91.210.248.223 (talk) Tag: Reverted |
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) Reverting edit(s) by 91.210.248.223 (talk) to rev. 1185558188 by PhotogenicScientist: ECR (UV 0.1.5) Tags: Ultraviolet Undo Reverted |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:International law strictly prohibits the recruitment or use of '''children under the age of 15''' as soldiers or allowing them to participate in hostilities. This norm has a [[Customary international humanitarian law|customary character]]. Considered a [[war crime]] under Article 8 (2) (b) (xxvi) of the [[Rome Statute]] of the ICC --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 14:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Lede image == |
== Lede image == |
Revision as of 15:14, 18 November 2023
Current events | ||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Child soldiers
@BilledMammal I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at WP:RSP (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now added a note at that RSP entry.
- There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. nableezy - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram WP:RUMOUR at present, as well as an exceptional claim, so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple WP:RS supporting the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- And to be clear, that would be multiple WP:RS related to this conflict, i.e. 2023 Israel–Hamas war, not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Lede image
I know WP:NOTCENSORED, but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against MOS:SHOCK, which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like this one are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
More Israeli war crimes.
Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas". The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes 2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide, where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.
The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
USB drive
The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. nableezy - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? nableezy - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Palestine is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
“CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments”
"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"
https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ Chafique (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Israel and allegations of genocide
- 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza
- A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)
- The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)
- Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide
- Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language
- Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide
This needs to be explicitly addressed. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @XTheBedrockX: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the Rome Statute, which places it in its own category, though the Genocide Convention obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at Genocide against Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323 That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. XTheBedrockX (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
NPOV concerns
In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "denied," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.
These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to NPOV without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.
If we're going to observe an exception to MOS:DOUBT for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe WP:NPOV when doing so? PriusGod (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @PriusGod I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address any of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. nableezy - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.
- Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example,
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes"
, which you removed, is sourced to this article. - Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed
armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"
; this is supported by the following sources: Amnesty International, CNN, and the Atlantic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)- The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. nableezy - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.
- Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". nableezy - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.
- Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as
On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."
We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)- They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at AI if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. nableezy - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
They have not received far more coverage
Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.
- Read the full sentence;
On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."
- The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. nableezy - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Given that intent is part of that war crime
if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."
, an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is WP:DUE? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Given that intent is part of that war crime
- No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. nableezy - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at AI if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. nableezy - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.
- The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.
- Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.
- Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @Nableezy describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. PriusGod (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. nableezy - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Institute and Reuters were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Reuters says
A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate.
It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians. - Lieber goes further, and says
In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population.
It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Reuters says
- The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is not saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. nableezy - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all.
Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.- I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like Tom Dannenbaum. nableezy - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Institute and Reuters were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. nableezy - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: You appear to take up issue with
"simple and dry facts"
. I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)- I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence;
without detail
. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence;
- The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". nableezy - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the Criticism of Amnesty International page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. nableezy - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address any of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. nableezy - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. Chafique (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Like Russian war crimes VS Allegations of war crimes against Israel. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious Chafique (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: David Scheffer interview – SJ + 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Are the lead pictures really necessary?
Not every article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. NocheLluviosa (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a WP:NOTCENSORED violation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:SHOCK you are right; the more shocking image is valuable but shouldn't be the first thing you see when you open the article. Swapped the image with a less gory one from further down the page. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza.
"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"
"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"
“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules. The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”
He said.
someone add that, and especially the first quote.
Sources reported: Aljazeera, LBCI Lebanon, Sada El-Balad, Jordan News, Middle East Eye,The Gaurdian Chafique (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Rocket range
Please update to reflect that the rockets have not only reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but have reached all the way north and south as well. 2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Sentence in Medical Facilities
We have a sentence that reads, "Hamas has been documented to use hospitals and other medical facilities such as ambulances." What's the source for this? Every source I've read notes these are IDF allegations, not internationally verified reports, documents, or investigations. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- We're also saying, "the IDF released videos showing Hamas fighters firing from the Sheikh Hamad Hospital." But it seems in dispute that these videos do actually show that. Can we really say in Wikivoice that's what the videos show? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023
Red-link at the "Further information" section of the "Massacres" section of the article. The article "Hamas beheading incidents" appears to have been deleted. This link should be removed from the further info section. Frojas798 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Targeting of journalists
Currently, we say Reporters Without Borders conducted a preliminary investigation into the killing of Issam Abdallah, a Reuters photojournalist killed in Lebanon, and found that the strike on a clearly marked vehicle marked "Press" was purposely targeted and that the fire had come from Israel
. However, this doesn't align with the source, which outside headlines (which, per WP:HEADLINES, are not considered reliable) only says is that there was precise targeting
and that It is unlikely that the journalists were mistaken for combatants
.
Nableezy, I see you added this; can you align it with the source? BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m mostly on mobile rn and it’s kinda hard to edit like that but if I made a mistake by all means correct it, I won’t call it a revert. nableezy - 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Title of the article
Why would we not use "Alleged war crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" for this article's title? According to WP:NDESC, articles that deal with the topic of "actual accusation[s] of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law" are best titled using the word "allegations" or similar.
As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is the only body with the authority to rule on war crimes; if any other person or governmental organization decisively terms something a "war crime", that doesn't make it so. Could anyone shed some light on how a definitive ruling of what IS a war crime is made? Because unless we have such definitive rulings for this conflict, the article should probably be renamed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)