Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Nature of Palestinian attacks

There is basically nothing in this article as to the nature of the Palestinian attacks. Thay should be characterized properly as surprise attacks against Israeli civilians. It might be going to far to describe them as "cowardly". However, it should certainly be clear that they were unprovoked surprise attacks aimed not at the IDF, or at least not only at the IDF, but primarily at civilians. TiltonHilton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

They have specifically taken over military bases and captured soldiers, so that is not a correct assessment. And "unprovoked" is the overstatement of the ages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas militants gunned down civilians intentionally. These attacked were not against the IDF - they were trying to kill Israelis whether they were soldiers or not. TiltonHilton (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned. Their targets are mainly military and directed at the IDF but there have been civilian casualties (Re’im massacre). This isn’t just hamas though, basically all of Gaza is invading with various militias so it’s best not to put the blanket of “hamas” over all of them, which is what the IDF is doing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I understand Hamas interviews they seem to insist that there are no civilians in Israel, only settlers, which they say allows them to attack them. Borgenland (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The rationale, whatever people think of it, is that all Israelis have served in the IDF and are eligible for call-up as part of the reserves, so therefore "all Israelis are soldiers". For what it's worth, Israel considers all men from 18-60 that they kill to be "terrorists" so Israel does the exact same thing. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting that second statement? eyal (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The targets weren't mainly military. The Palestinian terrorist groups carried out massacres at several kibbutzim & a music festival. The large majority of the people whom they killed were civilians. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

TiltonHilton it would be actually appropriate to call these attacks "cowardly" with attribution and probably in the reactions section. For example, "X condemned the attacks as 'cowardly'."VR _talk 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

“Unprovoked” surely they just attacked Israel out of the blue, surely Israel had not done anything the Palestinians to warrant all of this The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

These people hate Palestinians and think that Israel should "get rid of them", so of course they do things like ignore the entire history of the conflict. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and what did those music festival goers do to provoke Hamas? Were they firing missiles into Gaza in between DJs? Beating up Palestinian children in the moshpit? 2604:3D08:7F7D:54C0:99EB:132D:7DCC:B5B (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Don’t even bother, these dudes will do anything to distance Hamas from their obvious barbarism. HailSatanLightbringer (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Did I mention the massacres specifically at all? He also claims it wasn’t against the IDF when many of the targets were The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria By your faulty logic, nothing can be "unprovoked" because there is always some historical antecedent. For instance, Nazi Germany was "provoked" by the European powers due to the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. If we pursue that logic, we cannot truly hold anyone accountable for committing atrocities because someone else always "started it". Users who can't put forth a serious argument or counterargument should recuse themselves from this discussion. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t even know if I’m supposed to be on the talk page, every day I get told aboout 14 new Wikipedia policies but I’ll say this: is the 20 year old harsh treaty in any way comparable to what Israel has done to Gaza in the same period? I’m not just talking about hamas like people try to put in my mouth, I’m talking about the strip in general The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That comparison is irrelevant because the example I gave merely serves to illustrate a point, which is that anyone can deny accountability by claiming that they were provoked by someone else. The PA in Gaza can launch any attack on Israel and claim that it was provoked by years of occupation or this or that event; literally, they can cherry-pick the most convenient event to justify their attack. And we would of course have to accept it as a statement of motive, but we cannot accept at face value that something was "unprovoked" just because a justification was provided. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo correction: "cannot accept at face value that something was "provoked" just because..." 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Then the Napoleonic wars would have been a better example of your point than Nazi Germany… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously not unprovoked, but "reliable sources" call it that, so that's what Wikipedia shall call it too. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that it's "obviously not unprovoked" is not backed by any evidence or argumentation. Perhaps you should reflect on why "reliable sources" call it "unprovoked", considering that they choose their words carefully. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The argumentation here is that the context of sanctuary violations that took place in the days that preceded the attacks, the calls for humanitarian prisoners action that were met by denial, and by the violence that Palestinians are facing, provide grounds that the attacks are not unprovoked. Talalnablus (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The provocation isn't just something that happened in the past. Israel was and still is actively engaged in an occupation and blockade. Awjohns5 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence for your claim that the attacks where "unprovoked"? I know so little about this whole situation. Most of my evidence is from my mother who worked for the UN which is obviously second hand information, but from what I know Israel has been withholding a lot from the Palestinians and most of this war started because Israel was attempting to get a hold of Palestine. I know that Palestine has committed a lot of atrocities as well, but I very much don't believe these attacks were "unprovoked". But this is all from second hand information so a source to give me more context would be wonderful! House in the trees (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of provocation is challenging to provide, since it is in the eye of the provoked, not the provoker.

For example, when a dog bares his teeth and attacks a human being, the human may have tried to hurt the dog, or the human may have been approaching to give the dog food.

The main provocation you mention - "Israel was attempting to get a hold of Palestine" is way beyond the scope of this little "talk" box. And if I may suggest, in order to get a better understanding of the geo-political reality in this tiny area of the world within the context of world history, to start with the article on the Holy Land, and from there learn about the never-ending wars fought over this area of the world.

In this current war, all that can be provided on the issue of "provocation" is provide a list of excuses the Hamas has used historically to attack Israel and it's people.

1. Israel jails murderers, or people who tried to murder others. Some of these prisoners have been tagged by Hamas as "freedom fighters" and call their incarceration a provocation. This is their main excuse for the current atrocities.
2. The holiest site for Jews, and one of the holiest sites for Muslims, sits on top of a relatively modest hill in the Judean hills. The Muslims call this site "Al-Aqsa", and claim that the State of Israel is limiting access to this site. The wiki article on this issue is in Temple Mount entry restrictions

Ettig65 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we state this was terrorism in wiki voice?

The lead currently says:

Hamas' initial offensive is considered to be the deadliest non-state act of terrorism in Israeli history, as well as the second-deadliest event of that kind worldwide, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks in the United States

This takes as fact that the Palestinian offensive is an act of terrorism. While it is considered so by Israel, the US and many other countries, I think such an assertion is POV and requires attribution. (The assertion above is also inaccurate, because ISIL's Camp Speicher massacre has a higher death toll than all the total Israeli dead so far, which is around 900).VR _talk 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not any other official body. Thats POV.

At the very least one can Put a note that it was certain media or poticians. Eu/c explicitly did NOT say it. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s only “terrorism” if Arabs do to. When Israel does it Wikipedia editors will whitewash it and simply call it an “airstrike” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Apart from MOS:TERRORIST, here is the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided  :

"The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group.

Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance.

"It is not helpful to use the term 'terrorism' in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians," he said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.VR _talk 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The conflict has if anything only better exemplified the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exhibited by Western governments in their inability to condemn both sides without equivocation. In a world where Hamas are unequivocally terrorists, Israel's generals are unequivocally war criminals. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH and Wikipedia is WP:NOTRIGHT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The crux here is the notion that Israel "is frequently forced to attack civilian locations" - no, it is not; that is their claim and their rhetoric, but it has been shown frequently in Gaza that many targets have been unevidenced as places with any military function. Both sides exhibit war criminality. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

THIS IS ARABS 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:194E:592:461E:104 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What else do you call the beheading of children, the murder if innocent families, and the burning alive of civilians? To me that is a clearcut case of terrorism. Full stop. 149.97.165.53 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Beheading of children based on no sources, no bodies of decapitated children, not a video or even a single of photo of the supposed slaughter?

I’ll tell you, it’s called “misinformation” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I do want to point out that false claims of atrocities on children have been used as propaganda and resulted in war in the past. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is regularly described as a terror attack in mainstream Swedish news coverage, (as well as in both right- and left-leaning news commentary). See e.g. [1][2][3][4]. St.nerol (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an act of terrorism by any definition of the word, there is no POV about it. When your attack intentionally targets civilians, it's terrorism. If we can't agree on that then 9/11 is a matter of POV as well. 2A0D:6FC2:6B71:3D00:50E7:51D1:83CF:C354 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That depends on whether RS do so, and they do: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli dead is 1,300 so far 46.117.238.105 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Background on prisoners

I added a section on Palestinian prisoners, that includes the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, Hamas statement that they abducted Israelis so they could exchange them, and Hamas' previous abduction of Gilad Shalit and the subsequent prisoner exchange. Most of the sources I used mention these facts in their own reporting of this conflict. Is there any issues with covering this in the background? VR _talk 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Noticing this claim by Hamas on the page is fine, but it does not mean we should include such large sub-section in "Background". As written, this sounds like a justification of the hostage-taking by Hamas. When the actual process of prisoner exchange will begin, we can include such info in the section about prisoners exchange. In brief, this is hardly relevant in that section and therefore reads as anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

THEY Justified. Its the point (or one off) for crossing the strip to do so. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that by making such large irrelevant subsection in this place, we make the point that the vengeance/hostage taking by Hamas was just. To be clear, this info is well-sourced. It just should not be in that section right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not for us to OR. That is what the actors in the situation literally said and sourced by him above. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I just said above, this is not OR. This is merely an irrelevant information, clearly placed to paint Israel in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: we can't exclude information from a page simply because it "paint Israel in a negative light" as wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We similarly wouldn't exclude any information that painted the Palestinians in a bad light. We state the facts.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is information on Palestinian prisoners in Israel relevant? Yes, as various RS have covered Palestinian prisoners in the context of this conflict:

• Al Jazeera: "Four in 10 Palestinian men spend time in Israel jails. Hamas says it wants to exchange captured Israelis for them."
• CBC News: "[Islamic Jihad] said hostages would not be released until all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are freed, referring to Israel's detention of over 1,200 prisoners, mostly Palestinians, without charges."
• The Economist: "Before October 7th Hamas held just two Israeli captives, plus the bodies of two soldiers killed during the 2014 war. Now it has scores of them, both alive and dead. Addameer, a Palestinian ngo, estimates 5,200 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, including more than 1,200 in so-called “administrative detention”—held without charge."
• Washington Post: "Hamas already has said it seeks the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails — some 4,500 detainees, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem — in exchange for the Israeli captives. The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has. Israel sees them as terrorists, but Palestinians view detainees as heroes."
• BBC News: "Such incursions would give ample opportunity to capture Israeli officers and soldiers...According to the latest report by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, there were 4,499 Palestinians in prison on what Israel defined as “security” grounds in June. That number included 183 from the Gaza Strip. Several hundred more are being held for illegally being inside Israel."
• Reuters: "The Palestinian Prisoners Association puts the number held in Israeli jails at about 5,250. If Israel agreed to releasing all of them, it would be a huge win for Hamas and other militant groups..."
• Al-Ahram: (published on 9 october) "Since 1967, Israel has detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including tens of thousands of children. Currently, there are 5,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Among them, 160 children and around 1,100 detainees are held without charge or trial, according to a UN report."
• NY Times "Thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, many of them convicted of security offenses or involvement in terrorism. Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, cited the detention of thousands of Palestinian militants in Israeli jails as one of the reasons for Saturday’s assault."
• Middle East Eye: "In Palestine, the fate of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel is also an important issue, increasingly so under the most far-right government in Israel's history. Over the past year, Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has sought to clamp down on the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. From limiting family visits to moving dozens of Palestinians to Nafha prison, widely considered to be one of the most notorious in the country, Ben Gvir has adopted a policy of making the lives of Palestinian prisoners incrementally more difficult. There are around 5,200 political prisoners in Israeli jails, including more than 1,264 administrative detainees, according to Palestinian rights group Addameer. Under Israel's discriminatory system, Palestinians tried in military courts have a conviction rate of 99.7 percent, while Israelis are very rarely convicted over attacks on Palestinians. About a quarter of Palestinian prisoners are held without charge or trial in a controversial practice known as "administrative detention"."
• ABC News: "[ Mustafa Barghouti said 'Hamas is ready to release all the civilians, all the women in exchange for releasing 40 Palestinian women who are in Israeli prisons. I think it will be time to release the 5,300 Palestinians who are in Israeli prisons, including some who have been there for 44 years' "

So I think its fair to say that the issue of Palestinian prisoners is relevant to this topic.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I've also added the Israeli POV to that section. I had previously not done that, that was my mistake. I've added that many of the prisoners were convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and that while Palestinians view some of the prisoners as heroes, Israelis view them as terrorists.VR _talk 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure, this info is sourced, exactly as I said above. This is not an issue. And yes, painting Israel in a highly negative light (it seems we both agree about it) is not a reason for removal. The reason for removal is different: such info (whole big subsection) is hardly relevant for the Background. This page is about Israel-Hamas conflict and Gaza. The included text is about some generic Palestinian prisoners, not Hamas members (that would be more relevant). In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion. Such info can be provided in a relevant section about prisoners exchange (if there will be one), not as a part of the general Background about this conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion." Shouldn't all major aspects of the invasion be discussed?

"The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly?" The connection is that Hamas took prisoners as bargaining chips in a possible prisoner exchange. Whether that prisoner exchange happens or not is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that 100+ Israelis have already been abducted for a particular goal.

Except for that last sentence (which we can drop if you like), all the other sentences are about events that happened before the invasion, hence appropriate for "background".

But the most important thing is that dozens of RS treat this information as relevant background to the war. So I don't understand why you're going against them?VR _talk 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I saw you moved the content to "Palestinian reaction" section. This really isn't the right place at all, as of the above 10 RS I quoted, only 1 is based on Palestinian sources. And none of this is a "reaction" given that its covering events preceding the war.VR _talk 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Going through the sources listed here, adding some lines about the prisoners, as the bargaining chips would be a development. I prefer the text to be the source voice, not solely what Hamas states. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I just tried to follow the edits. @MVBW: the added portion is certainly not a reaction, as your edit implies. They are portrayed as a background by the utilized sources. Is there any substantiated objection against inclusion of this introductory text? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The text includes the following: Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. This is an important part of it because it connects the entire text to the subject of the page. But this is not Background. This is a claim/reaction by Hamas made after the attack [16]. Therefore, I object including this to Background section. Some other sections - I am not sure. Yes, if it fits context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But I already accepted that Hamas' reaction should be in the Reactions section, but the rest of the text should be in the Background section. Consider that Washington Post [points out that "The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has." This is referring to a long-term trend in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not just a reaction to the current events.

Secondly, roots of a conflict are always put in the background. Consider Six-Day War#Background or 2014 Gaza War#Background (which mentions the prisoner issue, albeit to a much lesser extent since no Israelis were captured by Hamas during that war).VR _talk 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the article in WaPo and this page. The article in WaPo is written on a different subject: the hostages. If this WP page was about hostages, then yes, such background info would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[17]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").

Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS required to have this claim in the lead.VR _talk 22:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid speclative accusations.

The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [18]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR _talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not speculation, it's political propaganda.

Hamas is an extremist sunni organisation, that get support from wahhabi states. Iran is extremist shia.

Hamas doesn't get anything from Iran.

Iran has it's own organization in Gaza, the islamic jihad. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([19]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR _talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack, whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[20]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?

Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR _talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Economist has reported today that both Hamas and the IDF deny direct Iranian involvement in the initial attack, notwithstanding Iran's general support for Hamas. [21]

I think the IDF denial in particular ought to be included in the article alongside the Hamas and Iranian denials. It is relevant that both sides are in agreement. Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you, IDF's POV should be taken into account, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

XavierItzm: Where's the so-called interview with BBC? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Twice the BBC has reported that Hamas told it Iran helped it with the attacks. Please observe the BBC remains a WP:RS and therefore there is no need to qualify its reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm There is something odd about this BBC quote. Firstly, they don't actually give a verbatim quote of what Hamad said and in what context. "Backing" can mean anything, from active involvement to abetting to moral support. I wasn't able to find audio or video either. But what gives me even more pause is that the BBC itself withdrew the claim from its dedicated article on the question of Iranian involvement. Have a look at the earliest and latest versions of this article in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67058244 The earliest version contains the claim; the latest does not. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh! Great catch! That right there is proof of the desperate interference being run to disassociate Iran from the situation, most likely by the US government. Amusing: Rule, Britannia! But interesting as your find is, that's not the reference being used. The references are listed above, are currently available on the BBC, and are not being ghost-edited. So use them! XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that BBC article is not the reference currently being used in the article. But it is a more recent and arguably more authoritative BBC article covering that question than our current BBC sources:

• Paul Adams, Did Iran support plan for attack on Israel?, BBC, October 9, 2023 (current version, without Ghazi Hamad reference to Iran's backing).

Here are the archived versions:

• October 9, with Hamad
• October 11, without Hamad

If the BBC still stood by what they published on October 7, October 8 and October 9, why delete it a couple of days later?

Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. The BBC might have withdrawn the statement because they felt it was being misinterpreted. They might have withdrawn it because whoever first paraphrased Hamad did a poor job. (It's really unfortunate that they didn't quote him verbatim, and don't seem to have published the actual audio/video of Hamad). Or Hamad might well have said explicitly that Iran helped with planning etc., and all of this is, like you say, an attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube to avoid further escalation. What do you think, Vice regent?

For what it's worth, I have contacted Paul Adams on Twitter to ask about the deletion. If he replies, I'll report back. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul Adams is mainly relying on WSJ, right? I think WSJ's allegations should be included, but only in article not in lead, along with plenty of evidence we have against WSJ allegations coming not just from Hamas and Iran, but also from Israel and the US.VR _talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here's my take on this:
first, the Paul Adams article may be intended to be more authoritative. However, it has been shadow-edited, which (when other publications do it) is ground for Wikipedia demerits and inclusion on its "Perennial Sources" little black list of unwelcome media, deprecated or otherwise less worthy media. Therefore, I would extend that criterium and say: well, this here Paul Adams article is not very reliable, and so it can't be considered "authoritative" for this page.
Second, this here late Paul Adams article fails to deny that Ghazi Hamad said what he said on two BBC articles which remain published. The fact it fails to deny can only mean one thing: it takes it as good. Analogy: Adams also fails to deny the Earth is round in this article, so whether the article is "authoritative" or not, it simply has no beef with the Earth being round, and with Ghazi Hamad having said what Ghazi Hamad said.
Third, the Wall Street Journal agreed with the two BBC articles and with Ghazi Hamad, reporting: "Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas [...] A European official and an adviser to the Syrian government, however, gave the same account of Iran’s involvement in the lead-up to the attack as the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members".
Look, at the end of the day, we should not do WP:OR. The facts are that you have two BBC articles and one WSJ stating the exact same (plus, the WSJ cites a European official!) and traditionally these are considered silver-plated WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle that WSJ and BBC are unimpeachable RS, it is possible that the BBC felt obliged to remove the claim taken from the WSJ story after questions were raised about its probity. For example, a former Reuters exec publicly accused the WSJ reporter of fabricating the story:[22]. Of course, X is not a source, and this doesn't mean we can disregard the WSJ. Just context. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 Thanks, interesting. Andreas JN466 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It's partly circular. On Oct. 8 the WSJ stated A spokesman for Hamas, Ghazi Hamad, told the BBC that the militant group had received support from its ally Iran for its surprise attacks on Israel. This was based on the Oct. 7 BBC article saying Ghazi Hamad had told the BBC Hamas had backing (whatever that was supposed to mean) from Iran. Adams, largely summarising the WSJ claims, first included and then quietly deleted (or had his editor delete) the BBC statement about Hamas that the WSJ had repeated.

I am just wondering how confidently we should assert in our article that Hamad told the BBC Hamas had direct backing from Iran, given that –

• no BBC article ever marked any of this as a direct quote,
• we don't have audio or video,
• the statement was later quietly deleted from the Adams article.

My feeling is we should follow the approach of CNBC (cited in the article), who put a "reportedly" into their sentence ("reportedly told the BBC"). Regards, Andreas JN466 00:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your precision. But, "reportedly told the BBC" what? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein The current article wording is:

Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;, and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.

I find that statement too strong, and too keen to leave the reader with the impression it is established that Iran planned this. Moreover, we seem to have lost the statement from US officials and Blinken disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal. Andreas JN466 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Andreas, the word "support" can mean lots of things, including merely verbal support. Without additional details it is impossible to tell. Generally, in-depth and comprehensive coverage is preferable to sources that make drive-by remarks without clarifying what exactly they mean. So far we only have WSJ as the source of these claims (one of the BBC articles is nothing but a regurgitation of the WSJ article).VR _talk 06:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent We are in agreement here. But we have been prominently featuring Ghazi Hamad's statement in the article for days now, and it seems to me we are making a poor source do a lot of work here. Remember, he is the only named source in our article for this entire Iranian conspiracy theory which – for what it's worth – has been roundly contradicted by Blinken and other US officials who have been saying they have seen no evidence of Iranian involvement. Andreas JN466 13:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there may be audio. Apparently, Hamad spoke to Newshour. Checking. Andreas JN466 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Great catch, Andreas. Are you checking the BBC archives for the Newshour audio? I really don't want to have use a VPN and sign up for BBC services. But let me know... XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the interview. Time code 20:15. My transcript:

Hamad: You forget that thousands of Palestinians were killed in Gaza, civilians, women and children. We were fighting for 75 years during occupation, but no one listened to us. PLO had long negotiations with Israel, but Israel continue to do all kinds of crimes. The international community should focus the occupation, which ist the longest occupation in the world …

BBC presenter: And how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?

Hamad: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Other countries they help us, either with money, or with weapons, with political support, with everything, it is alright, to do that.

@Vice regent, Mhhossein, and XavierItzm: Thoughts? Andreas JN466 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That Iran funds Hamas in general is well known. There is nothing specific there about the Oct 7 attack. That would be as misleading as including all countries which sell weapons to Israel as being involved in this war.VR _talk 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no circularity. Do not conflate the small articlet ("card", the WSJ calls it) you cited above, where the WSJ merely reports on what the BBC reported, with the full in-depth WSJ article, with 3 authors, which not only cites Hamas sources, but also European and Syrian officials, and which furthermore locates the Iran-Hamas planning meetings in Beirut "since August" and which does not cite the BBC at all. Also,
◉ Since when do we demand audio or video from the BBC as proof of BBC reporting?,
◉ Two BBC articles currently include the Hamas statements.
Vice regent, can you explain your assertion "we only have WSJ as the source" when there are two BBC articles currently available on the BBC site for the statement? XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only named source is Ghazi Hamad. The October 7 BBC article said, A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel. That was then reported by others – CNBC e.g. said, Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, reportedly told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Iranian security officials helped with the planning and approved the attack at a meeting in Beirut last Monday. The long Wall Street Journal article you mention (archived here, for reference) does not mention Ghazi Hamad or the BBC at all. It only cites unnamed "senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah", and a "European official and an adviser to the Syrian government". As far as I can see, everybody else just reported what the WSJ (and BBC) said. Andreas JN466 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Because one of the BBC articles simply says Iran "supports" the attacks without specifying whether this support is merely verbal or material. If it meant material it would have provided some details, so it appears to be merely verbal.VR _talk 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Jayen466's transcript of the BBC interview confirms that Hamas didn't say Iran was involved in this attack.VR _talk 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The interviewer asks "how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?" and Ghazi Hamad responds: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Then the BBC twice further reports this fact. Then The WSJ reports that the planning for the attacks was jointly held in Beirut by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and this is confirmed by Europeans and by Syrians. It's all quite clear. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

You need to mention in the infobox that the vast majority of the 900+ dead in Israel are non-combatant civilians

It's crucial information in understanding these statistics. Fewer than 100 of them are military-affiliated. This was a massacre against civilians in Israel.

This is especially necessary since it is mentioned that the 1,500 dead from Palestine were militants. 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to back this up. I'm not disputing it, it's just how Wikipedia works. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is IDF spoksperson's update on national TV (Kan11) from 2.5 hours ago, stating the number of IDF casualties is 123. The general number of confirmed casualties is at the moment above 900.

https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1711651520628859274?t=fGmiSU3inGLE06gLRRtNFA&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the whole casualties section of the wikibox should be divided into civilian/military but would have to find enough reliable sources to do so. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It's misleading to have such all-inclusive casualty figures under the lists of combatants, it's not moral practice on war articles. Maybe put a disclaimer e.g. (includes civilians) until the figures can be split authoritatively. ----Pontificalibus 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to highlight a larger problem with framing this article (and naming it) the "2023 Israel-Hamas War"—for example, virtually none of the Israeli dead thus far, including the majority of the IDF personnel killed, appear to have been war "combatants" in any typical sense of the word.

Our encyclopedia currently has a 13,000-word article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine but only an 8,000-word article on the Russo-Ukrainian War—and that's a "typical" international war!

I'm no expert on Wikipedia article structure, but it's obvious the Hamas attacks weren't exactly the first salvo in any kind of typical war—which almost certainly explains why the majority of our September 11 attacks article isn't simply folded into our article on the War on terror.

Shouldn't most of this article should be titled and framed "2023 Hamas Terror Attack on Israel"—with a small portion of it in a different article with its current title, that can then explicate any actual "Israel-Hamas War" that follows the terror attacks?

Curious to know everyone's thoughts!

ElleTheBelle 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the idea that casualties need to be as specific as reasonable: their age (children/adults), the manner (solider fighting, hostage execution, etc) and time they died (what phase of the conflict) as well as their status (civ/sol) are cats that should be considered. But however they end up being grouped a reader should clearly understand what any statistic represents. Footnotes are great.  // Timothy :: talk  06:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I also agree that the casualties need to be described with specifics. Civilians and Soldiers are very different targets. WonderCanada (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of "hostages" in the lede - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (4)

Change "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip" to "Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants and transported to the Gaza Strip" or to "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

The sentence is grammatically awkward in its current form, and the use of the term "hostages" to describe soldiers captured in combat is questionable in my view. Moreover, Wikipedia does not use this term to refer to Palestinians held in Israeli jails and prisons. More importantly, reliable sources are drawing the distinction:

Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

Haaretz: According to Benn, "... Now this is first and foremost an attack against civilians, and for the first time we have dozens of military prisoners of war and civilians taken hostage in Gaza."

"... The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war are perceived as a powerful bargaining chip that could prevent a much longer campaign."

Forbes: Hamas Takes Israeli Soldiers, Civilians As Prisoners Of War

-- WillowCity (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose the following to avoid labels altogether, as, no matter how you phrase it, including both "prisoners of war" and "hostage" in the sentence makes it clunky:

"Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, were captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

An example of a more clunky proposal which is more in the spirit of yours is:

Israeli soldiers and civilians had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip as prisoners of war and hostages, respectively.

Yue🌙 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Both are better than my original suggestion. I like the former: tidy, factual, and neutral. WillowCity (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the proposal is. The captured soldiers are called "prisoners of war" and captured civilians are hostages. This is how sources describe them and there is nothing unclear or controversial here. Alaexis_¿question? 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree and think the change should be made posthaste. Someone has already changed the sentence without changing the reference to "hostages" (so clearly there is little interest in building a consensus based on reasoned argument), nor has anyone mounted a cogent defence of the term's use here.

I would also refer to the Guardian article cited at the end of the sentence described above, which reads:

An unknown number of Israelis have been taken captive by fighters, with unverified social media footage showing elderly people and a young woman with her hands tied inside Gaza. The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.

So, from the article that is referenced, we have the IDF using the term "hostages" while the RS uses the term "captive". Something needs to change here. WillowCity (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with @WillowCity. Riposte97 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Riposte97!

The sentence just keeps getting worse and worse, not better. It now refers to "women and children", adding further ambiguity: female IDF soldiers are prisoners of war; female civilians are not.

Can someone please just make this change? I'm trying to restore WP:NPOV but clearly people would rather make discreet, polarizing changes without consensus rather than presenting a reasoned argument about why soldiers captured in combat should not be called prisoners of war. WillowCity (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your reasoned arguments would fall under WP:NOR, or WP:SYNTH or something. You'll need to find a "reliable source" explicitly making the same argument as you.

Of course, that's neither necessary nor sufficient. What you really need is to convince someone with enough power who can then make whatever changes he or she wishes. The WP:NPOV thing is just a fig leaf. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, thanks for saying it out loud lol. I don't see how what I'm doing is original research or synthesis; the Haaretz article I cited above draws the distinction for us ("The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war..."). But again, this is clearly a matter of optics, not the correct or fair or obvious application of WP policies. WillowCity (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It's incongruous to refer to captured soldiers as 'hostages', as the article currently does. I think we have consensus for the change, and the sources seem to support the distinction. Would you care to insert one of your suggested sentences, @Yue? Riposte97 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Yue🌙 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not be removing the fact of women and children being taken hostage from the lede, as it's one of the most salient aspects of this event as mentioned in RS. Andre🚐 03:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a lot of detail for the lede, and the sentence already links to an article about the captive civilians. Also raises questions about NPOV to elaborate on the identities of Israeli civilians in the intro without doing the same for Palestinian civilians (such as the women and children of Gaza), who are also specifically referred to in RS (Reuters, ABC, Sky News). As it stands, the lede doesn't even specifically mention Palestinian civilian casualties, just civilian casualties generally. Imprisoning civilians without trial (whether by blockading them in an open air prison or kidnapping them) is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention in any case. So the change is unnecessary. Should be reverted to Yue's version. WillowCity (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur that @Yue's version is preferable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing hostages from the lead misses several aspects. 1) the animating reason for the siege. 2) by all means add the retaliation by Israeli troops. 3) This is the major aspect all RS mention on both sides. Andre🚐 05:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yue perhaps you might also considering changing "abducted" and "hostage" in the infobox, for the reasons set out above?

So, under "Status", instead of "Approximately 200 Israeli and foreign hostages taken by Palestinian militants", something like "[#] Israeli and foreign nationals captured by ..." or some other, more neutral synonym for "capture" ("seized", "taken captive").

And under "casualties and losses", instead of "200+ abducted" (a figure which I note is based not on any English language source, but on a Ynet article in Hebrew), something like "[#] taken captive".

Better still, I think both of the above should also be disambiguated to the extent possible based on reliable sources. If we absolutely must describe soldiers and civilians the same way, we should at least do so in neutral language.

As the above revision was accepted, I think the infobox should be changed quickly while discussion (if any) unfolds here.

More sources for the "hostage/POW" distinction (although NPOV supersedes RS):

CNN (quoting an IDF spokesperson); Al Jazeera ("a yet unknown number of prisoners and hostages, believed to be over 100, including foreign nationals"); WaPo ("The actual number of people taken hostage and soldiers taken prisoner..."). WillowCity (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:SPADE Andre🚐 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not according to CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, the Washington Post, and IDF Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari. WillowCity (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Mischaracterization and original WP:SYNTH of the sources. Andre🚐 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

uh, I don't see what I'm synthesizing or mischaracterizing... I'm saying that we should refer to captive soldiers and civilians separately, and citing articles that refer to captive soldiers and civilians separately. "Synthesis" would be questioning the source's characterization based on an uncited personal opinion (see your comment above for a good example). WillowCity (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't question any source. Most sources use the term "hostage," so it wouldn't be removed. You came up with some logic based on sentence construction. Andre🚐 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You questioned the sources when you said that they were not "calling a spade a spade". The sources say what they say, no miracle of interpretation can turn a bare recitation of a source into synthesis. And regardless, WP:NPOV is clear: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines [i.e., RS], nor by editor consensus." Emphasis in original. All due respect, of course. WillowCity (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the sources are fine; I am saying the article needs to call them hostages. Of course NPOV is non-negotiable. It's perfectly NPOV to say Hamas took a bunch of innocent Israeli teenagers and grandmothers hostage. Andre🚐 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, specifying that they have grandchildren is very neutral and encyclopedic. Again, my objection is not to describing civilian captives as hostages, it's the failure to describe POWs as POWs. So, unless the IDF has child soldiers I haven't heard about, you're setting fire to a strawman. WillowCity (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree on "prisoners and hostages" as the wording (versus simple "captives")... anything else we need to discuss? I wasn't implying "grandmothers," was the term to use. Andre🚐 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope. We have different views of what neutrality means in this context, but I assume it is what we both want. WillowCity (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources which make the distinction can't be used to support proposals that makes no distinction , like describing everyone as "captured". Al Jazeera's wording ("prisoners and hostages") works. DFlhb (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. WillowCity (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that works for me. Andre🚐 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

War crimes

This revert restores material that does not mention war crimes and the edit summary given is OR (editors opinion that these are war crimes). Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This material is well-sourced and describes actions that are internationally recognized as being war crimes. The material was removed by an editor whose explanation for the removal is OR (their opinion that it is not a war crime). parqs (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my opinion, it's just not in the source, the source has to say it's a war crime or attribute someone as saying it is a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the section with a new sentence that contains sources for the events described in the paragraph as being described as war crimes, negating any OR concerns. parqs (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think what parqs added might be WP:SYNTH that goes like this:

• Palestinians are accused of raping Israeli women.
• Rape is a war crime.
• Therefore Palestinians committed war crimes.

Such an analysis needs to come from an RS (preferably an RS which is a recognized legal expert).VR _talk 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the section with RS. parqs (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced war crimes text

This edit restores content I removed because it fails verification in the cited source. The sources do not allege war crimes by Israel in the current war. This needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote from the first source: “We are deeply alarmed by the mounting civilian death tolls in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and urgently call on all parties to the conflict to abide by international law and make every effort to avoid further civilian bloodshed. Under international humanitarian law all sides in a conflict have a clear obligation to protect the lives of civilians caught up in the hostilities,” said Agnès Callamard Amnesty International’s Secretary General. “Deliberately targeting civilians, carrying out disproportionate attacks, and indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians are war crimes. Israel has a horrific track record of committing war crimes with impunity in previous wars on Gaza. Palestinian armed groups from Gaza, must refrain from targeting civilians and using indiscriminate weapons, as they have done in the past, and most intensively in this event, acts amounting to war crimes.”

The second source, the article from The Guardian was, referring to this statement from the UN. [23] It also refers to actions on both sides as war crimes, pointing out the indiscriminate killing of civilians (both sides), as well as Israel's announcement of a complete siege of Gaza (collective punishment). entropyandvodka | talk 07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, yes. One must have several strong RS saying that a specific event X was a war crime, not just some generic statements about "sides" and respecting civilians. At least some events in this section do not fit such criterion I think. They should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  That would be the case if the article used wiki voice to say event X was in fact a war crime. In the edit @SPECIFICO linked, the article said Amnesty International characterized the actions of both groups as war crimes, which was exactly what was in the supplied links. Looking at it again, the article didn't mention the UN statement at that point (though it provided a link). Perhaps it would have been safer for the original writer to say Amnesty International urged both sides to avoid indiscriminately killing civilians. entropyandvodka | talk 16:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes: is correct. The cited source gives a general statement about past events concerning Israel. Juxtaposing that unsourced insinuation that current war crimes are documented with the as yet unconfirmed or unrealized threat of "total siege" is absolutely unacceptable article text -- per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH and per WP:BLP telling our readers that a specific individual is responsible for war crimes. This text - in fact the entrire Israel subsection as currently written - needs to be removed from the article page. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The original edit you referenced was in the lede. Are you now discussing the War Crimes section? entropyandvodka | talk 17:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The statement (that presumably this edit evolved into) currently in the lede is "Human Rights Watch condemned both Hamas's and Israel's conduct as war crimes." It is followed by two sources. entropyandvodka | talk 17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per human rights watch:

  "Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."

  That's from a reference used after the statement in the lede. It makes sense to have it as there is an entire section on war crimes. entropyandvodka | talk 17:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I must ask: Are you fluent in English? Do you underestand that "would amount to" is conditional and does not make any statement as to fact or events that have been verified? You keep citing this conditional statement as if it were a statement of a fact concerning an event. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Keep your comments WP:CIVIL. The War Crimes section of the article attributes the statement, and does not assert the fact of the war crime in wiki voice. The lede, last I checked, states: "There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes." entropyandvodka | talk 20:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  The irony. Do you understand "respectfully"? The lead does not say war crimes by Israel. Time to drop the stick, I think. See WP:LISTEN. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO whilst the sourced statement is conditional in nature, I still consider it important context, considering that the apprehended action was in fact carried out. Israel has imposed a total blockade. [24] This is already in the article at multiple points. I think there are good grounds for keeping the quote suggested by @Entropyandvodka, with attribution. Riposte97 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Saying "respectfully" before a disrespectful remark doesn't make it respectful. Keep it civil.

  Regarding your recent edit, it's extremely POV. You've omitted the statement from the Palestinian UN envoy, while leaving the statement from the Israeli UN envoy up in the preceding section. Both are sourced by Reuters, and relevant statements.

  You also removed that NPR explicitly stated Gaza was under siege. You may disagree that a siege is taking place, but it isn't up to you to make that evaluation, it's up to RS, multiple of which explicitly stated so.

  Further, you removed the attributed statements of B'Tselem, sourced directly and sourced via Al-Jazeera, which discussed both the bombing and siege. Moreover, these were written as attributed statements, not statements of fact in Wiki voice adjudicating whether a war crime occurred.

  You seem to be actively trying to minimize anything added to the section under Israel. entropyandvodka | talk 01:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of "hostage" in the lede

Further up, I posted an edit request.

I do not want to belabour the point or be impatient, but I think the language should be changed to be more encyclopedic, to match RS, and for internal consistency with other Wikipedia articles about armed conflicts (e.g. the article about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine describes military captives as prisoners of war, not as hostages).

Is this the appropriate forum to raise the issue and establish consensus regarding a change? I am still learning the ropes here on WP so apologies if I am out of line -- WillowCity (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the appropriate forum. I gave my own proposal on the matter, and while I have the ability to make the change, I will not without further input from others as this is a contentious subject. I want to hear any concerns that may be raised by your opposition. Yue🌙 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What about the non-military hostages? They are not prisoners of war. SigTif (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

They're unarmed civilian hostages, so, no. Andre🚐 06:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence lumps together unarmed civilians and armed IDF combatants "so, no." That's literally my entire objection lol. WillowCity (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This sentence?

"Israeli civilians and soldiers were also captured and taken to the Gaza Strip, including unarmed civilian hostages such as women and children."

It seems to make the distinction. Perhaps the term captive could be used when they need to be referred to collectively. entropyandvodka | talk 04:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference between a captive and a hostage is that holding a soldier captive as a prisoner of war is one thing, whereas kidnapping innocent young non-combatants and holding them hostage in exchange for other prisoner releases is another thing which shouldn't be elided or eliminated from the lead. Andre🚐 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

First, don't apologize for anything We all have to start somewhere. While I see the point about the Ukraine conflict, that's a conflict between two formal nations with a regular army. the POWs are soldiers that are engaged in the conflict. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by RS; that, combined with the majority detained being civilians, causes me to lean more towards the hostage language.

That being said, I think it would be reasonable to separate hostages (civilians) and POWs (IDF Soldiers). Better yet, just state "captured X civilians and Y soldiers" - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign and dual-national casualties

The table also needs a total row. I know all three columns contain unknown entries. But we can still have a confirmed total row. Also, why has the row for unverified foreigners (which had 2 deaths) deleted now? Are they now verified? Aminabzz (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like this part to be edited with another verified dual-national casualty. There was a Israeli-Lithuanian policeman killed in Hamas attacks, his name was "Martynas Kuzmickas". He was a Lithuanian person, who emigrated to Israel after 1995 and had a dual Lithuanian and Israeli citizenship, and he served in the Israeli police. Source: [25]https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2095071/israeli-lithuanian-policeman-killed-in-hamas-attacks KOSOTA LT (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add a statement about the ranking as a terrorist attack

The last discussion on this matter was closed prematurely. The death toll from the initial attack is up to 2,700 now when combining the 1,200 killed in Israel plus the 1,500 militants killed in Israel. There are plenty of sources that describe it as a terrorist attack and I feel like this article does not do justice in portraying the historical significance of this event. List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks already lists this as the 2nd deadliest after 9/11. Why is a statement relevant to this not being included in the article? Undescribed (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Undescribed This page is protected accordingly, yet sadly it seems like or those who can edit do not pay enough attention to the discussions, or somebody is politically editing this Wikiepdia article.

Truly a sad sight.

Wikipedia, as an informational website, MUST include statements about the terrorist atrocities Hamas has done, while staying netural to the war as much as it can. There is no perfect, but this is outrageous.

It's as if 9/11 wasn't a terror attack, but a declared war.

Only unreliable, extreme, insane, terrorist-supporting sources that claim 9/11 is justified. That any murder is justified. Then why isn't the truth being shown in this mass-murder, kidnapping, torture, videos of terrorists happy of killing children in front of their families, and promising to rape their daughters.

Wikipedia MUST show the truth.

We have opened enough discussions, and talked about this small fact.

Please. Add a sentence to the initial invasion being a terrorist attack. And not "militias" or anything. This is a terror attack. Nothing else. רם אבני (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@רם אבני Unfortunately we live in a world where propaganda runs rampant and sadly Wikipedia is becoming filled more and more with propaganda and "fake news" due to the political sources that it relies on. Pretty soon people won't know what historical events did or didn't happen, because we are all being lied to constantly by the mainstream media. What a disgrace it is really. There is a source RIGHT HERE: https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/hamas-vs-israel-former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079 that states that "The October 7th massacre is now the 2nd deadliest terror attack in world history, after 9/11". But I guarentee you that if I put in the article it will still be removed. What can we do here? Undescribed (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The source you provided is from the times of ISRAEL. That source is and will always be biased; Also the same way you view palestinians as terrorists, they view the Israelis the same way Abo Yemen✉ 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an Indian source I never heard of. Anyway the clue is in the url "former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079" :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So what would be considered a "non-biased source" then? It is still baffling to me how 9/11 is considered a terrorist attack but not this. It seems to me that no matter what source we give, the few editors on here who like to "run the show" will just claim that anything that they don't agree with is "biased" and warrants removal. As stated before, multiple sources call this terrorism, including eastern sources. I mean, they're cutting civilians heads off, if thats not considered terrorism then I don't know what is. Undescribed (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

911 was reported as terrorist across the board and AQ is classed terrorist at the UN. Do the math. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hamas is also considered a terrorist organization by the US, EU, UK, and many others. Not sure why that is less relevant than the UN. Do the math. Undescribed (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-biased sources on Wikipedia typically include left-leaning Western news publications, hindu bashing Indian sources, and qatar mouthpiece Al Jazeera etc. Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this. Occasionally, significant events may prompt these sources to publish information that aligns with the content we aim to include on Wikipedia, although they may still reflect their own biases. In such cases, we must patiently await relevant content from these publications that can be used as reliable sources Observer1989 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense lol The left leaning sources are generally the least reliable of all. Why specifically left is more accurate? And is the patronizing really necessary here? "Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this". The majority of countries still consider Hamas a terrorist organization Undescribed (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

hey man i am with you on this.i dont approve how things are done in wikipedia .its just we have to adhere to the policies and wikipedia reliable sources otherewise some opportunist pro palestine admin will block you for some madeup reason. Observer1989 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is why I really hate Wikipedia sometimes. Often I wish I didn't invest so many years of my life working on improving it. You work so hard on it and provide reliable sources and people revert all your hard work just like that. Wikipedia has become propaganda central. Undescribed (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

remember the words of Larry sanger Observer1989 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

what about the 150+ countries that do not consider them as such? Abo Yemen✉ 18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Which 150 countries are you talking about exactly? There are over 82 countries (by now probably more) who called the attack done by Hamas a 'terrorist attack'. I'm not talking about journalists, I am talking official statements of countries. Most of the countries by now who support it are also countries who are fed by terrorist organizations. Also do you consider the EU as 1 country? דוב (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

also see WP:RSPSOURCES for the official list of reliable sources according to wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 18:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Many of those sources have decided this as a terrorist attack. Why is there no consistency on Wikipedia? List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks lists this as the 2nd deadliest with multiple sources so why can't it be stated in the article? Undescribed (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

many editors here are busy even removing grave act of sexual violence against women performed by hamas terrorists reported by numerous sources from different countries.what makes you think they will agree to list hamas as terrorist organisation. only exception might be if un also designates them.it will only happen if USA requets UN and i highly doubt biden government will ever do that.their vote bank will vanish. Observer1989 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

why does it HAVE to be the UN that calls them terrorist? Why are they the final say? Undescribed (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

because i guess terrorist for someone is freedom fighter for another..lol. The United Nations officially represents all nations, although its credibility is often questioned. Nevertheless, we have no other choice. It doesn't matter what brutal acts a particular group has performed, as many people, a significant portion of the global population, justify these actions based on their political or religious beliefs Observer1989 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

i mean just look at the profile of most editors and their religious affiliations who are against calling them terrorists and removing brutual acts of hamas.they proudly flaunt their religion. you dont even need any source for that.just eyes and brain. you wont find a single editor with that religious affiliation calling them terrorist. so let it be. Observer1989 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

and yet it's still listed as #2 in List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks. Zero consistency Undescribed (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There it is also listed as islamic terrorism not just terrorism, which is accurate.try doing that here.i would say its a matter of time some fanatic admin/editor notices it and starts a talk page there to change it.this is cuurently a hot and highly viewed page so everyone is busy whitewashing here for now. Observer1989 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

that's even worse Abo Yemen✉ 18:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is always some sense of urgency, isn't there? Wikipedia "must" do nothing. It is beholden to no-one. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

These are fringe and controversial allegations. You cant just throw around the "terror" label casually just because some government and political organization claims so. MOS:TERROR

IDF bombing of UN-run schools which killed children, 11 UN aid workers, staff members & school teachers, would qualify as actual terrorist attacks. These attacks has to be mentioned in the page as part of the strategy of state terror and indiscriminate bombing advocated by Netanyahu regime. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM (and I hope others heed that advice too). DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As Hamas indiscriminately massacred civilians, even if Wikipedia doesn't want to classify them as a "terrorist organization", surely the attacks were an attack of terrorism. Anyone to call the bombing of a music festival "irregular warfare" would obviously be using a euphemism. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daydreamdays2: The thing is that Wikipedia only says what reliable sources have said; we aren't the arbiter of what constitutes terrorism, which is a heavy label to sling around. See MOS:TERRORISM. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but, if such actions don't constitute terrorism, then I'm not entirely sure as to what does. I mean, the whole turnaround for half of the Left, here, has been that they were clearly acts of excessive terror. People might still say that Hamas is not, in nature, a terrorist organization, but the acts are just obviously constitutive of terrorism. I mean, half of the news is calling this Israel's "9/11 moment". It's definitely terrorism.

Being said, I feel like some kind of view from somewhere could be invoked, here, as, even if Wikipedia ostensibly just pieces together information from reliable sources, the editors still choose how that information is put together. There's an element of subjectivity that, though you can aspire to write an article from an Archimedean Point, and it may noble to do so, is just simply inescapable.

Even encyclopedic entries include, at least, some form of this kind of argumentation. So, there's good reason to debate what terrorism is and whether or not Hamas's actions are constitutive of it because the entry has no real way to avoid there being some interpretation of the events which have occurred.

Effectively, there's, at the very least, a tacit form of historical analysis to even entries such as these, and, so, calling or not calling Hamas a "terrorist organization" is still an informal argument either way. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

To me, it seems like the standard protocol is use the term, "militant", which I'm fine with, since every article would otherwise be bound up in the debate over what is or is not terrorism, but the acts, in themselves, were acts of terrorism, which, if the term is to have any meaning at all, should just be obvious. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems all are agreed that MOS:TERRORISM should be adhered to. This page is not a forum for discussion of the events, nor to debate Wikipedia's policies. Riposte97 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but, in so far that a policy is invoked in re not editing the article, and the policies are decided upon by the Wikipedia community, it can be relevant to discuss the policies without merely blindly referring to them.

I mean, the editors of Wikipedia can also edit its manual of style.

I'm not sure that substituting "militant" for "terrorist" isn't also rhetorical, but I'm moreso conceding the point that every article that involves such an organization will just be edited ad addendum in so far that it is not in place. So, it's not the spirit of the law that I agree with, but just the effect of its letter.

Strictly speaking, Wikipedia should come up with an adequate definition of terrorism, but, seeing that not even the best of scholars have really done so, I'm just agreeing to sidestep that issue. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow The following sentence in the article is not supported by its 3 references, as it conflates the policies of news agencies like BBC with individual opinions: "Many critics refused and have refused to refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, naming it instead as a militant freedom fighter group or simply a militant group." Editorial policies against the use of certain terms do not constitute "criticism" of any political designations of terrorism, and "freedom fighter" is an opinionated term that must be attributed to specific individuals. If we go down the road of citing critics calling Hamas "freedom fighters", then I will insist that we must also mention everyone calling Hamas "terrorists" in order to avoid false balance, aka bothsideism. Readers should know the true balance of opinions on whether Hamas are considered terrorists or freedom fighters. Again, that is an IF we go down that road. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't so much as talking about that particular edit as I was raising the question as to whether Wikipedia shouldn't "call a spade a spade", as they say, and call the acts acts of terrorism.

Regardless as what the policy states, its obvious effect is to call organizations often categorized as terrorist cells "militant" organizations. You can see this from Al-Qaeda to Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari and from the Kurdistan Workers' Party to the Red Army Faction. It's ubiquitous on Wikipedia, regardless as to religious or political affiliation, from the far-left to the far-right.

Militancy is connotative of disciplined devotion to some cause or another. It, notably, does not necessarily entail what would commonly be considered as "terrorism", for instance, in that a worker on strike can be considered as "militant".

Militancy doesn't carry with it any political baggage, but the utilization of political violence in cases that can not be categorized as self-defense, which is my working definition of terrorism, though I have yet to come up with an adequate definition for "self-defense", not that my own theories are all that relevant, just simply does. It just simply isn't the same sort of thing as an act of sabotage that does not involve a threat, civil disobedience, or various forms of strike. In short, it does, in important ways, radically differ from other acts of protest.

So, though I'm in favor of just remaining in keeping with the informal protocol since it'd just be a quagmire otherwise, I do think that "militant" is ultimately euphemistic, though not necessarily intentionally. It's kind of what I'd call an "operative euphemism", or one that is implied by a system.

I'm not sure that bothsideism is always to the point. For instance, the extant Turkish government denies the Armenian Genocide. I don't think that the inclusion of the Turkish denial would be relevant to how the article is structured, only that it is relevant to note that they do deny it. What I mean is that you aren't really obliged to consider that the genocide either never took place or that it could be justified by that the Armenians posed an "existential threat" to the Ottoman Empire, just merely that you should note that those are their claims.

In the case of Hamas, it could be relevant to point out that some Palestinian rights activists, for instance, do reject that they are a terrorist organization and do see them as militants, or even freedom fighters. I think that that may be relevant to the article on Hamas, in regards to how they are perceived in other parts of the world, however, and not per se in this article.

That's kind of a long schbeal. I don't know. I'm just kind of intellectually fascinated by the dilemma that, I, at least, perceive for this to pose, I guess. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to defend the relevance of this, though I don't really know, since I haven't been here for very long, debates concerning the status of Hamas may have precisely been how there came to be the informal protocol of referring to organizations that would commonly be categorized as "terrorist" as "militant". There's probably an editor somewhere on here to say, "full circle", y'know? Daydreamdays2 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with WP:SPADE that this surprise attack is going to be described as an act of terrorism and Wikipedia should as well. Andre🚐 17:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See, I knew there'd be other rules to refer to.

Given the social, political, and legal quagmire of classifying organizations with "terrorist", something that is just bound to end up in endless edit wars, I've kind of adopted another approach, one that mentions that non-state actors, such as these, at least, in some sense, participate within political violence, of which there is an article on, or, at the very least, somehow linking to political violence within the article, for instance, in the see also section. This, I think, should go for state actors as well. In general, I guess, somehow it ought to be indicated that these organizations participate within political violence, which is distinct from mere militancy.

Anyways, though, I think that acts in themselves can and should be categorized as acts of terrorism where warranted, which, in this case, I think, it is quite obvious that it would.

Basically, I'm thinking that a linkage to the article on political violence should be standard form when dealing with these kind of organizations, but that acts can readily be categorized as acts of terrorism when apt. This is a pretty clear cut case in that it would be apt. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, SPADE is just an essay, not a rule. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels is the reason why it wouldn't be defacto terrorism unless we have a pretty strong source record saying that is the best descriptor (which i think we do) Andre🚐 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm relatively new to editing, and, so, I don't quite know what all of the labels and whathaveyou refer to.

Being new, it's a bit absurd for me to be coming up with guidelines, but what I'm more or less proposing is something like, "terrorism is a tactic", and that "acts of political violence that can not be justified in self-defense can be categorized as acts of terrorism".

That might have to someone be better hashed out, as well as I don't even know where to bring this up, but that's the basic idea, anyways. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you even call Gaza occupied?

If Israel disengaged from Gaza unilaterally in 2005, can you claim that the territory is occupied by Israel since they have no control over its politics, security, or finances after Hamas were elected? שי 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still considered occupied by the US[26], UN[27] and others due to the blockade. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Who cares what the UN says. They have more criticisms against Israel than any other countries, surpassing North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. When it comes to Israel, they can't be taken seriously. Their reputation proves it. By definition Gaza is NOT occupied. Oppressed? Absolutely. But occupation? Not even in the loosest definition of the word. As an encyclopedia, this needs to be academic, and thus dictionary definitions must be used.2601:40:C481:A940:E9C1:4443:E2FD:A8C8 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we're only interested in what reliable sources say. We do not define words or concepts ourselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider having near-complete control of all resources that enter or leave Gaza it as well as complete controlling its naval, air, and land borders some sort of occupation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Because there are no Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza. Gaza governs itself completely. By definition, Gaza is not occupied. The West Bank IS occupied, because the IDF patrols it - in this regard it is militaristically occupied.

What you described is a blockade, not an occupation. A blockade is not an occupation. It is oppressed, not occupied. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Our opinions do not matter. We go by WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

While Israel has enforced a blockade around Gaza for certain exports into the region, it has not "occupied" the territory since 2005. Using the term to describe Israel's involvement with the Gaza Strip post-2005 is inaccurate. You can disagree with the blockade, but it substantially different than an "occupation" by its actual definition. Israel has had no military presence inside Gaza since 2005, thus it couldn't have been "occupying" Gaza.

"Israel maintains that it has not occupied Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 and that a territory cannot be occupied without 'boots on the ground.'"

source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415886

"In 2005, under international and domestic pressure, Israel withdrew around 9,000 Israeli settlers and its military forces from Gaza, leaving the enclave to be governed by the Palestinian Authority."

source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/gaza-strip-controls-s-know-rcna119405 AstralNomad (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. The UN is not a WP:RS any more than a Palestinian NGO or Israeli politician is—these are, by definition, biased parties involved in the dispute.

First, numerous actual RS state the obvious fact that Gaza hasn't been occupied by Israel since the latter withdrew—here are just a few from the last couple days:

• Associated Press: "Israel... could reoccupy the territory and try to uproot Hamas."
• Time: Gaza is "not formally occupied like the West Bank."
• Carnegie: "Israel will retaliate to a greater degree than it has before, potentially leading to… reoccupation of parts of Gaza."
• Slate: "Will Israel reoccupy Gaza?"

Secondly, there's a question of common sense, and the definition of "occupy": unilaterally withdrawal is the precise opposite of "occupation".

Last but not least, while there's no question that Israel has control over its border with Gaza—just as Egypt does. But if Israel is "occupying" Gaza simply by blocking travel and shipments, then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well.

Calling Gaza "Israeli-occupied" is biased, contrafactual, and objectively false—it's a term created for the purpose of Palestinian propaganda, and our encyclopedia has no business repeating it in Wikivoice.

ElleTheBelle 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing bias with reliability. Many biased sources are also reliable. Some aren't. The UN is not a party to a dispute. The UN is a body which has many parties. Andre🚐 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the ICRC view:

The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it.

See also Jaber, Safaa Sadi; Bantekas, Ilias (2023-10-05). "THE STATUS OF GAZA AS OCCUPIED TERRITORY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Cambridge University Press (CUP): 1–20. doi:10.1017/s0020589323000349. ISSN 0020-5893. for another recent view from a much higher quality source than news sources. The above OR ("then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well") is not something that serious sources take seriously. nableezy - 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The ICRC is hardly an expert in occupation status under international law. And there is an enormous amount of scholarly and legal debate as to whether Israel continues to occupy Gaza, as a strictly legal definition. No one seriously suggests Israel militarily "occupies" Gaza by any common or typical sense. A smattering of the many serious scholars who find that Gaza is no longer legally occupied:

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-016-0070-1
• https://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf
• https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350307
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/why-gaza-is-not-remotely-occupied-i/

It's absolutely also worth noting, as many RS have, that Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar has, on more than one occasion, admitted the obvious: that Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel. He has stated both that Gaza is no longer under siege and that “Gaza is free of occupation.”.

Our encyclopedia needs to be clear: despite Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza, some still claim that Israel has obligations because they meet some legal definitions of an "occupying" force, but that such claims are in dispute and Gaza's legal status as "occupied" territory is, at best, unresolved. And it needs to be made explicit that this is an issue of a technical legal definition—Wikivoice must not claim that Gaza is "occupied" by Israel in any common-sense understanding of the term. ElleTheBelle 06:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the body that has a specific mandate under the Geneva Conventions to protect victims of armed conflict is not an expert in those conventions is curious. Anyway, the ICRC is among the most respected human rights organizations on the planet and publishes through Cambridge University Press the International Review of the Red Cross, it is among the best sources out there. Yes, there is some dispute on if Gaza remains occupied, but both the UN and the ICRC maintain that it is, and scholarly views agree. The one high quality source you have does yes agree with the Israeli Supreme Court that Gaza is not occupied but it purposely gives no real analysis of that. We can do similar to what we do in Israeli-occupied territories, say that the UN and a number of human rights organizations hold that Israel continues to occupy Gaza, and that Israel disagrees. nableezy - 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with nableezy on this, broadly. International orgs are defacto reliable along with many academic sources that the control of Gaza's border constitutes an Israeli occupation, your links above are a mix of old (2009, 2014, 2016), law review articles that are hardly authoritative, and maybe 1 article to support the idea that "some Israel-leaning academics have questioned with Gaza is still occupied; still, many NGOs and academics consider Gaza to be occupied." Andre🚐 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Death timelines

The following (in the table below) was removed from the article. See diff. Edit summary: "this article is about the war, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at large. why is that even relevant here?"

As if the huge difference in the number of deaths preceding the war is not relevant to this war. Most of the Palestinian deaths are civilian deaths. And most are in Gaza. I think this should be in the "Background" section of the article. Or another background section of the article farther down. Maybe "More background. Deaths preceding the war". Or maybe in "Analysis" section.

Deaths preceding the war

Data is from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Israelis killed. Palestinians killed. "Data on casualties". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHAoPt). United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

There are various articles mentioning these numbers in relation to this war. For instance:

• https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years - it has a chart too.
• https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinian-civilians-suffer-israel-hamas-crossfire-death-toll/story?id=103828889 - EXCERPT: According to the United Nations, roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis had been killed in the ongoing conflict since 2008, not counting the recent fatalities. ... According to the United Nations, 81% of the population in Gaza lives in poverty with food insecurity plaguing 63% of Gaza citizens. The poverty rate is 46.6%, and access to clean water and electricity remains inaccessible at "crisis" levels, the agency states. END of EXCERPT.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As per above, the term "occupied" as applied to Gaza is very much disputed, and fails WP:NPOV. ElleTheBelle 06:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israelis killed before this war. Most were civilians.

Palestinians killed before this war. Most were civilians.

I agree, this should be in the article. This new Gaza-crisis is the worst we've ever had since 2008. More israelis died since saturday (writing on the 11.10.23) than in the previous years since 2008 COMBINED. This is an absolute necessary aspect to know to just understand the scale of this war, and why there has been such big international and national reactions. This is not just another escelation with just missles and airstrikes inside gaza and inside israel, this is a full-scale war with hamas terrorists and fighters entering israeli territory while israel is pounding Gaza like never before. This is a important war that we are currently witnessing, not just another flare up in a long conflict.

Thanks for the Data and for pointing this out. Poles Ragge (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this would be detrimental. Text allows us to follow sources and contextualize things the same way they do, in the same terms they do. These graphs are contextless, and, by giving raw data, fail to give salience to what sources find relevant. A brief glance at these graphs (which is all they'll get from most readers) could on the contrary give the impression that deaths are at historically-average levels, or even at a historic low given the 2014 spike. Pictures are not always worth a thousand words. DFlhb (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We can include both the graphics and the text, right?VR _talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The text is clear; the graphs are not (as shown by the fact that text had to be added to them, in smaller font, to make up for their lack of clarity). DFlhb (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please use a common y-axis in both images. Or combine the bar graphs. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea.VR _talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not create the bar charts. I copied them from here:

https://ochaopt.org/data/casualties under Commons:Template:PD-chart license.

I wouldn't know how to combine them. They are combined here:

https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years

I, or anybody, could upload that under the same license. But it would later need someone to add the numbers above each column. That would be difficult unless some of the numbers were vertical. And that chart added some of the deaths for this war in 2023. I think it is better to keep the chart numbers to deaths before the war. Because then the chart wouldn't have to be frequently updated as the war goes on. And the numbers for this war are in the infobox at the top right of the article.

4 out of 5 people in this thread want some kind of chart(s) added. Text alone is not as easy to understand as the charts. Can also add text. Wikipedia articles are better with more images and charts.

Charts don't have to be side by side. They could be one after another on the right side of the article.

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to combine the charts, but are we allowed to use this data? The UN site says:

"None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, ... in any form ... except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use ... without permission in writing from the publisher."

The Terms state:

"The [UN] grants permission to ... download and copy the information ... for the User's personal, non-commercial use, without any right to ... compile or create derivative works therefrom,..."

I've mostly avoided uploading images because I find the copyright limitations confusing, so I don't have a lot of experience with this. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 03:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Charts are beyond the UN's control. See: Commons:Template:PD-chart. I have a lot of experience with this. The same is true for maps. See Commons:Template:PD-map. Follow the links on those 2 templates for more info.

A completely new chart would be better though than trying to hack that other chart. I like the 2 charts on the right side. They are already in the article. See this version of the article in the section called "Context of the Israeli occupation". The vertical scale is completely different between the two charts. Combining them makes for difficulties in seeing the columns for Israeli deaths. Adding the numbers to the columns is essential for a combined map. And there needs to be overall totals for Palestinians and Israelis. I don't think the chart should include the deaths for this war. For the reasons previously mentioned.

The references are listed in that version I linked to. And here:

"Data on casualties". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHAoPt). United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

Alfonseca, Kiara (11 October 2023). "Palestinian civilians suffer in Israel-Gaza crossfire as death toll rises". ABC News. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I wanted to make 1 chart due to the scaling discrepancies mentioned, if I do I'll make sure numbers are on there for visibility. Agree should only include pre-war #s, also the date ranges should match for both charts. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I don't think that these charts are needed in this article. The previous conflicts and casualties can and should be mentioned in the background section, but I don't see how these charts belong to this article. The starting point is arbitrary - why doesn't it start with 2001, 1988, 1967, 1948? Are there reliable sources go into this kind of detail when talking about the current conflict? Alaexis_¿question? 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting reports about Baby Beheadings

The reference to Mondoweiss could either be removed or rephrased to include other sources perhaps. — hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

— hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page hasn't incorporated the more recent reports on how the beheadings were unconfirmed. There are two locations to state they're unconfirmed. Hovsepig (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

An IDF spokesperson, following a coroners investigation, has confirmed that Hamas militants beheaded babies at Kibbutz Be'eri. On the BBC's live feed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports on this matter being updated frequently. See this CNN article. Question is - given the current uncertainty regarding this, should we wait until there is consensus by these sources? B3251 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden, Netanyahu, celebrities and columnists have rushed to condemn rape. But the IDF does not yet have any evidence it happened Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would then be wise to state that there is conflicting reports and that it is not currently confirmed out. The article currently does that. However, the article doesn't state *why* the allegation has been difficult to confirm -- because it mainly started out as hearsay at a massacre site, but then it spread through media channels. Right now today, it seems that

1) the Jerusalem Post has said they've seen photo evidence of it happening. But there's no article about that, but just a tweet saying they've done a verification: https://x.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1712460425529372821?s=20 s

2) the Israeli Foreign Ministry published photos that they state is from the beheading victims. But again, the source is only at tweet without an article to talk more about it https://x.com/Israel/status/1712500162864480490?s=20

I'm not sure if tweets (even if from newspapers or government agencies) count as reliable sources if there's no accompanying published text that talks about the event in depth.

At this point, I think the beheading story should be it's own section or page because it's a quite serious allegation with a lot of conflicting reports, and right now it seems that more weight is on how *it did happen*. The infamy of this event is causing a significant level of disinformation and attention on social media -- and having a paragraph talking about the social media 'viral'-ness would I think be important to document because the beheading seems to be becoming a core aspect of the current war. Hovsepig (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Survivor interviews provide claims of large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas."

Since when did we start adding the word "claim" to survivors accounts of witnessing sexual violence? We generally avoid that as it casts doubt on what the reliable source says. We have three sources for that sentence; there is no need to put the word claim there.

We report what reliable sources say; the sources do NOT say that the person "claimed" they witnessed sexual violence. If you have a reliable source disputing this, then you put that in there and state what the reliable source said. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a badly worded sentence in general; it should be reworded to Survivor interviews reported large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree. I don't have extended edit protection so unfortunately I can't make the edit myself. As it is written currently it might as well just say "These people SAID they witnessed sexual violence, but there's no actual evidence". Chuckstablers (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I've switched it over. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not consistent with policy to source a claim in Wikipedia's voice to "Israeli official confirms women were raped during Hamas attack". That an Israeli official made the claim needs to be in the body of the article if such a source is used. The Israeli Foreign Minister also claimed that Jewish toddlers were being put in cages and the video to which he was referring to has been debunked as not related to the subject of this article. The second source, the Times of Israel, not only does not support the claims of "survivor interviews" but contradicts it saying "testimonies are yet to be taken." It also contradicts the claim of systematic sexual violence saying a "pattern of sexual assault" has yet to be established. That leaves thejc.com which apparently did not interview anyone instead referring to interviewing by "the Tablet". Now Tablet DID publish rape allegations in a "saying it's been said" manner but even that was by the same Leil Leibowitz who publishes things on Tablet like how RFK Jr is a vaccine truth teller. How hard can it be to find a straightforward non-Israeli media source saying there was rape? Even just one confirmed case? NYT, WaPo, BBC? Nothing from sources like that? It's not like reliable sources like these have been shy about making clear statements about other atrocities such as massacres.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We are saying that several sources have reported survivor accounts which reported sexual violence inflicted upon women by hamas. Not sure if this is even in the article, but see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive. It's been reported. We said it's been reported. We don't add "allegations" or "claims" when simply reporting what reliable sources say. We let readers make their own decisions on whether they believe or disbelieve the things being reported. We don't try to sway their views one way or another by adding terms like "claim", "alleged", or "allegations". If you have an issue with it, provide a reliable source that says the opposite.

"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." - according to PBS a survivor of the attack. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Then use the PBS source. I have no objections to using PBS. Note, however, things like the fact PBS states "Gunmen killed more than 250 people" in its own voice but the rapes allegation is attributed to a witness. Wikipedia should not be stripping out the attribution to put both claims on the same level if PBS is not doing that. PBS also reveals that the witness believes Gaza would be wiped off the map. Readers can come to their own decisions about what to make of that instead of Wikipedia removing that potentially relevant material about the witness which PBS provides. Finally, see WP:BURDEN where "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is in bold. The person who challenges material is not obligated to disprove a claim (find sources claiming the opposite). We don't publish rumours until proven otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

“Beheading babies”

The claim that hamas beheaded babies is very well shown on the war crimes page even if there is no verification and no bodies, and they dare say “Joe Biden confirmed it”. Was he there to see it? Even the Israeli forces don’t want to confirm this claim and the times of Israel deny this claim, and it should be removed from the war crimes section, just like every “alleged” Israeli war crime has been. Why is it still there?

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-10-11-23/index.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s been discussed & cleared already. Look up. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your sources don't say that Hamas didn't behead infants, but rather that he denies the claims, which makes a lot of sense. Here are sources that are more reliable than the spokesmen of a terror organization:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

New york post and CBS by the way is not known for supporting Israeli agenda. But I guess you'll keep calling it biased untill you see the pictures yourself? דוב (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally included the times of Israel in my citation but alright. If there’s no proof then it’s not going to be included, just like all of Israel’s alleged crimes, some of which were eventually proven to not have happened The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It has not been cleared, I just checked and it’s still there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

See this source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-babies-killed-hamas-terror-attack-kibbutz-kfar-aza-first-responders-ay/ David O. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

And Iraqi soldiers are tearing babies out of incubators. And Gadaffi has rape gangs fueled by viagra. And WMDs are- We should not be including these claims in wikivoice until the dust settles. There is an extreme amount of hedging happening on many of these. Even Biden's claim to have seen the photos was clarified as not actually occurring by the White House. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source to that? That biden lie and didn't really see the photos? Currently there are more than enough reliable sources of international reporters who have physically been there. Besides the president of the US said he saw the pictures. So all of the international reporters and the president lie or struck by a fog of war? Those are credible reports and witnesses and there is no reason for them not to be used as sources, specially when it's reliable and big news companies like The guardian and CNN. I'm not sure also why you see it as so farfetched while not so far away videos have been posted by Hamas themselves. דוב (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source mentioning it:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, taking back president biden. Can you refer to the various sources who back up this claim? דוב (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Beast discusses that Biden's statement was clarified to the Washington Post [28], and that he was relying on news reports and statements by Netanyahu. Sky News report from yesterday says that it stil unconfirmed [29], and the IDF has said they won't confirm it, according to Insider [30]. However, given that the claim has been coroborrated by Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, who was there at the scene and interviewed by CBS [31], I think that some confidence can be given that the allegation is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If there's so much doubt regarding the veracity of the claims then the article should state the claim in doubtful or spurious terms. In the context of a war situation where conflicting and slanted claims are being relayed, I think it should be clear that a claim as sensitive and grave as "beheaded infants" should be held up to a very critical light. Would be far more reliable for someone who isn't IDF-adjacent (i.e. HRW) to confirm something like this. ‒overthrows 03:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that some degree of uncertainty should be applied to the claims, but at the same time, I think its beyond merely a "rumor" at this point, which is what The Intercept describes the claim as [32]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Head of Zaka and several international reoporters is more than enough for it bo considered more than a "rumor". דוב (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli government "has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister’s office." added to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Overthrows @Hemiauchenia this was further clarified by the Washington Post and Al Jazeera English that there was no independent verification of the claim by the US or any non-Israeli organization. I think the language should be updated to reflect more caution on such an inflammatory topic. Wschreyer (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnesses are more than enough to verify the claims. Al Jazeera is not a reliable or credible source. Washington post didn't deny the beheading, they just clarified the origin of the sources. דוב (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is listed as a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Because reports are conflicting and there has not been independent confirmation I'm requesting that the article simply reflect that this is not a widely accepted fact. 24.14.199.122 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, at the very least, using more qualified language to describe this, maybe by mentioning there are "conflicting" or "unconfirmed" reports about this happening. Unless neutral third parties can confirm this, we should hold off on definitive "this did/did not" happen framing. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The reports about beheadings and rapes are unconfirmed, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

confirmed by whom? Witnesses can count as confirmation. דוב (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEONING Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Four sources that confirm the claims:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

Currently seems more like you're the one who doen't follow WP:IDHT. דוב (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The dead baby photos the Israeli government put out have been covered by NBC News, though they say the specific allegation of baby decapitation is still unconfirmed [33]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

New confirmation have been posted by Prime Minister of Israel, including pictures. Although the pictures here is of burnt babies and not beheaded.1 Other sources affiliated to the government posted decapitated images of citizens. דוב (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, the beheading of babies is still unconfirmed, and most RS seem to be couching the reports as just that - reports. As ghastly as it is, the beheading of adults is not what is being specifically contested here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not confirmed. Anyone could easily fake those images. And Isræl is on a war. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Beheading babies" should be removed at least for now as most serious sources (outside live feeds don't touch) and various other sources have already "debunked" it. Due tommon sense (and a sober encyclopedic style), it is for now sufficient to state that Hamas committed a pogrom/mass murder/massacre among the locals. There is no need to go into gory details and in particular no need for bringing up any which are unconfirmed/disputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But the allegation does seem to be becoming an important talking about during this war. I think we should keep the beheading paragraphs. But I think we should move the first paragraph about the beheading and merge it with the second. The first mention of the beheading doenst talk about the conflicting reports (and seems not up to date) while the second mention talks about the current status with regards to newspaper confirmation from the Jerusalem post Hovsepig (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Claims of rape removed again

I don't understand what's going on here. We had MULTIPLE sources reporting on survivors claiming to have witnessed rape. What is the issue here?

"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." -https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive

This is a source interviewing someone who is identified as survivor of the attacks who is attesting to witnessing rape inflicted upon the victims by hamas militants. We had others, but they're being nitpicked and dismissed. This is getting into POV territory. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the new, cited, secondary source that covers the primary sources comprehensively: "What we know about accounts of sexual assault during the Hamas attack". Nurg (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the sources that were removed backing up the statement of sexual violence. In addition to PBS, which seems to be equally as reliable as the source you're providing. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.

A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware". Well there's at least one then.

I read it. I get it; it's a fair point, but it's also a fair point that we have sources that said that this happened that are just as reliable as yours that said there was. Unless there's consensus for this change, which reading the talk page there definitely is not, There's multiple editors on here that disagree, so it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperative editing to make such a change without reaching a consensus. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, given what's in the source that was added, this statement is not correct. According to the source, there's at least one known case of rape that was committed that I just cited. Here's the statement claiming that Israeli officials stated they had NO EVIDENCE of it. "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape."

That's just not true. That's not what was said. It's POV, pretty clearly POV, and should be reverted. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Chuckstablers, the allegations should be added there are evidence for rape. We can't rewrite history, censor Wikipedia or try to write a narrative. Currently there are more than enough sources (and videos posted by Hamas) to confirm the claims. דוב (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Define confirmation again, witnesses are considered as confirmation. דוב (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can include there are claims but also needs to include the Israeli officials have said they have no evidence to substantiate those claims. nableezy - 23:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to, regarding the sentence "Israeli officials have said they have no evidence"? dov (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ relevance?

I'm not sure I agree with the addition[34] of text that points out that LGBTQ folks have more rights in Israel than Gaza. It is true, but what is the relevance of that to this article? VR _talk 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that this addition seems to fail the relevance test. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like scope creep - following the same segue as a side commentary is veering sharply away from the subject here and off on a tangent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevant to the wider conversation outside of Wikipedia, but not the scope of this encyclopedia article. Also worth pointing out that the point being made by the added content is not that queer folk face more legal discrimination and punishment in Gaza than Israel, but that, specifically, some leftists are trying to reconcile their support for LGBTQ+ rights with their support for Palestinian self-determination and governance. Again, this is relevant to the broader discussion outside of Wikipedia, but this is getting into super niche territory. Are we going to add what different currents of the right think about this conflict too in terms of monetary support and funding from Western governments? Yue🌙 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That section could focus on major political parties around the world, regarding if the event changed their stance on the topic. It could also have polling information from the general public (I think this would be considered unreliable, but for example there's a Fox poll out yesterday; perhaps we can expect more). Otherwise you may see such a build-up of tangentially related commentary. Though, the part about the "Sister Souljah moment" is at least related enough for me to think it's worth keeping in, as it kind of sets the most important information in a wider context. But even that isn't so important. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering how much discussion is happening right now and how many analyses are being produced, perhaps it would be sensible to split off an article titled "Analysis of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"; there, all the less relevant but still connected opinion pieces could be covered, while the main article covers only the most important parts. Applodion (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Other people have argued here that the LGBT aspect is irrelevant. I am partial to agree that it's irrelevant. Furthermore, the current wording implies that because Israel has better (slash existing) support for LGBT rights, then somehow that merits being on the "Israeli side" of the war because it doesn't discuss both sides of the issue

For LGBTQ+ people in the region, there is no question that Israel is the only safe place for queer and trans people. Homosexuality is illegal in Gaza and forced marriage is common for lesbians and gay men...

The sentence comes from an article which references another article[35] which focuses on how there are Palestinian-oriented LGBT centers in Israel, such as Aswat and Black Laundry, but then the Wikipedia page for such groups states that such groups are still anti-Occupation. One can easily then argue that the above quotation is thus Pinkwashing_(LGBT)#Israel, especially because it doesn't discuss how the Palestinians themselves feel toward the issue of LGBT rights in Israel. It seems that more prominent non-Israeli LGBT voices in the Middle East align themselves on the Palestinian side of the conflict [36].

I think that if the LGBT paragraph stays, then it has to also incorporate the negative aspects of the issue. Specifically

a) that people however argue that discussing LGBT rights as part of the conflict is often labelled as pinkwashing away Israel's war crimes and occupation, and thus should not justify Israel's actions

b) although Israel has a positive LGBT record, that record has not significantly affected the attitudes of LGBT Arabs in the Middle East towards Israel because most still align themselves with the Palestinian cause or side of the war -- regardless of how Israel has better gay rights. Hovsepig (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:COATRACKing, and it's usually not allowed. LGBT rights don't need to be mentioned in this article unless they become directly relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree; it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the war. FunLater (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, I propose that the entire section should be deleted. It has been renamed to 'Reaction among left-wing political parties in the Western World'. This discussion also ongoing here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the quote on that topic, but left reference in as it supports the previous statement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

'End of Western sympathy for the Palestinian government'

This section presents issues. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is not a party to the conflict. Secondly, the claim that this war marks the 'end of Western sympathy' for Palestinians is an extreme reach. There is no way of gauging whether that is or will be the case. Finally, as noted above, the LGBTQ+ paragraph seems to be WP:UNDUE - it's essentially commentary on the political legitimacy of Israel. Riposte97 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely appears to be pre-emptive analytical overreach, and inaccurate, as mentioned, given that the PA is not involved here, so what the 'government' being talked about here is extremely unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is head of the government in the Gaza strip. So I guess the claim talks about gaza rather than Judea and Samaria. דוב (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Then it would be more accurate to say 'end if Western sympathy for Hamas', although I'm not aware of any large Western institution that formerly expressed support for Hamas. On the contrary, it is usually prescribed as a terrorist group. Riposte97 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That section has been renamed multiple times. It should just be about general global public opinion and political shifts in response to the event, not specific to people of any region. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

National Unity Government formed

NYTimes reports that a national unity government was formed: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-unity-government.html?smid=url-share CherrySoda (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that a paragraph was added about that lower in the page already. But I think that instead of "and some opposition parties have called for the formation of a national unity government" write that the national unity government has been formed. CherrySoda (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the lead should be updated. It's already noted in the body. Riposte97 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Israel Defense Forces have "told" a journalist that they "have no evidence" of rape"

This is an equivocation that should be removed ASAP per WP:SAID, WP:AMBIGUOUS.

WP:SAID: In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose. 2A02:14F:175:7688:0:0:B482:EFF (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe this accords with WP:SAID. It is necessary attribution, and has been a hot topic on this talk page for days. Riposte97 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

"They rape girls; they parade women’s bodies; they deliberately target events where many of the injured and dead will be female... Yet every atrocity has its apologists, who claim the terrorists are really freedom fighters... Witnessing this species of rape apology over the last few days has made me sick to my stomach." Joan Smith, elected chair of Labour 'Humanists'

But this shamefully one-sided opinion should make any fair-minded person sick to their stomach. For unless there is good supporting evidence, should not the comment of this IDF apologist be moved to the Disinformation section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.34 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems this IDF apologist is not a person but the Israel Defense Forces themselves, who "told" a journalist that they "have no evidence" of rape 2A02:14F:178:32D2:0:0:B48B:5BF2 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Should probably be removed, not because it's "disinformation" but because it simply doesn't pass the notability bar. Joan Smith's main claim of relevance seems to be "being an unelected but active member of the UK Labour Party"; the only collection of topics where she'd be notable is if she's discussing UK Labour Party grassroots politics. Commentary on the Israel-Hamas conflict by Brits would probably only be notable if that person is on par with a cabinet member or highly-published professor, and she's nowhere near that level. Ceconhistorian (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Ceconhistorian. Riposte97 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF confirms Islamic State flag found on terrorist killed during attack on kibbutz

Israeli toll reaches 1,300; NATO ministers shown uncensored video of Hamas atrocities | The Times of Israel

Does this mean we can say that Daesh are involved in this war or would that still be perceived as speulation? שי 08:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Terrorists Hung An ISIS Flag While Attacking A Kibbutz In Israel - I24NEWS confirmed by i24 news שי 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

officialy not really. Those Hamas terrorists who had a flag either were affialitaed with Daesh (or isis or isil or is) or brangt it as a symbolic object. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) and Hamas ideologies are similare. Both want to destroy israel and destroy the jewish religion. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) is a bit more radical.

There could be Hamas terrorists who are even more into the ideology of Daesh (or isis or isil or is).

Officially it's just a flag of Daesh (or isis or isil or is). Those who had it are probably now dead. We can't really find it out anymore UNLESS Daesh (or isis or isil or is) publicly announces it support of Hamas and their role, like they did in their lone wolves terror attacks in brussels and paris. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The same Daesh that Hamas spent resources and man power fighting since 2007? What kind of IDF Salary are you being payed to spread this? If you’re really going to believe one sagacious tweet by an entity then I have reason to believe that Hamas are controlling Beersheeba (despite clashes being heard there and Dimona) A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There are small salafist/ISIS type cells in the strip, they don't usually get along with Hamas but it's possible one took part in the attack. The Israeli claim can be contextualized as such. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli death toll is 1,400

https://t.me/Eng_ahed/48552 77.248.247.89 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Still speculative imo, as ISIL hasn't claimed invlvement. Further, even if a handful of the thousands who took part in the incursion were part of an ISIL cell, might still be WP:UNDUE. Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Redundant references

There is a continuous effort of adding unnecessary and sometimes completely unacceptable references into the article. What benefit does adding a reference of Algerian statement to the lede, when there is already a reference mentioning most Arab countries? What benefit does adding a twitter link as reference? What benefit when the same piece of information is referenced in five or more references stating the same information? What benefit do we have from adding Arabic and Hebrew references when we have overwhelming English coverage? Please refrain from adding such sources and remove them as soon as they appear. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess a lot of this is done by mistake when editors don't look through the sources or named citation list. entropyandvodka | talk 01:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact

Specific humanitarian impacts of the conflict have been scattered all over the article making it very disjointed. Suggest that a separate section be made to consolidate them within the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that consolidating specific humanitarian impacts into a separate section would improve the article's organization and readability. It would make it easier for readers to access this critical information. StarkReport (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Will make an empty section. I hope others can have the time to move specific info to this. Borgenland (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Made and expanded already. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Captured?

There weren't any 'captures', the civilans have been kidnapped. Since when do we use euphemism in Wikipedia? דוב (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

tens of israeli soldiers and high ranked officers were captured as war prisoners, it is not just civilians Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so you support reffering civilan hostages as kidnapping and soldiers as captives? Currently the estimation is that vast majority of the "captives" are civilians. דוב (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, the soldiers are not kidnapped, but indeed are prisoners of war. Talalnablus (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

1 sentence in lead for background

I added a sentence in the lead for background:

Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinians clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin had killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis.

All the sources for this sentence are regarding the current war. They all use a variant of this sentence to give necessary context for the war. Since it is only a sentence I don't think its UNDUE. Nor is it POV, since it simly states the fact and no opinions.VR _talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) VR _talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the citations may be excessive. FunLater (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I just put them in there so people wouldn't question whether its WP:DUE, because it obviously is given the sheer number of RS that mention this in their coverage of the war.VR _talk 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

support. the pre-war related incidents that contributed to its occurrence need to be mentioned, similar to any other war on wikipedia Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. For the lead of Six Day war we have an entire paragraph on pre-war events.VR _talk 14:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note:

- How much of Israel/Palestine conflicts are directly attributable to this 2023 war? Technically you could argue the entire 70+ year long conflict contributes to this war, but I don’t think summarizing all that is the right thing to do.

- The more direct background I see is the Hamas, their 2 decades of conflict with Israel, and the fact that they planned this attack for 2 years (see my comments in this section below) Merlin^sorca 18:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• A few more sources that mention this: The Hindu[37], Japan Times[38], L'Orient-Le Jour[39]. BBC coverage said "For months, it has been clear that there was a deepening risk of an explosion between Palestinian armed groups and Israel....Armed Palestinians, especially those operating out of the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus, have attacked Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers. The Israeli army has mounted dozens of raids. Armed settlers have taken the law into their own hands, with reprisals against Palestinian villages."VR _talk 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vice regent thanks for pointing me to this discussion and for your edits. cc @Alexandria Bucephalous @Makeandtoss

I would also say linking to one of the clashes is enough, and we can avoid including any sort of casualty figures (for instance, see how we mention 9/11 in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article lead).

Even so, considering this was a highly planned and coordinated attack, I think it’s a mistake trying to tie this attack to any one of the 2023 events: Reuters says this attack actually took 2 years of planning. I think we should mention this "2 years of planning", as well as the broader conflict, and deemphasize the 2023 events - but I’d keep the Al-Aqsa mosque for now, even though since they planned it for years, Hamas may just be retroactively citing that as a cause for the attack.

Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades. Months prior to the war, tensions rose between Israel and Palestinians due to clashes, like at the Al-Aqsa mosque, but Hamas remained quiet.[40] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack for two years, and surprised Israel.[41] The attack itself... Merlin^sorca 17:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades, but in the two years leading up to the 2023 war, Hamas refrained from making attacks.[42] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack, and surprised Israel.[51] The attack itself.. Merlin^sorca 18:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have strong enough evidence that this attack was 2 years in the planning. Some sources say "weeks", some say "months". Also, the casualty fiures are there to give some indication as to how serious the conflict had gotten in 2023. Otherwise if we just say "tensions" that is vague.VR _talk 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not planning the attack for 2 years, but it seems that reliable sources, like the Reuters source I linked, use the same anonymous Hamas source that says Hamas for years deceived Israel by pretending to be more interested in economy.

Just note the distinction between Palestinian militants and Hamas specifically, as well as Palestinian territories and Gaza. This article is focused on Israel and Hamas.

What about this:

Fighting between Israel and Hamas has happened sporadically since 2006. Months prior to the war, clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from attacks against Israel. The attack from Hamas surprised Israel, beginning in the early morning... Merlin^sorca 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. But from what I've read Hamas did attack Israel before the attack. Israel killed a Gazan on Sep 20[43] and there's indication that those fired upon Israeli soldiers in Jenin in Sep 2023 may have been affiliated with Hamas[44] but the source doesn't directly say this.

How about this:

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months leading up to the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 247 Palestinians and 32 Israelis.. I think the "surprise" part can be mentioned below as part of Israel's intelligence failure - by now there is international consensus that Israel's intelligence failed to predict this.VR _talk 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Then let’s mention that Hamas didn’t make any "major" attacks, or "participate in major engagements". That would be more accurate, and I strongly feel we should be talking more about what Hamas was doing as they’re one of the two main subjects of this article, rather than focusing on other conflicts with Palestinians - which are relevant, but they are not the ones at war with Israel now.

In the previous discussion, there was agreement that background events themselves should not be given too much specificity (meaning, if we include links, don’t include casualty numbers - people can view the articles for casualty numbers of the background events).

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months before the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes intensified, such as at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin, and Gaza, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from participating in major engagements. Merlin^sorca 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, three things:

• Are there a LOT of sources that say Hamas refrained from doing so? It seems like a controversial claim to make and let me dig up sources that say the opposite. It might also be undue for the lead because there are lots of other facts that are more widely covered in RS (like blockade of Gaza, occupation since 1967 etc).
• I think including casualty count is important because it demonstrates significance. Israelis and Palestinians clash on a daily basis in the territories, but 245 Palestinian and 32 Israelis killed is a big deal. Its also mentioned by more than a dozen RS
• We should take 2-3 words to mention the occupation or blockade here. That's the whole reason why clashes have been happening and this connection hve been made by a lot of RS, see this section.VR _talk 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. "Hamas stayed out of two fights in the past year, allowing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a smaller armed group in Gaza, to take on Israel alone. Last month, Hamas leadership also ended a period of rioting along the border, in an agreement brokered by Qatar, giving the impression that it was not looking for an escalation."[45] "This ongoing absence has raised questions about the motives behind Hamas’s self-imposed neutralization, and whether these motives stem from actual convictions or from political calculations and internal shifts within the movement"[46]

2. My point is that Palestinians are not Hamas; why do we need to provide specificity to non-Hamas conflicts? Again, we didn’t need to tell readers about the number of deaths on 9/11 in the war on Afghanistan article, despite previous terrorist attacks in the U.S. not killing as many people. Readers in this war article can go click on those background events.

3. I would consider mentioning the blockade because it directly involves Gaza, which Hamas governs. Just note we do mention and link to the blockade in the paragraph below. Merlin^sorca 20:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Ok, thanks, but Washington Post paints the opposite picture (emphasis added):

Just last month, Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules Gaza, appeared to be on the brink of war. Israeli border agents found explosive material hidden in a shipment of jeans and halted all exports from the Gaza Strip. Hamas put its forces on high alert and held field exercises with other armed groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The drills included practice rocket launches, ambushes and the “storming” of settlements, local media in Gaza reported, in an apparent preview of the attacks launched on Saturday. Hamas also allowed Palestinians to begin protesting again along the separation fence between Israel and Gaza, where young demonstrators have faced off against Israeli soldiers. On Sept. 13, five Palestinians were killed when they attempted to detonate an explosive at the barrier wall. “It has been quiet, but it is beginning to boil,” Basem Naim, head of Hamas’s Political and International Relations Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post in September. “There is a lot of pressure under the water.” The tensions in Gaza followed a violent summer in the West Bank, where tit-for-tat attacks flared between Palestinian militants on one side and Israeli forces and Jewish settlers on the other. Israel staged multiple military raids in the city of Jenin, where it said militants were planning attacks on Israeli troops and civilians. On June 19, Israeli forces raided Jenin and killed at least five Palestinians, deploying Apache helicopters in the West Bank for the first time since the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which lasted from 2000 to 2005. The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis. And on June 21, hundreds of Israeli settlers rampaged through Palestinian villages — including Turmus Ayya, where one person was killed — torching homes and cars, as well as shooting at residents...

How can we reconcile these sources?

2. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the 9/11 casualty figures at War in Afghanistan but I suspect thats because everyone knows how big 9/11 was. Most readers won't know about these specific incidents. And tbh, each of the specific incident isn't that big, but together they show a picture that many RS say is significant. Keep in mind that Hamas doesn't just care about Gaza as they've repeatedly made it a point to attack Israel when they feel upset about what happens at Al-Aqsa mosque or West Bank.

3. Yeah we just to figure out what the best wording is to mention the blockade and occupation without bloating lead. Maybe we can start with something like "Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks." This is balanced and mentions the grievance of both sides and provides context as to why Israel and Hamas keep going to war.VR _talk 21:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. That’s a good find and I think it contains lots of info we should include in the lead. The source says "the brink", "beginning" to boil, "it has been quiet" which means no direct violence, but a buildup. We also see Hamas practicing ambushes and storming settlements, which is also great background info. I say this does not paint the opposite picture; in fact it supports my earlier argument that Hamas did not engage in any major engagements, because while there is noticeable buildup from Hamas in 2023 and minor clashes, those do not constitute a major engagement.

2. Al-Aqsa is the one I could consider keeping linked because I know there’s a source for Hamas explicitly referencing it as a cause of their attack, but AFAIK that is not the case for the rest, and including them would be WP:SYN

3. I like the new wording you’ve proposed.

How about this?

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. Hamas refrained from major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023,[47][48] when clashes between Israel and other Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. [49] Merlin^sorca 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

to be more comprehensive (since not every clash is a war) the first sentence could be:

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have engaged in several conflicts; Merlin^sorca 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but I'd still prefer war, because they have indeed engaged in several full blown wars. The minor clashes they may have engaged it in are not even lead worthy, but the wars are. Still I'm ok with your proposal.VR _talk 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Any opinions from @Alexandria Bucephalous:, @Makeandtoss: or @Selfstudier:? VR _talk 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent I have added the content almost exactly as in the original version I suggested (a few minor improvements to reduce wordiness). There is room for further revision but we’re on the right track with this prose. Merlin^sorca 05:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Same, I like this proposal the best (but prefer "war"). It's broad, which it should be, because many readers won't even be familiar with the basics of the I-P conflict. Practically all Western news outlets had to run 'explainers' when the war broke out, and this does a good job. DFlhb (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note @DFlhb and @Vice regent, both KlayCax and I thought the sentence Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. was problematic.

The problem I see is that it attracts editors and readers to add bloat to the lead; I saw someone add "Israeli settler violence" to the sentence within minutes. You can imagine editors from all sides of the issue trying to add more and more grievances of the side they support.

To stop this I made the sentence neutralized: Israelis and Palestinians in general held grievances toward each other since the mid-20th century.

In that sentence we can maybe wikilink to one of the broader conflict articles, or even to the article’s background section.

I just don’t want to keep maintaining the original sentence when it gets out of control with grievances. Merlin^sorca 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If we reach consensus on keeping the original sentence (the one in the diff I linked), then we can revert changes, and add an invisible comment stating that it shouldn't be changed without new consensus. 1RR would be an obstacle but it's doable. But I'm not opposed to this compromise. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to the generic statement of "held grievances towards each other". It's incredibly vague and doesn't convey the gravity of the situation. I agree with DFlhb that once we reach consensus on this we can prevent others from adding bloat to this.VR _talk 12:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to what you reverted this to, and if you can help maintain this version as is, I am in support.

But just a couple of things:

- the point generic statement of "held grievances towards each other" is exactly to be generic, and neutral, while linking to the background section where we can go into full detail.

- This version of the sentence is almost like an invitation for editors of both sides to engage in edit warring and add more and more grievances. Think about our strategy for maintaining this not just days, but months down the line. Future editors will very likely say:

"I found sources that document war crimes caused by Israel, I want to insert war crimes as one of the grievances"

"What about Israel airstrikes? Let's add indiscriminate air strikes killing civilians as another grievance"

"There's the source about the 2023 clash at the Mosque, and Hamas referenced that specifically, so let's also add that to the list"

"Aren’t we showing bias by listing the grievances of one side first? Why not list Israel first?"

"Why do Palestinians get two grievances, but Israel only gets one? Let's balance it out!"

"So many reliable sources are calling Hamas terrorists, so we have to include anti-terrorism in the list for Israel!"

...and on and on and on. It’ll never end. Merlin^sorca 12:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You restored it without the links; was that intentional? DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'll add the links now. I'll also add a note pointing people to the talk page. VR _talk 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be a high level summary of Background section.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose to this change. This is a variety of WP:SYN. Such change implies that there is a casual connection between the Hamas attack and these previous recent events. There was none because the militants were working to prepare this attack during 2 last years according to publications. Everything is connected to everything, but one needs RS which explicitly make such connection. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with @My very best wishes’s sentiment - we can’t just reference any recent Palestinian / Israeli conflict and imply that there’s a relationship between this war with Hamas. Otherwise, we would have to summarize the entire history of Israel / Palestine going back 70 years. I’d prefer to focus on Hamas. Merlin^sorca 19:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we should go back 70 years, RS are not doing that. But many RS have cited this conflict going back to 1967. Would you agree that RS have made a connection between the occupation and the current war?VR _talk 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The inserted text says: Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds.... First of all, the "clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin" are linked to year 2023. Do majority of sources makes an unequivocal connection between this particular attack by Hamas war and these specific events? I do not see it. Actually, the attack by Hamas was completely unexpected. Secondly, everyone knows about the conflict in general. Why repeat it here? Also, see my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the 11 sources I cited at the top of this section (+ WashingtonPost source just a few minutes ago) that mention these attacks as relevant context? Second, whether the attacks are expected is disputed. A piece in Foreign Policy written by a Harvard professor says the Palestinian attack was "provoked" by Israeli occupation. A Princeton University professor wrote in the Washington Post that the attack "should not have surprised anyone" given events this year at Al-Aqsa mosque. It is way too early to draw a specific connection, but RS are already trying to provide necessary context and so should we.VR _talk 22:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the context is relevant. However, it needs to be explained (as in the article by WaPo), which we can not do in the lead. Rather, we should just focus on the subject/summary of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I linked the Gaza blockade and added Israeli settler violence per WSJ and another source I can’t remember, make sure to link these if your re-editing them Bobisland (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion in the lead as well. It was added in without consensus. Can someone revert it temporarily until we get a consensus on this? The new wording has significant problems.

It's 1:41 AM here and I need to go to bed. @My very best wishes: @Vice regent: @Merlinsorca: KlayCax (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I believe the above discussion is about opposing the text Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds

Which is why we rewrote most of the paragraph with new prose that is very different: Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths.

Rather than requesting to revert the entire paragraph worth of changes, please quote the specific text that you find problematic and propose your suggestions. Merlin^sorca 06:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. Seems a bit sweeping.

• Various jihadist (and arguably Hamas) want Israel totally destroyed. Not just the settlements/settler violence being abolished and/or ending.
• Marxist-Leninist Palestinian groups see Israel as a settler colonial state.
• The meaning of "Palestinian" and "Israeli" is unclear here.

I'd be okay with the other parts remaining. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree that the sentence is problematic, but mainly because it attracts editors to add bloat.

Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.

Someone already added "Israeli settler violence" to our original sentence, and I can imagine other editors repeatedly adding more and more grievances on both sides to make it more balanced in their eyes.

Note, it seems two of your reasons are ideological; let’s try to keep the discussion on the merits of producing a quality article. Merlin^sorca 07:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

to trim the announcement to why a war started which makes one side look bad seems like whitewashing and people aren’t adding grievances they’re adding Hamas statements which is cutting off a very notable portion of the war, if the fear is perpetual bloating then consensus can be met to ensure it isn’t expanded upon a certain point Bobisland (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bobisland If it were "Israeli settler violence" alone, it would be fine to include in the lead section, but Hamas and Palestinians in general have a list of justifications for this war: the clash at the mosque, the blockade, the occupation / seizing of land, etc. and now it seems editors want to list all of those individually in the lead section.

Now other editors may want to list, 3 or 4 items on the Israeli grievances side to try and keep it balanced.

This is not sustainable, is too much for the lead section, and seems ripe for edit warring, but I would fully support all those details being outlined in the background section. Merlin^sorca 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we pick the most notable issues historically, according to RS and we form consensus.VR _talk 12:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I restored the agreed upon text above, with "blame" instead of "aim". Otherwise, please respect the agreed upon text.VR _talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to consensus in this. What's more the text you're proposing is problematic for three reasons. First off it conflates Hamas with Palestinians, but while Hamas are Palestinians clearly not all Palestinians are Hamas and would probably be horrified to be characterized as such. Second it tries to divine Hamas' motives in a single sentence which is also highly problematic because we don't know Hamas' motives and alot of reports say that it wasn't even all of Hamas but just sections of their military wing that was even aware this would take place. Finally, the prose honestly don't sound so great and it doesn't read well in the section people try to insert it in to in the lead. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Clashes before attack

Merlinsorca, I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this: Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This attack began in the early morning with...

I'd replace it with: Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinain clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; Hamas' role in these engagements is debated. On Oct 7, Hamas launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which it says it had been preparing for two years, with a rocket barrage...

Here are my reasons:

• We shouldn't state in wikivoice that Hamas prepared the attack for two years as it is too early and there is still contradictory information coming out. Let's attribute it to Hamas.
• Above I pointed to RS that showed Hamas militants opened fire earlier in 2023 killing 4 Israelis in one incident alone. That's not insignificant. But since other RS do say Hamas didn't engage then we can say the issue is "debated".
• A minor thing but clashes should not be called between "Israel and Palestinians" because some clashes happened with Israeli settlers, who don't act on behalf of the Israeli state, so "Israeli-Palestinian clashes" is better and more concise.
• Also minor, but I replaced "hundreds" (which is vague and could mean as high as 900) with the exact figure.

VR _talk 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent I oppose rewriting it with that new version. I argue we already include specific death tolls for the 2023 clashes inside a note, which is more than sufficient. It’s better to list and link to all those individual background conflicts in the background section (see my previous comments for that, and other arguments).

But I support immediately making this change:

- using the phrase "Israeli-Palestinian clashes"

Merlin^sorca 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your opposition so that I can then address them and propose a new version?VR _talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the rewrite because:

- merely saying "debated" is inaccurate - I thought we reached consensus when we both reviewed sources indicating the lessened activity of Hamas in the time leading up to the attack. I haven’t seen enough RS actually debating this. The Wikipedia articles on Mosque clashes doesn’t attribute the clashes to Hamas. Jenin apparently only had one Hamas militant. Perhaps use phrasing like "there was less involvement from Hamas"

- I thought you disagreed on the phrasing about "preparing for for two years", which is why I used "appeared to prepare" - if you think RS now describe two years of preparation I would support that as well.

- I also want to avoid both linking each background event and including death tolls because that detail belongs in the background section, as per my previous comments

Thanks for the discussion and your work on this article Merlin^sorca 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

1. I think I missed one of your comments above, that's my fault. But as I said Hamas did make at least one major attack[50]: "The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis". By contrast the Palestinian 2006 Gaza cross-border raid which sparked Israeli Operation Summer Rains killed only 2 soldiers. Killing 4 Israelis is usually treated quite seriously by Israel.

2. I was objecting to saying preparing in wikivoice. But I'm ok to say "it says it had been preparing for two years" because that is attributed.
3. I can agree to not linking each background even (though I think linking the Al-Aqsa one might be quite relevant given Hamas choice of name for its operation), but I thought you agreed on including death toll below ("I support being more specific with the death toll...").VR _talk 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support being more specific with the death toll, but the problem I want to avoid is the wordiness (using the word Israeli and Palestinian too much)

when Israeli-Palestinian clashes led to 277 deaths. Merlin^sorca 14:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about "when 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis were killed in clashes." This is not wordy, and its pretty obvious that clashes were between the two communities.VR _talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support that version, thanks Merlin^sorca 14:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid

KlayCax I noticed you added[51] "an Israeli policy of apartheid". I think that is quite controversial. While the Israeli occupation and blockade are universally accepted facts, apartheid is not.VR _talk 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, I'm aware. The wording is intended to say that they view it that way. Not that Wikivoice is necessarily saying that it is.

I personally don't think it should be in the lead. But it's a more common justification than settler violence. KlayCax (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax I don't think settler violence should be in the lead either. If you're not so sure, can I remove it?VR _talk 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, although I'd prefer the reasoning is left to the background section. :) @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This new completely rewritten block isn’t what we agreed, and expanding this to broad groups like Muslims and political left is irrelevant. It also requires us to be wordy, repeating "what they viewed" "what they viewed" "what they viewed". Can we revert? @KlayCax @Vice regent

Many Muslims and those on the political left supported the war against Israel, citing what they viewed as an Israeli policy of apartheid, the Egyptian-Israeli blockade of Gaza, and what they viewed as an illegal occupation of the territories for the violence, citing the Palestinian militants goals as a application and example of decolonization in action and a form of indigenous struggle against what they viewed as a settler colonial power Merlin^sorca 18:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note @Vice regent, as I argued previously, trying to list the grievances of both sides is an invitation for edit warring - as editors try to add more and more grievances.

The problem is specificity without being comprehensive. If you say Palestinians want A, and Israelis want X, then that doesn’t paint a full picture in the eyes of editors, who will invariably edit war to make it "Palestinians want A, B, C, and Israelis want X, Y, and Z", and on and on. KlayCax here even tried to expand to include Muslims in general, and the political left.

Remember that this is about a war between Hamas and Israel. Merlin^sorca 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The old wording also has problems, however. Who are the "Palestinians" in question? In contrast, many Muslims and some on the political left have directly supported the actions of Palestinian militants.

The previous wording comes across as too vague. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Visits to Israel

A whole bunch of foreign officials has been visiting Israel since the war. Need help to find a way how to consolidate such info in the International reactions section. Borgenland (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Let's please not overdo the usual "Reactions" business. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was meaning to put the full list in the international reactions article. I'm just trying to find a summarized sentence for it here. Borgenland (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is completely pro-palestine

This article clearly states the Hamas on the good side, while limits the horrific actions it did to babies and women, entire families were wiped away, burned in their house. Instead this article focuses on the safety of the Palestine people from April. Wake up! Hamas kidnapped kids and threatened to kill hostages. Hamas burned down houses to get civilians out of it and kill them. Look at the tragedy at kibbutz be'eri, the whole place smells like death! 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:C088:4426:FBA6:11B2 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What? Do you want me to go post here a picture of a beheaded baby? I pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:8437:EE5:FB03:6FC9 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You criticize the article for being partial, but you won't point out what sentences or claims are supposed to be partial? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Please add a picture of a dead baby by Hamas. Source: the daily telegraph (British newspaper) 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:244C:BF4:C802:D26E (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This article, and all other Wikipedia articles, should not be written to identify good and bad sides. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. entropyandvodka | talk 02:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia as propaganda tool in the Disinformation section

The paragraph "At times unsubstantiated claims were widely spread by news organizations that were later retracted. Reports of Hamas beheading babies were reported and repeated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesperson Ta Heinrich, while reports of sexual violence against Israeli women were repeated by President Biden. Both claims have been unsubstantiated and news outlets and the White House later clarified that Biden had based his claims off of Heinrich's comments and news reports." is pure propaganda.

Remove the whole paragraph. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTADVOCACY , WP:DE 79.181.247.63 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it propaganda? Genabab (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That it ignores sources and rewrites history. I posted above more than 5 sources with different origins that confirms beheading of babies. דוב (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be correct, claims were made and subsequently were not confirmed by IDF/IsGov Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli government or IDF don't need to confirm the claims for them to be truth. North Korea calls themselves a democracy so do we need to refer to it as such? I posted above valid sources of witnesses. Also the sources used in this paragraph don't deny the beheading, they just say that IDF and Israel didn't comment on it (didnt deny or confirm). דוב (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl/index.html

https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/there-is-no-proof-palestinian-fighters-beheaded-babies-the-only-source-is-a-radical-settler/

etc etc Witnesses saying something does not constitute proof, especially when authorities are not able to confirm. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnesses are considered proof and have been considered as proof in Wikipedia since it was created and since humanity as started. There are over 5 international reporters with different origins that support this claim. This is more than enough to for the least not call it a "misinformation". Unless you prove all of those reporters are liars or that their Journalism certificate is invalid, you're nowhere in a situation to call those "fake news". Also head of zaka as a witness is pretty important, specially when zaka where the ones who helped indentify the bodies. דוב (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I queried the veracity of these reports since the very beginning because they did not appear in the major news outlets. Now major news outlets are reporting them as unconfirmed, so that's what they are, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

so that's what they are, unconfirmed

Then go ahead and edit the article! It states they have been confirmed. 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the policy links you made apply. The paragraph is adequately sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the paragraph in the article? 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Israeli government has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister's office.

Source.VR _talk 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care.

Everyone knows it's propaganda and this statement will probably vanish by the time the war will end. Just like a Shahid. 79.181.247.63 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified with a separate section for unconfirmed reports. Reports of rape by eye witnesses from Supernova are widespread and independent but by their nature have confirmation lag behind reports of deaths. – SJ + 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's better; we can't call things "disinformation" without reliable sources calling them that. DFlhb (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reported by major news organizations and as-yet-unconfirmed (but in no way denied or debunked) by government sources is hardly "disinformation". Were that the case, news reports about Israel's nuclear arsenal would be "disinformation". ElleTheBelle 13:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Hamas' view to the "War crimes" section

Would it be ok to add the following "War crimes" section:

Hamas claimed it did not deliberately target civilians, and things "went out of control"[52]. Israeli sources said that survivor testimonies belie this claim.[53]

VR _talk 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent See MOS:CLAIM Parham wiki (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the MOS:CLAIM comment, otherwise fine. Note also

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-lies-we-dont-target-civilians-we-only-attacked-idf/ – might be a better reference than the live blog. Andreas JN466 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

VR, what is your reason for wanting to add that? Is this widely reported? SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My reason is WP:NPOV that we should report all significant views. This is just hot off the press, so news sources are only beginning to pick up on this.VR _talk 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hot off the press is not the right time to publish such content. When there are multiple high quality sources covering such a statement, we should then consider whether it has due significance for the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a new talking point, and most reliable sources have been covering it as "Hamas refuses to admit it planned to kill civilians, or to show remorse"Economist, 10/10 – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The views of the involved parties obviously merit mention, and this is indeed widely covered. nableezy - 22:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Effect on global opinion" section

2023 Israel–Hamas war#Effect on global opinion

The LGBTQ+'s relevance has already been questioned and all agree mentions of LGBT right should be removed.

And there's also that (prior to the war) "41% of women in Gaza had experienced domestic violence".

How are these relevant to the war? FunLater (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the war has led to intense divisions within Western left-wing political parties. KlayCax (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless we propose to delve into the treatment of LGBT+ Palestinians by Israeli authorities (which, much like the edits identified above, are completely besides the point of this article), let's get rid of this nonsense. A tour-de-force of pinkwashing and coatracking. WillowCity (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the quote in response to above section. No one suggested that it should be retained. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

‏‏Category:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict‏‏

FYI, this category in Commons now contains 59 photos for the damage that happened in Gaza Strip, which can help in this article. Batoul84 (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)‏‏‏‏

The images look great, but are we sure they're under the right license?

I only looked at one photo, but it's being sold as a stock photo here: [54] FunLater (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello FunLater, all of this image given to Wiki Palestine (Q117834684) directly through Wafa (Palestinian News & Information Agency; the official governmental agency). APAimages company (local company in Gaza strip) is in direct contract with Wafa. That is, the photos are exclusive to Wafa. But the photo may have spread after Wafa published it, and someone transferred it to a stock photo. All images uploaded contains full Exif metadata. Also, there's another image from Al Araby, and they sent to WikiPalestine several original videos to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (ofc with full Exif metadata). Thanks on advance (If needed they can sent email to VRT) Batoul84 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Batoul84 that’s incredible! Thank you very much 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. FunLater (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah

so why not add them to belligerents? PixelThePro (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? Parham wiki (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Countries offering specific aid have that aid mentioned, generally aren't belligerents. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an exact definition for "belligerents" on military conflict infoboxes, but generally speaking countries that merely provide aid are not considered belligerents. AstralNomad (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (4)

This page mentions "Palestinian terrorist groups" when this is subjective as Israeli military can be designated as a terrorist group as well. So this is a controversial subjective opinion from an editor. To ensure this is unbiased, I would like to change this and only put "militant groups". Jarif123 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk who thought to add terrorist in there but it is POV and against MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting an error when I change anything in the lead, which uses a template (Why?). Does anyone know how to fix it? FunLater (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@FunLater: It's because of the #invoke:transcludable section template. If you're editing on desktop, you have to switch from the visual editor. Yue🌙 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. Can you add a comment for other editors about that? Right now, I'm on mobile, where I don't feel comfortable making big changes. FunLater (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the neutrality dispute regarding?

I can't find what it is related to since it has not been linked to a talk page discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yea, whoever added the tag has to specify reasons for adding the tag in a discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor @Thrakkx: should answer this. [55] - Fuzheado | Talk 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Replacement the Template:Systemic bias because it's up for deletion. A quick search through WhatLinksHere suggests that instances of this templates use which have a reason parameter would be better served by {{globalize}} or lack the basis in systemic bias to not just use {{NPOV}}. Thrakkx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Old template stated In particular, there may be a strong bias in favor of anti-Israeli voices in the conflict. Thrakkx (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You were doing a functional replacement, whereas KlayCax was the originator of the request. KlayCax, I'm afraid "Per an editor requesting this on talk," is not enough context. I searched this talk page for "neutrality" and could find nothing relevant. Unless you can elaborate, that note should be taken down. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this was referring to [56], by an SPA IP that gained no traction. I'd delete it but am up against 1RR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed the NPOV dispute template, which was asserted without evidence or explanation. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed another one within the analysis section, for a fairly neutral subsection. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Explicit link to Huwara Rampage in Background?

There is mention of increased settler violence, however I think there should be specific reference made to the Huwara rampage as this was the largest and best documented example. Can someone with edit clearance please add this explicit link to the Background section? Wschreyer (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do reliable sources make this link? Unfortunately there were many instances of settler violence, as well as anti-settler violence. Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians Attack the Shalom Checkpoint.

I've heard of it in Iran International, About Dozens of Security Gaurds were killed by Hamas. Miniuristic (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Kerem Shalom by name under the first day of the timeline. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (5)

Humanitarian efforts

In October 2023, the ICRC responded to the violent 2023 Israel-Hamas war that has killed thousands of civilians on both sides. The ICRC working closely with its alinged organisation has called the recent escalation of violence “abhorrent” and implored both sides to reduce the suffering of civilians. The ICRC is in constant contact with Hamas and Isreali officials to avoid further carnage. Fabrizio Carboni, regional director of the ICRC and ICRF for the Near and Middle East points at the impact of the war on residents of Gaza, who are now cut off from all food shipments, electricity and medical supplies, which particularly affects the functioning of local hospitals there. But he stresses that the taking of hostages is also prohibited under international humanitarian law. The ICRC as a neutral intermediary stands ready to conduct humanitarian visits and to facilitate communications between family members and hostages with the goal for their eventual release. At the same time, inhabitants of Gaza have to endure a lack of drinking water that was already problematic before the onset of the hostilities. The ICRC working closely with Red Crescent partners has a neutral, independent and exclusively humanitarian mandate during such escalations of violence in the Middle East and urges all parties to protect the lives of civilians, to reduce their suffering and protect their dignity. 2A02:AA14:C482:A980:3DA6:26E0:283D:B18F (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your request? Yue🌙 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The "Analysis" section should be integrated in "Background"

The analysis section should be integrated to background. The Israeli intelligence failure, the context of the occupation, the Saudi-Israeli negotiations, Netanyahu's preoccupation with the judicial reform protests, are all suitable for the background.VR _talk 20:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources cited and the content of that section discuss those topics after the beginning of this war. The only topic that really gives background information to the start of the war is the context of the Israeli occupation. Yue🌙 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between political commentary and what is happening so I disagree with this as it tends to push political narratives Bobisland (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Response in Palestine

The response in Palestine section cites an article dated October 7th, which is closed, for an event that, apparently, occurred on October 8th. Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc., are also bound to have released some kind of statements on the attacks and subsequent war, which I do think it would be relevant to add to the article, as well as to just get some ground truth to the responses of what is happening in Palestine. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Fatah calls for an escalation of the conflict, but the Palestine Liberation Organization calls to end the conflict immediately. I'm guessing there's some sort of internal dispute there, since Fatah is a part of the PLO. Just what I pulled up from a quick search:

https://www.jns.org/fatah-calls-on-the-palestinian-public-to-attack-israel/

https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138095 Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I also haven't been able to find where Mahmoud Abbas states that Palestinians have the right to defend themselves on the WAFA website, though I'm not claiming that it wasn't said. More recently, Abbas has stated, in conversation with the King of Jordan, "We reject the practices of killing civilians or abusing them on both sides because they contravene morals, religion and international law", and "We renounce violence and adhere to international legitimacy, peaceful popular resistance, and political action as a path to achieving our national goals", at least, according to the WAFA website, which you can find here: https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138185. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Status

In the status part of the infobox there is the following: "US holds of $6 billion ransom to Iranians". Iranians should be changed to Iranian regime. Iranians mean people of Iran, and most of Iranian people are pro-Israel. Aminabzz (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why that reaction by the U.S. government in particular is featured prominently and therefore more important than the other actions taken by the U.S. government or any other uninvolved party for that matter. The whole sentence should be removed as it fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and isn't well written. Yue🌙 20:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Red Cross in Contact with Hamas and Israel over Hostages

I mentioned something like this somewhere else here which is probably why someone linked the Red Cross articles to my comment, but, the Red Cross is in contact with Hamas and Israel over the hostages. Here's the article: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231012-red-cross-says-in-contact-with-hamas-israel-over-hostages.

I wouldn't say something to this effect in the actual article, but let's hope that everyone stays safe and that all goes well. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove violation of SYNTH in Timeline, 10 October

In the following sentence: "Israel again hits Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt to prevent humanitarian aid from getting to civilians in Gaza as it is being sieged." The referenced source does not claim that the purpose of the strike was "to prevent humanitarian aid from getting to civilians because [they are] being sieged." Dazzling4 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Merged w/ previous sentence w/o the synth. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

X or Twitter?

Shouldn't this article make use of the Twitter name rather than the X name to refer to the social network, since it's the more common one and also the one used on its page? I'm asking because the also recent 2023 Herat earthquakes page uses Twitter rather than the rebranded name. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We should use both. Either the combination Twitter and "X" in brackets or the other way around.

AKA:

" Twitter (X)"

" X (Twitter)" Poles Ragge (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the article is titled Twitter, that should be the name used in my opinion. But I like your idea too. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NAMECHANGES, because Twitter is now referred to as X due to its branding change, and reliable sources recognize this change, we should be using "X" instead of "Twitter."

Saying "X (formerly Twitter)" could work as well. AstralNomad (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for misinformation section

Forbes has a news section about Twitter's handling of misinformation about the war compared to other apps like Threads, which could be added on the misinformation section of this page (unless it's already been).
Roger, Dooley (12 October 2023). "X/Twitter Hides Legitimate News While Misinformation Flourishes". Forbes. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

Lazesusdasiru (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt's Refusal to Take in Gaza Refugees

Egypt's involvement in this conflict should include the fact that it has rejected corridors for civilians to flee Gaza into the country.

"Egypt has discussed plans with the United States and others to provide humanitarian aid through its border with the Gaza Strip but rejects any move to set up safe corridors for refugees fleeing the enclave, according to Egyptian security sources."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/egypt-says-israel-seeks-to-empty-gaza-rejects-corridors-for-civilians AstralNomad (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is very important. Why there are no humanitarian corridors? My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to Humanitarian impact section. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes

Who replaced "Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as war crimes" to this ambiguous sentence "There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes."? There many sources to support the first version. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International has also joined in.

References

disinformation $6bn fund

Soon after the start of the war, former President Donald Trump and other Republicans tried to cast blame on Joe Biden because of the prisoner release deal with Iran; however, these funds under the supervision of the United States Department of the Treasury are used only for humanitarian purposes, and there is no evidence that they were used in the war.

This isn't very balanced. Reliable sources are reporting the US has froze this fund and Critics of the exchange deal contend that regardless of whether the $6bn – originally earned from oil sales to South Korea – is actually touched, the money is “fungible”, meaning Iran could still exploit it by re-allocating funds originally earmarked for other purposes. [57]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/12/biden-administration-stops-oil-money-iran-palestine-israel-hamas-attack Twentytwenty4 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that this allegation from the former US president and members of the US GOP aren't relevant on this page to begin with. AstralNomad (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Non English Sources in the English Wikipedia

Isn't translating from one language to another original research and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia? There is absolutely 0 way of knowing if the translation is accurate. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-english sources can still be used under certain guidelines. Check WP:TRANSLATE AstralNomad (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No where does that WP:Translate discuss translating cited material. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not considered original research. The relevant policy page is WP:NONENG – Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia... If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note however that English sources are preferred, if an equal one exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all things being equal, English language sources are preferred. But the most important factor by far in evaluating the suitability of a source is its reliability, not the language that it is written in. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a joke. People can make stuff up citing a different language and post it as fact while the English user can not actually check the citation. No wonder there is 0 credibility on this site. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel used white phosphorus in attacks in Gaza and Lebanon, says HRW

Human Rights Watch has determined based on verified video and witness accounts that Israeli forces used white phosphorus in military operations in Lebanon and Gaza on October 10 and 11, 2023, respectively. The videos show multiple airbursts of artillery-fired white phosphorus over the Gaza City port and two rural locations along the Israel-Lebanon border second video. The Gaza City port attack looks like a war crime to me because it's a crowded area where the effects of WP can wreak havoc upon civilians, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

More sources: Human Rights Watch says Israel used white phosphorous in Gaza, Lebanon Reuters, Israel has used white phosphorus in Gaza, human rights group claims The Telegraph, Israel Unleashed White Phosphorus in Gaza, Human Rights Watch Finds Daily Beast, Israel uses white phosphorus in Gaza, video shows Washington Post, Videos show Israel's military used incendiary bombs in Gaza that can cause horrific burns Insider

मल्ल (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what you think is a war crime. Get a reputable source that says it is a war crime and then it can be added. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The article reads as if, thanks to the HRW report, we have 100% certainty that a banned form of white phosphorus was used. Wouldn't it be a better style to write "according to HRW findings"? 88.75.206.116 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Images from the Israeli Prime Ministers Office

Heavily blurred versions can be seen here; should we be including some of the originals in the article?

My belief is that we should; they are horrific, but Wikipedia is not censored and they are indisputably relevant and important to help the reader understand the full extent of the horrors that were perpetrated. There is a question of license, though given they are being widely published (for example, the Daily Telegraph is publishing them tomorrow) I suspect they are under a compatible license - and even if they aren't, a low quality version would certainly fall under fair use. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason for their inclusion. We don't need to include gore just for the sake of it. I do think we need to get rid of any amiguity if it exists regarding the slaughter of babies. We now have evidence that it did happen. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the same reason we include horrific images at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and similar articles; because words alone cannot fully explain the atrocities committed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They are not in the public domain, for God’s sake! Furthermore, their authenticity is yet to be confirmed by reliable sources. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We can still use them under fair use; given comments elsewhere in this discussion doubting the atrocities, I think we need to. Eisenhower said about the Holocaust that people would claim it was mere propaganda; we are already seeing that here, and to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic that readers will understand and accept we need to include incontrovertible proof. BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop referring to the Holocaust. It belittles what happened during the actual Holocaust. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

All efforts now should be on publishing an NPOV mainstream narrative of events. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unarchived: Proposed article split for the initial attack?

Seems notable enough to be a stand alone article. Undescribed (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to have one eventually, but wouldn't it be a lot of the same information already in this article? Is there enough to differentiate it? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean assuming this escalates to a full blown war on terror, which unfortunately seems to be the case, I think that there is already enough information for at least a basic article for now, and it will certainly be expanded in the future. We already have multiple articles on the attacks related to this even such as the October 2023 Hezbollah strike, Re'im music festival massacre and Battle of Sderot, so why not have an article on the initial attack as well? Undescribed (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, split already. Clearly the initial attack is already an entity on its own vis-á-vis the new conflict. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I support splitting between the War and the Invasion / largest terror attack in Israel's history.

The suprise terror attack is a large scale invasion, and the War is a RESPONSE to it.

and it's still occuring. (We can regard the end of the invasion, when the last of the invaders be killed or escape into a safe area for him.)

Has somebody spit the article? I just don't know how, and I don't find another article. רם אבני (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support an article split, especially given October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip also exists. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood used to exist as a standalone article before being merged into here; it could easily be revived. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait , this is not yet the time to split of the article. Furthermore, you cannot disconnect the initial attack from the war. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. The initial 24-48 hour incursion into Israeli territory is particularly notable, as part of this larger unfolding war. Loksmythe (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait. We already have split this article into the initial attacks like Re'im music festival massacre, Battle of Sderot. Likewise, we already have articles on the Israeli response: Jabalia camp market airstrike. Is the proposal here to merge Re'im music festival massacre,Battle of Sderot etc into a single article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea either as these were individual events and different locations.VR _talk 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Yom Kippur war, it seems like most of the material is in the main article with only a few notable events/battles having their own article. Like for that war we don't have a separate article called Israeli response to Egyptian offensive. Likewise, for 2006 Lebanon war we have a separate article for the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid but we don't really have an article for the Israeli response to that, the response is covered at the main article.VR _talk 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Yom Kippur war that page as a model. It's disastrously overlength and such a Gordian Knot that no editor can basically bring themselves to attempt to address the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the solution would be to have a parent for those smaller articles that sits as a child of this article, such that this page would become the grandparent of those smaller discrete pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. News sources call the initial attack unprecedented due to the surprise, scale, coordination, and invasion of territory. I think readers would be interested in learning about these details but it would not fit in this article on the broader war. Merlin^sorca 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. It is a very notable event, now found under "Timeline" and then spread out over half a dozen different "attacks" and "massacres". There should be one main article for the Hamas attack, not seven. -St.nerol (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Far too early for this, the current article is not even stable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Based on the abundance of reliable sources and substantial content available, it's clear that the subject merits its own entry. Furthermore, there's a reasonable expectation that additional, high-quality scholarly works may emerge in the future. Infinity Knight (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Loksmythe and Merlinsorca. In addition, I've had some discussions on Talk:List of battles and other violent events by death toll and Talk:List of major terrorist incidents, and one of the problems that were raised - and not without reason - is that linking from a list of terror attacks to an article that's about the entire war is out of place. The relationship between the two subjects is similar to that which exists between the September 11 attacks and the War on terror, and we should treat it as such. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be enough consensus so I'll go about separating Operation Al-Aqsa Flood back into its own separate article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Needs some work but that's a start. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hold on. We have 5 support, 2 waits, 1 oppose, and some voiced concerns. This does not sound like consensus to consider it done. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion had been open for 3 days, and there was also the Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Proposal: There should be a page specifically for the 2023 South Israel Attacks, the initial terrorist attack that sparked this war, separate from the war page itself section by someone independently also supporting this, making 6 "support"s. It's an active enough talk page that had there been more opposition to a split, I think it would have been raised by now. If you think it needs even more consensus than this there's always the option of RfC, but I don't think that's necessary? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep it split. On reconsideration, a lot of the sentiments were to support the split, even though they were not bolded or made clear. I think it's an inevitability given how big this current article is growing, so go forth and edit. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chessrat @Fuzheado I have moved this topic back onto the talk page, as I believe there are some issues with the split that haven't been taken into account.

Importantly, a separate article for the initial attacks already existed until 7 October, when consensus was reached to move it here. I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to override that consensus short of overwhelming support, which I do not believe has yet been achieved.

The creation has been achieved by severing the redirects which formerly pointed to this page. I believe this has the potential to cause severe confusion. Indeed, it is apparent that some of commenters on Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are not aware that this article exists, and are raising many of the same arguments resolved on this page in the past few days.

I am not exconf, so I cannot vote on a consensus directly, but I believe it is in order to at least point out a couple of issues that seem to have been missed. Thanks. Riposte97 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 Which redirects in particular do you think are confusing, and also which commenters on Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are you referring to as the only recent discussion I can see on there is the current RM in which everyone seems aware of the subject of the article? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Saliently the redirect 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.

The confusion seems evident at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Contested deletion, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Is this the start of a new antifada ?, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#this is a war, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Low importance?, potentially at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#The location of this conflict being listed as "Gaza strip" is misleading at minimum, and in several of the replies at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Requested move 7 October 2023. You're right that there aren't new examples since the article was restored a few hours ago.

I don't know what the policy is re overriding a move request on another page, and I am not permitted to engage in such debates anyway, so I leave determining the best course in your capable hands. Riposte97 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

All of those discussions you point to are from a couple hours after Hamas first attacked, when there wasn't enough info for separate articles, but in the hurry about four different articles on the clashes had been created in error before they were all merged together. I see no reason to think such confusion would happen now. As for the move request on that page, I don't see any harm in letting it carry out its natural course until consensus is gathered- I'm really not seeing what the problem is here. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with @Chessrat reasoning here. What I find odd is that the page was moved to a new title unilaterally with no discussion. Special:Diff/1179835940/1179840874 . - Fuzheado | Talk 04:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The person who moved it asked me before doing so– their rationale was that given the fact that the previous article before it was redirected was located at Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and I had chosen a different title when creating a new article on the same topic (albeit without any content directly taken from the article 5 days ago), that in the event of dispute the previous title should stand until an RM occurs (which is ongoing at the moment). I don't know what if anything Wikipedia policy suggests in such a scenario so I thought it simplest to leave it be and let the RM take its course. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. What I find worrying is that there are many "requested move" discussions that are seemingly unaware of 1) previous move discussions and 2) relevant policy around article names. There are so many personal musings, novel ideas, and lack of consultation of WP:RS that it seems like folks are talking past each other. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Post-split support now that the conflict has extended beyond the initial attacks. From a practical perspective, a child article may also help alleviate too much bloat in this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This ought not to have been split without a fuller discussion imo. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the split. As a notice of order, anyone can nominate the new page for deletion, but it will not be deleted because it describes a separate and highly notable event. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump's remarks praising Hezbollah condemned by WH & Israel

Should we add this topic? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I say no, since I think it's a bit unnecessary. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a lot of things being said about this subject – but most of them don't qualify to be part of the central understanding of the topic at hand. This is a statement by a person who isn't a head of state and isn't representing anything, on a different continent. The few statements which are relevant to include are typically included because the people behind them represent their countries or other political entities, rather than themselves as individuals. Had Trump been president, he'd have – in a way – spoken for the US. Now he isn't, and doesn't. /Julle (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

the war began when militants invaded Israel from the Gaza Strip on 7 October 2023,the war began when terror group invaded Israel HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND NOT MILITANT GROUP 2600:1700:4A90:2090:9841:5BA4:26AF:EDC (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:LABEL. Yue🌙 02:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Misleading histograms of Israelis/Palestinians killed before the war

The two histograms are disproportionately scaled yet placed side to side. It gives off the inaccurate visual impression that more Israelis have been killed in the past years prior to the war. Can someone modify the images so that the heights of both are the same? For example, setting the size of the shortest bar (statistics in 2020) in both histograms to be the same will make more sense. Deskfn (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is there Pakistan? Borgenland (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Typo fixed. Deskfn (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the same issue: simply rescaling the graphs isn't a good option, as it would make the Israel graph unreadably thin (its tallest bar is around the height of the shortest bars on the Palestinian graph). I suggest that the best thing to do would be to make a new chart showing both sets of casualties on the same axis: in the meantime, I would suggest removing the two as more misleading than helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nir Oz massacre

Please help expand the three line section at Nir Oz#2023 Israel–Hamas war and make it into a full article about the Nir Oz massacre: "according to one report, 240 of the community's 400 residents were either missing or confirmed dead." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a dedicated page was created about fifteen minutes after your comment. Riposte97 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

10/7 truthers?

I wonder whether this article should discuss conspiracy theories about the attacks (which are already becoming quite prominent online) or whether it’s better to create a separate article for them. To cite just one example, Nick Fuentes claimed the Israeli government knew about the attack beforehand but let it happen because it stood to gain from it. Others have straight up called it a Mossad false flag. Conspiracy theories about other countries secretly being behind the attacks could fit too. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Nick Fuentes as about as WP:UNDUE as you can get. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Iranian and American support

Should the infobox indicate that Israel and Hamas are (respectively) supported militarily by the United States and Iran? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the US should be added, given the statement provided by Netanyahu which he clearly indicated on October 12, during Blinken visit, that Israel is reinforced by the US military. Talalnablus (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done "Supported by" is deprecated, per the Template:Infobox military conflict. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Article length and timeline format

The timeline format is going to quickly become unsustainable over the following days and weeks as developments continue to occur. We might consider shunting the details out to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and other child articles so we can start formatting this article around WP:SUMMARY style instead of a timeline style. Getting the structure correct now will make long term maintenance much easier.

I also suggest limiting how much content is written under "reactions" and "analysis". Otherwise they're going to keep adding up anytime anyone says anything. Basically, if it's the individual opinion of one person who isn't involved in the conflict, it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support limiting the timeline section, given the spin off Timeline article. fgnievinski (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Opinion in Western world"

Subsection #Opinion in Western world is currently filed under #International reactions. I'd like to propose moving in into the #Analysis section. Also, the text is bordering on WP:POV, as it seems to be trying to make some sweeping generalizations, starting with the section title and the whole left-wing stance on the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Displaced numbers in Israel

There are many thousands of people displaced in Israel, as their homes near Gaza are destroyed. Why are those numbers not mentioned? barabum (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They can be mentioned in the casualties section of the info box, but there needs to be a relevant citation of the number displaced The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

Change the word "revival" to "rival" here:

According to Eado Hech, polling has indicated that the majority of Gazans support the agenda of Hamas, with its only significant political REVIVAL now being the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.

I believe the word was meant to be "rival" as "revival" does not make sense in this context TheGlowingEmber (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The word has been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove settlements near Gaza fully retaken by 9th

"Israeli Defense Forces report they have retaken and fully control all communities around the Gaza Strip on 9 October"

But on the map right above it, there is a continuing change of borders of regions with a presence of Palestinian fighters. While initially, they may have retaken some land, it doesn't look as if it's still the case to say "all of it" is retaken. Genabab (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The map is entirely based on original research and conflicts with reliable sources that are readily available. For example, there is no historical evidence to support the claim that Nir Am was ever captured. I intend to delete the map, and I kindly request that it not be reinstated unless a reliable source is presented to substantiate its accuracy. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: "map is entirely based on original research" This is a false statement. Sources are provided at the commons page for every single locality which has reported clashes or arrests of militants in the past 24 hours, here is the source for Nir Am. [58] Ecrusized (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Could someone who's good at maps fix it, so we can bring it back? DFlhb (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Easier said than done with all the confusion and conflicting information regarding the frontlines The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For sure. DFlhb (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than trying to show frontlines, perhaps we should show:

1. The evacuated region
2. The location of major airstrikes
3. The location of major rocket attacks
4. The location of towns invaded by militants
5. The location of massacres

This is all information that is verifiable, and is highly relevant to understanding the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Water Crisis in Gaza

More than 1 million children and infants in Gaza don't have access to water. Iphone 97 (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a reliable source that verifies this claim. Why should the availability of potable water depend on the person's age? All people need water to survive. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Current event tag

I removed the current event tag but it was put back in this edit. There is an element of Captain Obvious in saying that this is a current event, and since this is likely to be an ongoing conflict like the Russo-Ukrainian War (which doesn't have the tag), there is little need to have it. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good as a reminder to the general reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current event tag is used when an article is heavily edited, which applies to this page. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The tag stayed on Russian invasion of Ukraine until March 17, almost a month after the invasion. No issue keeping it for that long. DFlhb (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the current event tag on this page. The article is in constant flux given the rapid series of news events so we should always prefer to give the best situational wiki-awareness for the reader. Additionally, it's not analagous to compare the fog of the first week of this war to a decade-long conflict like the Russo-Ukrainian War. – Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification

This edit introduced a similar debate in the 2014 as described in the source utilized, in relation to the ongoing event.

There was a similar debate in the 2014 conflict with Gaza, which also saw a ground invasion by Israel and cost more Israeli lives than in 2009, with pressure on the government to retake Gaza or parts of it. The military briefed the security cabinet then on the likely consequences. The predictions were many hundreds of dead soldiers and close to 10,000 dead Palestinians, said Udi Segal

. Your feedback is welcomed for consideration, Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani, I think the article makes it clear the brief was about the 2014 conflict (The military briefed the security cabinet then on the likely consequences.) Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Infinity Knight is quite correct. I misinterpreted, in late night haste - no excuse. The reason for that was that Lorenzo Cremonesi, an Italian journalist with Israeli nationality and 26 years in that country, mentioned the 10,000 figure (in a programme yesterday) as the likely death toll for Gazans in the event of an Israeli invasion. He is turn drew, apparently, on Udi Segal writing for an Israeli paper who was recalling the 2014 military estimate. In the NYTs piece, Segal is now quoted as saying:"I think the price today will be heavier than what was estimated then." That is just his considered, if logical view, deduced from the secret 2014 cabinet deliberations. So I will remove it (if it hasn't already been removed). But since the NYTs does make the analogy, the point, rephrased, would still be relevant. I.e. 'Udi Segal, who revealed the military estimates for the number of Palestinian deaths (10,000) that would probably follow an invasion in 2014, has suggested that the price today would be higher.' But I will leave that to other editors to consider Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing

Times of Israel reports:

Israeli diplomat attacked in Beijing

An Israeli embassy staffer in Beijing has been hospitalized after an attack, Israel’s Foreign Ministry says.

The diplomat is in stable condition.

A motive for the attack, which did not occur at the embassy, is being probed, the ministry says.

Israelis and Jews worldwide have been advised to be on alert Friday after Hamas called for a “day of rage.” שי - LionFireKing404 08:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection to this article shown at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The same way the Egypt shooting is connected. It's an international reaction to the conflict. שי - LionFireKing404 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for this claim? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i24 News, and Times of Israel, the link of which is included in my first message in this topic. שי - LionFireKing404 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection is shown in your link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is likely to do with the Day of Rage called by Khaled Mashal שי - LionFireKing404 14:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Add IDF statement to Reaction Section

It's clear that there are going to be people who think the IDF are targeting civilians. The IDF have released this statement three hours ago at the time of writing. The Times of Israel writes the following:

IDF trying to minimize harm to Gazan civilians, spokesman says

By EMANUEL FABIAN

After ordering residents of Gaza City to evacuate, IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stresses that Israel does not want to harm Palestinian civilians.

“We are fighting a terror group, not the Gazan population. We want civilians not to be harmed, but we cannot live with the rule of Hamas-ISIS near our border,” Hagari says in a call with reporters.

He says the order to evacuate Palestinians from the area is intended to enable “freedom of action and to deepen the damage” against Hamas.

“Hamas carried out one of the most horrific acts the world has seen, we are carrying out an effort to evacuate residents in order to deepen the damage, to collapse this organization,” Hagari says.

After the UN says such an evacuation within 24 hours would be impossible, Hagari says, “We understand it will take several days.”

“We are conveying [the warning] through communication channels and in Arabic, there are ways for the message to reach the population,” he adds. “Whoever does not listen to these recommendations, puts his family in danger.”

He says that in the past day, there had been a number of clashes between troops and terrorists along the Gaza border fence, but few incidents in Israeli territory.

The IDF believes it has located the vast majority of terrorists who infiltrated Israel last weekend, and that no new terrorists have managed to infiltrate into the country in recent days.

Hagari also says the IDF is still focusing its efforts to kill senior Hamas members. שי - LionFireKing404 08:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Blood of Gazans is on Hamas for telling residents not to flee, IDF says

IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari in a press conference says Hamas is responsible for any harm to civilians who do not evacuate from the northern part of the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas is taking advantage of the residents of the Gaza Strip, bringing disaster upon them and calling on the residents of the Gaza Strip at this time as well not to listen to the IDF’s recommendations,” Hagari says.

“The responsibility for what may happen to those who do not evacuate is on Hamas’s head,” he says.

Hagari says the IDF is “preparing for the next stages of the war” and that it is “prepared to operate throughout the Middle East and wherever there is a security need.”

Hagari says the military has so far notified the families of 120 hostages being held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

“It keeps us awake at night, and many efforts are concentrated on this matter,” Hagari says.

Referring to claims that hostages have been killed in Israeli strikes, Hagari says “There are many statements from Hamas, we will only report reliable information.” שי - LionFireKing404 08:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF claims it doesn't want to harm civilians and shows as proof its demand that Northern Gaza's 1.1 million inhabitents leave in 24 hours. The UN calls this impossible and the Norwegian Refugee Council calls this a "war crime of forcible transfer".[59][60] O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Correction: with the latest news footage showing the true degree bombing and killing, no amount of press releases are going to hide the fact that the IDF are punishing civilians. For, as a growing number of people are starting to understand, if Israel continues with its' terror attacks, the results will be nothing short of a war crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.158 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If all the Jews don't agree to go peacefully to Auschwitz, is that a war crime, Goebbels? 185.182.71.17 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust comparison belittles the event and is a form of Holocaust Denial. I'd advise you against making such future statements and find an alternative and fitting comparison. שי - LionFireKing404 14:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (3)

In timeline, Outside Israel and the Gaza Strip, 11 October, change: "In the West Bank, Israeli settlers attacked the village of Qusra, killing four Palestinians" to: Three Palestinians were killed during armed clashes in Qusra between Palestinian villagers and Israeli settlers. sources: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767739 https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-palestinians-said-killed-in-clashes-with-settlers-in-west-bank/ 2A06:C701:4FDD:E400:420:872A:D713:CFFB (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Given as four by AFP and OCHA

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (4)

Lithuanian casualties - 1 Martynas Kuzmickas

Skaitykite daugiau: https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2023/10/08/news/izraelyje-zuvo-lietuvis-28649797 83.171.35.132 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

An Israeli embassy employee was attacked in China

See [61]. I don't know which section I should put it in BlackShadowG (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection is shown to this war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/ that's enough for me 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note there's already a topic for this above: #Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox map color and legend

I think the hashed red/yellow color for "areas of Gaza ordered by Israel to be evacuated" is confusing, because normally doesn't that signify physically occupied/contested areas on war maps? Also the legend in the infobox does not include this info. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Exobiotic: A solid color could be applied to show the evacuation order in Gaza, if this is what users prefer. Ecrusized (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a dashed border, like the "maximum Hamas extent" may make more sense? Not sure. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The file has been modified, let me know if this is better, other changes can also be applied. You can also edit the file using Inkscape or other vector editors. Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning: balanced reporting

In Britain, Israel-Hamas war reignites old tensions between communities

"Pro-Palestine activists say they are accused of being anti-Semitic while criticising Israel, as Jewish groups fear attacks". Al Jazeera

In a counter to all the pro-Israeli commments - both on-line and in MSMedia - this Al Jazeera report highlights the way that the Israeli Lobby undermines support for the Palestinians. Given this, could mention of the report be made within this article?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (5)

Please change "de-escelate" to "de-escalate". Avessa (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Avessa (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian combatants

@Borgenland: I don't think it was appropriate to change "militants" to "combatants". There is a dispute in reliable sources about how to refer to them, but the two options are between "militants" and "terrorists". We shouldn't be making up our own, third option; we should be using one of those, and I believe the current consensus is to use "militants". BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just came back from errands before checking the talk page. Borgenland (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Total number of Israeli troops

The active component of the IDF is 169.500 soldiers. The mobilisation brings 360.000 more. That's a total of 529.500. Here's a link to one out of the many press releases. " Israel's reservists drop everything and rush home | Reuters " 46.97.168.45 (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli hostage killed

according to hamas 13 Israeli and foreign hostages have been killed in Israeli air strikes france 24 أحمد توفيق (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can give much credence to any self-serving statements by any side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We have no clue if they're telling the truth. ///they could have killed them before/after the bombings and blamed it on Israel. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't trust self-serving statements from any side, Hamas, IDF, Netanyahu, or Trump's claim that if the election wasn't rigged, he would be POTUS and the war wouldn't have happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i understand that may be this statements be wrong and false and hamas manybe try to reduce the air strikes but can't we put this statement in the article and write that hamas didnt provide any evidence about them being killed.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Hamas alleged that 13 hostages were killed in explosions I think is fine, but only after we have more understanding of what happened. FOr now it's better to leave it alone. Keep ahold of it, and if nothing new arises then bring it up later 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli reports of Hamas casualties

This information does not seem suitable for wikipedia yet, since it cannot be confirmed and some say 1,000 and others 1,500 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/1799-gazans-have-been-killed-6388-injured-in-idf-airstrikes-this-week-hamas-health-ministry/)

I would say that unless it is properly confirmed by independent sources it should not be included in the table. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Onesgje9g334: I am in favor of removing this. The number seems extremely unreliable, and Israel downgraded it from 1,500 to 1,000 in a day. Putting its reliability into doubt. Ecrusized (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It could simply be because casualties during a war are notoriously difficult to estimate or verify. Even now there are constant revisions to causalities of WW2 battles for example. Meeepmep (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Context of Israeli occupation" needs to be removed

This is blatant Palestianian propaganda and entirely based on opinion; there is nothing encyclopedic about it as it is not rooted in facts. It is also the case the Gaza is NOT by any definition of the word "occupied," and frankly I don't care what propagandistic narrative the UN is trying to push, fact of the matter is it is not occupied.

It is irrelevant to the article, anyway. But it remains that it is merely opinion. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad you agree 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree in the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:

Shortcut

WP:NOTADVOCACY

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

Shortcut

WP:NOTOPINION

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles"

Just called out that section for both 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda is when we erase Israel’s horrific actions in Gaza and pretend they attacked with no provocation or reason The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍ 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am, you should not justify the actions of a group involved in 'crimes against humanity.' Even if someone provokes anyone, it doesn't give the provoked party any right or legitimacy to carry out 'crimes against humanity.' By this logic, Osama was also somehow provoked by the USA for 9/11. Why even use the term 'terrorist' in that context? Why have any morals in the first place? Whatever Hamas's reasons or motivations might be, it cannot negate the brutal acts they have committed. If Israel has also committed 'crimes against humanity,' it should be called out for it, irrespective of the fact that they were also provoked. It should never be justified. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

And it could be said that after 9/11, the US reacted by bombing the wrong country turning a secular gov't into a Islamic gov't, calling it "Shock and Awe", which sounds like a euphemism of terror. Which isn't close to what was done to Vietnam. There's a fine line. Fortunately, we are just tasked with reporting from RS and don't have to make these distinctions. Our opinions on such matters don't matter and this isn't a forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

when did i justified any of USA's actions? if anything i am against justification of any crime against humanity be it usa,israel,gaza or al-qaeda.i strongly believe cia(with help of isi) is totaly responsible for radicalising whole afghanistan.their own religious motivations are secondry here.usa pushed them to that limit but i also wont justify how these radicalised people conduct themselves and treats others around them.that cia didnt taught. but in anycase i agree with you and once a wise person told me in comments "Please do not make assumptions about motivations here" so ill leave that job for reliable sources which are accepted in wikipedia Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Teacher in France murdered after calls for Islamic Jihad

https://www.bfmtv.com/grand-lille/arras-une-attaque-au-couteau-dans-un-lycee-un-enseignant-tue-et-plusieurs-blesses_AN-202310130403.html

Student chanted "Allah Akbar" and stabbed teacher, after Hamas called for Muslims to rise up world wide.

Along with the Israeli Ambassador who was stabbed, maybe a section for other attacks by Islamic community around the world is justified, due to this proclamation by Hamas. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/

There will be more of it 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't think the french attack are related to this war, Muslim fundamentalists were always angry from france so this attack will happen even if the current war didn't happened.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

doubtful

there haven't been reports of any Islamic terrorism in France like this in a while. I don't find this a coincidence whatsoever. Fact is, Hamas called for Islamic Jihad, and the next day a teacher was murdered by Islamic terrorism.

Absolute connection, here. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless the suspect admits he did it for Hamas then there is no reason to admit such. Correlation does not imply causation. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be included should a link to the current conflict be found then, which I suspect is just a matter of time. Meeepmep (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on including the attack in the list of major terrorist incidents

See here. François Robere (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Renaming this to 2023 Israel-Gaza war

Hamas is just one military faction of Gaza, what Netanyahu and the Israeli government have declared is a war against is Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Multiple Gazan factions took part in Operation al-Aqsa Flood as well as in the front line battles along the settlements of the outskirts of Gaza Strip as well as along the border. And they have also shot rockets and fired shells into Israel.

Thus, I think it's more appropriate to rename this to 2023 Israel-Gaza war since Israel is fighting multiple organisations, not one specifically, even if it forms the strongest/biggest faction. RamHez (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, Israel-Hamas war is correct as per WP:COMMONNAME. That may not be true in the end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with O3000 Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the very top of this talk page where the last two move requests have discussed these issues at length. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The title is unsatisfactory

This article should be changed to the 2023 Israeli–Palestinian war or 2023 Israel–Gaza war (BBC), (The Times of Israel). Not everyone that Israel fights takes orders from Hamas. This title is largely consistent with the Israeli narrative, and this is a grave mistake made by Wikipedia. Dl.thinker (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually you have it backwards. Israel it at war with Hamas, not all Palestinians. Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no sovereign Palestinian state yet. What is happening is that all of Gaza is being targeted, not just Hamas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There are Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel's not at war with Fatah or the PLO. They're at war with Hamas. Yes, Gaza is now being invaded, but the name of the article has to be based on WP:COMMONNAME not synthetic logic. I do think that "Israel-Gaza conflict" or "Israel's invasion of Gaza" are also relatively common in the sources, but "Israel-Hamas war" seems more frequent (and "Hamas' invasion of/attack on Israel") Andre🚐 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of this policy, but we must also be aware that the media seeks Wikipedia to convey its reports. Calling it a war between Israel and Hamas gives you the impression that Hamas has power equal to Israel or that it is a heavily armed army. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that. Asynchronous war is still war. Andre🚐 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

DI.thinker, I tend to agree the title will turn out to be a misnomer. But COMMONNAME ties our hands. One of the reasons I favor the WP:RECENTISM essay. A new name may evolve in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the very top of this talk page where the last two move requests have discussed these issues at length. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Jewish schools in Amsterdam closed over Hamas calls for violence

https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/13/jewish-schools-amsterdam-closed-today-hamas-protest-call 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar thing in NY, but it probably belongs in the "international response" article Andre🚐 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just found article on same thing in UK, too: https://news.sky.com/story/two-uk-jewish-schools-close-in-interests-of-the-safety-of-our-precious-children-12983327 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas asking gazans to ignore israel's warning and not leave gaza

hey guys please includde this somewhere as i think this info is relevant as well as critical as it directly implies hamas dosent really care about fellow palestenian's life:

Mosques broadcast messages telling Gaza Strip residents to stay put on Friday, in defiance of an Israeli military call for more than a million civilians to move south within 24 hours in the build-up to its expected ground offensive. Leaders of the enclave's governing militant group Hamas also urged Palestinians to ignore the call, and by Friday afternoon there were no signs of any mass exodus from the north of the enclave..The Israeli military told the civilians of Gaza City to "evacuate south for your own safety and the safety of your families and distance yourself from Hamas terrorists who are using you as human shields."

sources: https://www.thestatesman.com/world/israel-hamas-war-hamas-asks-gazans-not-to-respond-to-israels-evacuation-order-1503231037.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67096916?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=652908448ae7803bb6843071%26IDF%3A%20We%20know%20evacuation%20of%20Gazans%20will%20take%20time%262023-10-13T09%3A12%3A22.605Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:4170859a-4979-4e98-aa87-b24dc318c43f&pinned_post_asset_id=652908448ae7803bb6843071&pinned_post_type=share

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/distance-yourself-from-hamas-israeli-military-tells-gazans-hamas-asks-to-ignore-evacuation-order-401927-2023-10-13

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-iran-says-new-fronts-may-open-if-gaza-bombing-continues

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-home-israel-ground-offensive-looms-2023-10-13/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by another editor. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AquilaFasciata i cannot see any mention of hamas and/or gaza mosques asking gazans not to leave for south ignoring the call of idf.it is a well sourced and critical information. nor do i see any information in the article regarding idf spokesperson comment about warning gazans.please keep the article balancerd.if both of these informations are well articulated in the article and i missed it then apologies in advance. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In this section it states The Hamas Authority for Refugee Affairs responded by telling residents in northern Gaza to "remain steadfast in your homes and to stand firm in the face of this disgusting psychological war waged by the occupation." - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

directly implies hamas dosent really care about fellow palestenian's life. We don't infer things here. It could be argued that Israel doesn't care about life by ordering 1.1 million people, including injured, to evacuate in 24 hours over rubble-strewn streets while continuing missile strikes and cutting off fuel, electricity, and food in one of the most densely populated places on Earth. But it's not our job to infer or imply other folks' motivations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, sir/ma'am, at least Israel is warning them again and again to leave and even acknowledges that it will take time. 'This is a war zone, we are trying to provide them the time, and we are making a lot of effort, and we understand it won't take 24 hours,' said IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari. If anything, this showcases that Israel cares much more about fellow humans than Hamas, who are asking their own people to die for their cause by using them as human shields. Although, after what Hamas has done to the Israeli people, Israel is not obliged to provide any warning to anyone, especially Gaza, which chose Hamas as its representative and voice. But I agree that we should only use language from reliable sources and should not infer things on our own.thank you for your input Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about motivations here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of "militant" for Hamas war crimes but "terrorist" for September 11 attackers

why would no one ever describe the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks as militants, but the page describing Hamas massacres and terror uses the term militants rather than terrorists? This is bias 68.193.48.39 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Lebanese casualties

Should Lebanon (citing cross-border clashes) be included in the Foreign Casualties table or is it reserved for the Hamas attacks? Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

why the map in Top is different from the map in INFOBOX Please add a 1 map at one time Nauman335 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The death at west Negev

"Yehuda and Shimon, also members of the military rabbinate, added: "It's hard to describe. There is a lot of work. It is important to us that before Shabbat all the bodies are removed and that the team is involved in the removal. These are things that are better not to talk about. We saw from shaved heads to bound women and bound children". https://news.walla.co.il/item/3615942 2.55.164.196 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)