Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Lede

"More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza during the conflict". No. More than 30k Palestinians in Gaza have been killed since the start of the Israeli operation. Why was this changed again? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

AP: "More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 70,000 wounded in the Gaza Strip since Israel’s war on Hamas began nearly five months ago, health officials in the territory said." [1]

Reuters: "Over 30,000 Palestinians killed in Israel's military offensive in Gaza since Oct. 7" [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What’s the difference? They both seem to reflect the sources - and generally the first seems slightly more accurate to me, because the Israeli operation could be interpreted as just the invasion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The difference is obvious and everyone can see it: that Palestinian murders are done mysteriously in the conflict; the perpetrator is unknown; implications of collateral damage; instead of it being the result of using starvation as a weapon of war and an indiscriminate bombing campaign. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Seeing no further objections from yourself or any other user, I will take that as you agreeing with the wording by RS as demonstrated above? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don’t see the difference, except for the first being slightly more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree I don't see a difference either. The people in Gaza were killed either directly or indirectly by Israel 'during the conflict' is correct. That being said, I don't necessarily have a problem with the current 'Since the start of the Israeli operation' either so it seems like a simple battle over semantics. Yeoutie (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Include number of women killed in lead?

I removed the reference to the number of women killed in the lead and @Unbandito reverted it with "the number of women killed seems like relevant info to me", so moving this to the talk page. In my opinion, calling out specifically women tends to be an attempt to emphasize women as non-combatants/innocent/somehow worse to kill than men. This effect is stronger in the lead, since having it in the summary really emphasizes it. IMO this is both somewhat sexist and simply incorrect. Rusalkii (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See protected persons for the special provisions for women and children in the Geneva conventions and Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. Special note should be taken of the killing of womn and children in war. You might think calling them out as a special category compared to men is wrong but that's what the various international agreements say should be done. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it has any dependency on whether it is right, wrong, sexist etc. It depends on how reliable sources handle this information and how much they emphasize it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

They are pretty emphasized in RS as far as I have seen. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The number of women and children killed is mentioned all the time in RS and in venues such as this am UNSC meeting. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Do the RS say "according to the Gaza Health Ministry"? If so, at a minimum the attribution in the original story needs to be included in this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not anyone (besides Israel) is seriously disputing this, I don't think anyone is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If Israel is disputing it, then it is disputed, and the attribution from the RS would be included in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am quite happy with what is in the lead and idk why just women would be reverted to begin with. If anything the numbers are an undercount according to serious sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think women should be included in the lead because the number of women killed in the article doesn't seem to put too much emphasis on it. I think that it should either be removed, or there needs to be more emphasis throughout the entire article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not WP style to put it in the lead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Women and children, not just women. The only place you would emphasize that is in the casualties section, where else would you emphasize it?

There is more than enough sourcing to give it a section of its own. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not WP style to put one of the major reported facts in the lead? NadVolum (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning for keeping the number of women killed in the lead hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll weigh in. I think that the number of women killed is a highly relevant fact for the reader to consider when making a determination on how to evaluate the competing claims about the nature of this conflict. The maximalist pro-Israel framing is that this is a war against Hamas only and that Israel has taken every reasonable precaution to prevent civilian deaths while killing as many combatants as possible. The maximalist pro-Palestinian framing is that this is a war against Hamas in name only which is in reality a war against, or even an ethnic cleansing or genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Facts about the number of women killed in the conflict in proportion to the overall number of Palestinian casualties help the reader make a determination about these competing claims, because women (and children) are significantly less likely than men to be combatants in the Gazan context.

As for whether or not the figure is reliable on its own or should be attributed, I do not believe that any party to the conflict has directly questioned the number of women killed. Israel has questioned the overall reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry, but they have a clear conflict of interest in doing so and have done so by impugning the Gaza HM's motivations, not based on any factual claims that are backed up with evidence of past or present inaccuracies. I therefore do not weight this contestation very heavily. It is true that the Gaza HM has its own conflicts of interest as a party to the conflict, but I do not believe their interests are as straightforward as Israel claims, since parties to conflicts often try to minimize their own casualties rather than exaggerate them for the sake of their government's legitimacy. In any case, past casualty counts from the Gaza HM have been reliable. Unbandito (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

For the interested

The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia by World Jewish Congress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Shock horror! Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

And in case someone here didn't know, Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Adds to watchlist.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

wow that's crazy Personisinsterest (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me! NadVolum (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Shakespeare? No, not Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The usual hackwork, only publishable because it is sponsored by a lobby. Looking at the spilt ink of this pathetic screed, one is reminded of what Claudius says at Hamlet Act 3, Sc.3 98:"Words without thoughts never to heaven go." The author is 'particularly interested in how underprivileged social groups represent themselves and are depicted in cultural and digital spheres'. I guess Palestinians, in Gaza and elsewhere, are not an 'underprivileged social group' since there is no evidence of the paper's interest in them: to the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is stupid. The paper is mad Israelis aren't able to edit extended-confirmed articles even though they have good knowledge. Whatever. If you have something to write, get a source. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not even going to read that document. Brutally crushing dissent in a heartless robotic manner to enforce the EC restrictions is a pretty effective way to limit temperature fluctuations in the topic area in my opinion. There's nothing stopping people from simply following the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

To plagiarise a certain satirical news program, I read it so that you don't have to. How could that article possibly be biased when it is based on "interviews with Israeli Wikipedians"? Zero^talk 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In other news, locks on doors said to negatively impact the home invasion market. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They might want to factor in that it could easily get a lot more restrictive. Here's something from my ongoing voyages to map the mysterious borderless land of the so-called 'topic area'. There are plenty of things (article=circle, category=square) that are not blue (extendedconfirmed protected), and that's only a small subset, just a 2 level descent from the Arab-Israeli conflict category. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

UN special rapporteur's report

On March 25, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine, released her report on the war on Gaza, concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that genocide has been taking place. It contains a lot of useful information and sources in a small compass, and has gained news coverage already. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The presentation in Geneva on March 26 GeoffreyA (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

e.g.

Media reports challenged Israel’s allegations that Hamas were using hospitals as shields, asserting that there was no evidence to suggest that the rooms connected to the hospital had been used by Hamas; the hospital buildings(contrary to Israeli military 3D images) were found not to be connected to the tunnel network; and there was no evidence that the tunnels were accessible from the hospital wards.In addition, Israeli army reportedly rearranged weaponry at the Al Shifa before news crews visits303, raising further suspicions of fabrication after the Israeli army had claimed that a “list of terrorists” it had found in another Gaza hospital–the Al Rantisi–turned out to be a calendar of the days of the week in Arabic.p.23Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ecocide

The claim that Israel has engaged in ecocide has been widely reported, and a good deal of the data supporting that claim is summed up now in Kaamil Ahmed, Damien Gayle and Aseel Mousa, ‘Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? The Guardian 27 March 2024 Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This obviously requires a new section to document the details.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite so. Also, if it's not already on the page, the horrendous impact on the climate of Israel's indiscriminate and unchecked carpet bombing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead - how much detail?

Pinging @Makeandtoss: as the edits here pertain to him. The lead previously contained mentions of things like Gaza's healthcare collapse, lack of medicine, lack of communication etc. among other things. I removed this detail and replaced it with

>Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

My main concern here is that a too detailed lead is undesirable and contrary to WP:LEAD. It is most simplest to describe everything with the standalone term "humanitarian crisis" rather than going into details. The details would naturally be in the body. Makeandtoss has objected to this edit and I'd like to discuss the matter with him here further, possibly with input from other editors. JDiala (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As discussed, collapse of healthcare has its own standalone article and deserves at least a mention in the lede. As for Israel's blockade, this waters down the severity of the siege which cut off basic life necessities, unlike the previous longterm "blockade"; the least we could do is elaborate in a footnote, to maintain both concision and accuracy. As for the famine, it must be attributed to Israeli attacks on food infrastructure, as RS have notably reported. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

On further consideration, I've re-added the healthcare collapse. That the blockade is more severe is already indicated in the lead (it is mentioned that Israel "tightened" it). The famine thing is already referred to as "Israel using starvation as a weapon of war" which clearly indicates Israel is responsible. The exact ways it does this (attacks on food infrastructure) is too specific for the lead. I'm also not sure about the utility of footnotes here. The lead is already very large, and again this detail ought to be in the body. JDiala (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: People are accusing everyone on everything, so if anything the accusation is too detailed rather than the attacks on the infrastructure. As a middle ground (where attacks on infra is combined on both healthcare and food; and the focus is reduced) we can go from:

"Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries. The developing famine in Gaza has led to accusations that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war."

To "Israel's tightened blockade and attacks on infrastructure has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system and a developing famine in Gaza. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your phrasing is grammatically incorrect but I agree with it in principle. I'll edit it in. JDiala (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done but I changed developing famine -> ongoing famine since I think "developing" is too weak at this point. The famine has already arrived per sources. JDiala (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead - 15 March : a new sentence added

between 07:52, 14 March 2024 and 19:07, 15 March 2024 "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history and has been described as a major intelligence failure."

the 1st part of the sentence doesn't really have anything to do with the 2nd part; the 2nd part deserves a sentence on its own and would need to be extended.

This "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is a Israeli narrative; this had been discussed before and there isn't any consensus to add this here. Note: there isn't any similar sentence for the other people like "deadliest moment in their history". Deblinis (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Now the lead reads "The attack has been described as a major Israeli intelligence failure." I'm not sure why this sentence should be in the lead at all; it is clunky, uninformative without going into the weeds, and breaks up the paragraph while also potentially being WP:UNDUE. Also a side-note, "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is well sourced and should remain included in the body of the article and is well sourced and included already in the October 7 article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We have an entire section named "Israeli intelligence failure". The lede is a summary of the body. This sentence simply summarizes the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I must point out that there are plenty of sections not included in the lead (examples include almost everything else under the "Background" and "Media coverage" main headings) and I would further say that info relating to the "background" should probably be afforded less weight than to the actual content of the war, especially when there is such a cramped lead/article already. Yeoutie (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The major intelligence and military failures are the explanation for the war – it is the how and why of what has happened. No intelligence and military failures, no humiliation on the part of the Israelis, no unchecked response among genocidal lines. The entire conflict stems from Israel's intelligence and military failure in response to the surprise attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Writing articles about The Gospel and Lavender

Hi all

I'm interested in writing about the AI systems used by the Israeli military, The Gospel and Lavender. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on if they should be covered in separate articles or should be covered in one 'use of AI by the Israeli military' or both? Here is a bit more info about them:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/the-gospel-how-israel-uses-ai-to-select-bombing-targets

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They are both covered in this article, Idk whether there is enough material around to make a decent spinout article out of it though. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the wacky, debunked October 7th stories

The article mentions "necrophilia" and "playing with body parts" by Hamas members on October 7th. This evidence is based on specious eyewitness testimony by lying Israelis (e.g., Yossi Landau, Raz Cohen) or obtained from "interrogated" (read: tortured) Hamas militants. This should be removed altogether or highly qualified. The most lurid allegations have been debunked at this point.

In general, the entire section on sexual violence is far too charitable to the pro-Israel side. JDiala (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All the gossipy, debunked, nonsensical stuff that literally has no bearing on the war need not be in this article, some of it might fit in some other articles. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I also support the removal of any debunked or highly dubious 10/7 claims Unbandito (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Any debunked claim should be removed. That means it has been debunked by reliable sources, not by any WP user (see WP:OR). Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only debunked claims should be removed, but also claims which have no corroborating evidence. The necrophilia claim was one such example - the only evidence for it was a testimony that one could not be sure was reliable, with little to no coverage in reliable sources and no corroborating forensic evidence like photos or other media for either the testimony or the claim itself. As editors, we can't insert our original research into the process but we also can't let the sources do all the thinking for us. A basic level of skepticism towards highly charged and extraordinary claims allows us to eliminate obvious atrocity propaganda from the encyclopedia, and should be employed in any articles about this conflict. Unbandito (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Lies belong in the bin, not an encyclopedia. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you removed the definition of the reference "BBC News-2023" from this article. Because it is used in two or three more places, I replaced it. It's not clear to me how you've proven that article as "testimony by lying Israelis", or even if you intended to delete the reference completely from the article or not. It doesn't mention the two names you give above, so maybe it's unrelated. Who knows -- but articles shouldn't have referencing errors, so I've replaced the reference. If you want (and there is consensus that) the reference should be completely expunged, please do so -- but please make sure you're not re-introducing referencing problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of propaganda in this conflict has been quite out of the ordinary and easily merits an artcle by its notability. I think it should be covered in a separate article and this article just have a small section referring to the article on the propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth introducing a misinformation section at some point, though this will surely prove contentious. However, the Nigerien crisis (2023–present) article does a good job with such a section Unbandito (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This section should essentially be a trimmed down summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Reported atrocities. Yeoutie (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel's isolation

Multiple RS are now reporting that Israel's international isolation is growing: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This is significant as evidenced by the widespread dedicated reporting and should be mentioned in both the body and the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Careful, you will wake up ClayCax. Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Include in Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war. Might warrant a sentence in the body but definitely not the lead. Yeoutie (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

Hi all

I've just published Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war, I would really appreciate some help in expanding it and integrating it into this and other articles. I've been very careful to be as accurate to the sources as possible, quoting as much as possible for potentially contentious areas. The main things I'd love some help with:

1. Expanding the article, there are a lot of sources available, I've started to make a list of extra ones on the talk page
2. Integrating information of the environmental damage onto this article and others, its extremely extensive and impacts many of the topics related to the war
3. Suggestions for improving the title of the article (on the articles talk page)
4. Adding it to watchlists, I'm assuming based on recent experience it will get some vandalism and biased editing/conspiracy theories added. I'm assuming telling people about it here might attract some of this, but hopefully any help will outweigh this, fingers crossed.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

New map needed

Following recent events of course, an updated map should likewise be put in the lead infobox. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of mention of friendly fire

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

---

In the lede, after the first casualty mentions, should we mention that some of the Israeli and Palestinian casualties were caused by friendly fire? If so, should we include this as a footnote or as direct text?

Specific wording would be determined through normal editing, but may be along the lines of:

• For Israeli Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by friendly fire or as a result of the Hannibal Directive
• For Palestinian Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by the approximately ten to twenty percent of militant rockets that fall short

04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (friendly fire)

• Support both as direct text. Friendly fire casualties are widely reported in reliable sources (For Palestine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 etc, as well as major incidents such as Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. I understand that a similar number of sources can be provided for Israel), and it is important to inform readers that contrary to their expectations Israeli casualties are not all caused by Palestinians, and Palestinian casualties are not all caused by Israeli's. I prefer direct text to footnotes as research has shown that most readers do not view footnotes , but I would prefer footnotes over excluding it entirely. I would also oppose including just one, as casualties on both sides include those from friendly fire, and it would violate WP:BALASP to only inform readers about one side of this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues with your position. Several of the sources you have cited are not WP:RS. Of those that are RS, many fail to establish the claim. For instance, 16 merely states that "the portion that were killed by misfired rockets aimed at Israel, is not known". With the exception of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, no source establishes that any individual casualties were the result of friendly fire. Even that Al-Ahli case is somewhat disputed. For instance in our article we clearly state that claim that it was the result of a rocket misfire "is not a conclusive finding". JDiala (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are all reliable sources - none are listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. I also believe they all support this information; that an unknown number of the casualties (unknown in part due to Hamas impeding investigations) were killed by friendly fire. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is non-exhaustive. My understanding is that editors can in general exercise their own judgement as to a reliability of a given source, especially when considering the context of the topic at hand see e.g., WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It is my judgement that an American evangelical website like christianpost.com or a Sheldon Adelson-backed right-wing project like jns.org should not be given significant weight with respect to assessing rocket misfires in the Israel-Hamas war. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to start discussions at WP:RSN, but I note that regardless of what you think of those two sources there are seven on the list that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP; the presence of some that you disagree with isn't reason to dismiss all of them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support including October 7th IDF friendly fire as footnote but Strong Oppose for including alleged Palestinian friendly fire in Gaza. It should be a footnote in any case. The lead is far too long for these minor points to be non-footnotes. I oppose the inclusion of alleged Palestinian friendly fire. With the possible exception of the Ah-Ahli case, there is no clear evidence of Palestinian casualties due to rocket misfires (and even the Ah-Ahli is "not conclusive" according to our own article). This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is highly misleading as it suggests to the reader that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF. It's also a WP:SYNTH case e.g., many of the sources cited by the user above just speculate on the point rather than offer concrete evidence or make definitive statements of fact. War and large battles almost always have some amount of friendly fire. It's only notable if there's exceptional circumstances e.g., the friendly fire is particularly frequent, the ratio of casualties caused by friendly fire is high or the friendly fire is of a systematic nature. No evidence of this in the Palestinian case, but for the Israelis there's more compelling evidence considering the admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive. JDiala (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  No evidence of this in the Palestinian case There is evidence of this in the Palestinian case; reliable sources say that between 10 and 20 percent of rockets fall short - that's between 1500 and 3000 rockets in this war. According to the BBC and many other sources these kill Palestinians in Gaza, while Human Rights Watch notes Documenting damage caused by misfired rockets is difficult because the authorities in Gaza have impeded investigations of such incidents. For example, authorities in Gaza detained two Palestinian journalists investigating rocket misfires during the August 2022 escalation.

  We know that these rockets fall short, we know that they kill people - we shouldn't exclude this information because Hamas have covered up the specifics.

  I am also confused by your point that this addition will suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF; if that is true, then wouldn't including the text about Israel suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Israel were not caused by Hamas? Why would it only apply to one side and not both? BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is textbook WP:SYNTH. A large number of rockets frequently falling short, and one documented case of a plausible rocket misfire which resulted in fatalities, does not allow one to conclude that rocket misfires frequently resulted in casualties. That Hamas does not allow proper journalism in Gaza is irrelevant and does not give us a free hand to engage in WP:OR. For that matter, Israelis also do not allow independent journalism in areas of Gaza that they control or areas in Israel attacked on October 7th. It is all a highly curated show by the IDF. But in any case, that gives us no authority to just make things up. As for your subsequent point as to why we cover the Israel case but not Hamas, I've already discussed this. The admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive makes the Israeli case qualitatively exceptional. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't synth because reliable sources explicitly connect the two; for example, the New York Times says Between 10 and 20 percent of Hamas’s rockets fail and fall into Gaza, Human Rights Watch said in a recent report, citing Israeli military data. Sometimes those misfires fall into Gaza, killing Palestinians. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the article, that quote is specifically in reference to the Al-Ahli explosion, which is the only case where there's compelling evidence for this. I have already discussed this. It is a single case, not indicative of a pattern, and even then our own article about it concedes it's "not conclusive" that it was friendly fire. Also, most of your other sources are clearly synth. None of this is remotely comparable to an admission by Israeli personnel that "immense and complex quantities" of friendly fire took place on October 7th indicating a systematic pattern. JDiala (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention Al-Ahli at any point; the statement is general, and the fact that it links to an article about a specific incident doesn't make the statement less general. Further, many of the sources I provided neither mention Al-Ahli nor link to articles mentioning it - the BBC points out An ongoing criticism of the existing figures is that they do not give a sense of how Palestinians were killed - whether this was as a result of Israeli air strikes, artillery shelling or other means such as misfired Palestinian rockets. All casualties are currently counted as victims of "Israeli aggression". I think we're about to start going in circles, so I will just say that I stand by the sources I've presented and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The specific quote that you cited links directly to an NYT piece on Al-Ahli. That is clearly what they are referring to. The BBC quote you cited again just proves my point that you're engaged in synth. They're basically saying that "maybe some casualties were by friendly fire, we don't know how many" it's purely speculative. JDiala (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support including Israeli friendly fire, as that is a subject that has actually been covered in depth in a huge number of sources, and oppose the SYNTH laden proposal to attempt to balance that out with Palestinian friendly fire. BilledMammal is taking sources that say rockets fall short and then making the leap that there is some significant number of Palestinian deaths attributable to that. But sources do not do that by themselves. For Israeli friendly fire and the significant impact on those casualties, we have reliable sources that actually give considerable amount of attention to it. We have Reuters reporting the Israeli military opening an investigation into the reports of friendly fire on October 7, same for Haaretz, we have Haaretz reporting on Israeli helicopters opening fire on a music festival and hitting its own citizens. We have the Israeli army killing three of the Israeli hostages in Gaza, we have an estimate that one fifth of the Israeli casualties in Gaza were the result of friendly fire. There simply is not the same level of coverage of Palestinian casualties resulting from friendly fire. And the presentation of this RFC in which the attempt is made to supposedly balance the two pieces of information fails both NPOV and SYNTH. So yes, Israeli friendly fire should be included in a footnote, Palestinian friendly fire should not be unless and until sources actually discuss that topic in any sort of depth at all. A solitary line from a BBC article saying "rockets fall short and some may cause injuries" is not that. It is a straightforward misapplication of BALASP to demand what is not balanced in the sources be balanced in our article. This is not a "both sides" issue, similar to the claim that we can only include the very widely covered accusations of genocide against Israel if we cover the comparatively minuscule amount of coverage that claims of genocide against Hamas has generated. nableezy - 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support both. Including only friendly fire by Israelis on Oct. 7, and not including Hamas friendly fire falling short in Gaza, would be overt POV-pushing and a serious NPOV violation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Adding that the mention of friendly fire should be in the body of the article, not the lead. But it should be in the infobox. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV does not mean treating two things with completely different levels of coverage the same. That is actually the opposite of NPOV. nableezy - 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Odd you say that to me for my second comment in this RFC but not to BilledMammal who has 6 comments here? But sure thing pal. Just want future respondents to be aware that NPOV actually says the exact opposite of what you are saying, that NPOV is determined by the weight in reliable sources, and where here that weight is very much on one side of this topic. nableezy - 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  If he bludgeoned me, I'd make the same request to him. I'm not going to meddle! Perish the thought. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Responding to a single vote is not bludgeoning, and making unfounded claims of bludgeoning is uncivil. Toodles. nableezy - 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Don't include in lead, but do include in body. I imagine friendly fire is a common occurrence during any type of military conflict. It bears mentioning but I don't believe it is unique enough to this situation to be included in the lede. Slacker13 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2024
• Oppose including in lead; this obsession with stuffing the lead/infobox as much information/notes as humanly possible is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines and needs to stop. Yes, of course there is friendly fire; yes, of course there is a huge amount of coverage on it; no, it is not part of the "most important content" of this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Include Israeli, as Friendly fire during the Israel–Hamas war makes clear, with Palestinian side as a note only, since there is no comparison, and making one would be false balance. Note NPR "Nearly a fifth of Israeli fatalities since the invasion of Gaza in late October were caused by friendly fire or accidents, accounting for 36 of the 188 soldiers killed at the time of the report. Experts say it's one of the highest such percentages in recent military history." Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Only Israeli friendly fire seems to be notable. The percentage of deaths in Palestinian friendly fire seems to have been nothing out of ordinary for such a conflict, and so it's only superficially mentioned in sources. We don't mention friendly fire incidents in other war-related articles when they are typical; Israeli was not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support both. While we don't mention friendly fire casualties prominently for other conflicts, here we have a lot of coverage for friendly fire on both sides (in case of Israel related mostly to the infamous Hannibal directive and in case of Hamas due to inaccurate rocket fire, see sources provided by u:BilledMammal). Alaexis_¿question? 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support adding info about misfired rockets (the info about Israeli friendly fire is already there). The editors of multiple news platforms considered it significant enough to mention misfired rockets as causing an unknown number of casualties. The Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, in particular, was an example where Human Rights Watch questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures and said that evidence pointed to misfired rockets. I have no strong opinion on adding the info to the lead or to a body paragraph. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support only Israeli fires that can't even be called friendly because a significant number of it has been the result of Hannibal Directive, meaning that it was deliberate, and that make it notable to be mentioned in the lede. Since the lede should be a summary of what we have in the body:

In January 2024, an investigation by Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth concluded that the IDF had in practice applied the Hannibal Directive, ordering all combat units to stop "at all costs" any attempt by Hamas terrorists to return to Gaza, even if there were hostages with them. It is unclear how many hostages were killed by friendly fire as a result of the order.

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Friendly fire occurs on the margins of all wars and isn't generally lede-worthy. Especially given the current proposed weaselly wording and weak sourcing, inclusion would violate not only SYNTH but arguably also NPOV, by giving UNDUE weight to the implicit victim-blaming narrative peddled by partisans of both sides. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would also agree with this, to not include either sides’ friendly fires. I would support including friendly fires for both, or for neither. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any specific mention about the Hannibal Directive or rockets falling short, which reads as editorializing in context - it doesn't really belong here, is wildly WP:UNDUE for the lead, and feels WP:SYNTHy in that it implies that these specific things make up meaningful amounts of casualty figures and are highly relevant, which isn't really supported. I would not be opposed to a includes friendly fire note is used to encompass both, with no other details; but the bare minimum to me is that there one note, encompassing both identically. Trying to get into elaborate contortions about how and why each side causes friendly fire absolutely does not belong in the lead for the entire war; and trying to cram it in here feels inappropriate and forced. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both oppose any one-sided inclusion, and an inclusion in the lead is only desirable if it can be done equitably and in a balanced (and short) manner, but support including BOTH if possible. Per Aquillion and others, it needs to be balanced and non-synth, and avoid inclusion of common incidents on either side. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support mention of Israeli friendly fire, neutral leaning oppose for mention of Palestinian friendly fire (if there is such a mention, it should be very brief). Israeli friendly fire has attracted more coverage and seems to account for a larger proportion of victims overall than its Palestinian counterpart. --Andreas JN466 18:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both, since there is news coverage for both. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for both it isn't important enough for the lead which is already quite long and will undoubtedly continue to grow. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both, the lead is already filled as it is and we shouldn't continue to add even more in-the-weeds information. Of course include in the body the well-sourced and important information as found by above editors. Yeoutie (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both as per FortunateSons. Vegan416 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support including Israeli friendly fire, oppose including Palestinian friendly fire. There are three policy reasons for this:

1. The language proposed viz Palestinian friendly fire is synthetic, and not well-sourced (see this discussion from a couple of months ago for my prior lengthy discussion regarding numerous issues with most of the same sources recycled above).
2. Including both in the lead perpetuates false balance; if indeed Palestinian friendly fire was widespread enough to merit this level of attention, we could expect frequent and repeated discussion in blue-chip RS; the claim that the proportion of Palestinians killed by alleged friendly fire even approaches the proportion of Israelis killed by the IDF is simply without adequate foundation.
3. Perhaps most significantly, the lead must follow the body, and Palestinian friendly fire simply does not have a level of coverage in the body that would justify discussion in the lead (as is appropriate, given points 1 and 2 above). The term “friendly fire” itself is only used in the article in relation to Israeli casualties. WillowCity^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (friendly fire)

References

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.

9,000 militants

Why do we have the 9,000 militants killed figure from the IDF even when this figure is cited to the Haaretz report which says that the IDF was indiscriminately killing any man of fighting age? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It can vary between 8 and 15 thousand I think at the moment according to whatver Israeli soure you read. Hamas has given out a figure of six thousand a little while ago but there's no real confirmation. Wikipedia is just reporting what some fairly reliable sources say. You're on your own about what to make of it. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum: Wikipedia is just reporting what some fairly reliable sources say, but without importantly mentioning that this figure includes civilians who happened to be killed just because they happened to be men of fighting age? That's is extremely misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I know. But see WP:OR. The article Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war covers it better and perhaps a link to that could be placed there. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli estimates are all over the shop, 13K the latest figure, I think, Hamas said 6K at some point, and the US said that their estimate was lower than the Israeli figure but most sources say that we cannot really know for sure. I would say that any specific figure is false accuracy, all we can do is give a range. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes the 9,000 figure could be right by now for all I know. Even wetting my finger and sticking it in the air and waving it around doesn't seem to make the figure any more accurate. NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not right as evidenced by Haaretz. It’s not OR to avoid using a figure that is likely to be an overcount. This figure needs to be attributed, a criticism of it must be added in body and in a lede footnote, or a range can be added. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to say what the different sides say if it is reliably sourced, the best that can be done is attribute it so people know where it comes from. My own estimate is that more, maybe a lot more than half of the militants that are killed lie underneath rubble and aren't counted in the overall casualty figures, how can anyone be sure of a more accurate figure while the war goes on? NadVolum (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the above section ('2:1'), the total number of casualties as well as the number of combatants among those casualties is unknown and currently unknowable. We should probably focus on / emphasize this fact and present all estimates with attribution. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza healt ministry figures try as far as possible to be recorded deaths and not estimates of actual deaths which by now are probably around fifty thousand I estimate. But then again someone in Israel would probably just divide that by three and claim sixteen thousand militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit had been made on 1 April.[9] The previous figure (6,000-12,000) seemed too vague but this change can be undone (as it is based only on a Israeli source), Especially after reading this other article, "Israel Created 'Kill Zones' in Gaza. Anyone Who Crosses Into Them Is Shot".[10]. Deblinis (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless figures like that have some good corroboration they should be attributed. here to the IDF. In a war each side practically always overestimates the others casualties. There is nothing wrong with being vague when one simply doesn't know. NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"2:1 ratio"

Can someone please remove the recently added 2:1 ratio nonsense from a Telegraph article? Given ample evidence that the Israeli military considers every male of fighting age, a "terrorist." Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to open a discussion about this. Seeing that I'm not the only one who thought it was a dubious and poorly sourced addition, I'll remove the content for now while it is under discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What are your RS-based arguments that this ratio is "nonsense"? It comes from an expert and is published in an RS.

The 2:1 ratio is calculated under the assumption that there were 27,500 total casualties of which 9,000 were Hamas militants (as of mid-February). The latter number is quite reasonable, being somewhere between the Israeli and Hamas numbers (12,000 and 6,000 correspondingly). Alaexis_¿question? 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What you cited was quite a weak source and it should have at the very least been attributed. Even then, the analysis of Isaac Schorr of the Daily Telegraph, in what appears to be more of an opinion piece, is likely undue for this article. WP:BESTSOURCES. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not just Isaac Shorr's analysis. The 2:1 ratio comes from Andrew Roberts. If other sources have different opinions regarding this we should add them rather than removing this information.

I'm fine with attributing this statement, however the section should be consistent. If we state in wikivoice and don't attribute other assessments sourced from newspaper articles ("The first month of the war has been the deadliest conflict for children this century", "The rate of killing exceeds that of US-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan") then we should use the same approach here.

Are there any policy-based arguments against including this? "Weak source" and "nonsense" is just your personal opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Shorr's and Roberts' analyses both depend on the same propagandistic militant casualty figures provided by the IDF which were cast doubt on in the BBC report for numerous reasons, and even by IDF whistleblowers. Let's not compare universally agreed upon facts on this being the deadliest conflict for children this century, with flawed fringe analyses by conservative politicians and commentators. They are not the same. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's quite unlikely to be the deadliest conflict for children this century. The war in Tigray led to ~600,000 casualties, and about 10% of the confirmed ones were younger than 20 years (see Tigray: one year

of conflict – Casualties of the armed conflict, 2020-2021 by Vanden Bempt et al).

Anyway, the fact that someone doubts the IDF's figures is irrelevant. We don't even know if they used the IDF's numbers (it was 9k and not 10-12k). This is a reliable source and the numbers are not too far even from Hamas's own numbers (6k). Alaexis_¿question? 12:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, it is headed "Comment" at the top and the author is not on the Telegraph staff, described as "a staff writer at Mediaite and a Robert Novak fellow". Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The source for the 2:1 ratio is Andrew Roberts.

I've added another source by an expert (chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point). Alaexis_¿question? 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source from December showing where the figure for civilians comes from [11]. Seemingly it is quite standard in some studies to consider all men of milit5ary age as potential military snd it is just a short step from there to only considering women and children as civilians. Basically the 2:1 shoud be added to a separate article about the widespread propaganda in this war. And by the way the actual deaths are probably far higher, a study of deaths among a group where they could be counted indicates the health ministry was only recordng two thirds of the actual deaths - I notice they seem to have stopped giving an estimate of the number buried under the rubble or otherwise not accounted for. NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Roberts is not a relevant expert, more of a politician nowadays (of the Tory persuasion).

The bigger problem here is that the commentary seems at variance with other RS, apart from apparently taking no account of other unreported dead under the rubble.

Anyway, I have reverted while discussion is ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Another opinion piece with an extraordinary claim that Israel has set new standards for warfare - one I personally find outrageous. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I notice he cites under "Hamas' likely inflation" a piece by a professional statistician Abraham Wyner that has been thoroughly debunked. More stuff for an aricle about the rampant propaganda. Reliable sources seem to have done a fairly reasonable job of avoiding putting in sources like these despite the impetus to include any rubbish into news channels these days. NadVolum (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, why would you restore the claim made as a statement of fact? At the very least this needs to be attributed. That much should be clear. The Modern War Institute is a part of the United States Military Academy, and the US is Israel's biggest ally so why would this not obviously need to be attributed? Does anyone else find this to be disruptive? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We now have two sources (Roberts and Spencer). As I said before, I'm not against attributing this claim, I just didn't find a way to do it so it doesn't sound unwieldy. Now I've realised both of them have their own wiki articles, so let's attribute it as "According to Andrew Roberts and John Spencer...". Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please attribute it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw if there are *other*, higher estimates of the ratio, I'm happy to include them as well. Alaexis_¿question? 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel’s rules of engagement seem looser than ever – if they are followed at all Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I've now read the Israeli version and it stinks. My guess is someone down the line did it deliberately to stop aid to Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Per this BBC article (from Dec 20 2023):

"The pace of killing in this war has been "exceptionally high", says Prof Michael Spagat, who specialises in examining death tolls in conflicts around the world, such as the 2003 Iraq war, Colombia's civil conflict, wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as previous wars between Israel and Gaza. "Within the series of Gaza wars stretching back to 2008, the current one is unprecedented both for the number of people killed and for the indiscriminateness of the killing," he adds."

"When asked directly, the IDF said it "does not have an exact number on the number of Hamas terrorists killed". News agency AFP reported that senior Israeli officials had suggested Israel had killed two Palestinian civilians for every one Hamas fighter. That ratio was described by the IDF's spokesman Jonathan Conricus as "tremendously positive", to CNN. The BBC has not been able to establish a clear method of verifying the number of fighters killed. Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians. The IDF's numbers for combatants killed "have been all over the place, devoid of details and without explanations", he added. There are "no reliable figures" for the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza, say Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, an organisation that examines the number of deaths in the Iraq war."

This is article is months old but it seems to me -and I believe this is rather uncontroversial, with many RS supporting it- that "There are "no reliable figures" for the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza" and that we should probably be focusing on that, with all attempted estimates being presented with attribution, and ideally mentioning or describing their methodology used.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty and it might have been a good idea to wait a few years until we have high quality scholarly sources parsing all the competing claims and evidence, but that's not the standard the rest of the article and Wikipedia in general adheres to.

I'll add this to the article, along with the attributed estimates. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also regarding "I'm not against attributing this claim, I just didn't find a way to do it so it doesn't sound unwieldy.", it might just be better to say "According to the IDF", as I believe that is what the sources you're presenting (Roberts and Spencer) are going by. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be OR as we can't know for sure which data they used (also 9 thousand is less than the IDF's 10-12 thousand). Alaexis_¿question? 13:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Please self-revert your re-addition of contested material; there is no consensus so far on the inclusion of this extraordinary claim. The burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say that this claim is exceptional. You need to show that this claim is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community." Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I am still not happy about this, "proportion" is being mixed up with "rate", that's two different metrics, I am pretty sure that the rate of killing is way up there at the top while the proportions depend on some dubious assumptions, the latter in particular giving rise to dueness questions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the word "proportion" works better I have no problems with that. Rate is not incorrect either, as one of the meanings is "a fixed ratio between two things" [12]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's just no basis for the 2:1 and 1.5:1 ratios and very good reason to suspect them. The original 61% from an Israeli university was under the assumption that all men of military age were potential militants and even that was flawed about the numbers. I believe it comes under WP:EXTRAORDINARY - basically it is just propganda and fails due. NadVolum (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been reverted by another editor. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is even worse actually - Spagat's 80% speculation was retained while other viewpoints were removed. Alaexis_¿question? 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a dedicated section on Israel rules of engagement and targeting, there are a lot of sources for that now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Spagat is an expert in the matter. My estimate is a little higher than his but I consider his estimate to be very reasonable. The IDF figures are hogwash. NadVolum (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So is John Spencer. Please note that I've added Spagat's opinion too. Alaexis_¿question? 15:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The reality is that no-one knows, these are speculative opinions, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No he's not an expert in estimating the number of casualties in a war. Spagat is. NadVolum (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

He's an expert in urban warfare. Alaexis_¿question? 14:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

He has zilch expertise in estimating numbers of deaths. His [13] is interesting though - it talks about the US having got past the stage of classifying every adult man as a possible terrorist combatant, exactly where I believe thei 2:1 business originally started from. Try and find anything at all relevant from his list of publications if you can. NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obvious that not just any random, minor military expert's opinion/analysis/estimate is WP:Due here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what makes John Spencer (military officer)'s analysis WP:Due here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This thread is ridiculous. The 2:1 figure was garbage that was ridiculed from the get-go, and such transparently propagandistic POV crap that it should never have been loaded onto the page in the first place, not least on the basis of the shoddy sourcing that was used. Given that Haaretz has also now revealed that the IDF's "terrorist" numbers include absolutely anyone that walks into an invisible kill zone, we know that if the Israeli forces even do have an accurate count of enemy combatants that they've killed, the one thing that is certain is that the numbers provided to date are not them. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Claims of Palestinian victory

I've noticed that in numerous articles on battles that have ended (Battle of Shuja'iyya (2023), Battle of Beit Hanoun, Siege of Khan Yunis) the result was listed as "Palestinian victory". To me this seems a bit of a stretch, the IDF withdrawing with some Palestinian militants surviving doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian militants "won", it could easily just mean they deemed the objective to be achieved. For example in Khan Yunis the IDF basically demolished Hamas' fighting units as organized forces, does the fact that some Hamas fighters survived and emerged after the IDF left mean they won? It could just as easily be that the IDF simply saw nothing further worth destroying. Certainly the implication that the IDF was militarily defeated is absurd.

I changed the Khan Yunis article to withdrawal because a debate was already brewing in the talk page there, I've left the rest up for now but I think this is worth a serious debate. I think it would be better to just put Israeli withdrawal.--RM (Be my friend) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Israeli withdrawal for now; anything else needs to be sourced to RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

All we can really tell is that the Israeli army made the place practically uninhabitable. NadVolum (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case it sounds like the Siege of Khan Yunis should be an Israeli victory considering their war goal is to make Gaza as uninhabitable as possible /s. ArthropodLover (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Edited ArthropodLover (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the opinion of a single French author / former soldier as your source states. Please do not overinterpret the personal opinion of someone as fact (even if said opinion is reported in a reliable source). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Spagat

Makeandtoss removed the following: Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway University of London who specialises in analysing casualty figures, said in December 2023 that there were no reliable figures for the rate of civilian casualties. with this edit summary: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; also putting this fringe view at the top of the casualties figure is misleading as there are many more RS saying otherwise; please seek consensus before reinserting. I am therefore seeking consensus. This is very much not fringe; it's from the BBC and he's one of the world's experts on this topic. (PS it wasn't me who included him btw; no idea who did.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think but don't know, if Makeandtoss overreacted a bit there, following on from the #"2:1 ratio" discussion up above, I don't have a problem with that part of Spagat, I think it is a useful statement. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I think you can guess from what I said there I have no problem with it. It was the BBC and he has the relevant expertise. NadVolum (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a factual matter, his statement is undoubtedly true. Given the collapse of infrastructure in Gaza, the unaccounted for dead under the rubble, and Israeli control of certain areas (e.g., Northern Gaza) possibly impeding access of healthcare workers, there's no way that the numbers are accurate at this point. This fact is important enough to share to the readers. I vote inclusion. JDiala (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This was wp:undue, and this "he's one of the world's experts on this topic" is wp:original research. The Lancet reduces to nothing this false assertion. Deblinis (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Have a look at Casualties of the Iraq War, his name is all over it. He certainly wasn't the only one to disagree with the Lancet article! As an aside, if you have a look at that article though you'll be very wary of accepting body counts as being anything like a good estimate of the actual number of deaths! Especially in this war where so many buildings are destroyed by bombs and bulldozers have been used to cover up bodies. This is why I say the Gaza Health Ministy figures should be annotated as recorded deaths. NadVolum (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Neutrality?

There is a neutrality notice on the top of the article. The person who put this in claims the article has a pro-Israel bias. In fact I find the article to be fairly evenhanded (we've all done a decent job, overall, despite heated discussions for several months). I propose this be removed. JDiala (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis: Pinging tagger for courtesy. NasssaNser 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The tag placed in this edit is a classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response to the user failing to get their own way in a talk page discussion. There is also the obvious problem of failing to assume good faith simply because some users disagreed with the edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Valid points have been raised [14] and in the end it shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. 'The Washington Post" is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work. Le Monde is the most prestigious newspaper in France. El País is the most read newspaper in Spanish online. BBC is the most famous British media worldwide. The Guardian is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner. As of April 2024, fact is that each one of those major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category.. Deblinis (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an RFC now to resolve the names business so might as well see what that throws up and go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the page as "Israel-Gaza war"? Adding "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" next to the current name in the Lead ?

April 2024: several major Western newspapers have decided to rename and present the ongoing war as Israel–Gaza war and only under that banner.

Here are a few significant instances:
Washington Post - "Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key"
BBC - "Israel Gaza war: History of the conflict explained"
Le Monde - "Israel's war in Gaza"
El País - "La Guerra entre Israel y Gaza"
The Guardian - "Israel-Gaza war : Which countries supply Israel with arms"

Time for a change as Wikipedia has to reflect sources' content per wp:Neutrality and wp:Be Bold. Deblinis (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would stick to the current title, as the state of Israel and Hamas are the main players.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Israel and Hamas are the main players" is the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's. Six months later, the story doesn't look the same from the ground and from the sky. Deblinis (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It should definitely be up there as an alt name. I hadn't realised it wasn't, and I'm going to add it now. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many alt names; as such, per WP:ALTNAME, we shouldn’t include them in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Says who? What other examples of alt names are there for the whole war? I can't think of any other examples that are both unique to the conflict and routinely used in independent RS media. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Many. Even just looking at the source provided by Delinis, we have two alt names - "Israel Gaza war" and "Israel's war in Gaza". Elsewhere, we get "Gaza war", "Israel's war on Gaza", "Swords of Iron", and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" - and looking at our recent move requests, there are yet more options used by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is totally bogus reasoning, as I'm sure you're well aware, just as you are aware that repeatedly reverting other editors on this is borderline edit warring. "Israel–Gaza war" is far more prevalent than any of the other alternatives; it's not even a contest. "Israel's war in/on Gaza" is more prose than title, and rarely used (mainly just Al Jazeera I believe). "Gaza war" is generic and not specific to the conflict. "Swords of Iron" is an operation name, not the war. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", same, and specific to the initial Palestinian incursion. The last two are clearly specific operational names, and it's taking the micky a little to suggest these are valid alt names for the entire war. What are you up to? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaza war might be generic, but it's also a commonly used name for this war - we would need to disambiguate it, but that doesn't make it any less of an alt-name.

Regardless of whether you consider "Israel's war in Gaza"/"Israel's war on Gaza" to be prose, reliable sources consider it a title.

I don't have a source at hand for "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", but I have a source that makes it clear "Swords of Iron" is a name for the entire war.

Generally, I don't think we need any names in the lede, including "Israel-Hamas war"; there is much more relevant information to include in an already very crowded lede, and thus we are better off including this information in an etymology section as instructed to my MOS:ALTNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's three words (four with "or"). It's clearly not going to crowd out the lead. Come off it. And still with the operational names? An Israeli operational name cannot, by definition represent be the entire war because it doesn't include the original Palestinian incursion, which started the war. (And it would incidentally be a names section, not an etymology one – there's no meaning to explain in any of these names.) Clearly you don't want the alt name in the lead, but you're going to need to come up with better reason than any of the above to justify why it actively shouldn't be added/should be excluded. I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the name "Swords of Iron", supported by reliable sources, is that it includes the initial fighting in Israel.

I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. If you read my comment, you would see that I support excluding both the primary name and the alt names from the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would exclude all names when "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israel-Gaza war" are the prevailing ones – there are not really many other options here, whether based on prevalence or descriptive titling. Articles without names often invite hamfisted intros. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That first step /change has to be made now. Deblinis (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The far right wing Israeli source The Times of Israel doesn't have any Editorial Independence Policy [15], and they don't cover Israeli settlers' violence [16]. TToI doesn't provide factual, distinctive journalism for a diverse audience. And it is not a Western media either, contrary to the five major newspapers mentioned earlier. Deblinis (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We could include each parties name of it: Battle of Al-Aqsa flood and the war of Iron swords. Same has been applied to the 2014 and 2009 war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to month-long conflicts that readily fitted within the confines of a single operation. This is a six-month long conflict and Al-Aqsa Flood war just the initial part. There is also no evidence that the initial Israeli name for its carpet bombing is still the name for its highly confused ongoing activities in Gaza. We now appear to be on "operation meander about, damage infrastructure, kill aid workers and starve people". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Important point; in April 2024, each one of the following major Western newspapers gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category:

• Washington Post - see >
• Le Monde - see >
• BBC - see >
• The Guardian - see >
• El País writes the "GUERRA ENTRE ISRAEL Y GAZA" (= "Israel-Gaza war") category under the title of each article. - see >

Deblinis (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

These RSP alone are frankly more than enough to establish it as a clearly RS prevalent alt name. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding renaming the page, there is a moratorium on move requests until 27 May 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a link to see that 'moratorium' discussion ? Deblinis (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is that discussion. Note that it is also linked in the FAQ. NasssaNser 09:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post and NDTV also use Israel-Gaza war, the UN uses "Israel-Gaza" as the framing to describe events (crisis or whatnot) in the conflict, MSF uses "Gaza-Israel war" and ABC uses "Israel-Gaza conflict". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

[17] [18] [19] etc...

Someone should add the "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" words in the lead today; otherwise I would be forced to stick a bias tag at the top of the page. Deblinis (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of bias simply because you are not allowed to make a certain edit. You are not forced to add a bias tag and should seek consensus on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

A Neutrality tag is indeed a better term . Deblinis (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza war is more descriptive; although unfortunately it seems less used as a common name than Israel-Hamas war. So I would support the inclusion of also known as Israel-Gaza war in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a question of figures, it is about content and context.

These Five major newspapers known worldwide (among many others) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.

The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.

On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict" in this article "Why this Israel-Gaza conflict is so complicated for Biden".[20].

On October 8, CNN announced "Israel formally declares war against Hamas" and followed Israeli narrative like any other Western corporate media.[21]

All the journalists in newsrooms then had been hugely pressured and they had to reuse the Israeli state's narrative with key fake atrocities, (beheading babies) and the "horrific" and "barbaric" adjectives in frontlines. A lot of journalists after the South African request of last January have realized that the " Israel against Hamas" tag is not the right one. Deblinis (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Three of the sources already used Israel–Gaza War by the time the last RM concluded; only Le Monde of the list has switched over. I can't grep mentions of El Pais from that discussion.

The current title is kept only because there were too many move requests in a quick succession; there is no clear rationale or consensus supporting the current title (I am involved in the last discussion). We could start another move discussion by the expiry of this moratorium.

The alternative 2023 Gaza War was also brought up then, though not thoroughly discussed. NasssaNser 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For El Pais here are the links [22] [23]. @NasssaNser:Deblinis (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's time for a change. There's more than enough evidence for Israel-Gaza War to be included as an alternate name, and moreover it should be the actual title of the article. Israel-Hamas War is inaccurate given the number of participating Palestinian factions and the Yemen and Lebanon theaters of war and the scope of destruction in Gaza which has significantly affected civilian infrastructure. It is likely to become more inaccurate if escalation toward a regional war continues. It was always a pro-Israel framing of the war adopted by the Western press. While we don't want to insert our biases as editors into the article, the fact that it is still given a title that reflects a framing of the war that is clearly biased to the point of inaccuracy shows that there is a hazard in letting the sources do all of the thinking for us in instances where they have a uniform bias that is out of alignment with common sense and the realities on the ground. Unbandito (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that Israel Hamas war is a descriptive title rather than a common name imo. Although many editors in the last move request argued that it was commonname. Those that would keep the current title (the pro Israel crowd for the most part) dislike allowing the intrusion of any other name (BilledMammal has reverted probably half a dozen attempts to do so, including one of mine). However since the name has now been bolded in the lead then that allows at least two altnames to go in as well and I would suggest Israel Gaza war and Gaza war as the two. An alternative method is to debold the name in the lead and treat it as descriptive, in which case I agree to have a names section, which will be good prep for the inevitable debate over the title once the moratorium has expired. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not member of the "pro Israel crowd". However, I went along with Israel-Hamas war for the article name because it did appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME at the time of the discussion in 2023. What some people seem to be trying to say here is that the war has moved on and that its defining feature is now the suffering caused to civilians in Gaza; I would not argue with that assessment. The article will not be renamed without a new move request, and any WP:ALTNAME in the opening sentence should also have consensus to prevent back and forth arguments. The problem here is that news stories have come up with different names for this conflict, and as of April 2024, none of them really qualifies as the COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please realize that in April 2024 five major Western newspapers (and there are many others) gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. Deblinis (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is true and that was also the case at the most recent move request (+ the UN), what is more important for a future move is what has changed since then. Example, Haaretz has taken to using Gaza war quite often now, first crack in the Israeli coverage, CNN is tying itself in knots, "Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas" and others seem to alternate between different names depending the story. But the key to the altnames is whether or not the title is considered descriptive, if the name is bolded in the opening sentence that is saying it is commonname rather than descriptive. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis: five is not a lot. Take a look at the prior move discussions in the talk page archives; you'll see editors looked at dozens of sources, not just five. Back then, it was pretty evenly split between "Hamas" and "Gaza" IIRC. I don't know if that's changed, but if so, it would take more than five to find out. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis Note that there is a current moratorium to suspend/close any Requested Move discussion until 27 May 2024, unless you can provide a substantive set of evidence that there is a clear majority in the sources (not just five) on the change in the common name/descriptive name used. – robertsky (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky @Levivich, Is considering average sources as the same importance as The Washington Post, a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, relevant ? Are some average sources as important as Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, El País which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, and The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper? Deblinis (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the previous discussions. Why don't you put together a list of all the sources mentioned and then you can sort them into average and prestigious sources. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those corporate media owned by billionaires, is a scourge and only serves their own interest and business partners's. That 'Israel-Hamas war' label they took on, is the narrative created by Israeli state and it became the one of Israel allys overnight. Six months later, the story is no longer the same from the ground and from the sky in Gaza. Journalists say it [24]. Deblinis (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Since editors keep inserting the titles despite a lack of consensus I've opened an RfC to conclusively resolve this dispute below. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing or improving the "names" section

The section only states that "Western media outlets have shifted from calling the war the Israel-Hamas war to the Israel-Gaza war"—listing and citing examples of articles calling it 'Israel–Gaza war' and names other than 'Israel-Hamas war'. None of the cited sources discuss this shift. (permanent link to the section; normal link to the section) FunLater (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(Self-reply) I think moving it to the "media coverage" section may make more sense, as the names section discusses what the media calls it, but I still think that the section needs sources that discuss such a shift, or how naming affects people's perception of the war, etc. FunLater (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed it as WP:SYNTH for the reasons you explained. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good move; it was pure WP:SYNTH. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) FunLater (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich It's now been restored by @Deblinis. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The presentation has been changed to be factual, mentioning that "as of April 2024 certain Western media outlets have called the war as the Israel-Gaza war". WP:NEUTRALITY is the rule in this case. Deblinis (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also etymology/name is not a significant WP:ASPECT of this topic (at least not per the sources cited), so not suitable for a separate subsection. A section about etymology/name would require sources talking about etymology/name. And for Wikipedia to say there's been a shift in the name would require sources saying there's been a shift in the name. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is completely insane. The article is already too long. This is an unimportant issue (Israel-Hamas, Israel-Gaza --- who cares?) and the whole topic is just WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I removed it again after it was reincluded by @Deblinis. JDiala (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to add my support for what appears to be the consensus anyway, per Levivich, Czello, and FunLater, that this is not a significant aspect and would be OR. I'm also not sure it's also appropriate to have made the edit this pending completion of the RfC about naming above, as they are closely connected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

who cares? I do, for one. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Proportion of civilian casualties

Question 1. How should we describe the proportion of civilian casualties

• A: state that there are no reliable figures, per [25] (with or without in-text attribution)
• B: give several estimates or a range (e.g., "10% according to X, 90% according to Y", or "10-90% according to various estimates")

(Options A and B can be combined)

• C: other (don't include at all or anything else that's not covered by A and B)

Question 2. If we were to provide estimates (Option B of Q1), then which sources should be taken into account (I've listed the ones that were brought up in the discussion here so far and had explicit percentages or ratios)

• A: "Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians" [26] (December 2023)
• C: 60% (1:1.5 ratio) according to John Spencer [27] (March 2024)
• B: 61%, according to the IDF [28] (December 2023)
• D: 66% (1:2 ratio), according to Andrew Roberts [29] (February 2024)
• E: Other estimates.

Alaexis_¿question? 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCbefore at #"2:1 ratio" and #Spagat Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Giving percentage estimates seems like the way to go to me. It was also the method used in the 2014 Gaza War. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Include Spagat or No change. Spagat is the only one with any expertise in the matter of those in A-D. They should have included the figures already there in the RfC, the Health Ministry, an Arab estimate and the IDF for balance to give the end points. Since I'm pretty certain the direct deaths now exceed fifty thousand I find it very difficult to fit in the IDF estimates but I suppose we go by 'reliable' sources. Then again if they are including people like Dr.Youssef Abu Al-Rish deputy head of the Ministry of Health in their Hamas most wanted playing cards who can say what they mean by their figures? NadVolum (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  John Spencer is an expert is urban warfare. Alaexis_¿question? 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  We're not talking about expertise in killing people. We're talking about expertise in estimation of casualty numbers. Have you any evidence he has expertise in that? NadVolum (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Even if he were, publication in an opinion-piece in Newsweek would require a very high level of expertise to use, especially in a situation like this where many better sources are available. I don't think that it's reasonable to consider that as a source, especially not in an infobox where we wouldn't be able to provide context (is this discussion about the infobox? The RFC is vague.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No change. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change for now. Nobody has raised any serious objections to the current sources, and the ones presented here are not better. An opinion piece in Newsweek? A commentary piece from the Telegraph? "Not at all surprised?" For something that has received this much coverage, these are unserious. Why would we replace the Euro-Med HRM number with these? And why would we even consider complete removal when so many sources offer ranges of numbers? Spagat is the best available source out of the ones presented here (since he's an expert on death tolls in particular and is cited in a non-opinion piece) but even then it's hard to see it as an improvement over what we have currently; and since he's attributed in the source, he's more someone we would mention with attribution in the body, not the infobox. I'd definitely push for complete omission of the opinion pieces (the Spencer and Roberts ones) - this isn't a topic where we want to use opinion pieces from talking heads whose expertise is tangential to the main subject of casualty counts. I also somewhat object to the wording of this RFC; it clearly quotes Spagat selectively in a manner intended to make readers skeptical of him, while omitting details of the other sources that would similarly call them into question (like the fact that half of them are opinion pieces.) It also stacks the deck with a bunch of low-quality or WP:BIASED sources stating 60%, while omitting sources in the other direction that we already have in the article. Generally speaking this needed more WP:RFCBEFORE. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change John Spencer is not a reliable source, and his numbers appear to be taken straight from the IDF (it's a "democratic American ally" so it should be trusted, in his view, ignoring the fact that many regard it as a fascist apartheid state by many). JDiala (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Change Better to quote the IDF directly than an American army officer stating the same thing. All that would do is obscure the origin of the claim. ArthropodLover (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change (IDF and EuroMed estimates in infobox, concise mention of main estimates in body), plus maybe put Spagat back in as major expert. Spencer and Roberts definitely not due here. This section should be a short summary of the Casualties article, where we can go in to more detail and quote more commentary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment @Alexis: Atm, the article says "...70% of them are women and minors. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed." Shouldn't "no change" be an option? Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Since a couple of editors have already !voted for No change, I guess it is now a de facto option. Alaexis_¿question? 12:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• So, wait, what about what we are saying currently? Those don't seem to be options. The current infobox says 90% civilians (per Euro-Med HRM[38]); 66% civilians (per Israel[39]) Those aren't listed in B - does that mean that the Euro-Med HRM number would remain no matter what, or is it being taken as a given that it would be removed, and if so, why? Nobody that I can see has given any rationales for removal, so my assumption is that it would remain regardless of the outcome of option B. --Aquillion (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is my oversight. This source wasn't brought up at the talkpage in the RFCbefore discussions (2:1 ratio & Spagat) and this is why I didn't include it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Jordan

Should be added as a co-belligerent on the Israeli side, cooperating with them and intercepting Iran’s drones from yesterday

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/latest-israel-hails-interception-drones-missiles-unprecedented-attack-109214109 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement "The Jordanian Council of Ministers says that its forces “dealt with” parts of the Iranian attack that flew over its territory, “to prevent them from endangering the safety of our citizens and residential and inhabited areas." in the source you cite is inconsistent with the notion of Jordan being a belligerent. It's not a belligerent engaged in war, it's shooting things down that are unauthorized to fly through its airspace. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

An Iran Israel affair has nothing directly to do with this war anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this war, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria because of its support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran retaliated because of it. How is that no linked to the war in Gaza. Daran755 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No one said it has nothing to do with this war. Carrying out actions linked to a war doesn't make the party a belligerent. The source describes what happened and why from Jordan's perspective. There is nothing in there supporting the notion that Jordan is a belligerent in a war. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Jordan is a belligerent in this war, but that Iran is. Jordan only shot down Iranian drones and missiles to "protect its airspace", but Iran directly attacked Israel, making it a direct belligerent against Israel. Daran755 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This would be inappropriate without a reliable source making the claim that Jordan is a co-belligerent on the Israeli side. Please review our policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sourcing. Further, there's no logical reason why Jordan's self-defense of its airspace against Iranian intrusions would be added as a co-belligerent in the Israel-Hamas War. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation errors

The named reference ToI was invoked but never defined for reference no. 54

Only the webpage, without the full citation is mentioned for reference no. 52

The named reference Iran Update, December 27, 2023 was invoked but never defined for reference no. 33

The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 24

The named reference "national" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 13.-Haani40 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

News compliation

The article is increasingly turning into a news compilation articles instead of something encyclopaedic. While this is understandable considering that the war is ongoing, I think more care should be taken when inserting day-to-day events, and we should instead insert a more broad and general narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a number of sub articles that could be used certainly. How does one achieve that is the problem though. NadVolum (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs work, per #Article size and child articles above. Happy to team up with some people and fix them up, one at a time. Maybe start with an easy one. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fathom journal article - assess?

https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/ I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Another Israeli magazine saying the figures are falsified. That's so easy now they've gone and destroyed most of the the hospitals. It is quite long and would need a good study and it is not peer reviewed so it would be best to see what some other sources say first. They refer to Wyner's similar thing for support but if they can't see what a piece of rubbish that is I rather doubt it amounts to anything more. NadVolum (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The article Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war might be okay for it as it cand accomodate more of this sort of stuff. By the way there's also an article Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war where a lot of these stories could go. NadVolum (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This should clarify where Fathom sympathies lie. Anything from there needs attribution, assuming it is due in the first place. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

One can see their bias from the start talking about a pretence of verification at the start when Israel had the ID numbers and if they had ever found a live person with one of these ID's I'm sure they'd have shouted it from the roofs. NadVolum (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems with that article. I think the really big major one is that they assume that women and children and men are all equally likely to go into hospital if injured or dying. This is simply not so. Even before the hospitals were mostly put out of action one could see that the numbers of children killed in the statistics compared to women was too low - one should expect about twice as many children killed by the bombs as women as they are both protected status. In the later figures from the hospitals compared to the ones from outside the ratio got even smaller so you got less children registered killed than women in the hospitals. The hospitals are warning people to stay away unless desperate. Children can be looked after by their parents but adults are less able to stay away from hopital if injured. I'd guess women would try harder to stay awy with their children we have no basis for estimating that effect.

Then there's the problem that once they allowed people to tell them about deaths rather than needing to have actually seen each one people would have told them about deaths they had previously not been recorded, in particular all those children that had died away from the hospitals. Since we know from other information that they were probably only registering about two thirds of the deaths in the first couple of months, their figures for the missing dead were only about half the true figure and I guess they are still about that but it is an unknown. They'd be getting more reports from outside but the hospital system is broken and communications are down. And another big unknown is the number of militants under the rubble.

I haven't checked if it is happening here but a problem with Wyner's 'study' with the negative correnlations was the assumption that when a person is killed the figures sort of go up like in a shooting gallery whereas the different categories are almost certainly checked and tallied up in batches separately and take a couple of days to be added in.

I don't know why the figures for men were reduced. There was a case of data being duplicated by mistake and removed but I don't think that is it. Mistakes are possible when you've just got a few people working with spreadsheets trying to check through such masses of data. Overall it would help if they had a look at the obvious alternatives rather than trying to prove their hypothesis. NadVolum (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for a subsection on destruction of Gaza's education system?

Hi all

Can I suggest the article covers the damage and destruction done to the education system in Gaza? I found these sources on the topic, the most recent one I can find states that Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza and killed dozens of academics, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students.

• https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-20-24/h_06d1fdd709d1c7ef793f4afc27df029e
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/24/how-israel-has-destroyed-gazas-schools-and-universities
• https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/07/all-12-universities-in-gaza-have-been-the-target-of-israeli-attacks-it-s-a-war-against-education_6592965_4.html
• https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6108/Israel-kills-dozens-of-academics,-destroys-every-university-in-the-Gaza-Strip

More widely there is List of universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and articles for most universities but they appear to be very out of date. I don't know about this topic so if anyone else would like to add it that would be great.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This would be better summarised in the child article Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)#Impact on children and documented in Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip#Education. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi CommunityNotesContributor thanks, I agree for including information in that article describing the impact on schools but most of the information I can find is for adult education, universities and colleges. John Cummings (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There's a quite good NBC report I added to the Further reading section of the List of universities that summarises this, and it's worth its own subsection. Specifically higher education (rather than children's education) has been discussed, labelled "epistemicide by some scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki concerns regarding reliability of source

An off-wiki thread on Reddit contests, among other things, that the page cite[s] the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) to falsely claim that 90% of casualties were civilians. On the surface, the Euro-Med Monitor looks like a generic human rights organization however, the Euro-Med Monitor has actually been a significant source of pro-Hamas propaganda on social media. In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.

I have no issue with the article citing an ostensible Hamas lobbyist so long as it is in conjunction with someone from the opposite side, which it is (an IDF spokesperson and the State of Isreal). After all, NPOV reads A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. However, I'm posting this A) to make editors aware of the possibility of canvassing and B) to see if anyone agrees with the post. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We have an article on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, there was a recent inconclusive RSN discussion and there is in addition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination) (no consensus).

So best go through those before answering your question, methinks, don't want to go through all that again. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It pretty certainly is an overestimate but I can see how they could have come by it using the recorded casualty figures. Those don't include all the people under the rubble and a large portion of the militants that have been killed are probably under the rubble or otherwise missing from those figures. So I wouldn't call it a false claim, just a claim from earlier in the conflict and where they haven't taken account of all the facts. NadVolum (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

On the general business of balance Wikipedia doesn't do the TV business of WP:FALSEBALANCE where they bring in an expert on flat earth for balance against round earthers but it does try and give all sides a due balance. NadVolum (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it from the infobox; while it probably warrants mentioning in an article, it's unclear why their opinion is so significant as to warrant inclusion in the infobox. (I've also removed the Israeli estimate, for a similar reason). BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The Euro-Med Monitor has been described as being "close to Hamas" (2024 2014) so I think we should always attribute what they say and make sure we don't give them undue weight. Alaexis_¿question? 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As explained at the article talk page, those are ridiculous sources based on an unreliable source, NGO monitor, in turn based on spurious allegations by the Israeli government. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's actually close to the UN, and those are daft, unreliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that being close to the UN is a good sign, considering that the UNHRC now includes such countries like China and Cuba known for their respect for human rights.

Anyway, the fact that they referenced a source which we consider GUNREL is not a policy-based argument against them. Plenty or sources are not admissible per se, but are used by reliable sources which can in turn be used on Wikipedia.

It's quite amazing how you try to erase the EMEM-Hamas connection. Its current head, Ramy Abdu, has a history of working for Hamas-affiliated organisations. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bash the UN in your own time. Your last point here is a claim in that source by Shin-bet, not a fact, and your repeating of it is closer to a BLP violation than it is to a reasonable point to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, the clause between the dashes in the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis_¿question? 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to help you: it's clearly part of the Shin-bet quote. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The article says Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations.

Where did you see Shin-Bet here? There are no quotes or attribution in the subordinate clause. Alaexis_¿question? 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Where it actually talks about Ramy Abdu? The guy you're talking about? (Though

the IDF is unreliable too.) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel outlawed a whole bunch of NGOs, everybody is still shaking their heads over it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

He was the assistant director there [30]. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Assistant to the Director" is not the same as "assistant director". And what about the rest? "He was a project and investment coordinator for the World Bank and other internationally-funded projects addressing the financial sector and the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He holds two Masters, in Research and Finance. His fields of interests include international aid to developing countries and economic cooperation between EU and the MENA region. He is PhD candidate in Law and Finance at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK."

Anyway, any of that is for the article about them, not EMM. Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One bad apple spoils the bunch. His work at World Bank isn't likely to indicate a bias to one side of the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So what? Should we not cite anything with an IDF connection? nableezy - 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Any organisation which lobbies on behalf of Israel would be a biased source as well. Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The thread you cite is from the Steven Bonnell subreddit, which is a juvenile internet streaming subculture well-known for aggressive brigading and (recently) aggressive promotion of Israeli propaganda. The thread cites nothing of import except alleging a "double standard." It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (notably with respect to WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RS) in general. There is no reason to take this seriously. JDiala (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh my, it seems I attracted some attention... JDiala (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone there accused you of schochastic terrorism for editing Wikipedia. What little point the people there originally had wrt this article is losing any trace of credibility. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos

As with other I/P war articlesm while editors strive for narrative balance, some editors surharge the images in favour of one party, here and elsewhere Israel. Alaexis insists that we need to strengthen the already existing imbalance in Israel's warpics, one of a blooded room in a kibbutz. For every such photo, probably a hundred exist of blood-strewn homes in Gaza, or pictures like this. So we need to analyse the existing body of pics to determine the ratios between the two sides Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The subsection from which the photo was removed (7 October attack#Towns and rural communities) is about the attack by Hamas and the images should illustrate the content. The subsection currently has just one image (the satellite view of fires) and surely it's not unreasonable to have one photo showing the destruction wrought by the attackers. Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; the minimal visual representation of the attack on Israel is an NPOV issue - and Nishidani, I note Alaexis wasn’t adding the image, they were restoring it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't sidestep the point, as you both do. The article throughout on its range of photos shows a strong bias towards representations of an Israeli perspective. One cannot tinker with one subsection after another with complete disregard to the imbalance already present on our page. Address that and you may have, later, a reasonable argument for the inclusion of a picture like the blood-stained image, next to one showing a parallel scene, and there are thousands to choose from, of bloodshed among Palestinians. Not to observe parity is to privilege the victimizer as victim strain in the Israeli official spin (the war coverage must focus overwhelmingly on the devastations of the kibbutzim on Oct.7 and sideline the same havoc, repeated everyday over the succeeding 400 days, under the most massive bombing of Gazan civilians and their homes in modern history). The article is about the 7 month war, not only about day 1. It is about what happened to Israelis and Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The only "tinkering" here is by those removing these long-standing images.

We have pictures of the days after day one - and in a ratio that favours the Palestinian POV, with five images showing the impact on Israel and eleven on Palestine. What you are trying to do is make the ratio even more disparate, and that’s not NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A good reminder that the war has been ongoing for 200 days; the attack on 7 October was finished by 9 October. 1:100 ratio is the reality on the ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hamas didn't stop fighting on Oct. 9. I think the more accurate ratio to assess relative impact or harm is number of casualties (1:30). And to elaborate on the OP, balance isn't just about numbers but also about content of the photos. We don't want a situation where we have gruesome photos on one side and sanitized photos on the other, regardless of numerical quantity or ratios. Levivich (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Although, neither is a good way to assess what is WP:DUE; 30 times more Chinese people died in WWII than French people, but that doesn’t mean we should have 30 times the coverage in WWII. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not the context we are discussing. The war has been overwhelmingly taking place in the Gaza Strip, as attested by the number of casualties, as attested by the few days of the attack in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This *section* is about the 7 October attack on the towns and rural communities. It's not overly long and reflects the weight given to the initial attack by RS, e.g., [31]. The sections describing the situation in Gaza are illustrated with images as well. Alaexis_¿question? 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is about notions of parity and imbalance as there is no blood image of the other victims. Every reader hopefully already knows that crime with arms = blood. Redundancy. Deblinis (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is - in the image captioned "Wounded child and man receive treatment on the floor at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City". However, there are no images of wounded Israeli’s - your logic would require we remove images of wounded Palestinians. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"there are no images of wounded Israeli’s"

Because there aren't any, and if there were they probably aren't even free images Abo Yemen✉ 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We have an entire video of first-responders responding to the scene of the rave attack with dozens of bodies visible. This is already unprecedented and not done for any comparable military operation. I can accept the one video, but the bloody home photo on top of that is too much. Reminder that the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian is like 1:30 or something (and this is an underestimate — only God knows how many bodies are under the rubble, or how many additional undiscovered mass graves there are). With the exception of perhaps two days (7-8 October), the now six-month long war has not taken place in Israel proper at all. Thus for proper balance the overwhelming majority of media should be from Gaza. JDiala (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

To complete the chain, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV necessitate a balanced representation of the conflict. The war’s impact is not confined to a single day or location, and the majority of the conflict has occurred in Gaza. The image selection should reflect this reality. While it’s important to depict the impact on all sides, we should be mindful of the overall narrative the images convey. A disproportionate focus on one side could inadvertently skew the reader’s perception of the events. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. The video does provide an illustration. I didn't think of it as the first frame doesn't show much. I wonder if it's possible to get data on how many users watch videos. Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

With the removal of this photograph, we don’t have any photographs showing the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians - are people really saying that this is in line with WP:DUE? BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a video which is worth more than a photo! JDiala (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked the video - which is why I don't believe it is worth more, as it is only if the reader views the video (and most won't) that they'll see the murdered civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to replace the video with a photo. How do you feel about that? JDiala (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Not ideal; it doesn’t address the issue caused by the removal of this image, which is that we now have too few depictions of the impact on Israel.

In addition, the video, while less accessible than the photograph, provides important context for readers who choose to watch it - we shouldn’t make it less accessible. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but I've already given my arguments for why there should be at most one piece of media from 7 October, for sake of balance. You haven't engaged with this point. JDiala (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument isn’t based in policy; sources give sufficient weight to the events that started this war that more than one piece of media is warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The only applicable policy here is WP:DUE. But that applies to viewpoints, not events. We're not promoting a particular viewpoint here. We're chronicling an ongoing armed conflict. Naturally, the start of the conflict will attract more attention from media sources, but that doesn't mean it should figure disproportionately in a chronology of the war. Consider the War in Afghanistan article. It has only one photograph from 9/11, despite 9/11 figuring far more in reliable sources than any particular engagements in Afghanistan. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BALASP is the relevant policy, and it does cover events. Coverage isn’t disproportionate if it is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources - however, it is if it isn’t, and at the moment, particularly with the removal of this image, it isn’t. BilledMammal (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, and think it is perfectly appropriate, all things considered. We should also count the satellite photograph as it displays burning homes. Thus, we have at least two pieces of media for the 7 October resistance operation. That's more than enough. I find that you're engaged in WP:LAWYERING right now, and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's goals. The goal here is to create a coherent article chronicling an ongoing war. We are also allowed to ignore rules if they interfere with this (WP:IGNOREALLRULES). In this case, a great chunk of the photos of the war being on the events of a single day undermines that goal. Your other arguments are also tendentious. You're claiming that most people won't view the video so it shouldn't count more. But where is this argument based in policy? Do you have any evidence proving that people don't watch videos on Wikipedia articles? And is viewing rate a consideration in media selection? Even if I grant that's true, those that do watch the video will get a far more intimate scene in Israel than anything in Gaza. JDiala (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The removal of the photograph doesn't necessarily compromise the representation of the impact on civilians, given the existence of a video that provides a comprehensive depiction of the events (WP:DUE). The suggestion to replace the video with a photo could address accessibility concerns while maintaining neutrality (WP:NPOV). If disagreements persist, consider seeking dispute resolution to ensure the article remains balanced and serves its purpose effectively. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the map?

Given that this is a constantly changing situation, should the map simply be deleted? Valereee (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Blackmamba31248 has requested that the map should be updated here. He can't post here himself as this page is extended confirmed protected.-Haani40 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

I think the map should be moved down to the body of the article once the war ends and infobox should be replaced with a gallery of photographs, similar to article World War 2. At this point, Israel seems poised to launch an final offensive on Rafah, after which the active phase of the war will presumably end. Ecrusized (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point complete removal of the map seems like the best choice. ISW is a biased source which will not admit Israeli withdrawals and we seem unable to produce an accurate map. Removal of the map ought to be carried out ASAP. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Condense war crimes section

Anyone agree we get shot of what's there and replace it with the lead of War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war, we don't really need it all twice? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but does someone need to check all the content is actually present on the the child page first? Not that I'm really volunteering. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We can just copy the material to the talk page in case any is missing. Idk if the lead of the child article is sufficient though. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No. That too. The child appears distinctly neglected/underdeveloped. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I copied the lead from the child to here, needs work to update with latest summary type sourcing. I copied all the other material to the child talk page for comparison and checking to match up the material there. I will make a start on the work, anyone can help, that would be good.

Thanks to Chessrat, for their work on streamlining the article.Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Majority of killed Palestinians are women and children

Why is this important piece of information being removed from the lede despite it being completed sourced? [32] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Reader can do math; it's clearly over 50%. Explicitly using the word "majority" is a bit unnatural. JDiala (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: Not all readers can do maths, or bother to do the maths, so why not just state it explicitly as it is? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

it think it's okay. By the way did you see the bit about Mirna El Helbawi who helped get Gaza connected again so things like this can get out? I'd be just a bit careful about using a phone though if I was there!, the IDF are almost certanily monitoring them and I can see it making even quite innocent people more likely to be targets. NadVolum (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Saying it explicitly this way with the word “majority” is apt. Deblinis (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's clunky and the maths isn't that complicated, so missing it out isn't withholding any information. (I note we don't use this editorialising language in the corresponding sentence of the lead of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.) If editors insist we need this, I'd suggest less clunky wording. For example, could say "41% of whom (14,000) were children and 26% (9,000) were women". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to think our readers can add. Cremastra (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli loot of Gaza

Do we have any articles on the extensive evidence showing Israeli soldiers looting Gaza? It would be an article similar to the Art theft and looting by Russia during the invasion of Ukraine. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, do we have any articles on the extensive evidence showing Hamas militants and Palestinian civilians looting Israel? BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

we don't and the only few sources about this are old and currently irrelevant Abo Yemen✉ 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, not irrelevant. If such an article is made it should cover both sides, not just one. It is a fact that there was extensive looting of property from Israel on 10/7 and some of the stolen property was recovered by the IDF in Gaza. If we're to be neutral both sides must be mentioned.--RM (Be my friend) 23:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. We would only "cover both sides" if reliable sources show through their coverage that both are notable enough. No WP:FALSEBALANCE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Only stuff I've seen is Israeli forces dressing up in stolen female clothing, mommy issues? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The UN says Gaza had a 80% poverty rate [33] , human rights organizations say Gazans live in an open air prison , and Gaza has a high unemployment rate with people dependent on humanitarian aid, so I am confused about what valuables soldiers are looting. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to be crystal-balling, but this may be a hint. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240415-gaza-s-historic-treasures-saved-by-irony-of-history

Borgenland (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm it looks like that NBC source about the poverty rate is wrong. Guardian says it’s two thirds in poverty with 80% relying on aid. [34] US News also says 60% poverty [35].

Hamas leaders have large sums of cash, but I think some fraction of the civilians probably had some money/gold as well… this New Arab article says that Israeli soldiers have “ seized sums of money exceeding five million shekels (roughly $1,320,000)”, as well as “ systematic theft of cash, gold, laptops, and mobile phones by Israeli soldiers, estimated at a value of $25 million.”[36] Wafflefrites (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The New Arab is owned by the Qatari royal family. Considering the Qatari ties with Hamas and the state of press freedom in the country we should be conscious of the source's bias. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The New Arab article does quote "Tahseen Elayyan, a legal researcher at Ramallah-based human rights organisation Al-Haq... “Israeli occupying authorities justify [the looting] under the pretext that the money belongs to Hamas”.

The New Arab linked to a Euro-Med article, which also quotes a man saying $10,000 USD was stolen from his home... $10,000 USD is a lot of cash to be storing within a house when they have/had banks in the Palestinian territories like the Bank of Palestine, or the Palestine Islamic Bank [37]. But the Euro-Med article does not mention anything about him having ties to Hamas, although it does mention Israeli soldiers bragging on social media about the looting, so some of the soldiers are looting. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Support?

I am usually don't edit wikipedia articles on military history, but from what I know most military history articles on wikipedia have a support section in the infobox showing nations and parties that, while not directly in the war have contributed either militarily or financially to the war. Should we put that in the infobox? Basically the parties on the support for Israel would be the USA, Germany, France and the UK (considering they also aided the conflict during the houthi phase). For the palestinian parties involved I think Iran should be part of the support categories. This is just a thought. Bubblesorg (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Some of these incredibly obvious supporting parties, including those providing signals intelligence and surveillance information, if not actual planning assistance, should indeed probably be recognized at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Should it be added then? Bubblesorg (talk)

I support adding it. NadVolum (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay sure, corrected your formatting btw.--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We usually don’t - for example, Russian invasion of Ukraine. I also think we had an RfC that deprecated them in most circumstances, but I can’t find it right now. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter This one? Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible split of Israel–Hamas_war#Events

I notice that Israel–Hamas_war#Events is a quite lengthy section and the Israel–Hamas_war#Resumption of hostilities (1 December 2023 – present) subsection in particular has a notice of being too lengthy. It would probably make sense to move the whole Israel–Hamas_war#Events section into Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (which is currently pretty much just a directory article at only 2.4 kb), followed by condensing and summarizing the info which remains in this article. Thought I would discuss it here before taking such a step. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good idea. Just like how there is a Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – 31 March 2024), there should be a timeline for this war, too. This article is far too long so this would be perfect. Antny08 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. I would probably keep the 7 October section mostly the same, and the first half of the Preparations for the attack on Rafah section should probably stick around. The Invasion, Truce, and Resumption of Hostilities should be condensed into one section imo. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: What? The "events" is the main subject, i.e. the course of the war. It is every other section that is peripheral. The whole point of a war page is the actual war. And that part is already a summary of numerous other child articles. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support split of Resumption of hostilities section I just noticed when removing non-summary content of child articles that this could do with splitting off. The article is back down to 16,000, so potentially with this, as well as Reactions sections being split off, it might actually become readable again without the need for a Timeline split. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Lede paragraph regarding Gaza casualties

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

---

This RfC asks several questions about how the lede should refer to casualties in Gaza:

1. Should the figures be attributed?

   If "yes", before the casualty figures the text could read according to the Gaza Health Ministry

2. Should the number of militants that Israel has stated they have killed be included?

   If "yes", the third sentence could read Israeli forces say they have killed an estimated 13,000 Palestinian militants during the conflict.

3. Should we describe the number of women and children killed as:

   3A: ...with a majority consisting of over 14,000 children and 9,000 women

   3B: ...including over 14,000 children and 9,000 women

   3C: ...with a majority consisting of women and children

   3D: Do not describe; excessive detail for the lede.

4. Should we describe those killed who are under the age of 18 as:

   4A: children

   4B: minors

BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• For (1): Yes. Reliable sources consistently attribute these figures (Reuters, ABC, BBC, AP, US Today, Barrons, Times of Israel, NPR, Arab News, VOA, the Nation, Japan Today, New Indian Express, etc) either to the "Gaza Health Ministry" or the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". We can't put in Wikivoice something that our references generally do not put in their own voice.

For (2): Yes. How many militants have been killed is highly relevant, and while we cannot put this figure in Wikivoice it is appropriate to include attributed, as evidenced by the widespread reporting of the Israeli claims (Times of Israel, Hindustan Times, PBS, WION, ABC, 9 News, BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc)

For (3), 3B. 3A is poorly worded as it contains redundant information, and assumes that our readers are incapable of recognizing that 23,000 is more than 50% of 34,000

For (4), 4B. "Children" is ambiguous; it can refer to those under the age of 18, or it can refer to those under the age of 13. "Minors" is preferable language here, as it only means those under the age of 18, and thus we can avoid our readers misunderstanding our content. Further, "minors" is aligned with the content in the body, and per MOS:LEDE, the lede should follow the contents of the article body. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• For (3), 3B. It is simpler and easier to understand. 3A is poorly phrased.

For (4), 4A. Using "minors" obscures the facts and gives the impression that one is talking about older teenagers; and while the age of majority is usually 18, it varies. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, explaining where the data comes from is useful.

2) Yes– the number of militants killed is very much a key question; the data source should be attributed per GeoffreyA. It is important for readers to be able to find out both the rate of militant casualties and the rate of civilian casualties.

3) No– the lede should be a summary and is already long. Whilst describing the number of militants is necessary, further demographic breakdowns of casualties by age and gender are not included for the Israelis killed on October 7 and I don't see any reason they should be included for Gaza deaths either. It's something that needs mentioning somewhere in the article, but probably not in the lede.

4) Not in the lede per above; otherwise, Depends on what the data is actually showing. If it's referring to under-18s then it should be "minors" as the average reader would not think of "children" as referring to teenagers (and in particular teenagers who are Hamas militants). If however it's referring to something like under-12s, then "children" would be more appropriate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Rejecting the whole RFC: This is a blatant abuse of the RFC process. WP:RFCBEFORE lists numerous methods of dispute resolution before opening an RFC. These points have not even been discussed superficially in the talk page, let alone reaching a stalemate that would lead to a Third opinion or dispute resolution scenario. I will be striking through this section. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Not signed either. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is neither short nor neutral, and the author of the RFC statement, BilledMammal, is removing their signature to obscure who is writing the statement. nableezy - 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t cast aspersions. The statement is unsigned because it isn’t relevant who opened it, in line with WP:RFCST. Further, it is as concise as possible given the number of questions it is attempting to address (questions that have been discussed before, some of which have been edit warred over, hence why dispute resolution is now required). Further, it is a neutral statement, and casting vague aspersions that it is not neutral does not change that. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not cast an aspersion, making false claims of violating policies is a personal attack. You have suggested answers in your question, and the way it is structured is to lead one to your favored answer. It is indeed relevant who authored a non-neutral, leading RFC statement, and the removal of the attribution of authorship is also a 1RR violation. Your repeated attempt at claiming I am casting an aspersion with factual statements is a personal attack, and if you continue edit-warring in this section I will be asking for the 1RR be enforced. nableezy - 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note, this RFC was created by BilledMammal, and the statement does not follow the requirements of WP:RFC of a brief, neutral statement of a dispute. nableezy - 23:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Possible Update to Map

https://twitter.com/GlobeEyeNews/status/1787710093284585714?t=G2F9TEiRpBArfLZ39n_FHA&s=19 NesserWiki (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

According to this Tweet, the IDF now occupies the Egypt-Rafah border. This report may or may not be true, of course. NesserWiki (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. This is not on ISW yet but I've updated the map nonetheless since its widely reported. Ecrusized (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Splitting out the reactions section

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

---

This page now has major length issues, at 21,000 words, and one of the most egregiously overlength sections is the reactions section, also separately tagged at 5,900 words. This is now an obvious section for splitting. Aside from the general principle of these sections always becoming magnets for every undue reaction under the sun (the classic ad absurdum argument being that if you included a reaction from every country, you'd have 200 country reactions), hopefully every can see the amazing two birds with one stone opportunity here in that removing 5,900 words (save an appropriate summary) would basically bring the entire page back down within reach of an acceptable length again. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support I think that this is a good idea. The article is way too long and is almost impossible to read in one sitting. Reactions and events that have occurred due to this war are a major part of the news on this topic. I think a separate article for this would be great, with maybe a little revision. Antny08 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just go for it. Anyway, support. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Selfstudier – perfect time to drop a Bold edit. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Agreed on all points. JDiala (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support I feel like the countries' reaction doesn't add any value to the article. 3skandar (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support This article is too long, as the reactions page doesn't add much value to the topic itself, as many of the reacting countries have had little influence on the war. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support especially with a bold edit. Even with this split, it wouldn't bring the article down to a reasonable size, re:Article size issue CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral, some sort of split is definitely needed but the vast majority of the "Reactions" section is in fact international, so would be better suited in International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. As a transitional measure I'd be fine with the proposed split, but it probably needs to be in combination with some sort of wider cleanup and reorganization. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I see the split has already occurred boldly. I'm fine with that, but thought definitely needs to be given to reorganization, or at least a renaming to make the current division make more sense (e.g. International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war renamed to List of international reactions to the Israel–Hamas war by country) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the International article needs to be a list, it should simply better summarised in the Reactions_to_the_Israel–Hamas_war#International section, as is now effectively a child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war is arguably now a WP:COAT article, as a majority of the text is about the international reactions. There are now essentially two articles primarily focused on international reactions. I'm not sure the best answer to this- maybe domestic and international reactions don't fit well in the same article? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  With this edit [39] I've replaced the international reactions sections with summary from child article, and also added lead re-write template. I agree the article was far from ideal. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support in principle, I am in favor of splits that reduce the length of this article and I don't think this proposal is controversial. Ppt91^talk 20:50, 7 May 2024 (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.

Article size and child articles

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

---

Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.

Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:

• Humanitarian impact -> Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)
• Allegations of war crimes -> War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
• Negotiations and diplomacy -> Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war (as well as Ceasefire -> 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire)
• Regional effects -> Effects of the Israel–Hamas war
• Media coverage -> Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war

WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.

None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.

Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie: Casualties, Healthcare collapse, Gaza famine, Scale of destruction and Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.

To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example 7 October attack is a lead-like summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?

I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.

CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start. Deblinis (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No need for assumptions of bad faith and ad hom attacks on other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have? Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a good idea for now I don't think, as the lead section only has two paragraphs to excerpt (basically just one really). At 13,000 words, it should easily be four paragraphs at minimum, probably even 5-6. It also fails to reference the grandchildren articles such as; Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war and Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, among others, that would all require referencing and linking in a single summary.

My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As an example – and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management – if you look at Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Agree per WP:SIZERULE.

Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document. JDiala (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree and support the spirit of this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun. Yeoutie (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel that these sorts of edits are way too bold, so I'm going to be bold too and undo one of them. This is one of the most pressing and complex topics in current events. This page averages 30,000 views a day while Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023-present) gets around 300. Whatever the policy on article size, these sweeping edits on such a controversial topic are careless and don't help the lay reader. It's important to have enough detail on one page that a reader can get a thorough understanding of the most relevant aspects of this topic without opening a hundred tabs. I agree that the article needs to be trimmed but it needs to be done carefully and with precision, and ideally with strong child articles in place first. Unbandito (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how to undo your edits. Nevermind. But this ain't right. Unbandito (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Example (sort of)

• See this diff: [40] shown here [41] regarding Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor

First...Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at MOS:CITELEAD... H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. "Moxy🍁 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy🍁 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary.Moxy🍁 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Update

• War crimes section summarised War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war [42] (May 1)  Done
• Negotiations and diplomacy summarised to Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war [43] (May 2)  Done
• Humanitarian crisis summarised to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) and Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war [44] (May 6)  Done

Other issues

I've added summarize templates to the following sections:

• Invasion of the Gaza Strip until the truce (27 October – 24 November): This could do with being replaced with first two paragraphs of lead from main article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), as the 3rd-4th lead paragraphs are more generic and covered elsewhere in main article.
• Regional effects - This probably needs cross referencing with main article Effects of the Israel–Hamas war as child summary and lead are completely different. Potentially the lead of child article needs dramatically improving based on content in this article.
• Media coverage - This is the most difficult as the child article lead Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war is almost nonexistent followed by a bunch of WP:OVERSECTION issues. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Ceasefire

@BilledMammal: This part of the lede needs to be trimmed, not expanded. [45] It already took a disproportionate size. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality are more important than conciseness. However, I see Selfstudier has already made some reasonable cuts. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that, too. Got rid of the quotes but still seems a relatively minor current detail rather than anything of lasting significance. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No objection to removing it entirely. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Summaries of child article only deserve one sentence at best, with a link ideally. Take for example the line "During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed" regarding October 7. That's a great summary for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (10/10 even), but otherwise way too much detail for a summarising the Israel–Hamas war. Notably the first two paragrpahs of the lead are overly focussed on October 2023, while the article isn't mainly about this month. Ideally someone could improve the lead summary to reflect the content from the body per mos:lead. In summary, yes it started on October 7, and yes, Israel reacted soon after, but does it really take two paragraphs to summarise all of this? Absolutely not. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Replace the map in infobox lead with pictures from the war

The ISW is a biased source per its own article on Wikipedia (Institute for the Study of War). Unfortunately, the ISW map we have been depending on is objectively no longer reliable- it refuses to admit changes in control that have been widely reported by an array of news sources, perhaps most prominently the Israeli withdrawal from the southern Gaza Strip, among other things. The problem is that we cannot find a reliably sourced alternative map.

@Ecrusized has proposed that the current map be replaced with a few images from the war, as is done in the lead infobox for Russo-Ukrainian War for example. I strongly support this over retaining an outdated and misleading map. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Gaza War Unit Tracking who discussed concerns about ISW's biases with me. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evaporation123: Please don't quote me on thing I didn't say. I have not proposed that. I said that the map should be replaced with images after the war ends. Ecrusized (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My bad, had misread Evaporation123 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

While the suggestion being made here is apparently a misquote, having closely followed the discussions about the map here, I must agree with the proposal to temporarily remove the map from the infobox if current IDF-controlled areas cannot be reasonably differentiated from formerly IDF-controlled areas, following the widely publicized withdrawals from Khan Younis, northern Gaza and elsewhere. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Galamore: [46] Please self-revert these additions, many of which have been proven false per RS, and seek consensus first on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've had to go no patience man on this one. It's child article detail and lead bloat. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: You are in violation of WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, in which you are first expected to gain consensus and demonstrate verifiability on the talk page before reinserting disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, we had an RFC on including sexual assault in the lead. That failed to gain consensus, edit-warring around that is disruptive editing. nableezy - 14:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was closed as "no consensus," there was no decision not to include it. Also note that it was closed in February, and since then the UN report has been released and one of the victims found the strength to tell her story, so now we are much more certain that sexual violence took place and this should be reflected in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 15:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You are at liberty to conduct a further RFC. Note that the "UN report" was not an investigation. Hamas mass killings and hostage taking are included at the lead as is the destruction of hospitals, starvation of and indiscriminate mass killings of civilians by Israel. Why does this particular crime rise to the level of these crimes? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You have the burden of consensus the other way around here, you need consensus to include disputed text. That material is relevant for the article on the 6 October attack, not for a war lasting 7 months with some 23,000 dead women and kids and accusations of genocide and using starvation as a weapon of war over that time. Regardless, edit-warring in disputed content is and remains disruptive editing, and if I see it repeated I will be performing the next logical step with repeated disruptive editing. nableezy - 16:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The sexual violence, mutilation and such are all important aspects of the October 7 attacks that caused this entire war. They are mentioned by a large range of reliable sources when discussing the start of the war. I don't see why the lead goes so deep into every single action of Israel but has zero mention of Hamas' atrocities, which are covered by important publishers. Unfortuantely at this point the lead screams bias, so maybe it is time to put a POV tag on. Galamore (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli narrative is certainly not relevant. Deblinis (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead does scream bias, way too much emphasis on the start of the war when most of the article is not even about October (and there is an entire child article for it anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead

This is too long and needs to be summarized in one sentence:

"Israel's next stated objective is a major offensive in Rafah, despite objections from the international community. On 6 May 2024, Hamas accepted the terms of a ceasefire proposed by Egypt and Qatar, similar to one proposed earlier by Israel and the United States. Israel executed airstrikes in Rafah earlier and later the same day, saying they would pressure Hamas, and stating that the deal that Hamas agreed to was not acceptable and that both negotiations and hostilities would continue."

To: "Israel's upcoming offensive in Rafah, criticized by the international community, is nearing execution while ceasefire efforts remain ongoing." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good reading, and certainly easier to understand from a quick glance. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the shorter wording is better. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede changes

I made extensive bold edits to the lede of the article to reduce its size by summarizing and make it more chronologically reasonable by removing duplications. As you can tell the article is large and the talk page even larger, so I hope I haven't changed anything against any consensus that I had not noticed. If I have, please let me know so I can revert myself accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought your edits were good overall. The only thing I felt was somewhat unbalanced was the removal of language discussing Hamas' motivations for Oct 7 and for the taking of hostages. If Hamas' motivations don't belong in the lead, the part about Israel's stated goals for the invasion probably shouldn't be in there either. Alternatively, we could work on adding a brief mention of Hamas motivations into the lead. Unbandito (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

For Oct 7 I didn't remove that, only summarized. As for the hostages, it is overdetailed and is better left out of the lede, as it is currently. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel's international isolation

Turkey's ban of trade; Colombia's cutting of diplomatic ties; Jordan withdrawing its ambassador; etc. Israel is becoming internationally isolated per RS. [47], [48], [49] This satisfies WP:Notability in deserving a standalone article; and should be elaborated and expanded here in this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds important. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"US says Israel’s use of US arms likely violated international law, but evidence is incomplete"

Is this worth including in the article? Or does the US need to be more certain in their statements? [50]https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-gaza-war-nsm-international-law-c83b6f39ce2799e5d2c473a337e2f857 Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Table for Body Counts and Excess Deaths?

How about a table with body counts, to include civilian casualties and deaths due to dehydration, starvation, and possibly later to disease and lack of medical resources (excess deaths)? I know the numbers may become more controversial as more Palestinians die from slower forms of violence, but there should be somewhat objective counts that can be updated in a table. https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/death-rate-elderly-people-northern-gaza-strip-soars-due-bombing-starvation-dehydration-and-lack-healthcare-enar Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Where's your source for any of that? NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins. [51]https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/04/15/tak-igusa-gaza-qa/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the report. https://gaza-projections.org/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

With restricted access to Gaza and the health system basically completely falling apart it’s difficult to find numbers for thirst, hunger, etc. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet did it for the Iraq War. Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And there was a Body Count Project. Iraq Body Count project Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Mass graves and an estimated 10,000 people buried under the rubble could also be a problem, but some numbers, even if estimates, are important to understand the scale of death and destruction. [52]https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-05-11-24/index.html Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Table for munitions used?

How about a table with the number of munitions used, particularly bombs? [53]https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/intelligence-assessment-dumb-bombs-israel-gaza?cid=ios_app Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

extremely outdated map

[Gaza War Unit Tracker]

Possible revision: [Only one IDF brigade remains in the Gaza Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor]

Filled

the map is outdated and shows no accuracy.

Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change. Lukt64 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control. Borysk5 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Institute for the Study of War still displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map. Ecrusized (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a “furthest extent” map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area

https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a map with withdrawal areas. Borysk5 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think. Ecrusized (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor. Ecrusized (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from Lukt64 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The “easy” solution in this case is for the map to have “areas under Israeli control” renamed to “maximum extent of the Israeli invasion” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible. Evaporation123 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the “original research” policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible. Evaporation123 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the “maximum extent of the Hamas invasion” it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1ik1ztva

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-774246

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-2-gaza-terrorists-found-in-rahat-a-month-after-october-7-assault/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See https://oct7map.com Ecrusized (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-withdraws-ground-troops-from-south-gaza-leaving-just-one-brigade-in-enclave/

If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.

As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control". Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don’t think it would be an issue to label it “maximum advance”, the ISW uses “reported clearing operations”, but they have acknowledged Israel “completing its mission” or withdrawing from areas even though they’re still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map

refer:

https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Evaporation123 and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Ecrusized (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on? Evaporation123 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea. Ecrusized (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ISW separated areas Israel withdrew from

@Lukt64, Borysk5, Evaporation123, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, and SaintPaulOfTarsus: Here is what the revision would look like based on the latest ISW update. Let me know if you support this change and I'll update the file. Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized: Compliments on the work, glad to see ISW finally made a change to their mapping practices. Personally I would prefer more of a "pink-ish" color for the new layer, if possible, because it is closer to red it immediately suggests to the eye at first glance that the area is currently under the "control" of the Palestinian side, but that may just be my personal interpretation so no objections if we proceed with this version. Thanks again and my best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is only an optional suggestion and not a requirement, colouring Gaza green, IDF blue, and withdrawn form areas a light green The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, and especially with ISW also showing areas withdrawn from, it should clear any worries of original research issues. Go for it I say The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Saved for the time being. Ecrusized (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Finally, at last. Borysk5 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party but yeah this is definitely an improvement. One thing- isn't Rafah under the evacuation order too? https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/5/11/thousands-flee-rafah-after-israeli-forces-issues-evacuation-order Evaporation123 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sde Teiman desert camp

Human rights abuses documented at the Sde Teiman desert camp. I'm not sure where this could be added, or if it deserves an article of its own.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html GeoffreyA (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about new articles. So many new articles have been created since October 7th. It could be added to existing articles. Unlawful combatant hasn't been updated since the law changed in Israel. Ben Azura (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Note earlier Haaretz report: [54] Much of what CNN reported was the subject of an official letter sent to Israeli ministers a month ago. Andreas JN466 08:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The accuracy of figures in the lede

@BilledMammal: as for this edit I should say that the figures given by Israelis are also disputed but we don't mention the disputation in the lede. Attributing the figures to "Gaza Health Ministry" is enough to know that the figure may not be a "fact".Ghazaalch (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Attributing figures, and saying other sources dispute them, are too different things; in this case I think it is appropriate to do both - we can’t give these figures in Wikivoice, and we can’t ignore the fact that these figures have been questioned. BilledMammal (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: There is no need for attributing majority of reliable sources which have cast no doubt on the figures.

You have also made even more controversial edits changing "children" to "minors" [55] despite "children" being used almost exclusively by RS.

Also you have removed mention of how the mentioned women and children are the majority of killed. [56].

Waiting for your self-revert on these three edits that go against reliable sources reporting. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost all reliable sources attribute; as such, we have to do the same.

Saying "majority" and providing the figures is redundant and bad writing; we should do one or the other, and trust that our readers know how numbers work.

"Children" has different meanings depending on the culture; "minors" are clearer. In addition, "minors" are what we use in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you change the body. Most WP:RS use children. I have reverted your edit. JDiala (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The relevant definitions for the two words:

Child: a young person especially between infancy and puberty or a person not yet of the age of majority

Minor: not having reached majority

In this case, the sources are referring to individuals under the age of 18; shouldn't we use the word that clearly conveys that meaning, rather than the one which might result in the reader misunderstanding the sentence? BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Red herring, no one is discussing these definitions. We are discussing what RS have used in their reporting of the war and they have exclusively used the term children because legally speaking those under 18 years of age are called children; which is an objective definition not relating to any subjective culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We're not obliged to use the exact wording used by reliable sources; in this circumstance, why would we want to use less precise words when more precise words exist and ensure that our readers won't misunderstand our content? BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we will not be using euphemisms for what is universally reported as 13,000 dead Palestinian children. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean if you're going to POV push I'd suggest not being so transparent about it. The word "child" is not imprecise. JDiala (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, no need to attribute the death toll. That the death toll is attributed in WP:RS is immaterial if it is clear from the context that the reliable sources are taking the death toll as a statement of fact, which in most cases they are. See for instance [1] the title explicitly says "30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians" indicating reliable sources have a confidence in the health ministry. JDiala (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES; we don't consider headlines reliable. In the body, which we can consider reliable, reliable sources almost without exception attribute - and often in more detail than we have done in the article, with the sources mentioning that the health ministry is run by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No one said either that we consider headlines reliable, but that the figures were not cast doubt on by majority of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read the comment I was replying to, you would see that JDiala was basing their argument on the headlines of an article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I did read it. JDiala was giving an example and did not say that headlines are reliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a significant number of sources you can find which explicitly state, within the body, the 30,000 toll. See e.g., [this] or [this]. It's true that some other sources choose to attribute within the body. The point is that figures are not really contested in the mainstream. If we make a decision to attribute, that's in effect casting doubt on the numbers when no such contest exists. (I know you cited the TabletMag piece but that was debunked many times) JDiala (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"An analysis published in the Lancet medical journal in December found that Gaza's health ministry has "historically reported accurate mortality data.".[57] Deblinis (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't expect all readers to do maths while reading and conclude that Israel had mostly killed Palestinian woman and children, this is a removal of an important piece of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The data provided by the Gaza health ministry are not disputed anymore, they were proven to be falsified. Since figures provided by the Gaza ministry are now known to be non factual, they should not appear on this page unless confirmed by an independent source. Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Displaced Israeli

I don't know if I am hallucinating, but I think I already opened a discussion about this tagging @BilledMammal: regarding displaced Israelis, which @פעמי-עליון: seems to have restored.[58] "Hundreds of thousands" is vague and the sources are all from 2023. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"The third part has always focused only on the actions of Israeli forces/policies on the Palestinians (and on the ground in Gaza) and not the other way around, and without any inclusion of the Israeli narrative." RE: 30 April 2024‎. It would be necessary to edit it promptly. Deblinis (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't refer to the procedure because I wasn't aware of any discussion (but I'm always pro-discussions); about the content - the article describes the whole war and not only the current situation, so I don't see any reason not to write something like "as well as hundreds of thousands of Israelis, 330 thousands in the beginning of the war" ([59]). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@פעמי-עליון: That would be undue, and would be more due in the 7 October article. Please find a more specific recent number or at least something more consistent throughout the >200 day war. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would the number of the displaced Israelis at the beginning of the war be undue? The number of the Palestinians is not so recent (at least there is no source that indicates this is still the number of the displaced Palestinians). Again, the article is not a journalist report but an encyclopedic article, so the general description of the war is not less important than the description of the current situation.

I suggest: "as well as 330 thousands in the beginning of the war[60], gradually decreasing to 114 thousands in December 2023 and about 60 thousands in March 2024[61]" (but it should be noted that displaced Israelis who were temporarily resettled in other settlements (these, not these) are not included in this counting). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 10:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@פעמי-עליון: Because the war is >200 days now and one day information is not due for the lede. Obviously all of the Gaza Strip's population is still displaced.

The figure of displaced Israelis seems to have dipped below 100k by January 2024, so as a middle ground solution we can say ten of thousands here; and in the invasion article hundreds of thousands. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not all of the Gaza strip population are displaces, but indeed almost all of them; and yet, Wikipedia:Verifiability says that our information may be correct but we still must back it up with sources. But that's another topic.

how about "as well as hundreds of thousands in the beginning of the war, gradually decreasing tens of thousands currently" - I think it's short enough, but still mentions the hundreds of thousands because this wasn't true in the day of the invasion, but for months after. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore: The number you inserted is misleading, please check this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will take that compromise. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Great! I added the sources in Hebrew. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing quotes

Makeandtoss regarding this edit would it not be better to summarize the quote? Does the article really need to mention Israel's "orgy of occupation"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yes, I remember the quote fully being cited in dozens of RS in the immediate days after 7 October 2023; they highlight the motivations and the political justifications of the group as stated by the head of its military wing and its mastermind, Mohammad Deif, who rarely makes such appearances. This quote is very significant in my opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that's because at that point not much else had been said by Hamas. Since then, they've released an official response, not to mention many in depth interviews given since. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Hamas sexual violence crimes in lead

The employment of sexual violence by Hamas on 7 October warrants mention in the lead, as do Israeli war crimes as are in effect mentioned or implied with reference to the extreme destruction in Gaza. Will Thorpe (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussed at #Lede above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Friendly fire and IDF troop deaths

An interesting part of the IDF body count. This report indicates that 1 in 5 IDF deaths are due to friendly fire. The article suggests that the deaths may due to lack of leadership and troop experience. [62]https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226977365/israel-idf-gaza-middle-east-deaths Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says Israelis were run over by their own bulldozers and a big part of the article is from military experts also attributing the friendly fire to the densely populated urban warfare environment. It also mentions the area being treated as a “free-fire zone” with modern weapons shooting “right through walls” and Hamas militants jumping “out of the hundreds of miles of tunnel networks and firing “at Israeli soldiers who are tense and ready to squeeze a trigger”. Seems the phrase “there is no safe place in Gaza” also is applying to the Israelis. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's another case: 5 IDF soldiers killed by tank fire. [63]https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-5-idf-soldiers-confirmed-killed-in-northern-gaza-as-a-result-of-friendly-fire Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the souce for the Israeli Security Forces death numbers?

I was unable to find any sources claiming these numbers other than Wikipedia. NesserWiki (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See the timeline pages. Some editors insert a daily tally there. Borgenland (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There should have been a citation in the article but it looks like somebody did a cut and paste on a named ref in the infobox template. It needs to be fixed up, \i've put a request on its talk page. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Rafah offensive begins (6 May 2024 – present)

This isn't intended as an attack on anyone in particular, but what part of this last sentence in this section is a summary of Rafah offensive?

"Meanwhile, on 17 May, as attacks continued across Gaza, including in Jabalia camp in the north, humanitarian aid began arriving in Gaza via the US's temporary floating pier off the coast. However, officials noted that it would not replace aid coming through land routes, most of which were shut."

I just checked the article and there is no reference to this, so it clearly can't be a WP:SUMMARY of the child article. Does this section need a note to remind editors that the section is only a summary of the child article, similar to other sections that were reduced to summarises? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That was me. You're right that it should be a summary and is going into too much detail. I was just adding the latest information that has been on the news. So, would you say that it's best for the child article to be filled out more and then summarised here? GeoffreyA (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the suggestion here. That sentence should be in the child article, and summarised here (if necessary). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

All right. I'll go ahead and move it. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Displacement

Although indeed there were Israeli displacement as well but I feel we are creating a false equivalency and a implicit justification with this level of detail on the lede as currently is. Displaced Israelis, a portion of which staying at five-star resorts at the Dead Sea and some due to Hezbollah not Hamas, isn't really equivalent to the conditions face by displaced Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I agree with your iterated version so my concern no longer holds for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It has been changed as far as I can see. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Festival bodycam footage

This video is not appropriate for the article and should be removed. It takes a horrifying incident from 7 October 2023, one that is highly emotionally provocative, and gives it a prominent position in an article about a >200 day-war which has seen similar horrible incidents of murder and mayhem in Gaza, of which there are plenty of videos but are not included here. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the amount of graphic coverage of the October 7 attack is about okay, so is there something you'd like to substitute for the video? NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be okay, but it is unbalanced when you consider it alone. I have removed for now until this could be remedied somehow. No idea what to substitute with but suggestions are obviously welcome. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a valuable illustration of the attack, it should not be removed.

Also, we had a discussion recently about the photo of a bloody kitchen in a kibbutz, and one of the arguments for removing it was that the video is sufficient. So how come both media are removed? Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: No one disputed that; what we are discussing is how there is no balance..? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you can add a video or photo showing Gazans loss or something to balance. I think the festival footage is informative and not too graphic. Personally I didn’t find it that emotional comparatively because I have also seen videos of dead Gazan babies so I actually don’t think the festival footage is that graphic but it is informative. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's appropriate to have at least one picture in this section showing the results of the attack, especially considering that there is a fair amount of disinformation about it.

The fact that the war has been going for more than 200 days already does not mean that the October 7 events should get 1/200 of the coverage. The article about World War I dedicates a section to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand even though these events only lasted a few hours and only one person was killed. The October 7 attack has triggered this round of fighting and is significant in many ways (number of Israeli victims, failure of the intelligence, etc) and the appropriate weight should be given to it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, not my point, I have been talking about balance. What is there to balance this video? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to WP:BALANCE? The policy says that an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. The October 7 attack is obviously not a minor aspect of the subject and the video in question illustrates it. The other aspects, such as the impact of the Israeli operation in Gaza, are given due weight in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: October 7, as evident by the name, is one day, out of an article about a >200 day war. So yes, this is a minor aspect being highlighted more than any of the horrible videos coming out of Gaza since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We base balance on the level of coverage in reliable sources - and sources give October 7 far more than 1/200th of the coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

First, I don't think the video is of free use or of fair use. But, if it were, I would keep it in the article. In a largely one-sided war, the October 7 attack triggered it and showed the most brutality of Hamas. For that, it deserves to be illustrated. In no way is October 7 a minor aspect of the war. starship.paint (RUN) 15:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Protests on campuses?

How about a section on protests on campuses about the war? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted, perhaps in a sentence or two, but where? GeoffreyA (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war ? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And perhaps the protests article too. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be added to useful idiots DutchPatriot (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we look at the footage captured during their protests and the “occupation of college property,” we can see that they don’t know what they are actually protesting for. Either they are simply repeating what they see on social media (mainly Tiktok) or they have an ideological reason.

Extended rationale that veers a bit too far into NOTFORUM territory. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Jews are European colonizers The majority of Jews in Israel fall under the Mizrahi category (incl. Sephardic jews that got incorporated into Mizrahi culture). Ignoring that, DNA tests clearly show that Askenazi jews (Aka the supposed White European Khazar Bank controlling Zionists) are indeed "real jews". Jews stole Palestine There was no Palestine to begin with. Zionism/Jewish nationalism predates the Arab conquest of the Levant. The first appearance of the term Israel (possibly) appears on the Berlin pedestal relief, the undisputed one would the the Merneptha stele. The Israelite populations in caanan started to form a distinct people in ~1200 BCE. The first ever independent entities in that area would be the Kingdoms of israel and Judah, even if we go by non religious term and instead use archaeology. It seems like Judeans experienced a "real National awakening" somewhere in the 6th Century BCE. The Maccabean revolt which in the end resulted in the Formation of the Hasmonean dynasty, was a Jewish attempt to regain jewish values in Judea. Since the Maccabean revolt is largely recorded in the Books of Maccabees, I will go by historically clearer examples. The Great revolt was an attempt to regain jewish sovereignty. We can find the Words "Freedom for Zion" on the First revolt coinage. Going by the Great revolt Wikipedia page, the short lived Judean provisional government was called "Israel". Exactly the same goes for the Bar Kokhba revolt, on which coinage we (again) can find the words "Zion", "Israel", "Year ... of the redemption of Israel" My point is: Jewish Nationalism or a Jewish National feeling isn't a young phenomenon. The only independent states in the land of israel were Jewish with the exception of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem White Jews were the only Zionists and they kicked the native Palestinians out The "white jews" (Askenazim) weren't the first ones that came up with resetting in the Holy land. Jews from practically every community re-immigrated throughout history, like Sephardic jews after the Christians took Al-Andalus from the Muslims. The work of Maimonides seems to have "Zionist" nature. But let's ignore every single attempt to regain jewish sovereignty in The Land of israel and concentrate on the 18/19th century, the part of history those college students seem to love but know nothing about. From the "Aliyah from Ethiopia" page, we can find information of mass immigration attempts of Ethiopian jewry and calling for jews to resettle in Eretz Israel. 1840s Yemite Jews immigrated to Ottoman Syria in the 1870s because of Messianic and Zionist thinking Mountain jews, just like every other community, we're immigrating into israel before the Zionist movement and were early participants when it started. They were one of the founders of the Bar Giora group and Hashomer. They established Be'er Ya'akov (Named after Yaakov Yitzhaki) and participated in practically in everything related to the reestablishment of Israel There are many examples of every jewish community, my point is hopefully clear. The Palestinian Arabs started every conflict, from the riots in 1920 to the Civil war in Mandatory Palestine (+participants in the 1948 war) and this led to the "brutal expulsion of innocent Palestinians" of which a considerable amount fled Palestinians are indigenous and jews are colonizers Yes, no. In history there is not one mention of Palestinians. Many use the Philistines as an example,People of Greek decent that went extinct after the Assyrians conquered the Levant. Ignoring Neanderthals and ancient caanite populations, jews (which evolved from local caanites if we go by the non religious perspective) were the first "stable" population of the region that would roughly be today's israel. Jews were the majority before the 6th century (or possibly after muslims conquered the Levant). There are no other populations recorded in the region of Judea except jews and Samaritans. So how exactly are Palestinians indigenous to Israel? Well we have 2 groups here -1 Arab immigrants -2 Arabized jews That's confirmed by DNA testing and statistics. Hundreds of thousands arabs immigrated to modern israel during the late Ottoman and British Mandate times. Either way, the Palestinians are rather a Political construct and not a distinct people. The first ever usage of the term "Palestinians" emerged in the 60s as a ideological tool (if we listen to PLO operatives like Zuher Mohnsin and Egyptian born Yasser Arafat (etc.) Jews stole Palestinian culture Arabs rejected the term Palestine in the 1919 conference. Everything that was "Palestinian" (The Palestine Post, Palestine Airlines, "Visit Palestine" posters, the "Free Palestine" slogan etc.) Were all owned by jews. The name of Palestine is a Greek-Roman (European) term for Judea/Israel Their Flag is from the Kingdom of Hejaz (Designed by the British which are European) The Kaffiyeh comes from Iraq and was used by the British for the military uniform of the mandate military, the point is clear. Respectively, what culture? Screaming nonsense "There is only one solution intifada revolution" I think all of us know what a intifada is and how that would work out "From the river to the see" There are students that don't know which river and which see, rather concerning than funny. It calls for the complete destruction of Israel and replacement with a Palestinian state "Genocide" It's not. Roughly ~34k died in total. Recent reports said that ~11.2k are fake causalties but for the sake of this argument let's say that 34k is the real number. If we combine Hamas, Israel, CIA and overall, all public data we have, it's a 2:1 ratio which is not bad for a small area with over 2M people. A month ago, the media (incl. Qatari Al jazeera and anti zionist Middle East eye) reported of (quote) "20k babies born into Hell", which basically means the whole civilian deaths got replaced (Statistically speaking, don't mean it in a bad way) and until now, it's more than possible that a couple more thousand were born during the ongoing war. Examples of real Genocides would be the Genocide in the Congo, the Holocaust, the genocide of Native Americans and aboriginals. "Open air prison/Concentration camp" Gaza looked better before the war than Paris right now. Cafés, zoos, 5 star Hotels, Restaurants, universities, workers inside of israel, beaches, food bloggers etc. That's an insult for every Cambodian that lived during the khamer roughe, North Koreans, Jews and other populations that hadn't the opportunity to have this kind of luxury. When you have a considerable amount of a population that showed signs of obesity (Statistically speaking, Health statistics before the war), you are neither starving nor are you in a open air prison or concentration camp when you can work in israel, go to a restaurant later and then enjoy a day at a Spa. "Apartheid" and "ethno state" Jews of every background incl. 2 million Arabs that can serve in the Knesset (Which jews cant in arab Countries), Asian (excluding the ME) and African workers or students, Druze and other minorites. Apartheid is when you are calling to Seperate one population from another one. Palestinian Arabs could move freely before the 1st intifada. An ethno state is that what the Nazis tried to achieve, the most loved ideological group of those protestors. My final point is, those people are Useful idiots. They don't know anything and just say what they hear or see. It's embarrassing

DutchPatriot (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)