Jump to content

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Selfstudier (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 23 May 2024 (→Edit request: By Israel > Indiscriminate attacks: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCurrent events
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles


Inconsistency with sources

@Kashmiri: Why did you restore a lot of content that isn't aligned with the provided sources.

For example, you restored the claim that "the IDF carried out an airstrike on a UNRWA school". The source says that the school was hit by an airstrike (the distinction is the first claims the school was targeted, the second does not), and the source also attributes to UNRWA.

Other examples include you restoring the claim "135 United Nations relief workers were killed by the Israeli Military in the Gaza Strip", despite the source not saying who killed them.

BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in this edit, you introduced the same problem as with the previous text; you said "In January 2024, The Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs in Gaza announced that Israel had destroyed 104 mosques", but the source said "Gaza’s Tourism and Antiquities Ministry estimated that as many as 104 mosques have been damaged or destroyed since the start of the Israeli assault."
You say that all 104 were destroyed, when the source does not say that, and you say that they were destroyed by Israel, when the source declines to assign culpability. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same as below. I recommend this reading. — kashmīrī TALK 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of Daniel Hagari's quote (the one about focusing on maximum damage and not on precision), do you think that it makes a huge difference whether the UNRWA school was deliberately targeted or it just by chance stood in the way of an Israeli missile? We don't need to attribute that claim to UNRWA – uncontroversial statements don't need to be attributed, and unnecessary attribution may appear as if the information could be doubted.
Re. killings of relief workers, I'm not aware of a single report of Palestinians killing any. For the reason why Israel is often not named as perpetrator, see e.g. this. — kashmīrī TALK 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to follow what our sources say. If our sources say "135 aid workers have already been killed in Gaza", we can't say "135 aid workers have already been killed in Gaza by Israel". If our sources say "104 mosques have been damaged or destroyed" we can't say "104 mosques have been destroyed by Israel".
Even if you think the sources are biased, even if you think it is a reasonable assumption that Israel is to blame (keep in mind that many Hamas rockets fall short), you need to follow the sources. Are you going to correct your edits? BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are free to correct them, I have no problem with that - just it needs to be clear that the 135 were killed in an Israeli offensive on Gaza, and not "oh, they just died". — kashmīrī TALK 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You implemented these errors; I'm asking you to correct them, particularly since I can't at the moment per WP:1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary has restored them. But I'm not sure he checked the source, though, which sets the context of the killing in the directly preceding sentence: "OHCHR has documented how many civilians have sought in vain to find locations safe from Israel’s massive bombardment and other military operations that have been continuing across the Gaza strip, including in places specifically protected under international humanitarian law." The context directly indicates that the deaths occurred in "Israel’s massive bombardment and other military operations", and your removal of the perpetrator feels unwarranted. — kashmīrī TALK 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source. You’re right that it places these deaths in the context of the Israeli bombardment. In the absence of the source explicitly stating that these deaths are from Israeli bombs, Wikipedia cannot report that they were. Zanahary (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanahary restored one of them; the UNRWA one they fixed was different from the UNRWA one I mentioned. From the three I listed here, two remain unfixed - UNRWA school, and 104 mosques. In addition, I haven't listed every correction you reverted here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbandito: The issue is that the content you restored isn't supported by the sources; I'm not certain what you are trying to argue with your edit summary? BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My revert didn't have to do with this debate over how to frame the UNRWA school bombing, although I do agree with @Kashmiri that his edits are fine the way they are. In the edit which I reverted, in addition to the tweaks you made to the UNRWA story you removed a well cited claim about the destruction of mosques and other sites of cultural heritage, and the 5 or so sources backing it up. I thought you were doing this because, according to your comment on a different talk topic, you "think we need to limit content to events where sources explicitly allege that a war crime has taken place." My edit summary was addressing the fact that the destruction of civilian property can qualify as a war crime and belongs in the article. Unbandito (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not well cited? We say over 100 sites have been destroyed by Israel, the source says that four sites have been destroyed and doesn't say who destroyed them. BilledMammal (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal Your inceassing attempts to censor unflattering coverage of Israeli actions in Gaza are quite frustrating. Going by your logic, we shouldn't call Joe Doe a thief when sources only say that Joe Doe stole something, correct?
We have good sources for nearly 200 heritage sites destroyed by Israel in the last few months.[1][2] Your attempts to censor this information are a violation of several core Wikipedia policies. — kashmīrī TALK 13:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid casting aspersions; if you think there is an issue with my behavior in this article please take it to my talk page or WP:AE.
Regarding the content, we have to follow the sources. To go through the current content:

A report in early November 2023 already listed over 100 significant archeological and antiquities sites, libraries, religious sites and places of ancient historical importance that Israel had destroyed.

The report says that four sites have been destroyed, and does not make a statement about responsibility.

In January 2024, The Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs in Gaza announced that Israel had destroyed 104 mosques.

The source says Gaza’s Tourism and Antiquities Ministry estimated that as many as 104 mosques have been damaged or destroyed since the start of the Israeli assault. It doesn't say destroyed, and it doesn't say who is responsible for the damage or destruction.

BBC has verified 74 cases.

The source says Of 117 religious sites which were reportedly damaged or destroyed between 7 October, when Israel's campaign began, and 31 December, the BBC has verified 74 cases. Seventy-two are mosques and two are churches. The BBC verifies that 72 mosques have been damaged or destroyed; it doesn't verify that 74 have been destroyed, and it doesn't verify that Israel is responsible.
If other sources make statements closer to what we currently claim in the article, then we should use those sources and edit the content in the article to align with them - although of the two you present, Le Monde doesn't support your claim (keep WP:HEADLINES in mind), and the specific story in The Nation appears to be unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has been willing to explain how the sources support the claims, I've reinstated my edits with detailed edit summaries. If you believe I am incorrect in my reading of any of the sources, please revert and provide a quote here from the source that supports the text in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A report in early November 2023 already listed over 100 significant archeological and antiquities sites, libraries, religious sites and places of ancient historical importance that Israel had destroyed.

@BilledMammal: This should be modified to "damaged or destroyed". The assertion that "the source says that four sites have been destroyed" is technically correct but missed important context. The "Assessment of damage" table on pages 36–37 states that four sites underwent "complete destruction", but an additional 100 sites underwent "partial damage". There may be an error in that summary as in the preceding section the following sites are described as completely destroyed:
  • Jabaliya Byzantine Church
  • Omari Mosque (Jabaliya)
  • Balakhiyah Site (Anthedon) in Gaza
  • Sheikh Shaaban Mosque
  • Al-Zafar Dmari Mosque (Shuja'iya)
  • Maqam Khaleel Al-Rahman (Abasan)
  • Maqam Al-Khidr (Deir Al-Balah)
  • Center for Manuscripts and Ancient Documents
Pages 30 to 34 of the PDF detail "The most important archaeological sites that were damaged as a result of the recent attacks in 2023". The list extends to 25 sites; as the title of the table makes clear this is a selection rather than comprehensive. The following two tables give a figure of 104 heritage sites that have been damaged or destroyed. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s true, but there is also the secondary issue in that the source doesn’t say Israel is responsible for all of them. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could write that it was little green men and Israel otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it can't have been little green men because only one party does "shelling". Zerotalk 13:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: That’s not true, and I would ask you self-revert - militant group uses mortars, which fire shells. Further the source appears to be using a very expansive definition of "shelling"; for example, it says perferius orthodox church was almost completely destroyed by direct shelling, when it was in fact hit by an airstrike.
And regardless, even if I hadn’t been able to disprove your WP:SYNTH it would still be WP:SYNTH. BilledMammal (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that the destruction was caused by anyone else? Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source say the destruction was caused by Israel, or are you assuming? BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't an answer to my question. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t supposed to be, because WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR. What is appropriate to discuss is what the source says, so again I will ask - Does the source say the destruction was caused by Israel, or are you assuming? BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is asking if there is any evidence of destruction by anyone else OR? Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, like al-Ahli, they did it, no they did it, here's a vid, the vid is wrong, stuff like that.
So here, maybe Israeli soldiers fought Hamas militants near (insert destroyed monument). Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Let’s pretend for a moment the answer is "there is no evidence of destruction by anyone else" (it’s not, but let’s pretend). Would you use that answer to support interpreting the source as saying Israel destroyed or damaged these buildings? That would be OR, because it would be textbook SYNTH - presenting a conclusion C that isn’t mentioned by either source A or B.
Now that I’ve answered one of your questions, are you going to answer mine? BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it’s not, but let’s pretend
Let's not pretend. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Is Systematically Destroying Gaza’s Cultural Heritage has a lot of detail "The old city of Gaza has been utterly devastated, and more than 144 prominent historical monuments have been destroyed." Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better source would be this one, which explains where the number comes from, and gives the figures for all of Gaza rather than just the old city. BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

Proposal to split this page into two articles as it is getting too large. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a split - I think we need to limit content to events where sources explicitly allege that a war crime has taken place. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sections could indeed be shortened, esp. where we have dedicated articles. For instance, the section on genocide doesn't have to be that long as we have a dedicated article. The lawsuits section could, in theory, be also split off to a dedicated article, as their number will only be growing day by day. As of now, the article is borderline the acceptable size of approx. 15,000 words. — kashmīrī TALK 13:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is definitely too long to read and navigate comfortably. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: By Israel > Indiscriminate attacks

A small typo/duplication:

”An NBC news investigation NBC News found…”

Suggested fix:

”An NBC News investigation found…” CurdyKai (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: By Israel > Sub-headers

Apologies for a second request in such a short time:

”Flour massacre” and “World Central Kitchen drone strikes” sub-headers should be in bold font CurdyKai (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some claims concerning Hamas' usage of sexual violence got debunked

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-sexual-violence-zaka-ca7905bf9520b1e646f86d72cdf03244

I am not sure if this deserves a place within the article, but well, here is it. — Yours truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 16:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel would be better. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eh, sadly I can't talk there.. thanks anyway — Yours truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see his (initial) claim in the Sexual violence article. There is another claim made by him there, but it's not related as far as I can see. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: By Israel > Indiscriminate attacks

WP:ARBECR

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


The following paragraph only cites Al Jazeera as its source (which has no knowledge of the situation, considering the IDF's valid and probable response as Hamas wears civilian clothing). This paragraph should therefore be removed.

On 22 March, Al Jazeera released a video retrieved from an Israeli drone showing four unarmed Palestinians in Khan Younis who were killed by Israeli air attacks. Two were killed instantly, and the others were killed while trying to stumble and crawl away. Al-Jazeera reported that “it is clear from the pictures that these Palestinians were unarmed and posed no threat to anything or anyone”. This footage was described by the UN's special rapporteur Francesca Albanese as a part of the “colossal amount of evidence” of war crimes committed in Gaza by Israel. The IDF started the investigation of the footage and said that they had encountered militants in civilian clothes retrieving previously hidden weapons in that area. Public Transit User (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to say that Israel has the right to strike everyone in gaza because they may be "militants in civilian clothes retrieving previously hidden weapons in that area"? — Yours truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AtikaAtikawa Of course not! However, Al Jazeera is claiming that the people who the IDF killed were civilians (even though they have no knowledge about this), while the IDF says they were members of Hamas with a plausible explanation. This exact example seems rather one-sided. Public Transit User (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure, but ig it's common sense to assume that unarmed people wearing civilian clothings are indeed civilians rather than blowing them up with no firm proof that they're militants (AFAIK the IDF provided none) except a plausible explanation that can be used to justify killing anyone of fighting age. — Truly yours, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 04:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AtikaAtikawa We know that Hamas uses civilian clothes, and that shouldn't give them any immunity compared to if they followed basic laws of war and wore identifying clothing. We know that Israel has a lot of intelligence about various Hamas operatives, so they likely recognize some members of Hamas. Obviously the IDF will not provide secret intel about how much they know about various members of Hamas. The problem with this paragraph is that it is saying that Al Jazeera saw seemingly unarmed people and assumed they were innocent civilians, while the IDF is saying that that simply isn't true? Public Transit User (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- You have not presented a valid argument for the removal of sourced information. The existence of multiple interpretations/narratives etc. is not a basis for the removal of sourced information. It is usually an argument for the addition of sourced information. We don't get to cherry pick information or interpretations. The objectives are WP:NPOV and WP:DUE compliance. This request should be declined or transformed into something that increases WP:NPOV and WP:DUE compliance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am closing this, it is essentially a conversation between two non EC editors. If desired please place a proper edit request in the form change X to Y, appropriately sourced and EC editors will decide whether to implement it. No argumentation is required. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1225255711"