Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus, new RfC(s) needed. Discussion should commence to determine if United States should be included in the infobox. There is also support to include Houthis and Hezbollah, though not necessarily a consensus, which are currently in the infobox. There appears to be significant confusion about the question being asked, as some editors have interpreted the question to be regarding inclusion in the infobox (which could include as a non-belligerent, i.e. supporting) and others have read the question as literally written which discusses the parties as belligerents. There should also be care in any subsequent proposals to outline the nature of the inclusion, such as inclusion as a belligerent or as a supporter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

Germany? AstroSaturn (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia, Germany?

can you provide context? Cactus Ronin (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• 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• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October.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) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 18:57, 7 November 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) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Add the US as being supported by, they're doing everything apart from fighting, they're also directly helping Israel by flying drones, which indicates a major support measure. — Karnataka ^talk 09:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Add US, Germany as supporters of Israel (Weapon suppliers, alliance network...)

Add Iran, Russia, North Korea as supporters of Hamas (alliance network, weapons supplied...etc.)

Hezbollah as one of belligerents (on side of Hamas) (Fighting is between Hezbollah and Israel also, in the North). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:00, 26 November 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)

I agree with opposing adding other sovereign states as belligerents, and would instead support adding them as in a sidenote about foreign support. Such foreign support should be concrete (i.e. lethal military aid) in the military conflict, not for example foreign aid to Gaza.

In other conflicts the consensus has usually been only to include as belligerents countries or similar entities (i.e. political parties or groups taking over a region or country) whose own soldiers are fighting in the conflict or whose territory a significant amount of the fighting has been on. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 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.[1][2] And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it).[3][4][5] 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”[6]. 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)

  Well put. – SJ + 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I second this opinion so long as there is one or more reliable sources that identify a country as a belligerent. This removes the interpetation and opinions of editors and keeps it clean and objective. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:43, 12 November 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)
• Addendum added after RfC reopened. All these proposed additions fail WP:V. The sources and quotes cited are dependent on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and don't come anywhere near the level of coverage or certainty that we would expect if the war had escalated in the manner implied. DFlhb's excellent list of sources outlined later, clearly show that all of these parties, particularly Hezbollah are being treated by the majority of sources from various countries as potential beligerents if the war escalates and any actual present military action is being treated as a 'border incident' or sabre-rattling. As User:DFlhb says If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 5 November 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)

Add Hezbollah, oppose all others as per other users below. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 November 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. ([7]) 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)
• 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)

  Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah (or anyone else) rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of (not loosely related to) this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research. nableezy - 15:58, 29 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." [8] Original research, was it? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict. nableezy - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No original research. Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. See here [9]. Title "Authorities name 315 soldiers, 58 police officers killed in Gaza war". The IDF has published the names of 315 soldiers "killed during the ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists since October 7, mostly on the border with the Gaza Strip", they then further expand stating the number includes soldiers killed on both the Lebanon border and in the West Bank. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree on exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they won’t start a war". An expert is quoted saying: “Hezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,” said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut (italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"These clashes have led to a rising death toll on both sides, sparking fears of a new war front" ... "Which leads to the second front: Israel against Iran and its other proxies. That is, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Islamist militias in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi militia in Yemen. All of them in recent days have launched drones and rockets toward Israel or at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria." West Bank a possible 'THIRD front' for Israel

It's not about Hezbollah entering or not entering the war, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation (or "full frontal war", as Reuters put it). As of October 26, Hezbollah had lost 46 fighters. That would have been a rather high death toll for an 18-day period during Hezbollah's first war with Israel. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated these clashes as part of the war Hamas started, and as another editor pointed out, Israel too considers them part of that war. Add in the active involvement of Hamas fighters on the Lebanese-Israeli front, and it is starting to look increasingly absurd that this front is left out of the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your first and third source frame Hezbollah/Lebanon as a potential future front, not a current front; they contradict you. The second source is considered generally unreliable. The next paragraph is original research contradicted by sources. It's true that the skirmishes are a response to the Israel-Hamas war, but it is also irrelevant. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote is contradicted by sources? Both Israel and Hezbollah consider the clashes as part of the war; the only ones arguing otherwise are seemingly Wikipedia editors. (Also, read again the part about threshold of escalation. There is no contradiction at all. The first source makes a distinction between a full-scale and a limited war.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't include something that fails WP:V, or side with original research over sources; this is sensitive enough that we need to be careful. Sources say Hezbollah has not yet joined the war. That makes them not a belligerent.

• New York Times, yesterday
  • Hezbollah sits on the sidelines of the conflict and will enter the war if... (future tense). That's from yesterday.
  • They quote an expert: inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war (hypothetical)
  • Quotes another expert: The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah (implying they are not yet involved).
• Washington Post, October 29
  • “All Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,” said a senior Lebanese official (implying they haven't entered the war yet)
• Bloomberg, October 23
  • Israel’s military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah “is mainly in the contact line.” Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called “rules of engagement,” which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
  • Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel (as explicit as can be)
• CNN, October 11
  • Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamas’ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border. They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
• FT, October 11 (after the skirmishes escalated)
  • Quotes an expert: If it’s a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war] (future tense).
  • Says: Hizbollah’s entry into the war would have profound implications, and Hizbollah’s participation could also trigger, and Joining the war would be (all hypotheticals).
  • You (and others) say the skirmishes make Hezbollah a belligerent in this war. That's WP:OR. The FT describes them as belligerents in a flareup of the separate, decades-long Hezbollah-Israel conflict. You are confusing the flareup being a reaction to this war, with the flareup being part of this war. FT quote two experts who say years-old "red lines" (preceding this conflict) have not been crossed, which concurs with the Bloomberg quote above.
• Bloomberg, published October 11 but still on their main page:
  • if Hezbollah were to enter the war (hypothetical)

Even if you dispute this, logically, if there's any ambiguity, it belongs in the body not the infobox. Note Hezbollah is already listed as a belligerent in 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes, where it belongs, and we describe that as a "spillover" of this war. RfCs based on WP:OR are a waste of everyone's time, and I wish we'd treat them as malformed. If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we? DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) edited 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I concur and would like to note that Yemen also struck Israel directly by drones at Eirat, not just in the Red Sea. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add Hezbollah per users above. W9793 (talk)
• Add Hezbollah since it is directly involved in the war at the North of the country. Houthis can also be added since they openly declared that they fired the missiles. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add the Houthis and the United States. The US has stated it shot down missiles heading towards Israel, and NPR (a RS) stated[10] this action "could represent the first shots taken by the U.S. military in defense of Israel".VR _talk 02:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Could represent" does not mean "is". Levivich (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Elsewhere it was stated that a government is reliable for its statements about itself. NPR is in no way disputing, rather, is open to the possibility other actions previously occurred. Any basis at all to doubt? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add US, Houthis and Hezbollah. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Strong Support because they are all active shooters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all If any of those named become actively and significantly involved in the fighting, RS will clearly identify them as combattants. This is not currently the case. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all as almost all sources avoid making such obviously contentious statements. This is why we avoid original research. Per DFlhb this is not a good use of RfC energy; @WeatherWriter: please be more careful in how you solicit people's time. – SJ + 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all per DF and SJ et al. The sources don't support listing anyone else as a belligerent, and proposals to add belligerents to the infobox need to come with sources describing the proposed parties as belligerents -- not potential belligerents -- in order to comply with WP:V. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the infobox haven't cited any RS in support of their views. Countries/governments delivering armaments — the reason could be treaty obligations of, as harsh as that may sound, business as usual. Having people talk to the parties involved in armed conflicts could have any number of reasons, from military advice to efforts to end the conflict. Hezbollah attacking settlements along Israel's northern border is nothing new, there are just more attacks now than "normal". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I see Nasrallah is already, absurdly, listed as a 'commnander' in the war, anticipating an outcome of this discussion. If Hezbollah's pressure by minor skirmishes on the northern border (retaliatory threats are a chronic part of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict for decades) constitutes participation in the war, then placing battleships offshore, and having US military experts in the IDF's operations warroom could likewise lend itself to such a construction. Multiple sources do not permit this inference and neither shopuld we.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Don't add anything we exclude obvious relevant players at Russian invasion of Ukraine so let's do it here too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah I did a google search this morning and here are the most recent news that bears on this issue:

Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight. - From AP

While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations. - From BBC

In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah — which has previously vowed to destroy Israel — has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollah’s next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesn’t more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza — but also has the power to stop it. Vox

Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.

Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral.”

Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add US - has both troops on the ground in unknown capacity and naval vessels for deterrence. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, US commandos have been deployed, not necessarily in direct combat roles, but these are units that are neither purely advisory or data gathering in nature. They are deployed. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add US The time has come. Statements have been issued throughout the week confirming their support for Tel Aviv. This is no longer in doubt. Dl.thinker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That and the otherworldly volume of ordinance handed over. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per, WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait until American forces get involved in combat. Non-combat and material support is not belligerence. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why Belarus was added to the infobox of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? There are no combat involving Belarusian government soldiers! Dl.thinker (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was added because Belarusian territory was used to launch a ground invasion of Ukraine. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Off topic

I don't think it is contestable that (a) This is a war between two parties, Israel and Hamas (read also the Palestinian people) (b) The overwhelming bulk of sources used to document it are Israeli newspapers (c) The Israeli sources named (and not named, Haaretz etc.) thoroughly identify themselves with 'our boys', and the Israeli victims. I read most articles and 95% are so partisan and emotional that they are 'unreadable' for facts, as opposed to how facts are to be neutrally represented. I didn't state that they are unreliable sources. They qualify technically. I read an account of the British-Argentine war in the Falklands recently: newspaper accounts were alluded to quite often for how they egregiously spun, twisted, invented stories to titivate the anxious home readership. Serious military histories (and I read Burton Maugham's Tobruk and El Alamein (1952) as a control for this) use war memoirs (from both sides), government archives to describe the technical mechanics of battle, and almost never allude to, or rely on, contemporary newspapers. No time is wasted documenting that Rommel, for example, was a general in an evil regime's armed forces, or that Italians were pawns of fascism, an equally despicable regime. The narratives tell you the only thing that is worth grasping. How one or another side managed, with what matériel, or strategic stroke, to win ground or lose it, and why the adversary retreated. All wars are accompanied by intense efforts by specific army/government related bodies to massage, manage, persuade and dominate the home side's perceptions. An informational war kicks in, as the governing states or bodies view to dominate the narratives to the end of enlisting public and international support for their respective campaigns. Wars are 'sexy' and attract a large influx of editors wishing to participate in shaping the way the narrative is represented on wikipedia. Most have no background understanding, quite a few are emotionally committed to one party. This makes for a perfect knit between source bias and editorial passions. The result is massive WP:Undue, as the factual record, very thinly accessible, is flooded out with official points of view or one's side's commentariat prejudices. Nothing can be done to fix the resulting WP:Systemic bias. It will take a year down the road for us to access reliable independent analyses that are even-handed. Till then we will have this mother-lode of tripe to represent wikipedia's idea of NPOV. My note was just a wake-up annotation to remind readers and editors that these articles are intrinsically flawed and will remain so for some considerable time. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani - A caveat about your comment, specifically part a. You seem to say it is not contestable that this war is between two parties (Israel/Hamas). That, to me seems more like a weird amphiboly comment. While true that it is between two parties, if one was attempting to say only two parties, that would be factually false as more than two parties are involved. I would also point out that the "inarguable" comment might be more or less "pushy" (not sure if that is the right word I am looking for), since several editors have argued for the inclusion of another party proposed in this RfC. Just a few small things to keep in-mind. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Add Hezbollah, Neutral on Houthis, Oppose rest. Hezbollah is widely documented as engaged in fighting on the Israeli-Lebanon border as part of this conflict. With the exception of the Houthis, the rest lack documentation along those lines; neutral on the Houthi's because while some sourcing exists, the minimal scale of their participation has resulted in a lower level of coverage detailing their participation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are now reports that Israel retaliated against the Houthis [11]. As for Hezbollah, they struck IDF posts along the border within hours of the Gaza ceasefire ending. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Add the Houthis, Hezbollah, and US support - Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been documented on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and the Houthis have attempted to fire missiles towards Israel and have attacked Israeli-owned ships. US ships have shot down these missiles and drones. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah per all above. Also per Template:Infobox military conflict: the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add United States. Oppose all others. My reading of the WP:RS is that it's only the United States' level of integration into this conflict that makes them a belligerent, aside from the two primary players . All the others are peripheral. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all, this is not a normal war, so we shouldn't be treating it like one. Andre🚐 06:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah per above comments. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - The United States has not fired a shot against any of the main belligerents (yet). No one denies that they are involved, but it is premature to label it a belligerent. Furthermore, we now have a separate article for the US endeavour against the Houthis. If we are to list every country that has shot down Houthi missiles, we'd have to add Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France as well. I think that would be a bit confusing and silly. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  That Operation is a non-starter and the noted engagement precedes the announcement of that Operation. Yemen declared itself for Palestine. The drones and missles were intended for Israeli-aligned targets. If this were a Walmart, you'd want to be aware of all the active shooters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:22, 24 December 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.

Post-close

Some remarks in addition to my closure comment. There is likely to be a consensus against including Iran, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Russia in the infobox, but this discussion largely ignored these as individual options and an explicit consensus on those could not be determined. There may be consensus to include Houthis and Hezbollah, as there may be for United States, but as they are already included, I consider there to be less need to start a discussion on inclusion for those. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of displaced Israelis

Can anyone confirm the number of IDPs in Israel is still 500k? We have that cited both in the infobox and in the lede based on a 16 October Barron's article, but by 22 October, Times of Israel reported 200k [12] and by 21 November, The Guardian reported 126k [13]. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that even matter at this point? Initially it was 500k that had to leave home. The template box just says "number of people who had to leave home", not "number of people actively still having left home and not having returned". Chuckstablers (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The article might want to have more details. The lead currently says that "1.9 million Palestinians...and around 500,000 Israelis have been internally displaced". It might be more accurate to say, e.g., 1.9M Palestinians are displaced and 500K Israelis were displaced, and that a majority of Israelis have been able to return to their homes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they were able to return the their homes (see my below comment). We could write "1.9 million Palestinians have been internally displaced. 250,000 Israelis have been internally displaced and 470,000 Israelis have left Israel since the start of the war". Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't say "that a majority of Israelis have been able to return to their homes", as you have no reliable source saying that. If you're concluding that based off of the lower 200k number from the recent Times of Israel source compared to the source of 500k when the war began, then that's WP:SYNTH and not allowed; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". You'd need a reliable source explicitly stating "that a majority of Israeli's have been able to return to their homes". In fact the times of israel source doesn't say that anybody evacuated by the military has been allowed to return; it explicitly says "The state will be responsible for these Israelis until the military allows them to return to what is now a closed military zone near the Gaza border and a restricted area near Lebanon". So unless we have an RS supporting that explicitly we can't include it per SYNTH.

You'd also be opening up a can of worms that we don't need to open up in my opinion. You're going to see people start arguing "why not include Israeli's who felt afraid enough to flee the country entirely" (there's been a few hundred thousand who are still gone as far as I'm aware). When/if Palestinians start returning to their homes, the debate would then be about whether to change the infobox to include a similar statement that a "majority of Palestinians have since been able to return to their homes", and then debates about that (have they? Have the homes been destroyed? How many homes were destroyed?). I just don't think it's a can of worms we need to open right now.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, I'm going to leave it to other editors now. @ me if you'd like to bring my attention to something/want a response from me. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The latest number from 12/22/23 was 250,000 from AP News: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-death-toll-numbers-de06ce2c5711ce17a4704276f5c1a5c4

Also this report from 12/7/23 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231207-report-nearly-0-5m-israelis-left-israel-after-7-october/ says that "470,000 Israelis have emigrated from Israel and it is not known if they will return at a later point." Maybe some of the original 500,000 internally displaced decided they wanted to emigrate instead. If they leave the country, they are no longer considered internally displaced. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure we should use the word emigrate. What if its people who went for a long vacation waiting for the war to end and then return home? Also source makes it unclear. We should use: left the country. I think. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

[14]0.5 internally displaced. And I agree with @Chuckstablers that it doesn't seem to matter much. I mean in war people are displaced. After the war concludes maybe there can be a category of permanently or temporarily. For now 0.5 million internally displaced works. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel indiscriminately shooting civilians

Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza.[15]. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? Crampcomes (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt any country would deliberately massacre their own kidnapped civilians - even more so while under an international microscope. Given that they say that Hamas uses their own civilians as "meat shields" and that they were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, and the fact they blatantly operate within their own civilian population, who is to say Hamas didn't make them wave the flags as deception and they thought they were Hamas? Doubt it was "indiscriminate".--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hannibal Directive --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence is OK enough, although it has been mentioned in the events. The second needs further discussion. Borgenland (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Some additional sources for this:

• As Israel Reckons With Killing of Hostages, Critics Worry About Routine Excessive Force Against Civilians, Times

"..three hostages held by Hamas were killed by Israeli forces in the middle of an active war zone after they waved a white flag and screamed out in Hebrew to show they did not pose a threat."

• Israel Says Its Soldiers Killed Israeli Hostages as They Held Up White Flag, Wall Street Journal:

"The three Israeli hostages killed by Israeli forces Friday night were shot after they emerged shirtless from a building in northern Gaza, holding up a stick with a white cloth on it, Israeli military officials said Saturday."

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't it accidental? If the source says accidental, that can be added. Cwater1 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, lol, they accidentally thought the shirtless people waving a white flag and begging in Hebrew were Hamas fighters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources still seem to say accidental; and it's easier to make mistakes like that in a war zone - all it takes is one person with an itchy trigger finger who assumes everything that happens is a Hamas trick or something. As I think the sources imply, it still doesn't make Israel look good (if the have accidents like that with their own civilians, who they value so highly, you can only imagine what they're like when dealing with anyone else - see this AP coverage in particular, which goes into depth on that) but that's not really the same as them deliberately killing people "indiscriminately." --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is currently in the article: On 15 December, the IDF released a statement announcing that they had killed three of their own hostages by friendly fire. According to the Israeli military, they "mistakenly identified three Israeli hostages as a threat" during operations in Shuja'iyya and subsequently fired at them, killing them.[367][368][369] According to an Israeli military official on 16 December, the three hostages were shirtless and were carrying "a stick with a white cloth on it” when an Israeli soldier, who declared them to be “terrorists” after feeling “threatened”, opened fire, killing two hostages and injuring the third, who was killed by Israeli reinforcements. That is probably sufficient (it has a lot of coverage, so it deserves that much, but ultimately it's one small event in a massive conflict, so unless there's a ton of sustained coverage it doesn't need more than it has now.) We also do mention the larger concerns related to civilian deaths in the lead (widespread civilian deaths have led to both Israel and Hamas being accused of war crimes.) We can't really frame it as them killing people indiscriminately in the article voice unless there's a lot of coverage that does the same thing, which doesn't really reflect the sources you listed here (they plainly describe it as an accident.) Maybe we could add a cautiously-worded sentence to that paragraph about the longer-term implications of the incident specifically, if there's a lot of sources discussing that. See eg. [16] and [17]; the first one in particular is probably better for what you're going for than the sources you presented. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, it has it's own wiki page by now. Also the two Christian women shot outside the Catholic Church on 17 December. Irtapil (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

On that part inlead that says, "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip,.." can it be changed to "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip during a music festival,..." I want to be safer than sorry by suggesting adding something in the lead even though I meet qualifications to edit this article. Cwater1 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

How would that improve the article? Riposte97 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Just thought about where the war started at. It was just a thought. I better maybe look at more details. Cwater1 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: What is your point? Who are you saying was surprised? Or what is the significance of the music?

I have reax that the militants were surprised by the music festival. But I've not managed to find those sources again yet to include.

The original target was probably the neighbouring military base, I am not sure if any reliable source has stated that explicitly, but they did attack a nearby base. Then the music festival seems to have been opportunistic.

On the day they first targeted military bases, took soldiers hostage, and massacred remaining troops. This is a big part of why help took so long to arrived, because all the military outposts got massacred first.

But because the attacks on civilians were so horrible, they got a lot more media coverage. The only base attack I have seen much about was the all female lookout base. That was particularly tragic because those are the very women who had been trying to warn about seeing the militants training, and been ignored. So that got a whole article in either Times Of Israel or Haaretz (or maybe both, but I only read one).

Irtapil (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Spillover casualties implying a side being taken

In the casualties part infobox, the spillover casualties from non-belligerents have been added to the Hamas side of the infobox, except for some of the Egyptians. This implies a connection between Hamas and casualties.

On the Hamas side, the Lebanon listing mixes fighters from declared belligerents and civilians into the same number. The Syrian listing isn't correct according to the source used, includes declared combatants, Syrian officials and civilians under the same listing. The Egypt listing is entirely one incident in which Israel mistakenly targeted Egyptian border guards. Egypt is also listed under the Israel side of the section.

Were these added before the belligerents were clearly identified?

As a separate issue, the entire section mixes civilians and soldiers. I understand that it's a bit difficult to separate on both sides here, but the numbers and/or the presentation of those numbers should at least reflect that the vast majority of casualties on either side were civilians.

Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

About 55% of the casualties on the Israeli side are civilian nearly all from the October 7 atrocity. There's no very reliable figures for the Hamas side, including the militants killed in the October 7 atrocity I can only estimate something like 85% plus or minus 5% are civilian. We don't have any halfway reliable figures. We'd need good sources to put anything in - the enemy are not good sources in this sort of thing! NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Spillover in Lebanon, Syria and the Egyptian border guards are on the Palestinian side because they were killed/injured by the IDF and the 6 Egyptian civilians are on the Israeli side because they were injured by the Houthis.

It's less about a connection between the casualties and Hamas but because they were killed by the Israelis. ArthropodLover (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of casualties

I noticed that the Palestinian and Israeli casualties are based on claims by Hamas government and Israel respectively. However media reports have called out both as unreliable. Hamas is known for not distinguishing between civilians and fighters, as well as conflating numbers. Israel has also been accused of conflating its civilian death toll.

In addition, the casualties section does not include claims by the opposing side, example Israel's tally of Palestinians or Hamas' claims of number of IDF killed. Since both Hamas and Israel are unreliable, it's not wise to prefer one over the other in casualties section for Palestinians and Israel respectively. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think people are agreed they are reliable for their own sides. As you say they have both ignored the distinction between fighters and civilians where it suits them. The figures for IDF can be ferreted out okay though so the main problem is the number of Hamas militants killed. The Israeli figures for this are quite obviously quite widely exaggerated presumably to cover up the extremely high proportion of civilians killed. There would be problems even if Hamas did report on militants killed, the main unknown being the number kiled but their bodies not yet found under all the rubble or in tunnels. My estimate using the figures for the overall distribution of death is about 2000 to 4000 killed including 1000 from the original October 7 atrocity. Definitely not anywhere like the seven thousand implied by Israel talking about one for every two civilians. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why only Hamas should be taken as a reliable source for Gazan casualties when they are known to inflate the death toll too and hide the number of fighters killed. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See the message @Selfstudier sent on December 6. This has been discussed many times on this talk page and the consensus among RS and humanitarian groups is that the death tolls are reliable (If not undercounted due to the collapse of healthcare system). ArthropodLover (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no such consensus and that's why we attribute the figures in the article and the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous and the figures for Israel are attributed to Israel. NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be unanimous, but consensus doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Why is Hamas reliable for the Palestinian death toll, why is Israel reliable for IDF toll? Both Israel and Hamas have been known to lie. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned just a little back please have a look at the message by SelfStudier on December 6th [18] on this talk page about the figures from Gaza and nobody has had any strong objections to Israeli figures for their own dead. There's been lots of wars and bombings before and it isn't too difficult for an expert to see the figures are about right or even an underestimate in Gaza, the people have well documented id numbers as required by Israel and even the unknown ones have been photographed and blood samples taken in the hope of identifying them later. The Israelis have also been let check unidentified ones in case there's some hostages amongst them. There's no good reason for Israel to dispute the figures. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The MSF and journalists have cast doubt on Hamas' casualty numbers [19], [20], [21]. I don't see why there is a reason to trust any one side. We should include death toll claims by both sides. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We could use the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor numbers. The system the Gaza Health Ministry uses is constrained by individual record-keeping. Only those that have been identified or claimed by relatives can go for burial and be included in the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll for the war. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not share the same restraints, and no other tallies reveal their processes. Israel is similar in that some families do not choose to release the names of the deceased. From where I'm sitting, there are a lot more little red triangles. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding this organisation below, I think we should take their numbers with a grain of salt. Alaexis_¿question? 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War in Sudan (2023) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@RMCD bot

• 2023-2024 Israel-Palestinian war.

Irtapil (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Checking structure

I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to produce an outline

outline

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]". Bot: I. Introduction A. Definition and background of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Overview of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war C. Importance and significance of the war II. Background A. Historical context of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Previous conflicts and ceasefires C. Factors leading up to the 2023 war 1. Political tensions 2. Socio-economic factors 3. Regional dynamics III. Causes and Triggers A. Immediate causes of the war B. Key incidents leading to escalation C. Role of external factors and international relations 1. Influence of neighboring countries 2. Role of international organizations and superpowers IV. Course of the War A. Timeline of major events and battles B. Strategies and tactics employed by Israel and Hamas C. Humanitarian impact and civilian casualties D. Role of media and propaganda V. International Response A. Reactions from regional and international actors B. Mediation efforts and peace initiatives C. Role of the United Nations and other international organizations D. Arms trade and military support to the conflicting parties VI. Aftermath A. Ceasefire agreements and negotiations B. Impact on the Israeli and Palestinian societies C. Political consequences and power dynamics in the region D. Rebuilding efforts and humanitarian aid VII. Controversies and Criticisms A. Allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses B. Debate on proportionality and self-defense C. Criticisms of international community's response D. Challenges to achieving a lasting peace VIII. Analysis and Perspectives A. Evaluation of the war's outcomes and achievements B. Examination of long-term implications for the region C. Perspectives on the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict D. Potential for reconciliation and peace-building IX. Notable Individuals and Organizations A. Key political figures and military leaders involved B. Humanitarian organizations and activists working in the region C. Analysts and experts providing insights on the conflict X. See Also A. Related conflicts and wars in the Middle East B. Notable peace agreements and negotiations C. Other articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict XI. References A. Credible sources and citations for the article's content B. Books, academic papers, and official reports C. News articles and interviews with experts XII. External Links A. Links to relevant websites, official statements, and reports B. Organizations working towards peace and conflict resolution

Bot structure:

• Background
• Causes and Triggers
• Course of the War
• International Response
• Aftermath
• Controversies and Criticisms
• Analysis and Perspectives
• Notable Individuals and Organizations

Current structure:

• Background
• Historical context
• Events
• Other confrontations
• Casualties
• Humanitarian situation
• Destruction of cultural heritage
• War crimes
• Negotiations and diplomacy
• Reactions
• Regional effects
• Media coverage

There are issues with the bot's suggested structure, but it's right that the current structure is bloated. I.e currently there is background and historical context, these should be amalgamated. Other consolidation is achievable, Tom B (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Tom, I am very wary of relying on an LLM bot (with experience, it's not hard to pose questions that have demonstrably false or irrelevant results; in fact, if you call them on it, they'll even apologize very politely for getting it wrong in their next response!), nevertheless, here's a tip you may enjoy if you decide to try again. If you word it carefully enough, an LLM chatbot can learn in one question how to emit properly formatted nested Wikipedia section headers instead of the default Harvard outline, if you just say "outline". On a different tack, if you ask for specific sources, it will generally emit a plain-text format with minimal data, and you can coax it to expand it somewhat, but it only goes so far; however beware, because there is a higher level of hallucinations when generating sources, and they all look very persuasive, and some might be real, and some might be pure invention, and some might be half and half. Once you've got your list of refs, you can teach it in one or two comments to reformat it into Wikipedia cite book or cite journal format.

Coming back to your question, I asked it your question, and explained Wikipedia section headers, and it came up with a decent format. But our expectations play tricks on us, because it "looks good". After that query, I asked it this question, and you can view the results:

Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict".

Prior to this question, I had explained Wikipedia section header structure in a previous query. User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict". Chatbot: 2023 New Zealand–Tasmania Conflict == Background == === Historical Relations === Overview of the historical diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties between New Zealand and Tasmania Past conflicts or collaborations that shaped the relationship === Pre-Conflict Tensions === Examination of pre-existing issues and disputes that contributed to the strained relations Analysis of political, social, and economic factors leading up to the conflict == Causes == === Immediate Triggers === Detailed exploration of the specific events or incidents that sparked the conflict Analysis of how these triggers escalated into open hostilities === Root Causes === Examination of deeper political, economic, and social factors contributing to the conflict Historical grievances or systemic issues that played a role == Participants == === New Zealand's Involvement === Overview of New Zealand's political stance, military contributions, and diplomatic actions Key figures and decision-makers in New Zealand during the conflict === Tasmania's Role === Overview of Tasmania's position, military strategies, and diplomatic engagements Key figures and decision-makers in Tasmania during the conflict === International Actors === Roles and contributions of other regional and international actors Involvement of neighboring countries, international organizations, and peacekeeping efforts == Timeline == === Early Events === Chronological account of events leading up to the outbreak of the conflict Political developments, diplomatic tensions, and military buildups === Key Battles === Detailed chronology of significant military engagements and operations Naval, air, and ground battles with strategic importance === Diplomatic Developments === Overview of diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and peace talks throughout the conflict Key milestones in diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Tasmania == Impact == === Humanitarian Consequences === Examination of the impact on civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons Assessment of humanitarian aid and response efforts during and after the conflict === Economic and Environmental Impact === Analysis of the economic toll and environmental consequences of the conflict Long-term effects on industries, infrastructure, and ecosystems === Post-Conflict Challenges === Assessment of the challenges faced by both New Zealand and Tasmania in the aftermath Reconstruction, reconciliation, and efforts to rebuild trust == International Response == === Diplomatic Reactions === Overview of how the international community responded diplomatically to the conflict Sanctions, condemnations, or endorsements from other nations and organizations === Peacekeeping Efforts === Roles played by international peacekeeping forces, if any, during and after the conflict Successes and challenges in maintaining peace and stability == Media Coverage == === Media Narratives === Analysis of how the conflict was portrayed in the media of New Zealand, Tasmania, and internationally Impact of media narratives on public perception and international opinion === Propaganda and Misinformation === Examination of any instances of propaganda or misinformation during the conflict Impact on public understanding and international relations == Controversies and Criticisms == === War Crimes Allegations === Overview of any allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses during the conflict International responses and investigations into these allegations === Criticisms of International Actors === Examination of criticisms directed at regional and international actors involved in the conflict Evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives == Reconciliation Efforts == === Post-Conflict Diplomacy === Overview of diplomatic initiatives aimed at rebuilding relations between New Zealand and Tasmania Bilateral talks, agreements, and joint efforts for regional stability === Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction === Examination of international aid efforts and reconstruction projects in the affected regions Collaborative initiatives for recovery and development == See Also == === Related Conflicts === Links to articles on conflicts with similar themes, causes, or outcomes === Diplomatic Initiatives === Links to articles on diplomatic efforts and negotiations involving New Zealand and Tasmania == References == === Citations === Citations and sources for information used in the article === Further Reading === Additional resources for readers interested in more in-depth exploration of the topic

Looks great, doesn't it? Except for one, wee little problem. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you, yes if you put rubbish in, you'll get rubbish out e.g. a fictitious conflict. My mine takeaway is the current structure of this real article is bloated, so it's been helpful: it suggest where you might rationalise and neutralise. i might even have a go at putting that into the article. simplifying some of the headers. 'Generating sources' sounds wrong! so i don't do that. i only use it for summarising and reformulating existing content. the worst case scenario is that it recopies existing mistakes if you don't manually check, but the risk is massively reduced when you're reprocessing existing content. generating anything new creates some risk. there's a link on my userpage to a user who's developed the tool i was using. in testing they were asked to remove the more risky elements. it sounds like you might have suggestions on how to reword the questions to the bot, you could give him? thanks again, Tom B (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe you give LLM too much credit. You can get garbage out regardless, and just because you start off with a legitimate query doesn't insulate you from that. Beyond that, the response your got to your query is no different in kind than the response to my query, because your query is also based on a fictitious conflict as far as the chatbot is concerned. Their training data does not include anything since the conflict started, so it basically invented all those headings you got in response, just like it invented all the ones I got. It does well enough at a surface level that it looks pretty convincing at first blush, until you start examining it a bit, and realize there's nothing there; it's all invention. Your response was the same as mine, essentially. Smoke and mirrors; nothing real. Mathglot (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not all invention. There are issues with Chat GPT 3.5's structure, but it's correctly less bloated e.g. background, not background and historical context, which can be consolidated. At third blush, Tom B (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

that was very confusing… Irtapil (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked ChatBot v4 (trained to Apr 2023):

outline

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]". Introduction Brief overview of the conflict. Key dates and locations. Primary parties involved (Israel and Hamas). Background Historical context leading up to the 2023 conflict. Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas. Political and social conditions in the region prior to 2023. Prelude to the War Specific events that triggered the conflict in 2023. Diplomatic efforts, if any, before the outbreak of hostilities. Statements and positions of the involved parties. Timeline of the War A chronological account of major events, battles, and military operations. Notable incidents and turning points in the conflict. International Response Reactions from key international players (e.g., United Nations, United States, European Union). Economic and military aid or sanctions by other countries. Efforts at mediation or peace talks. Humanitarian Impact Casualty figures and demographic breakdown. Impact on civilian populations, including displacement and refugee crisis. Reports from humanitarian organizations. Media Coverage and Propaganda How the war was reported in local and international media. Use of propaganda and information warfare tactics by the involved parties. Analysis Military strategies and tactics used by Israel and Hamas. Political and strategic objectives of each side. Assessments by military and political analysts. Aftermath and Consequences Immediate outcomes of the conflict. Long-term implications for the region and the involved parties. Post-war reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.

Chat GPT 4.0 structure:

• Background
• Prelude
• Timeline
• International response
• Humanitarian impact
• Media coverage & propaganda
• Analysis
• Aftermath and Consequences

Current structure

• Background
• Events
• Other confrontations
• Casualties
• Humanitarian situation
• War crimes
• Negotiations and diplomacy
• Reactions
• Regional effects
• Media coverage

• I feel like the question of whether we can or should use ChatGPT for stuff like this should be discussed elsewhere (there was some effort to create a policy for WP:LLMs, but discussions broke down, so all we really have is an essay, with little formal guidance.) But it's important to point out that ChatGPT won't know about the war at all because its training set only goes up to early 2022. It also doesn't seem to have Wikipedia policy itself in its training set - it knows about the really big ones, like BLP and UNDUE, presumably because they're covered elsewhere, but it doesn't know about more obscure ones. The structure of Wikipedia articles is something it is likely relatively good at (since Wikipedia was part of its training set), but I'm skeptical about, you know... relying on it as an argument for a large-scale change like this, because ultimately there's a bunch of context-specific details that it can't handle. If we were writing an article from scratch, maybe relying on it for the basic shape of an initial outline would make sense, but using it to argue for a change to the structure of an existing article is basically saying you think ChatGPT has better judgment than the editors who put together the existing article, which is at least on the face of it a bit risible. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

i agree with chatgpt v3, that background and historical context shoudn't duplicate each other. and i agree with v4 that casualties aren't separate from the humanitarian situation, Tom B (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC – Redirect location for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

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.

---

Which article should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood redirect too?

• Option 1 – 2023 Israel–Hamas war
• Option 2 – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Previous or relevant discussions on this: 1, 2, 3, 4 (redirect's history). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Side-note: RFC was started due to CTOPS nature involving nearly a dozen editors in disagreement, combined with 3 relevant discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 – Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was the original name for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel prior to a huge requested move discussion which involved 71 editors and 178 comments. The RM's closing remarks even said, "See below significant opposition to any rename; however, arguments in favor of some rename were very strong. The title that received overwhelming support is the one chosen and will serve as the highest and best title", which shows that there was even a clear consensus that the name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was for the attack article and not the overall war article. Also, per Wikipedia policy, don't we keep the original name of an article (especially a CTOPS article) directed to the new-name for the article? Either way, I have to go strongly with option 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with a previous user that suggested this discussion should occur at WP:RFD, not as a request for comment here. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Stop: RfDs are more or less similar to RfCs. The RfC is for the content of the article, not the Redirect (just as the RfC does not replace the AfD). Parham wiki (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close. Such a discussion should take place either as a move request on the source page's Talk or, in case of redirects, at WP:RFD; not here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close. Agree. This is not an appropriate venue. Kindly self-close this. I think The Weather Event Writer can do so, but I'm not sure. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I assumed removing the RFC tag would be the same as withdrawing, but two editors right after the tag removal commented procedural close, so I am typing out the withdrawal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (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.

"Hamas-controlled" attribution

I am okay if the ministry of health being controlled by Hamas is mentioned sparsely, but this attribution being abused by certain bad-faith editor who wants to imply unreliability of the ministry of health is simply unacceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and even Western sources are dropping the meme of Hamas controlled. NYT article: While the collapse of Gaza’s health system has made it challenging to track exact numbers, the World Health Organization has reported at least 369,000 cases of infectious diseases since the war began, using data collected from the Gaza Health Ministry and UNRWA, the U.N. agency that cares for Palestinians — a staggering increase from before the war., Another one: The Gaza Health Ministry said that 73 bodies and 123 injured people had been brought to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, in the city of Deir al Balah, in the past 24 hours. The circumstances of the deaths and injuries were not immediately known, and the health ministry did not elaborate. But aid workers have described intense bombardment by Israeli forces, which say they are advancing on the major southern city of Khan Younis to root out Hamas militants there. nableezy - 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet has a brief report that refutes it well, that should be prominent as refutation of that. There a are actually two from this war, and an older one (which I think is BMJ or BMC)) from a previous time the IDF killed hundreds of Gazans. Irtapil (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to find recent articles which do append "Hamas-controlled." [22] [23]. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing bad faith about attributing if the reliable sources do as well, and I think we should, because it's relevant. Andre🚐 21:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" has become a trope at this point, and the clear import of this phrase is to call into question the astronomical casualty rate. You may think it's relevant, but clearly lots of RS don't: e.g., NYT (see above), Reuters, the Associated Press, and the CBC (the linked article actually discusses the appropriateness of the "Hamas-run" comment, but at the bottom of the article, not in the lede). Another editor has used the phrase "poisoning the well" to describe this turn of phrase and I really think that's apt. WillowCity^(talk) 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we have an RFC on this that determined it should be attributed? Or, charitably, why don't you tell me what your interpretation of the last RFC outcome pertaining to the consensus on this article was. Andre🚐 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we had an RFC on how to attribute in the infobox, and that result was with an inline citation and not just saying "Hamas controlled MOH" as had been pushed in. nableezy - 22:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And it is easy to find ones that do not. That fact means that prepending Hamas-run to every instance is uncalled for. nableezy - 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Selecting just the pro-Israeli sources that cast doubt on casualities in Gaza is biaised editing. It is time to select sources like those users who edit this page with a pro-Israeli angle do. Cleaning their stuff, or adding sentences with other sources that don't doubt the UN reports on casualities and don't let them add appendix at the end of your sentence, like some users do out of the blue a few days later (a similar case RE section Neutrality Lead just above this one) Iennes (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard AFP referred to as a "pro-Israel source" https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231213-gaza-health-ministry-says-out-of-children-s-vaccines "Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said Wednesday it had exhausted its supply of children's vaccines and warned of "catastrophic health repercussions" That's Dec. 13. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the casualities and this way of providing the number of killed Gaza people, with the mention 'according to Hamas". Not using the present tense but Would + verb in the lead, rises questions...France24 journalists are pro Macron, pro liberalism, and so they defend colonialism. I am saying that many English well known media update on the number of dead Palestinians without writing according to Hamas, because they base their research work on what Human Watch, Greenpeace, Red Cross, etc... are saying which is a similar number of human losses. Where is the updated percentage of squashed/lost buildings in Gaza ? It reaches 70%, and it appears nowhere on this article Iennes (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

France24 AFAIK is reliable[24], and this narrative that Western sources are pro-colonial or pro-liberal is problematic for me. We don't exclude sources for being mainstream. Quite the opposite, we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight. This isn't Wikipedia the free anti-war anti-colonial encyclopedia. We have to attribute groups with a strong declared POV that are advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch or Greenpeace, and attribute their statements if they need to be attributed. Andre🚐 00:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I must have missed the memo where we have to attribute HRW, or the one that says they have a strong declared POV. Didn't see that on RSPSS.

I understand the thrust of what you're saying, which is generally consistent with policy, but comments like we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight are the reason we have a systemic bias problem. "Non-English" or "Non-Western" is not synonymous with "unreliable".

But we're getting off-track, because plenty of nice, reliable, Western, English-speaking corporate media refers to Health Ministry figures without the sort of caveat that's being pushed here. WillowCity^(talk) 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Criticism of Human Rights Watch, and yes they're reliable enough for simple facts and I didn't say they were unreliable, I said they should be attributed for statements that might be perceived to have a bias. Andre🚐 00:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a WP article, not a WP policy or guideline. Lots of sources have that type of article: CNN, BBC, CBS News. Anyway, I usually don't oppose attribution, unless it's phrased in a needlessly prejudicial manner ("Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" when just "Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice). WillowCity^(talk) 00:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know, and it's all hypothetical since I haven't made this edit, but more generally, when things like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Brookings Institution are discussed at WP:RSN, they can be used but should be attributed when they have a "side." HRW is unabashedly antiwar and clearly has a side on some of these questions. That's all. It's also an org I've given money to for years, FWIW. Andre🚐 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, CBS just last week, wrote in present tense "They are among the more than 18,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza",[25] they did not cast doubt on the number. France24 is reliable, but neutrality is not only used with pro neo liberalism / pro israeli sources; This isn't Wikipedia the pro israeli pro-colonial encyclopedia either. The bad music that UN/ Greenpeace/ Red Cross... is antisemitic, has been going on and unsurprisingly, innuendos can pop up. Iennes (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Who said antisemitic? You're bringing up antisemitism. Honestly, Iennes, I've never seen you before today and all of your comments are all over the place, no offense. We're talking about the type of attribution necessary. France24 requires no attribution. However if they attribute it, or if other sources that are "Western Mainstream" attribute the figures, we should as well. As I mentioned earlier, there was an RFC on the infobox. Maybe we should have one about more generally whether the Hamas Health Ministry figures that come from the Palestinian Information Center need to be attributed. Andre🚐 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am like WillowCity on this, <<"Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice>> because casting an exaggerated doubt over the number of Gaza victims goes against neutrality. Iennes (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an RFC I'm interested in having. In my view there is a meaningful question of style and also whether this situation is exceptional. It's exceptional for many reasons, not the least is that Hamas is not a state, it is a quasi-state with territory. So the RFC I'm interested in drafting is something like. "Should the reported figures for the totals from Gaza health ministr(ies), given that they are in a gray area as far as officialness compared to say the NIH, CDC, NHS etc, be attributed to them inline in text with a written label?" Andre🚐 05:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t the question you’re asking though. We do attribute in line to the Gaza Health Ministry, what is being pushed in the edits objected to here is prepending the poisoning the well of Hamas controlled every time the MOH is mentioned. That is not in keeping with the treatment by reliable sources, and that is what is being objected to. But the material is already attributed in line, and we have wikilinks for a reason. We don’t include that the Israeli border police is run by a convicted terrorist supporter whenever we mention them either, much less every time they are mentioned. nableezy - 05:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Nableezy summarized in the above reply. This represents my stance on the matter. The Gazan Ministry of Health, whether under Hamas' control or not, is considered a reliable source by other verifiable secondary sources, most notably the UN. While Israeli (and to some extent, US) officials may question its reliability, their opinions are not deemed neutral due to their direct conflict of interest on this subject. In contrast, a third party like the UN is regarded as more impartial. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

They have all said that the numbers by the MOH are accurate or even an undercount. It isn’t even in dispute. nableezy - 11:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It's actually now considered reliable most notably by The Lancet, a medical journal that supersedes the news source commentary on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the Lancet is a lot more significant. Andre🚐 21:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing this source, it's definitely valuable. Please note that they write that [Gaza] MoH communications and mortality reporting collapsed on Nov 10, 2023. The latest data comes from the PA ministry of health in Ramalla. Alaexis_¿question? 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The MOH stoppped providing daily updates, but are still providing semi-regular numbers. nableezy - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Anywhere that appears, add the Lancet report https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02713-7 as a counterpoint. Irtapil (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

They're is a second one that shows they have ID numbers for all reported dead and those ID numbers are real data. Also the Lancet. Title is something along the lines of "no evidence of fabrication". They're not just making up numbers. If they are faking it they have faked the deaths of tens of thousands of real individuals with recorded identities in Israel as well as Palestine.

Depressingly one of the papers looks like death recording has "hit a ceiling", deaths are occurring at a rate higher than they can be recored. But that's my own observation, those authors only conclude that there is not sign of the death count reported being higher than reality.

Irtapil (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Could insert words to the effect of - "The overall casualty counts from the Gaza Ministry of Health (Gaza MOH), show no sign of being inflated or injuredfabricated and thus appear to be a reliable minimum death count." with those two refs. Irtapil (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Some questions which are going to continue to come up

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.

---

Genocide

Is the current consensus that it's not worth mentioning why certain sources believe it is a genocide? The constituent case for such has other attaching sources with regard to domicide, cultural genocide, material necessities for life, access of the international community, rate of loss of civilian life, dehumanization, confiscation, and noted expressions of intent? I think that's worth discussing how we explore this. My personal view is that if we err, we err on the side of UNDUE for those most marginalized. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This document https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf is noted in several RS worldwide.

It notes such violations as:

intentionally directing attacks against

• the civilian population
• civilian objects and buildings dedicated to religion,

education, art, science

• historic monuments
• hospitals
• places where the sick and wounded are

collected; torture

• the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
• other war crimes and crimes against humanity
• failure to prevent genocide and failure

to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide.

• • it notes such incitements as being committed by
    • The Israeli President
    • The Israeli Prime Minister
    • The Israeli Minister of Defense
  • it notes inferred intent from
    • failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance
    • the severity of the nature, scope, and extent of Israel's military attacks on Gaza
  • it asserts this is calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group
    • • I further assert that I find there are sources of much or all of these which I personally find to be credible and reliable.
    • It claims that is the shared view of numerous other States parties to the Geneva Convention.
      • I also assert, as this document suggests, it is possible to document the extent to which the peoples of the world agree with these assertions as mentioned within sources reliable to express this noted viewpoint.
    • It cites Mahmoud Abbas' 18 Nov 2023 speech “President Abbas urges Biden to stop Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians” as evidence the observer State itself shares this view.
    • Beyond the Abbas speech, it also cites The Emir of Qatari as published in Al Jazeera, the condemnation by Mauritania, Raphael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", "Algeria, Turkiye discuss need for accountability over Gaza 'genocide'" by Middle East Monitor, a tweet by Luis Alberto Arce Catacora as President of Bolivia, "President Lula says war in the Middle East is genocide" by AgnciaBrazil, a tweet by Gustavo Petro as President of Columbia, "Diaz-Canel says Cuba will no accept ignoring genocide against Palestinians" by Ed Newman for Radio Havana Cuba, "Iranian president condemns Gaza 'genocide' in meeting with Putin" NBC News, a tweet by Recep Tayyip Erdogan as President of Turkiye, a tweet by Nicolas Maduro as President of Venezuela, "Israel subjects Palestinians 'to genocide,' says Sudani" by Rudaw, "Jordan's foreign minister says Israel aiming 'to empty Gaza of its people" by Al Jazeera, "Pakistan terms Gaza seige genocide of Palestinians" by Naveed Butt for Business Recorder among its 574 citations. All of these sources and more have encyclopedic value to document this international viewpoint with the extra weight given by this document or alone as reliably expressing the viewpoints of the various governments and peoples they represent.

ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV; we represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the reliable sources. We discuss the accusations of genocide. If we were to say, in wiki voice, that genocide has occurred, then we would need a plurality of the reliable sources to reflect this viewpoint. This is not the case currently.

"My personal view is that if we err, we err on the side of UNDUE for those most marginalized"

You would need to make a policy based argument for me to agree with your personal view.

The rest of your post discusses various individuals and organizations that have characterized Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. That's fine. We can attribute them in the article and in some cases we have. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns it's genocide. There's mild debate over whether it's imminent or in progress. But it's genocide. Or at the very very "imminent violent ethnic cleansing".

English Wikipedia suffers from a pro USA bias, "err on the side of most marginalised" has some merit, but a less subjective approach would be to try to try a to find a more global consensus that doesn't involve the majority of sources being from Israel's closest ally. There are some good USA sources and some good Israeli sources, I really like Times of Israel, but they can only ever be part of the story.

We don't need to go pro Palestine, just more equal, trust a Palestinian doctor's account of things comparably to an Israel doctor's, and view "the IDF says.…" with the same well warranted scepticism as "Al-Qassam says…"

Just regarding the two sides equally would be enough. e.g. I would hazard a guess that Electronic Intafada is on the dipreciated list? (who are possibly based in the USA? but not who I had in mind before) and possibly it should be, but there are probably pro Israeli sources with a similar level of bias that are not "depreciated"? The pro Israel supports a "legitimate military" (who are currently doing a genocide) while the strongly pro Palestine source supports "terrorists" (who might hypothetically do a genocide if we stopped the other genocide?)

Irtapil (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It self EI only recently got blacklisted today? I'm fairly paranoid that it was my fault for mentioning it … Irtapil (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Then it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think our article covers the genocide accusations and reason reasonably well. Covering more claims or justifications for these claims would lead to more imbalance, and the amount of text present is reasonable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No, and this does not speak to the use of abductive reasoning. It's different than additive reasoning when there is this broad base of academic encyclopedic work which has already been done. This ignores the entire bibliography contained in those just most recent claims. The weight of academic study from a whole-world perspective isn't just this is a thing but we told you so. The article is entirely on the side of article artifacts which obscure, depricate, and bury the lede in several key ways:

• Western sources from SOAPBOX with a history of dehumanization and current staff purges based on nationality in the face of historic unreliability with regard to causus belli,
• layout bore,
• cut-and-paste global conflict treatment,
• overemphasizing historically relevant false narratives rejected academically,
• mixing narratives such as we do where there is some margin of intersection,
• chronological emphasis on the war start date even when expositionally addressing ongoing phenomena which weigh academically in the other direction
• failure to intelligently discuss motive,
• failure to intelligently discuss intent
• lack of footnotes
• and overall failing to see we ourselves are part of information war.

Balance is only this: chiefly as academic sources lead us to this point. We call Oscar the Grouch Emoji on such an approach as which has been taken. Will we continue to be silenced through reversion, arbitration bypassing process, drive-by boiler plating, unwelcoming response to correction and for this? I beg the community to cease this at once. There are now 574 sources for review and I don't see any discussion of what they actually mean but you can trust us as experienced editors to have the gist of it already. The scope of the need for article expansion probably extends to many wikiprojects. We bear witness in a community project which has a historic problem with systemic POV pushing as an element of this information war as reported by Hebrew and Palestinian sources both revealing Hasbara, and which can be followed up with from primary sources online. It's time to end the wikiwar and let us write beginning about the same time as the article title stops SOAPBOXing so hard that it spawns oddly accurate Homer Simpson memes. Fortune cookie: it was never about Hamas. That is the big picture. We accept there is a different viewpoint which can be described by elements of its consensus, and evidentiary means of arrival at those conclusions. We just denigrate them. It's a small matter. As it stands, the article is disinformative and begs we don't read it. F. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about following the sources, not about research. As they say verifiability not truth. Which works in the end reasonably well. It's like saying democracy is a bad form of government just everything else is worse. Find good reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I was referring more the the overall approach to sourcing for all the articles about this war on Wiki. Irtapil (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I view calling it 'imminent violent ethnic cleansing' instead of 'genocide' as like sayng 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' about a rocket blowing up. NadVolum (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Which sounds neat up to a point except, again, we bear witness. We are writing for a public which has verified, has put in the work to look at uncomfortable things. We are writing with a tacet acceptance of bad sources because they have a big name in mass media while putting blinders on the fulcrums of international consensus. When we say good reliable sources, in this instance, you are describing a great deal of non-intersecting sets of sources which has the air of authority which in turn depend upon the reader's sense of reliability and authority. A shift in reliability has to be noted. The consensus of global discussion has to be observed. It's baffling that the consensus at the fulcrum of international neutrality, the peace process, as reflected in the state media of Qatar is something which we have any argument whatsoever should not be the center of clarity. People internationally seeking consensus have already done work. To ignore that begs non-consensus here. Accept it, and we can begin to fuse together an article which has the opportunity to intellectually please both sides. Low information readers will still have questions if they are curious and this should be addressed cleanly. NPOV is NPOV. But it is a genocide.

A significant portion of medium to high information readers are going to be very offput by these omissions and distortions. We also need to consider that there are low information readers who do not disagree with this consensus as well as high information readers who do. If we do accept that Al Jazeera has been curious and sits at the fulcrum of consensus, no matter how reliable you have found it in the past, it makes a bold claim: that more than half of American 18-24 year olds in America think Oct 7 was justified. High information young readers are invaluable to the Project. Low information young readers may need resources. Low information older readers possessed of curiosity deserve a clear understanding of the viewpoint not just in the scope of the charges but also the substance thereof. High information older readers deserve the highest quality sources where there is doubt in this academic consensus and a full dossier on the prevailing view which might include sources normally insufficient but given weight by the academic process. Those make good footnotes. Is the lack of visual sourcing in this vein problematic? I think so, and even if we constrain to the most acclaimed photojournalism, we've still fallen short. As though depictions of suffering are more offensive than the Prophet Muhammed. All of this can be neatly solved and we can demonstrate a sage understanding of motives and aims. If we show visual understanding of the divergence of narratives, they can sit side by side. There are big important quotes which emphasize these positions. We understand the speech which escalated to this level of death, which by the reckoning of most editors, is hard to count. Genocide does not occur in a vaccuum, it requires a high degree of propaganda. Yes, it should be reliably sourced, but let's have a consensus on what that means when we consider the whole.

For us as a community, it's a question of how the dam breaks. I beg forgiveness if I see it wrongly but it appears that you're saying is essentially that I and others throw 574 pieces of poo and see what sticks before we can say what's already been said over and over while the boilerplates and warnings and AEs mount. What I'm saying is this is unnecessary and a strain on the community. A cooler discussion of which source says it best is more appropriate, once this very large body of work is assessed and summarized and that is what will be presented in article space, and if it is any mistake it can then be put right as we engage more editors. In short we want to be let to work peacefully and as if we're not nuts. As I mentioned before, this will keep coming up. I don't have a two-nostril ball gag for the elephant in the room. We're gonna have to let 'er rip and let the reader decide from revealed sources and processes for the affirmative and negative what the truth of the matter is. It's not healthy to hold it in ;) ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying 'imminent violent ethnic cleansing' was a good way to describe it, just that it was the mildest way to describe it that wasn't blatantly false. Irtapil (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. This is far too heavy on rhetoric for editors to reasonably engage with in any meaningful way. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Chilling Effect on Speech

Is the current consensus that we disfavor Gaza sources as WP:NotRs in spite of the control of access and loss of life in civilian journalism? I should think it is our duty to broaden it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns

I don't think that is the consensus? Or at least I hope it isn't?

Personally I'd rate Gaza vs Israeli sources comparably, depending on exactly what kind of source. I mostly trust the medical doctors on both sides, and I take anything said by the IDF or Al-Qassam as pretty much fiction until proven otherwise. e.g.

• Israeli Hospitals and the IDF disagree about the number of wounded soldiers = I trust the hospitals.
• The IDF and the Gaza MOH disagree about the number of dead Gazans = I trust the Gaza MOH.
• The IDF and Al-Qassam disagree about the number of dead Israeli soldiers = I regard this as having no information and see if there's a reliable alternative source.

I think we might need to reach out to Arabic Wikipedia for help, to see if we can find some more bilingual editors. The vast majority of us here can only read half the story. I only know a tiny bit of Arabic, but I've been frantically trying to learn. And from what I've seen so far (frantic learning, machine translation, and looking at the pictures), the world is watching two comletely different wars. Wikipedia is perfectly positioned to try and bridge this divide, but we're not doing it as well as we could.

The article on martyrdom in Palestinian culture would benefit from more Palestinian sources. It really shouldn't be written from USA newspapers.

Irtapil (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly someone decided that article was beyond redemption and killed it? Or possibly i misspelled it? It's an article that probably needs to exist, but needs to be better. Irtapil (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The page is probably Martyrdom in Palestinian society. Would you like a redirect from the "culture" name? On the topic of Arabic Wikipedia, it is extremely biased pro-Hamas, and most Arabic sources are also very biased, so much so as to be completely unreliable. But some such as Al Jazera may be more reliable, but still biased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You sure you want to stick with "most Arabic sources are also very biased"? That is a very problematic statement. Nevertheless I also find the deleted article title as unhelpful in an English language encyclopedia, as though we are describing St. Francis of Assisi rather than those who were witness to crimes above and beyond their own deaths. This is the connotation and meaning of al-Shuhada, the martyrs, in Arabic. Also, it turns out that pro-Hamas bias has become very mainstream. There's always this fight over whether Arabic-speaking people can be relied upon to accurately name their dead, and this is part of what I want to immediately stop for the good of the article and the experience writing it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RS bleed implications on the Project

Is the current consensus that we have no intersection between loss of life in civilian journalism in Gaza and our ability to provide WP:RS as a volunteer community? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If we do have that commonality, is the current consensus that we should not mention that here or elsewhere? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal questions

And I'm not quite sure where the consensus here stands on WP:NOT CENSORED and any editor should be crystal clear when they come in. If not WELCOMING then at least it's honest. Since an abundance of orienting material exists, I should like to know exactly where I ought draw the line. I wonder this as is as anyone might wonder, because there are plenty of social spaces now where the lines are unclear. At least humor us, pretend that some of our readership exists who sees and cares enough to share in this horror, boot me squarely if you differ, should like to think their perceptions are legal and a part of the marketplace of ideas. FRINGE or not, there is an elephant in the room. Can I cite belligerent primary sources in conversation without committing it unnoted to article space? Can I link experiences of published photojournalists? Is there a limit to the violence I can link and of any sure provenance? Should severity or instances be limited? To twee? Also, too twee? Can you handle tender and mild sweet baby Jesus on a heart monitor? At what point does the community object to field intelligence? Do these need trigger warnings? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have to look at the purpose of what you add. If it is to inform readers then it is on the right track. If it is to manipulate feelings or push a point of view then don't add that yourself, and carefully consider if more neutral sources will do the job. Also whether the information is undue or should be included in this article. Personal experiences may be too fine grained to include in this article. "Legal" probably depends on whether they promote violence or terrorism or is a copyright infringement. And if there are suitable sources that will cause less offense or disturbance to our readers, then they can be more useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not my intent to inflict distress upon readers. An open discussion in visual space still requires we use the most important bits of the visual language of the last three months. There are examples in acknowledged RS which filter materials which were otherwise, as it is said, promotional of violence or terrorism.

There are examples of visual language notable enough for fair use. When we talk about acclaimed photography, this is the norm.

There's no reason we can't witness this war through the eyes of Motaz Azaiza's "Seeing Her Through My Camera" if Time Magazine is the source. If there is, chalk one up again to Instagram as the authoritative tertiary source.

It seems natural that if we want a GNU licensed free-use picture of Samer Abudaqa, we need only ask Al Jazeera for their cooperation.

Government sources are free use, but we run into the dilemma that the government of Gaza evokes mixed feelings and a divide of trust and doubt, as well as being on some naughty lists. This can be surmounted again where they have been reused in accepted sources. Among these are so-called red triangle stills as well as Israeli drone footage.

The best of each should suffice until discussion of the conflict can be broken into the distinct and known phases.

Keep in mind for every 'cone of silence' issue such as the release of captives, there are claimed state security issues necessitating tear gas in conflict with the Streisand paradox. Being NOT CENSORED seems to include whatever can be obtained of these to demonstrate the attempt to document the war clearly. "And her puppy dog" and "damn boy them hands", to my view, is just fair game to the curious mind. People naturally want to see.

And I want to be really clear on this point: in a war full of cat pics, if we don't include at least one highest-relevance cat pic, we clearly don't understand the internet or our audience.

The human psycho-visual experience also includes moments beyond shock, fear, empathy, and sadness. There are instances of people thrilled with the war, the most famous of which might be 'guitar guy' or 'bicycle rides'.

If we explore the full realm of human drama through pictures about a controlled environment where information is discouraged, we are going to unearth a point of view. We ought to unearth several. If they are visually interesting and do not make our eyes glaze over, much much better. There shouldn't be any fear of being labelled a POV pusher just because we have these moments in the collective consciousness and explore them in article space. People have had points of view which they shared visually and we are witness to them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Gravity and duty

I want to be really clear that there is a well reasoned and commonly accepted preponderance of evidence and consensus of thought that all of Gazan civilian life is subject to death or displacement and that it matters. I also acknowledge there are other views. My opinion is that this is the most serious and life-changing article you or I have ever written together. We are owed reasons which demonstrate a nuts-and-bolts understanding of what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong, not, as I am accused of, rhetoric. There are few topics on which I would care to risk such boldnesses. Yet I recognize the divergence of narratives. Stating things in a neutral voice is one thing, but we should not fail as editors to demonstrate abductive reasoning above all, from any side. Can we agree on this as project partners? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What went wrong in sweet Al-Quds? Or on Wikipedia? Irtapil (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

-big smile- indeed. There is a conflict. This represents a failure of consensus. It includes an information war. It aggravates any failure of consensus for us particularly. "What in sweet Jerusalem" is just an expression of exasperation on these failures in the way an Appalachian-raised person such as myself would phrase it but it means no disrespect to the capital of Palestine nor really intends a high degree of geolocational specificity. Similarly, 'crossing over Jordan' is a euphemism for dying, but it is passive voice, so I tend not to use this in favor of more direct language. The phrase "Hatfields and McCoys" is an allegorical phrase for interminable feuding within a community. We tend to like to set right these situations straightaway. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns

I wrote a very long, and far too literal, response to "what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong" (a huge number of the events leading up to 7 October happened in Jerusalem / Al-Quds) but my phone kinda ate it when I tried to post it, which it's probably for the best really? I was missing the point?

Can you give a concrete example or two of where people are failing at abductive reasoning so I can better idea of what you mean?

Irtapil (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I think it is fairly clear Netenyahu was hoping to use the October 7 attack as a pretext for forcing most of the people in Gaza into becoming refugees in Egypt and then taking the place over like the West Bank. Egypt has refused to become a pawn in that. So now the whole business is a complete mess but they know the world has the attention span of a gnat so they're not too worried. And Putin can go and bomb Ukraine to his hearts content, thanks Israel. Can you think of a simpler explanation? NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think Israel has miscalculated and Egypt will be in control eventually despite their reluctance to have anything to do with Hamas and the enormous amounts of munitions the US is supplying Israel. NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Look what didn't age well https://www.jns.org/the-greater-israel-claim-is-a-paper-tiger/ look what did https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/21/arab-states-condemn-israeli-ministers-no-palestinians-remark ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Talking about the land being theirs because of 2000 years ago is just silly. Do I have to leave my house to someone who says they're a Pict? Should Americans give up all their land to the native americans? If anything they should follow the Torah and limit things to the seventh generation so if a person's great great etc ancestor had something stolen 150 years ago then they no longer have any right or connection to it - it is too distant. They could follow the Torah about an eye for an eye too - not twenty eyes for an eye. NadVolum (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM :"bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article" None of this discussion is about improving the article; can you please continue this on your talk pages? Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2024 (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.