Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Incorrect link - "Immolated" should not link to a Polish Death Metal Album "Immolated"(2000) by Dies Irae, and should instead link to "Death By Burning" (immolation).

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia edit, please be patient.

Typo under:

> War Crimes

> By Palestinian militant groups

> Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide

> Paragraph #1

> During their initial incursion Palestinian groups targeted civilians, shooting at civilian cars as they moved through Israel, and then upon reaching their targets carried out massacres; at the Re'im music festival they killed over 260 civilians, while at Be'eri and Kfar Aza they killed at least 112 and 73 respectively. The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded.:

As stated in the thread title "immolated" currently links to a death metal album of the same name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immolated, whereas the correct link should presumably be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning SapphoIamb (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I've fixed it. Riposte97 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Uneven war

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Israel is bombing the fully blockaded Gaza using advanced fighter planes while Gazans don't have anti aircraft guns. It's not a war; it's murder. And it should be noted in the article intro and body. Crampcomes (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Rather, it is a civil war in Israel between Jews and Arabs, which will probably end in the slaughter of the latter --91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC) At the end of the first day of the war, it became obvious that Israel was not fighting with Hamas militants, who committed terrorist attacks, but with the Palestinians of Gaza.--Ucraniano2 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Gazans drinking salty sea water equals genocide

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

---

Gazans are being forced to drink salty sea water due to Israel's total blockade[1]. Drinking salty sea water causes death due to dehydration[2] Israel is committing genocide and it should be clearly stated in the article intro and body.Crampcomes (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Israel identifies Gazans as animals

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

---

Israel made it very clear multiple times that they identify Gazans as Human–animal hybrid [3][4][5] and that's why they are "treating them as such". Although it sounds ridiculous, I believe it must be noted in the article. Because a country cannot commit war crimes against animals, and it's probably one of the reasons why Israel believes it's not committing any war crime. Crampcomes (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ron Prosor refers to Hamas as animalistic, not Gazans as animals. (https://www.politico.eu/article/ron-prosor-israel-evoy-hamas-animals-must-be-destroyed/) Yoav Gallant directly says: "We are fighting human animals" or more accurately "animalistic men". To say that Israelis believe that all Gazans are animals is taking their statements out of context, then generalizing it to the entire population, would be inaccurate. Hawar jesser (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Marokwitz (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. In the Israeli political and religious lexicon Palestinians have been called over the decades, by everyone from PMs down, 'lice, animals,two-footed beasts, drugged cockroaches scurrying ion a bottle, beasts and asses, ravening beasts, leeches, ants, snakes, niggers, monkeys, subhumans, crocodiles, mosquitoes, hornets, people who lived like dogs, two-legged beasts, grasshoppers to be crushed underfoot, a nation of monkeys, scorpions, morons, worms, not humans but Arabs, red Indians, savages, cannibals, aliens from a different galaxy, people lower on the evolutionary ladder, cancers required chemotherapy, local bacteria, genetically blemished, Arab scum, people who was be castrated to eunuchism if they resist the occupation (Ariel Sharon), non-people, pigs, swarming (insects), barbarians who are serial killers, a rabble of cave dwellers.' The 'animal' language is typical, and I suppose some source in the future will read it in context. Perhaps we need a wiki article on Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse. Every single term enumerated above, and many more, can be reliably sourced, and they come from the elites, not Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Neve Gordon, "Alongside this legal discourse, Israel also circulates a colonial narrative that presents the Palestinians as "human animals" that do not understand the laws of war." https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/16/the-myth-of-israels-most-moral?traffic_source=rss Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

When Israeli leaders talk about "fighting animals", they are talking not about all Palestinians, only about the Palestinian terrorists; and the word "animal" is referring to their behavior, not claiming that they are not biologically as human as you or me. Animal lover |666| 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Desist from making otiose remarks like that, for anyone googling in sequence any of the words listed above + 'Palestinians' can see that animal metaphors abound in Israeli political comments about that people, starting from Prime Ministers to IDF leaders to rabbis and eminent historians like Benny Morris. My own collection runs to 11 pages.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

This article’s lead is completely pro-israel and needs to be neutral

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

---

All the lead mentions is the war crimes committed by hamas, but won’t mention the war crimes caused by israel’s response such as bombing civilian shelters. Is it that hard to make an article simply neutral and acknowledge both sides atrocities? This is wikipedia not CNN or Fox News 78.171.249.53 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is most Anti-Israel article I've read about this conflict. I don't know what you're talking about.

2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is blatantly pro-israel"

"This is blatantly anti-israel"

I think we're doing something right here. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Explosion on Hamas evacuees; it is believed that the IDF did not strike them ==

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67113144

https://twitter.com/jconricus/status/1713363472405131740?s=46

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1713404793790550313?s=20 He also supports the Hamas taking car keys pointed out in above topic here 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No matter how strongly a claim/opinion is "believed", does it not remain a claim/opinion - until evidence is found to support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's breaking news. It needs to be investigated further before the perpetrator is discovered. The IDF and BBC are currently investigating it. 2601:40:C481:A940:9DD7:DB69:290E:23BD (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And, as Breaking News, might not reports be investigated before any details are published here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC) P.S: Has any major news outlet repirted that the IDF might not be to blame for this explosion?

Assuming we are talking about the same event, per the article, the FT investigation says that the IDF are most likely responsible. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

5 Canadians dead in 2023 Israel-Hamas war, see The Globe & Mail & CTV News articles

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-number-of-canadians-killed-in-israel-climbs-to-five/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/21-year-old-identified-as-5th-canadian-who-died-in-israel-hamas-war-1.6602981 2001:56A:75D8:9D00:D9FE:8F1:20F6:990 (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mikelr (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas forcefully prevents Palestinians from evacuating

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/1713472153587167435?s=20

https://videoidf.azureedge.net/e9089368-485b-4410-bb61-9db004cd0e5e

Doesn't fit the narrative on this article, but it's the truth! In order to maximize the number of casualties in Gaza inflicted by the IDF, Hamas is taking the IDs and car keys off Gazan civilians so they can't evacuate.

Don't expect this to make headlines because it hurts the Palestinian propaganda war that the west loves to perpetuate.

They also set up roadblocks, so Palestinians can't evacuate:

https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-768382 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Why nobody included this conversation recording between a Gaza citizen and an IDF officer in the War crimes section?

Has this not been unconfirmed as of yet to not merely constitute IDF propaganda and fake news? 2A02:14F:1EF:676E:0:0:A0FC:BFB6 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Azure Edge link is a first party IDF filesharing website, so it came directly from them (but of course Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources like that), so I provided a secondary source Twitter link as well, which suits Wikipedia sourcing guidelines.

It is not propaganda in the way that would make it ineligible for Wikipedia. It is not fake news. This actually happened. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article is reliable for reporting the IDF claims contained within. The Twitter source is unusable, it's just some random person on Twitter pretending to be Mossad. About the Azure Edge one, I don't know, but I would presume not usable. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh it'll make it to the JP don't worry 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, CNN:

https://twitter.com/jconricus/status/1713715825234903156?s=46 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Around one hour in, here, the analyst says that Hamas won't let civilians evacuate because they rely on human shields as part of their operations.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OVjM0vIGPzY 2601:40:C481:A940:9DD7:DB69:290E:23BD (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"independent experts"

Corriebertus, regarding this edit, independent means not representing a state, they are outside experts. I dont really care if we call them independent in the text, but the wikilink also says Special rapporteur (or Independent Expert) are titles given to independent human rights experts whose expertise is called upon by the United Nations to report or advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. nableezy - 13:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli politics in the Background Section

A bit of feedback from when I was reading the article out of curiosity: the Israeli politics in the background section of the article feels disjointed when it jumps from the early 2000s to 2022 with no mention of anything in between. It makes for a bit of a jarring transition.

Hopefully this helps someone working on the article, someone more invested in the topic than I am. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The structure of the Background section is a bit strange. It begins with 2005 and then jumps back to "Israeli politics" without mentioning "Palestinian politics." When it comes to "Motives," I wouldn't mind creating a more coherent and balanced overview, perhaps without sub-sections. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Background

How come is there no mention of the 35 weeks of protests? Theres context to bibi and government that then leads to temp regime with benny?37.252.92.163 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that connects the judicial protests to the current war? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely it's part of the context for the situation? 2601:1C0:CC00:88F0:4D1E:2B91:1CB1:1D84 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Change link to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefalsim"

"Militants killed civilians at Nir Oz, Be'eri, and Netiv HaAsara, where they took hostages and set fire to homes, as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip.". Kibbutzim is not a city/town, it links to the wiki page on what a kibbutz is. Specifically, I'm fairly confident this is referring to Mefalsim, whose page has sources citing this attack (which is the subject of the disputed graphic video). Chuckstablers (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assertion that whoever wrote that sentence mistakenly wrote "kibbutzim" instead of "Mefalsim," due to the lack of capitalization and the use of the prepositional phrase "around the Gaza Strip," which would be a very awkward way to describe the location of a singular village.

The way I read this sentence, its clarity would probably be enhanced by making this adjustment:

"Militants killed civilians at Nir Oz, Be'eri, and Netiv HaAsara, ... as well as in other kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip."

There's also a case to be made that a completely different term should be used in place of kibbutzim. My experience is that the plural suffix -im is completely foreign to the average English reader, so even with the background knowledge of what a kibbutz is, kibbutzim might remain unclear. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked as "other agricultural communities" Infinity Knight (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Infinity Knight. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel struck a childrens hospital with white phosphorous"

We're stating in wiki voice that Israel struck a children's hospital with white phosphorous. The source cited is Egypt Today, which as far as I'm aware isn't a reliable source. Should read that "the palestinian health authority reported an israeli strike on a children's hospital with white phosphorous" or something to that effect if we're to keep it. Because that's what the source actually says, that context is important given that no reliable source has confirmed that this happened. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You'd think that human rights watch, a reliable source, would be picking up on this and reporting it immediately if there's evidence of this. As far as I can tell, the only thing cited in the source (which again, not reliable, correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can tell it seems to be owned by an Egyptian media conglomerate which is state owned) is a report by the palestinian health authority. At the very least we shouldn't yet be reporting this in wiki voice, as if a reliable source has reported on it/confirmed it. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed Codenamephoenix (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This was allegedly October 13th according to the Palestinian Health Authority. We have reliable sources reporting on the use of white phosphorous after that date that do not talk about this at all. This seems like propaganda; it's cartoonishly evil, and the only evidence in the non reliable source cited is "an organization governed by a belligerent in this conflict said it happened". We have no reliable sources that reported on the topic of white phosphorous after this allegedly happened that talk about it at all.

Compare this to how we treated Israeli claims of babies being decapitated. It was cartoonishly evil. We had reporting in the media saying that the IDF claimed it, but that wasn't enough for us to say in WIKI voice that it happened. This is, in my view, the EXACT same thing. This is why people are talking about NPOV issues above. It needs to be removed unless we have a reliable source discussing it. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the babies decapitated things were actually reported by reliable sources as well. But because it was just the IDF saying it, and not providing any evidence, we removed it from the article. The same standard should be applied here if we're going to be consistent with NPOV. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it should be written that way However, it is NOPV to report this because it did happen. And if we did not state that this happened we would be break NPOV. Thank you for reading-Nesser. NesserWiki (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• breaking

NesserWiki (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

See my post below to nableezy where I clarified my position on this, I just didn't want to take up more space by essentially reposting my thoughts. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed this I think. nableezy - 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here (thanks for the edit by the way, it is better); does this belong in the warcrime section? Do we just report pretty clear propaganda sourced by a belligerent in the war crimes section? Why isn't the "decapitating babies" thing in the Hamas war crime section then? Same situation with obvious propaganda, both are cartoon villian levels of evil, and both are sourced to elements of the government belonging to a belligerent and not supported by reliable sources. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I didnt even notice it was in a subsection of war crime, i just searched children's hospital in the article to find what you were talking about. I moved it to the timeline section. Better? But we cite Israeli ministries uncritically, see for number of dead or captured or wounded. I think this is fine attributed. The babies thing was questioned by other sources so I dont quite think it is apples to apples here. nableezy - 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"I didnt even notice it was in a subsection of war crime, i just searched children's hospital in the article to find what you were talking about. I moved it to the timeline section. Better? "

Yes, thank you. I don't have an issue with it being cited. I just have an issue with it being in the warcrimes section, given that we're not including the cited israeli sources that are unverified in the warcrimes section.

"But we cite Israeli ministries uncritically, see for number of dead or captured or wounded."

Correct, and I think that's fine as long as we're also citing the number of dead or captured or wounded for the Palestinian side based off of their numbers. Which from what I can see we are, so I think that's fine. It's just about giving each side the same treatment given the NPOV tag.

" I think this is fine attributed."

Agreed. We have sources based solely on the statements of the Israeli side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.

"The babies thing was questioned by other sources so I dont quite think it is apples to apples here"

Agreed that it shouldn't be in the warcrimes section. Just to clarify; I wasn't trying to argue that that should be included in the warcrimes section. I think it's pretty obviously propaganda. I just think we need to treat both sides the same, but since we're removing the childrens hospital thing from the war crimes section treating them the same would mean keeping the unverified (propagandistic) israeli claims out of the war crimes section as well. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Context” sections: not limited to occupation

If the non-NPOV labeled “occupation” deserves a section, then there is no principled reason for excluding causes of the terror attack with similar explanatory power. There should be a number of other sections, including an anthropological section on celebrations of civilian death and nonrecognition of the civilian-soldier distinction that is pervasive in Arab conflicts. There should also be such a section on the role of other states in supplying and funding militant groups while blocking the egress of Palestinians, along with a discussion of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism, and the desire to block non-Arabs and non-Muslims from self-determination in former caliphate territory. These and other causes have similar explanatory weight. (Or: we could eliminate such sections, which are not seen, e.g., in the article on 911.) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No section “explaining” 911 called “Context of US imperialism.” No section “explaining” the Bataclan massacre called “Context of French colonialism and failures of integration.” No section “explaining” the Bucha massacre called “Context of Ukrainian Nazi collaboration and the expansion of NATO.” Only when the slaughter of defenseless men, women, children, and infants occurs in Israel do these “what was she wearing” sections arise. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not what people think they should say. When sources say this is the context of this conflict then so do we. nableezy - 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources attempting to justify other intentional slaughters of non-combatants are readily available. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

E.g. Russian commentators from academia and government who justify events in Ukraine in those terms are almost unlimited, and could easily be quoted for “context” for any human rights outrage in Ukraine. Evidently they must be. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So, for example, Id assume you would be fine with an article strictly on the Israeli airstrikes and the war crimes that have taken place without the context of the Hamas attack? nableezy - 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources discussing the importance of the context of the ongoing MILITARY occupation of Palestine/the west bank and what has been condemned as settler colonialism. This didn't arise in a vacuum, and we have reliable sources that point it out.

What you're describing is unsourced at this point. If you have reliable sources discussing the context, of say, Islamic fundamentalism, then provide them. If you have reliable sources discussing any of what you're talking about, then please provide them. We can use them to add a section like you're describing if you have them. If not, then it's a moot point. We don't do original research here, we report what reliable sources say. And a lot of reliable sources are discussing the context of the Israeli occupation (as defined by international law, the west bank is currently occupied).

Comparing this to Russia-Ukraine is kind of silly. We do have a background section there and summarizes what the reliable sources say about the background/context of the war. Which largely comes down to Vladimir Putin's denial of Ukranian statehood, revanchism, and Ukraine's turn away from Russian geopolitical alignment and the subsequent invasion that followed. Because that's what the reliable sources say. There's nothing done differently here from a policy standpoint than we're doing in that article. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo series

File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 49.jpg

A residential block (left) and the Palestine Tower (right) in the Rimal district, which until recently was the business and cultural center of the densely populated enclave, destroyed during the first week of intense Israeli air bombardment.

Please, group the photos, the objects are located at a distance of 150 meters from each other. 31°30′57″N 34°26′49″E and 31°30′52.2″N 34°26′48.2″E--91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up the fact that there are five or six (depending on the definition) images already of ruins in Gaza. How many times is the article going to show rubble over and over? I think the reader understands that a lot of the city has been destroyed. -- Veggies (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The article already has these photos, but they stand separately, so it gives the impression that the objects are in different places --Ucraniano2 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I'm just perplexed that there's so many rubble photos. -- Veggies (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's because most of the images on Commons are rubble photos. There's also a bunch of politician photos, but those aren't really needed here. Besides, it's much easier and safer to photograph an already collapsed building. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

An RfC related to this article is ongoing

You can participate in the Request for Comment (RfC) in the Request for Comment (RfC) in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Building in the Gaza Strip being levelled by Israeli missiles"

That's the description of a video being used in the article. Should read something to the effect of "Building's in the Gaza strip being bombed by Israeli forces" or something to that effect. We don't know what type of munitions were used to target the buildings. Unlikely to be an actual cruise missile though. In some of these videos I'm seeing the warhead seems to be too large for that, though I might be wrong. Levelled by Israeli missiles just strikes me as unencyclopedic (even something like destroyed would be better if we can confirm missiles and not precision guided bombs, likely JDAMS were used). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran Israel proxy conflict?

Diff I thought the WSJ report was subsequently denied by WH, Iran etc. Sure some want to blame Iran for everything but... Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone denies that Iran provides substantial support to Hamas with a view to weakening Israel, direct involvement in the current war notwithstanding. Riposte97 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/17/Iran-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-preemptive-action-against-Israel-in-Gaza

Iranian Minister of Foreign relations says they want in

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/17/Iran-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-preemptive-action-against-Israel-in-Gaza Baratiiman (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that a pre-emptive strike by a non-nuclear power against a nuclear power with strategic level nuclear warheads is being seriously considered given the game theory of it just... doesn't make sense from an escalation POV. It makes sense as boilerplate rhetoric. Talk is cheap; this is why Russia threatens to nuke the world everytime Ukraine gets a new toy. If we put every single instance of Sergei Lavrov going on about "hellfire" and "massive consequences the likes of which blah blah blah" everytime Ukraine get's another thousand himars rounds the article over there would literally be half dedicated to that kind of stuff. They threaten to end the world every tuesday. It's their thing at this point. Same can be said for Iran threatening Israel. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Map Original Research Potential violation

Nableezy & Serialjoepsycho have expressed concern than the File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict (7– 8 October).svg image contains original research, with Nableezy said, "you cant say Hamas captured these villages and held them for up to three days and because they did this it was occupied territory." and Serialjoepsycho stated, "there's nothing saying that Hamas held Israel Territory as an occupying power". Should the map be removed on OR violation grounds? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned this map at all is what I find interesting. Don't ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, did you in the discussion as when I mentioned the map sources, you considered it WP:OR in this edit saying "Not only is it original research, as you are the sole source of the position that Hamas held Israel Territory". LOL. In this edit, you even said "Other than WeatherWriter's personal view there's nothing saying that Hamas held Israel Territory". LOL! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Other than your personally held views you haven't provided a source including this map that shows Hamas held Israel Territory in any state of military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The map says those regions had "Palestinian militant's presence", not that the area was occupied; my understanding is that for such a claim the maps are accurate, and align with maps from reliable sources like Reuters. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Um no I have not said the map is original research, I said that your novel interpretation that because Hamas held any of this territory for any amount of time it means that they military occupied it is original research. You still have not provided a single source saying any of this territory was held under military occupation. nableezy - 03:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The map does not indicate that Hamas occupied Israeli territory. According to the legend, the map shows that militants were present in those regions during the first two days of the conflict. This information is supported by reliable news reports from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Ecrusized (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

update of Casualties

in the west bank 61 are killed not 54 source and in lebanon the idf today announce that they killed 4 suspects trying to blow up the fence the times of israel أحمد توفيق (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@أحمد توفيق: Done, thanks. Ecrusized (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Third sentence of background section

This sentence has gone back and forth a bit, so I'm starting a discussion to get it at least slightly set in stone. It currently states:

International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel has defended it as necessary to protect Israeli citizens from "terrorism, rocket attacks and any other hostile activity", and to prevent weapons and dual use goods from entering Gaza.

My issue with this sentence is that I find the long second half of it unnecessarily long (particularly, I find the use of a quote unnecessary), in a way that doesn't reflect the way sources weight this issue. See how various reliable sources phrase this:

• NYTimes: Israel says the blockade is necessary to stop the flow of arms into the territory, but Palestinians and aid groups say it is collective punishment and exacerbates dire economic and social conditions.
• BBC News: Israel and Egypt maintain a blockade around Gaza aimed at preventing attacks by militants there, though the measure has been condemned by rights groups as a form of collective punishment.
• Foreign Policy Israel, with Egyptian support, immediately responded with a land, air, and sea blockade that has been decried by human rights organizations as a form of “collective punishment.” Sixteen years later, Gaza is regularly referred to as an “open-air prison.”
• AP News Israel says the restrictions are needed to keep Hamas from building up its military capabilities. The bitter enemies have fought three wars and numerous skirmishes over the years. But critics say the blockade has amounted to collective punishment, hurting the living conditions of Gaza’s 2 million inhabitants while failing to oust Hamas or moderate its behavior. Gaza has almost no clean drinking water, it suffers from frequent power outages and people cannot freely travel abroad.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A valid point about WP:WEIGHT. The quote is also pretty needless. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant, given that calling it "collective punishment" implies a war crime, which a blockade isnt. It is not the length of the accusation, but the severity of it that determines the length of the response permitted. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your second sentence would go directly against the guidelines of due and undue weight, a Wikipedia policy. My proposal is to have a sentence reading something like this:

International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel has defended it as necessary to prevent weapons and dual-use goods from entering the territory.

A minor point about your first sentence: a blockade isn't necessarily a war crime, but it can be one, depending on the circumstances. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That works. I agree there's a weight problem otherwise. DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that wording. Andreas JN466 13:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That seems to cover the key points. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is fine, though I still disagree about the argument. We aren't balancing viewpoints of different RS here, we are balancing the length of responses, which are both consistenty reported in RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't properly understand your first comment, but I'm in complete agreement with your reply here. Anyways, it looks like we have a consensus here and since I've already used up my one revert for the day, I'd be grateful if someone were to make the change proposed here. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike

Please add the following information into the paragraph about Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital  : IDF says assessment shows failed Islamic Jihad rocket launch caused Gaza hospital blast

The Israel Defense Forces says that based on “intelligence information, a failed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket caused the deadly blast at the Gaza hospital.” In a statement, the IDF says that “from an analysis of the IDF’s operational systems, an enemy rocket barrage was carried out towards Israel, which passed in the vicinity of the hospital, when it was hit.” “According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the PIJ organization is responsible for the failed [rocket] fire that hit the hospital,” the IDF adds. Deerove (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Infinity_Knight, I've made a similar edit here. I think that there is no need to quote the full statement, wdyt? Alaexis_¿question? 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I should be more careful, wanted to make a fix but now there's another change. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

More stabbings

A 6-year-old boy was stabbed 26 times and his mother more than a dozen times. Their landlord was charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of a hate crime. The location was Chicago and the victims were Palestinian.[6] Do we include this, or remove the text about hate crimes against Jews? This article is about a particular war. Hate crimes have existed throughout recorded history and this will likely continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Its already in the article, outside conflict zone Oct 15 section. nableezy - 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is an increase in recorded hate crimes or antisemitism that is attributed to this war, then I think it could be included. If it is just a general observation, that is, the cause is not known, then I would say not. My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem briefly mentioning that hate crimes have been triggered in other venues. I don't see the value in listing every murder, not at the hands of the IDF or Hamas, related to anger over the war thousands of miles from the field. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with either solution, include specifics in some notable instances, or just have a general rise in hate crimes line. But we cant just include specifics for one set of crimes and not for another. nableezy - 13:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, all or nothing. I think it should be nothing as that requires no judgements of the degree of preexisting hate and how much it took, along with other coinciding influences, to trigger the act. None of these acts has been adjudicated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would've assumed the "outside conflict zone" would be more for incidents in the West Bank and parts of Israel/its borders well away from Gaza, no? Personally, I was expecting discussion of more far-flung hate crimes motivated by the conflict to be under the "international reactions" section, if they aren't being undertaken by anyone tied to the actual belligerent groups. --Totalibe (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

International reactions refers to countries and international organizations. If there is a major terrorist attack somewhere, that might possibly be relevant to the article. If it's an individual hate crime from some loon, I don't see including these. Hate crimes against Jews, Arabs, Asians, Blacks, abortion doctors, etc. are common. Nearly 50% in the US against Blacks per the FBI. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I will also add that this is far from the only report of an overseas hate crime that has been directly linked to the war, for just two links [7] [8] --Totalibe (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Popular Mobilization Forces

@HuntersHistory: I have removed the Iraqi PMF from the infobox, as per the cited source. The PMF has reportedly been deployed to Lebanon, but there are no reports of them actively taking part in hostilities. Ecrusized (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki and EkoGraf: There are two new belligerents in the infobox, Syria and the Iraqi militant group Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. With regards to Syria, I think it should be removed since the regime has not taken offensive action against Israel. Israeli airstrikes targeted the Hezbollah assets inside the country, which is what's cited for Syria's inclusion. When it comes to Iraqi Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, it is cited from ISW,[9] which is citing Al Araby[10], which in turn is citing a Twitter video posted by a blogger,[11] during which the militants are recorded saying they are "joining the fight against Jerusalem". However, Al Araby notes that there has not been an official announcement regarding this. I think both should be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, but the Syrian Air Defense Force activated when the missiles were fired, so Syria remains in the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYN, sources do not say that Syria has joined the fight against Israel. Israeli airstrikes targeted Syria bi-weekly for the past 5 years. This does not make Syria an active belligerent in every single conflict Israel has been involved with during that time, see Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, having been bombed doesn't make Syria party to the conflict, nor does the smattering of air defense responses that it mounted in reply. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Syria was removed. Parham wiki (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2023

“War” means warfare, combat, between two or more peoples/nations (in my dictionary). The whole point here, is, that in the Palestinian (and Hamas’) point of view, this war (between ‘Palestinians’ including Gazans+Hamas and ‘Israelis’) is going on since 1948. Even last weekend, a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands for a mainstream (left wing) party has given up her place on the party list for the upcoming parl. elections (November) for the reason that generally in the West, but even in her own party, the “context” is being obfuscated that “this ‘war’ is going on since 75 years”. Therefore, regardless the (eventual) outcome of the above 15 Oct 2023 requested move (2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza–Israel war), I now request a move (change) to a title without that word ‘war’ in it.

Wikipedia has an article, correctly titled Israeli–Palestinian conflict (starting in 1948), with subarticle Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with a section “2005–present: Post-Intifada, Gaza conflict”, further divided into subsections for nearly every year. So, a logical naming for our article about the 7 October 2023 events et cetera, would (sort-of) be: 2023 escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (with perhaps a neat summary of it in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict).

I don’t know how our article entitling with the word ‘war’ in it came about here, and whether it was extensively discussed then or just a (hurried) choice by one of our (good faith) editors; but I think it unnecessarily supports an Israeli point of view and thereby obscures the above-mentioned Palestinian point of view; therefore, I now challenge that (unnecessary) Wikipedia choice and labelling (“…war…”) and plead for the (more neutral) naming, consistent with previous Wikipedia choices: 2023 escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an RM above, you can !vote/comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

By your definition, the North Korea v South Korea war only ended a few years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/north-south-korea-agree-in-principle-formal-end-war-us. What is technically a war is not always in sync with what the collective public recognizes as a war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You write: I don’t know how our article entitling with the word ‘war’ in it came about here, and whether it was extensively discussed then or just a (hurried) choice by one of our (good faith) editors. You need to do some basic research then, as this is very much a settled matter. Read the two requested moves above (and the third being discussed) to get more context. Search above for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." But in short, read this closing summary from the first RM for the explanation. Special:Diff/1179550401#Extended_summary_of_RM_close. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

infobox update

500,000 isreali are displaced not just 60 thousand source and there is 4 egyptian workers are injured source and can someone please mention in the beginning that this current war is the the deadliest of all gaza wars in term of casualties source أحمد توفيق (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ecrusized (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Background vs. History

I haven't been editing that area at all, but maybe the Historical Context and Background sections should be merged somehow? It's honestly super confusing even for me that they're under two different subheadings. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed reports"

Considering the two following statements in the article :

1.

Yossi Landau, regional head of the first responder organisation ZAKA, claimed that both babies and minors had been beheaded alongside corpses of dismembered adults.

2.

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:170:3559:0:0:B796:528F (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a source for that assertion, that would be a start. Riposte97 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This assertion about "unconfirmed reports" makes absolutely no sense because Israel invited Western media to view the bodies and carnage of the massacre conducted by Hamas and subsequently verified the reports. Also, there are tons of articles with reports from ZAKA, so I do not understand where you are coming from. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Map needs an update

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-evacuating-28-communities-lebanon-border

Needs to be expanded to all of israel, not just gaza and the surrounding areas Lukt64 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lukt64: I had planned to create a separate zoomed-in map of the northern front, which includes the Israeli-Lebanon border and the Golan Heights frontier, in case Hezbollah joins the war. However, as of now, 99% of the conflict is still limited to the Gaza Strip and its surrounding areas. Nonetheless, I can still create a map that shows the evacuated settlements on the northern border if users are interested. Ecrusized (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add these:

• The UN's aid agency told the BBC that Gaza is "being pushed into an abyss"
• The US has sent a second aircraft carrier to the region to "deter hostile actions against Israel". Meanwhile, Iran has warned of "far-reaching consequences" if Israel continues attacking

Scientelensia (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? ZanzibarSailor (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364?ref=tippinsights.com

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67108364?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=652bce5e364b3f1612ec4e7b%26Israeli%20army%20may%20need%20more%20time%262023-10-15T11%3A34%3A55.300Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:cfe1c143-9b2c-45cb-b0c8-921c4c969882&pinned_post_asset_id=652bce5e364b3f1612ec4e7b&pinned_post_type=share

All here, I believe. Thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust"

A number of media observers have made this claim in one form of the other. Here's the latest: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-played-israel-hamas-heres-why-putin-picked-side-terrorists . I propose adding a line to the intro/lede saying "The Hamas attack has been described in media accounts as the largest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust." 152.130.15.107 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fox is not a reliable source for this and we should also avoid opinion columns, making this a doubly poor source. Looking through RS, I'm finding related statements in several places. But, I don't see it in the voice of RS. All that I was able to find were quotes from politicians and organizations. Perhaps find better sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of this going around (Biden included), the idea appears to be to conflate Jews everywhere with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a possibility that even excluding non-Jews from each event, the statement may still be correct. Unless you are saying there has been a bigger massacre of Jews (or partly) elsewhere that has been overlooked by the statement? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this passage should be in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's in the lead in the German and Hebrew articles. It should be here, as well. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We would need sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be the main (and resolving) point here. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:27C2 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

How about "300 killed on Saturday, the largest number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks in a single day since 2008" per Reuters, shall we add that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not as relevant imo, but I'm not opposed to it. The holocaust comment is more relevant due to the length of time involved; we're talking about roughly 80 years vs 15. Reuters is behind a paywall for me; does it specifically bring attention to the significance of the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in 15 years? Can you provide a quote or something? The fact that this is the largest number of jews killed in one day since the Holocaust has significance that the fact that this is the largest number of Palestinians killed in one day since 2008 doesn't, but ultimately if we have a reliable source calling attention to this fact to a similar degree that the source called attention to the holocaust thing, then I'm not opposed to it's inclusion necessarily. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding this bit for balance: "Hamas' Head of Political and International Relations, Basem Naim, told Sky News that no civilians have been killed by the militant group. When asked about 'civilian casualties on a horrendous scale' during the Hamas attack, Naim responded, 'It is not acceptable, it is really shameful to discuss while now 3000 Palestinians have been killed in massacres by the Israelis.'" Per sources in this section. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of factoids relating to this conflict and we can't make the lead a list of trivia. Al-Arabiya (and others) say that the attack was the worst security situation since the 1973 war[12]. The Atlantic says that it was the most brutal act since "Israeli-controlled Christian militias massacred unarmed Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila"[13]. And what about the Israeli retaliation? The Hindu points out[14] that the current Israeli attack on Gaza is the "deadliest" of the 5 wars unleashed on Gaza.VR _talk 09:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you that every single Jewish source, whether political or non-political, are calling this the biggest massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust. If someone can find me a singular day or event with more Jews being killed since 1945, please share it. This can be disproven easily if someone actually has evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely valid claim. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The number of evacuees in Israel

According to the source - https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1697526771-around-half-a-million-people-displaced-in-israel , Nearly 500,000 people in Israel have been internally displaced since the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7. The information according to this source corresponds to the number of towns and villages that were evacuated in the north and south and receives additional assistance from the fact that the Health Board of the Parliament (Knesset) announced that one hundred thousand citizens were housed by the government except for all those who found evacuation solutions on their own. https://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/Pages/press17.10.23b.aspx . מי-נהר (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, מי-נהר. I find both sources pretty reliable, the second one as a primary source with proper attribution. Does anyone have suggestions on where this information should be added? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox, intro and humanitarian impact section (subsection Israel) Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me, if someone's up for the task. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza casualty numbers are unreliable and reqire a note

The numbers about casualties are taken from Hamas-controlled organizations. These are extremely unreliable and there is no justification for taking them without question just as they arep resented. A terrorist organization that hides fighters and rocket launch sites amongst their own civilians, actively targeting Israeli civilians, is not exactly a good source and history has shown that they have repeatedly lied, since they do not abide by any international standards or rules of behavior when it comes to presenting the truth. This is yet another propaganda instrument. It is completely unjustified to, for example, on the one hand add notes for casualty numbers given by the Russian governemnt in the Russian war against Ukraine, as well as to those given by the Ukrainian side, yet leave out such information in this conflict, where the Hamas-controlled side can only be doubted. Their press agent even claimed they did not kill a single civilian and did not take hostages. Not questioning doubtful sources damages the reputation of this site. Kulmanseidl (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

there is already a note that mention the casualty numbers are per hamas same with the west bank that say it's per fatah.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel is trying to draw Egypt and Jordan into a war

Please add in the preamble the articles about the pressure on Egypt and Jordan by Israel and its allies to open their borders and accept more than 1 million refugees. This means the penetration of Hamas militants into the territory of Egypt and the involvement of Egypt in the war. The European Union also categorically refused to accept refugees. Almost all publications write about it. Ucraniano2 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Drawing Egypt and Jordan into the war part is your opinion. Historically, accepting refugees has never made a country an active participant in the war. Also, bad apples mixing with refugees is very common and also doesn't mean the country is an active participant in warfare. There is no reliable source I know of that uses that kind of language AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas claim that hostages were killed

Hamas has claimed that 9 hostages were killed due to Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.[15] Should this information also be reflected in the infobox, but of course with attribution of it to Hamas.VR _talk 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The figure now appears to be up to 13, see [16] - not particularly surprising in the context of the indiscriminate bombing, though very much surprising in the level of collateral damage being tolerated. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Context to the deaths:

1. Israeli hostages will undoubtedly be used as human shields in brutal Hamas-Israel war
2. The Choices of War: Hamas Using Kidnapped Israelis as Human Shields, What Should Israel Do?
3. ‘Human shields’: Israel grapples with complexity of rescuing Hamas’ hostages
4. Hamas hostages effectively ‘human shields’ against Israel military
5. Relatives of hostages held as human shields in Gaza beg Israel not to bomb Strip

BilledMammal (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate bombing" is a conspiracy theory. There are no reliable sources that say that. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• This could be just as easily an intentional disinformation by Hamas (just as many other statements made by similar sources). They did not provide any evidence like videos, photos or details (who, where and when was allegedly killed). Hence, I would say "no", not every claim by Hamas belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing related to the political preferences of those who were killed or taken hostage.

I'm a bit uncertain about this edit. The reasoning for deletion is "This article says "some" Kibbutznikim "tend" to support more pro-Palestinian initiatives. Not "Many are peace activists", the source's title actually is "Peace Activists Are Among the Israelis Missing and Killed". Thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is noted that the attacks on civilians were indiscriminate. Naturally, this means their political beliefs weren't considered... of course they weren't. I question the value in Wikipedia specifying such. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It might not be due. The victims of the attack likely had a wide range of different political views, just like other civilians killed in the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 10:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• This is a well-sourced info (NYT), and the source described it a something relevant. I would keep it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Since I was the one that added that reference, I am fine with shortening the sentence to just say "Many of the Israeli kibbutz residents among the dead or missing were peace activists" and leaving out that they "supported Palestinian rights". But the information and reference should be kept. JJMM (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just added that. JJMM (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Map image caption

For the of the image of the fires around Gaza, can you change the caption? "Satellite view of widespread fires in Israel on 7 October 2023 when militants set fires, massacred civilians and took hostages at areas neighboring the Gaza Strip" Is that last part necessary? Its already in the article that those things happened, it has nothing to do with the image, and it feels like its forcing that point Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we do something to prevent the constant creation of new articles about every detail?

This is something that quite frequently happens during major events. Every time a new development emerges, someone creates an article about it. What ends up happening is that there are hundreds of articles (if not more) about details given undue prominence, and someone else has to clean them up. Just look at the thousands of COVID-19 articles that have basically been forgotten. What can we do to prevent this from becoming another years-long cleanup project? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically, there is supposed to be a wait before creating articles, doesn't happen anymore, it is more like a news ticker and a race to get the article up asap. Hard to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This tendency leads to duplicated and wasted effort down the line (as you say, years-long cleanup project). When a topic is clearly part of another topic, there shouldn't be a split until size issues require it. I boldly merged one stub to a parent article but the redirect got reverted (the merge didn't); it's not ideal. DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

(By "parent article" I'm referring to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which has no size concerns, not this article.) DFlhb (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is already over twice the normal recommended article length, and we're only just over a week in. I don't think forks are necessarily bad thing in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that forks are helpful, and I would support some of them, but it needs to be in an organized fashion. Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war already has about 50 pages, not counting the ones that already existed prior to the war's beginning. Obviously the rate will slow down as time goes on, but we're likely looking at hundreds if not thousands of disparate articles. For example, we don't need individual articles a few paragraphs long for each massacre, especially since we also have a list of massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. A few of these articles could just be a bullet point at Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. There are also ways to make the article shorter, mainly ensuring that WP:SUMMARY is followed (where size splits come into play) and replacing the timeline section with a summary of each phase of the war (which should probably be two subsections currently: the initial attack and then the subsequent conflicts). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree the creation of other articles that start relatively small isn't a bad thing. Many of these will grow as RS continue to report on or study them. Some may end up merged back into this article later if they don't grow. entropyandvodka | talk 01:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

terrorism

The definition of terrorism is:

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Most sources also emphasize terrorism in the context of warfare or violence against non-combatants, a textbook description of exactly what Hamas did.

If "militants" is the preferred term used by mealy-mouthed journalists, then perhaps some mention of this controversy may be in order (in the "reaction" section?), along with some of the weak excuses major news outlets have offered as to why they're avoiding the t-word[17]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The timeline

The timeline section needs to be shortened significantly to the respective article, as this article is already far too big, could someone do that? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

One way to do this would be to update Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 on a regular basis and link out to that, I do try myself to keep up with events but no way to keep it all going right now with so much going on. EDIT: Another possibility I forgot about is the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

True. Too bad that article doesn’t look well-formatted. Borgenland (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli official confirms rape of Israeli women during Hamas attack

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDXxL-PdF4 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)