Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

How to improve historical context section, as it's pretty bad.

The historical context section should summarize the history of the strip and the israeli palestinian conflict there. Currently it is a bunch of disconnected statements about how bad Israel is (which I agree with, but that doesn't seem like the purpose of the context section). As it stands right now it says Israel occupied the palestinian territories, then lists a bunch of disconnected statements about how Israel is bad, Palestinians are oppressed, and Hamas bad according to one guy.

We should be actually summarizing the history of what has led up to this, in this order. That's my proposal. I don't want to make massive sweeping changes and have them get reverted, so I want to seek consensus first. Hopefully we can rewrite it in a mutually agreeable way. Currently this section doesn't offer historical context. I want to fix that.

I'm going to start changing it to follow some type of chronological history leading up to this; including

1.) The arab Israeli war of 67. 2.) The Intifada's. 3.) The Israeli settlements in Gaza 4.) The withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and end of the settlements in Gaza 5.) The Third Intifada and it's effect on the Israeli government 6.) The escalation in tensions 7.) Where we are today.

If you have feedback or suggestions please let me know. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2005 temporary and later 2007 permanent blockade which devastated Gaza’s economy, but these blockades were in response to Palestinian militant groups’ thousands of rocket attacks and in 2007, Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel.

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/5904691/hamas-israel-gaza-11-things

https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/06/30/indiscriminate-fire/palestinian-rocket-attacks-israel-and-israeli-artillery#:~:text=%5B70%5DRockets%20fired%20from%20Gaza,workers%20and%20wounding%20five%20others. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s also possible I completely misread or am misinterpreting sources, or doing original research or synthesis. This is just my interpretation and I could be totally mistaken. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've included that, I made this post rather quickly. Feel free to make changes to the additions I've made to that section. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wh15tL3D09N If you can, please add that to the historical context section. If not I'll get to it tomorrow (the bit about it starting after the rockets). Just saw you're active right now. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, do you think all that history is necessary? I just realized there’s a Background section that sort of covers a brief history and also reasons for the blockade. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

All of it? Not all of it no. It should just be a few paragraphs as briefly explaining the context of it as possible. I honestly would be fine removing the historical context section and merging it with a rewrite into the background section. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm fine with merging them to be honest. I don't see the reason to have a background and a historical context section, they seem to serve in theory the same purpose. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Except, I added it to Background not Historical section: According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Palestinian militant groups fired ~2,700 rockets into Israel from September 2005 through May 2007.

Except I'm not sure if Israel set up the blockade before Sept 2005 rocket attacks to prevent rocket attacks or after Sep 2005 in response to rocket attacks. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The history and relations with Egypt should also be mentioned, as it's part of the hardship present day Gaza has endured. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I did add a blurb about Israel participating in the blockade; I could go a little bit more in depth with regards to the lifting of the blockade between 2011 and 2014 and it's reinstatement? Chuckstablers (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Chuck, I was referring to the Egypt–Gaza barrier. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh my bad, did you want that to go somewhere in particular? I'll add it, just let me know where :) Chuckstablers (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Events section is getting too long

We're getting into the same cycle of editing that's led to this article being split/pruned multiple times before. The events section is essentially at this point a live feed of breaking news. Suggestions on what to do with it? Chuckstablers (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the Timeline article? 05:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's fair. At this rate my concern is it's going to continue expanding and within another month (hoping it doesn't continue that long) it's going to triple the length of this article. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think some of it can be moved. The problem is that article itself also really needs fixing since it's a lot of incoherent grammar and sourcing on less than reputable mediums. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I propose we gradually go through the day-to-day content as it ages and shorten and summarise it. I feel it's okay to have more detail on stuff that happened a few days ago, as it's probably one part of the article that more people look at, whereas the older events content probably doesn need to have the same amount of detail that would have been of interest to readers a few weeks ago. Andreas JN466 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest it be done by month, like in War in Sudan (2023). Borgenland (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I've been attempting to do; problem is every day someone doesn't trim things down, another section gets added for the current day completely negating the trim. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Too many excited editors. I sometimes summarize things up when things cool down and no one is around to tinker with things too closely. But then again I have to wait at least a week for that unless another editor makes a Bold edit. Borgenland (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Where did the campaign box go? Was it deleted? Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 10:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Increased support for Bin Laden

The war has increased support for Osama bin Laden, and the Guardian and TikTok are deleting "Bin Laden letter to America". Where should this be written in the article? Does it deserve a separate article? Parham wiki (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It may belong in the bin Laden article. He's been dead for a dozen years and shouldn't be mentioned in this article at this time. Perhaps in the future when scholars comment on the fallout of this war it would be known to be relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is long enough that we don't need to include extraneous details like this. I would agree that it's probably due on the actual article for Osama bin Laden. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I'm not sure if this war has increased support for bin Laden; I'm pretty sure that TikTok started that one. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

due to severe security concerns

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.

---

This ia a patent abuse of NPOV since

• (a) it espouses an official Israeli justification of the blockade as dictated by security concerns. Perhaps that is true, but it is the view of one party, whether factual or not is discussible.
• (b) 'severe' is an adjectival intrusion.

'Security concerns' has been the standard term use to explain every restriction on Palestinian rights since 1967. Hamas won the elections. Israel and the US (Vanity Fair 2007) twisted the PA's arm to mount a coup, which was defeated, with violence on both sides. The detailed historical context, with numerous options on the table (the hudna proposals etc.,) is simplified to caricature. Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the edit; going forward, you don't need to denote something on the talk page unless someone reverts or otherwise has questions about the edit - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:56, 17 November 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.

United States

Why isn't the United States added, it's ridiculous that they aren't added after all these clear statements from them in support of Israel. Do we have to wait for them to directly participate in the bombing? This gives a very negative image of Wikipedia. If we add the Houthis, then we should also do the same with the United States. In many statements and press conferences when talking about Israel and Hamas the Americans say "we". This should explain a lot. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

? Unclear; the United States in included throughout the article, including an entire section in the "Reactions" section. It even links to an entire article on the matter. There's an archived RfC from quite a while ago and a current RfC above if you are talking about the Infobox belligerants. Maybe you should make a comment there @Dl.thinker: and partake in the discussion - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I meant belligerents. Dl.thinker (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion at: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah) - Fuzheado | Talk 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested academic sources for rewriting the following 'history'

Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election and the subsequent battle between it and Fatah, which Hamas ultimately won, significantly escalated tensions with Israel. Israel, along with Egypt, imposed a blockade that significantly damaged Gaza's economy, citing security concerns as the justification. International rights groups have decried the blockade as a form of collective punishment, while Israel defended it as necessary to prevent weapons and dual-use goods from entering the territory. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Palestinian militant groups fired ~2,700 rockets into Israel from September 2005 through May 2007.

Most of what is striking about that pivotal moment is ignored. Something of its complexity may be glimpsed by mastering the following sources_

• Menachem Klein, Hamas in Power, Middle East Journal, Summer, 2007, Vol. 61, No. 3 pp.442-459
• Dag Tuastad, The Role of International Clientelism in the National Factionalism of Palestine,' Third World Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 31, No. 5 (2010), pp. 791-802
• Wendy Pearlman,Spoiling Inside and out: Internal Political Contestation and the Middle East Peace Process,' International Security, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Winter, 2008/2009), pp. 79-109
• Laurence Cooley, Michelle Pace, Consociation in a Constant State of Contingency? The case of the Palestinian Territory, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2012), pp. 541-558

Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff that used to be in the lead could be added to the background or history like the illegal Israeli settlements. I am not an expert on the history or the intricacies, but would be interested in understanding the reasons (economical? a further war declaration? the illegal settlements? lack of structured government) for firing 2700 rockets into Israel after Israel agreed to disengage from Gaza. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I .. would be interested in understanding the reasons (economical? a further war declaration? the illegal settlements? lack of structured government) for firing 2700 rockets into Israel after Israel agreed to disengage from Gaza.

The short answer is hinted at below. Yes, editors have been wonderfully diligent in creating and documenting rocket fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel, a studious alacrity that lies in inverse relation to the intensively exercised insouciance in not mentioning in those articles the incessant firing of various branches of the IDF/IAF into the Gaza Strip. The mediatic illusion conjured up is that Gaza militants just keep firing away and then, exercising its right of defense, every now and then, Israel responds with a full-scale war. This is all comic book history. Read the Background to the Gaza War (2008–2009).

• Hamas refrained from firing rockets toward Israel for 14 months in accordance with the February ceasefire agreement, until IDF naval shelling hit a Gaza beach, killing seven civilians, on 10 June 2006.

• Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 locally made Qassam rockets into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians and injuring 75 others. During the same period, Israel fired more than 14,600 155 mm artillery shells into the Gaza Strip, killing 59 Palestinians and injuring 270.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Causality, or concurrence, in this area's history is almost wholly ignored in real time reportage where background is simplified into a snippety caricature of thumb-nail narratives that themselves ignore any hint of complexity. That is what is objectionable about the para I cited above, which erases all external factors to suggest this was just a battle between Hamas (fanatics) and the Palestinian Authority (moderates), ignoring the fact that Hamas was immediately punished by the USA, Israel and Europe for winning the elections democratically, which arguably strengthened the hand of the fundamentalists in Hamas, against the negotiating faction. One excellent attempt to examine the who-fired-first-evidence in 2008/9, for example, is Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki, and Nancy Kanwisher, Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,' 2010 (Their conclusion is not definitive of course. Some scholars contest it, using a different methodology and far longer timescale)Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The section can certainly be improved but your quotes don't provide a full picture either. There was a rocket attack by the Islamic Jihad that killed 3 people two days before the June 9 beach attack by the IDF. Alaexis_¿question? 13:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, from the source that I used for the numbers, it says, "After Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005, Palestinian rocket attacks continued sporadically, spiking in late September, late October and again in December, with Israeli artillery fire following suit beginning in late October."

But then to your point, I also see it written: "From September 2005 through May 2007, the same period covered by the rocket attack statistics cited above, the IDF fired 14,617 artillery shells into Gaza."

Source: https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/06/30/indiscriminate-fire/palestinian-rocket-attacks-israel-and-israeli-artillery

Yes, please feel free to make bold edits. There is a very high possibility I miss things because I just get tired of reading, and I am definitely lacking in that area! I just want to make sure the timeline is correct and the facts are straight, because there's a lot of chaos in conflict and I just feel that having things written down in a chronological order makes the overall big picture clear. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis. A distinction is often drawn between Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. The quotes refer to a judgment about Hamas, in its political negotiations and practice for that period. The HRW refers to 'Palestinian' Gazan rockets (actually at that time they were fizzle sticks that mainly ended up in the desert). There has been a noticeable tensiopn between Hamas as a government, Hamas's military wing, and several other groups such as Islamic Jihad. Hamas at that time was shifting from ideological fundamentalism to political engagement, with the PA and, indirectly, with Israel (Menachem Klein above). Sharon's withdrawal boosted its credibility among Palestinians because, unlike its West Bank competitor, rather than ceding territory to Israel its militancy wrested back territory. The other references show how the surprise (only to the US and Israel) electoral victory, and the subsequent attempt to merge Hamas with the PA, made the US and Israel panic. They had the PA in their pocket, and had isolated Hamas. A united front, even one presenting offers of a 10 year ceasefire, made managing Palestinians far more difficult. The PA was coopted by its US and Israel funders into mounting a coup, which was intercepted by Hamas with a ncounter-coup. The result was positive for the external actors, divide et impera again, and the tit-for-tat rocketing resumed. One cannot put all of this in, of course (and there are very many other details I have not mentioned) but the text we have utterly fails to illuminate that period, while the idea persists that somehow Hamas fired rockets and Israel was the victim (ignoring the intense artillery attacks and the application of a gulag system calculated to reduced daily calorific intake pro capita in Gaza to around 1,600 calories etc.etc.etc.)Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Hamas and PIJ are different groups, my point was simply that there were some rockets from Gaza before that unfortunate bombardment of Gaza beach.

I'm not saying that this narrative is incorrect, but there are important things left out. 10 year ceasefire sounds great but their background made it quite hard to trust them. Alaexis_¿question? 22:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

there were some rockets from Gaza as there was artillery fire from Israel. My point is that mainstream newspapers reflexely spun this in terms of a Hamas qua terorist cause vs Israel qua modern democratic state whose existence was under assault-response paradigm. Scholarship, mostly unread, has shown how complex, entangled, that reality is. Hamas's background can be read as suggesting they are untrustworthy or conversely that they have abided by negotiated or unilateral undertakings- The same could be said of Israel (As we have seen repeatedly now and in the past, the official IDF versions of 'events' is rarely trustworthy, or no more trustworthy than what Hamas states of the same). Well, I apologize for making a point that invites a kind of forum abuse, so I will desist, hoping that editors at least take note that, whatever one's personal sympathies, one must take care not to be 'sucked in' by the fog and fug of war and strive for neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Academic sources invite synthesis and original research. Add them with caution with the added material, making sure you check that they don't conflict with the reliable sources. We are generally here to summarize/reflect reliable sources, not synthesize information from academic ones. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wherdja fish up that odd idea, Chuck? I.e., that breaking news mainstream newspaper articles written to a deadline in a frantic 24 hour publishing cycle are RS and establish the quality and credibility of this encyclopedia, whereas scholarly retrospective analysis, often years in the making given their deliberative collegial study of the same events, are less reliable than contemporary newsprint? Or rather, editors who spend an hour or several parsing any number of high quality scholarly texts bearing on an event to eke out something cogent for our articles risk suffering from a temptation (WP:Synth) which might disrupt what editors who google up dozens of contemporary articles selecting whatever'stuff' might strike them as relevant for illuminating an event? That actually inverts standard WP priorities. I see you've made 646 edits, just past the qualifying 500 mark, in four years. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the stipulations at WP:RS before editing.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'll take the L there lol. Came across super poorly and probably the worst I think I've ever come across at expressing the concern that I had, so fair! Not gonna make it worse by getting into what the concern I had was though, will leave it there. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Academic sources invite synthesis and original research ...conflict with the reliable sources Eh? Rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah bad take on my part. Moving on. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Psst, @Chuckstablers, FYI, WP:V: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science., WP:RS: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

See above (I can take an L twice but not thrice). Chuckstablers (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But in all seriousness thank you :) Chuckstablers (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I understood your thought. Yes, academic articles are synthesis and original research. On Wikipedia, editors cannot do their own original research and synthesis, but they can reference sources that are synthesis or original research. Because on Wikipedia, it is about verifiably not truth. Chin up, buttercup! And ideas and self improvement is never a loss! :) Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reactions in "Arab world" section needs to be substantially redone

It currently implies that the Arab world is somehow pro-Israel this time around, but the evidence provided is rather one-sided. In fact, most Arab governments remain sympathetic to the Palestinians (e.g., all are calling for a ceasefire and are expressing grave concerns about the humanitarian situation), and the Arab public is also largely pro-Palestine with many pro-Palestine protests. See e.g., this.

I am happy to change the section myself, but since the section needs a complete overhaul I thought I'd mention it on the talk page first. JDiala (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right, JDiala, it does need a bit of work. For one, the recent Riyadh summit should be mentioned – exceptional for bringing together the leaders of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Please go ahead ... --Andreas JN466 01:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate framing of the issue. Among the Western developed nations, all are "sympathetic to the Palestinians", have been consistently committed to the creation of a Palestinian State, and are epressing grave concerns about the humanitarian costs of war. So, the entire world is "pro-Palestinian" but not pro-Hamas or pro-terror. Maybe take another try at framing the opportunity for content improvement? SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For the interested

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.

---

Haaretz article on 2023 Israel–Hamas war WP-editing on Hebrew Wikipedia: Blame Games and Edit Wars as Wikipedia Gets Pulled Into the Israel-Gaza Conflict Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've checked some individual pages related to the conflict on Hebrew Wikipedia and the adherence to policy and gaps between the sources and what is said on the pages is ... interesting to say the least. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you also check said policy pages on the Hebrew edition? How about the Arabic edition? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming he.wiki still has WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

So the answer to both of my questions is “no.” I mean, since we are having what punts to a forum conversation, I suppose you didn’t have to follow those same policies in your little investigation. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article-author states: "Unlike many Wikipedias in languages with a global span, like English, Spanish or Arabic, Hebrew Wikipedia resembles its Polish or Hungarian counterparts in being more of an "Israeli Wikipedia." It can be seen as having an implicit pro-Israeli bias." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

According to one journalist. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe the historian and wikipedia editor Shira Klein is undertaking a research project in this regard on the Hebrew version of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 19 November 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.

Edit request for the regulars

Because this talk page is extended-confirmed protected, legitimate edit requests have shifted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. The regulars here should be checking that page and responding. Would someone please review the backlog and resolve them?

Normally it's just administrators who manage that page, but anybody can — and administrators would be reluctant to get involved in the content of a contentious article.

Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. nableezy - 21:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General bias in all articles about this war

Hello,

I want to express my analysis of the impression that the articles, their titles and their sources give me about this war between the state of Israel and the Palestinian resistance factions, since the operations carried out by the Palestinians on October 7, 2023.

Indeed, this war is the continuation and consequence of 75 years of colonization, dispossession and humiliation of the Palestinian people first by Zionist groups, then by the state of Israel, via its army and its law enforcement and security forces , as well as by settlers in occupied areas. So it must be treated in a fair and balanced manner, taking into account the reality of both camps.

The versions of the belligerents can be considered non-neutral, since they seek to justify their action. Therefore, the media in countries at war cannot be considered neutral, especially if they support a war-torn government. However, as Western governments have decided to uncritically support the version of events delivered by Israel, and as the major Western media have decided to repeat these versions without doing too much fact checking (at least, this is the perception of many criticism of the media treatment of this conflict).

In fact, the reader's impression, when we see the caution of uncertainty when the abuses target the Gaza Strip, and attributed in part by some to Israel, compared to the certainty of the information in relation to the acts committed by Palestinian factions on October 7. In summary, by bringing together the different perceptions, we see that most of the articles and the several discussed points of view are only relaying the points of view from the Israeli side and their inherent narrative. However, this denies Israel's history of occupation of the Palestinian territories. Since several Western media relay the Israeli point of view, the use of these sources will also make the texts biased. Let us not add another layer of unconditional support to the storytelling of an oppressive state, who is suspected of having committed several intentional crimes against innocent civilian populations. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is a source of information for the general public, but also a source of information for journalists. Likewise, the fact of writing these versions makes it possible to legitimize the reasoning of one camp or the other.

Thank you in advance, this was my perception of the current state of treatment of the conflict on the English Wikipedia.

-- Anas1712 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Which "several Western media relay the Israeli point of view"? I think you are mistaken. The coverage by mainstream Western sources, such as CNN or NYT, is a scathing criticism of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention this a WP:NOTFORUM section]] . Borgenland (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Section on Palestinian militant groups

We need a section to elaborate on the combatants, most detailed article seems to be from this source [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What information do you think needs to be added? We already have articles on Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces, and this article is quite long already so I want to avoid over cluttering the article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian death toll according to U.S. and Israel

In the lede, there is a sentence which states that western officials have expressed doubts about the number of Palestinian deaths (10,000+), which was reported by their health ministry. The reference for this is dated 28 October. Subsequently however, U.S. released a new statement[2] on 9 November, saying that the death toll is like "much higher" than what is being reported by the Palestinian Health Minisry. Therefore this sentence in its current form is contradictory. Meanwhile, according to Israel, the Palestinian death toll is over 20,000.[3] Ecrusized (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we do not do original research. We simply follow the sources reflecting both international media and intelligence reports. Since there are conflicting sources, feel free to add more sources reflecting different reports. Dovidroth (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You are a fairly new user, articles are not supposed to contradict themselves. Ecrusized (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to write that some sources say X and others say Y. All we can do at this point is quote sources. Dovidroth (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: Just want to point out that Dovidroth's account is a year older about 5 months older and has 200 more edits than yourself. Not trying to play "gotcha," just wanted to point out that saying "you're new" implying they don't know what they're talking about while linking to a template isn't very helpful or constructive - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated account age - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In past conflicts, when it has been possible to verify, Palestinian figures on casualties have been found to be greatly exaggerated; by orders of magnitude eg 900+ claimed, 50+ verified. Nontheless you'll also find claims by news agencies that Hamas figures are credible. Personally I don't believe any numbers and it will be long after the conflict when UNRWA records are checked that credible numbers are available. For now we can do no more than report what reliable sources say. WCM_email 10:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you’re in the correct timeline? Palestinian figures have been fairly accurate in the past 3 conflicts, including two full scale wars The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes I am, you'll note my comment about verification. I'm not aware of any case of Palestinian figures being accurate when independently verified. WCM_email 14:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Gaza health ministry estimates for death tolls in previous wars have held up as accurate, I believe it’s also cited in the casualties article

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In Jenin, the PA claimed 900+ were buried under rubble by the IDF, Amnesty International pronounced at least 500 were under the rubble. After the conflict, independent investigation pronounced 52, 38 combatants, 14 killed in cross-fire. The IDF estimate was 56. As that article quotes, the same PA agency provides the figures in Gaza. Looking at who considers them accurate doesn't fill me with confidence. So based on past history I distrust all numbers being accurate until long after the conflict has ended. Perhaps another personal attack would convince me? WCM_email 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is jenin, PA. I am talking about wars in Gaza, of which this is one of The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Which sentence are you referring to in the lead? It may have been deleted because I'm not seeing anything that expresses doubts about the figures. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Its been removed, as has any mention of the accuracy of the figures. WCM_email 16:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on infobox casualties

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

There is clear consensus to attribute with an endnote. The main point in this discussion was weighing the attribution provided by secondary sources when discussing the casualties. A solid majority supported providing attribution for all claims with an endnote, arguing that reliable sources provided attribution from both the Gaza Health Ministry and Israel. This position was strengthened by providing discussion in RS about why they considered the Gaza Health Ministry reliable for sourcing casualties, and how the RS found their numbers generally reliable. Although it was demonstrated that RS appear more likely to attribute the Ministry's claims, it was also shown that RS also attribute Israel's claims. The argument about the disparity in attributing the Ministry's numbers versus Israel's numbers was not strong enough to sway those responding.

Some editors felt that there needed to be full attribution in the infobox for clarity and the benefit of readers, who seldom read footnotes. The consensus, however, was that the endnote and explanation in prose was sufficient to address these concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

Nableezy 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1 Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [4], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" (WP:WTA); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.VR _talk 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." Alaexis_¿question? 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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

• 1 as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: per Hemiauchenia. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 4 per User:Meeepmep here, which should be fixed to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article. Also OK with 3.5 it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this 2 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Per Joseph Biden, here, "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 (but also voted above): its important to note this RfC question is only about the infobox, not about the body of the article. For the infobox, just like the WP:LEAD, we must necessarily be concise. I support in-line attribution (along with necessary context) for the body of the article, but not the lead or infobox.VR _talk 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 The second item (2) looks to be more informative and appropriate for the readers; i.e. "Attributed for all numbers inline..." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. per Selfstudier and there is no reason to think the GHM figures are any less accurate than the 'fog of war' allows - despite what Joe Biden may think. Indeed, HGM according to the Gdn and others "also issued a 212-page list of the names and identity numbers of every Palestinian it says has been killed in the Israeli bombardment. Unless doctors and admins are complicit in fabricating death certificates etc, these numbers are about as cast-iron certain as they could possibly be, and it would easily provable if significant faking or exaggerating were happening. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3. An explicit attribution of such numbers to the sides of the conflict is important. Version "1" does not really provide such attribution. Even if one follows the footnotes in version "1", it is not immediately clear which side is responsible for which number. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  If one follows the footnotes, this information is absolutely clear. And it's also clear in the body of the article. VR _talk 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 is best, as it is NPOV and gives plenty of information without cluttering up the box unduly, and follows practice with other contentious conflicts. 1 is acceptable as gives the full info, but requires more work of the inexperienced reader. 3 is unacceptable as POV. 4 is silly, as it departs from our principles of verifiability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 as there is no significant doubt in Israeli numbers and they are reported as is in reliable sources. On the other hand, Gazan numbers are published by a terrorist organization. As established by the New York Times: "This evidence, in turn, suggests that the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas, has deliberately told the world a false story. U.S. officials believe that the health ministry also inflated the toll when it announced 500 deaths; the actual number appears to be closer to 100" and " the hospital explosion offers reason to apply particular skepticism to Hamas’s claims about civilian deaths". Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Except the Israelis have estimated 20,000 dead Palestinians in Gaza (Source). nableezy - 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1, or failing that, 2 as the obvious default; absolutely crushing levels of one-sided coverage would be needed to move away from that in an infobox, which aren't present here. Oppose 3 in strongest possible terms; that sort of lopsided attribution in an infobox, where we have no room to explain context, would require that essentially all sources on the Israel numbers, especially the highest-quality ones, state them without attribution. And that simply isn't true - the majority of sources, especially ones that go into any depth, attribute numbers for Israel as well. Uneven doubts about numbers can be discussed in more depth in the article body, where we have much more leeway to give attribution and context, but trying to make that argument by implication in an infobox isn't really appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• 1 and strong oppose 3, I think putting in "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" is disgusting and downplays the amount of casualties that certainly are taking place. There are enough first-hand and verifiable accounts of mass death in the area that any claims that Hamas is fabricating the numbers (which is being implicitly stated by 3) are just wrong. - RockinJack18 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that most suggesting the agency be specified as Hamas-run are doing so because Reliable Sources typically add the qualifier; not to slight anyone. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1 for readability and err on the side of giving the reader the source of the statement. Levivich (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Previous discussions

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

Discussion2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [6] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did some additional analysis, looking at news articles published by the New York Times in the past week mentioning "Gaza Health Ministry". Of these, 16 say "Hamas-run" or similar, while just four omit any mention of Hamas' control of ministry. This is additional evidence that we should be attributing these figures to the Hamas-run ministry.

"Hamas-run" or similar:

1. Israel-Hamas War (October 31)
2. Israel Struck a Dense Area in Gaza, Saying It Killed Hamas Militants
3. Israeli Troops Battle Into Gaza as Airstrike Draws Conflicting Claims
4. Israel-Hamas War (November 1)
5. Israel Confirms Deaths of 15 Soldiers in Ground Invasion of Gaza
6. Wednesday Briefing
7. ‘A Very Slow Game:’ Why the Pace of Israel’s Ground Operation Counts
8. Israelis Advance on Gaza City, as Netanyahu Rules Out Cease-Fire
9. Israel-Hamas War (October 30)
10. Democratic Rifts Over Israel Burst to the Forefront in Congress
11. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)
12. Israel-Hamas War (October 29)
13. ‘You Think of Dying at Any Time’
14. Israel-Hamas War (October 28)
15. What We Know About the War Between Israel and Hamas
16. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)

Only "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. After Years of Vowing to Destroy Israel, Iran Faces a Dilemma
2. Blinken Meets Arab Ministers in Bid to Calm Outrage Over Gaza Airstrikes
3. Israel-Hamas War (November 4)
4. 34 Hours of Fear: The Blackout That Cut Gaza Off From the World

BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war/Archive 28
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
11,278 killed 27,620 wounded 2,660 missing 200 captured (inside Israel)	1,450+ killed 5,433 wounded 245 hostages 28 missing
(Full list) 1,500,000 Palestinians displaced in Gaza 200,000 Israelis displaced

I'm realizing that the casualties is just a lot of information that is being pulled into efns in a desperate attempt to be concise. We're specifying the geography of the losses (West Bank, Israel, Gaza Strip, etc.), the primary source, and by the victims (civilians, medical workers, children). It's quite a lot of information, so it might be best to summarize the casualties and link to a table further into the article. To the right is my suggestion for the infobox, and below is a table. SWinxy (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

	Location	Killed	Wounded	Captured	Missing
Palestinian(?)	Gaza Strip (per Gaza Health Ministry)	10,022	25,408 (70% women and children)		2,660
	Israel (per Israel)	1,000+		200 captured
	West Bank (per Palestinian Authority)	153		2,200 wounded
	Lebanon (per Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel)	87
	Syria (per Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)	16 (14 soldiers, 2 civilians)	12 (7 soldiers, 5 civilians)
Israeli(?)	Israel (per Israel)	1,416+	5,433	245	28 missing
	Gaza	30
	West Bank	4

Reflist and notes
References Notes

World Health Organisation comments on Palestinian casualty figures

Note that World Health Organisation spokespeople have confirmed in several press interviews over the past couple of days that the WHO considers the Palestinian casualty figures reliable.

• BBC: World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy. "We're confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis," he said, adding "the data over the years has been quite solid".

• Die Zeit:
  • German original: Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation, wie viele andere Organisationen, vertraut den Zahlen. "Wir haben in der Vergangenheit gute Erfahrungen mit dem Gesundheitsministerium gemacht, zum Beispiel bei Impfkampagnen. Wir sehen keinen Grund, die Zahlen der Verwundeten, Toten und Kranken grundlegend anzuzweifeln. Und die Frage für uns alle ist doch: Würden wir anders diskutieren, wenn es 100 oder 200 Tote weniger wären? Das glaube ich nicht", sagt Lindmeier.
  • English translation: The World Health Organization, like many other organizations, trusts the figures. "We have had good experiences with the Ministry of Health in the past, for example with vaccination campaigns. We see no reason to fundamentally doubt the numbers of wounded, dead and sick. And the question for all of us is: would we have a different discussion if there were 100 or 200 fewer deaths? I don't think so," says Lindmeier.

--Andreas JN466 23:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, simply looking at your BBC source [7], what does it say? It says: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says more than 10,000 people have been killed in the Palestinian territory since Israel started bombing it last month. More than 4,000 of those killed were children, the ministry said. The number surpasses the UN's figure of about 5,400 killed in Gaza in all of Israel's previous conflicts with Hamas since it took control of the territory in 2007. ... However, World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy.".

OK. So, why does he "believes" in the numbers by the "Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza"? There is no any real explanation except his personal opinion, at least in BBC source. As about German source, do not you think that the numbers of vaccinated and numbers of people killed during a war are very different things? Such numbers are highly unreliable at best. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

More sources supporting the GHM's reliability were discussed at RSN; I'll mention a few different, more recent ones:

• WSJ, 11/10: U.S. Officials Have Growing Confidence in Death Toll Reports From Gaza
• The Hill, 11/9: Death toll in Gaza likely ‘higher than is being reported’: US official: “We’ll know only after the guns fall silent. We take in sourcing from a variety of folks who are on the ground,” she added. “I can’t stipulate to one figure or another, it’s very possible they’re even higher than is being reported.”

DFlhb (talk) 01:19, 11 November 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.

Neutrality of article tag

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.

---

@Wee Curry Monster: I see you've added a neutrality dispute tag to this article. Is there anything in particular you're unhappy with? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be the above discussion, but it seems disproportionate to tag the whole article over a quibble about a single statement - this is the sort of thing that in-line cleanup tags are for. As of now, WCM's version is back in anyway. This is a high throughput article for readers, so the tag should really come down. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

And I started a talk page discussion immediately afterward. You should discuss it there. WCM_email 16:56, 20 November 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.

Ceasefire & NPOV

Both Israel and Hamas have refused to agree to a ceasefire, Hamas going on to say it was committed to the annihilation of Israel. This is included in the article text but has been removed from the lede. As most people read only the lede, this seems an odd omission. Bringing it here for discussion. WCM_email 16:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Has Hamas really rejected a ceasefire? I have only seen a single mention of this, in a throwaway line in that Reuters piece that you added, but I have seen it nowhere else. Hamas appears to have been negotiating for a humanitarian pause as part of a possible hostage deal, which would be in the opposite direction from that. The Israeli government, on the other hand, can be quotes reiteratively on their rejection of a ceasefire. Are there other sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Perhaps you could share the actual diff of the text that you say has been removed from the lead and which you think is due; otherwise, how are editors meant to know? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has indeed refused, it is cited in the article. It has also gone on to say its still committed to the annihilation of Israel. So again why this odd omission and focus on one side of a protracted conflict? WCM_email 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Other than the Reuters piece? My question was are there other sources? Incidentally, Hamas seeking Israel's destruction; just as Israel seeks Hamas', does not preclude a ceasefire. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

While not breaking the ceasefire, I don't think those two things should be compared on such equal terms. Hamas is a political/paramilitary/terrorist (according to several countries and at least one very major IGO, the EU) organization. Israel is a country with some 9 million citizens. Calling for the destruction of an organization and not the entirety of the Palestinian population within the State of Palestine/occupied territories is simply not the same thing as calling for the destruction of an entire state. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Resistance groups rather tend to call for the overthrow of what they view as their oppressor; and vice versa, it's something of an incredibly well-worn pattern of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind it has been added back. WCM_email 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested on an ARBPIA welcome template

I'm posting here because it's currently the most active article in the topic area, and I'd appreciate feedback from editors who would be most likely to see a use for such a template. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 76#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, people should respect 1RR restriction on this page: [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously Fake Videos

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=prev&diff=1186017787] I removed two external instagram videos, which claimed to be evidence of civilian casualties. Reviewing said videos, they are rather obviously faked, which I recognise is down to personal experience of the aftermath of artillery strikes upon civilians whilst serving in the Balkans. That and the appallingly bad acting. I'm not aware of any particular policy, which requires us to keep personal Instagram videos as external links in articles, particularly as they are self-published and aren't recognised as a reliable source. So why was what should have been a non-controversial edit been reverted? WCM_email 12:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the description attached to the videos, both were referenced in the Visual Investigations report by The New York Times, so there is secondary analysis supporting their inclusion. The NYT does not conclude they are fakes. Set against this we have an editor's gut-feeling of doubt and no particular recourse to policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well that speaks to the standard of reporting of the NYT. I'm happy to see them retained if only to illustrate the gullibility of the reporters and that the report was based on obviously faked footage. That does more to debunk the claims made than anything I could edit. WCM_email 12:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that your personal opinion on the validity of material is what matters here, you are misinformed. Kindly stop polluting this talk page with your personal opinions on what is rather obviously faked, this is not a forum for you to espouse your unsourced and ill informed propagandistic beliefs. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 16:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll refer you back to the many reasons why I removed them, which included they were from a self-published source WP:SPS ie Instagram. We do not use WP:SPS except under exceptional circumstances as they are not what wikipedia classifies as a WP:RS. They're impossible to verify and based on personal experience IMHO they are quite clearly faked. See also Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 24#Extremely violent execution video in the body section concerning the inclusion of graphic videos and whilst I disagreed with the closure I have nontheless respected it. Interesting rather than addressing my comments every editor who has commented has felt the need to resort to personal attacks. I always look on ad hominem as an affirmation my comments have a point. WCM_email 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It isnt a personal attack asking you to abide by WP:NOTFORUM. As far as SPS, that is rendered moot by the NY Times covering the videos. You can say they are impossible to verify, and your personal experience is, not in my opinion but based on Wikipedia policy, completely irrelevant as well as, ironically, impossible to verify. And, oh by the way, what the Times says about the videos are "The Times has done extensive independent verification of the material he captured at Al-Shifa." So they appear to believe the videos can be verified and have in fact verified them. Who are we to believe, the random person on the internet known on Wikipedia as "Wee Curry Monster" or the New York Times? Tough choice tbh, but Ima go with the Times. Your comments are based on nothing but personal opinion, and as such they are worth absolutely nothing here. This video is cited and analyzed by the New York Times, so it has weight to be included. Kindly stop disrupting this talk page with inane personal beliefs that are not relevant to improving the article.nableezy - 17:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticise me by all means but "unsourced and ill informed propagandistic beliefs" is an ad hominem personal attack. Enjoy the WP:LASTWORD to justify your own poor conduct. WCM_email 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lol, no they are attacks on those unsourced and ill informed propagandistic beliefs. They very much are not attacking the person making the argument, they are attacking the argument. Maybe read ad hominem before using those words again? The poor conduct is by the user WP:FORUMing and arguing against a reliable source based on their imaginary expertise in war casualties in Gaza. Toodles. nableezy - 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh look, another “pallywood” endorser. I guess the man on the ground bleeding out is acting, I guess the limp body being dragged is “acting”, I guess the two dead kids is “appallingly bad acting.” Is the IDF also admitting that they have targeted Al Shifa and bombed their convoys also “acting?” Please find a better excuse to justify atrocities instead of looking at obviously distressed, wounded, and dead children and waffling about the unfounded “pallywood” conspiracy The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is textbook definition of WP:OR. If you can find a reliable sources that doubt this videos authenticity, then please add them. Otherwise Wikipedia is reliant on what reliable sources say, for better or for worse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to be a bit more neutral with our responses here, fellow editors (@Iskandar323 did a good job with their initial response, but this has degenerated with other editors). It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to determine the veracity or "fakeness" of videos coming from either side in this conflict. Rather, we should and must use reliable sources and, in the case of videos like this, reliable secondary source analysis and conclusions on them being genuine. See WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If NYT has not concluded they are fake, then that's going to be what we report here. If you have reliable secondary source analyses that disagree and conclude the videos are fake, you can present them here. We might end up in a situation where we have to report in our article both the conclusion that they are genuine and the conclusion that they are not, though that is going to be subject to policies like WP:WEIGHT. What I mean by that is that NYT is pretty respected in its investigation rigor, so if another source like the Daily Mail (I'm spitballing here, don't take me literally) says they conclude it is fake, well, we might not include both as the Daily Mail just isn't considered anywhere near as rigorous in their investigations. I hope this helps. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats all well and good, but the opening comment started with claimed to be evidence of civilian casualties, appallingly bad acting, and earlier we have comments along the lines of nothing the Palestinians say can be trusted but we have no choice because reliable sources trust them. Whatever though, the user is now informed of the discretionary sanctions and further foruming can be reported to the right place. nableezy - 17:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in WP:CIVILITY or WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL that has a specific exception for "if the initial incivility is about the Israel/Palestine conflict, you can respond with incivility in kind." Nor am I aware of such exceptions at WP:CT/A-I. Please feel free to direct me to such an exception for this topic if it exists. If anything, as far as I am aware, editors (especially experienced ones who should know better) should be striving even harder at contentious topics for civility, as far as I am aware, and not allow themselves to be baited. I realize this is difficult and I certainly have been a guilty party. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Im not aware of any incivility in my responses either. I am aware of foruming and I repeat the request that it stop. On all sides. nableezy - 18:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra Thank you for a note of common sense and I fully take on board the comment about WP:BAITING. You're absolutely right, I should have simply ignored the replies (and initially did removing one of my replies when I thought better of it). In answer to the question you posed, there are tons of articles out there concerning the use of faked videos, I'm not sure if any refer to these particular videos and I don't intend to try and find one. I asked a question and received a reply and I would have left it there; for exactly the policy reasons you outlined above. That doesn't mean I have to believe it myself if it contradicts my own experiences, if I'm right its clearly a piece of propaganda and those attacking me should take a long hard look at themselves when they accuse others of propagandist beliefs. Welcome to the WP:LASTWORD once more. WCM_email 08:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Graveyard for children

Previously discussed at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 27#Graveyard for children and a consensus reached to leave this in but has now been reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, the reverters have been reverted, no more edit warring please, discuss it again here if desired.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the most important parts of the article; is this such a prominent quote, a quote that defines the conflict, that it not only belongs in the lede but in the first paragraph of the lede? That discussion doesn't really seem to consider that question, only whether it belongs in the article - I would agree that it does, but I believe such a prominent position is WP:UNDUE - and looking at our other articles on wars, including Arab-Israeli wars, none put a quote in the first paragraph. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's something you think there may be support for, I would start a discussion in a new thread. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And once more reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier@BilledMammal Sorry, hadn't seen this. I agree the "graveyard for children" statement belongs in the lead – though not perhaps in the first paragraph. At the time I moved it down so it was together with the other statements on the humanitarian situation.

I am not particularly happy with the lead as it currently stands. The Guterres statement has gone altogether. It should return. Another thing we have lost for the moment is the statement about C-sections and amputations being performed without anesthetic. We just say that "The health system is failing." That is too anodyne a statement for my liking. It doesn't give the reader any idea what it actually means on the ground. There are something like 180 women giving birth in Gaza every day. Many of the amputations are performed on children. Andreas JN466 22:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Personally I think statistics like 40% deaths were children or 70% deaths were women and children are more convincing than metaphors. It’s the statistics that would convince me that something is wrong with Israel’s military approach or accuracy if half of its targets are women are children. That being said I also don’t know how much starvation, disease, and underlying pre-existing conditions contribute to those statistics, and so even presenting those statistics in that way could be misleading. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't know why this sentence (and other relevant information) keeps being taken out of the lead. This was discussed, as noted, and the extent of edit warring is inappropriate. These are statements by important international and intergovernmental organizations, which have not been withdrawn. And I note, in passing, that when consensus for inclusion was reached on November 7, the article reported the death toll among children as being over 4,000; the current figure is over 5,000. The situation clearly continues to deteriorate, and the lead should reflect the gravity of the situation. This edit removed pivotal information which should be restored. WillowCity^(talk) 02:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "graveyard for children" should include the relevant context that the median age of civilian residents in Gaza is under 18, or in other words children comprise the majority of the population in Gaza. The majority of the fighting (IDF soldiers and Hamas militants) is being done by adults, but because of Gaza's demographics, it's not surprising that children will comprise a substantial portion of the civilian casualties. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not relevant. If Monaco or Japan were being bombarded and besieged, the attacker would still be required to respect the legal principles of distinction, precaution, proportionality, and military necessity. It would not be a defence that the majority of the casualties in those cases would likely be older adults. The fact that something is unsurprising doesn't make it less significant, nor does it change what Guterres said. (edited for clarity) WillowCity^(talk) 02:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that actually makes sense mathematically considering the population age distribution. I kind of know what you’re talking about but that type of analytics would go over the heads of most readers and make things too complicated. WillowCity has a point that Israel Israel is still obligated to follow proportionality. I still think it would be better if there be a numerical way to measure proportionality. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite the majority; a number that's been quoted by UNICEF, NPR and others is that 47.3% are under 18. At any rate I agree the UN General Secretary's statement belongs somewhere in the lead. Andreas JN466 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I went through the comments and realized that like the previous discussion there's a rather unanimous consensus among the users to include this comment by UN chief in the lead. However, users are not holding the same opinion as to which paragraph should feature the 'grave yard' comment. Since it was originally in the first para, I will put it back there and ask those wo disagree with this position start a threaded discussion for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Remove. I disagree with including this in the lead, as it seems undue, echoing @BilledMammal'ss earlier point. In an article of this length, filled with numerous significant details, featuring a quote of a single specific reaction doesn't seem appropriate. Marokwitz (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The killing of thousands of minors is a very significant feature of this war, very well covered by reliable sources and should therefore be covered in the lead in some form, removal of the quote, if it stands, requires replacement by something else dealing with this matter. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The lead already states, "As of 14 November 2023, more than 12,000 Palestinians, including 5,000 children, have been killed." Marokwitz (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Remove from lede, as it is not a factual statement of the topic, but a quote from a person about the situation. It should be in the article about the reaction, but in the lede it is WP:UNDUE. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "a person" who is effectively the face of the world's most important intergovernmental organization. At least two separate subsections of MOS:LEAD refer to the use of quotations, so there's certainly no policy against relevant, well-sourced quotations by notable individuals. WillowCity^(talk) 22:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sadly, the UN has grown increasingly a political organization over the course of many decades, and its leaders are as much politicians as statesmen. This does not belong in the lead, which should summarize the facts of most enduring significance -- of which there are many. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that statement of a "graveyard for children" will have enduring significance. --Andreas JN466 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  You think it's significant that this guy said it? Surely you don't mean that any such statement is noteworthy. Why this man's statement at this time, vs. all of the detail we have in the war crimes section? SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The NYTimes appears to think it's noteworthy given their front page story today titled: "The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children". It is continued with a full page on page 13 bannered: "Smoldering Gaza becomes graveyard for thousands of children." [9] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond dispute - but no mention of Gutteres on that NY Times page. There is extensive RS reporting that places the civilian toll in historical and humanitarian context that will be much more informative to our readers. We should not rely on the UN as a badge of emphasis in lieu of an encyclopedic presentation of the facts and circumstances readily supported by RS. The facts on the ground are not about Gutteres. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Guterres (one t) was describing the facts on the ground. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  He was not describing, he was evaluatinng and commenting. He is a thoughtful and committed official and he has also borne the deaths of scores of UN personnel. But to encapsulte the situation in a phrase like that is not the best encyclopedic summary either of the situation or even of his more extensive comments on the Israeli campaign. It does justice to neither. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Keep --Andreas JN466 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, I have another comment: Currently we have “ As of 14 November 2023more than 12,000 Palestinians, including 5,000 children, have been killed, making this the deadliest war for children in modern times.” Adding the “Graveyard for children” quote does give it more weight in the lead.. but what about other issues like the things going on in the West Bank? I believe land is being seized and homes are being demolished. Can we leave out the Graveyard for children quote and add other issues that are happening? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not both? --Andreas JN466 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Balance issue. Just feels off balance because then the majority of the lead focuses on the victimization of Palestinians, but the Jewish are also victims here too, although their number of casualties are smaller. There are rockets still being fired into Israel. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also it was Hamas who started this war. Not Israel. And also the trade for all hostages for all prisoners is not fair because there are 240 hostages but over 4000 Palestinian prisoners Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of the article split, this is about the war (on Gaza, I would say, but that's for another day), 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is about the attack leading to Israeli casualties (note not only Jewish). There is a precedent for such "unfair" prisoner swaps. The lead is supposed to cover significant features of the war, so the Hamas attack needs to be summarized in the lead here, and it is, right up front, in para 1. After that, what are the significant features? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t add the prisoner swap sentence, someone else did. I just added the number of prisoners. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I added the part about how it was In the early weeks of conflict. But I didn’t add the original prisoner swap sentence. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, does that mean West Bank info shouldn’t be added? I was going to add that, but it’s not extensively covered in media. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What you think is fair is not a concern for Wikipedia, please use this talk page only to discuss the article, not our feelings about what it covers. nableezy - 19:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it just blurted out because I was trying to explain why it felt off balance to me. I may be confusing the BALANCE guideline again. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Remove from the lede, per WP:NPOV. The UN also said that there were "horrific scenes of violence" in Israel [10] on October 7. The lede is not the place to add such quotes. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment The same of consensus on entering text has happened with other archived discussions, I think editing notes should be put in text that reached consensus to help stop their removal similar to the notes that were in the infobox Bobisland (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Chen Kugel - Misquotation

I have added a dubious tag to the statement attributed to Chen Kugel of the Israeli Forensic Institute,

See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTItPHa6mw] for the full conference and the context of the quote.

During the conference, he was asked about decapitations, he does make the statement attributed to him. He then goes on to comment that the institute has only seen a subset of cases where it had not been possible to identify victims because of putrefaction or immolation. Further, another scientist in the conference confirms that beheadings had been observed in other cases.

Please do verify that this is the case.

So this quotation is being used in the article to cast doubt upon whether decapitations took place. In the context of the press conference a meaning is attached to his comment that is not supported when the statement is put into context. That is a classic example of an unintended meaning being attached to comment. It seems nugatory, since in the very next sentence direct evidence is supplied. I would suggest it is removed. WCM_email 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your removal is a one revert rule violation, you should probably correct that. nableezy - 16:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with policy before you embarass yourself with a mistaken accusation. WCM_email 16:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

lol k, next time to AE then. nableezy - 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You might find a WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to use the threat of a false AE report to intimidate people from editing. WCM_email 16:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)