This is an archive of past discussions about Israel–Hamas war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is a double mention of the the Al-Asqa Marytrs brigades, and the footnote on the one in the lebanon section is unrelated to that specific group. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel–Gaza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage" ?
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?
If so, could this draft work ?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[1][2][3][4][5][6]The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[7]BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[8]El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[9]The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[10]CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[11]Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters. JDiala (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population; urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30¨% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers. Deblinis (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
On condition of relying on Western media sources.
Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media. Deblinis (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a cul de sac. Deblinis (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire articleIsrael-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine. Chetsford (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
As an additional note, they were not blocked at the time of the !vote - socks can only be struck and discounted if they made a duplicate !vote, or if their master was blocked at the time of the !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. The goal is to make it obvious they are a sock so when the discussion is closed, their input will not be considered. This should be done for all blocked sockpuppets and sockmasters in a discussion
Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF[12]) 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.[13] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict".[14]Deblinis (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is the latest on NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps”.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"International repercussions" in lede
I added a short text to the last paragraph to note that not only Israel, but also Hamas has been strongly denounced internationally. I was reverted twice for WP:FALSEBALANCE, because:
"this section is about the international repercussions of the war; condemnations of hamas are arguably non-notable in this context because they haven't led to a decline in hamas' international standing, making this an instance of WP:FALSEBALANCE better suited for the reactions section".
I don't agree that condemnations of Hamas have not led to a decline in their international standing (that statement almost seems contradictory to me). And even if Hamas' standing had not been affected, I don't see how that makes the condemnations non-notable in the context of "international repercussions". I feel like I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here. Ornilnas (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Your edit added text relating to terrorist atrocities against Israel to the 4th paragraph of the lead. But the 2nd paragraph of the lead deals with that. The lead has a roughly chronological order, so adding mention of widespread international outrage against the October 2023 atrocities to the 2nd paragraph would be fine, but adding it to the 4th paragraph is extremely confusing.-- Toddy1(talk)07:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it's fine to mention condemnations of Hamas in the 2nd paragraph. But I disagree they don't belong in the 4th. Israel's response is in the 3rd, while the 4th seems to be about the war as a whole: "The war has had significant international repercussions." Even if the 4th paragraph was solely about Israel's response (which I don't read it to be), Hamas has received much international condemnation for its actions during the invasion of Gaza as well. So I don't see how mentioning Hamas condemnations is extremely confusing. Nevertheless, if you think they more properly belong in the 2nd paragraph, can you propose how we should word it? Ornilnas (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That section should reflect the reality that public opinion and international pressure are shifting against Israel, due to the impact of the war, because that's the truth of what's going on. Vaguely stating that Hamas has been condemned too is false balance. Some of the actions taken by western countries to intensify pressure on Hamas might be notable, such as defunding UNRWA and perhaps the ICC warrants, but countries and organizations that were calling Hamas bloodthirsty terrorists on October 6 continuing to do so isn't necessarily notable. The only new terror classification I could find since the start of the war was from New Zealand. Unbandito (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The current section does not say that "public opinion and international pressure are shifting against Israel". If the sources support this, I think that would be relevant to add. It does mention condemnations of Israel in the Islamic world, and I don't see how they are different from condemnations of Hamas in other parts of the world. Perhaps my wording was vague, but so is the current wording in the sentence about condemnations from the Islamic world. Perhaps we should remove it? Ornilnas (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
You're right. It currently only mentions support for and denouncements of Israel. I might add some reactions on Hamas to the body from one of the other articles. Thanks. Ornilnas (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Removal of photograph
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. There's quite a lot to unpack there! Editors arguing that it should be kept explain that it illustrates the impacts of the attack and that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Editors arguing that the photo should be removed say that WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include the photo and that it is released by an official government. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
No. This image depicts the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians, attacks that have received and continue to receive expansive coverage in media, and are the reason this war began. Non-trivial coverage of them is warranted and required under WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP, and removing this image would leave us with only one piece of media depicting this impact, which would be insufficient to meet the requirements that we cover these in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Support removal and/or replacement with any image that is not uploaded by the Israeli government. Plus showing blood without any bodies is giving pure propaganda vibes Abo Yemen✉16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose replacement with a different picture that depicts the impact of the attacks on civilians (and would support it over removing the image entirely), but I'm not sure why we care who uploaded the image? BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Israel, especially after the oct. 7 attacks, tried to make one of the most embarrassing and absurd propaganda campaigns I've ever seen (I'm sure that you still remember the 40 imaginary beheaded babies) Abo Yemen✉17:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be a reliable source; for example, one of its examples that it uses as evidence of Israel spreading disinformation are Israeli "claims that Hamas fighters raped women during their attack on October 7". The indications are that those claims are correct. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be relevant here, unless there is evidence that images uploaded by Israel are not what they are claimed to be? BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
As part of a PR campaign, pro-Israeli advocacy which is Israel's practice of shaping narratives; in one word for that image: sensationalism. Deblinis (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Sensationalism, putting forward an emotional narrative to impact Western populations and obtain a blank check from Western allies for military actions, without any right of inspection. Deblinis (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment There are other similar images that can be considered such as these: 1, 2, 3, 4. In any case, there should be at least one image to illustrate the attack besides only a map, reminding WP:NOTCENSORED too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
#1 is too remote - it isn't clear that the impact is on civilians - while #2 is from after the attacks, from rocket barrages. I would support #3 or #4. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I strongly oppose anything uploaded by the Israeli government (I'm talking about number 3 here). I remember number 2 being from that video where IDF soldiers we're shooting at empty hallways (Correct me if im wrong with this one). Now, with number 4, while I don't want to look like im defending the killing of a child here, I personally find it kinda weird for the uploader of the image not uploading the full video where the supposed Hamas militant kills the child. I mean it would definitely cause more reputation loss for Hamas, no? Plus cctv footages are "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain" and could have been uploaded easily Abo Yemen✉17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
#4 isn't from CC TV; it has been released with a compatible license ("These footage are free to use, in hope the world will see the true horrors that took place here. All we ask is that you attribute "South First Responders" group for the important work that the guys are doing."), but it's a still image taken by first responders. I have corrected it on commons. BilledMammal (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this should automatically mean exclusion if it is attributed unless there are reasonable doubts about its authenticity. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose removal, or support replacement. I agree with the reasoning of BilledMammal. A photo like this illustrates the human impact of the events that took place on civilians. Wikipedia is not censored. There was a 2009 RfC to remove a picture of a killed Palestinian baby from the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict article, and I think that was wrong for the same reasons. We wouldn't remove the picture from the My Lai Massacre article either.HenryMP02 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I think everyone knows of WP:NOTCENSORED. That's not the problem. The main problem here is how reliable the photograph is. According to Abo Yemen, the photograph was taken for propaganda purposes, citing the picture being taken by the Israeli government, and the fact that there are no bodies and only blood. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage)18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I accept that it probably was distributed for propaganda purposes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I don't see reason to suspect of being fake, even if there are no bodies visible. There are videos which show Hamas militants going into homes. Many were killed and injured on October 7th. From what I know at the moment, I believe the photograph is authentic, if that's what you mean. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Another angle of the same scene of the picture above
On the right is another picture of the supposed crime scene taken by the same photographer, Kobi Gideon. If you zoom in, you'll find your average murder mystery Netflix-level of a scene. Random pictures scattered on the ground, your usual art colored by the 6 year old living in the house, whatever that tripod is doing inside the home of this unheard of influencer/tiktoker/youtuber who could have made a video of the crime or something close to that.
Now I might be wrong with my somewhat quick investigation, but my point is that pictures taken by either israel or hamas should not be included in the article, unless it is made clear to the reader who took the picture and/or who distributed it Abo Yemen✉11:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove. There is already a thread immediately above about this and I've outlined my rationale there. The number of media for 7 October is adequate in my estimation. There is a full video dedicated to showing corpses from the music festival. Possible compromise position: I might be willing to consider photos or videos of Hamas killing or having killed Israeli soldiers if the opener of the RfC and others are open to this. I am worried that the media we have currently paints Hamas in the worst possible light, and portrays 7 October as having been purely a massacre of innocents rather than the military operation (with some complex and tragic consequences in execution) it was. By adding media of deceased soldiers, it could signal to the reader the military nature of the operation, which would be more balanced. JDiala (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this compromise. Two thirds of those killed on 7 October were civilians, so this would be misleading (just as it would be misleading to only show pictures of Hamas fighter casualties and not civilians) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't oppose supplementing it with images of Israeli military casualties. I read JDiala as saying instead not also, but that might be my misreading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Multiple editors have brought up WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a highly disingenuous strawman argument which no one on the other side has made. WP:NOTCENSORED states that being graphic isn't a sufficient condition to force removal. That doesn't imply that other reasons aren't sufficient conditions. Reminder that the editors here all have 500+ edits so are aware of WP:NOTCENSORED. Bringing it up repeatedly is just muddying the water and responding to an argument never made. JDiala (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it is interesting that there no photos of bodies of Hamas fighters who died on 7 October. I recall seeing videos of Israelis urinating on their bodies, should that be added to contribute to the balance? JDiala (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose adding videos of Israelis urinating on bodies to the 7 October article, given these do not have any reliable source but appeared on self-published social media. One or two images reflecting the Palestinian victims of IDF actions on 7 October would however be due there, just as one or two images reflecting Israeli and other victims of the actions of Hamas and its allies on that day are due here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose removal on account of WP:NOTCENSORED and, like others have said, it serves best to show how the conflict has human impact. I don't think the fact that Israel posted the photo is sufficient enough to remove the image (this did happen in Israel, it's going to come from an Israeli source no matter what happens). That being said, I agree with JDiala in that we should include images of military action whether by IDF or Hamas to give a more through picture of what happened – there was a lot going on that day, and focusing solely on one aspect would be detrimental. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove The pictures are unbalanced for the article. For this one there's lots showing dead Palestinians. At the very very least one would expect parity. Also I don't think the photo shows he scene of a death. If somebody was killed there I would have expected blood spatter around the place whereas it looks like the blood was put on the floor and shoved around. I hate to say that about the possible death of someone, it sounds like one of those damned conspiracy theory types, but unfortunately that's what it looks like to me. I would downvote the picture as authentic of anything. NadVolum (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove as completely and utterly WP:UNDUE. The 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (which has its own article and a video in this one) is a small part of this war in which the overwhelming majority of the casualties (by a mile) are Palestinians. As for the "human impact" that keeps getting mentioned, we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten). M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten) Just a heads up, this really ruins your first (entirely valid) point/opinion – it makes it sound like you think this should be/is a coatrack article. There is an entire article on Palestinian Genocide, we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not to include an image in a section talking about the initial attack. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove. The article already has an adequate number of images; but beyond that, images that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution - even if they are accurate, they may be non-representative, specifically framed or chosen to maximize emotional impact, and so on. This doesn't render them unusable but I would prefer other images when available (and they are available.) I would also echo the people above who are bothered by the continuous attempts to cite WP:NOTCENSORED when nobody has asked that the image be removed due to its graphic nature - the flip side of NOTCENSORED, in my opinion, is that of course the graphic nature of an image is not inherently a reason for inclusion; we don't include shocking images simply for the sake of shocking people. As a general rule, when people cite NOTCENSORED in an overly-defensive manner like that it makes me nervous that an image is being used primarily for its shocking impact, which is not a valid rationale in and of itself. See the essay Wikipedia:NOTNOTCENSORED for some discussion about how reflexively defensive invocations of NOTCENSORED can be a warning sign that an image has problems. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove there is a video which is already a strong bias, this was explained in the section above this one. Re: my previous replies. Deblinis (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
No. There should be at least one photo in that section illustrating the attack on Israeli communities. It's good that we have a video but it's not a replacement. If I read this report correctly, very few people watch it, compared to the number of readers of the article. I'd be fine with using alternative images #3, #4 suggested by u:NoonIcarus. I'm not sure that the reliability arguments are made in good faith. There are hundreds of similar photos in every newspaper showing the destruction [16]. Alaexis¿question?14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Well I certainly would like a good reliable source to have a look at the photos and say what they think they illustrate. There must be plenty of crime scene experts around the world who could do that. Sorry if you think that is bad faith but I can't just unquestioningly accept everything from the government press office of a country engaged in a war. I think a picture like those in the Guardian illustrate what was happening much better and it is a reasonably independent source. NadVolum (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing against using other photos. There are obvious copyright problems as we'd have to prove fair use (or whatever it's called nowadays) but if someone is willing to do it we could replace this photo.
My point was that we have very similar photos from other RS (one more example), with the destruction and blood, so I don't think there are real grounds to doubt the authenticity of the image in question. Alaexis¿question?22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that example also is a far better illustration. Surely someone had a camera and took a photo there and was willing to release it rather than everything being newspaper reporters and the government office? Those government office ones are just uninformative photos except perhaps for shocking people who have a thing about blood. They don't really illustrate the subject matter never mind about any other worries about them. NadVolum (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Why would some even raise such question? Terrorists from Hamas have massacred people and this image directly represents the event. An attempt to censor Wikipedia is not a good thing to do. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep photo- unless I'm missing something, nobody has raised any credible reason to doubt the veracity of this image- there are no third-party sources claiming it to be inaccurate, for example. A photograph being released by a government agency is not in itself a reason to cast doubt on the accuracy of the source. Chessrat(talk, contributions)00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
No Unless there's a credible reason that's backed by reliable sources that the image is fake then I don't really understand the objection to this photo's inclusion. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Photo - It would appear that there is not valid reasoning strong enough to remove the photo in my mind. Seems that WP:ONUS is satisfactory at the moment. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:ONUS would be an argument for removal, correct? While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Were you referring to something else? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove Mainly because the photo is totally uninformative and contextless, I have no reason to doubt its authenticity, but in terms of what it conveys, it could be a police photo from any crime scene or a photo from any film set anywhere in the world, it tells us nothing specific. Killing is gory and leaves mess behind, but who did not know that already? Also as said by others it is utterly WP:UNDUE. in the broader context of the war, as opposed to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Also images that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution.Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove: the photo is published by a government engaged in the conflict as part of war propaganda. It does not give essential information about the subject and so could be considered (despite its graphic and potentially upsetting nature) a "primarily decorative" image. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment - First, I would note that if images from Israeli government agencies are regarded unusable, then the same standard should be applied to any images by Palestinian or Iranian government agencies. Currently images from Wafa and Fars News Agency can be found in the article. Moving on, civilian impact of 7 Oct attack is very much relevant to the article, so an image depicting it would be appropriate. On other hand, there is already somewhat of an overload of images in the section at the moment of writing this comment[17]. When read on a large monitor, 9 October situation map is out of sync from article text, so some pruning should be done. I, for one, question why are there two maps for showing extent of 7 Oct attack, one would sufficient, and picture of IDF generals meeting doesn't feel all that vital either.--Staberinde (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Are there actually any RS that call into question the credibility of this photo? Given the nature of the October 7 attack, I'm pretty sure a bloodstained floor would be fairly common. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:53, 10 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Israel–Hamas war → Israel-Gaza war (2023-present) – As the previous proposal has said, a previous discussion has concluded that WP:COMMONNAME does not stand as other names are also in common use. In such case, WP:COMMONNAME states that When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I believe the proposed title is better in precision than 2023 Gaza war and better in precision, consistency and naturalness than the current title, Israel-Hamas war. More importantly, serious POV concerns have been raised by many editors about the current title. I hope to see more engagement with those claims in this discussion than in past discussions. If we want to actually form a consensus, rather than have these move discussions until eternity, there needs to be some justification beyond a narrow tally of article titles as to why the POV concerns advanced by many editors aren't relevant. Furthermore, I haven't seen any solid objections to the title I am proposing here. It seems like a way of framing the war that is agreeable to all perspectives, which is why I believe it should be used instead of the possibly more popular and much more contentious current title, and why I hope a consensus can actually be formed around this title so we can all move on. Unbandito (talk) 11:59, 30 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.
UN changes reported casualty figures
@BilledMammal, Nableezy, and Makeandtoss: Note recent changes in reported UN figures for Palestinian women and children killed. Compare:
It looks to me like the figures we have in the lead for women and minors killed may be too high, at least as a proportion of the 35,000 (the figure might be correct if you include an estimate of those still buried under the rubble). At any rate the proportion of verified women and children killed appears to be around 56% (52% + half the 8% elderly total), according to the UN figures.
The "seemingly" would be the operative word (the new UN figures only relate to the 24,686 fully identified as of 30 April and do not include any of the women and children among the other 10,000 reported dead). This article by the FDD, a neo-conservative think tank, plays even more fast and loose with the numbers, but is still worth reading:
Putting these articles' hyperbole aside, there seems to be no question that early reports of 60% or 72% of women/children casualties were too high. And while "15,000 children and 10,000 women" might be a reasonable overall estimate, to my mind, if you included the estimated 10,000 dead buried under the rubble (for a total of over 45,000), it doesn't relate to the 35,000 figure (25,000 out of 35,000 is about 71.5%, and that figure seems definitely off now).
An added complication is that as the hospital system has broken down, numbers of dead are being underreported and some are being registered in a different way to how it was done when the hospitals worked properly. This Sky News article provides a useful overview and specifically comments about the 72% percent figure:
Too early to say to be honest given that RS have not touched on this change yet. Coverage will probably pick up in the upcoming days and then we can decide accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
If you look at day 213, the source for the >9,500 women, >14,500 children is given as GMO (Government Media Office). In day 215, the only source given is MOH, the Ministry of Health. However, last month's Sky News article quotes the chief of the health ministry at length, and says the ministry had been reporting the 72% figure. The minister described it as a media estimate. (I could imagine that the ministry gave estimates for the total number of women and children killed, including those buried under rubble, and that journalists then worked out what percentage of the reported, verified total that number would represent – but that is pure supposition on my part.) At any rate, the Sky News article also refers to a figure of 61% for women, children and elderly victims. AndreasJN46613:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Consider the ones making the most noise, Fox, the Jewish Chronicle, The Jerusalem Post and FDD and the watchword should be caution while we round up more reliable sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no consensus her so far to change the sources and revise the figures so I am not sure why you have done so? } Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It also got coverage from USA Today [18] which writes “According to the UN's latest figures, 40% of casualities in Gaza have been men, 32% children, 20% women and 8% elderly.” As well as Reuters [2]. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Reuters seems to have the most accurate reporting here:
The death toll in the Gaza Strip from the Israel-Hamas war is still more than 35,000, but the enclave's Ministry of Health has updated its breakdown of the fatalities, the United Nations said on Monday after Israel questioned a sudden change in numbers.
U.N. spokesperson Farhan Haq said the ministry's figures - cited regularly by the U.N. its reporting on the seven-month-long conflict - now reflected a breakdown of the 24,686 deaths of "people who have been fully identified."
Literally nothing changed, they only added additional information on the bodies that the MOH has complete records for. nableezy - 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring headlines per WP:HEADLINES, the sources pretty much are reporting the same thing. Although USA Today says the number of unidentified is 11,000 according to Hamas vs. 10,000 reported by the other sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Reuters is saying the number hasnt changed, they are just specifying how many of them have complete records. I think thats the closest thing to accuracy here, and also dont think it matters nearly as much as people seem to be thinking it does. nableezy - 20:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
CNN released an article that says “ The number was reduced because the UN says it is now relying on the number of deceased women and children whose names and other identifying details have been fully documented, rather than the total number of women and children killed. “ [19]
The reporting from CNN was more helpful with clarification from the UN. The sources saying the total number of deaths is unchanged was unclear because the confusion was over the categorical deaths. Very confusing… some of us need things clearly spelled out to understand!! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
We have to be careful here – the phrasing "including over 7,797 children and 4,959 women" does not quite hit the mark. The 7,797 children and 4,959 women represent the percentage of women and children among only 24,686 of the dead, out of a total of 34,844 (again, not including those missing or under the rubble). The remaining, over 10,000 dead in the Ministry of Health total (excluding those buried under the rubble) will again include thousands of children – probably around another 3,000, based on the 32% average. So the total number of children killed is likely to be well above 10,000 at least (again, excluding those buried under the rubble, which may add several thousand more). AndreasJN46614:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The "identified" numbers are just the MOH figures from May 2. There isnt anything new here, they just are going back to the MOH figures as "identified". nableezy - 17:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The percentage of women and minors among those is slightly lower than hitherto reported: 56% rather than around 70%. That adjustment does make sense. The old percentages implied that more children were killed than men, and that the number of women and men killed was almost equal. With the new percentages, the men killed clearly outnumber the minors killed as well as the women (roughly 11:8:6). What remains true is that the clear majority killed in Gaza are women and children. AndreasJN46620:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually there is no reason to suppose the number of children killed is lower than the men. Most of the killing has been by big bombs and there's no indication they are very discriminating in the middle of a city - and there's about twice as many children as men. The IDF also try to hide militants they kill as a matter of policy. One should expect as many or more men killed as women but the extra won't include all the militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, from the numbers you posted 40% men, 20% women, 32% children, 20% + 32% is 52%, which is a women and children majority. Plus we have an unknown 10k currently unidentified. All the new reporting on this are listing the modified numbers. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Your percentages only sum to 92%. The difference is the seniors – 8% – for which the ministry has not give a gender breakdown. Assuming an even split for the seniors, you have 44% men, 24% women, 32% children (11:6:8). This would make 56% women and children. At any rate, the majority. AndreasJN46620:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
That’s interesting. How the ministry decided not to breakdown the senior category by gender and instead put it into an individual category. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the figures are probably badly unrepresentative, but if they were representative then we could consider at a very minimum about 22% of the men were civilians - 24% like the women but take off 2% for Hamas killed by accident. That would leave 22% militants at most and 78% civilians. NadVolum (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
That 24% of women is from the identified figure as in just above from Andreas. Assuming 24% of men are killed alongside women as collateral is about the minimum and I also assumed 2% of the total population are Hamas and to be conservative assume they are all men. The percentage of men and women are the same and this assumes civilian men are killed at the same rate as women which is probably not true, men would be more likely to be working in infrastructure or other jobs targetted by the IDF or simply killed because they are male and of military age but as I said I'm being conservative. By accident here I meant Hamas killed as collateral like civilians rather than directly targetted. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the UN OCHR figures for the breakdown should be put up prominently as indicative of any real percentages of deaths. The number of identified men for instance is increased a lot by widows filling in the forms for their husbands death so they can receive state assistance, there is much less incentive to identify women and children. I haven't the foggiest what the OCHR thinks it is up to. NadVolum (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a lot of media circus that previous figures were falsified. This is just not correct. All that happened is that UN separated verified deaths with complete data (e.g., the name), and known deaths without such precise documentation. The total sum of known deaths remains ~35,000 and even this is not accounting for thousands more missing and presumed dead under rubble. When counting women and children, the policy has changed that it only looks at those subset of victims with precise documentation. It is not an issue of the previous numbers being falsified but rather that there is just a higher threshold of evidence and documentation required now. The higher threshold means the estimates are very conservative. JDiala (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Comment below regarding your position about this change please.
I Strongly Oppose latest changes to casualties in lede that changed the number of Palestinian fatalities from 35 to 24 thousand, children and female fatalities from 15 to 7 thousand and 10 to 4 thousand respectively. The UN assessment notes that there are indeed 35 thousand fatalities, and that only 25 thousand of them have been identified so far. Mainstream media, virtually all across the world has been reporting the Gazan Health Ministry figures, and the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias. Ecrusized (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - The UN has clarified the meaning of their update and it doesn't overrule the GHM's count. If we want to add the number of casualties identified by UN OCHA I think that's fine, but it should be done so in a manner that distinguishes reported and identified casualties. Unbandito (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Me too. But we've still got to cope with the mess in the figures somehow. We've now got identified casualties, reported casualties and missing probably killed - and people are already mixing up the unidentified but reported casualties with the figure for the missing under the rubble etc. And using the identified casualties to try and get a hold on the overall percentages is a guessing exercise because of strong differences in the recording of the deaths of men women and children compared to each other. There's been a number of obvious propaganda attempts to try and minimize the civilian deaths which is to be expected, however there has been one report by an expert which may have caused the Ministry to do this.[1] I haven't the foggiest why he says in that 'Second, the announced total number of Gazans killed in the war, now exceeding 33,000, may seem plausible but it is not a documented fact' when that figure was for recorded deaths not total deaths and yes recorded deaths probably are a bit high because of duplicates. This then leads to 'Thus, we should dismiss the common claim that, because many of the dead are trapped under rubble or are missing for other reasons, the announced totals are undercounts.' You only get that if you mix up the missing with the ones recorded but not identified in the Health Ministry figures. You have to start saying the missing is exaggerated too and with 86,000 buildings totally destroyed I don't think so. NadVolum (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems often overlooked in comments here (speedreading), but, subtracting women and children from the total to ascertain how many men (people over 18 up to those classified as 'old' i.e. 64 and over) or male victims there are among the fatalities does not yield a figure for Hamas dead. It does only if one assumes the wild premise that all adult males are Hamas militants, which is of course nonsense, given that their estimated military combatant units range from 30-40,000, something markedly less than 10% of the overall male population (18-64 =627,000 from memory).Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. We should keep the 35,000+. However, we do have a problem with the figues for women and children (minors). At the time of writing, the article says: "Since the start of the Israeli operation, more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women" The figures for women and children are not tenable at this point. They are mathematically impossible, now that we know the breakdown of confirmed, fully identified dead. --AndreasJN46613:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean here. If you're a casualty counter for the Gaza Health Ministry and you come across a mangled body, that still counts as a casualty, but not as a fully identified one. You'd record that person as "unidentified man/woman/child" until further information allows you to verify who it was. There's no mathematical impossibility here, just a gap in information due to the realities of war and the breakdown of the health system in Gaza. Unbandito (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a non-problem. Over 35,000 corpses have been registered, of which the lower figure refers to those identified. One simply cites the overall figure and clarifies the breakdown into total versus identified in a footnote, or adds, '35,000+ of which 24,000 identified'.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think Netanyahu is being extremely stupid. But then again people continued believing in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction long after they were searching ice cream trucks for them. NadVolum (talk) 18:08, 14 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.
Shouldn't we simply follow RS?
Maybe I'm missing something but this shouldn't be controversial. The sources report both numbers (35 thousand and 24 thousand) and this is what we need to do as well.
We should not use older sources when we have more up-to-date ones. We have the new UN data and plenty of RS reported on it without placing them in doubt (other than the usual Hamas-controls-the-Health-Ministry caveat).
I'd suggest changing the popup as follows
“
Per Gaza Health Ministry, the total number of deaths are 34,844 [21]. 24,686 identified casualties include
7,797 children
4,959 women
...
”
Here the NPR says that the percentage of women and children is 52%. Unless we have newer sources which dispute it or provide different figures, this is what we should use.
NPR actually says "Based on the identities confirmed so far, though, the U.N. now says about 52% of those killed have been women and children." We could contract that to 52% of the casualties whose identities have been confirmed are women and children but I really don't see the point, there's so many problems with trying to interpret the figures. I'm very surprised the UN says that, have you found where they do that? NadVolum (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That twitter link leads to the business about the Israeli televote at Eurovision which didn't translate to views unlike Bambie Thug which went right up. :-) Anyway we probably should remove the 70% figure for now I think until the whole business clarifies. We can report the number of identified casualties but I had a look at what Farhan Haq said and he said the number of women and children probably under the rubble is probably high because the women are left at home. That's arguable too and I think the bombs probably killed people in about the overall demographic rate. We just can't say anything like that without some proper expert or the Hamas Health Ministry and then with attribution. The historical business could be left in the article about casualties. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The majority of deaths reported through this system (55%) are working-age men. Mr al Wahaidi says this is because it is mainly used by widows, who must formally register their husbands' deaths to obtain government assistance. Once a death is confirmed through this system, Mr al Wahaidi and his team add it to the hospital's systems and one fatality is removed from the count of unidentified bodies.
If this is really what they do it can lead to strange effects since some of the forms may refer to people who have not been listed as unidentified - basically they would be undercounting and with more men being identified the GMO figures imcluding unidentified women and children simply wouldn't make sense like the BBC points out. NadVolum (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This seems sensible; reliable sources give more credibility to the GHM numbers than the GMO numbers, and sources find that the GMO numbers "strains credibility".
I would also suggest changing the lede, from more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women to more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, of which over 24,000 have been identified, including 4,959 women and 7,797 children.
Alternatively, we could say more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, with over 24,000 have been identified. Of these, 52% are women and children, 40% are men, and 8% are elderly.
Either sounds pretty good to me. Two niggles: in the second wording we must remember that the elderly include women too, so 52% will be too low and should not get stuck in readers' minds. Perhaps we should start with something like "in addition to 8% elderly of both sexes ..." so readers know right away that the 52% aren't the full number.
Also I think it should be "fully identified" or "fully documented". I understand that they collect a number of personal data on each victim and if just one datum is still missing the record isn't included. AndreasJN46601:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
And yes, that distinction between GMO and health ministry is key. The WHO has reiterated that it has full confidence in the health ministry data. AndreasJN46601:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
We should try keeping the number of identified casualties separate from the recorded casualties. They are incompatible as the quote I put above from Mr al Wahaidi shows. In a hospital there is no problem - an unidentified person comes in and if they are identified the number of unidentified people goes down and the number of identified goes up. However now we have extra unidentified people being recorded by media sources, and we have a source of identified casualties from the forms. The ones on the forms decrement the unidentified bodies and increment the identified bodies - but an identified body may not be one of the unidentified ones. The forms identify men disproportionally because women want assistance, whereas adult male casualties will probably be recorded less frequently than they actually occur because Israel has a policy of hiding the bodies of those they think are militants. Using the count of identified men with the number of unidentified deaths will just lead to the result that there are very few or even a negative number of unidentified men casualties. That is not a problem with what the Health Ministry is doing - it is a problem with peoples' interpretation. It is logically possible with the system they have to even have more people identified than the total recorded deaths but that is very unlikely to happen. NadVolum (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the article based on this discussion to the percentage version suggested by you. For the moment I've continued using "identified", however, as that seems closer to how sources refer to it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
you've mioxed them up not making it obvious that the percentages refer to the fully identified ones and then put 10,000 missing afterwards as if it might be extra to the identified ones to mke the total. Some care would be appreciated. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I used the text I proposed a few days ago, incorporating the changes recommended in this discussion. If you have additional changes that you think would be beneficial I encourage you to suggest them. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the latest change. Most RS are still highlighting mainly the reported figures. As for the identified figures, these are a subset of the reported figures. But elaborating on the subset without mentioning the whole picture would be misleading. Elaborating on both would not be a good summary. Hence my middle ground solution proposal: an elaboration of the identified killed in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Almost every recent RS that I can find is highlighting the MOH figures, not the media office figures. We have reliable sources saying the media office figures are questionable; we can no longer include them in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
MOH figures are still the same [22]: "Two officials from the Palestinian Ministry of Health have told CNN that although the ministry keeps a separate death toll for identified and unidentified individuals, the total number of people killed remains unchanged."
+
"CNN has seen a daily report from the Palestinian health ministry which matches the number OCHA published in the revised version. A total of 15,103 children and 9,961 women have been killed in Gaza since October 7, the Gaza ministry of health said in its latest report."
In addition, sources have questioned the GMO figures because for them to be true almost every unidentified casualty has to be either a woman or a child - an improbability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Also disagreed, please stop creating new discussions about casualties immediately after the old one ends. Casualties should not me synthesized with anything except Gaza Health Ministry figures. Mainstream media has only been using Gaza Health Ministry figures and so should Wikipedia. I propose a moratorium on casualties in order to stop the non-stop discussion on talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
We spent a lot of time and effort establishing that the GHM was considered reliable both pre war and during. Anyway, what we need to do now is agree on how to present the new data, which is on the face of it, a recategorization of the old, pending identification, if I understood it correctly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that it’s not a recategorization of the old, but a breakdown from a different source - the breakdown currently in the article is from the media office, the breakdown we are discussing here is from the ministry of health. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
No and this discussion shouldn't have been opened in the first place since the old one was closed with overwhelming opposition less than a week ago. Ecrusized (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal, this is clearly a snowball cause. This issue has been discussed over a dozen times in talk page, latest one being less than week ago. And you are currently arguing against multiple users who reject your argument. Ecrusized (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
No one has said anything about any media office, I haven't even heard of this entity until now, noting that I am reading the news on a daily basis. There is no such distinction made by RS on the casualty figures. I have just quoted CNN to you and you claimed it is vague [23]. There is nothing vague about this explicit quote: "A total of 15,103 children and 9,961 women have been killed in Gaza since October 7, the Gaza ministry of health said in its latest report." The other quotes you cited are talking about something else. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
+ "The total number of people killed has not changed, OCHA says — and the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either" [24]Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That Vox report (along with CNN) seems to capture the essence of it, surely we can just explain the category issue in a note? Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Unless we are including all categorisation in a note, I don’t think so - the GMO figures are too controversial to include without equally prominent context. Further, if you look at the pile of sources I provided, you see they prefer the GHM/OCHR figures. BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This infographic from 17th captures the overall situation. It is true that the unidentified portion has no official categorization any more than the additional 10000 missing/under the rubble does but that doesn't mean we should highlight only the lower categorized numbers, that would be very misleading. As VOX says, the category totals may not change that much over time and conceivably could even increase. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I think our two options are to either make it clear that the categorisation is for only a subset of the total deaths, or to exclude the categorisation from the lede - either placing it in a note with full context, or in the body with full.
CNN, as demonstrated before, has reported that the long-standing categorization still exists for the total reported death count, and not for the confirmed ones. Adding further sources: "According to the Health Ministry’s latest official count, 35,000 people in Gaza have been killed, 15,000 of whom are children and nearly 10,000 women. Those numbers are not in dispute, Haq said, and the 24,000 figure from the OCHA report represents the people "for whom full details have been documented — in other words, people who have been fully identified.”" [25]
The only reasonable middle ground solution I can think of is we do not mention the numbers of the categories of the 35k Palestinians killed, but instead mention that the majority have been women and children. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I really would caution caution mixing up the figures for reported and identified casualties or putting straight calculations in as fact. The identified bodies are not a subset of the reported deaths, there will be a very large overlap but they come from different sources. The 24,000 identified cannot be taken straightforwardly from the 35,000 reported casualties, the number of reported casualties who have not been identified could very easily be a thousand higher and this is liable to get quite a bit worse. This is independent of different proportions of men, women and children for various reasons being liable to be in the different figures. I think the reported deaths and the missing can be mentioned together, and I think the number of identified ones and its breakdown can be mentioned together though I'm not sure it is relevant for this article. However I think we should be very wary of mixing the two up and definitely not put any conclusions from that in anywhere as anything but attributed opinion. NadVolum (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The identified bodies are not a subset of the reported deaths Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that the health ministry is saying there are approximately 35,000 dead, and that of these approximately 25,000 have been identified. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Their description of what happens says when they receive a form with details identifying a dead person they remove one from the count of unidentified - not that they check first somehow if someone identified by a form was one of the unidentified or that they check that a media report gives somebody for whom a form was already filled. The unidentified in that are a target to cut down. And I believe that is the correct thing to do, the numbers will be right eventually. What you're talking about isn't really feasible in the middle of the war. Have you got a reliable source saying that they are doing doing something else? Anyway the number of identified ones is pretty irrelevant to this article. NadVolum (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That switch puts the number of confirmed fatalities at 24,686 identified dead people in Gaza as of April — 10,006 men, 7,797 children, 4,959 women, and 1,924 elderly people, according to the Ministry of Health. Then “[t]here’s about another 10,000-plus bodies who still have to be fully identified, and so then the details of those — which of those are children, which of those are women — that will be reestablished once the full identification process is complete,” Haq said, which would bring the total numbers of deaths so far to approximately the 35,000 figure that has been widely reported.
In addition, it’s relevant because of concerns reliable sources have expressed about the reliability of the media office figures; they consider them implausible. However, I won’t repeat myself on that - it can wait for the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Well it's very possible some of those identified by the forms aren't actually dead, but since they don't add to the total that's also irrelevant to all that. The 35,000 are the dead that have been seen. He's just giving a conservative figure. 35,000 reported deaths plus another 10,000 probably missing under the rubble is the total number of deaths that should be used using reliable sources. The identified ones has very little to do with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
If we have no agreement as to how to display this information in the article and it seems that we do not, then I don't object to an RFC but I have to say that this seems to be very much a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The only really important thing is that there are this many dead persons, some of whom are not as yet fully identified, which I take to mean, for example, here is this body of a woman, we don't have an ID so its unidentified and here is this child, in pieces, so we don't have an id, etcetera. If there is a source (Vox, are there others?) saying that the numbers are going to end up being the same, more or less, at the end, to me that's sufficient and all this other stuff is just a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem is people assuming the counts should be easy and straightforward rather than messy and not acting like they think and needing corrections. Just look at the reduction in the number of Israeli killed after October 7, nobody writes stupid articles saying they made the figures up and resurrected hundreds of people and yet they do that with the health ministry numbers where they have a much harder job. And that's without getting to the ones who deliberately engage in specious arguments where they obviously know better. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I see that now the breakdown has been tagged as unreliable, I think we should show the full categorization in the lead, men, women, children and unidentified (plus reported missing?) together with an explanation of the latter in a note per the NYT
"There’s about another 10,000-plus bodies who still have to be fully identified,” Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the U.N., said on Monday. He added: “The details of those — which of those are children, which of those are women — that will be reestablished once the full identification process is complete." We can also add in the note Vox commentary that the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either.
I'd prefer the casualties article to cover all the mess about the figures, under what heading is identification of the dead relevant in this article? It is not covered in any subsection. Or if we are going to talk about the identified figures we should separate that from the number of dead, it is just too easy to inspire original research by sticking the two together. Even that Farhan Haq above is getting confused - they'll have all the people under the rubble to identify too and they already have the id's of some of them just haven't matched them with the bodies. So they have at least another 20,000 to identify. More figures aren't going to stop people putting in tags, NadVolum (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The number of those reported killed due to the war and the number of those missing presumed dead. If you really feel the need to put in something about the identified dead it should not draw any direct parallels with anything in the count of the dead. I had a look at the cites from the BBC article [26]. It looks like the health authority has made a mistake about the ages of children and includes 18 year olds rather than just 0 to 17 unlike what the article says, and that Prof Michael Spagat they talked to is reputable but has made a mistake about the methodology of the health ministry in [27] and thought the forms added to the count of deaths so deaths might be duplicated, he also made a number of other unfounded and unwarranted assumptions, I think he probably never read the bit about their current methodology. Anyway if people like that can go badly wrong you can see the problem with mixing them up which will just encourage people to try citing a whole load of denial sites. NadVolum (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent RS seem to be taking the line that at least half of the dead are women and children (56% UN). Maybe we can say it like that? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't see there would be any objection to that. It's practically definitely higher than that but that is given by the OCHA. NadVolum (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The 10,000 women and 15,000 children numbers are clearly not reliable anymore as the UN has removed these numbers. These numbers should not be used. I have no clue why an edit hasn't been made to this yet after over a week of discussion. These numbers are useless now. JDiala (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we need to change what is written there, the discussion is about how and with what sources. We have Vox article of 17 May covering this issue saying a number of things including that "the initial estimates of over 14,500 children and 9,500 women dead may not change significantly in the long run, either; there are around 10,000 dead people that the health ministry has not yet identified with a first and last name, sex, age, and ID number."
As I said above, the UN says 56% of the dead are women and children, which % may change as the unidentified are identified. So I have amended the lead to reflect that %. We can keep talking about what else, if anything, is needed by way of explanation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
A bold proposal: avoid exact casualty numbers in the lead altogether
I propose that it is best to avoid exact casualty numbers and breakdowns in the lead altogether. Ironically, this is perhaps something which could be favoured by those on both sides of the POV. From a pro-Israeli perspective, the Hamas MoH is unreliable, whereas from a pro-Palestinian perspective the numbers are almost certainly egregious undercounts considering the large number of people whose deaths are unaccounted for.
There are a couple arguments for this.
The complexity of the casualty breakdowns in this case is tremendous. We have ~35,000 dead and ~10,000 missing. Among the ~35,000 dead, it is further broken down into ~25,000 fully identified and documented and ~10,000 with only partial information. And then among the ~25,000, we further stratify that by gender and age to account for women and children killed. Then we also have to consider the number of Palestinian militants killed, and the estimates for this vary considerably depending on who you ask. This amount of complexity is not optimal for a reader who just wants to read the lead and get an overview of the war.
There is reputable evidence that these numbers are not fully accurate. It is important to understand that this does not necessarily mean that the Gazan MoH is unreliable per se, as pro-Israel propaganda would like us to believe. Rather, it is just understanding the particularly brutal and fast-paced nature of the war and the collapse of the Gazan infrastructure and civil institutions. It seems like every other day there's a new mass grave discovered, and new battles in various cities like Jabalia recently where hundreds of people die daily. It is doubtful that the civil institutions in Gaza can keep up. Similar arguments have been made by experts like Michael Spagat.
If you look at the some other war articles like Russian Invasion of Ukraine, there is also no detailed discussion of casualty statistics in the lead, only broad estimates like "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" of casualties.
I propose a similar change here. Alter
Since the start of the Israeli operation, more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women. Over 10,000 others are missing and presumed trapped under rubble.
to
Since the start of the Israeli operation, tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, the significant majority of whom are civilians.JDiala (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
There's no problem with saying the 35,000 and recorded deaths and 10,000 estimated missing. The OCHA has not said there is any doubt about the MOH figures, just that it has its own standards for what it includes. The reported deaths and the identified deaths are collected for two different purposes, the 35,000 alongside that 15,000 for children etc is for statistical purposes on overall deaths and is the best they can for that, and the 25,000 is collected separately and is not a complete subset of the reported deaths. and al Wahaidi made clear its purpose is to help individuals by recognizing the deaths of their relatives and to comply with government requirements in getting help. It is a pity I think that the OCHA is pushing figures that were not collected for overall statistics instead of ones that were but that's life. As I pointed out above Michael Spagat made an assumption which was wrong in that article as he did not know about the methodology when he wrote it. He also ignored the large number estimated to be missing under the rubble in his conclusions. NadVolum (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
As per above, ftb I amended the lead to reflect the UN 56% women and children figure. The lead needs to be a summary and simple position that can be stable over time, perhaps that 56% will not vary too much with time although it is possible if the unidentified has a different % breakdown to the identified. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Should we mention in the lede that the ICC prosecutor had requested arrest warrants be issued against Israel and Hamas leaders, or should we wait till they are actually issued? If yes, should they be briefly described in this way? The sentence would be just after the ICJ one.
In December 2023, South Africa launched proceedings at the International Court of Justice alleging that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court prosecutor requested arrest warrants in May 2024 against senior Israeli and Hamas figures, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leader Yahya Sinwar respectively.
I second the above. It'll be indeed a significant development if they get issued. If not, we'll have to remove this "announcement". Let's better wait a couple of days. — kashmīrīTALK22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
RFC: Primary title and alt titles in the lede
There are two primary questions.
Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel–Hamas war")?
If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
Israel–Gaza war
Gaza war
Israel's war in Gaza
Israel's war on Gaza
Operation Swords of Iron
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood
07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood added 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Any additional alt names should be added to the list, with a timestamp noting when they were added
07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion, MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The number of sources mentioned in that last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. NasssaNser09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Appendix: Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering.
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 respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see linkarchived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see link. El País which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see link1 see see link2. BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor. The "Israel–Hamas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requestsDeblinis (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Deblinis (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category.
Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel–Hamas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel–Hamas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against. FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak support. The word widespread is somewhat concerning being a POV issue. Also, I’m so unsure why people are writing strong oppose. 48JCL (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose bolded title, and oppose alt titles, both seem unnecessary. Also, I agree with BilledMammal and Selfstudier's arguments. DFlhb (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel–Gaza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. NasssaNser09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. NasssaNser07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Palestinian militants use “battle of Al aqsa flood” to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and “operation of Al aqsa flood” or “battle of October 7” to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has “معركة طوفان الأقصى” even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state. If this rfc is about voting with this in view [28] and that [29]: the wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one ? Deblinis (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel–Hamas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."
There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example. Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either. RM (Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There's editors on both sides but I think we can count that as an opinion piece with the usual propaganda. I'm no fan of Cromwell but I think a quote from him is in order
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible you may be mistaken
. In particular I really would like it if they stopped calling Jews antisemitic if they don't agree with the Israeli government. NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for linking, so that we are aware of any possible canvassing that might occur on the specific points made in this "journal". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Giving these people attention is beneath us. It's as if to link a climate change denial blog castigating the Global Warming article. To the extent that Wikipedia is "anti-Israel", it is only because reality is "anti-Israel." On one side you have journalists, scholars, historians, human rights organizations, international courts. On the other you have ... NGO Monitor did they mention? JDiala (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Foreign involvement
In the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, there is a lot of explanation regarding foreign involvement. Starting with the Belligerents section of the infobox, there is a note that directs readers to a "foreign involvement" section that explains how other countries have provided lethal aid (and humanitarian aid) to Ukraine, and that this is a significant factor in Ukraine's capacity to wage war. However, the foreign involvement in this article seems to not have as much emphasis. In the infobox, no mention is made of the substantial amount of lethal aid that Israel is receiving from the United States. There is one small section of "international" under "reactions", and that section mentions that the United States has provided substantial lethal aid. However, that is a bit misleading, as United States lethal aid to Israel is not a 'reaction' to contemporary events, but rather a longstanding policy (in contrast to Ukraine, which only began receiving substantial amounts of lethal aid 'after' the Russian invasion). Of course, there has been lethal aid provided by the Untied States to Israel that is in response to Hamas's Oct 7th attack. Nevertheless, I think US lethal aid to Israel should be given more coverage (given that it is so substantial and fundamental to Israel's ability to attack Gaza and countries in the region).
My proposal is that, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, the infobox also have a note next to Israel directing readers to a section titled "Foreign involvement" that details longstanding US UK, German, and other western support to Israel. Here is the sum total of mentions of foreign aid to Israel in the article right now:
"Israel has received significant support from its traditional Western allies, most notably the United States, which has provided Israel extensive military aid throughout the war[needs update] and has vetoed multiple UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions." (from the lede)
"The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany have supplied Israel with substantial military and medical aid." (from the "international" subsection of "reactions").
This is literally it. Nowhere else does the article explain in detail the lethal aid that the United States is provided to Israel. In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine goes into further detail in explaining the aid that the US is providing to Ukraine (among other countries). While it is true that United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war exists (and is linked to in that lede sentence), surely that warrants its own separate section in this article? Perhaps a section titled "foreign involvement", given that there has been substantial amounts of it.
Relatedly, there seems to be lacking a significant mention of just how much the United States is militarily directly involved in the conflict. There is 1 (one) line in the article that mentions this:
"On 19 October, the United States Navy destroyer USS Carney shot down several missiles that were traveling north over the Red Sea towards Israel." (from the "Yemen and the Red Sea" section).
Arguably, this action could be used to classify the United States as a belligerent in this war. Yemen is listed as a belligerent in this article, and surely if someone engages in active combat against a belligerent, they are themselves a belligerent? Operation Prosperity Guardian is a military operation led by the United States in support of Israel.
So, in summary, I propose two changes: First, that there should be, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, a section that deals specifically with foreign involvement. That section can use the main article template and direct to United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. Second, I would like a consideration of the role of the United States as a belligerent in this conflict, given its military (and humanitarian) role in defending Israel. This includes the proposed pier that the United States says it wants to construct in Gaza (imagine if China announced it would be using its military to build a pier in Mariupol???).
I notice that there is another section of the talk page that is dealing with a similar issue. For that reason, I'm going to ping the editors who commented there. @Bubblesorg:@Iskandar323:@NadVolum:@BilledMammal:
Agreed. This war cannot be understood without detailing US and European involvement since 1917. Perhaps this should include numbers (amount of funds, particular weapons, UN votes)? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I agree, but also because of the fact that conflicts tend to be nuanced and in this particular conflict there have even been direct military actions taken against some of these parties. The current list contains the Houthi movement, which did face off agianst the USA, UK and France --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Support: At bare minimum a section on foreign involvement should be included. As you say, these are not "reactions", but material support as part of long-standing strategic alliances and patterns of material support. "Military aid" is a very silly euphemism for material support – if it's arms shipments, those are often at least partially paid for, so not aid, and if it's tactical assistance, that's material support. The Red Sea stuff is a bit off to the side and something of a halfway house that makes it hard to say whether it's a direct part of the conflict or not. But, since the Houthis are already included under "other theatres" on one side, the US bombing of the Houthis in retaliation should be on the other. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a good idea to have a section on the foreign support. Of course, the enemies of Israel are also supported by other countries (for example, Iran arms and supports such groups as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which took part in the October 7 attack). Also, we should describe a country as an ally or co-belligerent only if RS do it. Alaexis¿question?20:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Support Foreign Involvement; Oppose listing US as belligerent for now. As tempting as it is, I think it's about 35 minutes too early – let's wait until there's some kind of firefight, and then go for it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Support per included arguments, AquilaFasciata, disregarding listing the United States as belligerent. I too noticed this lack of information and would appreciate its edition. However, I can't say for certain whether or not it is appropriate to consider the United States a belligerent. We should await its development in the opinions of the media, I believe. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 18:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
NPOV?
would it be appropriate to add an NPOV tag, especially due to the fact that there are very blatant Israel and Palestine supporters (on their user page) that participate in RFDs and also edit on the article, and also due to the fact that it emphasizes way more of the killing of women on other articles about recent wars such as the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) etc. This might not get a lot of suppport, but just asking. 48JCL(talk)21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The killing of women and children is emphasized because Israel has killed more women and children (and a faster rate) than comparable wars. Some editors having a POV userpage has no bearing on whether the article itself is POV. JDiala (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You’re saying this because your profile is POV, right? Also, I slightly agree with your claim however usually editors with a POV will say this stuff but in the end they still have a slightly slanted view. 48JCL(talk)22:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This. Theoretically there would also less likely of a POV issue if there are editors from "both sides", rather than only editors from one side, which appears to be the case for this article. I don't see an issue at least. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Killing of women and children is a proxy for killing of non-combatants whenever it's next to impossible to tell a civilian from a combatant (as is the case in most insurgencies). — kashmīrīTALK07:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It won't be helpful to add a NPOV tag, as the article is already heavily scrutinised and discussed, so there is no need to try to ask for more discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, you reverted edit by RuleTheWiki in edit that you made. Could you share the NYT article you mentioned in the edit summary? I was trying to verify, but couldn't find what article you were referring to. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the interpretation of the order has been complicated when it comes to inclusion, and the media getting it pretty wrong in the first round (again) sure didn’t help. FortunateSons (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The interpretation is not at all complicated there is, per NYT "There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order" (and no, the media did not get it wrong, that's the way they called it from the getgo). Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
That part is not the part the media got wrong. It’s the part what they can do during and if they can restart that seemed to have gotten lost (same issue as “genocide is plausible”) FortunateSons (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In light of Occam's razor, it takes a lot more to uphold the assertion that Israel has complied with the order, than the other way around, which is simpler, squaring easily with the facts pouring out of the Strip everyday. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't participate here. Would one of the regulars on this talk page have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit and give consideration to the request there? It isn't a request to edit the article text, but rather to update a map. If the request cannot be fulfilled, please decline it so we can clear it from that page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Not unexpected, since both the Arabic and Hebrew versions of such wikipedia articles are a well-known disgrace. But the overview is superficial. Wikipedia, the writer doesn't seem to grasp, is dependent on RS, like the JS, that are themselves subject to notable bias. The English wikipedia's IP articles make all ethnic and political constituencies unhappy (unlike the mainstream press's regular readers, who select their papers according to their personal preferences for the editorial worldview reflected there) and that is the best proof that wiki has a competitive advantage over the very RS it synthesizes (though not over the academic scholarship, which takes years to emerge, and which should eventually or ideally supplant the newspaper content) The idea that versions into various languages should reflect a 'coordinated' text is impossible. The only competent editors in such a process would be trilingual experts in Hebrew, Arabic and English, regardless of their actual competence as editors. That would be a recipé for exclusion, and an incentive for controlling content without regard to our standard protocols.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree I think it is better not to have any formal thing trying to get consensus across different Wikipedias. However I think something could be done about improving the ease of seeing other language versions in ones choice of language and formatting to make them more familiar for reading. And make the default to include the tool for seeing other language versions.Perhaps plus a special talk page entry for people giving a suggetion from another Wikipedia. Basically a softly softly approach to the business which might help everybody. Getting a unified view from the Arabic and Israeli ones on something like this is err ... optimistic for the moment, and anyway I'm a fan of diversity. NadVolum (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Unbandito: the source you added doesn't appear to corroborate the bits of the sentence I removed. It doesn't seem to be reporting on something "Hamas said", but just giving the author's own analysis. If it's included at all, it should be separated and attributed to the opinion piece. — xDanielxT/C\R13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx: I don't understand your last edit so please elaborate? [32]. The lede is a summary of the body. The background section already mentions that Hamas used the occupation and plight of Palestinian refugees as one of its justifications for the attack. Also why was "deadliest" removed? AP supports this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
While it is in the lede, it's making some pretty specific statements which I think should be backed by citations in the lede; citations elsewhere in the article don't seem sufficient per WP:TSI. At first glance it seems like citations in Background also don't precisely match the deleted bits of text.
"one of the deadliest and most destructive" was written in Wikipedia's voice, which is used for plain facts, but not opinions or seriously contested assertions. I think "most destructive" seems like a plain fact, but probably not "deadliest". "Most destructive" also seems more strongly supported by the source, which states it multiple times as a matter of fact, while mentioning "deadliest" once as an expert opinion.
AP is a reliable source that does not require attribution. And yes considering the time of conflict the war has been factually one of the deadliest. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
AP is reliable, but they don't say "deadliest" as a plain matter of fact statement, but rather attribute the assertion to "experts" or "researchers". I don't think we should use a stronger tone than the underlying source does. — xDanielxT/C\R18:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx: You are yet to provide any conflicting sources that this is not one of the deadliest conflicts. As seen in my comment above, the sources are unanimous, and this is factually accurate. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The sources all seem to quote "experts" rather than stating it as a plain fact though, expect the last one (UN), which frames it as a question. It would be best for NPOV if we matched these sources' tone, rather than using the stronger Wikipedia voice.
That said, maybe nuanced qualifications ("what some experts have called" etc) would be too wordy for the lede. If there isn't other input, I don't feel strongly about adding back "most deadly". — xDanielxT/C\R16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's fair. I found a better source in which a senior Hamas official explicitly states the contested motivations.
"In an interview with NPR, Ali Barakeh, a senior Hamas official based in Lebanon, said the Oct. 7 attack came in response to "Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people in Jerusalem and the West Bank" and to "break the blockade on the Gaza Strip." He said it was also meant to free thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails."
"Well before the latest attack on Israel, Hamas said it wanted to resist Israeli occupation..."
I am going to add it to the article now, but I can't revert your edit until tomorrow. Hopefully you'll agree to self-revert in light of this new information, but if not someone else can just fix it later. Unbandito (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that source, it seems closer but not precisely matching the deleted bits of text, e.g. not covering "Palestinian refugees". It also seems like there's a bit of interpretation involved (on the author's part) to connect Hamas' past statements to the current conflict, so "Hamas said its attack" doesn't seem completely precise, though I'm sure some tweaked language could remedy that.
Would you mind adding it back with the language slightly revised? I assume this wouldn't be a 1RR violation (at least in spirit) since it wouldn't be a pure revert and I think we're roughly in agreement. — xDanielxT/C\R14:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No, it will actually be a 1RR for Unbandito regardless, so it is better than you kindly self-revert while noting that refs are more expected in the body rather the lede which is a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ghazaalch: This is the much older version, we had an intermediate version of "in response to Israel's continued occupation, persisting blockade, and settlements expansion, as well as threats to Al-Aqsa mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I edited in a hybrid version. I like Ghazaalch's version as it emphasizes the illegal nature of the settlements (among other things), but the "Judaization" thing is oddly specific and I agree that the word "threats" is best. JDiala (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Occupation vs liberating
I think the previous version that mentions the Israeli occupation as one of Hamas' motivations is better than the current version of that Hamas aimed to liberate Palestinian lands, as the former version is the more used phrasing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If Netanyahu had any sense he would have toned down immediately when he saw that Egypt wouldn't fall for having the people of Gaza driven there as refugees. But you'll need some citations for saying anything like that Hamas was winning. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Israel has not achieved any of its objectives of destroying Hamas or rescuing the hostages
Hamas continues to use its network of tunnels to ambush israeli soldiers and they continue to fire rockets at Israel
The brunt of Israeli response had hit Gazas civilians, not Hamas; Hamas is also able to seize what it needs of food supplies from the aid intended for the civilians
Israel is subject to a massive international pressure due to the suffering of the civilians
The Israeli-Saudi agreement to normalise relations has been derailed, at least for now
Hamas remains a deadly threat to the communities in the south of Israel
Thanks for sharing the article, NadVolum. I did find it interesting and it may well be that Netanyahu is underestimating the practicability of reaching an agreement with Hamas. My post was about the political results of the war so far, which I believe should be mentioned in the article. At the risk of running afoul of WP:NOTFORUM however, I can mention that a major motivation for expanding the settlements is aquiring strategic depth. It's not as good as not being attacked. Heptor (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Strategic depth and security concerns are just excuses for land grabbing, which remains illegal regardless of the reasons for grabbing it. And the transfer of settlers is a war crime on top of that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in how many of the most active editors at this page have Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit watchlisted. This talk page is currently extendedconfirmed protected, so requests are temporarily centralized. This accidentally makes it an opportunity to test the centralization of WP:PIA related edit requests. So, who's watching Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
To get a little more concrete: we get requests for edits to this page here quite regularly: would you like to have the requests made copied to here? Because the edit requests tend to sit around unprocessed for longer periods of time. Lectonar (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm the worst person to ask because I would rather run a centralized PIA request experiment than do anything that actually helps people who need help. So, I better leave it to others to decide what is best. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland: I meant all the people who work on this page, not you specifically :). Tbh, I find the whole situation rather unsatisfying, with the talk page also being ec-protected. I know that's how we have to do it, but I don't have to like it. It impedes work on the article to a great degree, imho. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I know, but I had to pretend that it was to me to crowbar the joke in...apologies. ec-protected talk pages are very rare in the topic area as far as I can tell. I don't know the background to this particular protection. I'm not sure what the "per consensus at WP:AE" in the log is referring to specifically. I guess it got pretty wild here around the end of October last year. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Heptor: I think the previous structure was better, as now the paragraphs are uneven. Also "alleged" is redundant as the sentence already starts with "Hamas said". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: the previos paragraph organization was a mess. Now we have a structure:
the first paragraph gives a brief introduction to the conflict and its historical context
the second paragraph is about the initial Hamas-led attack on Oct 7 [ed: and the reasons why Hamas went to war]
the third paragraph is about the Israeli incursion into Gaza
the fourth paragraph is about the international response
The third paragraph is currently rather too detailed for the lede. For example, the statement "Israel's ground invasion initially focused on northern Gaza, which it had reoccupied by January 2024. After a seven-day truce involving exchange of captives, Israel moved south to attack Khan Yunis on 3 December." could well be left for the article proper.
This restructuring has changed the proportions of the lede since it gives one day on 7 October an entire paragraph while it crams up >200 days of war in Gaza into one unreadable paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, the introduced lack of balance is a POV eyesore. The analogy doesn't work. An event, the massacres of Oct.7, is not the only 'cause', but the cause for Israel's response, as opposed to the numerous 'causes' attributable per RS as to why Hamas went to war (the failure of the Great March of Return being one, where 221 (not 223 since 2 constituted threats) demonstrating Palestinians were shot dead by snipers shooting on orders behind berms from a safe distance, over almost 1 and a half years every Friday). Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The reasons why Hamas went to war should be stated more clearly. I dare say it is not a problem with the new structure, but rather a problem the new structure is exposing. Instead of “Hamas said..”, there should be a thorough presentation of what RS are writing on the topic. Heptor (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The initial Hamas attack is an integral part of the Israel-Hamas war. There is a proposal to change the title of this article to “2023 Gaza War”, which perhaps would imply a change the scope of the article. Heptor (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There isn't much oppostion either, perhaps in part because the previous structure was a mess. Maybe you could formulate the structure you prefer for the lede, and we can put it to a poll? Heptor (talk)
I think that the older reading where "After clearing militants from its territory, Israel tightened its blockade and launched [...]" should be restored, linking to the 2023 blockade article. That was part of what happened chronologically.
To trim the third paragraph, the point about scholasticide can probably be removed; the destruction of schools and universities is already mentioned. I feel that using these new -cide terms weakens older words like genocide, etc. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@GeoffreyA: This is a different point. But for the ongoing discussion, do you support restoring the previous structure, which "After clearing militants" is at the end of the second paragraph, which is concerned with how the war started? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been reading and comparing the two versions. The older version, with clearing the militants at the end of the second paragraph, reads more cohesively, being part of the same action, and then the third paragraph flows neatly to the conclusion, so to speak, the situation in Gaza. The newer version, while it is logical---Oct. 7 attack in one paragraph and Gaza in another---there is a break between the paragraphs, jarring on the reader. In my opinion, the older version is more cohesive and I support its being restored. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree about the break between the paragraphs, thanks for noticing. I tried to fix it, so that maybe we get the best aspects from both options. What do you think? Also, to me it seems like chronography of the events is becoming less important with time, so the fact that the bombing campaign started slightly before the ground invation may no longer be worth mentioning in the lede. Heptor (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday, I looked at some of the edits, and it was getting confusing which was better or worse. The current text is economical for the most part. Regarding the chronology, I think it's critical to keep the order intact, though certain events are weightier. Of course, length should be in direct proportion to importance. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@GeoffreyA: thanks, I am still trying to improve it. I would also prefer to keep the chronology, it's just that I find it difficult to separate the events and their order. Specifically, the bombing campaign began before the Hamas-led militants were fully cleared from the Israeli territory, but it did not become one of the most destructive in the modern history until after the invasion. There is a mixup in both versions. I don't have a good solution to this, and I am concerned that it could lead to stiff and convoluted writing. Heptor (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps part of the solution is to remove "After clearing militants from its territory" if it's not that important? That way, the problem about when the bombing began is eliminated. Or changing "After" to "While" or "Whilst." GeoffreyA (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
To me this ordering comes across as the lead, in the sense that tightening a blockade seems relatively much less consequential than launching one of the most destructive bombing campaigns in modern history. Of course I agree that this ordering is chronologically correct, do you think it's more important than emphasizing the more central piece of the story? I fully agree with regards to trimming "scholasticide". Heptor (talk)
Fair enough. Let's leave aside the tightening of the blockade for the time being. But I do note that while the bombing and destruction were the main parts of the war, the blockade was notable, leading to the ongoing problem in the Strip, essentials running out, etc. Of course, that is mentioned lower down. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
We are on the same page then. The blockade is definitely important enough to be mentioned in the lede, but not repetetively. Heptor (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: we are discussing the structure in the comments above. Hopefully we can make something that both has a logical structure and a natural flow, while also presenting the chronology of the events. This is not a straight-forward piece to write. Heptor (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Above where? As mentioned by @GeoffreyA:, we should not be giving undue weight to minor events, which your paragraph restructuring did by moving the start of the invasion to the third paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder to any editor (or editors) who might be t-banned from this page & the topic-in-general. Best to stay clear, so not to risk a block. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Add photo of beheaded child in Rafah massacre?
There was a viral photograph of a beheaded child from the Rafah massacre a week ago. I think it's worth inclusion. I think it's a double standard that in terms of media of visibly deceased bodies, we only have the video of the aftermath of the Hamas operation at the Re'im festival, and nothing for the 15,000 dead Palestinian kids. I don't think the article's choice of images does justice to the unprecedented suffering of civilians in Gaza. A few body bags and airstriked buildings (what we currently have) is not enough. JDiala (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
That is a good question. Wikipedia is not a news or social media platform; you cannot put any photo you'd like on it without proper permission from the photo's author(s). I'm afraid that in this case, it would be very difficult to obtain such permission. Yue🌙02:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Well it would be a kind of rightous comeback for the lies Israel put out about babies - but this is Wikipedia not Instagram. I think the body bags depict what is happening better with the scale of the deaths. An individual death could be from anything. And I also object to the bloody floor photo in the article - that could be from any crime scene - we haven't the foggiest even if it was an Israeli, and it comes from the Israeli government press office. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
What determines weight for wikivoice is not whether there exist some sources for it. WEIGHT requires it to be the dominant way RS describe it. Can you demonstrate that? Consider the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Ukraine, and Africa. SPECIFICOtalk17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Aside from the verification of WEIGHT among RS, the text did not limit it to the 21st century. At least 2 of the US' post WW2 wars were far deadlier. SPECIFICOtalk18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: The Vietnam War for example which lasted 20 years in a country with a then population of 28 million cannot be compared to the ongoing Gaza war. The experts who have characterized the Gaza war as deadliest have taken into consideration the length of the war, the number of the population, the percentage of the casualties, etc.. Do you have any RS refuting this information or making these sort of points to challenge it? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That claim seems unlikely, even calculated as rate of killing.
The Second Congo War certainly had a higher rate; 350,000 killed in three years gives a rate of killing of 320 per day.
The population of Congo in 1998 was 46 million, Ukraine 38 million in 2022, Ethiopia 117 million in 2020, and Sudan 50 million in 2023. Gaza's population is two million. This is clearly an invalid comparison. There is a reason why WP does not allow original research and leaves these kind of information to be formulated by experts and reported in reliable sources, of which the Associated Press is one of the world's most prominent and cited RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
It's our role to assess whether a source is reliable for a specific claim.
However, reviewing the sources the issue doesn't appear to be that they are wrong, but that we are misrepresenting them - they aren't simply saying "deadliest", they are saying "deadliest based on these criteria". If we want to include this information we need to include the full context, although I suspect that would be excessive detail for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
We are not misrepresenting them, the AP article starts with a clear lede without going into details: "JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history." WP reflects RS, and since there are no conflicting RS, we can safely assess that this claim is both reliably sourced and mainstream. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
But again, finding one or several sources does not supporte the inference you propose us to make in wikivoice, that it is the doninant judgment. It's far more important to give our readers description rather than unsettled or dubious evaluation. SPECIFICOtalk20:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
AP 6 April "The Israel-Hamas war has stretched on for half a year and become one of the most destructive, deadly, and intractable conflicts of the 21st century." So they are consistent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This was actually the long-standing version, which I restored, and did not insert. One more time, do you have any RS refuting this information? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
It's important to distinguish between "among the deadliest" and "the deadliest". The RS cited here (and the actual edit that was previously in place) all has the "among" qualifier (or a synonymous variant thereof e.g., "one of the"). @BilledMammal: comparisons to the Congo war etc. are thus not relevant as citing another possibly even deadlier war does imply Gaza isn't among the deadliest wars. I support Makeandtoss' proposal as there are a large number of reliable sources (AP, UN, Oxfam, Al Jazeera etc) making the claim. JDiala (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
"Among the deadliest" is true but also not very informative. Every major conflict has been described this way by the media UkraineEthiopiaYemenSyria. This is also a major conflict, I don't think anyone would dispute that, but it's not evident what additional value this characterisation would have. Alaexis¿question?11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That is the central point. And our multi-generational, diverse readership will date "modern" beginning anywhere from 1900 to 2010. We need to present article text that precludes ambiguity. SPECIFICOtalk12:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
As Shakespeare said, comparisons are odorous. It is difficult to compare one war with another with any great level of accuracy. The Israel–Hamas war is notable for the large number of civilians who have been killed compared to members of Hamas, but it is inviting controversy to say "this is the deadliest".--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The word "modern" is not used by the sources linked by Makeandtoss. It's either "recent" or the more explicit "within the 21st century." The latter is entirely unambiguous. The former ("recent") is slightly ambiguous but not so ambiguous that people would think of Vietnam or WWII. Most standard English speakers would place "recent" as since the 90s at the earliest. In any case, if the word is good enough for a multitude of RS it is good enough for us. It does appear that in the previous version of our article "modern" is used. I'd prefer the more RS-consistent and less ambiguous "recent" or "21st century." JDiala (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not true that "every" major conflict has been described as such. For instance, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or Iran–PJAK conflict are clearly not within the category. It is true that Syria, Yemen and Ukraine are in that category but I'm not sure what that means. If you want to edit the Syrian Civil War article to call it "among the deadliest" as well, I doubt you will hear many objections. The extent, rate and magnitude of killing, especially of civilians, in Gaza is nearly unprecedented and indisputably among the worst in recent history. This has been repeatedly emphasized not just by one sources, but by multiple of the most reliable sources. I am in favour of using wording used by numerous of the most reliable sources. I am also open to honest suggestions on alternative wording which can help us meet half-way. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Consensus?
@JDiala: I that you have restored "deadliest" text to the article, "per discussion." But this discussion has not yet reached any such consensus. Please restore the status quo as we continue to hash this out. SPECIFICOtalk23:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
There wasn't a response in like two days, plus it doesn't seem appropriate that the non-long-standing version is the default during the discussion. But I self-reverted anyway. JDiala (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque
The article currently states that Hamas said that its attack was motivated, in part, by threats to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Was there any substantial threat against the Al-Aqsa mosque, or did Hamas make it up? Heptor (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa is a long standing flashpoint issue, it was a major cause of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, for example. This is well known, I am surprised that you would ask the question, unless it is that you are not really familiar with the conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks user:NadVolum. There is a statement in the lede, "Hamas said its attack [..] was in response to [,among other things,] threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque". The way I read it, it suggests that there were legitimate and perhaps immediate threats to the mosque. It doesn't appear to be the case, and therefore the statement about threats to the mosque in Wikipedia's voice should be made with due reservations. It's hard to be sure of a negative, which is why I asked the question here before editing; I hope this answers your concern, user:Selfstudier. Heptor (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The perceived "threat" is the "risk" of Jews being given equal rights to Muslims to pray at the site (which is holy to both religions)– Hamas believes that only Muslims, and not people of any other religion, should be allowed to pray there. This should probably be made clear. Chessrat(talk, contributions)09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chessrat: so "[perceived] threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque" would be more precisely described as "concerns that Jews and Israelis would be allowed to perform religious ceremonies at the Al-Aqsa Mosque"? Heptor (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That is decidedly a POV construction. The status quo states that Jews are not to pray there, and this has been accepted by the Israeli government since 1967 and has halakhic endorsement- The 'equality' argument was invented quite recently.
It has nothing to do with equality, but a tenuous status quo, which in the past has been challenged constantly in order to create 'facts on the ground' that have always lead to a complete loss of Muslim rights (as at the Western Wall). By analogy, the whole concept of Israel is based on dispensing with 'equality', since it has ethnocratic distinctions inscribed in its foundational document. The church of St.Philip the Apostle in Ortygia is built over an ancient Jewish synagogue. Were someone to say that, given this archaeology and historic association, the Catholics worshipping there should be restricted to a certain age group, that Jews be allowed special praying times inside, that indeed it should be policed by Jews if the inhabitants object, and that diasporic Jews have a right to rebuilt the synagogue in part of the church, they would not be asserting 'equality' in the modern sense, but using 'equality' to claim property rights. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me ask you a different question. Nishidani. If full souvereignity of the Al Aqusa Mosque was given to the PA (or to Joran or Egypt for that matter), so that there would be no risk of further Jewish encroachment; would you then consider it reasonable that Jews should be allowed to perform religious ceremonies there alongside with the Moslems? Heptor (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
No one can stop anyone of any confession visiting a religious site and silently praying in a place traditionally integral to another society's identity and owned by their culture (this is a waqf) . Politically, I don't think it would be sensible to allow Muslims to pray openly (ritually) in the Vatican, nor Christians to pray aloud in Hagia Sophia or Jews to slaughter lambs or recite the Amidah at Al-Aqsa. This was thoroughly understood by the Israeli leadership in 1967, when a rabbi proposed blowing up the whole of Al-Aqsa. It would depend also on the wording. (This is a fundamental issue. Even a misplaced comma (Patrick Wintour,How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah rulingThe Guardian 29 May 2024) can have consequences not foreseen by (at least Palestinian) drafters, as the incompetent underwriters of the Oslo Accords quickly discovered) if Israel were to allow Moslems to pray at the Ḥā'iṭ al-Burāq, which formed part of the Western Wall one would gain some confidence that the kind of accord you suggest might be a rational and functional step forward. Every right puts limits on someone else's power, and every universal right assumes reciprocity. If one claims a right, then that is validated by acknowledging an identical right to all other parties. Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"would you then consider it reasonable that Jews should be allowed to perform religious ceremonies there alongside with the Moslems?" Please refrain from making these kind of unrelated questions as this discussion is not a WP:FORUM. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
It currently IS officially managed by n Jordan? but that doesn't seem to be happening. Is 67 when Jordan took over management from Palestine? No, that doesn't work, because until 67 the West Bank was occupied by Jordan. If there isn't a Wikipedia article with a timeline info graphic of this, then there should be. MWQs (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's attributed now so hopefully the reader will not believe that this is the case just because Hamas said it. Probably it'd be a good idea to do a review of sources and clarify, here or in some other article, that Al-Aqsa has never been in any material danger. The organisations that want to build a third temple there are a fringe of a fringe (see Third_Temple#Modern_rebuilding_efforts). Alaexis¿question?10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa has often been endangered, something signalled when postcards circulated showing the figure of Theodor Herzl looming in the glorious sky over it in the 1920s. It has been the object of several suggestions, and even an attempt or two, to blow it up. The brainless repetition of core words like 'libel' and 'lie' in the trash article you cite fly in the face of a very long and intricate story that is fairly well documented in several wiki articles. Jews are justly proud of their historic memory, and the Muslim experience of how often Al-Aqsa has been exposed to expropriative or usurpating claims and acts is powerful and acutely felt, and should be respected, regardless of what entities like Hamas do with it.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani I heard about a very recent bombing? But I couldn't find anything because all the search terms I could think of are swamped by other stories. MWQs (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(Someone might have already convered this, I've not read the whole thread yet) Religious extremists in Israel (and overseas) want to demonised Al Aqsa to build the third temple on the temple mount, and they've imported five red heifers to prove it. They plan to sacrifice these cows, and then burn them to ash and use it in a ritual to "purify" themselves to.… I am not sure why? I think their ultimate goal is to accelerate the end times. They a bit fringe, but they're being taken increasingly seriously, and they've got as far as importing the special red cows. Also, in 2022 and 2023 Itamar Ben-Gvir et al. led increasingly frequent and aggressive marches into the al Aqsa compound, which included hundreds of settlers. There's a bit of it covered in Far-right politics in Israel. Based on the way Ben Gvir et al. were acting - active and seemingly delicate provocation - a lot of people were expecting an explosive violent response for about a year before one happened. Look at the coverage in Haaretz or Times of Israel from late 2022 and early 2023. I think the temple cult - I'm not shut what they call themselves? - were even at Al-Aqsa on about 4 October. MWQs (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Concern trolling. Headline could have been written as, terrorist use of civilian areas leads to 80% of buildings destroyed or damaged in crossfire. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Not really. They have done controlled demolitions of multiple universities, including universities fully cleared out of militant presence. JDiala (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
There are two other sources for that in the lead, but I agree a special section on the damage is due; it has been reported in numerous sources. For instance [7] describes the destruction of farms and that half the trees have been destroyed so far. NadVolum (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree it need to list damage to housing (on both sides), food production, universities, the archive, cultural heritage sites + competing estimates of % tunnel system destroyed + on the other side, the wall, the surveillance towers, some Kibbutz housing, and police / emergency services communications at Sderot police station, Erez crossing, and I think the base at Nahal Oz and a few others was burnt down? But they were making people work there so much have rebuilt. MWQs (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The following quote in the article Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of attempted or imminent genocide, and several other war crimes implies a false equivalence. The genocide accusation against Israel is far more notable and involves ongoing legal proceedings. The accusation against Hamas is comparatively minor and there is no legal proceeding alleging Hamas is engaged in a genocide. I propose it be changed. JDiala (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It matters in that it refutes your point. There can be no ICJ case against a non-state actor like Hamas, so the absence of such a case says nothing about the strength of the genocide accusation against Hamas.
Certainly the genocide accusation against Israel gets much more coverage, but I think that stems from one accusation being actionable (with legal actions which are having real impact) and the other not. — xDanielxT/C\R00:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If one accusation gets much more coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:OR and a violation of WP:NPOV to say that that's for unrelated reasons and position the accusations as parallel. Loki (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR is about content we publish though, not about editorial judgement calls related to the application of policies, which we sometimes have to make e.g. in the context of WP:FRINGE. — xDanielxT/C\R02:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn't refute the point. Wikipedia includes views depending on their notability. The underlying reasons for that notability don't matter. You're tacitly trying to appeal to some notion of fairness based on your personal opinion, namely that Wikipedia should be fair in its treatment of allegations of state actors versus non-state actors unlike the ICJ. This is not this project. JDiala (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
My point was mainly just that "ongoing legal proceedings" shouldn't be a factor here, since that's a matter of ICJ jurisdiction.
WP:Notability doesn't apply to content, there isn't a rule against including non-notable content in an article. WP:PROPORTION is related and does apply to content, but allegations of genocide on Hamas' part are only briefly mentioned in passing, so it doesn't seem like they're given too much weight. — xDanielxT/C\R02:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This is based on a misconception that only the ICJ can declare an act to be a genocide. That's incorrect – other bodies can do it, too, and anyway see Tamil genocide and the related deletion discussion. Primarily, the issue is about accusations, not about a court case, and about FALSEBALANCE present in that sentence. — kashmīrīTALK07:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your point, the original argument here seemed to be about ICJ case. If there are separate declarations of genocide which have received significant coverage, that could be relevant, though it would be a separate point. — xDanielxT/C\R19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hamas can be brought to the ICC though, and pretty much has been. The warrant drafts are out already, and genocide isn't a listed crime. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hamas' genocide allegations are small. Israel and John Kirby (U.S. official policy is that it wasn't genocide) say Hamas had genocidal intent, and that's not fully saying it was genocide. Some academics say it was, I guess. But most sources don't really discuss the issue, and the ICJ case got way more attention. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's pretty classic false balance. It's also just pandering to a POV. Only Israel and its political supporters have seriously made this counter claim, which is clearly a DARVO tactic aimed at diluting the charges through false equivalence. It is not a claim repeated by human rights bodies or genocide experts. It fails the basic smell test entirely. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes, including genocide.
I didn't add this to the article but I understood it to mean that both have been accused of war crimes, not that both have been accused of genocide. Ben Azura (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Title moratorium
Has expired, so this issue may be revisited and given all the developments, I think should be, at any time.
It doesn't expire for another two weeks; while the moratorium discussion was closed three months ago, the closer specified that it was to go into effect upon the conclusion of the current RM. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I support changing the title to Israel-Gaza war (2023-present). It should have been done long ago. Unbandito (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
OMG yes. This. These "war on Hamas", "war on terror", "war on drugs" framings are so absurd. That's not how wars work. We (thankfully) didn't go along with Russia's "special operation to denazify Ukraine" propaganda renaming but here Wikipedia messed up. And more people died. Jikybebna (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
While I think the current name is inadequate, the idea that Wikipedia's framing had any measurable impact on how many people died is presuming this site has more power than it actually does. RM (Be my friend) 07:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Support change to Israel–Gaza war (2023–present) or simply Israel–Gaza war. RS is pretty split on describing it as Israel–Hamas and Israel–Gaza war, but otherwise describe it as the Gaza war for shorthand (rather than Hamas war or Israel war), which helps to sway my opinion on titling it as such. There are also other belligerents involved in this war, so Israel–Hamas war simply isn't accurate anymore. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I find this an acceptable alternative, but I think Israel-Gaza war is more technically correct since this is the only of the century's Gaza wars with a substantial, organized Palestinian advance into Israel. Unbandito (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, at this point it's difficult to justify characterizing this as just Israel v. Hamas... not only because of the sheer amount of non-combatants being killed and civilian targets being destroyed, but also because, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of sources demonstrating that Hamas aren't even the only combatants on the Palestinian side. Actually, given the annexations, escalations, and sporadic fighting in the West Bank (such as described in [1]), it's difficult for me, personally, to even say this is just Israel v. Gaza, but that at least is far more accurate given the amount of belligerent parties than "Israel-Hamas War." If there are sources saying it's an "Israel-Palestine War" then I might support that, though given the comparatively smaller scale of what's going on in the West Bank, I would understand if others opposed. Gaza War (2023–2024) would be perfectly fine. Albert Mond (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Support I previously argued against the change but have changed my position especially in light of the ICC allegations. Clear at this point that the war is being waged against the people of Gaza. JDiala (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
