Selfstudier (talk | contribs) |
Makeandtoss (talk | contribs) →Palestinian-Israeli conflict not Arab-Israeli: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 1,140: | Line 1,140: | ||
The rest of the infobox of other articles contains "Territorial changes". Does anyone know how much of Israel was under the control of Hamas and its allies and what should be written in the infobox? [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
The rest of the infobox of other articles contains "Territorial changes". Does anyone know how much of Israel was under the control of Hamas and its allies and what should be written in the infobox? [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Palestinian-Israeli conflict not Arab-Israeli == |
|||
All reliable sources have identified it as being part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, whoever is changing this must seek consensus here first. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 13:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:30, 14 October 2023
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can we state this was terrorism in wiki voice?
The lead currently says:
Hamas' initial offensive is considered to be the deadliest non-state act of terrorism in Israeli history, as well as the second-deadliest event of that kind worldwide, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks in the United States
This takes as fact that the Palestinian offensive is an act of terrorism. While it is considered so by Israel, the US and many other countries, I think such an assertion is POV and requires attribution. (The assertion above is also inaccurate, because ISIL's Camp Speicher massacre has a higher death toll than all the total Israeli dead so far, which is around 900).VR talk 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not any other official body. Thats POV.
- At the very least one can Put a note that it was certain media or poticians. Eu/c explicitly did NOT say it. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s only “terrorism” if Arabs do to. When Israel does it Wikipedia editors will whitewash it and simply call it an “airstrike” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Apart from MOS:TERRORIST, here is the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided :
- "The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group.
- Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance.
- "It is not helpful to use the term 'terrorism' in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians," he said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed.VR talk 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The conflict has if anything only better exemplified the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exhibited by Western governments in their inability to condemn both sides without equivocation. In a world where Hamas are unequivocally terrorists, Israel's generals are unequivocally war criminals. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps, perhaps not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH and Wikipedia is WP:NOTRIGHT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is your opinion but the facts is Israel don't attack civilians ever! its only attack targets that used by the Terror organization Hamas its indeed sad that there are secondary damages
- But the reason they happen in the first place is because Hamas uses civilian facilities as rocket launching facilities towards the civilian population in Israel.
- in response Israel DONT attack those facilities before they informed the civilian population and only after they have a sufficient time to vacate only then they attack. but sometimes the Hamas terrorist's force civilians to stay there and so they can use there death to accused Israel in war crimes just as you do know read a little about Roof knocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking Malmul12 (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The crux here is the notion that Israel
"is frequently forced to attack civilian locations"
- no, it is not; that is their claim and their rhetoric, but it has been shown frequently in Gaza that many targets have been unevidenced as places with any military function. Both sides exhibit war criminality. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)- "its their(israel's) claim and rhetoric" is an unsourced personal opinion. same can be said about hamas and their rhetorics who are asking gazans to ignore israels warning so they can use dead human shields to gain sympathy on international stage.if women and children will leave north gaza in huge numbers it would directly impact the ability of "palestinians to play victim and accuse israel of war crimes (forced upon them)". these statements made by me are also unsourced opinions.even if they are true i should keep it to myself. so stop justifying hamas and stop creating false equivalences. Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is simply not true.
- Israel has never attacked civilian for the sake of killing civilian.
- In fact every single time that civilian are hurt is because Hamas take people prisoners and use them as humans shields.
- not only that but Israel have very unique and humane protocols in order to prevent the harm of civilians such as Roof knocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking Malmul12 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- THIS IS ARABS 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:194E:592:461E:104 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- What else do you call the beheading of children, the murder if innocent families, and the burning alive of civilians? To me that is a clearcut case of terrorism. Full stop. 149.97.165.53 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Beheading of children based on no sources, no bodies of decapitated children, not a video or even a single of photo of the supposed slaughter?
- I’ll tell you, it’s called “misinformation” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do want to point out that false claims of atrocities on children have been used as propaganda and resulted in war in the past. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't true at all. If Hamas had only attacked military bases as opposed to killing (for the most egregious example) very young civilian children at point-blank range in their homes and revelers at a music festival, I don't think RS or Wikipedia would be calling it an act of "terrorism". Similarly, if there were evidence that civilians were intentionally targeted by Israeli airstrikes, that would be "terrorism".
- Either way, Wikipedia relies upon RS and is not based on the views of editors. If RS say "terrorism", so does Wikipedia. The right avenue for complaint would be to argue that specific sources for whose characterization you disagree should not be considered reliable due to bias. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is regularly described as a terror attack in mainstream Swedish news coverage, (as well as in both right- and left-leaning news commentary). See e.g. [1][2][3][4]. St.nerol (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's an act of terrorism by any definition of the word, there is no POV about it. When your attack intentionally targets civilians, it's terrorism. If we can't agree on that then 9/11 is a matter of POV as well. 2A0D:6FC2:6B71:3D00:50E7:51D1:83CF:C354 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- That depends on whether RS do so, and they do: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Israeli dead is 1,300 so far 46.117.238.105 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The death toll is irrelevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London fir example lists many terror attacks with far fewer deaths and casualties.
- Hamas are committing so many acts of terror according to assets.nationbuilder.com/webelieveinisrael/pages/1237/attachments/original/1696852702/Operation_Swords_of_Iron_Briefing_Pack.pdf?1696852702 and are even more attrocious than ISIS according to timesofisrael.com/pentagon-chief-austin-says-hamas-atrocities-are-worse-than-what-i-saw-with-isis/ Thereligionofpeacedotcom (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- "definition of terrorism"
- the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
- source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism
- as Hamas was used violence to attack non combatant civilians filmed it fits every definition of terror attack so what debate could possibly be? Malmul12 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Did Hamas say Iran is involved?
XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[16]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").
Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS required to have this claim in the lead.VR talk 22:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- ?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.
- https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and avoid speclative accusations.
- The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [17]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not speculation, it's political propaganda.
- Hamas is an extremist sunni organisation, that get support from wahhabi states. Iran is extremist shia.
- Hamas doesn't get anything from Iran.
- Iran has it's own organization in Gaza, the islamic jihad. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "
Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks
". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([18]
". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)- Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack,[1] whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[19]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?
- Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Economist has reported today that both Hamas and the IDF deny direct Iranian involvement in the initial attack, notwithstanding Iran's general support for Hamas. [20]
- I think the IDF denial in particular ought to be included in the article alongside the Hamas and Iranian denials. It is relevant that both sides are in agreement. Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with you, IDF's POV should be taken into account, too. --Mhhossein talk 05:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- XavierItzm: Where's the so-called interview with BBC? --Mhhossein talk 05:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack,[1] whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Twice the BBC has reported that Hamas told it Iran helped it with the attacks.[2][3] Please observe the BBC remains a WP:RS and therefore there is no need to qualify its reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @XavierItzm There is something odd about this BBC quote. Firstly, they don't actually give a verbatim quote of what Hamad said and in what context. "Backing" can mean anything, from active involvement to abetting to moral support. I wasn't able to find audio or video either. But what gives me even more pause is that the BBC itself withdrew the claim from its dedicated article on the question of Iranian involvement. Have a look at the earliest and latest versions of this article in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67058244 The earliest version contains the claim; the latest does not. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Heh! Great catch! That right there is proof of the desperate interference being run to disassociate Iran from the situation, most likely by the US government. Amusing: Rule, Britannia! But interesting as your find is, that's not the reference being used. The references are listed above, are currently available on the BBC, and are not being ghost-edited. So use them! XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know that BBC article is not the reference currently being used in the article. But it is a more recent and arguably more authoritative BBC article covering that question than our current BBC sources:
- Paul Adams, Did Iran support plan for attack on Israel?, BBC, October 9, 2023 (current version, without Ghazi Hamad reference to Iran's backing).
- Here are the archived versions:
- If the BBC still stood by what they published on October 7, October 8 and October 9, why delete it a couple of days later?
- Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. The BBC might have withdrawn the statement because they felt it was being misinterpreted. They might have withdrawn it because whoever first paraphrased Hamad did a poor job. (It's really unfortunate that they didn't quote him verbatim, and don't seem to have published the actual audio/video of Hamad). Or Hamad might well have said explicitly that Iran helped with planning etc., and all of this is, like you say, an attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube to avoid further escalation. What do you think, Vice regent?
- For what it's worth, I have contacted Paul Adams on Twitter to ask about the deletion. If he replies, I'll report back. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Paul Adams is mainly relying on WSJ, right? I think WSJ's allegations should be included, but only in article not in lead, along with plenty of evidence we have against WSJ allegations coming not just from Hamas and Iran, but also from Israel and the US.VR talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, here's my take on this:
first, the Paul Adams article may be intended to be more authoritative. However, it has been shadow-edited, which (when other publications do it) is ground for Wikipedia demerits and inclusion on its "Perennial Sources" little black list of unwelcome media, deprecated or otherwise less worthy media. Therefore, I would extend that criterium and say: well, this here Paul Adams article is not very reliable, and so it can't be considered "authoritative" for this page.
Second, this here late Paul Adams article fails to deny that Ghazi Hamad said what he said on two BBC articles which remain published. The fact it fails to deny can only mean one thing: it takes it as good. Analogy: Adams also fails to deny the Earth is round in this article, so whether the article is "authoritative" or not, it simply has no beef with the Earth being round, and with Ghazi Hamad having said what Ghazi Hamad said.
Third, the Wall Street Journal agreed with the two BBC articles and with Ghazi Hamad, reporting: "Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas [...] A European official and an adviser to the Syrian government, however, gave the same account of Iran’s involvement in the lead-up to the attack as the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members".[4]
Look, at the end of the day, we should not do WP:OR. The facts are that you have two BBC articles and one WSJ stating the exact same (plus, the WSJ cites a European official!) and traditionally these are considered silver-plated WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- Whilst I agree in principle that WSJ and BBC are unimpeachable RS, it is possible that the BBC felt obliged to remove the claim taken from the WSJ story after questions were raised about its probity. For example, a former Reuters exec publicly accused the WSJ reporter of fabricating the story:[21]. Of course, X is not a source, and this doesn't mean we can disregard the WSJ. Just context. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: It's partly circular. On Oct. 8 the WSJ stated
A spokesman for Hamas, Ghazi Hamad, told the BBC that the militant group had received support from its ally Iran for its surprise attacks on Israel.
This was based on the Oct. 7 BBC article saying Ghazi Hamad had told the BBC Hamas had backing (whatever that was supposed to mean) from Iran. Adams, largely summarising the WSJ claims, first included and then quietly deleted (or had his editor delete) the BBC statement about Hamas that the WSJ had repeated. - I am just wondering how confidently we should assert in our article that Hamad told the BBC Hamas had direct backing from Iran, given that –
- no BBC article ever marked any of this as a direct quote,
- we don't have audio or video,
- the statement was later quietly deleted from the Adams article.
- My feeling is we should follow the approach of CNBC (cited in the article), who put a "reportedly" into their sentence ("reportedly told the BBC"). Regards, Andreas JN466 00:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your precision. But, "reportedly told the BBC" what? --Mhhossein talk 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein The current article wording is:
Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;[5][6], and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement,[4] while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.[7]
- I find that statement too strong, and too keen to leave the reader with the impression it is established that Iran planned this. Moreover, we seem to have lost the statement from US officials and Blinken disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal. Andreas JN466 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Andreas, the word "support" can mean lots of things, including merely verbal support. Without additional details it is impossible to tell. Generally, in-depth and comprehensive coverage is preferable to sources that make drive-by remarks without clarifying what exactly they mean. So far we only have WSJ as the source of these claims (one of the BBC articles is nothing but a regurgitation of the WSJ article).VR talk 06:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent We are in agreement here. But we have been prominently featuring Ghazi Hamad's statement in the article for days now, and it seems to me we are making a poor source do a lot of work here. Remember, he is the only named source in our article for this entire Iranian conspiracy theory which – for what it's worth – has been roundly contradicted by Blinken and other US officials who have been saying they have seen no evidence of Iranian involvement. Andreas JN466 13:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, there may be audio. Apparently, Hamad spoke to Newshour. Checking. Andreas JN466 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! Great catch, Andreas. Are you checking the BBC archives for the Newshour audio? I really don't want to have use a VPN and sign up for BBC services. But let me know... XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I have found the interview. Time code 20:15. My transcript:
- Hamad: You forget that thousands of Palestinians were killed in Gaza, civilians, women and children. We were fighting for 75 years during occupation, but no one listened to us. PLO had long negotiations with Israel, but Israel continue to do all kinds of crimes. The international community should focus the occupation, which ist the longest occupation in the world …
- BBC presenter: And how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?
- Hamad: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Other countries they help us, either with money, or with weapons, with political support, with everything, it is alright, to do that.
- @Vice regent, Mhhossein, and XavierItzm: Thoughts? Andreas JN466 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, there may be audio. Apparently, Hamad spoke to Newshour. Checking. Andreas JN466 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent We are in agreement here. But we have been prominently featuring Ghazi Hamad's statement in the article for days now, and it seems to me we are making a poor source do a lot of work here. Remember, he is the only named source in our article for this entire Iranian conspiracy theory which – for what it's worth – has been roundly contradicted by Blinken and other US officials who have been saying they have seen no evidence of Iranian involvement. Andreas JN466 13:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your precision. But, "reportedly told the BBC" what? --Mhhossein talk 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, here's my take on this:
- Paul Adams is mainly relying on WSJ, right? I think WSJ's allegations should be included, but only in article not in lead, along with plenty of evidence we have against WSJ allegations coming not just from Hamas and Iran, but also from Israel and the US.VR talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know that BBC article is not the reference currently being used in the article. But it is a more recent and arguably more authoritative BBC article covering that question than our current BBC sources:
- Heh! Great catch! That right there is proof of the desperate interference being run to disassociate Iran from the situation, most likely by the US government. Amusing: Rule, Britannia! But interesting as your find is, that's not the reference being used. The references are listed above, are currently available on the BBC, and are not being ghost-edited. So use them! XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no circularity. Do not conflate the small articlet ("card", the WSJ calls it) you cited above, where the WSJ merely reports on what the BBC reported, with the full in-depth WSJ article, with 3 authors,[4] which not only cites Hamas sources, but also European and Syrian officials, and which furthermore locates the Iran-Hamas planning meetings in Beirut "since August" and which does not cite the BBC at all. Also,
◉ Since when do we demand audio or video from the BBC as proof of BBC reporting?,
◉ Two BBC articles currently include the Hamas statements.[2][3]
Vice regent, can you explain your assertion "we only have WSJ as the source" when there are two BBC articles currently available on the BBC site for the statement? XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the only named source is Ghazi Hamad. The October 7 BBC article said,
A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel
. That was then reported by others – CNBC e.g. said,[8]Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, reportedly told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Iranian security officials helped with the planning and approved the attack at a meeting in Beirut last Monday.
The long Wall Street Journal article you mention (archived here, for reference) does not mention Ghazi Hamad or the BBC at all. It only cites unnamed "senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah", and a "European official and an adviser to the Syrian government". As far as I can see, everybody else just reported what the WSJ (and BBC) said. Andreas JN466 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) - Because one of the BBC articles simply says Iran "supports" the attacks without specifying whether this support is merely verbal or material. If it meant material it would have provided some details, so it appears to be merely verbal.VR talk 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Jayen466's transcript of the BBC interview confirms that Hamas didn't say Iran was involved in this attack.VR talk 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The interviewer asks "how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?" and Ghazi Hamad responds: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Then the BBC twice further reports this fact. Then The WSJ reports that the planning for the attacks was jointly held in Beirut by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and this is confirmed by Europeans and by Syrians. It's all quite clear. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Like other users here, I don't believe we should take untold explanations from a very general phrase like "Iran help us". Such EXCEPTIONAL claims should be backed by "multiple high-quality sources". There is no evidence raised by the sources saying Iran was involved in this specific operation. --Mhhossein talk 09:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would be true if you only had the BBC's interview with the Hamas spokesman, but remember: you also have the European officials, the Syrian officials, and Yahya Rahim Safavi:
top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel
.[9] Let's not pretend the multiple BBC articles are the only source here. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would be true if you only had the BBC's interview with the Hamas spokesman, but remember: you also have the European officials, the Syrian officials, and Yahya Rahim Safavi:
- Like other users here, I don't believe we should take untold explanations from a very general phrase like "Iran help us". Such EXCEPTIONAL claims should be backed by "multiple high-quality sources". There is no evidence raised by the sources saying Iran was involved in this specific operation. --Mhhossein talk 09:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The interviewer asks "how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?" and Ghazi Hamad responds: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Then the BBC twice further reports this fact. Then The WSJ reports that the planning for the attacks was jointly held in Beirut by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and this is confirmed by Europeans and by Syrians. It's all quite clear. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Jayen466's transcript of the BBC interview confirms that Hamas didn't say Iran was involved in this attack.VR talk 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Adviser to Iran's Khamenei expresses support for Palestinian attacks: Report". Alarabiya News. Agence France-Presse. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
"We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood," Yahya Rahim Safavi said at a meeting held in support of Palestinian children in Tehran, quoted by ISNA news agency.
- ^ a b Kirby, Paul (8 October 2023). "Israel faces 'long, difficult war' after Hamas attack from Gaza". BBC News. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, meanwhile told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran
- ^ a b "Hamas: Iran backed the attacks". BBC. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel
- ^ a b c Summer Said; Benoit Faucon; Stephen Kalin (8 October 2023). "Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas's Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah [...] Details of the operation were refined during several meetings in Beirut attended by IRGC officers [...] A European official and an adviser to the Syrian government, however, gave the same account of Iran's involvement in the lead-up to the attack as the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members
- ^ Kirby, Paul (8 October 2023). "Israel faces 'long, difficult war' after Hamas attack from Gaza". BBC News. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, meanwhile told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran
- ^ Tan, Clement (9 October 2023). "Middle East risks prospect of fresh regional war after Hamas stealth attack on Israel". CNBC. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
- ^ Said, Summer; Faucon, Benoit; Kalin, Stephen (8 October 2023). "Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
- ^ Tan, Clement (9 October 2023). "Middle East risks prospect of fresh regional war after Hamas stealth attack on Israel". CNBC. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
- ^ GISELLE RUHIYYIH EWING (7 October 2023). "Iran praises Hamas as attack reverberates around Middle East". The Politico. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel
You need to mention in the infobox that the vast majority of the 900+ dead in Israel are non-combatant civilians
It's crucial information in understanding these statistics. Fewer than 100 of them are military-affiliated. This was a massacre against civilians in Israel.
This is especially necessary since it is mentioned that the 1,500 dead from Palestine were militants. 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable source to back this up. I'm not disputing it, it's just how Wikipedia works. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here is IDF spoksperson's update on national TV (Kan11) from 2.5 hours ago, stating the number of IDF casualties is 123. The general number of confirmed casualties is at the moment above 900.
- https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1711651520628859274?t=fGmiSU3inGLE06gLRRtNFA&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say the whole casualties section of the wikibox should be divided into civilian/military but would have to find enough reliable sources to do so. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I agree. It's misleading to have such all-inclusive casualty figures under the lists of combatants, it's not moral practice on war articles. Maybe put a disclaimer e.g. (includes civilians) until the figures can be split authoritatively. ----Pontificalibus 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to highlight a larger problem with framing this article (and naming it) the "2023 Israel-Hamas War"—for example, virtually none of the Israeli dead thus far, including the majority of the IDF personnel killed, appear to have been war "combatants" in any typical sense of the word.
- Our encyclopedia currently has a 13,000-word article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine but only an 8,000-word article on the Russo-Ukrainian War—and that's a "typical" international war!
- I'm no expert on Wikipedia article structure, but it's obvious the Hamas attacks weren't exactly the first salvo in any kind of typical war—which almost certainly explains why the majority of our September 11 attacks article isn't simply folded into our article on the War on terror.
- Shouldn't most of this article should be titled and framed "2023 Hamas Terror Attack on Israel"—with a small portion of it in a different article with its current title, that can then explicate any actual "Israel-Hamas War" that follows the terror attacks?
- Curious to know everyone's thoughts!
- ElleTheBelle 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly. There is so much going on here, it should be separated into multiple parts, as you said.
- The war declaration and the bombing campaign in Gaza itself are only reactions to the terrorist attack that proceeded it! 2601:40:C481:A940:5C7A:B21C:4997:997A (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I agree. It's misleading to have such all-inclusive casualty figures under the lists of combatants, it's not moral practice on war articles. Maybe put a disclaimer e.g. (includes civilians) until the figures can be split authoritatively. ----Pontificalibus 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree with the idea that casualties need to be as specific as reasonable: their age (children/adults), the manner (solider fighting, hostage execution, etc) and time they died (what phase of the conflict) as well as their status (civ/sol) are cats that should be considered. But however they end up being grouped a reader should clearly understand what any statistic represents. Footnotes are great. // Timothy :: talk 06:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I also agree that the casualties need to be described with specifics. Civilians and Soldiers are very different targets. WonderCanada (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If we are lacking precise numbers due to insufficient sources, this could be reflected with a note by the number. Agree on the need for specificity. entropyandvodka | talk 04:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I posted some commentary earlier that was since archived, setting out why the current infobox treatment of hostages/captives/POWs is unsatisfactory. There was support for a change to the language. I also provided sources regarding numbers. I'll repost my recap here for ease of reference:
- Under "Status", instead of "Approximately 200 Israeli and foreign hostages taken by Palestinian militants", something like "[#] Israeli and foreign nationals taken hostage or captured by ...."
- And under "casualties and losses", instead of "200+ hostages", something like "[#] hostages and POWs [or, prisoners of war]".
- The 200 figure also seems inflated, based on RS. More recent reporting by RS indicates somewhere in the range of 100-150; unfortunately, there is little disambiguation between soldiers and civilians.
- Refs: Politico, citing NYT ("some 150 Israelis were seized by Hamas militants"); WP ("evidence suggests ... at least 64"); CBC ("more than 100 ... as many as 150").
- I conceded that "hostages" could be maintained for the time being but I reiterate that RS are also using more neutral language ("seized" in Politico; "captives" in WaPo). WillowCity (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you even call Gaza occupied?
If Israel disengaged from Gaza unilaterally in 2005, can you claim that the territory is occupied by Israel since they have no control over its politics, security, or finances after Hamas were elected? שי 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is still considered occupied by the US[22], UN[23] and others due to the blockade. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Who cares what the UN says. They have more criticisms against Israel than any other countries, surpassing North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. When it comes to Israel, they can't be taken seriously. Their reputation proves it. By definition Gaza is NOT occupied. Oppressed? Absolutely. But occupation? Not even in the loosest definition of the word. As an encyclopedia, this needs to be academic, and thus dictionary definitions must be used.2601:40:C481:A940:E9C1:4443:E2FD:A8C8 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, we're only interested in what reliable sources say. We do not define words or concepts ourselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would you consider having near-complete control of all resources that enter or leave Gaza it as well as complete controlling its naval, air, and land borders some sort of occupation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. Because there are no Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza. Gaza governs itself completely. By definition, Gaza is not occupied. The West Bank IS occupied, because the IDF patrols it - in this regard it is militaristically occupied.
- What you described is a blockade, not an occupation. A blockade is not an occupation. It is oppressed, not occupied. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Our opinions do not matter. We go by WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- While I agree with you in principle, this is irrelevant. If RS say it is occupied, it is occupied. Arakui (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Who cares what the UN says. They have more criticisms against Israel than any other countries, surpassing North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. When it comes to Israel, they can't be taken seriously. Their reputation proves it. By definition Gaza is NOT occupied. Oppressed? Absolutely. But occupation? Not even in the loosest definition of the word. As an encyclopedia, this needs to be academic, and thus dictionary definitions must be used.2601:40:C481:A940:E9C1:4443:E2FD:A8C8 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- While Israel has enforced a blockade around Gaza for certain exports into the region, it has not "occupied" the territory since 2005. Using the term to describe Israel's involvement with the Gaza Strip post-2005 is inaccurate. You can disagree with the blockade, but it substantially different than an "occupation" by its actual definition. Israel has had no military presence inside Gaza since 2005, thus it couldn't have been "occupying" Gaza.
- "Israel maintains that it has not occupied Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 and that a territory cannot be occupied without 'boots on the ground.'"
- source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415886
- "In 2005, under international and domestic pressure, Israel withdrew around 9,000 Israeli settlers and its military forces from Gaza, leaving the enclave to be governed by the Palestinian Authority."
- source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/gaza-strip-controls-s-know-rcna119405 AstralNomad (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The UN is not a WP:RS any more than a Palestinian NGO or Israeli politician is—these are, by definition, biased parties involved in the dispute.
- First, numerous actual RS state the obvious fact that Gaza hasn't been occupied by Israel since the latter withdrew—here are just a few from the last couple days:
- Associated Press: "Israel... could reoccupy the territory and try to uproot Hamas."
- Time: Gaza is "not formally occupied like the West Bank."
- Carnegie: "Israel will retaliate to a greater degree than it has before, potentially leading to… reoccupation of parts of Gaza."
- Slate: "Will Israel reoccupy Gaza?"
- Secondly, there's a question of common sense, and the definition of "occupy": unilaterally withdrawal is the precise opposite of "occupation".
- Last but not least, while there's no question that Israel has control over its border with Gaza—just as Egypt does. But if Israel is "occupying" Gaza simply by blocking travel and shipments, then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well.
- Calling Gaza "Israeli-occupied" is biased, contrafactual, and objectively false—it's a term created for the purpose of Palestinian propaganda, and our encyclopedia has no business repeating it in Wikivoice.
- ElleTheBelle 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing bias with reliability. Many biased sources are also reliable. Some aren't. The UN is not a party to a dispute. The UN is a body which has many parties. Andre🚐 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Egypt's border is an international border, but Palestine is a unique country like a home, and Gaza is one of its rooms, Israel locked this room with 2M people and controls electricity, Water and food from inside the home and you compare this with what? DRIS92 (talk) DRIS92 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is the ICRC view:
The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it.
See also Jaber, Safaa Sadi; Bantekas, Ilias (2023-10-05). "THE STATUS OF GAZA AS OCCUPIED TERRITORY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Cambridge University Press (CUP): 1–20. doi:10.1017/s0020589323000349. ISSN 0020-5893. for another recent view from a much higher quality source than news sources. The above OR ("then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well") is not something that serious sources take seriously. nableezy - 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The ICRC is hardly an expert in occupation status under international law. And there is an enormous amount of scholarly and legal debate as to whether Israel continues to occupy Gaza, as a strictly legal definition. No one seriously suggests Israel militarily "occupies" Gaza by any common or typical sense. A smattering of the many serious scholars who find that Gaza is no longer legally occupied:
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-016-0070-1
- https://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf
- https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350307
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/why-gaza-is-not-remotely-occupied-i/
- It's absolutely also worth noting, as many RS have, that Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar has, on more than one occasion, admitted the obvious: that Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel. He has stated both that Gaza is no longer under siege and that “Gaza is free of occupation.”.
- Our encyclopedia needs to be clear: despite Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza, some still claim that Israel has obligations because they meet some legal definitions of an "occupying" force, but that such claims are in dispute and Gaza's legal status as "occupied" territory is, at best, unresolved. And it needs to be made explicit that this is an issue of a technical legal definition—Wikivoice must not claim that Gaza is "occupied" by Israel in any common-sense understanding of the term. ElleTheBelle 06:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The idea that the body that has a specific mandate under the Geneva Conventions to protect victims of armed conflict is not an expert in those conventions is curious. Anyway, the ICRC is among the most respected human rights organizations on the planet and publishes through Cambridge University Press the International Review of the Red Cross, it is among the best sources out there. Yes, there is some dispute on if Gaza remains occupied, but both the UN and the ICRC maintain that it is, and scholarly views agree. The one high quality source you have does yes agree with the Israeli Supreme Court that Gaza is not occupied but it purposely gives no real analysis of that. We can do similar to what we do in Israeli-occupied territories, say that the UN and a number of human rights organizations hold that Israel continues to occupy Gaza, and that Israel disagrees. nableezy - 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with nableezy on this, broadly. International orgs are defacto reliable along with many academic sources that the control of Gaza's border constitutes an Israeli occupation, your links above are a mix of old (2009, 2014, 2016), law review articles that are hardly authoritative, and maybe 1 article to support the idea that "some Israel-leaning academics have questioned with Gaza is still occupied; still, many NGOs and academics consider Gaza to be occupied." Andre🚐 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It isnt as open and shut as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there is an actual dispute among sources, so we do what we always do, give both pieces of information, it is considered occupied by a, b and c, while y and z dispute that. nableezy - 20:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree Parham wiki (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It isnt as open and shut as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there is an actual dispute among sources, so we do what we always do, give both pieces of information, it is considered occupied by a, b and c, while y and z dispute that. nableezy - 20:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with nableezy on this, broadly. International orgs are defacto reliable along with many academic sources that the control of Gaza's border constitutes an Israeli occupation, your links above are a mix of old (2009, 2014, 2016), law review articles that are hardly authoritative, and maybe 1 article to support the idea that "some Israel-leaning academics have questioned with Gaza is still occupied; still, many NGOs and academics consider Gaza to be occupied." Andre🚐 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The idea that the body that has a specific mandate under the Geneva Conventions to protect victims of armed conflict is not an expert in those conventions is curious. Anyway, the ICRC is among the most respected human rights organizations on the planet and publishes through Cambridge University Press the International Review of the Red Cross, it is among the best sources out there. Yes, there is some dispute on if Gaza remains occupied, but both the UN and the ICRC maintain that it is, and scholarly views agree. The one high quality source you have does yes agree with the Israeli Supreme Court that Gaza is not occupied but it purposely gives no real analysis of that. We can do similar to what we do in Israeli-occupied territories, say that the UN and a number of human rights organizations hold that Israel continues to occupy Gaza, and that Israel disagrees. nableezy - 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
“Beheading babies”
The claim that hamas beheaded babies is very well shown on the war crimes page even if there is no verification and no bodies, and they dare say “Joe Biden confirmed it”. Was he there to see it? Even the Israeli forces don’t want to confirm this claim and the times of Israel deny this claim, and it should be removed from the war crimes section, just like every “alleged” Israeli war crime has been. Why is it still there?
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-10-11-23/index.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s been discussed & cleared already. Look up. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your sources don't say that Hamas didn't behead infants, but rather that he denies the claims, which makes a lot of sense. Here are sources that are more reliable than the spokesmen of a terror organization:
- I literally included the times of Israel in my citation but alright. If there’s no proof then it’s not going to be included, just like all of Israel’s alleged crimes, some of which were eventually proven to not have happened The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is accurate. "Beheading babies" should remain in the article because it is a hot topic on the subject and ostensibly occured. Icrin7 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It has not been cleared, I just checked and it’s still there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your sources don't say that Hamas didn't behead infants, but rather that he denies the claims, which makes a lot of sense. Here are sources that are more reliable than the spokesmen of a terror organization:
- See this source:
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-babies-killed-hamas-terror-attack-kibbutz-kfar-aza-first-responders-ay/ David O. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- And Iraqi soldiers are tearing babies out of incubators. And Gadaffi has rape gangs fueled by viagra. And WMDs are- We should not be including these claims in wikivoice until the dust settles. There is an extreme amount of hedging happening on many of these. Even Biden's claim to have seen the photos was clarified as not actually occurring by the White House. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to that? That biden lie and didn't really see the photos? Currently there are more than enough reliable sources of international reporters who have physically been there. Besides the president of the US said he saw the pictures. So all of the international reporters and the president lie or struck by a fog of war? Those are credible reports and witnesses and there is no reason for them not to be used as sources, specially when it's reliable and big news companies like The guardian and CNN. I'm not sure also why you see it as so farfetched while not so far away videos have been posted by Hamas themselves. דוב (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a source mentioning it:
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to that? That biden lie and didn't really see the photos? Currently there are more than enough reliable sources of international reporters who have physically been there. Besides the president of the US said he saw the pictures. So all of the international reporters and the president lie or struck by a fog of war? Those are credible reports and witnesses and there is no reason for them not to be used as sources, specially when it's reliable and big news companies like The guardian and CNN. I'm not sure also why you see it as so farfetched while not so far away videos have been posted by Hamas themselves. דוב (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- And Iraqi soldiers are tearing babies out of incubators. And Gadaffi has rape gangs fueled by viagra. And WMDs are- We should not be including these claims in wikivoice until the dust settles. There is an extreme amount of hedging happening on many of these. Even Biden's claim to have seen the photos was clarified as not actually occurring by the White House. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Daily Beast discusses that Biden's statement was clarified to the Washington Post [24], and that he was relying on news reports and statements by Netanyahu. Sky News report from yesterday says that it stil unconfirmed [25], and the IDF has said they won't confirm it, according to Insider [26]. However, given that the claim has been coroborrated by Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, who was there at the scene and interviewed by CBS [27], I think that some confidence can be given that the allegation is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- If there's so much doubt regarding the veracity of the claims then the article should state the claim in doubtful or spurious terms. In the context of a war situation where conflicting and slanted claims are being relayed, I think it should be clear that a claim as sensitive and grave as "beheaded infants" should be held up to a very critical light. Would be far more reliable for someone who isn't IDF-adjacent (i.e. HRW) to confirm something like this. ‒overthrows 03:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do agree that some degree of uncertainty should be applied to the claims, but at the same time, I think its beyond merely a "rumor" at this point, which is what The Intercept describes the claim as [28]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Head of Zaka and several international reoporters is more than enough for it bo considered more than a "rumor". דוב (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Israeli government "has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister’s office." added to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Head of Zaka and several international reoporters is more than enough for it bo considered more than a "rumor". דוב (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Overthrows @Hemiauchenia this was further clarified by the Washington Post and Al Jazeera English that there was no independent verification of the claim by the US or any non-Israeli organization. I think the language should be updated to reflect more caution on such an inflammatory topic. Wschreyer (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Witnesses are more than enough to verify the claims. Al Jazeera is not a reliable or credible source. Washington post didn't deny the beheading, they just clarified the origin of the sources. דוב (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera is listed as a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Because reports are conflicting and there has not been independent confirmation I'm requesting that the article simply reflect that this is not a widely accepted fact. 24.14.199.122 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Witnesses are more than enough to verify the claims. Al Jazeera is not a reliable or credible source. Washington post didn't deny the beheading, they just clarified the origin of the sources. דוב (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do agree that some degree of uncertainty should be applied to the claims, but at the same time, I think its beyond merely a "rumor" at this point, which is what The Intercept describes the claim as [28]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- If there's so much doubt regarding the veracity of the claims then the article should state the claim in doubtful or spurious terms. In the context of a war situation where conflicting and slanted claims are being relayed, I think it should be clear that a claim as sensitive and grave as "beheaded infants" should be held up to a very critical light. Would be far more reliable for someone who isn't IDF-adjacent (i.e. HRW) to confirm something like this. ‒overthrows 03:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support, at the very least, using more qualified language to describe this, maybe by mentioning there are "conflicting" or "unconfirmed" reports about this happening. Unless neutral third parties can confirm this, we should hold off on definitive "this did/did not" happen framing. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The reports about beheadings and rapes are unconfirmed, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- confirmed by whom? Witnesses can count as confirmation. דוב (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEONING Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- confirmed by whom? Witnesses can count as confirmation. דוב (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The dead baby photos the Israeli government put out have been covered by NBC News, though they say the specific allegation of baby decapitation is still unconfirmed [29]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- New confirmation have been posted by Prime Minister of Israel, including pictures. Although the pictures here is of burnt babies and not beheaded.1 Other sources affiliated to the government posted decapitated images of citizens. דוב (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, then, the beheading of babies is still unconfirmed, and most RS seem to be couching the reports as just that - reports. As ghastly as it is, the beheading of adults is not what is being specifically contested here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not confirmed. Anyone could easily fake those images. And Isræl is on a war. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The current article now feels inconsistent between the two paragraphs about the beheading. I suggest that the first instance
- "Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. The bodies of 40 babies and young children were taken out on gurneys, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims.[REFERENCES]"
- Is changed to
- "Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated. There were at least 100 civilian victims, including women, children, and burn victims. This event sparked a report about 40 beheaded babies. See #[SECTION ON UNCONFIRMED REPORTS]"
- The references can then move to the unconfirmed reports section.
- As for the unconfirmed reprots section, the paragraph that starts with "Reports of Hamas beheading babies..." is quite difficult to understand because each sentence seems to change between saying 'yes the heading was confirmed' to 'no the beheading wasnt confirmed'. Would it be easier to read chronologically -- such that you list which reports happened per day? Because I would think the Jerusalem Post sentence is the most recent statement and it confirms the beheading, and it should be the last sentence. Hovsepig (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- New confirmation have been posted by Prime Minister of Israel, including pictures. Although the pictures here is of burnt babies and not beheaded.1 Other sources affiliated to the government posted decapitated images of citizens. דוב (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The reports about beheadings and rapes are unconfirmed, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"Beheading babies" should be removed at least for now as most serious sources (outside live feeds don't touch) and various other sources have already "debunked" it. Due tommon sense (and a sober encyclopedic style), it is for now sufficient to state that Hamas committed a pogrom/mass murder/massacre among the locals. There is no need to go into gory details and in particular no need for bringing up any which are unconfirmed/disputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- But the allegation does seem to be becoming an important talking about during this war. I think we should keep the beheading paragraphs. But I think we should move the first paragraph about the beheading and merge it with the second. The first mention of the beheading doenst talk about the conflicting reports (and seems not up to date) while the second mention talks about the current status with regards to newspaper confirmation from the Jerusalem post Hovsepig (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's important to keep it in the article.
- What's so hard about saying it's been alleged, but contested? 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Claims of rape removed again
I don't understand what's going on here. We had MULTIPLE sources reporting on survivors claiming to have witnessed rape. What is the issue here?
"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." -https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive
This is a source interviewing someone who is identified as survivor of the attacks who is attesting to witnessing rape inflicted upon the victims by hamas militants. We had others, but they're being nitpicked and dismissed. This is getting into POV territory. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the new, cited, secondary source that covers the primary sources comprehensively: "What we know about accounts of sexual assault during the Hamas attack". Nurg (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please see the sources that were removed backing up the statement of sexual violence. In addition to PBS, which seems to be equally as reliable as the source you're providing. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- "The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.
- A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware". Well there's at least one then.
- I read it. I get it; it's a fair point, but it's also a fair point that we have sources that said that this happened that are just as reliable as yours that said there was. Unless there's consensus for this change, which reading the talk page there definitely is not, There's multiple editors on here that disagree, so it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperative editing to make such a change without reaching a consensus. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have to say, given what's in the source that was added, this statement is not correct. According to the source, there's at least one known case of rape that was committed that I just cited. Here's the statement claiming that Israeli officials stated they had NO EVIDENCE of it. "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape."
- That's just not true. That's not what was said. It's POV, pretty clearly POV, and should be reverted. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Chuckstablers, the allegations should be added there are evidence for rape. We can't rewrite history, censor Wikipedia or try to write a narrative. Currently there are more than enough sources (and videos posted by Hamas) to confirm the claims. דוב (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Chuckstablers, the allegations should be added there are evidence for rape. We can't rewrite history, censor Wikipedia or try to write a narrative. Currently there are more than enough sources (and videos posted by Hamas) to confirm the claims. דוב (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can include there are claims but also needs to include the Israeli officials have said they have no evidence to substantiate those claims. nableezy - 23:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Which source are you referring to, regarding the sentence "Israeli officials have said they have no evidence"? dov (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Forward piece cited above, this. Where it says While sexual assault is a common feature of violent conflict worldwide, the Israel Defense Forces told the Forward Tuesday night that it does not yet have any evidence of rape having occurred during Saturday’s attack or its aftermath. nableezy - 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Which source are you referring to, regarding the sentence "Israeli officials have said they have no evidence"? dov (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that videos showing the physical damage of the rapes has gone viral and shown on national television in the US, it is fair to include it in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the allegations of rape as listed under "Unconfirmed", when the vast majority of the "Casualties" section is equally as unconfirmed, with widespread use of "reportedly" or "reported to have been/reported to be", as is typical in every conflict. Even the number of hostages, and number of casualties on either side, are technically "unconfirmed", as is once again typical. The justification provided inline for placing sexual assaults under "Unconfirmed" is that it's
too soon to know whether there had been a pattern of sexual assault
, but that's an entirely different question. It's not like rape is easy to prove outside of warzones, or like you'd expect people to pull out their phones and film their friends being raped for video evidence. We can just put it in Casualties, attribute to eye-witness reports rather than state in wikivoice, and just state it's unconfirmed, rather than highlighting it its unconfirmed-ness in a separate section. DFlhb (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- No, the justification is that even the Israeli military is saying they have no evidence for this. Unconfirmed claims generally dont belong, but these unconfirmed claims have been covered and then documented to have had no substantiation. nableezy - 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
"The Israel Defense Forces have "told" a journalist that they "have no evidence" of rape"
This is an equivocation that should be removed ASAP per WP:SAID, WP:AMBIGUOUS.
WP:SAID: In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose. 2A02:14F:175:7688:0:0:B482:EFF (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I believe this accords with WP:SAID. It is necessary attribution, and has been a hot topic on this talk page for days. Riposte97 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Video has emerged showing the physical damage of the rapes on hostages. It should remain in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Icrin7 please familiarise yourself with the reliable sources policy. Riposte97 (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
IDF confirms Islamic State flag found on terrorist killed during attack on kibbutz
Does this mean we can say that Daesh are involved in this war or would that still be perceived as speulation? שי 08:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hamas Terrorists Hung An ISIS Flag While Attacking A Kibbutz In Israel - I24NEWS confirmed by i24 news שי 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- officialy not really. Those Hamas terrorists who had a flag either were affialitaed with Daesh (or isis or isil or is) or brangt it as a symbolic object. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) and Hamas ideologies are similare. Both want to destroy israel and destroy the jewish religion. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) is a bit more radical.
- There could be Hamas terrorists who are even more into the ideology of Daesh (or isis or isil or is).
- Officially it's just a flag of Daesh (or isis or isil or is). Those who had it are probably now dead. We can't really find it out anymore UNLESS Daesh (or isis or isil or is) publicly announces it support of Hamas and their role, like they did in their lone wolves terror attacks in brussels and paris. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The same Daesh that Hamas spent resources and man power fighting since 2007? What kind of IDF Salary are you being payed to spread this? If you’re really going to believe one sagacious tweet by an entity then I have reason to believe that Hamas are controlling Beersheeba (despite clashes being heard there and Dimona) A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are small salafist/ISIS type cells in the strip, they don't usually get along with Hamas but it's possible one took part in the attack. The Israeli claim can be contextualized as such. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The same Daesh that Hamas spent resources and man power fighting since 2007? What kind of IDF Salary are you being payed to spread this? If you’re really going to believe one sagacious tweet by an entity then I have reason to believe that Hamas are controlling Beersheeba (despite clashes being heard there and Dimona) A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Israeli death toll is 1,400
- https://t.me/Eng_ahed/48552 77.248.247.89 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Still speculative imo, as ISIL hasn't claimed invlvement. Further, even if a handful of the thousands who took part in the incursion were part of an ISIL cell, might still be WP:UNDUE. Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Videos have also shown ISIS flags being flown in Sydney, Australia at a Pro-Palestinian Freedom Rally. The association between ISIS and Hamas exists outside this incident and maybe should be mentioned in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Decades ago I attended many protests. There are always some people you would rather not be there. That's life. Why do unknown people carrying flags 9,000 miles from Gaza belong here? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
1 sentence in lead for background
I added a sentence in the lead for background:
Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinians clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin had killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis.[a][2][1][3][4][5][6]
All the sources for this sentence are regarding the current war. They all use a variant of this sentence to give necessary context for the war. Since it is only a sentence I don't think its UNDUE. Nor is it POV, since it simly states the fact and no opinions.VR talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) VR talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think the citations may be excessive. FunLater (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- support. the pre-war related incidents that contributed to its occurrence need to be mentioned, similar to any other war on wikipedia Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. For the lead of Six Day war we have an entire paragraph on pre-war events.VR talk 14:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note:
- - How much of Israel/Palestine conflicts are directly attributable to this 2023 war? Technically you could argue the entire 70+ year long conflict contributes to this war, but I don’t think summarizing all that is the right thing to do.
- - The more direct background I see is the Hamas, their 2 decades of conflict with Israel, and the fact that they planned this attack for 2 years (see my comments in this section below) Merlinsorca 18:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. For the lead of Six Day war we have an entire paragraph on pre-war events.VR talk 14:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- A few more sources that mention this: The Hindu[30], Japan Times[31], L'Orient-Le Jour[32]. BBC coverage said "
For months, it has been clear that there was a deepening risk of an explosion between Palestinian armed groups and Israel....Armed Palestinians, especially those operating out of the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus, have attacked Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers. The Israeli army has mounted dozens of raids. Armed settlers have taken the law into their own hands, with reprisals against Palestinian villages.
"VR talk 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Vice regent thanks for pointing me to this discussion and for your edits. cc @Alexandria Bucephalous @Makeandtoss
- I would also say linking to one of the clashes is enough, and we can avoid including any sort of casualty figures (for instance, see how we mention 9/11 in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article lead).
- Even so, considering this was a highly planned and coordinated attack, I think it’s a mistake trying to tie this attack to any one of the 2023 events: Reuters says this attack actually took 2 years of planning. I think we should mention this "2 years of planning", as well as the broader conflict, and deemphasize the 2023 events - but I’d keep the Al-Aqsa mosque for now, even though since they planned it for years, Hamas may just be retroactively citing that as a cause for the attack.
Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades. Months prior to the war, tensions rose between Israel and Palestinians due to clashes, like at the Al-Aqsa mosque, but Hamas remained quiet.[33] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack for two years, and surprised Israel.[34] The attack itself...
Merlinsorca 17:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades, but in the two years leading up to the 2023 war, Hamas refrained from making attacks.[35] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack, and surprised Israel.[51] The attack itself..
Merlinsorca 18:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- I don't think we have strong enough evidence that this attack was 2 years in the planning. Some sources say "weeks", some say "months". Also, the casualty fiures are there to give some indication as to how serious the conflict had gotten in 2023. Otherwise if we just say "tensions" that is vague.VR talk 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe not planning the attack for 2 years, but it seems that reliable sources, like the Reuters source I linked, use the same anonymous Hamas source that says Hamas for years deceived Israel by pretending to be more interested in economy.
- Just note the distinction between Palestinian militants and Hamas specifically, as well as Palestinian territories and Gaza. This article is focused on Israel and Hamas.
- What about this:
Fighting between Israel and Hamas has happened sporadically since 2006. Months prior to the war, clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from attacks against Israel. The attack from Hamas surprised Israel, beginning in the early morning...
Merlinsorca 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for working with me on this. But from what I've read Hamas did attack Israel before the attack. Israel killed a Gazan on Sep 20[36] and there's indication that those fired upon Israeli soldiers in Jenin in Sep 2023 may have been affiliated with Hamas[37] but the source doesn't directly say this.
- How about this:
Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months leading up to the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 247 Palestinians and 32 Israelis.
. I think the "surprise" part can be mentioned below as part of Israel's intelligence failure - by now there is international consensus that Israel's intelligence failed to predict this.VR talk 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- Then let’s mention that Hamas didn’t make any "major" attacks, or "participate in major engagements". That would be more accurate, and I strongly feel we should be talking more about what Hamas was doing as they’re one of the two main subjects of this article, rather than focusing on other conflicts with Palestinians - which are relevant, but they are not the ones at war with Israel now.
- In the previous discussion, there was agreement that background events themselves should not be given too much specificity (meaning, if we include links, don’t include casualty numbers - people can view the articles for casualty numbers of the background events).
Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months before the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes intensified, such as at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin, and Gaza, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from participating in major engagements.
Merlinsorca 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- Ok, three things:
- Are there a LOT of sources that say Hamas refrained from doing so? It seems like a controversial claim to make and let me dig up sources that say the opposite. It might also be undue for the lead because there are lots of other facts that are more widely covered in RS (like blockade of Gaza, occupation since 1967 etc).
- I think including casualty count is important because it demonstrates significance. Israelis and Palestinians clash on a daily basis in the territories, but 245 Palestinian and 32 Israelis killed is a big deal. Its also mentioned by more than a dozen RS
- We should take 2-3 words to mention the occupation or blockade here. That's the whole reason why clashes have been happening and this connection hve been made by a lot of RS, see this section.VR talk 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- 1. "Hamas stayed out of two fights in the past year, allowing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a smaller armed group in Gaza, to take on Israel alone. Last month, Hamas leadership also ended a period of rioting along the border, in an agreement brokered by Qatar, giving the impression that it was not looking for an escalation."[38] "This ongoing absence has raised questions about the motives behind Hamas’s self-imposed neutralization, and whether these motives stem from actual convictions or from political calculations and internal shifts within the movement"[39]
- 2. My point is that Palestinians are not Hamas; why do we need to provide specificity to non-Hamas conflicts? Again, we didn’t need to tell readers about the number of deaths on 9/11 in the war on Afghanistan article, despite previous terrorist attacks in the U.S. not killing as many people. Readers in this war article can go click on those background events.
- 3. I would consider mentioning the blockade because it directly involves Gaza, which Hamas governs. Just note we do mention and link to the blockade in the paragraph below. Merlinsorca 20:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, three things:
- I don't think we have strong enough evidence that this attack was 2 years in the planning. Some sources say "weeks", some say "months". Also, the casualty fiures are there to give some indication as to how serious the conflict had gotten in 2023. Otherwise if we just say "tensions" that is vague.VR talk 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
1. Ok, thanks, but Washington Post paints the opposite picture (emphasis added):
Just last month, Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules Gaza, appeared to be on the brink of war. Israeli border agents found explosive material hidden in a shipment of jeans and halted all exports from the Gaza Strip. Hamas put its forces on high alert and held field exercises with other armed groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The drills included practice rocket launches, ambushes and the “storming” of settlements, local media in Gaza reported, in an apparent preview of the attacks launched on Saturday. Hamas also allowed Palestinians to begin protesting again along the separation fence between Israel and Gaza, where young demonstrators have faced off against Israeli soldiers. On Sept. 13, five Palestinians were killed when they attempted to detonate an explosive at the barrier wall. “It has been quiet, but it is beginning to boil,” Basem Naim, head of Hamas’s Political and International Relations Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post in September. “There is a lot of pressure under the water.” The tensions in Gaza followed a violent summer in the West Bank, where tit-for-tat attacks flared between Palestinian militants on one side and Israeli forces and Jewish settlers on the other. Israel staged multiple military raids in the city of Jenin, where it said militants were planning attacks on Israeli troops and civilians. On June 19, Israeli forces raided Jenin and killed at least five Palestinians, deploying Apache helicopters in the West Bank for the first time since the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which lasted from 2000 to 2005. The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis. And on June 21, hundreds of Israeli settlers rampaged through Palestinian villages — including Turmus Ayya, where one person was killed — torching homes and cars, as well as shooting at residents...
How can we reconcile these sources?
2. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the 9/11 casualty figures at War in Afghanistan but I suspect thats because everyone knows how big 9/11 was. Most readers won't know about these specific incidents. And tbh, each of the specific incident isn't that big, but together they show a picture that many RS say is significant. Keep in mind that Hamas doesn't just care about Gaza as they've repeatedly made it a point to attack Israel when they feel upset about what happens at Al-Aqsa mosque or West Bank.
3. Yeah we just to figure out what the best wording is to mention the blockade and occupation without bloating lead. Maybe we can start with something like "Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.
" This is balanced and mentions the grievance of both sides and provides context as to why Israel and Hamas keep going to war.VR talk 21:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- 1. That’s a good find and I think it contains lots of info we should include in the lead. The source says "the brink", "beginning" to boil, "it has been quiet" which means no direct violence, but a buildup. We also see Hamas practicing ambushes and storming settlements, which is also great background info. I say this does not paint the opposite picture; in fact it supports my earlier argument that Hamas did not engage in any major engagements, because while there is noticeable buildup from Hamas in 2023 and minor clashes, those do not constitute a major engagement.
- 2. Al-Aqsa is the one I could consider keeping linked because I know there’s a source for Hamas explicitly referencing it as a cause of their attack, but AFAIK that is not the case for the rest, and including them would be WP:SYN
- 3. I like the new wording you’ve proposed.
- How about this?
Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. Hamas refrained from major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023,[40][41] when clashes between Israel and other Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. [42]
Merlinsorca 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- to be more comprehensive (since not every clash is a war) the first sentence could be:
Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have engaged in several conflicts;
Merlinsorca 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- I'm ok with that, but I'd still prefer war, because they have indeed engaged in several full blown wars. The minor clashes they may have engaged it in are not even lead worthy, but the wars are. Still I'm ok with your proposal.VR talk 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Any opinions from @Alexandria Bucephalous:, @Makeandtoss: or @Selfstudier:? VR talk 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent I have added the content almost exactly as in the original version I suggested (a few minor improvements to reduce wordiness). There is room for further revision but we’re on the right track with this prose. Merlinsorca 05:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Same, I like this proposal the best (but prefer "war"). It's broad, which it should be, because many readers won't even be familiar with the basics of the I-P conflict. Practically all Western news outlets had to run 'explainers' when the war broke out, and this does a good job. DFlhb (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note @DFlhb and @Vice regent, both KlayCax and I thought the sentence
Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.
was problematic. - The problem I see is that it attracts editors and readers to add bloat to the lead; I saw someone add "Israeli settler violence" to the sentence within minutes. You can imagine editors from all sides of the issue trying to add more and more grievances of the side they support.
- To stop this I made the sentence neutralized:
Israelis and Palestinians in general held grievances toward each other since the mid-20th century.
- In that sentence we can maybe wikilink to one of the broader conflict articles, or even to the article’s background section.
- I just don’t want to keep maintaining the original sentence when it gets out of control with grievances. Merlinsorca 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- If we reach consensus on keeping the original sentence (the one in the diff I linked), then we can revert changes, and add an invisible comment stating that it shouldn't be changed without new consensus. 1RR would be an obstacle but it's doable. But I'm not opposed to this compromise. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm very much opposed to the generic statement of "held grievances towards each other". It's incredibly vague and doesn't convey the gravity of the situation. I agree with DFlhb that once we reach consensus on this we can prevent others from adding bloat to this.VR talk 12:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not opposed to what you reverted this to, and if you can help maintain this version as is, I am in support.
- But just a couple of things:
- - the point generic statement of "held grievances towards each other" is exactly to be generic, and neutral, while linking to the background section where we can go into full detail.
- - This version of the sentence is almost like an invitation for editors of both sides to engage in edit warring and add more and more grievances. Think about our strategy for maintaining this not just days, but months down the line. Future editors will very likely say:
- "I found sources that document war crimes caused by Israel, I want to insert war crimes as one of the grievances"
- "What about Israel airstrikes? Let's add indiscriminate air strikes killing civilians as another grievance"
- "There's the source about the 2023 clash at the Mosque, and Hamas referenced that specifically, so let's also add that to the list"
- "Aren’t we showing bias by listing the grievances of one side first? Why not list Israel first?"
- "Why do Palestinians get two grievances, but Israel only gets one? Let's balance it out!"
- "So many reliable sources are calling Hamas terrorists, so we have to include anti-terrorism in the list for Israel!"
- ...and on and on and on. It’ll never end. Merlinsorca 12:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You restored it without the links; was that intentional? DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note @DFlhb and @Vice regent, both KlayCax and I thought the sentence
- Any opinions from @Alexandria Bucephalous:, @Makeandtoss: or @Selfstudier:? VR talk 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that, but I'd still prefer war, because they have indeed engaged in several full blown wars. The minor clashes they may have engaged it in are not even lead worthy, but the wars are. Still I'm ok with your proposal.VR talk 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Should be a high level summary of Background section.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would oppose to this change. This is a variety of WP:SYN. Such change implies that there is a casual connection between the Hamas attack and these previous recent events. There was none because the militants were working to prepare this attack during 2 last years according to publications. Everything is connected to everything, but one needs RS which explicitly make such connection. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with @My very best wishes’s sentiment - we can’t just reference any recent Palestinian / Israeli conflict and imply that there’s a relationship between this war with Hamas. Otherwise, we would have to summarize the entire history of Israel / Palestine going back 70 years. I’d prefer to focus on Hamas. Merlinsorca 19:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The inserted text says: Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds.... First of all, the "clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin" are linked to year 2023. Do majority of sources makes an unequivocal connection between this particular attack by Hamas war and these specific events? I do not see it. Actually, the attack by Hamas was completely unexpected. Secondly, everyone knows about the conflict in general. Why repeat it here? Also, see my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Did you see the 11 sources I cited at the top of this section (+ WashingtonPost source just a few minutes ago) that mention these attacks as relevant context? Second, whether the attacks are expected is disputed. A piece in Foreign Policy written by a Harvard professor says the Palestinian attack was "provoked" by Israeli occupation. A Princeton University professor wrote in the Washington Post that the attack "should not have surprised anyone" given events this year at Al-Aqsa mosque. It is way too early to draw a specific connection, but RS are already trying to provide necessary context and so should we.VR talk 22:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the context is relevant. However, it needs to be explained (as in the article by WaPo), which we can not do in the lead. Rather, we should just focus on the subject/summary of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I linked the Gaza blockade and added Israeli settler violence per WSJ and another source I can’t remember, make sure to link these if your re-editing them Bobisland (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose inclusion in the lead as well. It was added in without consensus. Can someone revert it temporarily until we get a consensus on this? The new wording has significant problems.
- It's 1:41 AM here and I need to go to bed. @My very best wishes: @Vice regent: @Merlinsorca: KlayCax (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax I believe the above discussion is about opposing the text
Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds
- Which is why we rewrote most of the paragraph with new prose that is very different:
Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths.
- Rather than requesting to revert the entire paragraph worth of changes, please quote the specific text that you find problematic and propose your suggestions. Merlinsorca 06:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.
Seems a bit sweeping.- Various jihadist (and arguably Hamas) want Israel totally destroyed. Not just the settlements/settler violence being abolished and/or ending.
- Marxist-Leninist Palestinian groups see Israel as a settler colonial state.
- The meaning of "Palestinian" and "Israeli" is unclear here.
- I'd be okay with the other parts remaining. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I agree that the sentence is problematic, but mainly because it attracts editors to add bloat.
Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.
- Someone already added "Israeli settler violence" to our original sentence, and I can imagine other editors repeatedly adding more and more grievances on both sides to make it more balanced in their eyes.
- Note, it seems two of your reasons are ideological; let’s try to keep the discussion on the merits of producing a quality article. Merlinsorca 07:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- to trim the announcement to why a war started which makes one side look bad seems like whitewashing and people aren’t adding grievances they’re adding Hamas statements which is cutting off a very notable portion of the war, if the fear is perpetual bloating then consensus can be met to ensure it isn’t expanded upon a certain point Bobisland (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Bobisland If it were "Israeli settler violence" alone, it would be fine to include in the lead section, but Hamas and Palestinians in general have a list of justifications for this war: the clash at the mosque, the blockade, the occupation / seizing of land, etc. and now it seems editors want to list all of those individually in the lead section.
- Now other editors may want to list, 3 or 4 items on the Israeli grievances side to try and keep it balanced.
- This is not sustainable, is too much for the lead section, and seems ripe for edit warring, but I would fully support all those details being outlined in the background section. Merlinsorca 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- to trim the announcement to why a war started which makes one side look bad seems like whitewashing and people aren’t adding grievances they’re adding Hamas statements which is cutting off a very notable portion of the war, if the fear is perpetual bloating then consensus can be met to ensure it isn’t expanded upon a certain point Bobisland (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax I believe the above discussion is about opposing the text
- Yes, the context is relevant. However, it needs to be explained (as in the article by WaPo), which we can not do in the lead. Rather, we should just focus on the subject/summary of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Did you see the 11 sources I cited at the top of this section (+ WashingtonPost source just a few minutes ago) that mention these attacks as relevant context? Second, whether the attacks are expected is disputed. A piece in Foreign Policy written by a Harvard professor says the Palestinian attack was "provoked" by Israeli occupation. A Princeton University professor wrote in the Washington Post that the attack "should not have surprised anyone" given events this year at Al-Aqsa mosque. It is way too early to draw a specific connection, but RS are already trying to provide necessary context and so should we.VR talk 22:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The inserted text says: Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds.... First of all, the "clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin" are linked to year 2023. Do majority of sources makes an unequivocal connection between this particular attack by Hamas war and these specific events? I do not see it. Actually, the attack by Hamas was completely unexpected. Secondly, everyone knows about the conflict in general. Why repeat it here? Also, see my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I restored the agreed upon text above, with "blame" instead of "aim". Otherwise, please respect the agreed upon text.VR talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything close to consensus in this. What's more the text you're proposing is problematic for three reasons. First off it conflates Hamas with Palestinians, but while Hamas are Palestinians clearly not all Palestinians are Hamas and would probably be horrified to be characterized as such. Second it tries to divine Hamas' motives in a single sentence which is also highly problematic because we don't know Hamas' motives and alot of reports say that it wasn't even all of Hamas but just sections of their military wing that was even aware this would take place. Finally, the prose honestly don't sound so great and it doesn't read well in the section people try to insert it in to in the lead. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Clashes before attack
Merlinsorca, I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this: Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This attack began in the early morning with...
I'd replace it with: Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinain clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; Hamas' role in these engagements is debated. On Oct 7, Hamas launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which it says it had been preparing for two years, with a rocket barrage...
Here are my reasons:
- We shouldn't state in wikivoice that Hamas prepared the attack for two years as it is too early and there is still contradictory information coming out. Let's attribute it to Hamas.
- Above I pointed to RS that showed Hamas militants opened fire earlier in 2023 killing 4 Israelis in one incident alone. That's not insignificant. But since other RS do say Hamas didn't engage then we can say the issue is "debated".
- A minor thing but clashes should not be called between "Israel and Palestinians" because some clashes happened with Israeli settlers, who don't act on behalf of the Israeli state, so "Israeli-Palestinian clashes" is better and more concise.
- Also minor, but I replaced "hundreds" (which is vague and could mean as high as 900) with the exact figure.
VR talk 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent I oppose rewriting it with that new version. I argue we already include specific death tolls for the 2023 clashes inside a note, which is more than sufficient. It’s better to list and link to all those individual background conflicts in the background section (see my previous comments for that, and other arguments).
- But I support immediately making this change:
- - using the phrase "Israeli-Palestinian clashes"
- Merlinsorca 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you explain your opposition so that I can then address them and propose a new version?VR talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the rewrite because:
- - merely saying "debated" is inaccurate - I thought we reached consensus when we both reviewed sources indicating the lessened activity of Hamas in the time leading up to the attack. I haven’t seen enough RS actually debating this. The Wikipedia articles on Mosque clashes doesn’t attribute the clashes to Hamas. Jenin apparently only had one Hamas militant. Perhaps use phrasing like "there was less involvement from Hamas"
- - I thought you disagreed on the phrasing about "preparing for for two years", which is why I used "appeared to prepare" - if you think RS now describe two years of preparation I would support that as well.
- - I also want to avoid both linking each background event and including death tolls because that detail belongs in the background section, as per my previous comments
- Thanks for the discussion and your work on this article Merlinsorca 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the rewrite because:
- Can you explain your opposition so that I can then address them and propose a new version?VR talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
1. I think I missed one of your comments above, that's my fault. But as I said Hamas did make at least one major attack[43]: "The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis". By contrast the Palestinian 2006 Gaza cross-border raid which sparked Israeli Operation Summer Rains killed only 2 soldiers. Killing 4 Israelis is usually treated quite seriously by Israel.
2. I was objecting to saying preparing in wikivoice. But I'm ok to say "it says it had been preparing for two years" because that is attributed.
3. I can agree to not linking each background even (though I think linking the Al-Aqsa one might be quite relevant given Hamas choice of name for its operation), but I thought you agreed on including death toll below ("I support being more specific with the death toll...").VR talk 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Apartheid
KlayCax I noticed you added[44] "an Israeli policy of apartheid". I think that is quite controversial. While the Israeli occupation and blockade are universally accepted facts, apartheid is not.VR talk 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Right, I'm aware. The wording is intended to say that they view it that way. Not that Wikivoice is necessarily saying that it is.
- I personally don't think it should be in the lead. But it's a more common justification than settler violence. KlayCax (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- KlayCax I don't think settler violence should be in the lead either. If you're not so sure, can I remove it?VR talk 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, although I'd prefer the reasoning is left to the background section. :) @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- This new completely rewritten block isn’t what we agreed, and expanding this to broad groups like Muslims and political left is irrelevant. It also requires us to be wordy, repeating "what they viewed" "what they viewed" "what they viewed". Can we revert? @KlayCax @Vice regent
Many Muslims and those on the political left supported the war against Israel, citing what they viewed as an Israeli policy of apartheid, the Egyptian-Israeli blockade of Gaza, and what they viewed as an illegal occupation of the territories for the violence, citing the Palestinian militants goals as a application and example of decolonization in action and a form of indigenous struggle against what they viewed as a settler colonial power
Merlinsorca 18:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)- Note @Vice regent, as I argued previously, trying to list the grievances of both sides is an invitation for edit warring - as editors try to add more and more grievances.
- The problem is specificity without being comprehensive. If you say Palestinians want A, and Israelis want X, then that doesn’t paint a full picture in the eyes of editors, who will invariably edit war to make it "Palestinians want A, B, C, and Israelis want X, Y, and Z", and on and on. KlayCax here even tried to expand to include Muslims in general, and the political left.
- Remember that this is about a war between Hamas and Israel. Merlinsorca 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The old wording also has problems, however. Who are the "Palestinians" in question? In contrast, many Muslims and some on the political left have directly supported the actions of Palestinian militants.
- The previous wording comes across as too vague. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea why "Muslims and those on the political left" (presumably worldwide, not just in Gaza) are presented as background/context for this war. This seems to be an oblique reference to post-attack reactions, and should be reverted. DFlhb (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. VR talk 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Muslims and leftists and lions and tigers and bears, oh no. Agree. This is absurd. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- KlayCax I don't think settler violence should be in the lead either. If you're not so sure, can I remove it?VR talk 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "More than 200 Israelis killed in surprise Hamas assault on Israel, 232 killed in Gaza".
Before Saturday's violence, at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners had been killed this year, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
apn1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Almost 1,100 killed in Israel war with Hamas".
Before Saturday, the conflict had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, this year, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials
- ^ "Hamas launches large-scale "combined attack" on Israel".
So far this year at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners have been killed in the conflict, including combatants and civilians on both sides, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
- ^ "Israel pounds Gaza as PM Netanyahu warns of 'long and difficult war'".
Before Saturday, the violence this year had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
aj1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Visits to Israel
A whole bunch of foreign officials has been visiting Israel since the war. Need help to find a way how to consolidate such info in the International reactions section. Borgenland (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Let's please not overdo the usual "Reactions" business. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I was meaning to put the full list in the international reactions article. I'm just trying to find a summarized sentence for it here. Borgenland (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is completely pro-palestine
This article clearly states the Hamas on the good side, while limits the horrific actions it did to babies and women, entire families were wiped away, burned in their house. Instead this article focuses on the safety of the Palestine people from April. Wake up! Hamas kidnapped kids and threatened to kill hostages. Hamas burned down houses to get civilians out of it and kill them. Look at the tragedy at kibbutz be'eri, the whole place smells like death! 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:C088:4426:FBA6:11B2 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- What? Do you want me to go post here a picture of a beheaded baby? I pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:8437:EE5:FB03:6FC9 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. You criticize the article for being partial, but you won't point out what sentences or claims are supposed to be partial? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Please add a picture of a dead baby by Hamas. Source: the daily telegraph (British newspaper) 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:244C:BF4:C802:D26E (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- If the photo is under a compatible license, feel free to request an edit here to add it. However, most photos on news sites (like the telegraph) are copyrighted, which is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Please add a picture of a dead baby by Hamas. Source: the daily telegraph (British newspaper) 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:244C:BF4:C802:D26E (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. You criticize the article for being partial, but you won't point out what sentences or claims are supposed to be partial? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- What? Do you want me to go post here a picture of a beheaded baby? I pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:8437:EE5:FB03:6FC9 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- This article, and all other Wikipedia articles, should not be written to identify good and bad sides. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. entropyandvodka | talk 02:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- And yet this all article completely lack's of WP:NPOV and tries to justify a massacre with infinite examples of euphemism like civilians being "captured" and not "kidnapped", and being "captives" and not "hostages". Hamas terrorists being called "militants" (even after 82 countries recognized them as terrorists). dov (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like what you're saying is that the article isn't 'neutral' because it doesn't embody your PoV. These are not euphemisms; they are the most neutral term to describe a situation with great moral complexity and must be understood within a profoundly complicated historical context. Jamesiepoo88 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Captured was used because civilians and soldiers were both taken. Hostages is generally used for civilians, while prisoner of war is generally used for soldiers. Captured and captive are the most neutral terms to describe both. Regarding the use of terrorist, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Note that terms like "freedom fighters" are also to be avoided. In what ways do you feel the article is justifying a massacre? Do you have specific examples you can point to? entropyandvodka | talk 05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- These people arent milatants or soldiers. Hamas is a recognized terror organization in many countries. Call them what they are ffs. TeRRoRiSTS. Damn libs and arabs ruining the world 2600:1017:A00A:722:1558:DD7C:A4FE:D4E7 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean he's right this isn't neutral. It is very biased in favor of Palestine. Just saying. 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you provide concrete examples? Blanket statements about the article as a whole won't lead to increased neutrality in the article. entropyandvodka | talk 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- And yet this all article completely lack's of WP:NPOV and tries to justify a massacre with infinite examples of euphemism like civilians being "captured" and not "kidnapped", and being "captives" and not "hostages". Hamas terrorists being called "militants" (even after 82 countries recognized them as terrorists). dov (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, can you back up your statement that this article "clearly states that Hamas is on the good side"? And what evidence have you concerning the "actions it did to babies"? For are you not aware that - as reported by CNN and other news outlets - even the US President is now back-tracking on claims to have seen the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't get too caught up in the way the IP OP expressed their concern. The substance needs to be addresssed. Look at the "war crimes" section: A few lines about the Hamas attack and everything it encompassed - with crimes evident on their face, beyond any doubt. Then the article has many times more text of speculation about Israeli actions, most of which have not yet occurred or may not fit the definition of "war crime" or are inaccurately described. Then lots of speculation, general condemnations of crimes, and uncontextualized claims about the actions of the Israelis. And the section is replete with quotations and opinions of self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction, one of which boasts that it's a "youth run" Norwegian outfit in Switzerland. OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thats nonsense. You have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'tselem all cited in that section. Those are not "self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction", those are reliable sources on the topic of human rights and international law, and they are cited for making explicit accusations of war crimes against Israel. You can try to pretend that your framing of that section is accurate here as you couldnt get your way in the section above, but I wont play along with that fantasy. nableezy - 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- "That's nonsense"? Nothing more focused to say? Note the difference between Amnesty International, whose words are measured and widely respected, and the random POV's of a dozen lesser outfits, including various UN monickers. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Various UN monickers? You mean the High Commissioner for Human Rights? I said considerably more than that's nonsense, I then explained why it is nonsense. nableezy - 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You mean the same organization that put Saudi Arabia in its human rights whatever arbitration committee? 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Various UN monickers? You mean the High Commissioner for Human Rights? I said considerably more than that's nonsense, I then explained why it is nonsense. nableezy - 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- "That's nonsense"? Nothing more focused to say? Note the difference between Amnesty International, whose words are measured and widely respected, and the random POV's of a dozen lesser outfits, including various UN monickers. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thats nonsense. You have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'tselem all cited in that section. Those are not "self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction", those are reliable sources on the topic of human rights and international law, and they are cited for making explicit accusations of war crimes against Israel. You can try to pretend that your framing of that section is accurate here as you couldnt get your way in the section above, but I wont play along with that fantasy. nableezy - 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia as propaganda tool in the Disinformation section
The paragraph "At times unsubstantiated claims were widely spread by news organizations that were later retracted. Reports of Hamas beheading babies were reported and repeated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesperson Ta Heinrich, while reports of sexual violence against Israeli women were repeated by President Biden. Both claims have been unsubstantiated and news outlets and the White House later clarified that Biden had based his claims off of Heinrich's comments and news reports." is pure propaganda.
Remove the whole paragraph. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTADVOCACY , WP:DE 79.181.247.63 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- In what way is it propaganda? Genabab (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- This appears to be correct, claims were made and subsequently were not confirmed by IDF/IsGov Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Israeli government or IDF don't need to confirm the claims for them to be truth. North Korea calls themselves a democracy so do we need to refer to it as such? I posted above valid sources of witnesses. Also the sources used in this paragraph don't deny the beheading, they just say that IDF and Israel didn't comment on it (didnt deny or confirm). דוב (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/
- https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl/index.html
- https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/there-is-no-proof-palestinian-fighters-beheaded-babies-the-only-source-is-a-radical-settler/
- etc etc Witnesses saying something does not constitute proof, especially when authorities are not able to confirm. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Witnesses are considered proof and have been considered as proof in Wikipedia since it was created and since humanity as started. There are over 5 international reporters with different origins that support this claim. This is more than enough to for the least not call it a "misinformation". Unless you prove all of those reporters are liars or that their Journalism certificate is invalid, you're nowhere in a situation to call those "fake news". Also head of zaka as a witness is pretty important, specially when zaka where the ones who helped indentify the bodies. דוב (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I queried the veracity of these reports since the very beginning because they did not appear in the major news outlets. Now major news outlets are reporting them as unconfirmed, so that's what they are, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Then go ahead and edit the article! It states they have been confirmed. 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)so that's what they are, unconfirmed
- I queried the veracity of these reports since the very beginning because they did not appear in the major news outlets. Now major news outlets are reporting them as unconfirmed, so that's what they are, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Witnesses are considered proof and have been considered as proof in Wikipedia since it was created and since humanity as started. There are over 5 international reporters with different origins that support this claim. This is more than enough to for the least not call it a "misinformation". Unless you prove all of those reporters are liars or that their Journalism certificate is invalid, you're nowhere in a situation to call those "fake news". Also head of zaka as a witness is pretty important, specially when zaka where the ones who helped indentify the bodies. דוב (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Israeli government or IDF don't need to confirm the claims for them to be truth. North Korea calls themselves a democracy so do we need to refer to it as such? I posted above valid sources of witnesses. Also the sources used in this paragraph don't deny the beheading, they just say that IDF and Israel didn't comment on it (didnt deny or confirm). דוב (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- None of the policy links you made apply. The paragraph is adequately sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where is the paragraph in the article? 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was removed by an administrator just over three hours after this thread was created (diff). I’m going to assume good faith and assert that it was done to prevent an edit conflict from breaking out. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where is the paragraph in the article? 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Israeli government has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister's office.
Source.VR talk 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't care.
- Everyone knows it's propaganda and this statement will probably vanish by the time the war will end. Just like a Shahid. 79.181.247.63 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Clarified with a separate section for unconfirmed reports. Reports of rape by eye witnesses from Supernova are widespread and independent but by their nature have confirmation lag behind reports of deaths. – SJ + 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's better; we can't call things "disinformation" without reliable sources calling them that. DFlhb (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, reported by major news organizations and as-yet-unconfirmed (but in no way denied or debunked) by government sources is hardly "disinformation". Were that the case, news reports about Israel's nuclear arsenal would be "disinformation". ElleTheBelle 13:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Give that the US Presented is back-tracking on statements about having seen pictures of beheadings - only now stating that he was told of about such images - are editors willing to act to prevent (or ban?) people from posting wild, questionable and dangerous statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1F0:1491:0:0:A134:1734 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI, this category in Commons now contains 59 photos for the damage that happened in Gaza Strip, which can help in this article. Batoul84 (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The images look great, but are we sure they're under the right license?
- I only looked at one photo, but it's being sold as a stock photo here: [45] FunLater (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello FunLater, all of this image given to Wiki Palestine (Q117834684) directly through Wafa (Palestinian News & Information Agency; the official governmental agency). APAimages company (local company in Gaza strip) is in direct contract with Wafa. That is, the photos are exclusive to Wafa. But the photo may have spread after Wafa published it, and someone transferred it to a stock photo. All images uploaded contains full Exif metadata. Also, there's another image from Al Araby, and they sent to WikiPalestine several original videos to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (ofc with full Exif metadata). Thanks on advance (If needed they can sent email to VRT) Batoul84 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just saw this thread now, but I've been monitoring that category and adding photos here and there for a few days. The photos from Wiki Palestine were pretty useful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Explicit link to Huwara Rampage in Background?
There is mention of increased settler violence, however I think there should be specific reference made to the Huwara rampage as this was the largest and best documented example. Can someone with edit clearance please add this explicit link to the Background section? Wschreyer (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do reliable sources make this link? Unfortunately there were many instances of settler violence, as well as anti-settler violence. Alaexis¿question? 08:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
X or Twitter?
Shouldn't this article make use of the Twitter name rather than the X name to refer to the social network, since it's the more common one and also the one used on its page? I'm asking because the also recent 2023 Herat earthquakes page uses Twitter rather than the rebranded name. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- We should use both. Either the combination Twitter and "X" in brackets or the other way around.
- AKA:
- " Twitter (X)"
- " X (Twitter)" Poles Ragge (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Since the article is titled Twitter, that should be the name used in my opinion. But I like your idea too. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:NAMECHANGES, because Twitter is now referred to as X due to its branding change, and reliable sources recognize this change, we should be using "X" instead of "Twitter."
- Saying "X (formerly Twitter)" could work as well. AstralNomad (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I second "X (formerly Twitter)" as this is how many reliable news sources cite to X. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
War crimes
Who replaced "Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as war crimes" to this ambiguous sentence "There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes."? There many sources to support the first version.[1][2] Makeandtoss (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the sentence in the intro? entropyandvodka | talk 05:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Amnesty International has also joined in.[3]
References
- ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/un-experts-say-israels-strikes-gaza-amount-collective-punishment-2023-10-12/
- ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/israel/palestine-devastating-civilian-toll-parties-flout-legal-obligations
- ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-opt-israel-must-lift-illegal-and-inhumane-blockade-on-gaza-as-power-plant-runs-out-of-fuel/
Images from the Israeli Prime Ministers Office
Heavily blurred versions can be seen here; should we be including some of the originals in the article?
My belief is that we should; they are horrific, but Wikipedia is not censored and they are indisputably relevant and important to help the reader understand the full extent of the horrors that were perpetrated. There is a question of license, though given they are being widely published (for example, the Daily Telegraph is publishing them tomorrow) I suspect they are under a compatible license - and even if they aren't, a low quality version would certainly fall under fair use. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see no reason for their inclusion. We don't need to include gore just for the sake of it. I do think we need to get rid of any amiguity if it exists regarding the slaughter of babies. We now have evidence that it did happen. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is the same reason we include horrific images at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and similar articles; because words alone cannot fully explain the atrocities committed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- They are not in the public domain, for God’s sake! Furthermore, their authenticity is yet to be confirmed by reliable sources. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can still use them under fair use; given comments elsewhere in this discussion doubting the atrocities, I think we need to. Eisenhower said about the Holocaust that people would claim it was mere propaganda; we are already seeing that here, and to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic that readers will understand and accept we need to include incontrovertible proof. BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop referring to the Holocaust. It belittles what happened during the actual Holocaust. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- All efforts now should be on publishing an NPOV mainstream narrative of events. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can still use them under fair use; given comments elsewhere in this discussion doubting the atrocities, I think we need to. Eisenhower said about the Holocaust that people would claim it was mere propaganda; we are already seeing that here, and to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic that readers will understand and accept we need to include incontrovertible proof. BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
10/7 truthers?
I wonder whether this article should discuss conspiracy theories about the attacks (which are already becoming quite prominent online) or whether it’s better to create a separate article for them. To cite just one example, Nick Fuentes claimed the Israeli government knew about the attack beforehand but let it happen because it stood to gain from it. Others have straight up called it a Mossad false flag. Conspiracy theories about other countries secretly being behind the attacks could fit too. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. Nick Fuentes as about as WP:UNDUE as you can get. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, but I think that commenting on mainstream allegations of falseflag attacks and bombings is pertient to the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If reliable sources say "so and so far right personality pushed a conspiracy theory", maybe, but AFAIK that's not the case yet. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, but I think that commenting on mainstream allegations of falseflag attacks and bombings is pertient to the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Article length and timeline format
The timeline format is going to quickly become unsustainable over the following days and weeks as developments continue to occur. We might consider shunting the details out to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and other child articles so we can start formatting this article around WP:SUMMARY style instead of a timeline style. Getting the structure correct now will make long term maintenance much easier.
I also suggest limiting how much content is written under "reactions" and "analysis". Otherwise they're going to keep adding up anytime anyone says anything. Basically, if it's the individual opinion of one person who isn't involved in the conflict, it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support limiting the timeline section, given the spin off Timeline article. fgnievinski (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support both suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Displaced numbers in Israel
There are many thousands of people displaced in Israel, as their homes near Gaza are destroyed. Why are those numbers not mentioned? barabum (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- They can be mentioned in the casualties section of the info box, but there needs to be a relevant citation of the number displaced The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- This should be included in the main text of the article. The numbers are uncertain from what I can find, ranging from 1,000-10,000 Israelis displaced. It is unfair for the article to only mention the possible displacement of Gazans during an Israeli invasion. Icrin7 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Last number I saw of displacements in Gaza was 338,000 and that was before 1.1 million were told to leave their homes. (There is likely some duplication between those numbers.) If your aim is fairness, frankly it looks even worse if you include numbers on both sides given the disparity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you've got RS for it, it should be described in the Impact section, under the In Israel subsection. entropyandvodka | talk 10:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Remove settlements near Gaza fully retaken by 9th
"Israeli Defense Forces report they have retaken and fully control all communities around the Gaza Strip on 9 October"
But on the map right above it, there is a continuing change of borders of regions with a presence of Palestinian fighters. While initially, they may have retaken some land, it doesn't look as if it's still the case to say "all of it" is retaken. Genabab (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The map is entirely based on original research and conflicts with reliable sources that are readily available. For example, there is no historical evidence to support the claim that Nir Am was ever captured. I intend to delete the map, and I kindly request that it not be reinstated unless a reliable source is presented to substantiate its accuracy. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Infinity Knight: "map is entirely based on original research" This is a false statement. Sources are provided at the commons page for every single locality which has reported clashes or arrests of militants in the past 24 hours, here is the source for Nir Am. [46] Ecrusized (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Could someone who's good at maps fix it, so we can bring it back? DFlhb (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Easier said than done with all the confusion and conflicting information regarding the frontlines The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than trying to show frontlines, perhaps we should show:
- The evacuated region
- The location of major airstrikes
- The location of major rocket attacks
- The location of towns invaded by militants
- The location of massacres
- This is all information that is verifiable, and is highly relevant to understanding the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing
Times of Israel reports:
Israeli diplomat attacked in Beijing
An Israeli embassy staffer in Beijing has been hospitalized after an attack, Israel’s Foreign Ministry says.
The diplomat is in stable condition.
A motive for the attack, which did not occur at the embassy, is being probed, the ministry says.
Israelis and Jews worldwide have been advised to be on alert Friday after Hamas called for a “day of rage.” שי - LionFireKing404 08:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No connection to this article shown at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The same way the Egypt shooting is connected. It's an international reaction to the conflict. שי - LionFireKing404 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- What is your source for this claim? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- i24 News, and Times of Israel, the link of which is included in my first message in this topic. שי - LionFireKing404 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No connection is shown in your link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is likely to do with the Day of Rage called by Khaled Mashal שי - LionFireKing404 14:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but we need a RS to draw that link. Otherwise we're speculating. Riposte97 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-china-attack-d572e4169dd7f451cb2b2197506bc74c
- Not to speculate but apparently the suspect was non-Chinese. Borgenland (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but we need a RS to draw that link. Otherwise we're speculating. Riposte97 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is likely to do with the Day of Rage called by Khaled Mashal שי - LionFireKing404 14:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No connection is shown in your link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- i24 News, and Times of Israel, the link of which is included in my first message in this topic. שי - LionFireKing404 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- What is your source for this claim? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The same way the Egypt shooting is connected. It's an international reaction to the conflict. שי - LionFireKing404 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Add IDF statement to Reaction Section
It's clear that there are going to be people who think the IDF are targeting civilians. The IDF have released this statement three hours ago at the time of writing. The Times of Israel writes the following:
IDF trying to minimize harm to Gazan civilians, spokesman says
After ordering residents of Gaza City to evacuate, IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stresses that Israel does not want to harm Palestinian civilians.
“We are fighting a terror group, not the Gazan population. We want civilians not to be harmed, but we cannot live with the rule of Hamas-ISIS near our border,” Hagari says in a call with reporters.
He says the order to evacuate Palestinians from the area is intended to enable “freedom of action and to deepen the damage” against Hamas.
“Hamas carried out one of the most horrific acts the world has seen, we are carrying out an effort to evacuate residents in order to deepen the damage, to collapse this organization,” Hagari says.
After the UN says such an evacuation within 24 hours would be impossible, Hagari says, “We understand it will take several days.”
“We are conveying [the warning] through communication channels and in Arabic, there are ways for the message to reach the population,” he adds. “Whoever does not listen to these recommendations, puts his family in danger.”
He says that in the past day, there had been a number of clashes between troops and terrorists along the Gaza border fence, but few incidents in Israeli territory.
The IDF believes it has located the vast majority of terrorists who infiltrated Israel last weekend, and that no new terrorists have managed to infiltrate into the country in recent days.
Hagari also says the IDF is still focusing its efforts to kill senior Hamas members. שי - LionFireKing404 08:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Blood of Gazans is on Hamas for telling residents not to flee, IDF says
- IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari in a press conference says Hamas is responsible for any harm to civilians who do not evacuate from the northern part of the Gaza Strip.
- “Hamas is taking advantage of the residents of the Gaza Strip, bringing disaster upon them and calling on the residents of the Gaza Strip at this time as well not to listen to the IDF’s recommendations,” Hagari says.
- “The responsibility for what may happen to those who do not evacuate is on Hamas’s head,” he says.
- Hagari says the IDF is “preparing for the next stages of the war” and that it is “prepared to operate throughout the Middle East and wherever there is a security need.”
- Hagari says the military has so far notified the families of 120 hostages being held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
- “It keeps us awake at night, and many efforts are concentrated on this matter,” Hagari says.
- Referring to claims that hostages have been killed in Israeli strikes, Hagari says “There are many statements from Hamas, we will only report reliable information.” שי - LionFireKing404 08:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The IDF claims it doesn't want to harm civilians and shows as proof its demand that Northern Gaza's 1.1 million inhabitents leave in 24 hours. The UN calls this impossible and the Norwegian Refugee Council calls this a "war crime of forcible transfer".[47][48] O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Correction: with the latest news footage showing the true degree bombing and killing, no amount of press releases are going to hide the fact that the IDF are punishing civilians. For, as a growing number of people are starting to understand, if Israel continues with its' terror attacks, the results will be nothing short of a war crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.158 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- If all the Jews don't agree to go peacefully to Auschwitz, is that a war crime, Goebbels? 185.182.71.17 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Holocaust comparison belittles the event and is a form of Holocaust Denial. I'd advise you against making such future statements and find an alternative and fitting comparison. שי - LionFireKing404 14:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Clearly, until recent events, no reasonable person would have had the right to compared the actions of the Israeli Government to the Holocaust. Now, if one million people are forced to leave their land - and their homes are turned to dust - will not people have every reason to make such a comparison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
An Israeli embassy employee was attacked in China
See [49]. I don't know which section I should put it in BlackShadowG (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No connection is shown to this war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/ that's enough for me 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please note there's already a topic for this above: #Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Infobox map color and legend
I think the hashed red/yellow color for "areas of Gaza ordered by Israel to be evacuated" is confusing, because normally doesn't that signify physically occupied/contested areas on war maps? Also the legend in the infobox does not include this info. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Exobiotic: A solid color could be applied to show the evacuation order in Gaza, if this is what users prefer. Ecrusized (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The file has been modified, let me know if this is better, other changes can also be applied. You can also edit the file using Inkscape or other vector editors. Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Israeli hostage killed
according to hamas 13 Israeli and foreign hostages have been killed in Israeli air strikes france 24 أحمد توفيق (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think we can give much credence to any self-serving statements by any side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. We have no clue if they're telling the truth. ///they could have killed them before/after the bombings and blamed it on Israel. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can't trust self-serving statements from any side, Hamas, IDF, Netanyahu, or Trump's claim that if the election wasn't rigged, he would be POTUS and the war wouldn't have happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. We have no clue if they're telling the truth. ///they could have killed them before/after the bombings and blamed it on Israel. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- i understand that may be this statements be wrong and false and hamas manybe try to reduce the air strikes but can't we put this statement in the article and write that hamas didnt provide any evidence about them being killed.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Saying that Hamas alleged that 13 hostages were killed in explosions I think is fine, but only after we have more understanding of what happened. FOr now it's better to leave it alone. Keep ahold of it, and if nothing new arises then bring it up later 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Ahmed that it could be included with attribution. Indeed, it's appeared in a reliable secondary source, so I think that it should be. Riposte97 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Israeli reports of Hamas casualties
This information does not seem suitable for wikipedia yet, since it cannot be confirmed and some say 1,000 and others 1,500 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/1799-gazans-have-been-killed-6388-injured-in-idf-airstrikes-this-week-hamas-health-ministry/)
I would say that unless it is properly confirmed by independent sources it should not be included in the table. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Onesgje9g334: I am in favor of removing this. The number seems extremely unreliable, and Israel downgraded it from 1,500 to 1,000 in a day. Putting its reliability into doubt. Ecrusized (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- in favor of removing this, reasons similar with Ecrusized Durranistan (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say check a bunch of articles and come out with what the majority favor, or better yet what the more recent ones state. My guess is that the 1,500 count is accurate, it just took a while to count them.--RM (Be my friend) 10:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The "Context of Israeli occupation" needs to be removed
This is blatant Palestianian propaganda and entirely based on opinion; there is nothing encyclopedic about it as it is not rooted in facts. It is also the case the Gaza is NOT by any definition of the word "occupied," and frankly I don't care what propagandistic narrative the UN is trying to push, fact of the matter is it is not occupied.
It is irrelevant to the article, anyway. But it remains that it is merely opinion. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you agree 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree in the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:
- Shortcut
- WP:NOTADVOCACY
- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
- Shortcut
- WP:NOTOPINION
- Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles"
- Just called out that section for both 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree in the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you agree 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Propaganda is when we erase Israel’s horrific actions in Gaza and pretend they attacked with no provocation or reason The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- 🤦 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sir/Ma'am, you should not justify the actions of a group involved in 'crimes against humanity.' Even if someone provokes anyone, it doesn't give the provoked party any right or legitimacy to carry out 'crimes against humanity.' By this logic, Osama was also somehow provoked by the USA for 9/11. Why even use the term 'terrorist' in that context? Why have any morals in the first place? Whatever Hamas's reasons or motivations might be, it cannot negate the brutal acts they have committed. If Israel has also committed 'crimes against humanity,' it should be called out for it, irrespective of the fact that they were also provoked. It should never be justified. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- And it could be said that after 9/11, the US reacted by bombing the wrong country turning a secular gov't into a Islamic gov't, calling it "Shock and Awe", which sounds like a euphemism of terror. Which isn't close to what was done to Vietnam. There's a fine line. Fortunately, we are just tasked with reporting from RS and don't have to make these distinctions. Our opinions on such matters don't matter and this isn't a forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- when did i justified any of USA's actions? if anything i am against justification of any crime against humanity be it usa,israel,gaza or al-qaeda.i strongly believe cia(with help of isi) is totaly responsible for radicalising whole afghanistan.their own religious motivations are secondry here.usa pushed them to that limit but i also wont justify how these radicalised people conduct themselves and treats others around them.that cia didnt taught. but in anycase i agree with you and once a wise person told me in comments "Please do not make assumptions about motivations here" so ill leave that job for reliable sources which are accepted in wikipedia Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- And it could be said that after 9/11, the US reacted by bombing the wrong country turning a secular gov't into a Islamic gov't, calling it "Shock and Awe", which sounds like a euphemism of terror. Which isn't close to what was done to Vietnam. There's a fine line. Fortunately, we are just tasked with reporting from RS and don't have to make these distinctions. Our opinions on such matters don't matter and this isn't a forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- it helps if you can be specific about which sentences you think need to be addressed and provide reliable sources.
- I guess we can agree that this conflict is not isolated from Palestine-Israel conflict but as you said there might be occasions where the text can be improved FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Teacher in France murdered after calls for Islamic Jihad
Student chanted "Allah Akbar" and stabbed teacher, after Hamas called for Muslims to rise up world wide.
Along with the Israeli Ambassador who was stabbed, maybe a section for other attacks by Islamic community around the world is justified, due to this proclamation by Hamas. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/
There will be more of it 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- i don't think the french attack are related to this war, Muslim fundamentalists were always angry from france so this attack will happen even if the current war didn't happened.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- doubtful
- there haven't been reports of any Islamic terrorism in France like this in a while. I don't find this a coincidence whatsoever. Fact is, Hamas called for Islamic Jihad, and the next day a teacher was murdered by Islamic terrorism.
- Absolute connection, here. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unless the suspect admits he did it for Hamas then there is no reason to admit such. Correlation does not imply causation. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It should be included should a link to the current conflict be found then, which I suspect is just a matter of time. Meeepmep (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/france-maximum-security-alert-after-terror-attack/
- here you go 69.249.102.223 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unless the suspect admits he did it for Hamas then there is no reason to admit such. Correlation does not imply causation. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
RfC on including the attack in the list of major terrorist incidents
See here. François Robere (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Jewish schools in Amsterdam closed over Hamas calls for violence
https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/13/jewish-schools-amsterdam-closed-today-hamas-protest-call 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Similar thing in NY, but it probably belongs in the "international response" article Andre🚐 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just found article on same thing in UK, too: https://news.sky.com/story/two-uk-jewish-schools-close-in-interests-of-the-safety-of-our-precious-children-12983327 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Use of "militant" for Hamas war crimes but "terrorist" for September 11 attackers
why would no one ever describe the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks as militants, but the page describing Hamas massacres and terror uses the term militants rather than terrorists? This is bias 68.193.48.39 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nah. Actually, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. The NYT:
settlements near the Gaza Strip that came under attack by Palestinian terrorists
.[1] See? The NYT is the holy grail in wikipedia, until it is not. XavierItzm (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)- Actually, the NYT title originally used "terrorists", NYT changed it to "gunmen", and then changed it back. Which is why I've said we should slow things down. Anyhow, I had a "s" at the end of sources, indicating preponderance of RS. See WP:TERRORIST O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nah. Actually, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. The NYT:
References
- ^ "Hamas Leaves Trail of Terror in Israel". The New York Times. 10 October 2023. Retrieved 13 October 2023.
- Sources tend to name attacking groups based on their size and level of coordination, not how much terror they instill. Guerilla wars often involve attacks that would be described as terrorism if carried out by individuals or small groups; but they are called irregular militias or guerilla groups. In this case it's the coordinated militias of an entire territory, elsewhere it could be armies of a nation. – SJ + 21:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's because this is a century-long geopolitical issue with heated debate on both sides and using the word "terrorism" would be taking a side. 9/11 was something else, where there is no context or justification for the act. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Lebanese casualties
Should Lebanon (citing cross-border clashes) be included in the Foreign Casualties table or is it reserved for the Hamas attacks? Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Map
why the map in Top is different from the map in INFOBOX Please add a 1 map at one time Nauman335 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Removal of probable propaganda or disinformation campaigns.
Considering that these unverified claims of baby beheading and rape have faced retractions and disputes from reputable news outlets, it is highly probable that they may have been a part of an effort by the IDF to shape public opinion in their favor. This influence has been compounded by the spread of these unverified allegations. We need to WP:Verify solid, concrete evidence before incorporating these potentially misleading and unconstructive WP:OR "Unconfirmed reports" into Wikipedia.
As it stands, Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past. Even the most extreme terrorist groups, like ISIS or al-Qaeda, have never resorted to such actions. Such actions would likely have a end their global support for Hamas. Unfortunately, there may have been instances of violence against women, but whether it constituted sexual violence remains contested.
We should consider either removing the 'Unconfirmed reports' section due to its inclusion of dubious and unverified narratives, or alternatively, incorporating it into the existing Disinformation section. This is especially pertinent given the recent backtracking on these claims, including a reversal by the White House. StarkReport (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support incorporation into disinfo since it is quite redundant. Borgenland (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Disinformation and unconfirmed reports are separate things, and these are unconfirmed rather than disinformation. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @VintageVernacular Unverified reports, while distinct from outright disinformation, can sometimes serve as the building blocks for disinformation campaigns. Unconfirmed reports, especially those involving sensitive and unverified claims like violence against children and sexual assault, can easily be weaponized by parties with vested interests to manipulate public opinion. Placing such extensive information in an entirely separate section fails WP:Due. StarkReport (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- How is it due to include it under "disinformation" as you proposed, but not under its own section? Seems you want it labeled disinformation despite it being in another category, it's not debunked, just unverified, which we note. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- See O3000, Ret response "And the more extreme the claim, the more support is needed that there is verification. Also, the more time before adding it to see if a claim is withdrawn or debunked"
- The thing is that if not outright removing it, 'Disinformation' section can serve as a context in which to discuss the potential implications of such unverified claims in the broader context of the conflict. It's about providing a more holistic understanding of the situation and the broader dynamics at play during the conflict. StarkReport (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- The current wiki text refers to the Jerusalem Post verification, but the article I linked above also mentions Margot Haddad claiming to have verified it. There may be others. Snopes alludes to this: "A few journalists claimed to have obtained, or at least seen, visual proof (photos or video) of the deaths, though that evidence also was not publicly accessible, nor available to Snopes as of this writing." Labeling this as disinformation would also be incredibly premature given the current reports. They also note: "Jewish burial rites may complicate the search for answers, given the emphasis on the dignity of the dead and the requirement for burials to take place within 24 hours if possible. Viewing and exposing the body is also considered objectionable and disrespectful." This looks more like conflicting reports than purely-unconfirmed reports. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- How is it due to include it under "disinformation" as you proposed, but not under its own section? Seems you want it labeled disinformation despite it being in another category, it's not debunked, just unverified, which we note. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @VintageVernacular Unverified reports, while distinct from outright disinformation, can sometimes serve as the building blocks for disinformation campaigns. Unconfirmed reports, especially those involving sensitive and unverified claims like violence against children and sexual assault, can easily be weaponized by parties with vested interests to manipulate public opinion. Placing such extensive information in an entirely separate section fails WP:Due. StarkReport (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- We must be careful about claims from any side. Humans lie. This has been true throughout history -- and it seems epidemic in recent history. Nothing should be added if it isn't supported by RS. And the more extreme the claim, the more support is needed that there is verification. Also, the more time before adding it to see if a claim is withdrawn or debunked. Otherwise, we'd end up with an article on Rothchild space lasers starting forest fires. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. StarkReport (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- classic case of WP:Idontlikeit and "Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past.": plese dont assume the motivation of a millitant group and dont act like their spokesperson. Their are more relevant sources caliming the acts than the ones trying to negate or dillute it. Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You mean WP:PARTISAN pro-Israeli 'relevant sources'? Yeah, sure. This is actually a case of WP:ILIKE as well as WP:Bludgeon. It's not about assuming the motivation of any group but rather about the need for information to be WP:Verified before being extensively published in a WP:UNDUE manner. The principle of it emphasizes the importance of using reliable sources to confirm the accuracy of claims, particularly in cases where contentious allegations are involved. StarkReport (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- respectfuly sir/ma'am,There is a difference between calling something unverified information and calling something disinformation and/or asking to remove it from wikipedia at all. and no, 'wp:ilike' and wp:bludgeon is not applicable here.no one is forcing any point of view by calling it unverified claims.only pov pushing here is by people who wants this information to disappear completely from public domain because of wp:idontlikeit. These people are also acting like millitant spokesperson :' Even the most extreme terrorist groups, like ISIS or al-Qaeda, have never resorted to such actions." like really? Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- and reliable relevant sources that does not aligns with your pov dosent automaticaly becomes pro-israel. some are just pro humans but its understandable it would be difficult for many to digest. Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- You mean WP:PARTISAN pro-Israeli 'relevant sources'? Yeah, sure. This is actually a case of WP:ILIKE as well as WP:Bludgeon. It's not about assuming the motivation of any group but rather about the need for information to be WP:Verified before being extensively published in a WP:UNDUE manner. The principle of it emphasizes the importance of using reliable sources to confirm the accuracy of claims, particularly in cases where contentious allegations are involved. StarkReport (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
"Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past."
- Not a strong argument. Their primary goal is widely assumed to be inspiring rage and a counterattack; what they hope to gain from this is a mystery. I don't see anyone disputing that they massacred a large hippie music festival, and kidnapped lots of photogenic young people with no political or military connections; things they have not done before. Not counterintuitive at all if the goal is to provoke, say, a massive ground invasion as a response, and the global attention that entails whether or not one supports the target.
"Unfortunately, there may have been instances of violence against women, but whether it constituted sexual violence remains contested."
- That's a curious take on what's already sourced in the article. There is no claimed uncertainty about violence in the photographic and video evidence of kidnapped women. And I don't know that anyone has contested the sexual violence independently reported (sight or sound) by more than half a dozen witnesses who escaped. But it remains unverified, as noted by the legal scholar quoted, for the same reasons that rape is often the last sort of abuse to be verified in other contexts. – SJ + 22:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly, rape is so common in warfare it is unremarkable. (I hate that I needed to type that.) But something like 60% of sexual violence is unreported in peacetime in the US. If verified, and it is one-sided, and it is of an unusual volume, it should be included. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The argument that 'Their primary goal is widely assumed to be inspiring rage and a counterattack' is, I must say, an even less convincing stance. To begin with, when it comes to the claims of babies being burnt or beheaded, it's imperative to establish their veracity beyond a shadow of a doubt before presenting them extensively on Wikipedia. It's worth noting that the very claims in question have been met with retractions and disputes from reputable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4]
- Regarding the inclusion of claims of rape in the barbaric massacre at the festival, I don't see much of a problem with it in the "Unconfirmed Reports" section, provided they are presented in the context of the following statement: 'However, as of October 11th, Yuval Shany wrote that it was too soon to determine whether there had been a pattern of sexual assault, as there had not yet been time to formally take testimonies from victims and witnesses. These reports of sexual violence were reaffirmed by Israeli officials, US President Biden, and UK security minister Tom Tugendhat. The White House clarified that the latter statement relied on official Israeli statements and news reports.' The primary concern revolves around the highly questionable and likely disinformation claims of babies being burned or beheaded, which should either be removed until concrete evidence is found or relocated to the 'Disinformation' section. StarkReport (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Fact check: AI-generated 'burnt baby' image shared amid Israel-Hamas war". SAMMA TV. October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
- ^ Khouri, Rami G (October 13, 2023). "Watching the watchdogs: Babies and truth die together in Israel-Palestine". Al Jazeera. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
- ^ "The White House is walking back Biden's statement that he saw photographic evidence of beheaded children". Business Insider. October 12, 2023. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
- ^ Calli, Enes (October 12, 2023). "Despite refutations from Israeli military, headlines that Hamas 'beheaded babies' persist". AA. Retrieved October 14, 2023.
European Union's envoy's involvement in the paragliding instructions to gazans
The listed above person had voiced radical remarks against Israel while teaching and supplying gazans with paragliders. As explained on Forbes' yesterday article:https://forbes.co.il/e/watch-eu-envoy-demonstrates-gazans-to-paraglide/ 2A01:73C0:502:45F5:0:0:1B6:B12D (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's remarkable, but unless it can be proven that he smuggled equipment into Gaza or taught paragliding there, it doesn't belong to this article. Alaexis¿question? 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Article Title Suggested Change to Israel-Palestinian Armed Resistance War
It’s clear that Hamas is not the only active militant group in this conflict, from both other groups’ outlets and general reporting on the conflict it looks like an umbrella coalition of Palestinian Armed Resistance Groups has formed and are co-organizing. 2601:644:8584:2800:4182:6770:BC4D:D34B (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's awkward and clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Hamas is the governing body of the Strip and evidence indicates they took a leading role in the organization of this, so the title as it stands is fair. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, we can't do that. It would require that a preponderance of reliable sources use the term. WP:RS O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- These random terrorist-adjacent IPs are starting to become a problem. There is no credible source that calls it that. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please strike terrorist. This is a massive WP:PA violation. Besides, civility works better here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Please refer to the last two move requests at the top of this talk page. We have discussed the name of this article at legnth and the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS policies. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." – Fuzheado | Talk 07:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Armed Resistance Part would launch a fury of angry comments here especially once other users would start bringing out the music fest and other massacres. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to change the subtitle "war crimes"
While violence against civilians and other acts that violate the laws of war by both sides is widely reported on international media, these have not been verified by an international court. As far as the author of this proposal can see, there has not been an admission of guilt by either side.
Another problem is that the term "war crime" refers to individual acts that violate the laws of war and is different than "crimes against humanity", which refers to a systematic attack against the civilian population. It is semantically wrong that a section titled "war crimes" should discuss "crimes against humanity".
So, we should change to subtitle to one of the following:
- Civilian atrocities
- Atrocities against civilians
- Violence against civilians
Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable point; sides have accused Hamas in particular of committing not just war crimes but also crimes against humanity. I think "Atrocities against civilians" would be reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this notable enough for the "reactions" section?
- "US move of aircraft carrier closer to Israel will lead to Gaza massacre - Erdogan" Middle East Monitor
- "Erdogan claims US aircraft carrier’s arrival could lead to massacres" Times of Israel
- "Turkey's Erdogan says US move of aircraft carrier closer to Israel will lead to Gaza massacre" Reuters
- The primary source, if you want to check out the full speech (in Turkish, no subtitles).
Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Erdogan may well have a point and it is of concern. But this is in WP:CRYSTALBALL territory from one person. Besides, a carrier isn't actually necessary to create a massacre. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, but my question wasn't whether his prediction is correct but whether it is notable enough for a mention. <IP removed> 00:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- We try to avoid looking at the future. Encyclopedias document the past. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, but my question wasn't whether his prediction is correct but whether it is notable enough for a mention. <IP removed> 00:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
No mention of Palestinian citizens who were killed while fleeing to Southern Gaza, as per Israel's "warning"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-dozens-killed-while-fleeing-to-southern-gaza 41.42.158.128 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Id give it more time to settle so more news cover it before adding. There is already video and the testimony of those who were bombed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not allowed to edit but can someone do this?
So I understand that for some people it might be October 14th but rn for me it's October 13th so I'm just asking if anyone should change the length of the war from 1 week to 6 days? SupersaurYT (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The operation started around October 7 6:40 UTC+ 3, which is in about 2 hours from its first week. Don’t think it’s necessary now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Should Palestinians using civilians (both domestic civilians and hostages) as human shields be mentioned under "war crimes by palestinian militant groups"?
"Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian areas to use civilians as human shields, in violation of international law."[50]
The Israeli military has “this challenge where you have one of the most densely populated places on Earth where you have a combatant hiding behind and firing from those positions, using the civilians as human shields,”[51]
In previous conflicts with Israel, Hamas used civilians as human shields, operating from schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. Despite Hamas’ warnings and calls by international diplomats for Israel to rescind the order, Gazans fled en masse to southern Gaza throughout the day.
“John Kirby, the U.S. National Security Council spokesman, was correct today when he said that Hamas’ urging of Palestinians in Gaza to remain at home means Hamas is using these civilians as human shields. The use of human shields is a war crime. Hamas is engaging in this war crime in order to facilitate falsely accusing the Israel Defense Forces of engaging in war crimes, such as the deliberate killing of civilians.” — Orde Kittrie, FDD Senior Fellow
“Despite suffering the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Israel is doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it’s the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist organization committing more war crimes by using civilians as human shields — and the government of Egypt that won’t open a civilian corridor. Every death in Gaza is more blood on Hamas and Iran’s hands, not Israel’s.” — Richard Goldberg, FDD Senior Advisor
Tdmurlock (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it is proven that hamas used civilian shields in this war, by actual sources and not the IDF or US politicians. “Israel is doing everything to do to minimise civilian casualties” is definitely one of the understatements of all time. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- A quick search for recent sources finds the following, among many more:
- The Independent
- ABC News (David Crane, expert opinion)
- JNS
- Washington Post
- ABC News
- The Conversation
- BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- A quick search for recent sources finds the following, among many more:
- @Tdmurlock Yes, but under the condition of attribution in the text. Parham wiki (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian areas to use civilians as human shields....
Are there any areas in Gaza that aren't civilian areas? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Egypt’s role
One thing I’ve noticed is that while Israel frequently gets blamed for Gaza’s predicament (including before the attacks), it takes two to tango. The blockade wouldn’t have been possible if Egypt hadn’t also sealed off its own border with the strip. And Egypt is not letting in Palestinian refugees, either, even now that there’s a war. Surely, the same people blaming Israel for everything aren’t just going to let Egypt (a much larger country) off the hook? And conversely, you’d expect pro-Israel commentators to try deflecting blame to Egypt more often, but they seldom actually do. It’s really weird that Egypt always seems to get a free pass from both sides. Any sources on why this may be? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM. Riposte97 (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Abducted - "including 120 soldiers"
The provided source does not support this. Until we have a source that breaks down how many captured with active military personal and how many were civilians I don't think we can include this information. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. RadXman (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged with failed verification span. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's actually precisely the opposite, 120 civilians are hostage. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support, source is invalid and rather misinformation. dov (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've already replaced it. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support, source is invalid and rather misinformation. dov (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Gaza Brigades
IDF has more than 150000 active soldiers. Gaza division should be around 7500 soldiers. How many were positionned at Gaza border on October 6 ? RadXman (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas documents
@Isi96: In this edit you removed coverage of the Hamas documents detailing their intentions; while they are covered in the other article Hamas' initial war aims and intentions are also relevant to this article and I believe warrant mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I actually added it in the first place; I removed it because was unsure about where it should go. Isi96 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal I'll restore the sentence. Isi96 (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- KAN News website (public broadcasting in Israel) published additional document. I offer to mention it too. The document on NBC describes the plans to attack Kibbutz Saad. The document I propose to add contains the plans to attack Kibbutz Alumim.
- In this document, which was seized by the Israelis after Hamas' attack on israel and published by journalists, it is written: "The mission of the department - to attack Kibbutz Alumim with the aim of obtaining as many casualties as possible, taking hostages and staging within the kibbutz until further instructions are received."
- https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/566768/ 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal I'll restore the sentence. Isi96 (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Unconfirmed
- Yossi Landau, regional head of the first responder organisation ZAKA, claimed that both babies and minors had been beheaded alongside corpses of dismembered adults
- Jewish burial rites may complicate the search for answers, given the emphasis on the dignity of the dead and the requirement for burials to take place within 24 hours if possible. Viewing and exposing the body is also considered objectionable and disrespectful
Someone should write in the body of the article that these two facts along with the fact that the beheadings are "unconfirmed by outside sources" actually add up because Israel never invites people to see atrocities of enemies to use it as propaganda (Unlike Palestinians). 2A02:14F:173:FB4D:0:0:B58B:2475 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Misrepresentation in the lead section
this sentence in lead: "whilst numerous other countries, including Muslim nations, have cited the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as the root cause of the escalation". the sentence claims that numerous non muslim countries (in addition to many muslim countries) are blaming israel for the hamas acts. This is misrepresentation and unsourced information. can anyone list even two non muslim countries directly blaming israeli occupation for hamas attack?even venezuela didnt mention israeli occupation. looks like an attempt to create false equivalences. Codenamephoenix (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the full sentence it isn't ideal;
Many countries, including Western nations, have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, whilst numerous other countries, including Muslim nations, have cited the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as the root cause of the escalation
. "Numerous" is typically seen as larger than "many", despite more nations blaming Hamas than Israel. The current version was added here; I think we should revert back to the previous version, which saidAt least forty-four countries have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, while countries in the region like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Iraq have attributed the responsibility to Israel
- it's a far more accurate representation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- i agree Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed Infinity Knight (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- i agree Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: Split content on Hamas atrocities to new article. Why so much content on Hamas' atrocities in an article about a war?
Split Hamas atrocities to 2023 South Israel massacre/ 2023 Hamas' atrocities in Southern Israel.
Why so much content on Hamas' atrocities in an article about a war?
In Hebrew there is a separate article , called 2023 Surprise attack on Israel also called Sukkot massacre.
ALL the content about Hamas' atrocities should be copy-pasted to a new article called "2023 South Israel atrocities/massacre" 2A02:14F:173:62D9:0:0:B591:6BCB (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why? War crimes are a part of a war and it should be inclouded in the article. Also, the Israeli war crime section is much bigger than the Palestiniana one. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you really think that way then go ahead and Create a new article about Israel's attack 2A02:14F:172:9212:0:0:B594:5B33 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, the Israeli war crime section is much bigger than the Palestiniana one.
That's actually a problem; it violates WP:BALASP, as Hamas' war crimes have received far more coverage in reliable sources than the allegations against Israel. We need to rework the sections. BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Neither side has "Support"?
Nearly every other conflict in the 20th and 21st century has the list of supporters of each side. Leaving out the players like Iran, Syria, Qatar, the US India, etc, seems weird Gabecube45 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- We don't appear to have enough verifiable information to fill out such a section at this time. I'm sure it'll come later, as evidence appears and reliable reporting continues. AlexEng(TALK) 08:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is news like this not reliable? Genuine question I haven't done too much on here . We don't seem to know the extent of every country's involvement but the US in the support section for Israel seems like a safe bet right? [53]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-attack-israel-secretary-austin-american-aircraft-carrier-group-eastern-mediterranean/ [54]https://time.com/6322820/israel-aid-biden-congress-hamas/ Gabecube45 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- There was an RfC about having a Supported by section in infoboxes, and the practice has been deprecated. An exception can be made if an affirmative consensus is reached to have one. entropyandvodka | talk 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is news like this not reliable? Genuine question I haven't done too much on here . We don't seem to know the extent of every country's involvement but the US in the support section for Israel seems like a safe bet right? [53]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-attack-israel-secretary-austin-american-aircraft-carrier-group-eastern-mediterranean/ [54]https://time.com/6322820/israel-aid-biden-congress-hamas/ Gabecube45 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The same arguments were discussed at Russian invasion of Ukraine when it came to listing the NATO, US, Germany, or other parties as "Supporters" in the infobox; no consensus could be reached there across multiple RfCs. The nuances are too great for an infobox anyway, until the history books get written. DFlhb (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Stinch of Myths
" after the Palestinian National Authority declared war on the country during the Second Intifada of 2000–2005."
..Wow . Can I ask the smart edditor who placed that line to actually bring a decree from the office archives of Arafat , rather than his butt as a source ? . There was no so-called "declaration of War" back then except Ariel Sharon shouting Israeli-Supremacism on the Temple Mount : the same stunt that caused the 1929 Jerusalem riots , also distorted by Zionist histography being some sort of a dime-a-dozen episode of mindless drunkard Russian rage-trip . That was preceded by almost an entire decade from 1993 to 2000 where Settlements continued to grow , Area C not being handed over to the PA , and in some cases : an entire rejection of Oslo resulting in a Palestinian state , rather than "autonomy" .
I can't believe even events that are contemporary and within our lifetimes are now mythologized with stories that never existed. I ask that editors to try and substantially improve the early portion of the background section as to properly reflect the developments that occurred in an impartial manner of why pre-2nd Intifada discussions failed . This connotation of "Stubborn Palestinian , Virtuous Israeli" is just public relations propaganda , and in Wikipedia : a blatant POV . 176.44.52.30 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Israel extends deadline for more than a million Palestinians to flee northern Gaza
can someone summarise the following and add it to the relevant timeline section: The Israeli military extended the deadline to Saturday morning, it said.
The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, said it would not evacuate its schools, where hundreds of thousands have taken shelter. But it relocated its headquarters to southern Gaza, according to spokesperson Juliette Touma. Two routes can be used between the hours of 10am and 4pm local time (7am to 1pm GMT) on Saturday "without any harm" and Civilians should "take advantage of the short time to move south" from Beit Hanoun to Khan Yunis, Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesman Avichay Adraee said.Adaree furthur said:"Rest assured that Hamas leaders have taken care of themselves and are taking cover from strikes in the region. "Residents of the beach, sand, and west of Olive will also be allowed to move on Daldul and Al-Sana Streets towards Salah Al-Din and Al-Bahr Streets."
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/israel-extends-evacuation-deadline-palestinians-flee-northern-gaza/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Convoy
Hi, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria:. I reverted your edit labeling the hitting of the convoy a war crime. Does actually any source term the hitting of the convoy a war crime? To my understanding it would only be if:
- It was committed with gross carelessness
- It was intentionally performed
Has any source termed it a war crime? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have not reverted the edit again because of the page and the policy,
- https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/war-in-israel/israel-war-crime-palestinian-leader/amp/
- “ “Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes,” he said. “And not only forcing the people out of their homes but also demolishing these homes, one after the other.”
- Barghouti pointed to an air strike on a convoy of people leaving the area as another example of the struggle civilians in Gaza face.”
- hamas has called the Airstrike a war crime but I’m not sure if they should be the ones delivering the term considering the record. Israel has not said anything about it
- the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime and Israel has done it during this war, so it’s unlikely that them telling people to evacuate north Gaza then bomb them as they leave might be unintentional The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes
That part is already mentioned and I agree with you that it should remain in.“ “Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes,” he said. “And not only forcing the people out of their homes but also demolishing these homes, one after the other.”... hamas has called the Airstrike a war crime but I’m not sure if they should be the ones delivering the term considering the record. Israel has not said anything about it
Neither Israel or Palestinian militants should be quoted to accuse the other of war crimes. Of course they're going to be make mutual claims; they're not exactly neutral observers. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al. is fine. But having only Marwan Barghouti state it is a WP: Weight issue. I'm also unsure why this one strike would be worse than the other civilian casualities.- If it becomes notable somehow in the public eye, yes, it should be included. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Got it. As for the other possible war crime of the Israeli military clearly executing the unarmed, is it reliable because the video evidence is clear and the IDF spread it with the “we killed terrorists” or not because it’s on Twitter? I’ve yet to find it on mainstream media and it happened a few days ago The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have questions with the use of the word convoy not because of the morality but whether it was a legit convoy of related vehicles or just random vehicles in the refugee exodus. Borgenland (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- i agree with @KlayCax there is no source to claim it was either intentional or carelessness. and in addition to this revert, one should mention hamas' firing of both short range and long range rockets indiscriminately at israel without any warning to israeli citizens as a serious war crime and crime against humanity."Hamas launched its longest-range missile 'Ayyash 250' on northern Israel. The firing of the long-range missile, a first in the current conflict, sparked alarm in Israel. However, the Times of Israel reported that the rocket was intercepted by the Israeli air defense system. Israeli officials said that 'Ayyash 250' is the longest-range missile Hamas ever used against Israel."
- sources:https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-rocket-knocked-down-by-davids-sling-interceptor/
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/in-a-first-hamas-group-launches-long-range-ayyash-250-missile-on-israel-what-it-means-101697256047360.html
- https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/news-bulletin-reports/727861/the-ayyash-250-missile-hamas-powerful-new-weapon/en Codenamephoenix (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Displaced
Ih the “Casualties and losses” box there is no mansion of displaced Israelis, although Sderot, all Of Otef Aza’s kibbutzim, most of Ashkelon, Netivot, Ofakim and some places on the Israel-Lebanon border (e.g. Metula) have been evacuated. 77.137.64.222 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find an estimate of how many have been displaced; I've instead added "many displaced". BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Human sheild
Hamas routinely uses civilians as human shields as part of its fighting method. This is reflected, for example, in digging tunnels under civilian places and firing rockets from civilian places (which reach civilian targets such as the Bedouin diaspora: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/mayor-of-southern-bedouin-town-says-at-least-4-killed-by-rocket-fire/) or near to this places. In this case, also regarding the kidnapped people (according to the Telegraph). Thus according to what is written in isw: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-13-2023 This testimony: https://news.walla.co.il/item/3615626 The article is from December 2022 https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-releases-photos-showing-terror-groups-put-rocket-launchers-next-to-gaza-schools/amp/ This article https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1696753484-hamas-plans-to-use-israeli-civilian-hostages-as-human-shields This article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/08/hamas-scatters-hostages-gaza-deter-israel-invading/ A law passed in the United States regarding: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5427087,00.html A tunnel from 2017 under a school in Gaza: https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/unrwa-discovers-hamas-tunnel-under-gaza-schools-496394 Another tunnel https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/hamas-prevents-un-team-from-working-near-terror-tunnel-by-school-report-676400 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this topic could be considered as mass murder?
I wish I could add the category Mass murder in 2023 but it's kinda controversial. Filipinohere (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand what is considered controversial about this... it was a genocidal mass murder terrorist attack. Wiki[edia won't recognize it as such because it is very biased in favor of Palestine and they're pedantic when it comes to sourcing, but you and I know it's true, brother. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The biggest threat on Wikipedia that it tries to stay so PC and NPOV than in the end even Adolf Hitler will be considered a freedom fighter here. dov (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Structure
I'd like to inquire about the editors' viewpoints on the page's structure. One of the major concerns I see pertains to the Timeline. We're currently marking Day 597 of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and it's crucial to account for the potential that this conflict may persist for some time. Additionally, the Timeline begins on Day 1 (7 October) with "Palestinian offensive" and "Israeli response," which can make it challenging to grasp the sequence of events. While we're certainly committed to neutrality, it would be beneficial to provide a more coherent portrayal of how these events unfolded. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The way I understood it when the article was in its infancy, first ball was with the Palestinians and it took some time for the course of events to pass to Israel's initiative. Later, when the Israeli response was made, some editor started the timeline under that heading which meant every date afterwards was listed as under Israeli response, admittedly hindering a lot of events in Gaza. A few days ago I moved back October 7 as a direct subsection of the Timeline. It's still an ongoing effort to include events in Palestine from their perspective back into the timeline since a lot of these were duplicated and condensed in other sections prior to the timeline fixing. You can see that starting 8 October there haven't been much internal subsplits since the pace of events is relatively slower than in the frenzy of the first day. Borgenland (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looking down the road, there's a chance we might pull out some meaningful and clear sections from the timeline and give the Timeline own spot as a sub-page. I'm all in for blending those October 7 bits to create a more coherent picture. There are also similar splits elsewhere, and we'll probably need to deal with those one by one. We need to present a smoother account of how these events unfolded, while keeping our rock-solid dedication to neutrality. But also it's worth exploring a bigger-picture way to get rid of these divisions that make the page a bit tricky to read. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
More articles on antismeitism globally
https://www.ft.com/content/e2ccd31d-3c77-4406-8b8c-8245475c407e 69.249.102.223 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- This should also be added to the article maybe in reactions section: pro-palestine/anti-israel Protestors Shout ‘Gas the Jews’ and "fuck the jews" Outside Sydney Opera House.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- We all know that antisemitism is rampant in the world. But let us not push the narrative that the attack by Hamas was solely antisemitism or that antisemitism and anti-Israel are the same or that pro-Palestinian is antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- attack by Hamas may not solely be rooted in anti-Semitism, and no one is suggesting otherwise. What we are suggesting or requesting is to report on the slogans raised during pro-Palestine rallies, based on reliable sources provided, without introducing any original research or assumptions from anyone's side.".reactions like these are, in general, added in articles. Codenamephoenix (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- We all know that antisemitism is rampant in the world. But let us not push the narrative that the attack by Hamas was solely antisemitism or that antisemitism and anti-Israel are the same or that pro-Palestinian is antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
October 7
We've already mentioned that the main article is Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Right now, this day is kind of chaotic. So, if no one's got a problem with it, I think it's a pretty solid idea to use the intro section of the main article for all the stuff that went down on October 7. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
War Crimes
Under "War crimes" section - "According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups infiltrated homes, shot civilians en masse, and took scores of Israeli civilians as hostages into Gaza" shot civilians en masse - this section is not comprehensive enough. Please add that Hamas burned civilians (https://abcnews.go.com/International/blinken-meets-hamas-attack-survivors-pledges-us-support/story?id=103925374) and cut their throats, including those of babies (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/12/photo-baby-dead-hamas-israel-palestine-blinken/).
The title "Unconfirmed eyewitness reports" is suggestive that the mentioned reports are unreliable, thus a subjective title. I suggest to change this section to "Eyewitness reports" and put it in a subsection under war crimes. 2A0D:6FC2:4240:D200:19FD:426E:8B26:E1F8 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Help
The rest of the infobox of other articles contains "Territorial changes". Does anyone know how much of Israel was under the control of Hamas and its allies and what should be written in the infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Palestinian-Israeli conflict not Arab-Israeli
All reliable sources have identified it as being part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, whoever is changing this must seek consensus here first. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- ^ "Antisemitism Surges Around World as Israel, Hamas Clash". Voice of America News. 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Anti-Israel Protestors Shout 'Gas the Jews' Outside Sydney Opera House". The Messenger. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Hamas Supporters Abuse Israel, Jews During Pro-Palestine Protest at Sydney Opera House". Business Today. 2023-10-10. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Pro-Palestine rally at Sydney Opera House: Australia leaders condemn anti-Jewish chants". The Guardian. 2023-10-10. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Sydney government apologizes for pro-Palestine protest that had 'Gas the Jews' chants". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Jews Fear Rising Threats: 'We've Seen This Film Before'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
- ^ "Police Investigate Pro-Palestinian Protest at Sydney Opera House over Alleged Anti-Semitic Chants". Reuters. 2023-10-10. Retrieved 2023-10-14.