Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Rockets falling short

@BilledMammal: This is not discussed in the body, nor in the source does it say that the casualties are caused by 12% rocket failure. Most RS do not make this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources have widely discussed casualties caused by rockets falling short; for a notable incident, see Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion - more coverage, I would note, than has been given to friendly fire by Israeli forces. As for the specifics of what I added, this is just an appropriately brief summary to fit in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
12% is never mentioned in body and thus this is not a summary. Sources focusing on the casualties have never -to my knowledge- discussed that rockets falling short were responsible, nor did they cite a 12% figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Easily resolvable; I've added the 12% figure to the body. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
'''Sources focusing on the casualties have never -to my knowledge- discussed that rockets falling short were responsible, nor did they cite a 12% figure.''' Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've provided additional sources to address your concerns; one, for example, says Hamas does not discriminate between those killed by Israel and those killed by the hundreds of rockets it fired that fell short in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've explained before that you're synthesizing multiple sources; the JNS source[unreliable source?] says, exactly: Around 12% of the rockets fell short, striking in Gaza and endangering civilians there. It does not say that any have been killed as a result; in fact, it does not mention mortality figures whatsoever. The ToI source you cite above is so aggressively POV that it should really be discounted (I mean, "Hamas says"? No, the Health Ministry, whose figures are backed by the Lancet, says.) Even if we don't discount it, it makes no mention of this 12% figure. This is poorly sourced and definitionally WP:SYNTH, it should be reverted. WillowCity(talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
ToI is a reliable source, and the Gaza Health Ministry is run by Hamas.
Regarding the actual content, would you be more comfortable if we say "between ten and twenty percent", citing the New York Times and Human Rights Watch (source already in the article)? BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The Health Ministry is run by Hamas inasmuch as the IPS is run by Otzma Yehudit (i.e., Itamar Ben-Gvir). It's a healthcare service run by bureaucrats and staffed by medical personnel. ToI may be reliable for the Israeli view of events, but I question whether it should be relied on for statements of fact without attribution.
Anyway, the language you suggest would need to be attributed to NYT and HRW "citing Israeli military data", per the NYT article. NYT also notes Iron Dome interceptions, which may also explain rockets "falling short" (while we're synthesizing, we could throw that in).
Even then, this does not address the question of whether this is due for inclusion anywhere in the article, and not just in the lede. The coverage of this supposed issue has been extremely limited from what I've seen, to the extent that it would skew the BALASP of the article. Content-wise, I think inclusion would be POV. WillowCity(talk) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
There has been considerable coverage of rockets falling short, both in general and individual incidents - to the extent that I could easily present hundreds of reliable sources. It is certainly WP:DUE for both the article and the lede.
Iron Dome doesn’t intercept rockers inside Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Iron Dome missiles have a range of up to 70 km; a battery in Tel Aviv could certainly intercept a rocket over Gaza City, in theory.
Regarding the volume of sources, if you can present "hundreds" of RSPSS that address the issue squarely, without cherrypicking, then I'd like to see them–the onus is on you, after all. WillowCity(talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally not - they intercept during free fall which generally occurs after the rocket has entered Israeli territory.
What do you mean address the issue squarely, without cherrypicking? BilledMammal (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, clumsy wording--I meant that the sources should address the issue squarely, such that relying on them for the stated proposition is not cherrypicking. I.e., a single, oblique reference to Palestinian rockets in a 2,000-word article focusing on Gaza casualties would be WP:CHERRYPICK. WillowCity(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what you mean, but for the general topic I did a quick search and, excluding sources identified as unreliable, found these that I believe to be sufficient: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9y, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
You may disagree with the inclusion of some of these sources, but the point is that this it is trivial to find sources that document this, and it is appropriate for us to note that these figures do not distinguish between Palestinians killed by Israel and Palestinians killed by Palestinian Militants - us failing to do so is a violation of NPOV, as it will leave readers with the false impression that all casualties are due to Israeli action.
As for specific incidents, I can't be bothered producing another list now, but I'll just point towards Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion where you will find dozens of sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
On paper, an impressive number (not "hundreds", but decent). But they unravel under even brief scrutiny:
1) I disagree with the inclusion of many of these sources, and while it may be trivial to find non-reliable sources that document this issue, that is not the standard; there must be sufficient coverage in RS.
2) Of the 20 sources above, only 4 have been determined reliable by RSPSS. 2 more, PBS and New Statesman, I will concede are also reliable. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of any of the 14 others (many of which are either Israeli or potentially agenda-driven).
2) of the 4 sources that the community definitively considers reliable, the Amnesty source is from June, before the current war even began; using it to support this claim would be synth. NYT attributes the allegation to Israel: ("says HRW, citing Israeli military data".) The piece in The Australian (potentially a "partisan source" per RSPSS) appears to be an op-ed. The other sources whose reliability I concede either attribute the claims (PBS: "Israel says ... rockets have misfired") or are equivocal (New Statesman: "[Rockets] may, through misfires, have killed more Palestinians...")
3) this leaves a single RS that is definitively reliable, Haaretz, which is paywalled (sadly I don't subscribe). That said, one RS does not verifiability make.
4) There is no confirmation that al-Ahli was caused by a misfired rocket; Wikipedia currently does not say so in wikivoice. Even if it was, relying on coverage of it in the way you suggest would still be synthesis because sources are not discussing it in the context you propose here, with the exception of a single link in the NYT article you linked above.
5) This means, at best, we have one demonstrably high-quality source for the claim you propose to include in the lead in wikivoice. This is not sufficient given the volume of coverage of other issues, many of which are not included in the lead. WillowCity(talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You suggest that most of these sources are unreliable; can you explain why you consider them to be unreliable? I note that a source doesn't need to be listed at RSP to be reliable; see WP:RSPMISSING.
Regarding the sources you assess individually:
  1. PBS also says that misfired rockets killed Palestinians in its own voice; More than 3,600 Palestinian children were killed in the first 25 days of the war between Israel and Hamas, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by misfired rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings, and among them were newborns and toddlers, avid readers, aspiring journalists and boys who thought they’d be safe in a church. Emphasis mine.
  2. The Australian source is, I believe, a news source.
  3. The "may" in the New Statesman source is referring to the possibility that these rockets have killed more Palestinians than they have Israelis, not that they may have killed Palestinians.
Regarding al-Ahli, sources are in consensus that Israel being the culprit is extremely unlikely, and some go further than that and say conclusively that Palestinian Islamic Jihad was the culprit. I believe that is sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. JNS is notably hawkish on Israel. Tablet has also veered right in recent years. The Christian Post is a conservative evangelical outlet, and the linked article cites to ToI for the relevant point anyway. As for ToI itself (and JPost) both of these outlets have right-wing connections, and media censorship is rampant in Israel; the 1945 Defence (Emergency) Regulations creates a regime of extensive censorship which has recently expanded; self-censorship has also increased. In fact, the Rwandan foreign ministry accused ToI of disinformation just yesterday.
The Economic Times story is a reprint from ANI, a propaganda outlet (see RSPSS).
On further review, Stuff is likely also reliable, but it does not indicate that the total death toll includes casualties from misfires, and it cites a single aid worker from NZ for the misfire question. The Messenger is also probably reliable, but it covers rocket misfires in a single sentence (and very possibly with attribution, although unclear due to the dangling/misplaced modifier) in the context of an article on Israeli friendly fire, so relying on it as you suggest would be WP:CHERRYPICK (unless we propose to also cover Israeli friendly fire in the lead).
I'm unsure about the reliability of JTS but they refer to the issue in passing, without evidence, in articles about generally unrelated matters.
I'm aware that bias and reliability are not the same, but when almost of the relevant sources for a claim are coming from a shared POV, or are connected to the subject, or are of dubious reliability for other reasons, it raises the question of whether inclusion is due, or whether it is simply pushing a POV. This is particularly the case when the relevant sources are relatively few in number (amid an absolute tsunami of news coverage).
PBS later clarifies that its conclusion is based on Israeli reports. And considering that the Australian article describes pro-Palestine activism as a "long campaign" against "Jews, and America" I would be very surprised if it was not an op-ed. Regarding NS, that is the only reference to rocket misfires and it is, on my reading, unclear as to whether they are definitively stating that any Palestinians have been killed. All they say is "may".
I think that covers all of them. Again, the sources just aren't up to snuff.
(as for Al-Ahli, maybe not an airstrike, but the evidence is still inconclusive, and Wikipedia has yet to take a side in its own voice. Artillery shelling (for example) is still a possibility.) WillowCity(talk) 05:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
PBS says "Israel says...more than 500 militant rockets have misfired and landed in Gaza, killing an unknown number of Palestinians." So we should be attributing this allegation to Israel. VR talk 05:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
All of this is also getting away from the real question of whether a preponderance of reliable sources are describing Gaza casualties in this way, which they certainly aren’t. WillowCity(talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:DUE; a fact doesn't need to be mentioned in a majority of sources on a topic to be due for inclusion - think it through for a moment, you'll see the problem with holding otherwise.
Instead, a majority of sources that discuss the fact need to agree with the proposed position, and a sufficient number of sources need to discuss the topic. In this case, sources that discuss whether Palestinian rockets have killed Palestinians are in agreement, and a sufficient number have discussed the topic.
PBS attributes the specific number of misfires; it says in its own voice, per the section I quoted, that Palestinian children have been killed by misfires.
Regarding your review of your sources, it seems you agree that they are mostly reliable, although you hold that some are biased; the requirement for inclusion is met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
What exact text are you proposing? PBS gives absolutely no numbers for children killed by misfired rockets, which could be as low as 1 child killed (according to PBS). Certainly doesn't belong in the lead. VR talk 06:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@WillowCity My wife and I happen to have a Haaretz subscription, but it may interest you to know that you can generally view any Haaretz article by accessing its archive on archive.is, in this case: [1] Andreas JN466 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know how you got that from my last comment. I pointed out that less than half the sources were reliable for the stated point, due to a lack of independence or other disqualifying factors, and of those that are, most of them can’t be used for the proposition you’re proposing. The real requirement for inclusion is editorial consensus so we’ll see where the chips fall on that one.
As for WP:DUE, let’s try a hypothetical. If 100 sources said apples are healthy, and 1 source said that some apples are dangerous, would we include in the lead of apple that they’re dangerous? If 100 RS said negligence caused deaths in an industrial accident, and 1 source said that some of the workers died of unrelated causes, would it be due to discuss the other causes in the lead? WillowCity(talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You argued that less than half the sources were unbiased; a source can be biased and reliable - although, I disagree with you on your assessment of some of those sources bias.
Regarding your hypothetical, of course we wouldn't - but for that hypothetical to be equivalent we would need 100 (or actually, 2000 to maintain the 1:100 ratio, but I'll settle for 20) reliable sources telling us either that militant rockets don't misfire and hit Gaza, or that they don't kill Palestinians when they do. Do you have those sources? BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I reasoned that their bias made them unreliable for the intended proposition. I pointed out WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which indicates that a source that may be reliable for some things is unreliable for other things.
And you're asking the wrong question. The question is not "do rockets misfire or not" or "do misfires cause casualties or not". The relevant question is whether this is in any way a material detail, as reflected by meaningful, widespread, reliable coverage. It's definitely not. Here are 20 indisputably high-quality sources that make no mention of it: NYT [2] ("killed by Israeli airstrikes", no mention of rockets) [3]; CBC [4] [5] (from Reuters); The Guardian [6] (Israel's "assault ... has killed more than 22,400 people"; nothing on rockets); [7]; [8] (article on death toll via the AP, no mention of rockets); AP itself [9]; CNBC [10] [11]; Reuters [12]; [13]; BBC [14]; [15]; [16]; ABC [17]; Barron's via AFP [18]; today's CNN live coverage (no mention of alleged Palestinian rocket casualties) [19]; The Independent [20]; Voice of America (for those who like that sort of thing) [21]; CBS (via the AP) [22].
These are cream of the crop sources from the past week or two (many are from the past few days), and most focus on casualties/the humanitarian situation. I could probably find 80 (or even 980) more if I had time. We don't need to (nor should we) scrape the bottom of the barrel for sources that push Israeli talking points.
This detail is an irrelevance as demonstrated by the complete lack of quality sources that repeat it. It would serve only to skew the lead towards a POV. WillowCity(talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The question is not "do rockets misfire or not" or "do misfires cause casualties or not". To fit your analogy, it does.
Further, as I said before, a fact doesn't need to be mentioned in a majority of sources on a topic to be due for inclusion - think it through for a moment, you'll see the problem with holding otherwise.
It only has to be mentioned in a sufficient number; you recognize this elsewhere, such as in #Mention of apartheid RfC where you argue that we should include a mention, and in #RfC on genocide accusation in lead you argue we should also include a mention. In both cases a majority of sources on the topic do not mention either of these. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the apple analogy. Not the industrial accident analogy; as in this case, the question would be whether the majority of sources make any reference to the alleged other causes. Here, they do not.
Regarding my other positions, these have to be placed in context. I did not advocate for including apartheid in the lead; I do not necessarily think apartheid should be included in the lead, just as I do not necessarily oppose discussion of rocket misfires in the body.
Regarding genocide, that is based on the lead summarizing the body. Two separate parts of the body make note of the genocide allegation, and that could almost certainly be expanded based on the recent tidal wave of RS coverage following the ICJ proceedings. Here, we have approximately a sentence on rocket misfires (other than al-Ahli, on which my position is clearly set out in this section; even counting that, we have maybe two sentences). WillowCity(talk) 01:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of coverage in the lead of any article, regard must always be had for WP:BALASP. WillowCity(talk) 01:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
And BALASP is met. There is a huge amount of coverage of rockets falling short, both in specific incidents and in general - having had a quick search, I suspect more than the genocide allegations. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I dispute that. Your search produced a handful of RS that made (usually oblique) reference to rocket misfires. Meanwhile, since South Africa instituted its proceedings, there has been increasing coverage of the genocide issue in gold-standard sources. We have a finite amount of space in the lead. Rocket misfires are far from a significant feature of the war as a whole. But I would think both of our views have been made very clear by now; I doubt either of us will change the other's mind on this point. WillowCity(talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Even if the Hamas rockets that failed fell mostly on buildings and were anywhere near the size of the Israeli bombs they would still only account for a fraction of a percent of the deaths overall. NadVolum (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If we trust the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry, then just one of the rockets that fell short caused 2% of the Palestinian deaths. At the very least hundreds have been killed by these rockets, probably thousands, and it warrants a mention. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes You're right, they've fired off a lot more rockets than I thought. NadVolum (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you referring to al-Ahli, the cause of which has not been conclusively determined (such that Israeli involvement can be definitively ruled out)? If that's the best example of a rocket misfire causing fatalities, then I really don't see an argument for inclusion. And again, this doesn't address the coverage/BALASP issue. WillowCity(talk) 16:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I think I'll go with the evidenc it was a misfire. Even so assuming the Palestinian rockets were just as dangerous as the Israeli ones and fell on buildings like them we'd on average probably only have 2% about of the deaths being due to them, say about 500. So the Palestinians were very unluck to have that one kill so many. I wonder if it is true an explosive warhead was recovered fom there - I suppose we'll never know. All those deaths and the bomb not even going off! NadVolum (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
That is precisely why you mix contradictory sources. The sources that say Al-Ahli explosion caused hundreds of casualties also say it was caused by Israel. The sources that say it was caused by a misfired rocket also say much fewer people died. VR talk 05:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
As I said, if we trust the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry; it is your choice whether to do so, although I believe elsewhere I've seen you argue they are trustworthy. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
But what you're proposing is a textbook case for why WP:SYNTH is prohibited. Its prohibited because different sources often have different underlying assumptions, which is indeed the case here. VR talk 06:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal Do you mean 12% of rockets or 12% of casualties?
The first one seems likely, but 12% of casualties second seems implausible.
Irtapil (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Of rockets; I don’t know what percent of casualties. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this topic meets the materiality threshold, and certainly not for the lede. Palestinian rockets are much less powerful. The Wikipedia article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel states that from 2004 to 2014, the circa 10,000 Palestinian/Hamas rockets fired killed 27 Israeli citizens+5 foreigners+5 IDF soldiers. That kind of casualty figures are being regularly surpassed by single detonations of IDF munitions. Whatever the accuracy/error-rate of Palestinian/Hamas rockets, it is likely to be a tiny fraction of the deaths so far, and not material. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In past conflicts, the rockets have been identified as having killed more - sometimes many more - Palestinians than they have Israeli's. Israeli's have iron dome, sirens, shelters, and the region immediately outside Gaza isn’t heavily populated - none of that is true for Gaza.
As I noted above, according to figures from the GHM, 2% of the conflicts current casualties are from a single militant rocket, and thousands have fallen short. BilledMammal (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is precisely an example of inappropriate WP:SYNTH. These are good questions for a journalist to look into. I am not following what you mean by GHM claim of 2% of casualties are from a single militant rocket? Nor does that many any claim about what kind of rockets or impact any remaining rockets have. I would gladly discuss what sources claim, but no Wiki editor should do partial differential equation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources are in agreement that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket is almost certainly (many now saying certainly) the cause of Al-Ahli hospital deaths. If we trust the figures the GHM has provided for the conflict and that incident, that single rocket caused 2% of the casualties.
There is no inappropriate synth here; we are using the casualty figures provided by the same agency for both numbers, and from there it is basic maths which we are permitted to do.
And no, it doesn’t say anything about the other casualties - but your argument was that it was likely to be a tiny fraction, based on OR about Israeli casualties, but this single incident proves otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Aye. All in all, I wouldn't be averse to having friendly fire casualties on both sides mentioned in the lead. Not in the same sentence, mind you – they are quite different – but it seems reasonable to assume that both totals include a not insignificant number of friendly fire casualties. Andreas JN466 23:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Where's the source for the totals? NadVolum (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jayen466 The Times of Israel Daily Briefing podcast covered that recently in a fair bit of detail for within the IDF. https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/the-daily-briefing/ I used to listen to it all the time, but I noticed that was the first episode since 24 October that I've listened to all of. But now i can't work out which episode had the friendly fire bit, i forget which ap i listened on. There's probably a print article that gives me detail anyway. Irtapil (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jayen466 "I wouldn't be averse to having friendly fire casualties on both sides mentioned."
I think we can only get reliable numbers for IDF soldiers, everything else is too debatable.
  • IDF, some decent recent coverage in Times of Israel
  • Friendly fire on 7 October is a huge mess that doesn't belong in summary stats. There is one confirmed by reliable sources and then various increasingly biased sources ranging from "a lot more" to full blown false flag conspiracy theories. Possibly we could list that in summary stats as "at least one"?
  • Palestinian civilians are worse, there's the one Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion incident that's claimed as possibly PIJ, but that's debated (unless you only look at a biased sheet of sources), and then @BilledMammal you can look for other incidents of you want, but it would need to be clearly stated as debated unless there's genuine broad agreement.
As for Gazan combatant casualties we don't even have a reliable a TOTAL, let alone ANY idea of a % friendly fire…
Irtapil (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
we don't have a reliable total for combatants miles on Palestinian side.
  • The IDF claim 8,000 but that is a "one dude says" claim (is there a specific Wikipedia policy for this? if not, there should be).
  • The number of obituaries the militant groups have published its more like dozens than thousands. Combining all factions it is a couple of hundred. It is very common for militaries to hide their casualties but this would involve a pretty big cultural shift compared to the way they are usually stereotyped as aspiring to martyrdom? But I think that stereotype is a bit exaggerated and hiding deaths is plausible.
  • However, the most likely way to match up the stories from both sides is if the IDF is using the USA's logic of "military agreed male", counting every man and teenage boy as a militant. And this isn't plausible…
  • … because there are only about 40,000 blokes in Al-Qassam (maybe another 20,000) in the others, vs about half a million men in the Gaza strip, so despite 90% of the men being civilians, the IDF expect us to believe that they killed >12,000 women and kids but almost zero civilian men.
  • Unless almost all of the missing are combatants, but with the number of collapsed buildings that doesn't seem likely?
  • or there's several thousand additional deaths not even counted as missing.
Irtapil (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal
No, reliable sources are not "all in agreement" on Al-Ahli, Al Jazeera concluded it was the IDF? And they have journalists actually in Gaza, unlike most of the others.
Al-Jazeera tends to have a pro-Palestine bias. But it is usually expressed as emphasis and framing. I have never heard of any examples of them fabricating stories? Their bias is expressed in which subset of true stories they tell. That is why they are designated as a reliable source here. And their bias is no more severe than the pro Israel bias in many generally reliable UK or USA sources.
Personally I think it's ambiguous what happened at that hospital. But I also think the fixation on that one incident is a distraction, "we didn't hit that particular hospital that particular time" is kind of warped? and the whole messy inducement only happened because there were a crowd sheltering at the hospital sheet the IDF bombed their homes.
Irtapil (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
My understanding was that Al Jazeera has generally declined to comment further and isn't attributing the explosion to either side; if there is an article I am unaware of could you link it? Either way, what I said is "reliable sources are in agreement"; we don't require unanimity, and a single source decline to comment - or even saying the opposite - isn't particularly relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal It's only even most if your sources are mostly western. AJ seemed about as certain it came from Israel as the sources leaning the other way were about the other direction. I've not looked into it much, like i said, i see it as a distraction from the kilter of the other 98%. Irtapil (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
AJ videos
20 Oct 2023 - "Was the Gaza hospital attack caused by a failed rocket launch? | Bird’s Eye View" [23] English (auto-generated) transcript "Al Jazeera digital investigations team found no grounds to the Israeli Army claim that the strike on the alaki Arab Hospital in Gaza was caused by a failed rocket launch."
confusion might be because some who disagreed used AJ footage?
Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there anything slightly more recent? That was still the immediate aftermath when things were in flux. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal
Part of why i stopped paying much attention n to it is everyone made up their mind in the great few days and just kept going around in circles, but i think i saw another "Israel’s changing narrative on hospital bombing | Fact Check" … but that's even earlier.
Irtapil (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Human rights watch says PIJ
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/human-rights-watch-says-rocket-misfire-likely-cause-deadly-gaza-hospital-blast-2023-11-26/
Irtapil (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal
More recent stuff seems to be all about the OTHER times the IDF has attacked the same hospital. Which is why I think the "we didn't hit it THAT time" is a bit warped. So what if they didn't hit it that time? They attacked it the time before, and multiple times after. Fixating on the one time they MAYBE didn't do it instead of the multiple times they definitely did it just warped.
Irtapil (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The counter would be that the media focused on this particular controversy, and it would not be a mistake (or 'warping') for editors to assign this event, with greater coverage, more editorial weight. But I don't think it belongs in the lede, and nor does the silly text about "an unknown number from friendly fire". Zanahary (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shushugah @BilledMammal
Synth can be useful to see if there are gaps in the story and then see if anyone else has already looked into it. With the amount of attention the war is getting there probably aren't many original ideas.
But this particular line of reasoning doesn't seem very useful. What are you trying to prove, BilledMammal?
It is fairly clear.
  • Most Israeli deaths caused by militants.
  • Most Gazan deaths caused by IDF.
  • Most people who have died are in Gaza.
  • And most deaths in total are caused by the IDF.
Those are the important bits? Quantifying "most" is interesting. But the comparison of which side has most deaths due to rockets doesn't seem relevant to anything? Especially not in this war when the damage done by the IDF is so massive that even every rocket backfiring wouldn't really change the overall picture.
Irtapil (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aszx5000 yeah, they're still firing heaps but the Israeli death count is still going down? I did see one guy who allegedly blew his own hand off with a rocket (he'd recovered, just missing a hand), but the rockets are definitely not doing much of the destruction in Gaza.
Irtapil (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal @Aszx5000
The issue of malfunctioning rockets probably already is covered in the relevant specific articles? And if not, it should be. They really need some more detail but there are not many reliable sources to go on for details. e.g. the missing hand guy was just social media, far from reliable source.
Actually, part of the issue could be that English wiki takes the IDF as fact, but doesn't trust the other side? We end up with a lot less detail because almost nothing they say ends up anywhere citable?
Irtapil (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In similar previous conflict, it was subsequently estimated that %30 of civilian deaths had been caused by failed rockets. Drsruli (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Israeli friendly fire

If we're discussing this we should probably discuss the counterpart in the lede; including an unknown number from friendly fire. While rockets falling short killing civilians have been widely covered, there is far less coverage of this. In addition, one of the sources used, an article by Haaretz, has since been disputed. I'm not convinced this mention should be there, given the lack of coverage and the contested nature of aspects of it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient sourcing IMO, and may take long time after the war is over to uncover the actual toll. Perhaps not among key features of this war. It's virtually certain that Palestinians were also killed in Hamas friendly fire. — kashmīrī TALK 09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Took it out until we can find some kind of consensus here. Including only one raises POV concerns and including both could be undue to the amount of coverage they've gotten, although the issue seems significant to me in part because it forces us to stilt our language around people being "killed" by nobody in particular. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's the end of the world for the lead; in an article about a war, the implication reasonably follows that people killed were killed by the other side.
I'm not opposed to leaving out friendly fire on October 7, since it seems like the coverage has not been that extensive in RS (although it's pretty much undeniable that it happened; WP:VNT). But there should absolutely be parity; there's definitely no basis to include Palestinian friendly fire deaths. WillowCity(talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think Israeli FF should be covered, both on Oct 7 and in the context of Israel killing its Israeli hostages in Gaza. VR talk 05:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The question is whether it should be covered in the lede, not whether it should be covered in general. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
In short I don't think it should be in the lede. If there was conclusive evidence, one way or another it would be worth including in the lede, but nearly all cases of friendly fire are highly contentious (understandably so) and we'd need to WP:WEIGHT them properly. I do not see an easy way to do that right now, but within the body certainly can talk about the impact this is having in media discourse etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Zanahary (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There are a couple of press reports on friendly fire today:
Recall also that Ynet said: "Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF believes that beyond the operational investigations of the events, it would not be morally sound to investigate these incidents due to the immense and complex quantity of them that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities due to the challenging situations the soldiers were in at the time."
All in all, I am in favour of retaining the brief reference in the lead. Andreas JN466 23:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be quite reasonable to include about the Al Ahli hospital explosion and say that it was most likely a Hamas rocket falling short. That was a major incident in the war. It is also okay to say with attribution that 12% of the rockets misfire. However I don't think we can start saying anything about the contribution of misfired rockets to the overall figures unless some reputable organisation does so and then we can attribute it to them. The other figures are all straightforward figures from reputable sources even if they are in some cases grossly wrong. NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
12% rockets misfiring...but not really causing many casualties, is not significant enough to include in the lead. If they've caused significant casualties, lets see sources for that. VR talk 06:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
10–15% Iron Dome rockets (going by IDF claim; possibly more) also miss their targets, no big issue.[24] That's how military technology works – redundancy is always there. — kashmīrī TALK 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree, should not be in the lede. Every war has friendly fire; something this vague does nothing but to affirm that this war, too, has involved casualties from friendly fire. We don't have text in lede confirming that the weapons used by the IDF and Hamas were manufactured somewhere, even though that's been covered, because it's obvious and not that important in coverage. It's worthless text. Exclude. Zanahary (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Otherwise we'd need to mention friendly fire incidents in the lede of nearly all war-related articles; which we don't for a reason. — kashmīrī TALK 23:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent@Kashmiri@BilledMammal@Zanahary@WillowCity@PrimaPrime@Shushugah:
According to the latest reports from Ynet/Yediot Ahronoth, we are talking about a somewhat different situation here. Yediot Ahronoth has now concluded that to all practical intents and purposes the Hannibal Directive was indeed applied and that combat units were ordered to prevent Hamas terrorists from returning to Gaza with hostages "at all costs". The paper asserts e.g. that cars attempting to return to Gaza – it mentions about 70 burnt-out wrecks – were indeed fired upon by helicopters and tanks as a result of that order, killing hostage takers and hostages alike at least in some cases.
This is actually pretty much what some non-mainstream (and non-RS) English-language sites like The Grayzone have been reporting for months, based on earlier reports in the Israeli media, e.g. [25], except it's now in the leading Israeli daily.
Along the same lines, there is now a widely published Associated Press story about Be'eri: Friendly fire may have killed their relatives on Oct. 7. These Israeli families want answers now that follows on from the earlier New York Times pieces and reporting in Haaretz.
So there are some weighty allegations of systematic friendly fire being discussed in the Israeli media and that is not normal. What do you think? Andreas JN466 11:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, if that's what multiple reliable media report, then the matter is clear – I see no reasons not to include the findings in the article. Whether they should go also into the lead section, IMO it should depend on the weight they will be given in the body, since lead should summarise the body. — kashmīrī TALK 08:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I would cosign this; it should absolutely be included in the body, since as Andreas points out, it's a fairly remarkable revelation to come from a source like Ynet. WillowCity(talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I suspect this will be a growing list, both confirmed and alleged incidents, so I created Friendly fire in 2023 Israel–Gaza war. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Related content is included here (permalink).
I had added this a couple of days ago, but it was taken out by User:Makeandtoss in this edit (unintentionally, I think).
I still think the "immense and complex quantity" of friendly fire incidents (Ynet) is lead-worthy. Andreas JN466 11:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, you can restore it. Everything is lede worthy as the lede is a summary of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Overcitation in the lede

What is the purpose of using more than three in-line citations in a sentence in the lede? It is unnecessary, and visually ruins the lede and ruins readability. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, this happens when there has been some discussion of an issue and reflects a desire to emphasize that the discussion was resolved in a certain way. However, I agree that it is unnecessary, actually by now, all citations in the lead could theoretically be dispensed with if the points are correctly covered in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
That is correct, but overcitation is a minor flaw and removing it now would just create more unnecessary drama. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
We can clean them up. See WP:BUNDLING. PrimaPrime (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Without taking a strong stance on whether it's appropriate or not, this is not uncommon on Wikipedia and far from unique to this article. One argument is that for particularly contentious claims, it's best to have a large number of citations to justify the position we take. JDiala (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Contentious claims do not need more than three, and when someone is skeptical, they can be pointed out to the full citations in the body of the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but doing that pointing repeatedly (which happens on high-traffic controversial articles like this one) wastes valuable time and energy from editors. Bundling citations is simpler and better at resolving issues in the long term, that's why it's widely used. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Blue areas in map do not represent Israeli-controlled areas

Greetings, fellow editors. I'm hoping to open a discussion on whether or not the legend in the map is actually supported by RS. For those who are unaware, the only source for the blue and red areas denoting "control" within the Gaza Strip has been the daily-updated map of Institute for the Study of War since the first days of the Israeli invasion.

The problem lies in the legend on ISW's own map. Rather than "Gaza Strip under Israeli control," its blue areas represent "Reported Israeli Clearing Operations," a term which is explained by this footnote:

ISW-CTP's "Reported Israeli Clearing Operations" layer uses the US military's doctrinal definition of clearing which is an operation that "requires the commander to remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance within an assigned area." Clearing operations frequently take weeks and sometimes months to complete.

My argument is that clearing operations, as defined above, do not equate control, a term which is not used in the source to begin with.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus
Good point. Israeli control doesn't make sense for blue given that blue extended way into Southern Israel during the initial attacks and doesn't now.
But does anyone else have a map? Or do you just mean we need to clarify the key? (I'd figured it's an over simplified "one side says" and not pair much attention to it.) Irtapil (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Irtapil
All I'm looking for right now are alternative labels to "Gaza Strip under Israeli control," but the question of whether or not we continue using the ISW map as the only source is something that should also be open to discussion. Editors have raised valid concerns here and on the file's talk page at Commons about how ISW's map doesn't seem to account for reported IDF withdrawals from places like Beit Hanoun and areas deep in the heart of Gaza City.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@SaintPaulOfTarsus We should probably remove the map pending more accurate labels. Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Irtapil Maybe this calls for an RfC to get input from more editors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Map

When was the last time the map was updated? I found a source that used a online mapping software to claim that Israel has taken over northern Gaza. I don't know if this is real but I am confused as to why the map has not been updated, is the war just a stalemate? LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, the source was blocked. So is the war a stalemate? You think the map would have moved a little. I might just be blinded so I would like it if someone could clarify how maps for ongoing wars work on Wikipedia. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
From what I've gathered from the discussions above, the map (at least the Gaza Strip portion of it) is an exact, albeit incorrectly-labeled copy of the daily maps produced by the Institute for the Study of War, for lack of any other reliable sources publishing regularly updated maps. What we have here is a particularly unique situation as it relates to maps for ongoing wars on Wikipedia - most of the others I am familiar with follow different processes. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Add United States and United Kingdom with Israel.

Recently the US and UK launched a military operation against the Houthis. What more would it need? They are clearly a part of this war now. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/1/12/us-and-uk-launch-strikes-against-houthi-rebels-in-yemen Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes they should be included, this is direct military involvement supported by the sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Include, as well as Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands.[26] I was against including the US until yesterday. Now the situation has changed. — kashmīrī TALK 15:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tamjeed Ahmed @Kashmiri
UK and USA yeah, but the whole list s
seems excessive, there's about 20, most aren't even sending a ship, some aren't even sending men. Threshold for main page should be at least a ship? Iran isn't even on it.
(But maybe I'm biased, I'm Aussie and I want those 11 blokes to come home and stay out of it. Shame us in a tiny footnote at least?)
Irtapil (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
IMO, only those countries should appear whose military is actively taking part in the ongoing hostilities. — kashmīrī TALK 09:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Much longer discussions than this opposed any third party inclusion. This change cannot be made so early into a new discussion. It is also false to say that U.S. and U.K. are belligerents alongside Israel since they conducted an operation to secure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. Seems like synthesis to me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
When you revert next time, please make sure you revert what you are objecting to (the addition of the US and UK), and not indiscriminate reversions of everything.
The infobox clearly separates the US and UK from Israel by saying in Yemen, which Israel hasn't engaged with so far. There is no synthesis. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not easy for an editor to check which of your subsequent edits are regarding the dispute when you make 18 changes in an hour. Maybe save the page less often instead of accusing me of indiscriminate reversions. Ecrusized (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The U(K/S) were disrupting a blockade that was explicitly aimed at Israel, and explicitly in support of Palestine. Also, near the start of the war the Houthis boarded the Galaxy Leader flying flags of  Yemen and  Palestine (a vast improvement on their usual banner). In that hijacking and the current attacks they are not asking for cash like most Red Sea pirates and hijackers, their demand is that Israel stop attacking Gaza and stop blockading Gaza. Irtapil (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ecrusized @Makeandtoss
Third column for indirect support? In Yemen is a place not an alliance. Hezbolah are clearly on the same side as Hamas et al. despite location.
The Houthis are explicitly doing it for Palestine.
The effect of the USA thwarting them is to let Israel keep doing what they're doing, but the motive is speculation. Their priorities are broken (protecting economy vs protecting humans in Gaza), but i kind of agree direct support for Israel is ambiguous.
I don't want to set a precedent for "enemy of my enemy" grouping, incase real non-imaginary ISIS show up. (They are everybody's enemy, so … everybody's ally? That will obviously go wrong?)
So, third column for indirect involvement? I think there's a way to add horizontal lines within columns too?
Irtapil (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This whole argument seems like synthesis to me. Operation Prosperity Guardian has clearly stated that it's goal is to keep maritime traffic open in the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. It has nothing to with those countries militarily supporting Israel in its conflict against Hamas, or the Axis of Resistance. Ecrusized (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
the question is becoming trickier. Are the UK and the US neutral? If we take The Law dictionary definition of belligerent "A term used to designate either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral." it is a bit up in the air what "actively cooperating" means, I have to say that I am coming round to the view that the US is doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
If this literal definition was to be used, then the US has been a belligerent from the moment it brought its warships to the region which was right after the hostilities began. — kashmīrī TALK 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, that seems passive rather than active. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Blinken sits in at the Israeli war meetings. Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's Ralph Nader in late October "Biden has made the U.S. an active “co-belligerent” of the Israeli government’s vocal demolition of the 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza".Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
...and we should care about his opinion being anything but his personal opinion because? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier
I agree we should stick to explicit active collaboration.
I think the USA motive is clear, they constantly do farsical games "for freedom of navigation" that are clearly aimed to show antagonism to a rival or support an ally. Usually it's aimed at antagonising China.
BUT', that's still speculation, like I was saying above, I don't want to start a trend of implied support by "enemy of my enemy".
Or when things go comletely to hell we'll end up with an ISIS + Al Qaeda + Palestinian nationalists + who knows side all "on the same side" because they're all attacking Israel.
so at least add another column, or at least a line to show clear separation.
Irtapil (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Include The United States and the United Kingdom are clearly belligerents in the Red Sea Theater of the war. They have engaged in open hosilities with the Houthis. The Houthis have stated the objective of their campaign is to disrupt israeli trade, and that their attacks are directly in support of Hamas as part of the war. Israel has already taken part in combat operations by shooting down Houthi drones and missiles and has deployed a Saar 6 class corvette to oppose the Houthis in the Red Sea.XavierGreen (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree there is a larger regional effect here, and it should be added to #Other_confrontations however I would strongly oppose adding it to the Infobox at risk if being WP:UNDUE and cluttering it further. I already see it's a sea (no pun intended) of belligerents when Israel, Hamas and maybe PIJ are the most relevant.
Economically and indirectly militarily course Iran, US, UK are vital.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@XavierGreen
The Houthis are team Hamas, but the USA are only directly team Israel by supplying bombs to them and lurking in their doom sub. Israel vs Houthis vs USA is three sides. Irtapil (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I think it's better that this discussion is moved to the infobox template talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The US and the UK are "actually fighting", the US fought a battle against Houthi naval forces on December 31st and then today have directly bombed Houthi forces twice. If shooting and bombing people isn't "actual fighting", then what is? The US, North Koreans, etc. have not directly attacked anyone in Ukraine, that is the major difference.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The Houthi aren't beligerents in this either any more than Egypt is when it stops arms reaching Hamas. NadVolum (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Egypt hasn't engaged in any actual combat, the Houthis have, that is the difference there.XavierGreen (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Against ships. One can eiher take the view the ships have nothing to do with the war, or else that they are doing a blockade stopping the means of war. Something I'm sure the UN would approve of if some great power wasn't involved and something Egypt actually does to Hamas. Either way they're not belligerents in the war. NadVolum (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. The US and UK and specifically acting to protect shipping, not to deal with the Hamas-Israel issues. Drsruli (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose US and UK are not involved in the fighting between Israel and Hamas.  // Timothy :: talk  11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Why, are the ships attacked by Houthis part of the fighting between Israel and Hamas? This argument makes no sense. @Ecrusized: Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    They are not. Houthi missile and drone launches against Israel are. Ecrusized (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Ecrusized: That's not true, the article clearly includes them as part of the war, as seen by this summarization in the body: "Iranian-backed militias attacked American bases in Iraq and Syria, while the United States and United Kingdom engaged in conflict with the Houthi movement in Yemen over its attacks on ships in the Red Sea it claimed were linked to Israel." If Iranian-backed militias attacked American bases and international ships in Red Sea as part of the war, then certainly the "response" is also part of that very same war, or at least connected enough to it to be included together. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t know why you are telling me this. I am not responsible for what someone else might have added to Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why Iran is relevant. Those supplying weapons are not counted as belligerents. If those Iran backed militants have attacked American bases how does that make any of them belligerents in this war? NadVolum (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
By the way I'm not saying the US and UK are not dinvolved in the war. They definitely are. Biden in particular has given Israel carte blanche to use the aordinance it has supplied in any way it wants. I'm just saying I don't think they have become active belligerents yet so they can't be put in the infobox. At most they are proxy belligerents like Iran. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems obvious that US and UK action to protect international trade in the Red Sea has nothing to do with support for Israel and everything to do with simply protecting international trade in the Red Sea. JM (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
NO! Then we'll end up with forked discussions. Irtapil (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning POV Pushing and False Narrative

I've made a number of recent edits to avoid Wikipedia stating a claim based on news reporter opinion pieces as a fact. Wiki editors on this page have pushing a narrative that "The scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history." based on those sources. But the sources, whilst reliable for news reporting, and not genuine military historians nor reliable peer-reviewed or scientific evaluations.

The language is vague, and misaligns to the sources.

I suggest this sentence be removed entirely as it frames the conflict with an unclear context and relevance to other war zones. There have been and continue to be undoubtedly severe conflicts this century - Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and other parts of the world. Many of which have higher death/casualty tolls, are more widespread, and associated with crimes against humanity that based on factual numbers go well beyond the current atrocities in Israel and Gaza.

We need to stop the POV pushing on this article, and keep to properly sourced and evidenced encyclopaedic content, not opinions.

Aeonx (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest to play your game of goalpost shifting or misrepresentation (not genuine military historians nor reliable peer-reviewed or scientific evaluations). The Washington Post article does cite experts, including former UN human rights officer, to reach the conclusion about the scale and pace of the destruction in Gaza. This discussion is so stale but I must repeat, if you can't find a countering argument from any reliable source, you can't present the statement as a partially (or narrowly) accepted POV, this act in itself is your POV pushing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The WP article itself is evidence against the ridicious claim made within this Wikipedia article. As I explained on my talk page to you already, the WP article only compares a very small number of conflict on a limited basis, limited to just recent 21st century conflicts from the last 15-years. I'm not challenging the OPINION posted by the WP, I'm challenging how it's reflected on Wikipedia. Aeonx (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"[The Washington Post] article only compares a very small number of conflict" is your own original research. I also urge you to maintain honesty and consistency. On one hand, on your own talk page you wrote that "don't interpret an OPINION as fact"; now you claimed that "I'm not challenging the OPINION posted by the [Washington Post]". If you want to be pedantic and replace "recent history" (which is directly quoted from AP News) with "the 21st century", feel free to do so. However, please avoid subtly introducing words that may make an unchallenged statement sound like a biased point of view. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not OR. I'm merely reading the source and referring to what the source itself says. Like for example, the source specifically refers to 21st century... Have you even read the source? Aeonx (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Have you read other sources cited in this statement, the one by Associated Press, a reliable source, which specifically uses the term "recent history"?[27] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Does the article define "recent history"? It's vague, and certainly not something can be translated to a factual statement. It's largely, if not entirely, based on a small number of opinions alone. Aeonx (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aeonx @Sameboat
21st century seems like a very reasonable definition of "recent". Mosul and Grozni (1999?) ended up looking similar, but it took a lot longer? But today I heard someone saying Gaza was worse than even Dresden. Irtapil (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
and FYI my edit DID use the language '21st century'; but it was instead replaced with weasal words and fluff because a comparison on conflicts from 2013 to 2024 apparently represents, literary, the entire "history of modern warfare" to some people. Ludicrous. Aeonx (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Mind you, the Associated Press article also made comparisons going as far back as World War II, according to the US military historian Robert Pape. I have trouble fathoming where your claim "not genuine military historians" originated. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure, in reference to Pape's assessment "destroying about 40-50% of their urban areas, said Robert Pape, a U.S. military historian. Pape said this amounted to 10% of buildings across Germany, compared to over 33% across Gaza, a densely populated territory of just 140 square miles (360 square kilometers)." We know Gaza is a small dense place. The comparison seems to be between the Whole of Germany vs Gaza. Yet in the same sentence when comparing like-for-like, Urban areas, according to Pape, 40-50% of urban areas were destroyed vs only 33% in Gaza. Which seems to run counter to the argument. If anything, it's evidence to an argument that destruction of the Gaza is less significant (being only 33% destroyed) than that of the destruction of urban areas in WW2 (destroyed 40-50%). Aeonx (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This comparison constitutes your own original research. We are quoting directly from the reliable source. If you disagree with the sources, please cite a counter reliable source. Additionally, using the WSJ article below as a counterargument is both misrepresentation (the WSJ article mentions nothing about structural damage, instead citing a medical expert whose statements were entirely about human casualties) and synthesis (the article is not a direct response to the 'most destructive war'). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The sentence in the Wikipedia article is not a quote from the source, nor is it a quote from a source within the references sources. Your statement is blatantly false.
Additionally, I haven't done any OR, my comment merely extracts the claimed data, verbatim, from the source. Noting one number, 33% (Gaza) is less than another number 40-50% (WW2 Urban Areas) is not WP:OR, it's just math. Aeonx (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aeonx
W
What is a tangible example of something doing not damage faster?
in terms of speed of civilian destruction it's possibly third after Nagasaki? Or 4th if you include the destruction of a dam in the Chinese civil war. Irtapil (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe 'claimed to be ' is inappropriate and it should be said in Wikivoice unless some reliable source disagrees. It is said as fact by those sources rather than opinion and is sourced to experts. A counter to that is to find sources that disagree. One could instead try and show it falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY or WP:UNDUE, but I don't think that will get any traction! NadVolum (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Would offer this: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/comparing-gaza-death-counts-to-those-in-other-wars-dont-bcc3a780
For consideration. Aeonx (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This WSJ article solely about the unreliability of death toll data during military conflict is irrelevant. The statement which cites the Washington Post and Associated Press is also about bombing campaigns and the resultant destruction of civilian structures such as schools, hospitals and churches. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Utterly disagree - in fact I think you are intentially misinterpreting the WSJ article and cherryping one aspect (one example used) rather than the substance of the article. The WSJ article is largely about the inherent unreliability of numbers at war time, especially historic ones with few or sole sources. It draws specific reference to those from Hamas/Gaza, and other conflicts. It uses casualty estimates (not just deaths) as one example and cautionary tale, but is not specific to death tolls alone. It quotes Dr. Amir Khorram-Manesh, a lecturer in surgery and disaster medicine at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg. “It is a component of the ‘fog of war’ where the uncertainty of every aspect of battle is confusing, unknown and often inaccurate.” ... likewise this could logically be applied without any WP:OR to the destruction of Gaza being compared to . There is no evidence to support that the news articles or independent claimed expert assessments, such as Pape, are in anyway accurate or factual. There are undefined metrics which allow for creative licence and interpretation to specifically fit one's narrative - there is however no tangible evidence to support the comparison of Gaza bombing to other ALL significant bombing/structural damage campgains - especially given the vast number of such campaigns in Modern military history. Aeonx (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Not a good idea to come in so hot in ARBPIA. It starts fires.
If you want another opinion (I don't care what the article says), which you can ignore if you like...
  • Including the information as an unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice is not ideal because the statement is only summarizing the personal assessments of a small sample of domain experts (sampled by Wikipedia editors). They are biased views, albeit from sources biased by their subject matter expertise, the kind of good bias an encyclopedia needs. Things like 'has been described as' might be better.
  • Trying to dilute the statement with weasel words to balance it with some imagined but absent alternative views is not ideal. If there are contrasting views, people who don't think it is "among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history", other domain experts published by RS, sample those too. If there is provable sampling bias, why not call it sampling bias rather than POV pushing, or pushing a narrative etc?
  • It doesn't really matter whether editors agree or disagree with the assessment, it's just about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your last point wholeheartedly, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I'm seriously concerned that other editors are not doing that. I'm not saying just because someone has a Palestinian flag in their user profile that they are biased, but a history of repeated biased edits... then yeah. Editorial Bias is likely. Aeonx (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
If you are concerned with the behavior of other editors, this is not the place to deal with it. First, said editors talk pages, then AE if not satisfied. Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I tend to look at articles in detail when I view/edit Wikipedia rather than broadly across many different articles. I should've clarified my comment are specific to this Article and some it's frequent editors. Thus why I assess it appropriate to raise on the article's talkpage. Happy to discuss further. Aeonx (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia does not require individual editors to be neutral in their editing. Systemic bias and skewed sampling of all relevant RS is accepted and I'm not sure I can remember anyone being sanctioned for it. Rather, there is an optimistic belief that policy compliance for an article will emerge and self-assemble over time thru countless interactions like a beautiful sand dune. Reality seems more like genetic drift when the population size is small given the relatively low number of active editors as far as I can tell. Anyway, I guess my point is that there is little to be gained by complaining about things like intent and systemic bias in the way editors sample the set of all relevant sources and summarize them because anyone can be a part of fixing content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
As I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia has long had a difficult time with WP:CPP. You've probably experienced it a lot and as we know fixing content issues is extremely difficult / near impossible when there is a concerted group of biased editors (and/or administrators) that push a particular narrative on an article they are interested in. You usually end up having to try to drag in neutral editors from RfCs and alike to help resolve the problem who then themselves have to deal with an extant majority who seem more intent on making things difficult rather than resolving the content problem(s). It's unfortunately cumbersome and inefficient. Aeonx (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your points concerning the lead but I also believe that there is no point in complaining about the general thrust of this and other I/P articles. Sure there is a problem, and it's a big one, but it will not be cured here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • There is a rather good discussion here but I don't see any counter POVs to "the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history" backed by reliable sources. This is while I already made a self-revert [28] in order to respect the ongoing discussion. --Mhhossein talk 16:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    The whole statement is vague: what does "severe" mean in this context? what is the time period of "modern history"? The sources define neither, in fact the sources don't actually support the wording at all! The sources do the opposite. The sources largely refer to 21st centary conflicts for comparison or they specifically refer to destruction of civilian infrastructure (i.e. hospitals) - although I note Israel challenges whether the Hospitals are being used as military facilities which also complicates things. Aeonx (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This is just incorrect. You claim that no "military historians" verified this claim when in reality the cited AP article quotes Robert Pape. Worth noting is that this isn't even a requirement per se, as for current events Wikipedia always leans more into journalistic sources than scholarly academic sources, but even this dubious complaint of yours is false. JDiala (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly, but now both scholarly and journalistic ones are supporting the statement. --Mhhossein talk 16:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Pape's statements are considerable different to what the news article claim, and what the sentence within this wikipedia article claims. Pape stated: "Gaza is one of the most intense civilian punishment campaigns in history,” and “It now sits comfortably in the top quartile of the most devastating bombing campaigns ever.”[29]. That's vastly different to a blanket statement of "the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history". But what it is very clearly, is yet another example of wiki editors cherrpicking facts to suit a false narrative. Aeonx (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    This carping about editors cherrypicking and false narratives is getting tiresome. WP:ASPERSIONS. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Happy to evidence my cherry-picking claims you think I haven't. Please let me know. Aeonx (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    This is one of the heaviest edited articles on WP, which editors are you referring to, all of them? Which editors are cherrypicking, all of them? Which "narrative" is false? Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    I've been reviewing several of the sources used and have noted that the claims they are supposedly referencing are either misaligned / miquoting / cherrypicking or presenting opinion as fact (or all of the above) often to support a one-sided narrative that favours a particular perspective or opinion rather than a fact. The false narrative I'm referring to is the presentation of one-sided / biased (or likely biased) opinions as facts. I don't have the personal capacity to write about all of them - other than to identify there's a clear problem here - and doesn't take long to notice it unless you just ignore the sources. Aeonx (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

<- Maybe there is common ground to be found in the 'scale of destruction' part of the article by focusing on empirical data, the numbers, rather than opinions about that data...things like the ongoing UNOSAT analyses. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am no so sure about it. This appears to be a classic case of the middle ground fallacy when we already have reliable sources supporting the statement. However, we are being compelled to make a compromise for an opinion that is poorly supported by the opponent's original research. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not suggesting removing information cited to reliable sources (and I haven't looked at the validity of Aeonx's statements about misalignment), I'm suggesting perhaps refocusing efforts on adding empirical data for a couple of reasons. It might be something you can all agree on, objective facts. And, for me anyway, whether Aleppo, for example, was not as bad or worse is kind of beside the point. It's bad. How bad is it? There are numbers, absolute rather than relative values/assessments. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I have made no original research, moreover it's absurd you are claiming I have done so given I have not even proposed to add anything to the article let alone some aspect of WP:OR. Your accusations against me are unfounded and wrong.
The compromise I proposed, through edits already (reverted), was to either attribute the claim to make it clear that it's an opinion, or very specific to the reference source.
My originally proposed wordings were as follows:
1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
But honestly, now I just think the entire sentence should be removed as doesn't align to the references.
Aeonx (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Another point worth noting, is under the Scale of Destruction section, the wording is specific to buildings "The scale, extent, and pace of destruction of buildings in the Gaza Strip ranks among the most severe in modern history.", whereas in the lede it's not.
I'm concerned with the vagueness of "ranks" (ranks where 1st, 10th, 100th, 1000th?), against what metric (scale of destruction, extent? pace?), replacing "modern history" with "21st centary" seems the be most appropriate fix to the vagueness over the comparison time period. Aeonx (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are complaining. Before you got yourself involved in this particular dispute, the statement has consistently been maintained as "destruction in Gaza is among the most severe" in the article lead after it was added by @Aszx5000 on Jan 2nd[33]. This phrasing avoids ranking it as the absolutely top class in the hierarchy of damage to infrastructure in modern military conflicts. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm arguing the whole sentence is vague, misaligned to sources, and editors, your self included are pushing a false narrative by stating opinion as fact.
Your argument here only seems to add more vagueness.
What is "absolutely top class"? What is "the hierarchy of damage to infrastructure"?
How is
"modern military conflicts" defined? What time period/years? Aeonx (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
All I see is that you're cherry-picking what is otherwise a neatly presented statement, suitable for the article lead, which should be a brief summary of the details in the following sections. Simultaneously, you are directing endless personal attacks at disagreeing editors. As I mentioned earlier, I am fine if the time frame for comparison is narrowed down to the 21st century. What I can't tolerate is your attempts to discredit the sources by referring to them as 'someone' or 'some news reporters,' ignoring the fact that they cited experts on the matter. Your own comparison, which still falls under synthesis, is not backed by any reliable source. No reliable source has stated anything close to '33% (Gaza) is less than another number 40-50% (WW2 Urban Areas).' Whether your math is correct or not doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Not a dime. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
If you feel personally attacked then I apologise, that's not my intent. Whilst I did question your motivations and neutrality to help frame my responses and understanding.
News reporters claiming people they interview are experts doesn't necessarily make them so.
Generally, expert opinions are only established as reliable when they are eventually published and peer reviewed, preferably in a high impact factor journal. That process takes time. So we are often left with news reporting as a poor second best.
There were plenty of "experts" that were reported by news agencies for the COVID pandemic that turned out to be completely wrong. It's not for Wikipedia to agree nor accept with news agency assessments of expert credibility, nor acknowledge their opinions as fact.
Wikipedia should generally only state that particular individuals, who may be established in recognised profession, i.e. Political science or military history, have given their opinion with such background. Anything more is largely unencyclopaedic, or worse POV pushed puffery. Aeonx (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You need to be reasonably specific about problems rather than complaining about POV pushing and saying it's easy to see and if you don't you're just ignoring the sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Just dealing with a single issue in the lede is already time-consuming. I'll move on to the next significant one this one is resolved. But feel free to look into, picks a few sentences at random from each section and look at the sources for it - that's how I went about it. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be more useful if you could cite sources that you feel disagree with the current wording, or identify problems with the existing ones. Because they seem high-quality and seem to support roughly what we say currently. Going over each for possible phrasings that could be used to tweak what we say:
  • The Washington Post says that: The Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip has been unlike any other in the 21st century. ... The evidence shows that Israel has carried out its war in Gaza at a pace and level of devastation that likely exceeds any recent conflict, destroying more buildings, in far less time, than were destroyed during...
  • The AP says that: The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history. ... By some measures, destruction in Gaza has outpaced Allied bombings of Germany during World War II. “Gaza is one of the most intense civilian punishment campaigns in history,” said [U.S. military historian Robert] Pape. “It now sits comfortably in the top quartile of the most devastating bombing campaigns ever.”
  • CBC says: Corey Scher of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University are experts in mapping damage during wartime. They've studied the effects of aerial bombing and artillery strikes in conflicts ranging from Syria to Yemen to Ukraine. They applied data from the Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite to Gaza and found levels of destruction unprecedented in recent conflicts, Scher told CBC News.
Those are pretty close to what we say. The one tweak that might be worth considering is attributing it to "experts" per both the AP and CBC sources, changing it to Experts say that the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history. I don't think that that's WP:WEASEL for the lead because it directly reflects the sources. A wide range of experts, across a wide range of disciplines, all agree on this point, and nobody has really presented any sources disagreeing with it; the only reason to consider attributing at all is because the sources do so. Either way, we can then go into detail on the individual experts in the body.--Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
+1 , all I have seen here is a complaint that some prose doesn't match up with sources in the complainants opinion and the complaint is phrased tendentiously as editors pushing a false narrative. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
+1 as well. I'd like to see a response to @Aeonx quoting what is currently in the article, and then specifically point out which words/which groups of words they do not believe are justified given these three sources. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
+1; I’ve read the same in reliable sources without seeking it out; appears accurate and due. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
All 3 quoted sources refer to, and rely upon, imagery assessments of apparent bombing damage specific to buildings.
Updating the statement to be more specific and aligned to the sources, articulating the compared time period of 21st century, and destruction - specific to buildings would provide clarity and accuracy, aligning to the references. The word "among" is particularly vague and meaningless. I don't agree with your proposed change at all. Aeonx (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+1 per others. JDiala (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits by @Aeonx and applied the change suggested by @Aquillion. It seems that nearly everyone here disagrees with Aeonx, as he is mostly just splitting hairs and cherry-picking about exact wording. The word "recent" is an adequate substitute for "21st century." "Destruction specific to buildings" is an unnatural wording. All of the sources clearly state that the "destruction" or "devastation" (generically) are among the worst in (recent) history. The extensive destruction to the buildings is cited as a reason for this, yes, but the actual theses of the respective articles mention generic destruction. I frankly find it bizarre that such a discussion is being had considering the sources clearly and unequivocally say what we claim they say. It is right in the article titles. I do not believe it is worth the time of the editors here to entertain the extreme tendentiousness of an individual editor by discussing this matter any longer. JDiala (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice example of WP:CPP, and not even 10 minutes after I replied with my concerns, you decided to remove the tag under an alleged 24-hour consensus. Please read: WP:WNTRMT. I think you're actually proving my point on POV Pushing. Aeonx (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:SATISFY applies. Just looking over this discussion, it's obvious that (while there's various suggestions about how exactly to word it) there's a general consensus that the current wording is fine. Tags aren't intended as badges of shame - if you have a specific suggestion you can suggest it and see if it can get a consensus, but editors aren't required to answer all of your objections or satisfy you personally. If you disagree with that sort of rough nose-count and don't actually believe there's a consensus, you could start an RFC, but it seems pretty clear to me. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I request that you refrain from addressing people as 'civil POV pushers.' Just because the term contains the word 'civil' doesn't make your argument more civil than you may think. The related essay characterizes so-called 'civil POV pushers' as bad-faith actors. When used repeatedly against the same opponents without providing any substantiating evidence, it constitutes a personal attack. Bluntly put, please stop doing this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion
Don't just say "experts", say the person who said it, instead of the place it was published. Unless it actually is in the voice of the publication. e.g. "an Al Jazeera investigation showed the hospital read bombed by the IDF".
On a related note, can we avoid "Hamas said" as much as possible, please. Use "Mohammed Deif said" or "Osama Hamdan said" or "The party isusued a written statement" etc. The only time I'd not mention the person is Abu Obaida because they're an anonymous spokesperson, but then it should be "Al Qassam said" because he's Rhee spokesperson for the military wing.
Irtapil (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The AP literally says "experts". I quoted them saying that immediately above this. If you have a specific attribution that you believe would actually encompass all three, go ahead and offer it, but it would be inappropriate to attribute to the publications themselves when they cite many different experts - that would be downplaying the breadth of agreement. More general, as I said, WP:WEASEL itself specifically says that you can summarize broad trends in the lead as long as you place the individual citations in the body, so if you want more detail the thing to do is to use the description I provided in the lead and to go into more detail in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion
Just saying "experts" is almost meaningless, if you may you can say "AP reported". Were you the one wanting to add who said it or wanting to remove it? Irtapil (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
No, experts say is what the AP says as fact and is the appropriate way to summarize multiple experts saying something in the lead section; it is clear, concise, and has an obvious meaning. If you personally disagree and personally hold the opinion that it is meaningless, take it up with the AP, which used that wording. Your proposal of attributing it to the AP alone would be inaccurate in several ways; after all, it is not only the AP reporting it, but multiple experts cited in multiple sources. It would also be completely inappropriate to attribute it to the proximate source like that in that it would violate WP:NPOV, which says to avoid stating facts as opinions; when you attribute something using an in-line citation like that you are implicitly stating it is only their opinion, whereas the fact that there is a consensus of experts on this is uncontested fact reported by multiple high-quality sources. It isn't the opinion of the AP that experts say this; it is an uncontested fact. This is also, per WP:WEASEL, the correct way to summarize a view held by a wide number of experts in the lead section; we can name the individual experts in the body, but the lead's role is to summarize. The belief that WEASEL discourages such summaries in the lead is a common misunderstanding of what the policy actually says; but it makes a clear exception for summaries in the lead. And the reason why ought to be obvious. What exactly would you replace it with in the lead, anyway? Even ignoring the NPOV problems that come from attributing facts as if they were opinions, to cover even just the sources I quoted above (which are not all the available ones; we stop at three for a single sentence) we would have to say something like According to the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, U.S. military historian Robert Pape, and Corey Scher of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University, who are experts in mapping damage during wartime, the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history. That wouldn't be readable or useful. Choosing only one of them (as you seem the proposing) and implying that it is just the opinion of that source would be inappropriate because it would downplay the coverage. Hence, we summarize as "experts"; sometimes editors quibble over exactly how to summarize them but in this case there is no need to argue because we have a high-quality source stating attributing it to experts as uncontested fact in their article voice, allowing us to do the same. More detail on which experts goes in the body, not the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yet another example of POV Push, comments such as "If you personally disagree and personally hold the opinion that it is meaningless, take it up with the AP, which used that wording" and unhelpful and actually adisruptive.
The notion that "the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history"is a fact, and not simply an opion, regardless of how many expertsmake statements. It's not a FACT. As for facts, the fact is the claim an opinion that isn't published in any scholarly journals, there's no meta-analysis, it's not peer-reviewed, we don't understand whether or not the "experts" have bias, we don't have information nor understand what evidence supports their claims - at least not in detail (other than imagery assessments). Presenting opinions as facts IS the problem here. Aeonx (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability is what we look for, and it definiely passes that. And there's nothing extraordinary about the assertion. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph?

The following paragraph is in the subsection War Crimes -> Following Hamas Attack

>In a 12 October preliminary legal assessment condemning Hamas's attacks in Israel, international humanitarian law scholar and Dean of Cornell Law School Jens David Ohlin said the evidence suggested Hamas's "killings and kidnappings" potentially violated Articles 6–8 of the Rome Statute as well as the Genocide Convention and were "crimes against humanity"; over a hundred international scholars expressed support for this position.

But clearly the paragraph pertains to the Hamas attack, not events following the attack, so it is misplaced. I wasn't sure where else to put it. Suggestions? JDiala (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala
I think it belongs in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel instead of either of the other two? Irtapil (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

The RM prior to the disambiguation RM above was closed on 4 January and then reclosed on 10 January. In between, an informal discussion took place and continued until said discussion was closed on 13 January. That informal discussion indicated a possible change in consensus as to the title of the article. I would like to test the waters once again and see what appetite exists for a new RM that would change the title to Israel-Gaza war (EDIT: or Gaza War with some disambiguation). This is not a formal discussion, more of a straw poll.

FYI, NPR/WAPO/BBC/AJ/Guardian/UN/The Conversation/Axios and CNN (which appears to have recently switched) all refer to the war as the Israel–Gaza war (Israel's war on Gaza - AJ, Israel's war in Gaza - CNN). Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong support because of sourcing and, primarily, because of how the international law defines a war. A military attack against sovereign territory is considered as an attack against a state; not against a ruling party, etc. (Bombing of the US territory would be viewed as an attack against the United States and not against the Democratic Party.) Here, too, we have ample evidence that the infrastructure of the Palestinian state, along with its civilian population, have been the actual target of the Israeli attack; and not just a militant group. Framing this war as "anti-Hamas" is a valid propaganda move of the attacker; however, Wikipedia titles must represent a neutral point of view regardless of the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS on POV versions. — kashmīrī TALK 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Far too soon for a new RM; to open one would be disruptive. If you disagree with the close, the correct place to challenge it would be WP:MRV. BilledMammal (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    (Having checked a few, your list of sources that have switched also appears incorrect, but that isn’t currently relevant.) BilledMammal (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with Selfstudier, for many reasons, including (1) calling it Israel-Hamas war seems close to an Israeli POV, (2) clearly all of Gaza is affected, (3) few reliable sources use the title "Gaza war" or "War in Gaza" seem to dominate. So both by NPOV and COMMONNAME, the title should be changed. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not opposed to such idea, but we better wait and see. This war is happening also in West Bank and on the northern border of Israel, not mentioning the strikes in Lebanon, Syria and Houthis. It is not limited by Gaza, and it is not only with Hamas. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"During this attack 1,139 ______ were killed"

Currently the intro says, "During this attack, 1,139 people were killed, of whom 766 were civilians." But far more than 1,139 people were killed. There were the ~200 bodies originally misidentified as Israeli but later found out to be Gazans. Then there were also about 1000 additional people (presumed Gazan militants) killed who were never misidentified as Israeli? (But I think are still currently unidentified?)

  • But we can't say "1,139 Israelis", because a lot of that 1,139 were Thai and there were a few other foreigners as well.
  • Exact numbers of Israeli + foreign sort of works, and the France 24 source has that data.[1] But it doesn't fit well in that first sentence where "1,139 people" appears.
  1. ^ "Israel social security data reveals true picture of Oct 7 deaths". France 24. 15 December 2023. Archived from the original on 17 December 2023. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  • The best I can think of is "(not including Gazans)"?
  • Does anyone have any other ideas?

Irtapil (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"1,139 people in Israel were killed"? Or "Hamas killed 1139 people in Israel"? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Chessrat
That doesn't work
  • 200 to 1200 Gazan militants also died "in Israel"
  • not all of the 1139 were killed "by Hamas", at least one death was "friendly fire" (according to very reliable sources) and there is a lot of controversy about how many more, most were probably killed by the Gazan militants, but it's a bit of a mess that we can't state simply in the leade.
It works fine in the info box, showing deaths on each side, but it's hard to articulate in a sentence. Maybe "Israeli citizens and foreign nationals"? That seems like the simplest way to include all the 1139 while excluding the attackers? In a way the Gazan militants are invading foreigners, and there's a chance some has Israeli citizenship, but other than that nitpicking, it's at least fairly clear who is being referred to?
Irtapil (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Israelis and foreign nationals is precise enough. The extent of Hamas militants killed is still not known, because while 200 bodies were ruled out, the rest were not counted in as precise of a manner. See {{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}} for a suggested prose wording. It is already used inside the section 2023 Israel–Hamas war § Casualties ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shushugah
Yeah "Israelis and foreign nationals" seems best. Change it to that anywhere you see it.
It's slightly debatable whether the invading militants are also "foreign nationals", but it's at least a lot clearer than "people" or "in Israel", and much less complicated than "by Hamas".
Irtapil (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, I was the one who phrased it like this, and I am aware of the slight ambiguity. I think most sensible readers would realize that we are not included the Hamas fighters in the casualty count. The issue is that the proposed solution "Israelis and foreign nationals" does not seem to resolve the ambiguity ... because the Hamas fighters would also technically be "foreign nationals." The other suggestions are on the awkward side (e.g., "1,139 people in Israel were killed"). To resolve this whole thing, the cleanest way is just including a footnote. JDiala (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done Added the disambiguating footnote. JDiala (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"1139 estimated people were killed by Hamas and allies." "1139 estimated people were killed by invading militants." Drsruli (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

One can neutrally state only the number of people killed on that day. The addition of an instrumental '-by' (Hamas/allies/militants) is deceptive. Undoubtedly the majority were killed by militants, but since the casualties include indiscriminately also Israelis killed by their own IDF in the counterattacks of that day, as is now admitted, with a massive volume of airpower in particular, we simply cannot determine how many of the 1139 were directly killed by Hamas and co. This is obvious and rigorously ignored on many articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani yes I'm trying to avoid why or how or killed by who, and just devise a succinct way to say WHO died. A few places in this wiki page say 1139 "people" died that day, when at least 200 Gazans militants died as well. Current best option is 1,139 "Israelis and foreign nationals" (it is actually 1105 now, this is a very weird war). Irtapil (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC).
Is there a source for that admission anywhere? JM (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Such a detail could be mentioned later. A few killed by friendly fire could be assumed in any similar conflict, and the onus would still be on the attackers. This is how such casualties are documented in every other instance (including the current conflict ongoing in Gaza). It doesn't matter that there was friendly fire, in this statistic. Drsruli (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No. 'A few' That is WP:OR. We have no reliable information of the breakdown of this figure (and friendly fire has caused substantial casualties among Israeli troops in Gaza. The way classifications work there is confused as well, 29 Israelis of around 186 have died of such fire). It does matter, in terms of NPOV, to attribute to Hamas et al., all deaths of all those who died on October 7, for to state that is a matter of deliberate obfuscation, if not deceit.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Friendly fire by Hamas is attributed to Israeli forces, of course. (A generalization subsequently explained, can’t be characterized as “deliberate obfuscation” or deceit, especially where context and common sense are considerations.) (Which, indeed, the footnote here is the “subsequent explanation”.) Drsruli (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Drsruli I don't think anyone would be surprised if the militants had a high rate of friendly fire. I don't know much about guns, but some of the things they do seem like a bad idea. Like shooting directly up in the air while standing in a crowd?
'But who are you accusing of obfuscating what? '
Irtapil (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
My point is that even though we assume that some friendly fire is occurring, it is frequently not considered as a factor in death tolls when making general quotations, especially where precise attribution to friendly fire is uncertain. As you say, the reader knows that some fraction may be attributed to friendly fire. Drsruli (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Why have we no actual figure for militants killed instead of this vague 1000 or so? After all this time they would surely know how that. Is it deliberate that they do not release such figures like the way they hide the graves of those they kill? NadVolum (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
These figures are notoriously messy, and newspapers simply repeat each other from sheer laziness. One preliminary analysis may be found in Tamsin Westlake, An analysis of the 7th of October 2023 casualties in Israel Action on Armed Violence 20 December 2023
That says nothing about the militants. Those figures for the Israeli side are probably a little wrong but are certainly good enough. The dead militants have almost certainly been counted pretty accurately as well by now and even a large number of them identified, why have no figures been released? NadVolum (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
By the way I'm quite happy for those killed by friendly fire to be counted as casualties rather than having anything special about friendly fire. After all they are killed because of the fighting. A note or something in the text can give an estimate the numbers due to friendly fire but it is hard to ever know that accurately and shouldn't be in an infobox or the lead. NadVolum (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@NadVolum I'm just looking for the least ambiguous way to clearly describe who we mean. There being debate about friendly fire means saying "killed by Hamas" is unclear if we're counting everyone or if we're asserting that those 1,139 were not killed by Israeli weapons. So "Israelis and foreign nationals" fits best. Irtapil (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@NadVolum
Can you find me a source where they have been "counted accurately by now"? Or tell me where the bodies ended up?
Or are you saying you're confused like me?
Israel supposedly claims they killed 1000 invading militants? But I'm beginning to think they just made that number up? But it would be several dozen at the very least? But I've found amost nothing about it.
Irtapil (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Refrain from making inflammatory statements without evidence. JM (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Who are you referring to and what do you think is without evidence? NadVolum (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You and the inflammatory statement you made without evidence. JM (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You mean this sort of thing [34]? NadVolum (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
So not "hiding the graves of those they kill", but withholding corpses, according to Jacobin. Which Palestine also does, see Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin#Ransom demands for the soldiers' bodies for one example. In any case, this has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, as has now been shown. JM (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The original poster said "Then there were also about 1000 additional people (presumed Gazan militants) killed who were never misidentified as Israeli", how can this not be relevant to the topic being discussed? We don't even know if that 1000 has just one or two significant figures in it - it could mean anything from 500 to 1500. NadVolum (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamas-fighters-bodies-israel-toll-gaza-ground-invasion-rcna119640

https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/1500-palestinian-militants-found-dead-along-israeligaza-border-idf-says-103856155?id=103804516

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47754

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-gaza-border-finally-sealed-bodies-of-1500-terrorists-found-inside-israel/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-prepared-for-a-long-war-with-israel-as-concerns-for-hostages-in-gaza-grow Drsruli (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That was a couple of days after the raid. I was hoping they had something better by now. I'll copy it to the talk page about the raid as they still say 1000. Sounds like it was evem ore of a suicide mission than I first thought. That takes real hate. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
My understanding that Gaza Health is aware of these expired IDs and includes this in the total deaths since 10/7.
So far as the suicide nature of the mission, it is apparent that the militants did not expect to return home, many or most of them, at least. See the popularized recording of the call home, the militant who “killed 10 Jews”.

Also, subsequent to these published estimates, over 200 deaths previously ascribed to Israel were subsequently reclassified as militant. Drsruli (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum Is there a mass grave somewhere? Wouldn't they want to check very thoroughly that none were Israeli or foreigners?
The sheer volume of unaccounted for corpses is doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should be ambiguous? If it' 1000 men, that's over 60 tons?
There's 7000 people in the rubble that used to be Gaza. But where on earth are the 1000 who allegedly died in Southern Israel?
Irtapil (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Presumably they are buried in one of the various cemeteries of numbers in a closed off military area or some may still be in freezers. Yes they would have checked for Israelis or foreigners. The hiding is that they don't say anything about them so some families may think they're being detained or dead or hope they're still alive somewhere.[35] The only mention I can see in Wikipedia is under Necroviolence. I'm a bit surprised there's no article specifically on the cemeteries of numbers, there's lots of reliable sources and it has been going on for decades. NadVolum (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mention of apartheid RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The issue at hand is simply: is there enough sources that discuss apartheid as part of the background of this war for it have the WP:DUE weight to be included here? My raw vote count is slightly in favor of no, however I disregarded ~7 of the "no" !votes as making arguments not based on WP:NPOV (or any other policies at all), and only 1 or 2 of the "yes" ~!votes. A lot of those opposing inclusion also made very bare "per X" !votes, which aren't necessarily inherently bad but are a bit weaker than the more fleshed out arguments made by those supporting inclusion. The "per x" !votes also bring more attention to the few arguments that were indeed made. One main one was that most sources don't discuss apartheid in the context of the war. Which definitely argues that apartheid being part of the background of the war is a minority viewpoint, but does not argue that it is a tiny minority that should be excluded from this article, while those advocating for inclusion bring enough sources to the table to argue that it definitely is discussed by some sources that talk about the background of the war. However, I did look at the current sentence that talks about apartheid in the background section right now, and it has issues, since none of the sources it cites talk about apartheid in context of the war/were even published after the war. It definitely needs to be improved with the sources that were discussed below.

In sum, there is no consensus for exclusion, i.e. banning mentioning of apartheid in discussing the backgound of the war. The specific content that is there right now is not particularly suitable though. I suggest if people want to discuss this further, that they should discuss e.g. a specific sentence backed with high quality sources that discuss apartheid as part of the background of the war and if that should or should not be included in the article.

One additional thought I have is: of course one of the challenges here is that there are so many sources published and not enough time yet for high-quality academic sources that would better help us understand the WP:WEIGHT of this particular aspect of the background, but I still think people could have done a better job of looking at the best sources available right now on the background of the war—which are going to number a lot less than news articles that give daily updates on the war—and seeing what proportion talk about apartheid. That would help any future discussions, on this and on similar topics, come to a clearer consensus on NPOV here. Galobtter (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In the historical background of the war, is it necessary to include references to apartheid claims? Dovidroth (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth Yes it is Abo Yemen✉ 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


Survey

The opening editor is currently site and topic banned wef 20 January 2024. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dovidroth Define "mainstream"? Where are these sources from? How many are not from the USA or UK? Are any African? Irtapil (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Like this [1] article (which I found in a, slightly deranged at 3:00am, search for "apartheid New Jersey") looks general from the headline…
But contains President Cyril Ramaphosa saying, "… they (the Palestinian people) have been under occupation for almost 75 years … waging a struggle against an oppressive government that has occupied their land, but also a government that has in recent times been dubbed an apartheid state."
It also contains the wrong Jersey, "Mandela famously wore the Springbok rugby jersey – for many, a symbol of apartheid – to present Francois Pienaar with the Rugby World Cup trophy."
Irtapil (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@VR searching apartheid + war + new Jersey also got me a Jerusalem Post article about protesters in New Jersey calling Israel an apartheid state. Irtapil (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The majority of sources on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war do not mention apartheid, therefore per WP:UNDUE neither should we. I did an unbiased news search for 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Looking at the titles of the first 100 results, the number of articles with apartheid in the title was zero; the number with apartheid in the search result abstract was zero. I opened the top ten and checked the entire article with search-in-page, and the number of articles with apartheid in the body of the article was zero. My conclusion is that apartheid is hardly ever mentioned in current news articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    News sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    You may well be right about that. This article documents a current news event; some day, there will be books written about it, and I can well imagine that they might discuss the background going back to British Mandatory Palestine and possibly use the term apartheid, and if and when they do, those would be great WP:SECONDARY sources to use to include the background information you wish to include. But lacking that information now, under what policy or guideline do you propose that we should mention it at this point, if the sources do not? Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Mathglot The concept appears frequently in the news I listen to, without seeking it out. Most recently, the first speaker of the South African deligation to the ICJ mentioned it at least twice. (I was watching the full proceedings on the SABC News YouTube channel.)
    I would guess news your news diet skews centre right (AKA liberal) and is mostly from the USA? Mostly because you seem to think "Israel-Hamas war" is an "unbiased" search? The term is very common, but it still gives a biased subset of sources.
    Irtapil (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    @IOHANNVSVERVS The other problem is searching "Israel-Hamas war" gives you sources that skew somewhat right wing and severely towards Israel and the USA.
    e.g. When I search "2023 Israel-Hamas war" in "news" on Google (exactly following @Mathglot's suggestion above of an allegedly "unbiased" search I tried about 4 times at different times of day, over the past few days) the pro Israel lobby group UN Watch is always in the top ~6 results, this doesn't normally rank very highly.
    The search Israel-Hamas war also misses a lot of things like MSF that show up if I search Gaza or Palestine instead of Hamas. The medical aid charities don't tend to mention apartheid, but it is more evidence of how much you are missing with your "unbiased" search.
    irtapil 2024-01-13 07:54 (UTC) (fixed the mess the mobile website made) Irtapil (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Mathglot: if being mentioned in the first 100 articles in an unbiased news search was the threshold for inclusion, there's a LOT that can be removed from this article! Also, kinda curious how you determined that none of the articles mentioned apartheid. Did you read through every single one of them or use some tool? VR talk 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    Reread my comment; I was completely transparent about my methodology. It's possible that another search method will demonstrate that apartheid does belong in the article, and if someone does that, I will change my vote. I'm just saying no one has done that so far. Wikipedia needs to follow the sources, not start with what we want to include, and then search for sources that validate it; that's backwards; we need to start from the best sources available, and summarize the majority opinion we find there, wherever that takes us. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Mathglot please try just "Israel" or "war" without the rest? Set the time frame as October 2023 till today to get more relevant results. Then ctrl+F for apartheid to look past headlines. Irtapil (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    The "first 100 results" is not a methodology specified in our editorial policies. Please cite at least one paragraph from our policy which could back you up. First of all, as IOHANNVSVERVS have already said "news sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events". This is even more relevant for an ongoing military conflict started few months ago. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    Sure, I can do that. But it's too long for the Survey section, so I'll add it to the Discussion below. Thanks for asking. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    If you're searching for "Israel Hamas war" that's what the majority say, but sources calling it that are giving one side of the story. A few sources I've seen from South Africa (relevant to apartheid) call it "operation Toofan Al-Aqsa" or things like "Resistance against the colonial occupation" etc. those are probably too biased to include, but "war in Gaza" or "Israel Palestine war" etc. might find some more moderate views from the middle. We shouldn't be basing this article too heavily on USA sources. Irtapil (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfC is similar to a previous discussion on this talk page here [46]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, VR provided many sources referencing apartheid as relevant to the background of the current war in Gaza. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • YesI seems perfectly valid to include at least a reference to this. In my brief search I have turned up several RS that support this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • unrelevant RFC. What matters is what the sources say. The criterias for naming apartheid rely on several strict points established by International Court of Justice; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be wp:censorship. Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions. Iennes (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    @IennesPlease strike your comment falsely accusing people with a different opinion of lobbying. If I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, please correct me. Drsmoo (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Iennes - You are entitled to disagree with me and many others here, but you are not entitled to cast personal attacks and accusations without evidence. If you do not strike this, I will consider reporting you. Dovidroth (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    What exactly would you like Iennes to strike from their comments?
    "Denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be wp:censorship" and "Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions" are both reasonable statements which do not include personal attacks. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    “Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions.” I see this as a personal attack against pro-Israel editors. If it is not, please clarify. Dovidroth (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    WP:WIAPA — "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic"
    WP:NPOV — "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV) [...] without editorial bias."
    IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Malformed RfC, but yes. In addition to the sources raised by VR, two more from Vox discussing apartheid in the context of the war: 1 2; from Reuters: 3; another from Amnesty (UK) discussing apartheid at some length: 4; from Jacobin (possibly an opinion piece but not labelled as such): 5; from Newsweek: 6; from HuffPo: 7. Not only is it relevant background to the war as a whole, it also contextualizes other details such as South Africa suspending relations with Israel and the rhetoric used in ongoing ceasefire protests. Outright exclusion is not justifiable, the issue is NPOV and WP:DUE. WillowCity(talk) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with this. It's NPOV and DUE. Jikybebna (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No. while it is very relevant to mention that "Palestinians are in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza" as a part of the context (and it is indeed mentioned), the use of the term "apartheid" is inconsistent with the low-key spirit of Wikipedia , being factual and non-judgmental. Mentioning that some non-profits "have likened the Israeli occupation to apartheid, although this characterization is disputed" just emphasizes the fact that the point about the despair is factual and sufficient in the background. By the way, similarly, the phrase "viewed from Gaza, things were only going to get worse, considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners opposed a two-state solution for the conflict. He suggested they would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank" is relevant, while the speculative non-factual addition "even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state" is biased, judgmental and not with the spirit of Wikipedia. Agmonsnir (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    Please quote our policy or guideline which specifically requires Wikipedia to be "low-key spirit". If anything, Wikipedia actually encourages editor to be bold, as long as the edit is consistent with our editorial policies. If multiple reliable sources agree on a point of view, whether it is disagreed by other entity, we present that POV in our articles without unnecessary compromise. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes: per the sources provided by VR. If the sources say it, we can say it, duh. Doesn't need an RFC to state what is obvious from basic policy. If RS mention it, it is relevant for inclusion. If they say it is related, we sat it is related. If they say it is unrelated, we say it is unrelated. Etc. Also WP:TROUT the filer for inadequate WP:RFCBEFORE and source hunting, i.e. simply not looking hard enough for the relevant sources that were so readily discovered. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    There was a large discussion here. How do you think that this is lacking WP:RFCBEFORE? Dovidroth (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes? Even if the apartheid is debatable, adding information on it to help people come to their own conclusions is better than obscuring history. Salmoonlight (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should have a brief, carefully-worded and attributed mention in the article body (likely just a single sentence, part of a sentence, or even as little as just one word in a prose list of some sort, such as the list motivations claimed by Hamas.) There's sufficient coverage to support the idea that it is something enough sources consider relevant that it ought to be briefly mentioned; the sources that do exist support the idea that it's a small but significant flashpoint in the underlying background. I don't think the arguments against it above are sufficient to exclude a mere single-sentence mention in the body - they would make perfect sense if we were discussing adding it to the lead or creating an entire section or paragraph for it or somesuch; but we're discussing a bare mention, which has a much lower standard. We don't need to have the majority of sources mentioning something just to include a single sentence noting somewhere in the body; we just need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists, which it certainly does. --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes This is extremely important context, and is well-sourced from many reliable sources. The idea that it is irrelevant because breaking news stories don't always include it is absurd on its face- news articles updating on a war do not need to include a history of the conflict. An encyclopedia entry, however, should. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No This is undue in an article about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The vast majority of reliable sources do not mention this concept in the context of the war. Even most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip, where there are no Israeli settlements. Marokwitz (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
    Categorically untrue that most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip. The very first sentence of B'Tselem's page on apartheid: "The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime." In the main Human Rights Watch report on Israeli apartheid, "Gaza" is mentioned over 250 times; HRW has very recently, in the context of the war, discussed Israeli apartheid in relation to Gaza. And from Amnesty International, just this June: "Israel/OPT: latest Gaza offensive highlights human toll of apartheid; and in another article published in October: "[independent investigation] is vital as ending the longstanding impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity and securing justice and reparation for victims are essential to prevent recurrence of these atrocities and to address the root causes of the conflict, such as Israel’s system of apartheid imposed on all Palestinians." These are three of the most prominent sources alleging apartheid, and all of them refer to Gaza; HRW and Amnesty refer to it in the context of the war. So should we, with adequate attribution. WillowCity(talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No, per Agmonsnir. פעמי-עליון (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
this is because you are defining "mainstream" as "USA" - the world is not the USA. Irtapil (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Bickering among editors addressing each other's behavior and unrelated to the Rfc question.
  • @Andrevan: Much of your discussion above is WP:OR. It is important to note that your own views on whether or not it is apartheid are not particularly relevant. We go by what the WP:RS say, and there are myriad independent reliable sources alleging apartheid. Furthermore, whether or not the designation applies to Gaza or just the West Bank is likewise not relevant. Hamas has clearly indicated (and which we have also included in the article) that provocations in the West Bank were deemed by it a casus belli. JDiala (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    It's not OR, this is a talk page an an RFC. Don't WP:BLUDGEON the proceedings. I really don't care what Hamas thinks or indicates or deems. There's no justification that should be added about apartheid as that itself would be WP:SYNTH. Andre🚐 21:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    You are using your personal unsourced opinion on what apartheid constitutes as a rationale for excluding the accusation. This is clearly WP:OR. The article clearly does care what Hamas thinks, given that Hamas' justifications for the events figure predominately in the background sections. Several of those justifications discuss events in the West Bank, so the distinction between apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza is immaterial. It's not WP:SYNTH as several sources explicitly mention apartheid in relation to the war. JDiala (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I don't need to provide sources for all of my sentences on talk pages, JDiala, nor does OR apply to talk pages. I did not say the article should omit Hamas' POV, I said I do not care. Leave me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments. Andre🚐 00:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    With respect to your last allegation of "wikilawyering", I would refer you to WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. Deciding to exclude well-sourced material purely on the basis of personal disagreements with said material is clearly WP:OR. JDiala (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    You're once again misusing that policy, thus my statement of wikilawyering, which is not incivil when the appropriate in-context description of what you're doing; you don't understand how that OR policy applies, you can't charge me with OR when I haven't even edited anything. I explained why I think apartheid applies to the West Bank, and not to Gaza, due to Hamas taking over Gaza in 2006 and therefore, it's no longer apartheid, but now something different. Still bad, but different. That's throwing you a bone, but the point is that if you want to convince me to change my view, you need multiple high quality sources that say Gaza is an example of apartheid and that precipitated the war. Continuing to bludgeon the discussion after I asked you to leave me alone isn't going to do anything. If you have those sources, you are welcome to present them. Andre🚐 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I will once again refer you to WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. It is strange to me that an editor with such substantial experience believes it appropriate to resort to personal attacks on RfCs. The term "wikilawyering" is clearly an ad hominem attack, regardless of the spin you provide to defend its use. It is likewise bizarre to ask to be "left alone" on a talk page where the point is precisely to engage with others on these issues. With respect to OR: if you argue on the talk page to make an edit X such that if edit X is made it would constitute an instance of WP:OR, that is ipso facto an OR violation. The irony here is that your legalistic rendition of the OR policy is more akin to wikilawyering than anything I have said. Most sensible editors realize it is inappropriate to make personal assessments on what technical legal jargon like "apartheid" means without reference to WP:RS. Finally, with regard to sources, and with regard to the Gaza/West Bank distinction, this has been discussed extensively elsewhere in the RfC. JDiala (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    You are now the one personalizing the dispute, by bringing my experience into it, or questioning whether I am "sensible." Again, wikilawyering refers to your misuse of a policy and not to you as an ad hominem. It is not an OR violation for me to use logic to discuss what I presume to be background information on this topic, and if I am challenged on a specific statement that I make, I may then provide support for it with sources, but what I've stated above I believe to have not received any specific such challenge. Other users may then dispute that logic or interpretation if they wish, but it's not ok to say that it's OR, because that's not what we're dealing with. Your comments are a bit out of touch with the norms of a Wikipedia discussion. WP:BLUDGEON, I've referenced it a few times. There's nothing strange about me asking you to leave me alone and stop badgering me. Andre🚐 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    The statement "[leave] me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments" in response to a criticism of your argument is clearly a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF, regardless of how you want to spin it. It is a matter of tone. You have clearly demonstrated yourself to lack the ability to communicate with other editors in a professional way, as indicated by your talk page where several other editors have criticized this. As I've already noted, the irony is that your accusation of wikilawyering would be a more apt description of your conduct. You are engaging in obvious original research, mouthing your own opinions which are not sourced and in fact flatly incorrect when compared with the actual international law, as a rationale for excluding sourced material from the article. You're justifying this by claiming that you hadn't made an edit yet and you're on a talk page. You are attempting to skirt the spirit of the WP:OR rule (whose entire point is to ensure that the encyclopedia's content is based on well-sourced WP:RS material) by litigiously hiding behind the fact that this is an RfC on a talk page. In fact, this doesn't really matter, for the reason I mentioned. Promoting decisions based on WP:OR on the talk page is in effect engaging in original research, even if you haven't made an edit proper. Lastly, re: bludgeoning, this is a silly point. I have made far fewer comments on this RfC than many others. The root of the problem here is that you are making incorrect, false, and unsourced claims regarding the definition of apartheid (e.g., that it somehow requires an "underclass"), and personally attacking others when called out on this. JDiala (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I'm going to ignore most of your circular and repetitive comment and charitably interpret it as a request for a source for the term "underclass" in apartheid. Myanmar authorities’ system of discriminatory laws and policies that make the Rohingya in Rakhine State a permanent underclass[48] (HRW) this isn't SYNTH, because I'm not adding to the article. I'm using it to illustrate the use of the term which I am interpreting your comment to be challenging due to the use of scare quotes around it. Andre🚐 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    You mentioned a "working underclass" (my emphasis). I should have included this adjective in the above comment, but in any case it was the adjective that you used. The implication here is that that apartheid specifically requires some form of economic subjugation or economic exploitation. This claim is (1) not true, and (2) even if it were true, would not prove the point here, since Israel does in fact exploit Palestinian labour (e.g., Gazan and West Bank labourers). JDiala (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I was not implying that apartheid requires economic subjugation. It just so happens that the apartheid in the situation we were describing involves commuting through the border checkpoints. Yes, it is possible to have apartheid without it being a "working" class, but I believe that this is critical to the aspect of the West Bank, it involves labor power relations, and class is fundamentally an economic concept in my conception of it. Regardless, you're going a bit further in my comments than what I said. Apartheid is the existence of an underclass maintained by a policy of discrimination, essentially, in my conception of it, and seemingly described in the above source, and I think applicable to the subset of Palestinians who exist as a class in Israeli society, as opposed to being segregated into a separate walled city with its own institutions. Andre🚐 05:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Andrevan is right, you do not understand what WP:OR means. You also do not understand what ad hominem means. Ad hominem is an attack on the person, as opposed to an attack on the person's reasoning. An accusation of wikilawyering is an attack on your reasoning, so it is not ad hominem. Please stop it, you are wrong and off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    This is a rather meaningless comment. You are just repeating what he himself said without engaging with my responses refuting his points or elaborating on his points. This contributes exactly nil to the debate. His conduct is clearly ad hominem and a violation of WP:GF when you consider the childish, adversarial tone of his prose ("leave me alone"). Furthermore, as I note, the "wikilawyering" accusation is more aptly applied to him, considering that his argument basically hinges on a tendentious interpretation of WP:OR, where he is somehow interpreting the talk-page exception for WP:OR as a carte blanche to use his own personal, unsourced and frankly incorrect opinions on the interpretation of legal terminology to take a stance in an RfC. Note that WP:WL explicitly disallows "[abiding] by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles." This is precisely what is going on here with respect to Andrevan and WP:OR, where he is trying to hide behind the fact that this is a talk page to justify him bringing up entirely unsourced content in an RfC. This is no different than an editor claiming in a talk page discussion in, say, Alchemy, that he personally turned granite into gold and so the page should be changed. Would it be so unreasonable to deem that situation a WP:OR violation? And if not, what rule would you suggest citing in that case to criticize said hypothetical editor? JDiala (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Collapse bickering. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No The mention of apartheid in the context of this war is undue and not mentioned in most mainstream sources. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Then that still means there are mainstream sources that mention apartheid. Just not "most". Salmoonlight (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    I think what he is saying is clear - it’s not in most sources and thus undue in the context of the war. Dovidroth (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Like Iskandar said, if a source says something, we can relay it. It doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not. Please stop dodging Wikipedia policy and being obtuse. Salmoonlight (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    That is contrary to our oath here. Please read WP:NPOV which will demonstrate that we do not present such content. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Any individual claim X regarding the war which is included in this article will not be included in most published news sources about the war. This is true by definition since this article is by its very nature far more comprehensive than any individual published source. JDiala (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Rationales for excluding the allegation are bizarre. Multiple WP:RS sources (including all mainstream human rights organizations) allege Israel is engaged in apartheid. This allegation has been brought up following the start of the war and in relation to the war by innumerable sources [1]. There is no standard that "most" sources need to specifically mention apartheid in relation to the war for it to be included in the article. This is not a standard used for anything. The vast majority of individual sources will not constitute a comprehensive discussion of the war; it is precisely the job of an encyclopedia entry to synthesize all of these sources. JDiala (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No. We can by all means describe the nature of the occupation, the activities of the West Bank settlers, the Netanyahu government's enabling of the far right and deprecation of the two-state solution. But labels -- there are many proposed on many CT pages on this site -- always end up like an inkblot that each reader interprets in their own way. And that is the opposite of what good encyclopedic content should achieve. The relevant specific detail is informative. Labeling it apartheid is not. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Apartheid is not a "label." It is a specific crime with a specific definition under international law which Israel has been accused of. Furthermore, it is not us who are "labelling" it apartheid. The statement is attributed to those making the allegation, not considered a statement of fact. Given the ubiquity of the allegation in WP:RS sources, it seems entirely reasonable to include, provided appropriate balance is given to those who deny the allegation. JDiala (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    @JDiala: i agree. Irtapil (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely - Include at least some South African sources to support them. Given the current sentiment on the Palestine issue from many South African voices, I think the people who experienced the first named Apartheid would support the comparison. I don't have any specific citation links handy at the moment (and if i open one more tab my browser will collapse), but we definitely should include the South African perspective. Irtapil (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October - Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war. But just searching for recent writing about apartheid gives results that are mostly relevant and from a wider range of perspectives. collecting some sources below… Irtapil (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Your conclusion is not valid; see response at your discussion section below. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It is not an opinion that Israel practices apartheid in the Palestinian territories it occupies, of which Gaza is one. Whether this features frequently and as prominently in newspaper reportage as beheadings, rape, ovening of babies etc or not is neither here nor there. This is not about newspaper coverage but what the best independent, authoritative NGOs mention as background to the present conflict. They are the closest thing we have at the moment for the scholarly sources that in the future will form the basis for a detached, analytical account of this particular moment of the IP conflict. I.e.,

There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, without diagnosing it correctly. The discourse about the way forward needs to be based on the reality on the ground of decades of Israeli repressive rule of Palestinians. Major Israeli, Palestinian and other international human rights groups have found that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians, as has the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory and many others. Lama Fakih, Omar Shakir, Does Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Rise to the Level of Apartheid? The Los Angeles Times 5 December 2023

The injustices and violations that are among the root causes of this violence must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Civilians will continue to pay a heavy price until Israel dismantles its system of apartheid against Palestinians, including ending its illegal blockade on Gaza. Palestinian Armed Groups Must Be Held Accountable for Deliberate Civilian Killings, Abductions and Indiscriminate Attacks, Amnesty International 12 November 2023 Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, sufficient sources exist to support the idea that it's a significant flashpoint in the … background and we only need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists per Aquillion. We would not expect to find daily mention of this issue in news articles, since it is inherently a 'background' issue.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

less biased search strategy for apartheid views

Since so many people above are saying "most sources say" based on what Google shows them for what they call the war, I'm attempting a less biased search. Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war.

logged in to Google on the profile I usually use for news etc.

Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October, then just skimming for what is relevant to the war, a bit haphazard, but only ruling out things that don't seem to mention Israel or the war at all. I've not read these in full.

adding "war" to the search

Nothing I spotted in the top few really refuted it, except that "alumni react". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Irtapil, thanks for your search attempt. Unfortunately, this is a textbook case of cherry-picking; that is, you searched for the term which you wish to prove as naturally occurring in articles about the topic. This completely invalidates your search, and your results are worthless for determining the outcome of the Rfc. The volume of articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is so large, that you can find pretty much whatever term you want if you search for it, whether it's apartheid, or something else. By the same reasoning you gave here, someone might say that we should add '"New Jersey" to the lead, as I (falsely) "proved" in this comment above. Please redo your search using unbiased query terms without the term apartheid in it, and show your work so others may respond. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, as I have discussed at ample length elsewhere. Any individual claim X about the war will not be in many articles about the war. This is simply the nature of current events. Individual news story are inherently not exhaustive. It is not WP:CHERRYPICKING as that specifically refers to the exclusion of contradictory information. However, the sentence we have on apartheid in this article in fact discusses the contradictory view. JDiala (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There certainly is a standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, and it is the policy called WP:DUEWEIGHT; merely claiming the contrary doesn't make the policy go away. Any search query that includes the term apartheid in an attempt to determine whether articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war tend to include content about apartheid or not is an extreme form of WP:CHERRYPICKING and completely invalidates any conclusion reached from such a query. If the "contradictory view" is only present in a "tiny minority" of sources then it must be excluded, per policy. In Jimbo's words:
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
That's quoted at WP:DUE, is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy) and exceptionally among policies, it cannot be overridden by consensus but must be followed. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mathglot
Cherry picking for "relevant to the discussion" is a bizarre definition of cherry picking. Of course searching "apartheid" produces searches about the topic, that is what a search is for! It was in response to someone somewhere above (too long to read, and I wouldn't want to "cherry pick" with ctrl+F?) who seemed to have searched "Israel-Hamas war" (or similar). If I searched "Palestinian resistance against the colonial occupation" I would get a biased sample? But just "apartheid" - or adding just the word "war" - was the least biased possible.
And you give a good example of my point, "The volume of articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is so large" and if you look in that body of work about the "Israel–Hamas war" you get "Israel are only at war with Hamas" and "Hamas are ISIS" etc. as the cause? You could read things about so called "the Israel–Hamas war" for years and not see "apartheid" mentioned.
But - before I even added "war" - about half of the things written about "apartheid" since 2023‑10‑07 were already about the current War in the Levant. I was surprised it was even that low, because I see "apartheid" mentioned quite frequently.
Irtapil (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I suspect if I tried New Jersey I would get anti war protesters blaming it for the war? What did you fid? Your link doesn't work so i will have to resort to "cherry picking" for searches about new jersey with ctrl+F. Irtapil (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Google is individualized. It shows you pages which, according to their algorithm, you are likely to click on. When I apply the same search, I get lots of Nelson Mandela stuff. With "war", Israel is mentioned in the 8th hit, without war, in the third (because it talks about South Africa supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel). Google apparently gives you more antisemitic different pages than me for some reason. Please consult WP:GOOGLE to find more reasons why your reasoning is invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That antisemitism line is very close to a PA; might want to strike it. AryKun (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. I could not find a good euphemism without being dishonest, so I used "different". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling "dishonest"? how can you be dishonest about insults and speculation? something like "anti-Israel bias" would have made a stronger point really, over extrapolating to a larger group just makes you sound biased yourself. Irtapil (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling
I got general stuff that too, but I didn't link it, because it was not relevant. I added "war" to make it a bit faster, but a fairly high proportion was already relating to this war.
  • Did you actually restrict it to after 2023‑10‑07 like I did?
  • Did you look past the 8th or 3rd result? If information needs to get past the 8th hit of a search designed not to find it, then we need to cut out most of this article.
And I know it personalizes results, that is why I specified I was logged in. But since AryKun already pointed out that your other remark was inappropriate, I'll resist speculating about your results.
Irtapil (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not interested in comparing Google results, it does not help the article.
If you knew that Google searches are individualized and therefore biased towards what the googler likes, it was a really weird decision to call this section "less biased search strategy for apartheid views" and not "more biased search strategy for apartheid views". I will now stop responding to this thread, it does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


refs

References

  1. ^ Dall, Nick (5 December 2023). "Unpack the past: When Nelson Mandela wore the Palestinian keffiyeh". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  2. ^ Pillay, Suren. "Apartheid South Africa reached a tipping point, Israel will, too". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
  3. ^ Zhou, Li (20 October 2023). "The argument that Israel practices apartheid, explained". Vox. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
  4. ^ "'Apartheid settler colonial state' Israel built on ethnic cleansing of Palestinians: Irish lawmaker". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
  5. ^ "John Mearsheimer: Israel is choosing 'apartheid' or 'ethnic cleansing'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
  6. ^ "Harvard students blame 'apartheid regime' for Israel-Gaza war, alumni react". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 27 December 2023.
  7. ^ "The flames of Hamas, Israel, apartheid, and Palestine". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 27 December 2023.

Discussion (apartheid)

In response to Sameboat's question above about providing a policy basis for using top Google results as methodology: Policy generally does not specify methodology, it specifies goals, such as mentioned by WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of our WP:Neutral point of view policy, which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and cannot be overridden by consensus, such as by the result of an Rfc). NPOV says this:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. (emphasis added)

When a niche topic has only twenty-seven sources in total, you can go visit all of them, count them up, and figure out which ones are majority and minority views, and write your article content accordingly. When there are thousands of sources, you cannot do that, and you need some kind of proxy or methodology, that lets you figure out what the majority and minority views are. One such proxy is the results of the ranked search results of an unbiased query to a trusted search engine. If you believe my query was biased, or if you believe that Google is rigging the game and failing to fairly surface results about apartheid for that query for some reason, that would be a valid way to attack my argument. But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Wikipedia editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive. Note that the very next line at WP:DUEWEIGHT is this explanatory note:

The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

So, you could start by attacking my query, my methodology, or Google search results if you wish to claim that a 100-result survey is not a valid indicator. Even better, would be to come up with a superior methodology yourself, showing that my method was inaccurate, and that your method demonstrates that apartheid is, in fact, part of the majority (or significant minority) content in articles about the topic. But merely claiming this or that without evidence will not affect the result of this Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

An obvious methodological issue with this is the risk of recency bias (see also: WP:RECENTISM). The current war has been ongoing for two months, so news outlets aren't necessarily going to be rehashing every relevant detail, they'll likely assume a level of baseline awareness on the part of readers. Whether you "sort by relevance" or "sort by date", the first 100 results are overwhelmingly, almost entirely from the last week (at least, they were for me when I followed the link); if that was our metric, the article would be dominated by the IDF's execution of three hostages, Lloyd Austin's visit to Israel, the upcoming UNSC vote, etc. Our content is qualitatively different than a news article; it has to be enduring in a way that news stories don't, necessarily.
Another methodological issue is the phrasing of your search. For example, by searching for the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" you may be excluding or lowering the ranking of news outlets that use other names, such as Israel-Gaza War.
A third question is geographic situation. Depending on your Google preferences, the result may be skewed toward outlets from a certain region (e.g. a noticeable proportion of my results were from Canadian outlets, even though I followed the link you posted). I also got a large amount of coverage from Israeli sources (particularly JPost and ToI), which raises its own issues.
A fourth issue is the fact that aggregated Google News results don't filter for reliability, which is a core policy. So I'm getting Fox News stories, blogs and opinion pieces, etc., which are irrelevant to this discussion.
A fifth issue is depth of review. You say that you reviewed the search abstract, which is (somewhat, but not really) equivalent to the lead of a wiki article; but we're not talking about putting apartheid in the lead of this article, we're talking about including it further down.
So there are a lot of methodological issues arising from this approach; I've never seen this method used to determine notability or due weight. WillowCity(talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
In essence, the approach of relying on the "top Google search result" lacks credibility in determining due weight. This is due to the inherent bias in Google's algorithm, influenced significantly by the user's IP or search history. It's regrettable that seeking clarity on your methodology is interpreted as an "attack." (But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Wikipedia editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive.) If you believe your methodology deserves recognition on Wikipedia, consider gaining consensus from the community, perhaps through avenues like WP:Village Pump/Policy. Currently, your approach seems to conflict with information from reliable sources, as highlighted by user:Vice regent. We shouldn't compromise our content based on Google's search results, but we can still use Google when specifically seeking information from reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
As additional reading, please take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test. While not a formal policy or guideline, it provides an in-depth guidance of the appropriate way to use search engines while maintaining neutrality when editing Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Show me the data that supports your view. I see a lot of pointing out *possible* issues (which I respond to individually below) but nothing concrete to really respond to. Regarding recency, WP:RECENTISM is an essay, but I'll respond anyway. There are issues with recency to be aware of, and WP:RSBREAKING (guideline) does warn about the dangers of breaking news:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia

One way to deal with that is to use a custom time search to build in specific dates and avoid the "breaking" syndrome, so I redid the query restricting results to articles from 14 December or earlier; you can find the results of that search here. (These results shouldn't change too much, even if you click again a few days or a week or two later.) I didn't see a single reference to apartheid in the titles or abstracts of the first 100 web results (not just news results) prior to 14 December. The guideline section WP:AGEMATTERS says:

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

so that needs to be kept in mind, as well. There may be a recentism issue, but if there is, it hasn't been demonstrated.
The point about other wording such as Israel-Gaza War is a valid one, and that (and other phrasing) should definitely be looked at, to try to get a fuller picture of what the majority and minority views are. The pre-14 December web search results for Israel-Gaza War are here, and there are no occurrences of apartheid in the top 100 results. The top ten are: NYT, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Nation, CNN, CNBC, WSJ, CNN, RAND, AP, and checking the full text of those ten, apartheid is found in The Nation, and the BBC article. I looked at #11-20 (Brookings–CPJ) and it didn't occur in any of those. (#18 was a video, I only checked the text and did not listen to the audio.) I did not check the full text of the remaining 80 results, only the title/abstract, where it did not appear.
As far as geographic influence on results, you can mitigate that somewhat by stripping query params "search location" (&gl=) or the "search region" (&uule=) if it appears in the url in your address bar and my query urls are stripped to the bone. (WP:Search engine test is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far; in particular, it fails to mention any of Google's proprietary url query params, including either the search location or the search region; that's a pretty big gap for an article supposedly about searching Google.) Avoiding those params doesn't stop Google from using your IP to surmise your location, but there are web sites or browser extensions you can use that that alter your apparent location. I tried the same query from Doha, Qatar and just eyeballing the results, I didn't notice any major difference; I got the same mix of websites as I did without specifying a location, although I did not try to match them up one-to-one down the whole list of results, and if you felt like trying that to see if there are some subtle differences I didn't notice, I'd be interested to hear what you find out.
It's fine to challenge results and I appreciate your comments which inspired a new set of refined queries that appear to reinforce the same result as the earlier query, but if you merely criticize without offering your own data that support your vote, it all just seems very theoretical. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe the crux of the matter is not the adjustment of search parameters to refine Google search results but the use of the "top 100 results" as a justification to exclude a point of view readily found in reliable sources within the subject's time frame. With all due respect, it appears you are introducing a new rule. The burden of proof lies on your side to persuade the greater community (beyond participants of this article) to accept such an evidently flawed method for determining what is due and what is not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no wish to exclude anything, and I am perfectly indifferent to how this Rfc turns out, either with, or without apartheid in it, as long as whichever way it goes follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've presented evidence that the term appears to be sufficiently rare to meet the use of the phrase "tiny minority" at WP:DUE (policy), which says that

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,

and your conception of who has the onus of providing evidence is backwards: in fact, the WP:ONUS (policy) is on the person who wishes to include information, not the reverse. Nobody cares what you or I believe, our opinions are unimportant; it's about Wikipedia policy, and supporting evidence. I've presented the governing policy links and quotes, and shown to the best of my ability how the unbiased results of several queries pertain to them, especially WP:DUEWEIGHT. I have no wish to recycle previous comments or to comment further unless some actual evidence is brought to bear. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
To begin with, calling the apartheid argument as "undue" (or "minorities view") seems to be more of a personal opinion, supported only by a poorly formulated method. If you maintain that the sources presented by Vice Regent are inadequate, it's fine, and you're entitled to your own perspective. However, relying on search engine results is not a suitable method for determining due weight. If you find it repetitive, we can pause and await the judgment of a reputable, uninvolved editor to conclude this RFC. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_36&oldid=1198953551"