUE, and at the moment WP:ONUS as well, insofar as it was re-added before there was consensus to do so, in violation of WP:BRD. That's a pretty impressive list of core policies we'd have to turn a blind eye to here to keep the video, for essentially no factual/encyclopedic context added that prose cannot satisfy. This is just not the place for this content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that they have to "add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone" is not in the image policy, and if applied equally would essentially result in 90% of the images on this wiki being removed. I have to strongly disagree with you on that one. See the image policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". That does not read "the purpose of an image is to add factual information that cannot be described by text alone". Those are very different things. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important nuance of that language, though you are by no means the first person, and it is largely down to an issue with the ambiguity in the phrasing in the policy itself: just because an image exists and "directly depicts" a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it "increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" as a per se matter. Those are conjunctive predicates, not a predicate and a result.

An example to clarify the distinction: this image of a carcinoma is the lead image of our skin cancer article. It both depicts an aspect of the subject matter of the article and can be reasonably expected to increase the reader's understanding of that aspect, since a) the average reader will not be aware of what such a mass looks like and b) purely textual descriptions are unlikely to impart all of the features of such a growth with substantial clarity in the reader's mental imagery. By stark contrast, the video here does not enhance any description in the article, because pretty much any reader can intuitively conceptualize what is involved when we describe that the militants roamed these communities shooting people. The reader is going to know what guns are, what it means to be shot, and what death is. Factually, no empirical information is added by the video as an illustrative feature. In terms of anything other than an emotional element, events can be perfectly competently captured by words here, with pretty much zero lose of accuracy and detail in terms of information imparted.

Now, mind you, that description matches a great number of images on this project; not every image has such specific educational value as that of a clinical photo of a medical phenomena, of course, and we tolerate large numbers of these images with very indirect and minimal informative/educational value. This is in part because the "cost" of including such images is generally very minor, so even trivial demonstrative benefits are enough to justify many such images.

Such is not the case here though: there are massive policy problems with this video and significant real world harms (again, not potential, but pretty much certain) that will arise from including it, and on top of all of that, it really does nothing that a couple of well-crafted sentences can't accomplish. The cost-benefit is all wrong here, which is part of how this video fails community expectations on such content. And that includes IUP: it is by no means the only policy which leverages for removal here, nor indeed even in the top four major policies that require this content to be removed. But it is yet another guideline that converges on the same conclusion all the same, if all of its requirements are applied in full. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects WP:IMGCONTENT. You are right to say that "just because an image exists and 'directly depicts' a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it 'increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter'". Where I think you are making a jump is concluding that since it does not impart new factual information that is not in the text (which, by the way, it does) that it also does not increase the reader's understanding. This project and this article itself are full of media that are there not strictly to give new information but to enhance the picture of the information contained in the text and there is certainly not consensus for your interpretation of that policy to suggest that that is not good enough. Would you suggest that we should also remove all off the images here of airstrikes (which is a huge percentage)?

I think that the airstrike images are valuable and I think this footage is valuable as well. Not only does it shows the readers this particular attack, but it also provides understanding of the kind of attacks that were carried out throughout Israel and are emblematic of start of this particular war. It is an example of a type of action that was unprecedented until this round of fighting and helps explain how the war has developed. I certainly think that this is sufficient to "increase[s] the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" per wp:IMGCONTENT.

Once the media has encyclopedic value, it does not matter if it is graphic.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:CENSOR

Lenny Marks (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers I agree with strongly your position above. I think that if we could find a less graphic video to show one of/the various kibbutz massacres it would be more appropriate, but in lieu of that I think there is good reason to include this video. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a more typical video (which this one might be, for all I know), instead of one deliberately selected for making killing people seem as non-violent as possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

why include a less violent video?that reasoning is flawed. wikipedia is a not a censored encyclopedia. its absolutely educational video.it teaches readers about the extent of what humans can do to other humans in cold blood.it teaches the difference between a professional moral army and a millitant group with no code of conduct. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s not censored, period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there is a parallel discussion on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. lethargilistic (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This CCTV footage was verified by multiple WP:RS as authentic. and also WP:NOTCENSORED."Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix The footage is not included in that video and you know it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree the exact footage which is used in the body is not included that link.my bad for prematurely posting it. if no concensus to keep the video is reached maybe another video can be used in its place(altough the current clip used in body looks genuine enough) for eg https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/caught-on-cam-how-hamas-ruthless-terrorism-spares-no-innocents-in-its-wake/videoshow/104349952.cms Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep it. It's important. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz The poll is below if you are trying to !vote Lenny Marks (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is this anyways? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@CooperGoodman The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that it should probably not have been removed, but I can see why it was, as it could potentially be traumatizing to a younger viewer like me. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that concern, but this is an article about a terror attack and a war and, unfortunately, many people have been killed. By longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not censored and by policy, graphicness alone is not a reason to remove a video. It must also lack an encyclopedic purpose. (See wp:GRATUITOUS). Lenny Marks (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So do you oppose or support the removal of the video? I oppose the removal of it but don't know where I can express my opinion. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 If you scroll down on this discussion there is a poll where you can vote Support or Oppose removal and put a sentence or two explaining yourself. Personally, I oppose the video's removal -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you wish not to see such graphic photos or videos but want to read the article then see Help: Options to hide an image. It will help on the coding on hiding certain images. Cwater1 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - I agree that it is a WP:GRATUITOUS issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks

I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933 The video before the killing is just a few seconds of a man running down a path. In that instance the video really would lack any reason to be here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely love it if the video showing the killing was removed. Nobody needs to hear or see that, and nobody gains any more understanding of the situation by seeing an execution by Hamas than if they saw some other video/image. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the right to not watch said video. Cwater1 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply traumatic for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.

The mere fact that we do not censor ideas in our content in no way means that we check all respect, decorum, social responsibility, or concern for the possible impacts on our readers at the door, in exchange for some robotic moneky-see, monkey-share mentality for such media. What would you say to the family of one of these people if they saw that this content was up here for the entire world to see? "Oh, sorry, we needed to see exactly how your husband's body crumpled as everything he was or ever would be was stolen from him in an instant. Oh gee, terribly sorry that five million people watched your daughter's head beaten to a pulp with a cudgel. We needed to see it in order to understand that real people died here!" We are WP:NOTNEWS: we provide high-level, abstract summaries of our subject matter. We don't have a mandate to create a compelling representation of the real human costs of these events; that's what primary and secondary sources are for. This kind of imagery is not necessary to our educational purposes and it deeply violates principles of least astonishment that could easily cause significant real world harm to a non-trivial portion of our readers, while simultaneously shredding our protections of the privacy of non-notable persons.

Those (mostly relatively newer, I think) editors reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED might want to stop to ask themselves why they don't see more such content elsewhere on en.wikipedia, despite no shortage of articles on massacres that have footage out there. It's because we have other policies which expressly and specifically limit that principle, including WP:OM and our image use policies. Which actually allow for the restriction of media with much lower concerns than those involved here. Further, this is hardly the first time the community has had to face such an issue, and the general consensus is that media needs to have more than shock value in terms of informative quality. There's also the fact that this almost certainly violates our non free content policy. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said @Snow Rise! Not censored means that an image being offensive or having shock value is rarely a good reason to be included or removed. BTW I already put a request to blacklist the media for now on the bad image list due to its potential for vandalism and disruptive additions. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good call: I also left a notice of this discussion at WP:VPN to help speed along discussion and action here, since I think there are concerns for harm that justify a rapid response. I almost took the matter to AN to see if an admin was willing to revdel on some of the grounds discussed above, but ultimately decided that was not the ideal route, as I didn't want to unintentionally give the impression that there are behavioural issues here: everyone here is clearly contributing in good faith, regardless of the fact that some of the arguments are emphatically not sustainable under policy or (imo) good sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. I never even noticed the second part with the beating to death, only the first with the man being shot on mobile (was under the impression there was some blurring there, but no, there's not, and it's in HD, so yeah, no). Apologies for arguing for it's inclusion in light of that; That's brutal, horrific and goes well above any lines that would warrant it's inclusion.

That being said; I'd still say there should be some replacement in image form for it regarding the killings at "Kibbutzum" (Mefalsim, which is what the link in kibbutzim in "as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip" should be changed to), given that we have an image displaying the blood stained kitchen of a family in another kibbutz described in the text of the article. We're describing militants driving around in SUV's gunning down civilians, while you don't have to show the graphic part as discussed there's nothing wrong showing the whole "militants driving around in pickup trucks in fatigues" thing.

I'd also have to push back against the BLP violation claim? That's a bit of a stretch. By that logic you basically can't show any photos of any human being, and that's not what that policy is about (I just re-read it)? There's plenty of valid reasons to object to it's inclusion. I bring this up because I don't want a BLP objection from you to replacing it with images of militants as previously discussed. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be content out there that would satisfy the value of presenting the brazenness and brutality of the attacks that is still well short of depicting the actual massacre of random civilians--although it may take some time to find a free-license option (as noted above, that's another issue with this media). In other words, there must be a satisfactory medium here.

As to the BLP issue, I don't think it's a stretch. I'm the first person to push back against that policy being talismanatically invoked, believe me, but the entire purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy and dignity of inherently non-notable individuals, and I can't see how it is not imputed in the context of a decision which puts a depiction of their brutal, dehumanizing ends directly into the article for all the world to see. Other institutions (journalistic in particular) might make a value judgment that the social benefit of animating reactions in their audience outweigh that intrusion, but I don't think we can make that same argument here, since the factual depth (our own focus) added to the article is so minimal, compared against the likely harms. It's not the single biggest policy reason for removing the video, but it's a pretty compelling reason in and of itself, imo. But for the record, you won't hear objections of the BLP variety from me with regard to representing the militants generally (or even all their acts of violence). It's just that this particular video raises particularly strong concerns in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This is potentially, slightly traumatizing material that adds nearly no benefit to the article, along with violating several community expectations and Wikipedia guidelines. I think this video should be replaced by something less graphic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jon.yb093 Which Wikipedia guideline does it violate? Can you be specific? I appreciate that the material is graphic but that on it's own does not disqualify it per wp:CENSOR. I agree that if we found less graphic footage that also depicted a kibbutz massacre then that footage would be preferable, until we do I think that there is strong reason to keep the footage we have as it clearly depits a tupe of attack that was unprecedented and carried out en mass at the start of the war, and it enhances reader's understanding of the conflict. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I appreciate your concern, but I'd like to say that people won't develop PTSD from this video. When it's not you or your own (close) loved ones under threat, the DSM-5 requires "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others". A video of a stranger being murdered may be "deeply upsetting" and or "extremely distressing", but it isn't traumatizing. (See also Therapy speak, which I recently wrote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey WAID, it's nice to see you. I appreciate your perspective as well, but if I can be blunt without giving offense, a short quote from the DSM does not much alleviate concerns in this area. The concern is not for PTSD in particular; "trauma" is an idiomatic catch-all term for a much broader spectrum of biopsychological phenomena that impute a variety of harms. Here my major concern is for readers who have recently had their lives touched upon by the violence, as well as those who may not have observed it first hand, but may have suffered personal loss connected to it.

And then there's another another major vulnerable category: children generally. Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content (you'll have to trust me on this, but my work and field of inquiry puts me in a position to be well informed on childhood traumas). And indeed, this concern is one reason why violent content has been an ongoing contentious issue on the project whenever it has come up. I've avoided completely avoided broaching this big wrinkle of the situation here thus far because I was concerned about triggering certain voices to double down on reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED, as there's a few editors here under the mistaken belief that CENSOR is a much more absolute principle on this project than it actually is--the reality is that it's anything but. And with so many other compelling policy violations, risks of harm, and other practical reasons to not allow this media to be added to this article, I didn't see the point in raising an issue that might draw an outsized reaction.

But yes, children read our articles. Lots of children. And the way we structure our content should always take that into account. Now it goes without saying that we have major, major constraints that sometimes mean we cannot accommodate protecting children in every context. But when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose, the possibility of children seeing their first murder absolutely becomes a situation where the huge potential for traumatic exposure massively outweighs the countervailing considerations. That has in fact been a major concern anytime the subject of especially violent content has been discussed on the project, and I don't doubt that it was also a major factor in the WMF's adoption of the principle of least astonishment standard.

To the maximum extent possible without substantially compromising our educational purposes with regard to the rest of our readers, we want children to benefit from this site. That's less likely to happen if parents can't be confident that their child won't see their first death/murder/someone's face bashed in, simply because they were reading a high traffic article on a current event that they wanted to know more about. Likewise, juvenile educational institutions would be very likely to reconsider open access to this project if such content were to start to proliferate on the encyclopedia. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. This law concerns itself, among various other subject matter, with violent content and child welfare on large online platforms, and the DSA administrators have already designated Wikipedia as one of the 18 sites that it per se applies to. And there have been indicators in the last few days that they are looking to aggressively enforce these rules (which were promulgated last year but just went into effect) with regard to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict.

But we shouldn't need that extra threat of headache / inviting state oversight of the project in order to decide that the cost-benefit calculus is off the charts in the red if we include this video. The mere fact that we would inevitably be sharing a "faces of death" equivalent video with a non-trivial number of children, just to add something that doesn't demonstrate a single act (or any detail identified by any editor in this discussion) that couldn't be easily, fully, and accurately described in prose really ought to be enough.

Our outrage and desire to expose the savagery of men who would murder innocents is an understandable impulse stretching out from our humanity. But here it has to take a backseat to the numerous and compelling considerations arguing against adding content that adds only emotive subtext, violates the privacy and dignity of the depicted in their final horrific, agonized, and dehumanizing moments, and shoves that imagery in front of many readers who aren't seeking it and can reasonably be expected to be harmed by it. Especially considering that such motivations to expose such evil to the light of day, natural as they are, are not particularly well-aligned with the purposes of this particular project (said purpose being to provide a high-level, relatively dispassionate summary of the events in question). There are other places to accomplish the goal of sharing the brutality of these attacks with the world.

Nor do you have to be especially young or sensitive to be negatively impacted by that video, especially if you had a loved one killed in the attacks or one held captive at this very moment. Or, you know, you just happen to be Jewish. All of which includes people who might reasonably take an interest in this article. So, I'm standing by my assessment of the potential for traumatizing significant portions of our readers, some of whom may not have the capacity to appreciate the consequences of hitting that play button. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content Then parents shouldn't allow their children on Wikipedia (much less the Internet as a whole) unsupervised. That's why editors have written advice for parents on how to manage Wikipedia for children. This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be "traumatized". when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose Here's another reductive argument. There's a reason that we use and rely on images on Wikipedia. People are visual learners and images of pogroms and executions of Jews are far more impactful at an immediate glance than 10,000 words of text going into the Holocaust. I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere. I don't doubt that such an image would be distressing for a very young child. That's why as a parent/guardian you should guide your children when exposing them to the bad parts of history. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me. Plenty of countries outright censor and block access to Wikipedia already. You sound like you're either not aware of that or are trying to get editors to self-censor down to the lowest common denominator—again: a shutting down of the project. You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia. -- Veggies (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be 'traumatized'.

No...not "something": the violent, sadistic murder of two people and the frenzied mutilation of a corpse. We're not talking about some speculative span of possible content here. This is not a philosophical debate about possibilities or a slippery slope scenario. We're debating the appropriateness of a very specific, concrete piece of content, and it's pretty much as absolutely bad is anything could be in respect to the potential for harm to our readers and invasion of the privacy and dignity of the subject,

"Here's another reductive argument."

I don't find it particularly reductive. Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video that is not already perfectly well imparted in the prose already (or easily could be). For the most part, the few responses to this inquiry have a decidedly begging the question quality to them, with vague "well it illustrates how the attacks unfolded" language repeated ad nauseum, but without any indication that there is so much as a single fact (I mean one small thing, even) that the video is necessary to communicate that isn't ably done with prose.

In fact, the closest anyone has gotten to an actual, meaningful answer to that question was an editor who (and I think this is the honest and understandable answer at the heart of the support for this video) that the video demonstrates the barbarity and cold-bloodedness of the attackers....and then they immediately went on to opine about how it illustrates the difference between a restrained, honourable "professional army", versus the irredeemably malignant and animalistic "militants"; i.e. a not-at-all subtle comparison of the IDF and Hamas. They said the quiet (if somewhat understandable) part out loud: this is seemingly at least partly about showing how evil Hamas are, for at least some of the minority of editors who want to include this grossly gratuitous video.

And even for those of us who might be inclined to agree, on a personal level, to this reading of the video as an unambiguous demonstration of sociopathy, that's still just too subjective and emotional a subtext to use to justify this image, considering its potential harm to our readers, and its profound BLP implications. To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified and isn't available under an established free-use license, and so can't be used on en.Wikipedia regardless...

"I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere."

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with other matters off-project when you both commented. I happen to be a very busy person in my professional, home, and volunteer lived who, apropos of nothing, has a member of the household just out of the hospital and has had about seven hours of sleep in the last three days... I don't contribute on your schedule and I'm not compelled to answer every comment you think I should. And b) I've said as much as anyone in this thread, if not more, and there comes a point at which you need to stop responding to every comment, especially if you perceive the discussion to be going in circles. And the fact of the matter is, you haven't given me the impression of someone who is open to having their mind changed on any of this, so I did not feel highly motivated to respond to you in particular. I actually have several paragraphs of a response to Lenny's post, which I found polite and cogent, if not terribly compelling, but by the time I found the time to finish it, WAID had pinged me on another aspect of the discussion which I felt was more fruitful ground for discussion, so I made a choice. I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

That said, if it's that important to you to have a response, here's just a partial list of the reasons that comparing The Last Jew in Vinnitsa to this video constitutes a non-sequitor and a false analogy:

1) One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

2) the video depicts the deaths of people who were until very recently alive, meaning they are covered by our BLP guidelines. The image does not.

3) The image is WP:verified, as all disputed content on this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

4) The image is free-use content, as all media used in this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. The video is not.

6) I'm quite sure from your previous comments that you won't find this compelling, but it actually pulls some weight with me as someone who comes from a cognitive science/biopsych background: the image, horrific though it undeniably is, does not actually depict the completion of the act of murder. The human brain processes a high-fidelity, real-time representation of a violent act in motion differently from an illustration implying that act. It just does.

Now you and I might actually agree that as an abstract, rational matter, the difference is arbitrary and the result of a cognitive bias, not a logical analysis of any substantial difference in the levels of brutality between the two acts. But for a vulnerable person stumbling upon that image (say a child for example, or someone whose loved one was murdered in one of these attacks), it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of the harm done. You may not agree with that, but good news: you can still take your pick from numbers 1-5.

"That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me."

I clearly am not or anything that even remotely looks like it. I didn't threaten to take legal action. I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles, which is perfectly valid and appropriate subject matter for a policy discussion. That is neither a bad faith action nor anywhere in the same universe as [[WP:NLT]--and if you can't tell the difference, you really, really, really' need to re-read that policy.

And if I'm blunt, at this point your behaviour here towards all your rhetorical opposition is getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND, acid-toned, inclined towards unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS, and verging on WP:DISRUPTIVE . We all managed to get through this very loaded discussion perfectly politely until you joined the discourse, with your sarcasm and no-holds-barred mentality. Ever since consensus shifted strongly away from support for your perspective, you keep trying to chill, curtail, or define the focus and manner of other users' !votes and responses, in ways you just are not permitted to on this project--all of it wrapped it in hostile, derogatory tone. It appears you haven't been a super heavy contributor in recent years, but if you've been on the project since 2007, you should really know better--and regardless, you should drop this course of action immediately: it isn't doing the appeal of your arguments any favours and if you keep it up, your conduct is likely to end up scrutinized at ANI or AE. Which won't help consensus here in any way. You don't have to like the outcome or the arguments of the majority / emerging consensus, but the snideness is patently unhelpful to your position and to the rest of us.

"You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia."

Well, you're both very right and very wrong about that. You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it. Please don't expect further direct engagement from me here. Beyond that fact that I don't think engaging with you would be particularly productive, I think I've more than said my piece in this discussion in general. I nevertheless hope you have a pleasant rest of your day, however. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I see you didn't even attempt to address the very valid point that parents should not let their kids have unmonitored access to Wikipedia, much less the internet as a whole. In fact, you pretty much dropped the "think-of-the-children!" argument in this last reply. There's a reason Wikipedia has and has had for a long time a content disclaimer which reads Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts. and Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

"Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video"

The same "information" that, say, The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that images of the casualties of war bombings add to their articles. War and violence produce harrowing images. Harrowing images are, often, graphic, but necessary to include in articles in order to further the reader's understanding of what occurred—especially if we recognize that most readers are not going to do a detailed poring through from title to citations of all the text. They will skim, jump to sections that interest them, and pause to look at images. Humans are very much vision-oriented. A perfectly cited text-only Wikipedia article on the Holocaust would not be as moving as one with images, harrowing that they may be.

it's profound BLP implications

There are no serious BLP implications. Nowhere in this video are any of the victims named. Hell, the video blurs the face of the most prominent victim, making recognition extremely difficult by anyone. Also, even if this victim was recognizable, they aren't portrayed "in a false or disparaging light".

To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified

Verified how, exactly? Are you claiming that it isn't Kibbutz Mefalsim or that this didn't actually take place as it shows? It's likely that the IDF released this video, which then filtered down to Reddit, and finally to here. Someone with a better understanding of Israeli freedom of information or beaurocracy could probably find the original press release for the video.

and isn't available under an established free-use license

Who says it isn't? It's on Commons under a PD-CCTV license. I'm a little unfamiliar with that license, but it's false to say it isn't actually available under that license.

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with ...... I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

If your time is so short and your sleep deprivation is so bad, you should probably spend less time writing paragraphs about it and more time responding substantively (after a full night's rest). The fact of the matter is: Lenny made a counterargument at ~08:00 on 16 October which you didn't respond to (despite having "many paragraphs" at the ready) even though you replied to others. Again, you should probably go sleep if you're that admittedly short on time rather than making long, drawn-out "think-of-the-children!" pleadings that I find quite unconvincing.

One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

The former is an argument of time, not whether or not the content is encyclopedic or too graphic. The latter is more special pleading about how somebody might find this video and consider it offensive. Again, I find it quite unconvincing. I've covered 1 through 4 of your list already.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. This video is not.

Again, that's rather the point of this discussion, isn't it? If things that haven't been discussed about whether they are notable in their own right, then new images to Wikipedia can never be notable in their own right because they haven't been discussed yet.

I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles

Legal ramifications to Wikipedia over our edits are not something to discuss or bring up in article-space. If you really feel like including the video in Wikipedia or Commons is a violation of some law, you should contact the Wikipedia legal team or start a discussion at an admin noticeboard. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.

You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it.

You sure about that? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

UPD: You can find VERY GORY VIDEOS ON WIKIPEDIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@CooperGoodman: That video is not used on Wikipedia. You can see that in the "file usage" section. That image exists on Wikimedia Commons, which is a file repository and does not have the same rules as Wikipedia. That link is valid for Wikipedia's API for convenience (and IIRC Wikipedia once did store files locally), but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. lethargilistic (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic:That's not exactly true. That video was used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article was deleted for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies:Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. lethargilistic (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the verifiability part alone because I've said my piece on the rest (and images like your Vinnitsaexample) elsewhere: WP:VERIFY's opening sentence defines verifiability: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. That is, the issue of verifiability is not an abstract "did this factually happen?" question that can be answered by "someone could theoretically go through IDF releases and find it." The limited question is whether this is cited to a reliable source, and it simply isn't. It's from reddit. Moreover, it could even (theoretically) be footage of Hamas attacking a kibbutz last year with the current date superimposed and it would not belong in the article as it was not part of this conflict. I have seen video debunkings in the last several days where IDF violence with no timestamp has been attributed to Hamas. (Again, this is applying policy, not an argument that it didn't take place or wasn't Hamas or whatever.) We don't know what this is because the video has not been connected to a WP:RS. The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the footage to provide that RS. Until one has been provided, it is not verified.

Believe me, that policy does not particularly bring me joy. It means that Wikipedia is not about the literal truth. It occasionally reproduces information that I know to factually be untrue, but it is "verified" because it was reported in the New York Times. How does a person get the literal truth into a reliable source to correct the record and Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not (perhaps cannot) provide a great answer.

In any case, Verifiability means giving a Reliable Source for the video, not "it probably filtered down to reddit and we might be able to find it." WP:V, unlike NOTCENSORED, is categorical and absolute. If someone who wants the image in cannot provide an RS, the video is out of the article and the rest of this discussion is merely theoretical. lethargilistic (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks Link? lethargilistic (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

[1]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, does "idiomatic" mean "the definition some people use on social media"? A modern linguist wouldn't call that (or any understandable use of any word) wrong, but I'm looking at the DSM-5, under the heading of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Children 6 Years and Younger", pages 272–273, where I find the words "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others, especially primary caregivers.  Note:  Witnessing does not include events that are witnessed only in electronic media, television, movies, or pictures" (emphasis added).

IMO children can "absolutely" be terrified, upset, and distressed, and they can absolutely have a biopsychological Stress response, but it appears that the DSM does not call watching a distressing video trauma, no matter how horrified the viewer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain disclaimers. There are options to hide certain content. Cwater1 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.

SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Last Jew in Vinnitsa

Can anyone explain to me the content difference between The Last Jew in Vinnitsa and this CCTV footage, because I can't see it. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For starters that is a still image clearly showing the victim still alive and no insides spewing out and is a publicly available artefact in its own right. And as much as corpses are never eye candy, the circumstances in which they were captured (esp. Black and White) make them slightly more stomachable for users. In the context of the Holocaust (which is generally agreed to be a genocidal operation) that photo also serves its purpose to educate.

as for the video, yes that blood is way too WP:GRATUITOUS and the way editors have been reacting to this has indicated that it has not been as educative as it was expected to in an encyclopedic article now that some editors seem to be using this as none other than political football to call editors they hate as either anti-Semites or Western lackeys. (See every discussion we had relating to NPOV) Borgenland (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland This is, I believe a total misreading of WP:GRATUITOUS, which's simple point in that the graphic nature of content should not be a reason to include or not include any material. It is not a comment on subjective levels of graphicness.

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive"
— wp:GRATUITOUS

I'm sorry, but nothing in there states that becuse you think pictures are more offensive in color than in black in white that they should not be excluded. The policy goes on to state:

"Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"."
— wp:GRATUITOUS

In conclusion: Editors have made strong arguments as to why this image enhancies the understanind of the article topic. You are free to dispute that, but you are not supported by GRATUITOUS in saying it should be removed because other massacres are shown in black and white. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is really sad . 😢😢😢 MrBeastRapper (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What "insides spewing out"? You mean blood? There's plenty of images of blood and wounds on Wikipedia. If you mean the person being bayonetted at the very end, it's obvious what's happening, but there's no graphic "insides spewing out" like you're asserting. I guarantee that if this video was desaturated to black and white, you would still oppose its inclusion, so let's throw that argument out as frivolous. Images of the Holocaust are "stomachable" for you only because the images have become part of the historical canon and have been widely shared and discussed and you live in the era of HD video where an older photograph isn't as shocking to you as motion video. That's simply an argument of medium, not content. Why wouldn't this video serve an educational purpose? It's CCTV, so it certainly wasn't framed to capture this specific event, unlike the Vinnitsa photo. And this is a major event in regional, if not world history—much like all the wars in the Middle East. You need to cite what part of WP:GRATUITOUS you think this falls under. I've read the guideline and can't find where this meets any Wikipedia definition of gratuitousness. As for "the way editors have been reacting to this", that's irrelevant to a rational discussion about policies and image use. It's certainly educational, regardless of a few editors' emotional reactions. I haven't called anyone any names and I'm fully in favor of including this video (as I would be a copyright-free video of Israeli settlers running down, killing, and bayonetting Palestinians). As for Jihadi John, his videos are edited to be blatant ISIS propaganda so would obviously be less neutral than CCTV footage, but, yes, if they were copyright-free, I'd be fine including them in an ISIS or Jihadi John article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Veggies Since you don't want discussion down there, I'll answer you up here. Regarding the police brutality video, I think the main distinction is that the subject matter of that article is whether the police officers' conduct constitutes murder, and hence a video showing their precise actions (apparently cited by the prosecutor as grounds for bringing charges) is highly relevant. In the case under discussion here, it would seem incontrovertible that the civilians were brutally murdered. Regarding the copyright issue, I would say that if the blood-gushing and head-dropping motions are relevant to an enhanced understanding of the incident, we could theoretically create a model animation depicting Daniel Pearl's beheading. Would you support inclusion of such an animation in the article, since it would show what the copyrighted videos show, without violating copyright? I am trying to test your logic here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore I don't think that there needs to be real ambiguity (such as in the police brutality video) in order to justify an image. I think it's clear per wp:IMGCONTENT that an image can be used to enhance readers understandings of what is in the text. This is especially true here where the image represents not just this particular attack but is illustrating an unprecedented type of attack that occurred many times on October 7. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lenny Marks: I am not persuaded by this reasoning. Setting aside copyright issues for the purposes of this argument, if your reasoning is correct, then our article on sexual assault should have a video of a person being sexually assaulted (preferably, in all the various ways--groping, male-on-female penetration, female-on-male penetration, male-on-male, sodomization via objects, etc.), the article on revenge porn (setting aside BLP issues for the sake of argument) should include an actual revenge porn video and the victim experiencing extreme shame and ridicule as a result, the beheading video article should have a beheading video (if copyright is an issue, then a visual animation model), the article on crushing videos should include a video of a cat being crushed (the article currently contains a video of a kiwi fruit being crushed), the article on exsanguination should show someone bleeding out, the various school shooting videos should show and so on and so forth. Applying your reasoning, all of these videos should be as graphic and sharp as possible so as to enhance the reader's understanding of the type of pain and anguish experienced by the subject. I think this reasoning would lead to a situation that is simply distasteful. This is an argumentum ad absurdum that I am presenting here. I think it is simply not true that a person needs to watch immense suffering in order to understand that immense suffering occurred. I think a person who looks up the October 7 attacks is not wanting to see the attacks, but rather learn about the attacks. Certainly, learning can be aided by images, but there is a point at which the shock and obscenity of some of the images detract from the learning. I am not confident that I can articulate where that point is, but I am confident in saying that the examples I have described (and the video under discussion here) are beyond that point. And thus is the nature of obscenity generally: an extremely subjective and nebulous concept that evades definition but not recognition. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's words in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio are by now a cliché, probably for this very reason: The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (from the article).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore I was not making a blanket statement that all graphic images should be used in every article. I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons to include here. I understand the argument you're trying to make but I don't really think it's analogous. Obiously, neither one of us is interested in going through each of those instances on their merits to see why the media wasn't included. Equally, though, I could list many articles that do have graphic and extremely disturbing media, such as: Abu Ghraib abuse (actual torture), Einsatzgruppen (mass murder), and 9/11 (planes and buildings exploding). Ultimately, it comes down to the individual topic and the level of understanding, fact, or context drived from the images. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note There were some editors who had raised questions about verifiability and I would just point out that the video has been verified by Human Rights Watch [2] --Lenny Marks (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. Cwater1 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article?

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet another section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- Veggies (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I have carefully read and considered the reasons for an against. Ultimately I do not think it should be removed because words do not convey the savage casual violence against unarmed and innocent civilians shown in the clip. WCM_email 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I have been carefully following the discussion and beleive there is definitely encyclopedic value to satisfy wp:IMGCONTENT. The arguments against inclusion would also apply to a huge swath of material on this article and other well regarded articles on this project. No better alternative has been proposed. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Veggies. While the video is indeed graphic, there is precedent for using graphic media, and I have a better understanding of the atrocities committed by Hamas having watched this video. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove I have seen multiple videos of the conflict that show dead and wounded people on both sides. This particular video is one of the most gruesome ones out there. If I were someone who had not seen any gore or murder footage before, watching this execution video on Wikipedia would deeply disturb me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• SNOW support. Look, let's just for the moment put aside the WP:OM issues, the BLP concerns, the substantial potential for causing traumatic responses in our readers, the WMFs principle of reader expectation rule, the likely knock on effects of Wikipedia hosting such content that could lead to the article as a whole reaching less eyes, and any other perennial issues that come up with such material. And by the way, this is a good place to say that I'm very impressed with everyone for keeping the tone polite and even-keeled all through the discussion so far, despite clearly strong feelings on the editorial considerations and the highly contentious nature of the article: it's very nice to see and speaks well to priorities, good faith, and level-headedness of those commenting.

Now, all that said, even putting those substantial editorial and harm concerns aside, this content just isn't going to stay, longterm: if nothing else, it violates WP:V and none free content policies. Both of which are pretty much never abrogated in circumstances like these, ultimately. We can't confirm the provenance of the video and we don't have an appropriate license for it. For those reasons alone, it has to go. The other concerns represent important and heavy editorial issues and I think it's a valuable thing to have that discussion in parallel--and indeed I think we should continue to have that discussion simply on the principle that we might be looking at other similar media in the future, that is licensed properly. But those are simply additional reasons to consider removing the video, whereas verifiability and NFC are buck-stops-here concerns that there aren't any viable arguments to get around. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - There is now a video of a trench in Gaza where Palestinian bodies are being buried in a mass grave because the morgues are full and the population forced to leave. Will we end up with competing videos? We are here to dispassionately document, not to push for one side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it shouldn't be a question; material should not be included solely because it is offensive, nor should it be removed solely because it is offensive. But grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia; especially when less offensive alternatives exist. WP:BLP also applies, specifically "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This might also be a good application of WP:IAR, but consensus gets muddied in discussions like this. The straw !poll will help a bit with assessing consensus. Awesome Aasim 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Videos showing someone being hurt badly or even murdered shouldn't be in the article. While Wikipedia don't censor things, this is too extreme in my opinion. Context clues without looking, snuff films sound like the film is violent. Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Awsome Aasim You say that "grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia". This is simply untrue and not in line with standard practice of articles covering large traumatic events. (see Einzatsgruppen, Abu Ghraib abuse, 9/11.) --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 It may be too extreme in your opinion, but I do not think that is the cuttoff for inclusion in Wikipedia policy. Graphicness is neither a reason to include or exclude material, encyclopedic value is. If there were too equally illustrative videos and one was less graphic, it would obviously be the better choice. But since that is not the case, it is not policy to remove the video because someone thinks it is too far. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with you. As long as it is legal, then it can stay. We don't have disclaimer warning saying, "it may be disturbing to some." It is implied in the WP:Content disclaimer that Wikipedia can contain something graphic. Cwater1 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks I strike out the comment. <s> I put a new reply saying keep video. Cwater1 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I know there is no auto-play on Wikipedia, so every reader can make their own decision whether to watch it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal per Snow Rise. This has clearly been chosen specifically because it is WP:GRATUITOUS. It is possible to present comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of an armed attack without showing videos of people being killed. Even so, BLP issues (which applies to both the living and recently deceased) should make it overwhelmingly clear that removal is the correct answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal I have refrained from watching the video based solely on what has been said about it here. I saw the Daniel Pearl beheading video, many years ago, and it disturbed me for a long time. Same thing goes for some of the Islamic State beheading incidents and James Foley (journalist) videos circa 2014. It's worth noting, by the way, that the Daniel Pearl, beheading video, Islamic State beheading incidents, and James Foley (journalist) articles all lack beheading videos. Images (especially videos) are very powerful in conveying things that words cannot, and the grotesque character of the attacks help explain the forceful reaction and unprecedented unity of the Israelis. It is not the same to say, "Innocent civilians were chased down and shot at close range" as to show a video of an innocent civilian being chased down and shot at close range. But my opinions is that we should leave it to the Wikipedia reader to google that for themselves if that's what they want to experience.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Orgullomoore: This isn't the place for a discussion, but since you didn't contribute in the greater discussion above, I'll have to retort here. Daniel Pearl et al. videos are copyrighted and wouldn't fall within fair-use. This one is evidently not and doesn't have to meet that strict requirement. The article Killing of Kelly Thomas contains CCTV footage of his killing by police officers (with audio). The video is copyright-free, graphic, and was included in the article. Shocking, right? -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per SnowRise. Andre🚐 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  •Remove: Don't see the justification on including something that goes to THAT level of violence. I can see a justification somewhat for some violent or graphic videos/images, but someone literally gets their brains blown out in HD and someone gets stabbed to death and beaten to death (after being shot I believe). All in one video. It's brutal, and on balance I can't justify including it for all the reasons discussed above. It doesn't add enough to justify it's inclusion (given it WILL reduce viewership, and probably traumatize several people, it's pretty damn bad). Text with images that don't involve depictions of murder suffice. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose most of the pro-removal arguments as Wikipedia is not censored and the video serves to illustrate some of the violence of the events for the reader. This article is about inherently violent events, so the inclusion of violent/distressing images is certainly due. However, we do not seem to have a good source verifying this particular video at present and the video should be removed unless/until we do. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 'Support inclusion of video. The video has now been authenticated by Human Rights Watch, who thought it significant enough to write about. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Ficaia the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [3] Given that, you would support keeping? Lenny Marks (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - WIkipedia is NOT censored, period. This is by far not the most graphic video out of the conflict, and the suggestions by some that less violent videos be used as a replacement are egregious and against policy. Our goal is to depict incidents as they occurred, not depict what we think might be pleasing to the eye of the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Removal - There are far more illustrative videos we could use. Frankly it's not even a good video and does not much of anything to the reader's understanding compared to, for example, video of the paragliders, the invasion itself, or rocket fire. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! MrBeastRapper (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Huh? How would a video of a paraglider (if you could even find a copyright-free one) be "more illustrative" to educating readers about this war than this video. And you didn't explain why it "does not much of anything to the reader's understanding"—whatever that means. -- Veggies (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.
    See WP:GRATUITOUS (incorrectly cited by many who want a removal) :- Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    On the flip side, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. This is what most of the support comments have been arguing - that issues like WP:BLP and wmf:Resolution:Controversial content also greatly apply here. We don't (or at least shouldn't) keep offensive material unless if it adds value to the encyclopedia; I don't believe this clip does that. Its sole purpose is to offend, not to educate, and we are not LiveLeak or Daily Mail or New York Post (or any news agency for that matter that aims to be sensationalist) and there isn't significant cultural significance in this CCTV that merits keeping this, unlike The Falling Man which conveyed a powerful message after 9/11. Awesome Aasim 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

    I agree with the fact that we shouldn't remove an image or video just because it is graphic. There is that disclaimer on top of the talk page saying that there are options to hide such content. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

*Support - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware Wikipedia isn't censored and there are ways to hide certain images and videos. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because a video or image is graphic don't mean we remove it. Visitors don't have to watch the video of they don't want to. That's why we got the ability to hide graphic content, see Help: Options to hide an image.

• Keep/re-add/oppose but wait – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the biased file name and possible copyright and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the copyright issue (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 — Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal I strike out my original comment. I agree with @Lenny Marks. Cwater1 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose/Keep per WP:GORE. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (killing video)

Is there now enough of a consensus to remove the video? 10 votes to 5 looks pretty strong to me. The footage has not been in the article for very long (only maybe a day or two), so I don't think that "implicit consensus" counts for anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, nobody is voting here. This isn't a democracy. Second, the discussion has only been active for less than thirty-ish hours. A bit quick to be making snap (ahem, "executive") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, consensus is not about mathematical ratios of poll results. If if you were at the right time to close a discussion (much less knowledgeable about how to do so), your rationale needs to be more than "10 > 5". You should probably read what closing a discussion requires. I suppose I should be gobsmacked that an editor with almost 45K edits isn't aware of these fundamental guidelines and procedures, but very little surprises me anymore. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? You've been here since 2005, long enough to understand the concept of consensus and WP:ONUS. It's incredibly rare in AFD discussions for instance, for a 2:1 vote to be overturned, and you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based. The results of this discussion show that so far there is no consensus to include the video and therefore it should be removed, per ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You also apparently know that the copyright status of this video is unclear, but voted keep on Commons anyway [4], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? As long as necessary. We might even choose to go to WP:RFD if arguments become intractable to get a broader opinion. A far less graphic but far more heated discussion took years (and many archived pages) to resolve. There was a template long ago called Linkimage (also dealing with graphic or "offensive" images on Wikipedia) which was nominated for deletion three separate times over the course of over a year before it was finally (and rightly) deleted. So, what's the rush? I'm fully aware of ONUS. you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based I can't quote the entire discussion in a reply. The arguments are in the main discussion section above. Those who oppose removal (myself included) have made counterarguments to the pro-removal editors which are strongly policy-based and at least two of us have yet to read a response. You, again, are relying on mathematical ratios to further your points. maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you As for the deletion discussion on Commons, I didn't come up with PD-CCTV and I don't have a strong legal understanding of the inherent basis behind that public domain justification, so I'm fully in favor of keeping the video if it's truly copyright-free, but I'm unsure whether it is. But, again, I didn't come up with that template on Commons. I have to defer to the more knowledgeable people who did. It's perfectly "coherent" to say 'I think this is fine content-wise, but I'm unsure about the copyright status.' -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of the !votes are to make it easier to assess consensus especially when discussions gets muddied like this. Because the original question was about what to do with the media the straw !polls serve to make assessing consensus easier. Awesome Aasim 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Except two things: 1) Many people who cast a !vote didn't contribute to the larger discussion and/or didn't cite applicable policies, either making incendiary statements "snuff film" "gore site" etc. or just saying "per [another user]" and 2) not everyone who contributed to the discussion contributed to the poll. -- Veggies (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I havent voted and dont intend to, but ONUS applies to inclusion of content, and with the straw poll as it is now I think it is fair to say that at the very least there is no consensus for inclusion so it should be out. You, Veggies, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- Veggies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @Veggies. Images and video media are included in articles to help illustrate a point to the reader. The video in question unequivocally helps to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.

Most of the arguments against inclusion implicitly rely on a moral assertion that people should not see certain things, due to vaguely-invoked and unquantifiable harm. Despite claims to the contrary, these arguments are motivated by the same censorious impulse as most moves to restrict content on Wikipedia, and can be dismissed for similar reasons.

We have a policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and we should apply it. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. nableezy - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an important point. The guidelines on closure state clearly that consensus is to be found through the arguments (consistent with policy) made by responsible Wikipedians. Not just a head count of people who were not involved in the discussion at all, polling with an argument that flatly contradicts policy. I would suggest that when the time comes that we seek an outside party at Requests for closure. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). Simply arguing "Wikipedia is not censored" or "we need to show how brutal/savage/gratuitous it was" is not enough to meet the requirement for inclusion. There's some irony in people making those arguments and then saying that exclusion violates policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). wp:GRATUITOUS is not an inclusion criterion it is a policy which states that graphicness is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion, and that less graphic options should be used when possible. The people arguing that the video can't be excluded for graphicness are not precisly correct, but they are correct barring an alternative with the same encyclopedic value. Simply saying that the video is offensive is not a reason for to remove it. GRATUITOUS goes on to say Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. The inclusion requirements for images are clear:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.
— wp:IMGCONTENT

-- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir. Could you provide some of the more illustrative videos you think there are? There are several people in this discussion that have agreed that they would be open to changing to a less graphic video that also displayed the attacks on civilians. If you could provide it would go a long way towards reaching consensus. --Lenny Marks (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look through these Lenny Marks (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A few more:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not impressed.

The first is a twelve-hour stream of talking-heads. If a CNN or Fox News twelve-hour stream were free-use, I don't see what it would add to the article if included in-line. Maybe as an external link, this is valuable. Also: it has commercials which I have serious doubts about whether they are actually free-use.

The second is drone footage of an excavator moving rubble. Given how many rubble photos we already have in the article, I don't see what this adds of any value. More importantly, however, Kanal13 is a copyright-washing account. (see [5] vs [6]). NowThis News has a live stream of Trump at a courthouse and Kanal13 straight-up snipped their footage and uploaded it as their own CC content. No way we can trust any of these videos you have of them as being actually copyright-free. That disqualifies the third, fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth of your videos. As an administrator, I expect you to be aware of copyright washing, so, as I said above, I should probably be gobsmacked at your careless citation of these shady channels, but very little surprises me anymore.

The fifth is a little bit better, but it's a compilation of videos from various sources as well as just "breaking-news"-style talking heads. Not worthless, but not any better at describing the horror of the initial Hamas attack than the video we're discussing.

The seventh is sensationalist rapid-fire jump-cutting with ostentatious music. Did you not watch it? Even if the channel actually had the right to use all those clips (and I'm skeptical that it does), it's editing is way too NPOV. -- Veggies (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate your work but I share many of the concerns listed above. Most notably, we haven't found a video that shows the unprecedented type of attacks that were carried out and that shows the careful and thorough targeting of civilians that occurred. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks is correct. @EvergreenFir has made an effort, as have I, but I don't believe other videos are as good as the one under discussion. I think we should try to gain consensus for re-addition, seeing as the video was removed during the vote above (and the conversation seems to have moved past it). Riposte97 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 I agree, especially considering that verifiability issue has been resolved by Human Rights Watch's verification of the video. I would say that we should review consensus/maybe push for independent closure as this discussion has been so contentious. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way per policy. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers; exactly as @CapnJackSp says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates wp:GRATUITOUS due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video does have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just too graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - Wikipedia:Closure requests. Riposte97 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Considered a non-admin closure, and boy howdy the poor admin that has to deal with this one. It's tied with 14 for removal and 14 against, with 1 wait for alternative then add back. Worst part is everyone is either citing WP:GRATUITOUS or SnowRise's reasoning. Either way this is going to be a spicy one. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a difficult close. All the admin has to do is close as a no consensus, and because no consensus was achieved for including the video, it should not be included per WP:ONUS, which I think particularly applies in this case given the graphic nature of the video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Question 2: Should the video be blacklisted from the English Wikipedia?

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.

---

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support also per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong venue, blacklisting is discussed at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? Awesome Aasim 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. MrBeastRapper (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @MrBeastRapper I would agree, but we have WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Awesome Aasim, just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong venue as explained above -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) Wrong venue per @Kusma (talk) --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) wrong venue per Kusma. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 16 October 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.

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.

Decapitation

Yet another reference to decapitation has just been added, during discussion. There are now 18 references to decapitation/beheading despite the fact that the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." Frankly, as this is a trope, the article appears to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

??? the article appears to border on Islamophobia This is such a bizarre accusation. There is no disputing that Hamas murdered civilian Israelis, including children, in cold blood during the initial attack. There is ample proof of this, such as the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not matter at all how they were killed. That's my point. Why use the term eighteen (18) times, even when the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine says this cannot be determined, if the manner of death does not ultimately matter, as you say? That's why gratuitously using a trope like beheaded eighteen (18) times makes the article appear to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Using ctrl + f, I found that variants of "decapitate" and "beheading" are used briefly in the 10 October subsection and then again (extensively) in its dedicated subsection under the "Media coverage" section. One could argue that the subsection on decapitations is given UNDUE weight (and the page is already massively too long as it is), but I don't see this topic being given pervasive coverage throughout the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used at all since it cannot be determined according to Israel's own expert. It is a highly contentious term due to its actual use by ISIS in the past and the connection some people make between Muslims and beheadings. It fails WP:V and has no purpose other than to inflame. We certainly have plenty of other text about atrocities that are verifiable. There is much to document about this war that is verifiable and important without dwelling on a trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making beheading videos, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Just like everything else in this article, the topic is included because it has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources. You seem to be hung up on the number of times the word "beheading" or "decapitation" is mentioned instead of focusing on the context of what's been written. Whether the subsection on beheadings is too long or given UNDUE weight is one thing, but to accuse editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful. Many independent observers doubt Hamas's narrative of the al-Ahli Hospital incident, but we still mention it in this article because it was given significant media attention. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have condensed the subsection in question. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I am not "hung up". I am making an argument based upon Wikipedia policies. Secondly, I accused no one of Islamophobia. Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. The media gave claims along the lines of someone said someone else said they observed something with which they do not have forensic knowledge. The al-Ahil inclusion makes it clear that it was false. This is an encyclopedia, not The Enquirer. Using the trope wordings of beheadings and decapitation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, particularly with repetition so severe it pushes an unconfirmed narrative for no reason that I have seen stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to identify what you're suggesting be done. Removal of the discussion entirely? Removal of certain parts of it? Reducing the amount of times the words "decapitation" and "beheading" appear? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal. There is no question atrocities occurred. So we document those atrocities which pass WP:V. Wikipedia is much easier if one just follows the policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you can keep the mentions of beheading as long as it's clear that no evidence was ever presented that proved that they ever happened, even according to the IDF. Ashvio (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it Islamophobic to say "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." I don't understand why it would be Islamophobic to say that people who's bodies were found headless may have been beheaded? Homerethegreat (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

exactly.i am also surprised as well as shocked that no one is even questioning this bizzare accusation. decapitation is linked with capital punishment in islam(see: Beheading in Islam) and hamas is sunni islamist group (as also mentioned in their main page), how does mentioning about decapitation done by hamas counts as islamophobia? and why would anyone ask for complete removal of even mentioning it when its claimed by many and in some cases even confirmed?? or maybe the editor is implying that mentioning this will cause phobia of islam?? or maybe editor dosent consider hamas islamic so dont want beheading to be associated with them??? in any case the request is absolutely bizzare and i am absolutely shocked many are even entertaining it. what kind of world/society are we moving into?? Things should be reported as they are not how someone would like them to be. Mindhack diva (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You have made my point for me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is unconfirmed, why is the words repeated again and again and again? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removing most of the content from that section and merging it with the discussion under the 10 October subheading. The two things I think worth preserving: that the allegation was repeated by President Biden, and the assessment by the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS and reflect properly substantiated information. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've performed an initial trim of various quotes with no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed in this section. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. Kfar Aza and Be'eri.

For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [7], [8], [9] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. WCM_email 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Really?

“ Still images showed a decapitated soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [10] ”

“ In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [11] ”

The BBC also described the same incident.

“ Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to decapitate someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[12] ”

“ Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including beheading victims and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.” [13]

”

“ The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and decapitation from the southern Israel assault. [14] ”

WCM_email 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way does it fail verification? WCM_email 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. 98.151.160.96 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Graeme Wood reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated." Infinity Knight (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight@Wee Curry Monster@BilledMammal@CapnJackSp@Veggies@Hemiauchenia please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. Mindhack diva (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

How to handle the Battle of Zikim

There has been several minor content disputes surrounding this battle's topic, so a discussion is needed to once and for all clear up it. In a previous (now archived) talk page discussion, the situation was described previously: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel/Archive 1#Ongoing?. In short, sources state Bahad 4, an Israeli military base was captured by Hamas during the Battle of Zikim. No source that I am aware of claims Bahad 4 was directly recaptured by Israel, and sources (all the way to October 16) indicated fighting was still ongoing - See battle article for further details on the various clashes.

Here is the main issues at hand: (1) Does the Battle of Zikim count as a battle of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood? (2.1) If yes, is the operation still ongoing? (2.2) If no, did Hamas "win" the battle? Right now, to not violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH territory, we need a source directly stating the battle ended to say the battle ended and who won. Just a few minutes ago, two editors The Great Mule of Eupatoria and BilledMammal disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their disagreement was on whether or not Israel recaptured all (key word) territory. Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured and sources (post the supposed 9 October recapture of all territory) indicate fighting was at least ongoing there until 16 October - See battle Wiki article for info & sources.

So, can we either have a discussion about how to handle the situation or can someone locate a source specifically stating whether or not the Battle of Zikim ended? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve looked through, the only evidence supporting that all, and I mean all of the territory with militant presence from Gaza was retaken is a claim by the idf on October 9th, if it is to be mentioned then it should only be “Israel claims”, not written as if the case is 100% proven. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any claims that the IDF has not retaken all territory - that Hamas remains in control of any territory outside of Gaza? For this to be true would be extraordinary; that despite the mobilization of 360,000 soldiers the most powerful military in the Middle East has not been able to regain control of all of its territory sixteen days after the war began. As such, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, such a claim would need strong sourcing, and as far as I can tell no sourcing for the claim exists. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You may have to wait years until an extremely comprehensive analysis of the military operations is published to get the precise answer you want. However, here and elsewhere it states that Israel retook all of its territory two days after the initial attack: October 9th. I don't think it's a violation of SYNTH when citing the sources I mentioned to reasonably conclude that the "battle" for that base was over, at the latest, by the 9th. Israeli territory means territory in Israel. -- Veggies (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Key phrase: “Israel said” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Do you have any sources that state (or even hint) that any part of Zikim is still under Hamas control?... No? Ah, I didn't think so. -- Veggies (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The battle occurred on 7 October, what we are looking for is a source that properly states Israel retook all (stressing on all) territories on 9 October, aside from “Israel said”. The burden is on them, not us The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'll have an ongoing battle with an undefeatable Hamas force in the Israeli rear going on forever since you seem devoid of common sense. It doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel by sea; the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- Veggies (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured If sources say that all Israeli territory was recaptured, and sources say that Bahad 4 is Israeli territory, then I don't believe it is WP:OR to say that Bahad 4 was recaptured. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then how do we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October? Those are cited in the battle article. Is it ongoing during that time? Did Israel win? That’s the problem. Capturing “all” territory doesn’t really work when there is 6 more days worth of battles cited in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Zikim is on the coast and can potentially be infiltrated by land and sea. It's possible that those clashes (I'd need citations to examine them) were due to isolated groups of Hamas militants still roaming the countryside or secondary infiltration attempts after Oct 7th. This is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- Veggies (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A new article from Haaretz disputes the initial claims from October 7th that Bahad 4 fell.

...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.

Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the Battle of Zikim article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies You can bypass the paywall by reading an archived version here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at Bahad 4 up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the Bahad 4 base since 7 October. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict

A new report by Axios[15] states that U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza." Additionally, it was reported on Friday that a U.S. Navy destroyer had intercepted a Houthi cruise missile over the Red Sea[16] which was potentially headed towards Israel. In light of these developments, notably the first one, it might be time to place U.S. in the belligerents section of the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[17] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope. US advisors are in Ukraine, too but US is not a belligerent as such. I would think, without looking at sources, one would need to see actual combat with an existing belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ukraine is a conflict where U.S. is seeking to avoid appearing as a direct belligerent in order to avoid confrontation with Russia. That is not the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The only way that the US is a "belligerent" is in the Red Sea naval action a few days ago when it shot down Houthi cruise missiles and drones. If you include that in the theater of war, then, yes, the US is technically a belligerent—but, so are the Houthis, now. -- Veggies (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We could roll out the ever-popular "Supported by" subheading for the US but to list it as a belligerent on par with Israel is simply incorrect. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." BBC Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. Ecrusized (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I have to put "Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training except during this conflict (according to a WP editor)" Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? WCM_email 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note, an RfC (Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Expansion to war crimes section

@Nableezy: I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in this diff. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under WP:BALASP.

For editors generally, see also this discussion, regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. nableezy - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of WP:BALASP is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this diff.

I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.

The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.

My problem with this diff is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named Tom Dannenbaum), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.

According to WP:RS, a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for WP:RS should be heightened.

How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?

I oppose the incorporation of this diff, along with BilledMammal and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the WP:ONUS in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That is called an expert view and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. nableezy - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are relying on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:

(i) Prefer secondary sources,

(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

(iii) Citation counts

(iv) POV and peer review

Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?

As per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.

You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with WP:RS.

Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.

Kindly do. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read WP:SPS youll see Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. You can see his relevant publications. nableezy - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? nableezy - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight your removal of that content was correct.@HollerithPunchCard Mindhack diva (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

also as per WP:SPS :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Mindhack diva (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think is relevant there? nableezy - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mindhack diva: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. Mindhack diva (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the applicable Wikipedia policy: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., see WP:ONUS. Editors who aim to reinstate the contentious content should first establish a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ONUS is not a "reason" for reversion and there is no consensus here for removal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that discussion, especially after the "Undiscussed revert" edit summary. Some concerns were raised about the content. Can you direct me to where there's an agreement for its inclusion? WP:ONUS is a policy. Those looking to restore the disputed content should first work on building a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that as already explained at my talk page. An agreement for inclusion isn't required, it was added via the usual editing process, reasons for removal are required and ONUS ain't it, especially when you have this discussion sitting here where there is clearly no consensus for removal so QUO is a better way of looking at things pending some clarity in this discussion (in which I have not as yet commented, for instance, until now). Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, we all slip up from time to time. Just linking the discussion for the record. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You havent made an argument for removal, sorry. And you are edit-warring. You are not entitled to repeatedly revert material so long as it is once a day. Beyond that, there appears to be consensus among users in this section for the material, your repeated unjustified reverts included. nableezy - 15:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Haven't made an argument for removal? Really?

I raised numerous issues with your edit. I first pointed out that an associate professor's opinion on a self-founded online forum is not WP:RS and in any event, your substantial quotation of this opinion, in the context of this extremely controversial topic is not WP:DUE.

In response, you alleged that opinion falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

And when I asked which criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP does this opinion actually satisfies, you fall back to rely on WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this vein, you provided a link showing that this associate professor has published a few articles on international law with a few dozens of citations, which you claim to make him a subject matter expert on this topic.

First of all, I disagree that this associate professor is a subject matter expert that you allege. Based on the link to his cited publications you have provided me, he has written nothing on the topic of Israel and Palestine, apart from this opinion piece on an online forum.

Secondly, WP:SELFPUBLISH is a policy of last resort. Wikipedia's policy on use of self-published sources is peppered with caution.

According to WP: WP:SELFPUBLISH are "largely not acceptable as sources" and "caution should be exercised" when using them, because

"if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This is especially true in the topic at hand (i.e. Israel-Hamas conflict), which has been the main headline for media and governments around the world for the past two weeks. There are no shortage of reliable sources on this subject matter, which you could easily find, instead of picking an associate prof's opinion on an online forum.

For these reasons, your extension quotation of this online forum opinion piece is inappropriate and should be removed, as it is not a reliable source, and qualifies neither as WP:SCHOLARSHIP nor WP:SELFPUBLISH.

In any event, your dedication of almost a paragraph to quote this associate professor's one-sided opinion on an online forum on this serious, controversial topic, is [WP:UNDUE]] and strongly appears to be POV-pushing.

As I have stated earlier, there is no consensus to your edit, for the concerns stated above, and until you have reasonable response to these concerns, you have not met the WP:ONUS to maintaining this disputed content.

As a result, this disputed content should be removed, and Infinity Knight and Mindhack diva's removal of this content should not be reverted, which is being wrongfully done here. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Afaics, wall of text notwithstanding, the majority disagrees. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. There is a super majority here in support of keeping this material. nableezy - 22:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are the supermajority? Name them. Because I don't see your supermajority, and there are multiple editors here opposing your edits.

I note the lack of response to my various concerns with your edit, and a head count of bare voices supporting your contentious edit, without any attempt to engage the WP, is not a reason to insist on its inclusion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to you, but my response was to Infinity Knight there, who still has not made an argument for removal. And in this section, in favor of retaining is myself, Iskandar23, Selfstudier, Objective3000, DFlhb, Chuckstablers, and I *think* Jurisdicta. Whereas opposed are you, Infinity Knight and BilledMammal. This is material by a noted scholar in the field who has been cited by other reliable sources. Your objection on the basis of reliability is entirely without merit. nableezy - 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He's removing the content that I've made arguments for removal. The problem of the content has been raised, and the problem is the same, regardless of who does the removal.

And nope, Chuckstabler, Jurisdicta and Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion of the Prof Associate's opinion, Tom Dannenbaum's opinion published on his online forum. They only opined on their desire to have extended coverage of Israel war crime, which is beside the point of whether this opinion should be included despite not being WP:RS.

Just because he's published a academic articles on international crimes with some citations, doesn't mean that his opinion published on whatever forum, whatever platform, can be quoted substantially on this serious, controversial wiki article, in disregard of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion 80columns, I oppose this removal of expert opinion as per nableezy and Selfstudier. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the removal; we look to proportion in reliable sources to determine what our balance should be, and so far, the focus on Israel's actions has been pretty overwhelming in RS, as reflected in the child article. To preserve WP:NPOV, the summary-style section here should reflect that. DFlhb (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, see Deutsche Welle: Tom Dannenbaum, an associate professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, told DW that there had "clearly been violations" of international law perpetrated by both sides.

He said that the siege of Gaza qualifies as "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a war crime itself."

The Hamas attack also "implicated a number of war crimes, including murder as a war crime, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, hostage taking," Dannenbaum added.

nableezy - 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are war crimes on both sides. One would imagine that the Israeli war crimes are now getting more attention as they are perpetrated against 2.2 million people, half of whom are children. Certainly doesn't mean we should ignore Hamas atrocities. But, we follow WP:BALASP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, if this associate professor is opining that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, as you are putting forth, then your selective coverage of his opinion against Israel, and selective exclusion of his opinion against Hamas is clearly partisan, in breach of WP:NPOV and strikes as POV-pushing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Then add that per the source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt the source cited, I was just demonstrating other sources consider him an expert in the field. We already say Hamas committed obvious war crimes, but if you want to add him to the list of people who said then sure. nableezy - 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, the content is being added to the article without consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here. nableezy - 04:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

you not liking it doesn’t change fit much sorry. Revert again if you like but edit warring against consensus is disruptive and will be reported. nableezy - 09:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be civil Infinity Knight (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the one who is edit warring is you and Selfstudier who restored contested edit without consensus. This is the third time I'm repeating WP:ONUS, which states, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

The disputed content? This. Who is seeking to include this disputed content? You. Therefore, whose responsibility for achieving consensus? You.

Why is consensus not achieved? Because these reasons and these reasons. Most of which have not been responded to, let alone rebutted, to date. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They have all been responded to and rebutted. nableezy - 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus at present, to include. ONUS handwaving doesn't cut it, that's not a reason to exclude. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents & Units involved

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. Alikersantti (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Alikersantti, please see [1] and [2] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! Alikersantti (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

“CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments”

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ Chafique (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense

According to Kyiv Post In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule. "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be too early to add it to this article. You could certainly add it to the Iron Beam article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: "Iron Sting" now. WSJ The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, Elbit Systems. I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? Infinity Knight (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: I'm not sure there really is a good place for it. I don't see a comparable section in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. It doesn't seem like RS are paying a huge amount of attention these systems compared to, for example, the focus on Iron Dome during the 2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip. My advice is to either stick to editing the articles of the weapons systems themselves, or be WP:BOLD and stick it somewhere that seems logical here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Article becoming too long. Suggestions.

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. Lafi90 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone working on Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, should make a dent. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the WP:PROSELINE sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per Alcibiades979's suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, Iraq War#Background and Iraq War#Pre-war events, similarly Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background and Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude.VR _talk 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

After taking a closer look at both sections, it appears that the Historical Context section may not be necessary, and I'm in favor of trimming most of it. Do you have any suggestions for which references should be retained? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed before, it was removed and then restored, see archives, I suggest not doing that without discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally get your point about the content objection, and I'm not seeing a consensus for adding it, unless I'm overlooking something. If there are any references you think are worth keeping in the Context section, feel free to share your thoughts. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: Why after observing that the page is too long are you expanding the background section with unnecessary biographical expositions on individual political figures like [18] - this is not helping move the background section towards a useful summary, but bloating it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just created a fresh section to address your question right here. Hey, someone raised an objection about Context content. Can you help me find a consensus for its inclusion? I could've missed it. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: What are you talking about? I am talking about the unnecessary biographical material that you are adding in the middle of complaining about length (although yes, while also apparently removing properly summarized material on war crimes - this is a disastrous and pretty disruptive edit that should be reverted). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment, just search "Historical context·" in the archives. Also, why did you remove the well sourced war crimes material? It says "see talk" but I find no discussion of that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the war crimes deletion as undiscussed, best open a new section if you wish to discuss it (in case I missed it somewhere point me to the talk discussion you mentioned in the edit summary).Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Those "properly summarized material on war crimes" that you allege is anything but. Reasons against its exclusion has been discussed at length by me at here and here, and some of these reasons have been raised for a few days.

You can disagree with these arguments, but you cannot purport that they don't exist. Thus far, the only response to these arguments is essentially that there are more of us than there are more of you. That's not a constructive discussion and not a reason to revert the exclusion of this disputed material, which you have done. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is being updated with content without community agreement. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Infinity Knight. The content was first introduced by Nableezy.

After I raised numerous issues and concerns with this content, primarily for not being WP:RS, Infinity Knight removed this content.

@Selfstudier restored this content without addressing any of the expressed concerns with this content, and without consensus, and despite most of my arguments not being addressed in the discussions.

Respectfully, I see this is as a disregard of WP:ONUS and an instance of WP:EDITWAR.

I would kindly ask that Selfstudier revert your restoration of this disputed content until consensus is achieved through reasonable discussion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the length of the article. There is a separate discussion about the war crime material where you have just now commented so this repetition is quite unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, you can try that here as well, but there is a clear consensus for that material. Ignoring that is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 13:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with @HollerithPunchCard. The best move for @Selfstudier is to self-revert and work towards reaching a consensus for inclusion. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Also best discussed at the relevant discussion and not here (the details of the current consensus are there). Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s already consensus, a super majority in fact and the next person to ignore that is being reported. nableezy - 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing an edit comment summary with a link to the discussion is one thing, but flat-out ignoring the clear recommendations from multiple angles on the talk page is a whole different story. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here Chafique (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chafique: Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, he reverted his own edit from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. SilverLocust 💬 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox

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

---

Should the United States be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

• Option 1 — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
• Option 2 — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
• Option 3 — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
• Option 4 — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
• Option 5 — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
• Option 6 — No

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussions: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14

• Comment — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WeatherWriter: Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at Gaza–Israel conflict. SilverLocust 💬 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.Parham wiki (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw this edit by Parham wiki saying it was deprecated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  there is a consensus, it can be added. Parham wiki (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the WP:RFCBEFORE. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are requesting more research on my end…here: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page & Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option X USA should be in the infox iff it is a belligerent.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the Houthis will necessarily also have to be included. -- Veggies (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down Yemeni Houthi missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[19] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of Eilat and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.

There are additional factors that might count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[20] U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza. Additionally, U.S. is reported[21] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.

Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say Option 1 would be the most appropriate option. Ecrusized (talk) 17:49, 24 October 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.

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah)

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah

Option 1 – Add X
Option 2 – Do not add X
Option 3 – Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)

RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion2

• RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait Selfstudier, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I think WeatherWriter was confused because, while Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.

I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.

It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, Parham wiki made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bermicourt, not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose adding most; support adding the US: The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza.[22][23] And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it).[24][25][26] The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. nableezy - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. nableezy - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  “US military equipment pours into Israel”[27]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.

Do not add: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany. Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all additions until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note – Hezbollah was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all except Hezbollah. None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. ([28]) Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn Parham wiki (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Close RFC there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Withdrawing RfC - Told twice back to back the RfC is bad, so I am withdrawing it. Y'all seem to think we need to have an individual discussion about each country/organization, so, so be it. To add any of these seven, a unique, stand-alone discussion should be required, given the RfC (request for comments) doesn't work. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn and also Add Syria Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli POWs omitted from lead

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on this revision adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

Al Jazeera: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in the discussion of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

The Guardian: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? WillowCity (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2): This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. WillowCity (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WillowCity: I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. WillowCity^(talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Quantling: In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. WillowCity^(talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. WillowCity^(talk) 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacres

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. Classicalguss (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).

Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? Chuckstablers (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.

Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.

They also killed before on 16th of October

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html Classicalguss (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. Hamas doesn't see them as civilians. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. we know that hamas lied All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived talks about photos and Reactions section

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:

[29] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?

[30] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora

[31] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world

JJMM (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the international reactions page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol Hovsepig (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! JJMM (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. JJMM (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war.

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 Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 46.121.27.170 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.

Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 46.121.27.170 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.

They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.

Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.

Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.

• since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.

46.121.27.170 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.

• also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.

46.121.27.170 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is this one. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. WCM_email 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel casualties

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates RickyBlair668 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Supported by

@Tamjeed Ahmed, concerning 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualty count

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it YEEETER0 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. YEEETER0 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.

Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971

Mistamystery (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden is not a reliable source that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. WillowCity^(talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not just Biden:

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/

The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).Mistamystery (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source independently corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the policy on "claimed").

As well, FYI, this article from WaPo: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. WillowCity^(talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. YEEETER0 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. Mistamystery (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the block also apply for the talk page? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement and Casualties sustained

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an extraordinary claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A.H.T Videomapping please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza

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.

---

Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic concluded just two days ago, with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:49, 25 October 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.

Map

Please add a map to the article

World map with countries that have declared Hamas a terrorist organization

91.210.248.223 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body

For reasons including WP:COMMONNAME, the article title is Israel–Hamas war. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see above. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the WP:COMMONNAME. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"2,500 infiltrated Israel"

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed Hexifi (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). SSR07 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. SSR07 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

infobox attribution inline

BilledMammal, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? nableezy - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing every figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per WP:ONUS, is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. nableezy - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.VR _talk 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of October 25th, the NYTimes is throwing in a disclaimer, saying a number that if verified At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:POINT. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. nableezy - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.

The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.

So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.

At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.

Editor @Hovsepig: made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;

"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:

"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).

And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."

At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.

At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per WP:ONUS, is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. nableezy - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

One editor does not get to decide, end of. WP:ONUS doesn't work that way either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked Infinity Knight. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well given it has had numbers since basically the beginning of this article and throughout the now 7519 edits it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again WP:POINT (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. nableezy - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting WP:DE when I see it. nableezy - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a better idea, since we have WAPO OC 24 saying "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza, according to the MoH in Gaza, according to Israeli official sources. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. nableezy - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I started an RFC below. nableezy - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in this table or should they be listed separately? For example a Dutch and a Ukrainian were killed in Gaza.VR _talk 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And a citizen of Kazakhstan. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: so should they be listed together or separately? VR _talk 03:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I don't have a strong opinion on that Infinity Knight (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Small stylistic suggestion

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." 2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

@RamHez: SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to Syrian civil war. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. Ecrusized (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, like L'Orient Today? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging ARandomName123 and Timeshifter since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. DFlhb (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a simple chart. It can be used under c:Template:PD-chart. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!

Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths DFlhb (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:

Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites

There is also the freeware LibreOffice and LibreOffice Calc, etc..

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Please correct the table:

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Country	Deaths	Kidnapped	Missing	Ref.
Ukraine	24	Unknown	1

91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with multiple citizenships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. Animal lover |666| 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC on infobox casualties

How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?

1. Attributed with an endnote as in the current version as of this writing
2. Attributed for all numbers inline as in this version
3. Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in this version
4. Not in the infobox at all

Nableezy 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 1 - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed. A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the Washington Post reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. nableezy - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example the UN reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." nableezy - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 or 3, weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.

In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of WP:V, for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.

Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.

In general, the option of attributed with an endnote is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them. and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them. 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I went through the first 10 "Sources for Israeli casualties" and found 90% of these actually attribute them at some point in time, but not consistently, which is why we arrive at different results.

VR _talk 03:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 3 or 2 this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support 4 with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. WCM_email 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes are sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 For reasons said by AquilaFasciata. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. Ecrusized (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes. Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? The Guardian 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Other sources, like this one, say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Succinct and reasonable, well said. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [32], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" (WP:WTA); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.VR _talk 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." Alaexis_¿question? 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Shakir goes on to say "“Generally this data is catalogued in a way that there are detailed breakdowns that include identifying information about each person. That’s part of why we believe this to be reliable.” The identifying information includes such details as ID numbers, so any exaggeration or falsehood would be easily detectable. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: per Hemiauchenia. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 4 per User:Meeepmep here, which should be fixed to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article. Also OK with 3.5 it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this 2 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Per Joseph Biden, here, "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: its important to note this RfC question is only about the infobox, not about the body of the article. For the infobox, just like the WP:LEAD, we must necessarily be concise. I support in-line attribution (along with necessary context) for the body of the article, but not the lead or infobox.VR _talk 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 The second item (2) looks to be more informative and appropriate for the readers; i.e. "Attributed for all numbers inline..." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. per Selfstudier and there is no reason to think the GHM figures are any less accurate than the 'fog of war' allows - despite what Joe Biden may think. Indeed, HGM according to the Gdn and others "also issued a 212-page list of the names and identity numbers of every Palestinian it says has been killed in the Israeli bombardment. Unless doctors and admins are complicit in fabricating death certificates etc, these numbers are about as cast-iron certain as they could possibly be, and it would easily provable if significant faking or exaggerating were happening. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions

• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline

Discussion3

Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. nableezy - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight, Vice regent, Graeme Bartlett, Mistamystery, WillowCity, JM2023, and Hovsepig: Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You missed one off the top of my head, Jayen466. nableezy - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I did; I overlooked them at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).

Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.

I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.

I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. nableezy - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[33] As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported. VR _talk 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources:- Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more M142 HIMARS systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent AP John Kirby said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. nableezy - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Is AP a reliable source? , according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See straw man. nableezy - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the functional difference between your method of attribution, where our readers won't see it, and no attribution? BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you posted something on percentage checking footnotes, but I dont know if that also refers to end notes, or if they are more likely to check some notes than others, as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers. So I dont put a whole lot of stock in to this our readers wont see it mantra, and I dont see the need to respond to it. But the functional difference is one has an attribution with an endnote and no attribution has no attribution at all. nableezy - 02:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

but I dont know if that also refers to end notes If refers to all footnotes.

as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers The paper addresses this question; readers are less likely to check references on articles that are above start and stub class (this article is B-Class) and readers are less like to check references on longer articles (this article is very long). Readers are also more likely to check footnotes that are related to people's social and private lives; "baby", "wife", "instragram", etc; readers are less likely to engage with references on this topic than they are on other topics.

The figure I gave above is that one in seventy will engage with footnotes; what I didn't say, as the detail seemed unnecessary, is that for this article that is a hopelessly optimistic figure; this article ticks all the boxes to drag that engagement down. Further, one in seventy engage with any footnote; the chance that those engagements relate to these footnotes is far lower. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. Does it break down notes in an infobox vs footnotes in the lead vs later in the article? Does it break it down by how in the news an article is? There are way too many things that are unanswerable about how a reader will engage with this article that it seems totally pointless to even pretend like it is relevant to the question here. nableezy - 03:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. The paper is focused on citations but also discusses footnotes.

And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. It's not relevant that all the evidence we have tells us that readers won't see the attribution when it is in the form you propose? Saying "we know readers don't normally see these, but maybe this article is an exception" isn't a productive or convincing argument, particularly when it is in regards to something as important as compliance with core content policies. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like something you should bring elsewhere for a discussion of infoboxes and reader interaction with them across all articles, seems particularly lacking in relevance here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The question here is whether a particular method of attribution is functional; whether readers will actually see the attribution. Strong evidence that they won’t is highly relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See [34] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As suggested by Meeepmep here, I would appreciate the modification of

• 4 change to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article

* 3.5 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text seems like a reasonable choice to me. it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this

Infinity Knight (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Joe Biden isnt a reliable source, whereas reliable sources have said they do have confidence in the numbers. But regardless, is there a reason you think we should attribute only one set of numbers in text but not the other set? nableezy - 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden isn't a WP:RS but he has access to a lot more information than you and me. As for the sets of numbers, there seems to be considerably more dispute over one set than the other, and I haven't read of the POTUS questioning the other set in the same manner. Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but why would the political head of an ally of one of the combatants be the person that would determine which set of numbers is in question? nableezy - 23:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. عبد المؤمن (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. Animal lover |666| 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under WP:COMMONNAME; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this specific situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. Feliiformia (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still refered to internationally as Israel-Hamas war, since these are the two main belligerents. I would not expand it since, then you may have to include the Americans too since they shot down Houthi rebel missiles toward Israel, American forces were attacked by Iranian proxies.[35][36]

Perhaps you'd like to name it? US+Israel vs Iranian Proxies? That would be most accurate but I don't think anybody says this. The international consensus in English Speaking world is Israel vs Hamas. We should leave it as it is. [37] [38] [39] [40] Homerethegreat (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the history of "requested moves" at the top of this talk page for details on the existing name, which has been extensively discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to El Observador

Other sources in Spanish: Semanario Hebreo Jai, Telenoche, CNN, Infobae and La Diaria.

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties?

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? Imagemafia (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. Randomuser335S (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. Imagemafia (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.

In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. Randomuser335S (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! Imagemafia (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding a new subsection

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? Iminyourwalls72 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a page about the war crimes. War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Is it mentioned in the current page? Hovsepig (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional Relevant Information

Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations: . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

'2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7' Massacre:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg

The practice of "initial military training" is also used in Russia in secondary comprehensive schools in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

see whataboutery. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. Mindhack diva (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) Mindhack diva (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find a reliable secondary source for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. Mindhack diva (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Countries ready to take Gaza refugees

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people. i only came accross scotland: Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 Mindhack diva (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas infiltrators

The article states :

• "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

• "2500 militants and civilians"

RadXman (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the source, "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --91.210.248.223 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Censor

censors

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882

Baratiiman (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible Houthi drones falling on Egypt

The Egyptian towns of Taba and Nuweiba near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[41] Last week, U.S. Navy[42] and Saudi Arabia[43] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of Eilat.[[44]] Ecrusized (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Towns of Taba and Nuweiba are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the Gaza Strip. Does Hamas have such long-range weapons? The Houthi are based even further, in Yemen, 1,600 km from the city of Eilat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Bakeries? Barber shops?

Tareq S. Haijaj, They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve. Mondoweiss 26 October 2023 Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.

The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population (16-17 years old). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. 91.210.248.223 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: While I understand the motivation behind this, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some WP:Reliable Sources for it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry.

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. Oshaboy2 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. This two sentence article is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For Hezbollah being a belligerent, would you care if that discussion was merged into the larger belligerent RfC earlier in this talk page? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw your post after having removed the info. Personally I would have no objection, but essentially it is up to somebody to come up with cites that explicitly say that Hezbollah is an active belligerent in this war and that this war has spread to adjacent countries. The existence of minor skirmishes/incidents doesn't satisfy that IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox - whether Syrian and West bank deaths should be included, I leave to others. That these peripheral incidents are connected is properly covered in the article, but no source I have read says that they are part of the Isr-Hamas war at present. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - For the discussion about Hezbollah being listed as a belligerent, please visit the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) earlier in the talk page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I agree that the West Bank, Lebanon and Syrian casualties should be removed from the infobox. This article is about the Israel-Hamas for and adding those belligerents without proper references is WP:SYNTH. Ecrusized (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed the West Bank, Lebanon and Syrian casualties until I was removing Hezbollah from the belligerents, and leaders and Lebanon and Syria from locations. I'll wait to see whether anyone comes up with arguments for retaining these in the infobox. Otherwise I agree, including every border incident or bit of 'sabre-rattling' here is SYNTH and if the orgs and places aren't part of the war, nor are the casualties. I believe these incidents are properly recorded in the "Other confrontations" section however since they are clearly linked even if not intrinsically part of this war. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

When Hezbollah carried out its first attack on day two of the war, they officially did so "in solidarity" with the Palestinians [45]. Moreover, if the clashes with Hezbollah are not part of this war, what then of Hamas attacks from Lebanon? Hamas operates in Lebanon in coordination with Hezbollah. I believe Hezbollah qualifies as a belligerent, but hitherto it has played a marginal role in the war and kept things below the threshold of escalation. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a pure WP:SYNTH argument. Sources needs to be found that the broad mass of commentators consider Hezbollah to be an active belligerent, not that a WP editor interprets their own words to mean they are. I can't think of any war situation in which the critical mass of sources are not clear about who is actively fighting that war. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it a SYNTH argument when 1) Hezbollah itself said that it took action in solidarity with the Palestinians, and 2) Hamas operates a second (third?) front in Lebanon in coordination with Hezbollah. Are you arguing that the fighting on the Israel-Lebanon border is entirely separate from the war in Gaza, despite Hezbollah (the instigator) officially deeming it otherwise? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [46] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mikrobølgeovn. Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

2023

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called Israel–Hamas war to disambiguate from. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The 2014 Gaza War was also between Israel & Hamas. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the history of "requested moves" at the top of this talk page for details why. Specific policies include: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions - Fuzheado | Talk 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders flags in infobox

I think it's fair and logical to add palestinian (and lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine IMO Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 102.45.250.20 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

added. nableezy - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Smallpox/chicken pox

The article says that there is a smallpox outbreak in Gaza. As smallpox has been eradicated, this mention appears to be a mistranslation in the Al Jazeera article. The UN report (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142732) mentions chicken pox instead. See also https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/10/24/fact-check-smallpox-has-not-broken-out-in-gaza/ (not sure whether this counts as a reliable source). Oryf (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you Oryf. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide Elsliquor (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2)

Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. Sirswiss1 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done - Please refer to the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this edit request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Shortening article

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.

• Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
• Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
• Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.

Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think "background" and "historical context" should be merged and condensed. A very large amount of page text concerns events from before 7 October. Some is certainly appropriate, but I think we have too much. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree; I also think the tunnel subsection doesn't belong. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So, where should we put the tunnel information? Is there a better spot for it? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it

Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari claimed in a briefing for international reporters that Hamas’s main base of operations is under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.“When medical facilities are used for terror purposes, they are liable to lose their protection from attack in accordance with international law,” Hagari warned.

Hamas uses Al-Shifa with its 1,500 beds and 4,000 staff members, as well as other strategic and sensitive areas - other hospitals, mosques, UNRWA centers, and more - as shields for its underground tunnel network, Hagari explained. Moreover, he added, in Al-Shifa specifically, Hamas runs parts of its command and control center in different departments, carrying out rocket attacks against Israel and other terror activities. “Hamas also has an entrance to its terror tunnels from inside hospital wards,” he said. “From different places inside the hospital, you can enter underground tunnels.

sources:https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-army-spokesman-hamas-military-base-is-under-shifa-hospital/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-main-operations-base-is-under-shifa-hospital-in-gaza-city-says-idf/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-hamas-hiding-tunnels-operations-centres-gaza-hospital-2023-10-27/

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-770484

However,Hamas rejects Israeli claim over installations under al-Shifa hospital

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/27/hamas-rejects-israeli-claim-over-installations-under-al-shifa-hospital Mindhack diva (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that fits better in the Al-Shifa Hospital article. Oshaboy2 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not even high enough above sea level to have that.

There is no "proof" shared. The Israeli government has provided no real evidence of the existence of said tunnels; a 3D video made in Cinema 4D doesn't count. NOKO444 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating language: The term "Hamas-run"

The inclusion of the words "Hamas-run" when discussing the Gaza Health Ministry, especially in the context recording the number of civilian casualties, adds unnecessary skepticism as to the accuracy of the death count.

According to the Washington Post, "In previous wars, the ministry's counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny". This information is corroborated by a statement from Michael Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Health Emergencies Program, in which he is quoted as saying, "The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-by-minute basis, but they largely reflect the level of death and injury". The United Nations, international non-governmental organizations, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank all consider the Gaza Health Ministry "[to have] long-made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions".

Owing to these statements, the addition of the phrase "Hamas-run" adds unnecessary skepticism to numbers that are otherwise generally accepted to be objective by most neutral parties. The immediate removal of this phrase is imperative to maintaining the objectivity of this Wikipedia article, and it should be noted *explicitly* when dissenting claims are made by non-neutral parties (i.e. Israel or the United States).

I understand there's an implicit level of risk when using a source tied to a particular government, but the frequency of the phrase "Hamas-run" adds unnecessary scrutiny when our main objective is simply to encourage readers to take into account the potential risk of bias.

To the editors contributing to this page, I highly recommend that you take the time to consider the language you use, especially when it can potentially benefit one talking point or another. When discussing such a divisive issue, it is imperative to remain as objective as possible.

My source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll/45dcc3fe-742f-11ee-936d-7a16ee667359_story.html Stockrbonk (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Any skepticism here is with the reader, as the "Hamas-run" is fairly neutral and a statement of fact. Distinguishing from Israli-run or UN pr Palestinian. But there would be no need to repeat it every time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not neutral. Hamas is a political party. Would you be fine calling Israeli hospitals "Likud-run"? They are publicly funded. It's clearly an NPOV thing to discredit the death toll. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:1926:28F7:6430:2024 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree totally, to attribute figures to either the Gaza Health Ministry or Israeli Ministry of Whatever is fair and neutral, since even with the best will in the world, death and casualty figures are prone to various inaccuracies. Adding "Hamas-run" is a fairly blatant and crude attempt to discredit the figures - which, as the original poster says - have generally been proved to be reasonably accurate in the past. Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett There isn't anything wrong with the term "Hamas-run", at least not in essence- the problem comes when we associate it with an objective fact. We know fairly certainly that the Gaza Health Ministry's official death count can be relied upon, so what does the ministry's being run by Hamas have to do with anything?

This Wikipedia article didn't invent "Hamas-run", American media corporations did, and they've been increasingly promoting pro-Israeli talking points. Since it has such a negative connotation, we implicitly favor one side over the other whenever the term is used. In this context, "Hamas-run" isn't a neutral term. Stockrbonk (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

if the article is termed as "israel-hamas war" and not "israel-gaza war", we have to meantion everything explicitly that is controlled exclusively by hamas. 'hamas-run' should be used here for gaza health ministry or change the article to israel-gaza war. Mindhack diva (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What does "run by Hamas" mean? These are civil servants that preceded Hamas government control. They are considered reliable or not reliable. Of course all figures are subject to doubt. It will be quite a long time before the fog is lifted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in an RFC up the page, can comment there if permitted.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

source for land in Gaza being under israeli control?

Unless i'm being an idiot, I don't see much of a mention of the start of actual ground invasion as of yet. What is the source for this change in the map? Genabab (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The map edit summary for the last upload has https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-calls-humanitarian-pauses-gaza-aid-israel-raids-enclave-2023-10-26/ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Dynamics of deaths

Daily number of victims from October 7 to 27, 2023 according to the UN

	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
Israel	70	677	900	1000	1200	1300	1300	1300	1300	1300	1300	1400	1400	1400	1401	1401	1401	1402	1402	1402	1402
	+70	+607	+223	+100	+200	+100	—	—	—	—	—	+100	—	—	+1	—	—	+1	—	—	—
Palestine	201	413	687	849	1026	1450	1943	2282	2726	2866	3061	3542	3864	4219	4469	4742	5182	5886	6649	7131	7434
	+201	+212	+274	+162	+177	+424	+493	+339	+444	+140	+195	+481	+322	+355	+250	+273	+440	+704	+763	+482	+303

Ucraniano2 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Daragmeh note

BilledMammal, any reason why we should include the Israeli claim and not the Hamas claim on cause of death in the note? I tried to avoid all that by just clarifying he did not die in action, but if youre going to add the Israeli claim of a heart attack the claim that he was tortured and assassinated should likewise be included. nableezy - 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He died in Israeli custody; given that they are in a position to know how he died their claims about how he died are relevant.

I'm also not sure the statement "killed in action" is appropriate; he wasn't killed in action, he died in custody regardless of the circumstances of his death. I'm also not sure he belongs in the infobox; there are many Hamas officials at his level, why are we including this one? As far as I can tell, he has no special relevance to the ongoing war such as being closely involved in the October 7 attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing Daragmeh entirely, as the sources don't make him out to be important in this conflict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s a bunch of unsourced opinion, and the idea that the Israeli government is a beacon of truth is likewise unsourced opinion. If you want to include the Israeli claim then the Hamas one should be too. If you want to remove it sure. If you want to remove him entirely sure. But just, and this has been a repeat theme here, only including Israeli claims as though they are the paragon of accuracy and ignoring Hamas ones as though everything they have ever said is a lie is non-neutral. nableezy - 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Add the USS Mount Whitney to the the list of deployed United States Navy ship’s in the 2023 Israel Hamas war article section of United States deployed military assets

USS Mount Whitney to the 2023 Israel Hamas war article

Latest comment: 3 hours ago On 18 October 2023, Mount Whitney deployed from Gaeta with the Commander 6th fleet, Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, and his staff, onboard "in support of U.S. operations" in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in waters off the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This added to new deployments by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) aircraft carrier strike group and USS Bataan (LHD-5), USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) carrying the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, joining the USS Gerald R. Ford 96.60.168.239 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will state that I climbed to the summit of Mount Whitney on September 11, 2009, so I pay attention when this ship is mentioned. It is a flagship with a senior admiral on board who commands a fleet. Other than that, though, it is not a major combat asset. Aircraft carrier battle groups contain many ships of many types, but the actual aircaft carriers are by far the most important and formidable components. At this time, the giant aircraft carriers USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower are the ships that should be mentioned. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Background

I guess with the intensity of editing, and mainstream sources diligently avoiding opening up a can of worms, we are not going to have anything other than a cartoon political history as background. For one or two editors who may be curious about the thick details of context, we have David Shulman, Heading Toward a Second Nakba New York Review of Books 19 October 2029 which was written before October 7, but allows one to grasp what the NYTs won't tell you, though the recondite Review of Books with a much smaller readership does, namely, the Palestinian perspective, which Thrall's book also covers in excruciating detail. Nishidani (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus on Inclusion of Kibbutz Mefalsim Video

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.

---

In response to a request, Stuart Marshall closed the above discussion. That was a gargantuan task, and I thank him for sticking his neck out on such a contentious close. The result of the close was no consensus.

Given some of the policies raised by Stuart, which went largely unevaluated in the preceding discussion, I have made the tentative decision to start this new topic in an attempt to reach a consensus. Obviously, I would not be doing this if I didn’t want to change the status quo, and I intend to argue that the video should be included in the article. I will advance this argument by reference to policies, guidelines, and other relevant considerations.

Fundamentally, I believe that the video in question advances readers’ understanding of the topic. As with most Wikipedia images and videos, it is implicitly understood that reading about something provides a less fulsome understanding than seeing it. For example, a horse is defined as "a large plant-eating domesticated mammal with solid hoofs and a flowing mane and tail, used for riding, racing, and to carry and pull loads." However, if I’d never seen a horse before, I’d be at an utter loss trying to use that description to conjure up a picture. Similarly here, the article describes horrific acts against civilians (on both sides), but written descriptions largely fail to convey the true horror of what has transpired. For that reason, I believe this video (and indeed, other videos from within Israel and Gaza) deserve a place in the article.

Relevant Policies

Wikipedia:Image use policy: The image use policy holds, in part, that "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." For the reasons above, I believe this policy militates in favour of inclusion.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Stuart raised the BLP policy, as the primary subject of the video is (almost certainly) recently deceased. He made the point that the BLP policy favoured non-inclusion in controversial circumstances. However, I respectfully disagree with him that the video falls within the policy.

The policy is primarily designed to avoid legal jeopardy through the operation of defamation law. Therefore, it is specifically geared to avoid propagating defamatory imputations. On this point, nothing in the video could be construed as contravening the purpose of the policy. The face of the primary subject is blurred, and it is therefore difficult to argue that he is identified. Furthermore, no negative connotations are attached to the primary subject. As he is not named, and the video does not truly infer his notability in any way, it is questionable whether the policy applies to the subject at all.

Relevant Guidelines

Wikipedia:Offensive material (see also WP:GRATUITOUS, MOS:OMIMG, WP:Gore, etc): This is essentially the crux of the above argument. The guideline states, clearly and simply, that wikipedia is not censored. However, it also states that offensive material should not be included unless a) it is of encyclopaedic value, and b) no equally valuable alternative exists. Therefore, if we are to acknowledge that the video is of encyclopaedic value, the only other relevant consideration is whether a less offensive alternative might be included instead.

In other words, it is not sufficient to argue that the video in question is gratuitously violent, gory, or a snuff film. One must advance an argument as to why the video is not of encyclopaedic value on its own merits OR that a similarly encyclopaedic alternative exists. This is something few people actually grappled with when arguing against inclusion. Indeed, many of the arguments against inclusion (e.g. that the video may elicit distress) seem to implicitly acknowledge that the video adds content to the article that a simple textual description does not.

To my knowledge, no equally valuable alternative to this video exists to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.

Other Relevant Considerations

• Appeals to propriety: Several comments in the prior discussion were essentially variations on ‘this is a snuff film’ or ‘this film depicts extreme gore/violence’ or simply ‘this is inappropriate’. These arguments are not really based in policy or guidelines. Nevertheless, I will engage with them on their merits. Whilst I am aware that in many Anglophone societies, depictions of extreme violence contravene generally-accepted norms of discourse, I do not believe that norm extends to encyclopaedic works. Indeed, I believe it is an even more foundational social norm that information ought to be available to those who seek it, puritanical impulses notwithstanding. For that reason, we look at old attempts to censor Britannica, or the Oxford English Dictionary, as misguided. We must apply social principles fairly, and to admit that propriety demands we hide one thing opens the door for all sorts of scolds to demand we censor everything.

• ‘Harm’ to readers: It was argued by several editors in the previous discussion that viewing the video might be traumatic for readers, or otherwise cause real-world harm. I am largely unsympathetic to this view, as the impulse to protect people from certain knowledge stands in stark opposition to the purposes of Wikipedia. However, I acknowledge a particular issue when it comes to child readers. This was raised too, although I am not aware of any guidelines that speak to this point directly. Although I am sympathetic to the goal of preventing distress to children, I am minded to dismiss such concerns for two reasons: Firstly, were that standard to be applied universally, an enormous amount of Wikipedia content would simply have to disappear. Articles on sex crimes, violence, war, and more could all be objectionable to children per se. Secondly, I believe it is an unresolvable question to what extent Wikipedia may be harming anyone, when the rest of the Internet (including social media) is saturated with horrific videos from this conflict.

• Harm to those connected to the events: The point was made that those who lived through the events of 7 October, or those related some someone who was killed or kidnapped, might be distressed by the video. I will leave aside the first point, as it is functionally impossible to second-guess what a person who lived through those events might find objectionable to be shown, even if we were to heed those objections.

Regarding the point that a relative of the deceased might be upset at seeing the video, I make two points: Firstly, I do not consider it likely that a grieving relative of the primary subject of this video will be minded to read the Wikipedia article about the attack. Secondly, without in any way diminishing the grief of those related to the subject, their feelings are not directly relevant to our purpose here. Our purpose is to gather knowledge and inform, and we cannot allow hypothetical individuals (to my knowledge, no actually relatives have said anything about this video) to dictate what the millions of Wikipedia readers can see.

• Verifiability issues: The video has now been verified by HRW.

• Balance issues: It was argued by some editors that including this video might not be NPOV, or might improperly skew public opinion on the conflict, by conjuring a visceral reaction to Hamas’ crimes, without giving due attention to those committed by Israel. I acknowledge that this is one of the most hotly contested articles of the last twelve months on Wikipedia, and it would be counter-productive to give the impression of bias, even absent actual bias. Nevertheless, that is not an argument for not including this video. Instead, it is an argument for including any other videos depicting the conflict that are relevant, no matter the perpetrator/victims. I have certainly seen videos of Israelis killing Palestinians, and would support the addition of any videos with encyclopaedic value.

Riposte97 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The following editors contributed in some way to the above discussion:

@Ecrusized: @FunLater: @Awesome Aasim: @Lenny Marks: @Lethargilistic: @Ben Azura: @Chuckstablers: @Snow Rise: @WhatamIdoing: @Codenamephoenix: @RobRabelo7: @Markowitz: @CooperGoodman: @Cwater1: @SteelerFan1933: @Jon.yb093: @Veggies: @Borgenland: @MrBeastRapper: @Urgullomoore: @Wee Curry Monster: @IshChasidecha: @CapnJackSp: @Objective3000: @Iskandar323: @Eduardog3000: @Alaexis: @Yekshemesh: @Thebiguglyalien: @Andrevan: @Ficaia: @EvergreenFir: @Hansen Sebastian: @Hemiauchenia: @Nableezy: @AquilaFasciata: @Kusma: @Thryduulf: Riposte97 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The video in question can be viewed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_members_attacking_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

In Section: Reactions → United Nations - add: "See also: United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.25" Don Stroud (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Asem Abu Rakaba

Add Asem Abu Rakaba in commanders and leaders section who was air chief of Hamas killed by IDF on last night in an airstrike. [[47]] Kkb091 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I redirected that article here because it probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. VR _talk 10:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the sources, like this one from The Week India, do delve into some detailed discussions. So, where in the article is this individual mentioned? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Input regarding an edit

Hey, I'd appreciate some input on this edit I've got a couple of ideas here:

a) I think it's best to keep the leadership and tunnels sections separate because the sources talk about them in different situations.

b) We should definitely mention Deif's connection to the terrorist acts in 1996, as per the provided source.

Infinity Knight (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the leadership and tunnels sections definitely makes sense. Alaexis_¿question? 11:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a background section. Everything should be highly summarized. Detailed material on Hamas leaders or their strategies should be either located on their biographies or on the page for Hamas itself, of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The page, as has been noted elsewhere, including by the OP here, is overlength. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Breaking up the sections doesn't make the article longer; it just makes the content easier to follow and understand. As for (b), the 1996 incidents appear to be unique and part of the background. Sources mention this link, so it could be a good idea to include it. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

add this if relevant or important in context of the article- Khaled mashal addresses a pro-palestine rally

As many countries held protests and rallies for palestine but no rally were directly addressed by any hamas leader, this may be one of a kind.i dont know if a leader and former hamas chief Khaled Mashal is still important or relevant but he directly participated virtually in a rally organised in Kerala's Malappuram. In a video, the Hamas leader Khaled Mashal could be seen addressing the people.He was invited by youth wing of Jamaat-e-Islami.Visuals from the event shows banners with slogans like “Uproot Bulldozer Hindutva & Apartheid Zionism”.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/hamas-leader-khaled-mashal-kerala-rally-virtual-speech-malappuram-solidarity-youth-movement-2454776-2023-10-28

https://thecommunemag.com/uproot-hindutva-terror-outfit-hamas-founder-khaled-mashal-addresses-kerala-youth-wing-of-jamaat-e-islami-hind/

https://india.postsen.com/News/amp/1228026

(google for more sources) Mindhack diva (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's interesting but only marginally relevant to this page. It would be appropriate to add to the Khaled Mashal article, though. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

its so funny that pro palestine/hamas rallies in india almost always drag hinduism/hindutva into an unrelated and far away conflict .lol..but its in kerela.so ya.someone who is initiated can understant. Mindhack diva (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz shows that Israel government has been lying about death toll from October 7th.

• Confirmed death toll is 900 not 1400.
• Half are Israeli soldiers.
• No "beheaded babies"

• Israeli forces were responsible for several of their own civilian deaths

https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october

someone add this to the article Chafique (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The source here is not Haaretz, but a website called The Cradle that has a marginal public profile (e.g., no Wiki article). I think such assertions laid out above would qualify as extraordinary claims, and this article does not qualify as extraordinary evidence. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think he meant that haarez was who made the claim, a direct quote from the article

“Now, detailed statistics on the casualties released by the Israeli daily Haaretz paint a starkly different picture. As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sharmine Narwani appears a credible expert in the field. But, as Jprg1966 says, The Cradle is an unknown. The data that can be traced to Haaretz would likely be useable with Haaretz as the source. Of course beheded babies is in the article (with qualification) which is an extraordinary claim with poor foundation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The linked source is "The Cradle", not Haaretz. They link to all sorts of sources, including an unreliable one and one mislabeled one. There's no link to the alleged Haaretz article. On October 26 Haaretz said the number of victims was at least 1,300. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It would not surprise me in the slightest were Israel spinning the story to suit their narrative, however we need to flesh this out with more sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

a very shady website.Its not uncommon for hamas supporters to come up with these made up stories. Mindhack diva (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you calling the authors of this piece something? nableezy - 14:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

nope.i just said its not uncommon for hamas(a designated terrorist organisation by many countries) supporters to come up with made up stories. its a more neutral wording than the person above me who accused an entire nation of spinning stories to suit their narrative. Mindhack diva (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all countries spin stories to suit there own narrative. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

then its a battle of narrative.may the side with better values,beliefs,principles and 'evidence' win :) Mindhack diva (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Implying Israel hadn’t spun stories to suit their narrative in this war… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Cradle was referring to an earlier Hebrew version of this list of October 19, which has 902 names cleared for publication (of 1300). One would have to go through the list descriptions and count those described as soldiers or police. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Because of a personal attachment to Kfar Aza, I examined the 902 list for the victims there, where initial reports had over 100, and after two weeks, 52 were 'confirmed' dead. The Haaretz listing of the 902 has one name doubled. The result is that as of today, 41 are known to have been killed, 29 civilians in the strict sense, and 12 associated with security or some military role. 'Confirmed' if it has any sense, must refer to 11 separate body bags carrying out the remains of other victims, whose identity must be ascertained later forensically by DNA sampling. That a number of civilians were killed by cross or friendly fire when the IDF and special forces blew up units where hostages were held is probable,-one eyewitness spoke of that- but wouldn't affect substantially an assessment of Hamas/Islamic Jihad violence. There is also a huge problem with the other round figures of, 1,000 and/or is it 2,500 (i.e. round figures) Hamas militants killed or operative in Israel, an early figure that undergoes no change. Some of those were almost certainly youths jumping at the chance to escape from Gaza. These things will only come out after the war, so it is useless speculating on them unless we get strong independent reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If any researcher were curious about this, they should check that list for people at Be'eri where the toll was much higher, and see what proportions emerge. That is, of course, ireelevant to our work on wiki, as WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Summarize and split"

@Infinity Knight: Care to explain how you "summarized and split" this section? [48] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See here Infinity Knight (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: I don't see how it was summarized or split, all I can see is that it was removed and not moved anywhere else. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations? Infinity Knight (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, removed to hyperspace? Do we do that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

hamas atackers speaks

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sj9aj5qgt#autoplay — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A source with English subtitles of the videos: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-interrogation-video-hamas-fighters-confirm-terror-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Can the "historical context" section be merged with the "background" section?

Both sections address the lead-ups to the war, and other essential information about the background. Additionally, would it better to at least move the "historical context" section to the front of the "events" section? HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

at least move the "historical context" section to the front of the "events" section? That seems logical while we think about whether a merge would be good or not (there is some discussion about that up the page) Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties removed

Why have the casualties in surrounding areas, West Bank, Lebanon, etc been removed? 75.118.14.101 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are people in the West Bank just not considered people anymore? Hello? 75.118.14.101 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The casualties appear to have been removed from the infobox, but not from the article itself. The discussion around that is on this very talk page, right here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the west bank in scope for this article, in light of the name being the 2023 israel hamas war? Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

houthi involvement

since houthi already targeted isreal with rockets which was confirmed by the us and isreal and today the egyptian military said that investigations into the two drones that fell in Nuweiba and in Taba yesterday showed that they were heading from the south of the Red Sea to the north. so i think we should put Houthi movement in the infobox and put (minor involvement) أحمد توفيق (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding Houthi in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

USA as a belligerent

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.

---

We should consider adding the USA as a belligerent on the side of Israel since it sent two aircraft carriers with its accompanying ships to the region. 31.141.33.96 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The US appears to have become an active participant, putting boots on the ground beyond merely the marshalling of troops in the region, and in addition to its other forms of material and operational support. There are reports of US special forces in Gaza,[49][50] and Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction. (Biden's administration even moronically posted about it, directly breaching its military's operational secrecy.[51][52][53]) While it was already wavering before, the country appears to have crossed the lined into active participation and could now be reasonably construed as a belligerent. Even if it only has delta teams operationally supporting and on standby, that is an extraordinary degree of support. This is in addition to the earlier story of a US naval destroyed shooting down cruise missiles inbound for Israel. That makes it multi-faceted support. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, I know you commented in the RfC, but this discussion should have been closed, given it basically is a duplicate question/request to the RfC. Info about adding the US to the infobox should be in the RfC, not here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The RFC frankly has a ridiculous scope. It was always daft to try to crystallize the information in such a fast evolving current event via RFC, when there were no outstanding issues to resolve anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, the RfC scope is as simple as "Who do we add in infobox as belligerents". If that is ridiculous, then the scope of this discussion, which is also a "Do we add the US in the infobox as a belligerent" is also, as you would call it, ridiculous. :( The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The scope being discussing every country at once when it's a fast-paced news event and the information is changing from one day to the next. Also, the community was having no problem policing this without an RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting, I just withdrew the RfC. This discussion does have a ridiculous scope and should be closed. Cheers y'all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 28 October 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.

Oct. 27 UNGA Iraq Vote

Under the Negotiations and diplomacy's Ceasefire/In support section, it says "The resolution received 120 votes in favor and 45 abstentions; 14 countries voted no."

This was initially correct; however, Iraq has since changed its vote from abstention to 'in favor'.

From a Reuters article: "Iraq later changed its vote to yes from an abstention after complaining of a technical difficulty, so the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions." 2001:569:588B:9A00:1939:57F2:FA10:50ED (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign and dual-national casualties

An example of a compact view of the table from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. The table in the English Wikipedia takes up a lot of space. Ucraniano2 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Small map edit

According to the Critical Threats Project, there is an incursion in the northwest corner of the Gaza Strip: https://www.criticalthreats.org/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-Clearing-Map-October-282023.png Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

​I would have done this myself, but the galaxy brains at Commons have decided to implement overwrite restrictions for all non-autopatrolled users starting now. Ecrusized, could you handle this one for us? It looks like the IDF has made an incursion down the Gaza beach and raised the Israeli flag somewhere in northern Gaza [54]. -- Veggies (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, right after I left this comment, I was granted my auto-patrol rights, so I did it myself. @Some Hecking Nerd: It should appear on the map, though you may need to clear your cache. -- Veggies (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: The edit appears to be done. I have also seen reports on Twitter of an Israeli incursion in Rafah, near the area of the Yasser Arafat Airport, but not on reliable sources, so I haven’t added it. Ecrusized (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in Infobox

7,703 killed Including: 3,595 children and 1,863 women Ucraniano2 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/28/857641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucraniano2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing table

The month of war is approaching. Please add to the article a summarizing table (at least for the results of the month), as it was done in previous wars.

2023 Gaza War

	Gaza	Israel	Ratio
Civilians killed
Children killed
Homes severely damaged or destroyed
Houses of worship damaged or destroyed
Kindergartens damaged or destroyed
Medical facilities damaged or destroyed

Ucraniano2 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose to such tables in general:

1. It assumes equally reliable information on both sides. However, Hammas tends to manipulate the information on their side.
2. It assumes that the damage on each side is the fault of the other. However, Hammas intentionally hides behind civilians in order that Israel will have no ability to protect itself without killing them, as well as killing innocent civilians themselves and blaming Israel, and causing infrastructure damage by failed missile launches.
3. Any attempt to get the number of civilians killed on the Gaza side requires either believing highly-POV propoganda or significant amount of investigation. And not all children killed on their side are civilians.

Additionally, the actual number of civilians killed on the Israeli side depends on the fate of 230 captured individuals whose fate is unknown. Animal lover |666| 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings

Should the information from the Financial Times (FT) be integrated into the Background section when introducing a figure like Deif?

Hamas conducted suicide bombings with the aim of undermining the Oslo Accords. Israel attributes the responsibility for these bombings, including terrorist attacks in 1996 that resulted in the deaths of over 50 civilians, to Deif.

Infinity Knight (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings Survey

• Support The 1996 bombing campaign was a big deal in terms of Israel-Palestine history, according to the source. And, you know, this suicide bombing is one of those rare cases where everyone on Wikipedia agrees it was a terrorist attack. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. JM2023 (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Would you include the 2012 Burgas bus bombing because it was connected to Hezbollah? Maybe go through the List of bus attacks to see who each one is related to and see whether they should be included as well? Seems tangential here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  We're talking about this connection because FT felt it was on point Infinity Knight (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  One can see from the headline that the article is about Deif so it would indeed be on point in such a discussion and in the WP article about him. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  FT talks about this war. If you're against the addition, please register your vote. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a previous discussion/RFCbefore about this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  See here Infinity Knight (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was not much of a discussion, just yourself saying that you thought it should go in, no-one agreeing or disagreeing. It followed the removal here. Seems like overkill to begin an RFC based on that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:OR and WP:V Parham wiki (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Split

I want to write a new essay about the background of the war (war in Afghanistan (2001–2021), World War I, World War II, Russo-Georgian War, Greek War of Independence and many other wars have an essay on the cause of the war) But I don't know what to write its name. Origins of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Origins of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, Background and causes of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, Background and causes of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or etc? Parham wiki (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult to write such when it is ongoing. Usually they are written after the event with the benefit of scholarly hindsight whereas all one would likely have now is unfiltered analysis/background material written by newsorgs and the like. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything to be done beyond what is found at Gaza–Israel conflict? Oftentimes, "essays" as articles are problematic in being WP:NPOV or WP:V, so please consider carefully before starting such a thing. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Parham wiki (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli casualty figures update

Today's news is that at least 331 Israeli soldiers have been killed since Oct 7. Currently it stands at 311 in the infobox. The total number of Israeli casualties has to be updated as well. Also, 50 of the hostages have been killed so far. This needs to be added to the Israeli infobox. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden unfrezed 6 billion dollars assets to Iran

Former US president Donald Trump and other Republican contenders have accused President Joe Biden of fueling the conflict between Israel and Hamas by unfreezing Iranian assets worth over $6 billion. Trump claimed that American taxpayer dollars helped fund the attacks and accused Biden of being weak on the global stage. Republican politicians have criticized the release of funds to Iran, arguing that it has contributed to the current escalation between Israel and Hamas.

— source

It seems to be appropriate for the WP article, section titled "Background". 176.200.72.198 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add it to the Reactions section. I don't think that the Iranian connection is proven, let alone that this money has enabled the attack. Alaexis_¿question? 13:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a wild, political accusation with no basis. And how is Iranian money held in S. Korea American taxpayer dollars? The article is messy enough without adding nonsense from political contenders. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

New articles

We have Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and 2023 Israeli ground operations in the Gaza Strip, any thoughts on how the war ought to be divided up? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)